FUNCTIONAL SUITABILITY MODEL FOR ENTERPRISE RESOURCE

PLANNING SYSTEMS IN KENYAN UNIVERSITIES

OSORE DICKSON WALIARO

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the Award of

Degree of Master of Science in Information Technology of Masinde Muliro University

of Science and Technology.

NOVEMBER 2020

i
 DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work prepared with no other than the indicated sources, support,

and has not been presented elsewhere for any other award.

SIGNATURE: ......................................................... DATE: ..............................................

OSORE DICKSON WALIARO

SIT/G/14-58185/2016

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify that they have read and hereby recommend for acceptance of

Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology a thesis entitled Functional

Suitability Model for Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Kenyan universities.

Signature: ......................................................... Date:

......13/11/2020..................................

Dr. Kelvin [Link], PhD.

Department of Information Technology and Informatics

School of Computing and Information Technology.

Kaimosi Friends University College.

Signature: …………………………………….. Date: ……………………………

Dr. Jasper [Link], PhD.

Department of Computer Science.

School of Computing and Informatics.

Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology.

i
 COPYRIGHT

This thesis is a copyright material protected under the Berne Convention, the copyright Act

1999 and other international and national enactments in that behalf, on intellectual property.

It may not be reproduced by any means in full or part except for short extracts in fair dealing

so for research or private study, critical scholarly review or discourse with

acknowledgement, with written permission of the Director, Directorate of Postgraduate

Studies on behalf of both the author and Masinde Muliro University of Science and

Technology.

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my late parents Mary Nandaa and Daniel Osore Waliaro, loving and

supporting family; dear wife Arnet and daughter Nandaa. My brother John, sisters Selpha

and Phanice. To my uncles Apollo, Maurice, Silas, Ayub and Charles.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many thanks to the almighty God for the gift of life enabling me to pursue this noble cause.

The entire MMUST School of Computing and Informatics staff and students for making me

a better person in the world of academics. Many thanks to my supervisors Dr. Kelvin

Omieno, and Dr. Jasper Ondulo for their selfless support they gave me throughout the entire

process. May the almighty God bless you and see the work of your hands come into

completion. Many thanks to Madam Philisters Nyaera for your insight, encouraged and

guidance throughout this project.

iv
 ABSTRACT

Management of institutions needs correct information to enhance their competitiveness.

Universities, just like any other institution requires proper information for decision-making.
In universities, there are complex processes, and related activities that require proper
decisions. Automation brings in a myriad of benefits to the users of the systems or software
being implemented. Universities today have embraced Enterprise Resource Planning
Systems in their processes. However, the challenge is on how useful their functionalities are
to the institutions because of the unique nature of their processes. Given Enterprise Resource
Planning Systems mostly are standard applications; there is need for a well thought out
approach to determine the functionality of these systems in order to reap from their benefits.
The main objective of the study was to develop a model to measure functionality of
enterprise resource planning systems in Kenyan Universities. To achieve this, the study was
guided by the following specific objectives: Determine the status of Enterprise Resource
Planning System implementation in Kenyan universities, and identify the factors that affect
the functionalities of the Enterprise Resource Planning systems in universities. The study
adopted exploratory design, the study focused on the features incorporated in the Enterprise
Resource Planning System and mapped out these features with the users’ expectations of the
system. Sample population was selected using both purposive sampling and simple random
sampling techniques. The population of interest in this study were the users of Enterprise
Resource Planning system; staff members, technical Information Communication
Technology staff and the top management staff. The main data collection instruments were
content analysis, interviews and questionnaires. The study employed mixed approach where
both quantitative and qualitative data was used. Quantitative data was analyzed using
inferential statistics and presented using tables. On the other hand, thematic analysis was
used for qualitative data and presented using themes. The study presents a Model to
measure functionality of Enterprise Resource Planning System for universities. Apart from
developing a better user interaction and operation, the findings presented can be used by
educational policy makers, Enterprise Resource Planning system developers, systems
administrators and other stakeholders in the academic environment in implementation and
smooth running of these systems in the academic environment.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... i

COPYRIGHT ............................................................................................................................ ii

DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENT .......................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. xiv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.............................................................................. xvi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.3.1 General Objective .............................................................................................................. 7

1.3.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................ 7

1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 7

1.5 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Justification ......................................................................................................................... 8

1.7 Scope of the Study .............................................................................................................. 8

1.8 Definition of terms .............................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................... 11

2.1 Overview............................................................................................................................. 11

vi
2.2 ERP Concepts ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 History of Enterprise Resource Planning ........................................................................ 12

2.2.2 ERP in Higher Education................................................................................................. 12

2.2.3 Higher Education ERP software Misfit ........................................................................... 13

[Link] Great change of the system team staff .......................................................................... 14

[Link] Too much customization............................................................................................... 14

[Link] Insufficient consultant efficiency ................................................................................. 14

[Link] Inferior IT facilities....................................................................................................... 15

[Link] Scanty skill dissemination ............................................................................................ 15

[Link] Ineffective Project Management ................................................................................... 15

[Link] Inferior standards of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) ...................................... 15

[Link] Weak standards of testing ............................................................................................. 16

[Link] Inadequate Support from Top Management ................................................................. 16

[Link] Unrealistic Project Schedule ....................................................................................... 16

[Link] High Expectations from Management on ERP ........................................................ 17

[Link] Components of ERP used in education .................................................................... 17

2.4 Related Studies ................................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1 Software Engineering Design Concept ............................................................................ 22

2.4.2 User Centered Design ...................................................................................................... 23

2.5 ERP Architecture ................................................................................................................ 25

2.5.1 MVC Architecture ........................................................................................................... 25

2.6 Theories, models and framework ....................................................................................... 27

2.6.1 Task Technology Fit Theory ........................................................................................... 27

2.6.2 Software Quality Models ................................................................................................. 28

2.6.3 McCall’s Quality model (1977) ....................................................................................... 29

vii
2.6.4 Boehm Model (1978) ....................................................................................................... 31

2.6.5 FURPS Model .................................................................................................................. 33

2.6.6 Research gaps in Reviewed model .................................................................................. 35

2.7 Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 36

2.7.1 Accurateness .................................................................................................................... 37

2.7.2 Interoperability ................................................................................................................ 37

2.7.3 Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 37

2.7.4 Security ............................................................................................................................ 37

2.7.5 Training............................................................................................................................ 38

2.7.6 Management support ....................................................................................................... 38

2.7.7 Skills ................................................................................................................................ 39

2.7.8 Policy framework............................................................................................................. 39

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 41

3.1 Overview............................................................................................................................. 41

3.2 Research design .................................................................................................................. 41

3.3 Target Population and Sample ............................................................................................ 42

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling techniques ............................................................................... 43

3.5 Data collection instruments ................................................................................................ 45

3.5.1 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 45

3.5.2 Interview .......................................................................................................................... 46

3.6 Validity and Reliability....................................................................................................... 47

3.6.1 Reliability ........................................................................................................................ 47

3.6.2 Validity ............................................................................................................................ 48

3.7 Data Processing and Analysis ............................................................................................. 49

3.8 Ethical Consideration.......................................................................................................... 49

viii
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION ..................................... 50

4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 50

4.2 Reliability and validity tests ............................................................................................... 50

4.3 Response Rate ..................................................................................................................... 51

4.4 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents .............................................................. 52

4.4.1 Distribution of the respondent by Gender ....................................................................... 52

4.4.2 Distribution of the respondent by Level of education ..................................................... 53

4.4.3 Designation of the respondent. ........................................................................................ 54

4.4.4 Distribution of the respondent by Age............................................................................. 55

4.4.5 Distribution of the respondent by their working Experience........................................... 56

4.4.6 Distribution of the respondent by their working Experience........................................... 57

4.4.7 Place of Work of the respondent. .................................................................................... 58

4.5. Usability of the ERP system .............................................................................................. 58

4.5.1 Usage of ERP of day-to-day activity of the university. ................................................... 59

4.5.2 Usage of ERP. .................................................................................................................. 59

4.5.3 How often does the Respondent use the ERP? ................................................................ 60

4.5.4: Training of the Respondent on the use the ERP. ........................................................... 60

4.5.5 Functional Analysis Process involvement. ...................................................................... 61

4.5.6 Importance of Functional Analysis Process involvement. .............................................. 62

4.5.7 Acquisition of the ERP system. ....................................................................................... 62

4.6 Correlation Analysis ........................................................................................................... 63

4.7 Effect of the user involvement in Functional Suitability Analysis. .................................... 65

4.8 Functional Suitability success of the ERP .......................................................................... 67

4.9 Cause of ERP failure /Under Utilization ............................................................................ 68

4.10 Factors Affecting Functionality Suitability Process ......................................................... 69

ix
4.11 Thematic Review of Functional Suitability Model for Enterprise Resource Planning
Systems In Kenyan Universities. .............................................................................................. 74

4.12 Regression Analysis.......................................................................................................... 76

4.12.1 Proposed Functionality Suitability Model ..................................................................... 76

4.13. Empirical Validation of Proposed Functional Suitability Model .................................... 78

4.13.2 Validation of the Model ................................................................................................. 80

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 81

5.1. Chapter Overview .............................................................................................................. 81

5.2. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 81

5.3 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 82

5.4 Recommendations............................................................................................................... 83

5.5. Future Work ....................................................................................................................... 84

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 85

x
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 91

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................... 93

APPENDIX 3: EDUCATION SOFTWARE SYSTEM INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ........... 99

APPENDIX 4: APPROVAL LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY .......................................... 100

APPENDIX 5: RESEACH PERMIT FROM NACOSTI .................................................... 101

xi
xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1: MVC System Architecture ................................................................................. 26

Figure 2. 2: Task Technology Fit Theory .............................................................................. 28

Figure 2. 3: McCall Quality Model ....................................................................................... 30

Figure 2. 4: Boehm’s Model .................................................................................................. 32

Figure 2.5: FURPS Model .................................................................................................. 34

Figure 2. 6: Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................... 36

Figure 4. 1: Pre- Implementation Period of ERP System ...................................................... 75

Figure 4. 2: Post Implementation Period of ERP System ...................................................... 75

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. 1: Components of ERP used in Education............................................................... 18

Table 2. 2: Summary of Limitations of Software Quality Models ........................................ 35
Table 3. 1 : Summary of Methodology.................................................................................. 42
Table 3. 2: Table of Target Population .................................................................................. 43
Table 3. 3: Table of Strata Value (Sample Size) ................................................................... 45
Table 4. 1: Reliability test ...................................................................................................... 50
Table 4. 2: Test for validity ................................................................................................... 51
Table 4. 3: Questionnaire Return Rate .................................................................................. 52
Table 4. 4: Gender status of Respondent ............................................................................... 53
Table 4. 5: Education level of ERP users .............................................................................. 53
Table 4. 6: Designation of ERP users .................................................................................... 54
Table 4. 7: Age of users of ERP in the University ................................................................ 55
Table 4. 8: Length of Experience of ERP users..................................................................... 56
Table 4. 9: Distribution of the Respondents by School ......................................................... 57
Table 4. 10: Location of the ERP users. ................................................................................ 58
Table 4. 11: Daily use of ERP in university activities. .......................................................... 59
Table 4. 12: Use of ERP ........................................................................................................ 59
Table 4. 13: Frequent use of ERP .......................................................................................... 60
Table 4. 14: Trained on use of ERP ....................................................................................... 60
Table 4. 15: Functional Analysis Process involvement ......................................................... 61
Table 4. 16: Importance of User Involvement in Functional Analysis .................................. 62
Table 4. 17: University ERP Acquisition .............................................................................. 62
Table 4. 18: Correlation analysis of the study variables. ....................................................... 64
Table 4. 19: Responses on the user involvement in Functional Suitability Analysis. .......... 66
Table 4. 20: Responses on the functional suitability success of the ERP............................. 67
Table 4. 21: Responses on the Causes of ERP Failure/Under Utilization. ........................... 68
Table 4. 22: Responses on the Factors Affecting Functional Suitability Process ................. 71
Table 4. 23: Approach to Thematic Analysis ........................................................................ 74
Table 4. 24: Model Summary ................................................................................................ 76
Table 4. 25: ANOVA Table................................................................................................... 76

xiv
Table 4. 26: The Regression Coefficient ............................................................................... 78
Table 4. 27: Feedback of Expert Validation .......................................................................... 79
Table 4. 28: Validation of the Model..................................................................................... 80

xv
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Abbreviation Description

AJAX Asynchronous JavaScript and XML

ASP Active Server Page

BPR Business Process Reengineering

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

FURPS Functionality, Usability, Reliability, Performance &

Supportability

HE Higher Education

HEIs Higher Education Institutions

ICT Information Communication Technology

IEC International Electro Technical Committee

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

ISO International Standards Organization

ISSP Information Systems Security Policy

JSP Java Server Page

MRP Material Requirement Planning

MRP- II Manufacturing Resources Planning

MMUST Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology

MVC Model View controller

PHP Hypertext Server Page

ROI Return On Investment

SASS School of Arts and Social Sciences

xvi
SAVET School of Agriculture, Vetinery Science and Technology

SCI School of Computing and Informatics

SEBE School of Engineering and Built Environment

SEDU School of Education

SHDMA School of Disaster Management

SOBE School of Business and Economics

SOM School of Medicine

SONAS School of Natural Sciences

SONMAPS School of Nursing, Midwifery and Public Health

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Studies

TTF Task-Technology Fit Theory

UCD User - Centered Design

UTAUT Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

xvii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study

The unknown growth of information technology is being driven by microelectronics. The

computer hardware and software have an effect on all faces of applications in computing
across all organizations [1]. It is important to realize that the commercial surroundings are
becoming more complex with different functional units. For decision- making, the units
require more data that are more flow that is inter-functional. Other units that require more
data include efficiency in product part procurement, accounting, and management of
inventory, distribution of goods and services and human resources [1]. Further, on, Rashid
[1] opines that competitiveness; better logistics and cost reduction can be improved. These
can be done through having the right information by the top management. Additionally,
Rashid goes on to state that in the world of competitiveness sophisticated business activities,
the ability of providing the right information at the right time comes with large benefits to
the organization [1].
Few years back, enterprise resource planning systems emerged in the market as new

software systems. They were majorly targeting huge complex business setups [2]. However,

the ERP were costly, complex, powerful customized systems off the shelf solutions. They

required experts to fine tune them and implement them basing on the organization’s needs.

In most scenarios, the companies were forced to reengineer their commercial activities to

accommodate the sense of the software units for smooth data flow within it.[3]. The

software solutions, not like the old-fashioned designed systems, are put together in modular

designs [2]. The designs can be expanded when need arises [2].

According to Gore[3], the major function of ERP is to extract data from various functional
areas across the enterprise system. Due to its ability to process different business processes
across different functional areas, it can therefore also be called a cross-functional system.

1
This facilitates decision making in organizations. Furthermore, it betters the visibility of
information across the organizations. Ignatius’s and Nandhakum [3], adds that ERP should
be implemented across their set up. This is to allow a better way to access information in an
environment that is borderless [2].
Jorges in their report for UN[3], indicates that, more UN institutions are replacing the legacy
systems. This is in order to reduce the costs and improve operational efficiency,
performance and controls. Further, they are of the view that, there are other many systems in
the industry but not as beneficial as the ERP system [3]. The ERP systems have the ability to
bring together different business activities. The data can be shared and used in real-time in
these organizations [3].
Universities and colleges has been an area that has its kind of institutional models and
procedures as well as aims compared to other business entities. The systems support
learning activities in higher education such as planning, management, performance guides
and the examination procedures [4].
Higher education sectors like the universities have started using the ERP just like other big
organizations around the globe. They are replacing financial, management and
administrative computer systems. ERP has played an important function in the ICT
management of universities, which is not to some reason the main business of the
universities. The complexity of the ERP allows it to play different functions in the
universities. Among others, they include functions like timetable reporting, staff leave
processing, the HR systems, financial systems, Student administrative information systems
and academic reports [4].
According to Pollock and Cornford, some characteristics are similar between universities

and manufacturing industries. However, universities have exact and unique administrative

functions [3]. Customary ERP systems took care of normal commercial administrative

needs. Such needs included marketing applications, finance, sales, operations and logistics

among others. However, the higher education contains unique systems for modules such as

timetabling module, student administration module, Unit administration module and other

education applications, which are not part of the customary ERP system[2]. H.A Awad notes

2
sectors that systems in universities and in academic and administrative sections should

cover. Some of the sectors in use include; library management, student registration

management, human resource module, procurement management module, financial

management module, warehousing and student registration management. However, the ERP

is a software system and its functionality must be considered [4].

Functionality of the software is one of the major aspect of any software. Functionality can

be stated as the degree to which the software commodity give functions that satisfy

mentioned requirements. This should occur when the software is under usage in certain

environment. Software functionality can also be “ the ability of the software to provide

activities that meet the said and aimed necessities of its users under certain environment of

its use”[5]. There are sub- characteristics of functionalities. They include; Functional

Compliance, Accuracy, Suitability, Security and Interoperability [6].

Functionality of the software service quality tries to figure out how well the software

conforms to a given structure. This is usually based on functional needs. Its description can

be the fitness for sole reason of software. It can also be pegged on its comparison to

competitors in the market place as a substantive product[7]. Still there is inadequate

literature on software functionality service, research and practice. This is so despite the fact

that it is one of the most important attributes on software quality [8], [9], [10].

Functionality has in the process led to the starting of large and more sophisticated projects

in institutions [11]. A greater demand has been put on software that is being made for

learning purpose ensuring that they meet the necessary needs. This can be attributed to its

rampant use. However, many software that depend on systems in universities have failed to

meet the needs of their users. This has been so even after being keenly examined by the

3
respective authorities to provide all the functional needs. All the modules and the sub-

modules of the system met their respective needs and non-by that time they failed[12]. The

big difference is in the uses, user needs and functionality indicating a big gap between the

laid down requirements against which the system section and sub-sections are verified. For

this software to carry out their intended needs, their quality has to be put into consideration.

Quality can considered to be all the characteristics and important features of a product,

which satisfy given needs [13]. All attributes and traits of a software product that have an

influence on the capability to satisfy given wants can be included as quality. The standard

glossary of IEEE software Terminology [14], [15], defines software product as the degree to

which, process or component meets specified requirements. It further states that it can be the

frequency to which the process meets the demands or expectations of the users[16].

Quality models can be used as tools for focusing software development efforts [17]. They

are used to plug out program units that are likely to have imperfections [18]. They also help

in effective use of resources. Quality management software products allows the use of

models as an acceptable means. ISO/IEC IS 9126-1 defines quality model as “the set of

characteristics, and the relationships between them that provides the basis for specifying

quality requirement and evaluation”. Quality of software has been constructed that define

basic factors. This has been done through models within each of the sub-factors have been

assigned. To each sub factor metrics have been assigned for the real evaluation[19][20].

Researchers target only those modules, which are defective, and hence resource utilization is

very cost effective. The trained model is applied to modules to estimate their quality [13].

There is a major effort that has been geared towards assuring and maintaining quality

software products through the initiation of standardization bodies. There are bodies such as

4
ISO/SEC 25000 family of standards (ISO/IEC 2014). This body targets at putting up a

quality framework that is working for examining software products. The major section of

the ISO/IEC 25000 family include; ISO/IEC 25010 (ISO/IEC 2011a) and ISO/IEC 25010

(ISO/IEC 2011b). The ISO/IEC 25010 (ISO/IEC 2011a)elaborates the quality model for

software product while ISO/IEC 25010 (ISO/IEC 2011b) defines the process software

quality product evaluation [5] [21] [22] [5] Other current standards of the quality model

including the ISO/IEC 25010 are majorly made up of eight characteristics of standards.

They include transferability, reliability, efficiency, performance, operability, functional

suitability and security [23].

The way institutions, individuals, companies and manufacturing firms perform and

coordinate; their jobs have been shifted by the existence of software This has affected

globally the economy, society and environment in the sense of increase in innovations.

Abundant increase in improved social knowledge and productivity is an open idea [24] [25]

[26] [27] [28]. Additionally, electronic equipment, the computer hardware and the machine

depends on software for them to be functional. Neither can be used on its own realistically

requiring each other. An important aspect to determine the success of commercial system

performance or technical aspect of a software is its quality [8] , [7].

Current practices focus on functional requirements [12]. High-performance organizations

engineer systems relatively well in providing the nominal functions that their customers

expect, that is in identifying and satisfying functional requirements, defined as follows, in:

[29] Functional requirement: [29] “A statement that identifies what a product or process

must accomplish to produce required behavior and/or results”. [30]A need which outlines a

function that a system or system part should operate.

5
Other considerations include safety; security; verifiability; comprehensibility are relegated

to the category of “non-functional requirements,” defined as follows, in [29] Nonfunctional

requirement: [29] “A software requirement that describes not what the software will do but

how the software will do it”. Synonym: Design constraints, nonfunctional requirement.

Nonfunctional requirements usually provide challenges in their process of testing. This leads

to them being examined subjectively. Rodriguez and Plattini carried out a systematic review

on functional suitability. They established that it is among the most appropriate trait of a

software [30]. They also established that it generates the most interest in functional

suitability. Evaluations that are present shows the levels of fulfilment of a products

characteristics aid to ensure that software products is the best for works it’s supposed to

perform[31].

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Other studies have picked similarities between ERP system implementation in universities

and other institutions. Many universities have invested and still investing in ERPs. The

challenge is whether they are getting value on the investments. There is no approach to

determine functionality of ERPs acquired by these institutions, to maximize of ROI; there is

need for a well thought out structure mechanism by these intuitions. In universities, there are

complex processes, and related activities that require proper decisions. Automation brings in

a myriad of benefits. Universities today have embraced Enterprise resource planning

systems in their processes. However, the challenge is on how useful their functionality is to

the intuitions because of their unique nature of their processes. Given ERPS mostly are

standard applications; there is need for a well thought out approach to determine the

functionality of these systems in order to reap from their benefits.

6
1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

The main objective of the study was to determine the status of ERP implementation in

Kenyan universities, identify the factors that affect the functionalities of the ERP systems in

universities in Kenya and to develop a model to measure functionalities of enterprise

resource planning systems in Kenyan universities.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study are:

i. To determine the status of ERP implementation in Kenyan universities

ii. To identify factors that affect the functionality of the ERP systems in universities in

Kenya

iii. To develop a model to assess functional suitability of ERP systems for usage in

Kenyan universities.

1.4 Research Questions

i. What is the status of ERP system implementation in universities in Kenya?

ii. What are the factors that affect functionality of ERP systems in universities in

Kenya?

iii. Are there models that can measure functional suitability of ERP systems developed

to improve functionality of education software systems in universities in Kenya?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The importance of the study, after considering the above considerations, was to come up

with a full format output for examining the functional suitability of ERP systems in Kenyan

7
universities. The study was also to help show the application by means of a case study,

which is practical. It has provided an insight and possible solutions to functionality issues

affecting ERP systems. The model that has been developed will help in the implementation

of education software systems in a manner that can improve its functionality and hence

improve user satisfaction.

1.6 Justification

This study is going to save most institutions time and money used to purchase and install

systems that are not suitable for their functionality. If embraced systems will undergo

critical analysis through the laid down test to ensure that it performs its function to the

maximum.

1.7 Scope of the Study

Through purposive sampling specifically extreme sampling, Masinde Muliro University of

Science and Technology, seventh public university in Kenya, was chosen as the case study.

It is a case of interest since it is one of the universities in Kenya. Like other universities, it

started and implemented the ERP in one of its stages of development in the process of

imparting knowledge. The study focused on the Functionalities of the ERP systems and did

not dwell into the user-related characteristics.

1.8 Definition of terms

Functionality – “The capability of the software product to provide functions, which meet

stated and implied needs when the software is used under specified conditions (what the

software does to fulfil needs)”.

8
Functional suitability – “The degree to which a product or system provides functions that

meet the stated or implicit requirements when used under specific conditions. It is

understood as the degree to which a product or a system conforms to the functional

requirements (hereinafter referred as requirements) described in the product requirements

specification, because it is impossible to know the implicit requirements of the different use

context”.

ERP – “Enterprise Resource Planning term comes from the industry for integrated, multi-

modules application software packages that are aimed to serve and enhance multiple

business functions. ERP system can include software for manufacturing, order entry, general

ledger, accounts receivable and payable, purchasing, warehousing, transportation and human

resources”.

Software – “Software, in its most general sense, is a set of instructions or programs

instructing a computer to do specific tasks. Software is a generic term used to describe

computer programs.

Scripts, applications, programs and a set of instructions are all terms often used to describe

software”.

Quality – “Quality is defined as a set of features and characteristics of a product or service

that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Different perspectives of quality

can be considered”.

Theories – “Academics point to a theory as. 1 being made up of four components, 1

definitions of terms or variables, 2 a domain where the theory applies, 3 a set of

relationships of variables, and 4 specific predictions factual claims Hunt”.

9
Models – “These are structures used to describe the overall framework used to look at the

reality, based on a philosophical stance. They identify basic concepts and describe what

reality is like and the conditions by which we can study it”.

Framework - “It is the blueprint or guide for a research. It is a framework based on existing

theory in a field of inquiry that is related and/or reflects the hypothesis of a study. It is a

blueprint that is often borrowed by the researcher to build his/her own research inquiry”.

UCD – “UCD is a design that is based on actual requirements of users, and comprises of

task analysis, prototype development with users, evaluation, and iterative design. UCD is a

design that is based on actual requirements of users”.

10
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

Software based systems have become common in the education sector, more so in higher

education institutions. The most common of the systems being implemented is the ERP

system. Several researchers have studied various aspects of these system but most of them

focus on non-functional aspects. However, a functional suitability assessment of these

systems is needed to be determining whether the users get exactly what they expect from the

system. Functionality is important since the user cannot maximize the use of the system

without understanding fully its functionality aspects.

2.2 ERP Concepts

Bahar [32] states that ERP is a multi-module software application in the industry. It’s a

packaged software designed to support and serve many and different business functions

[32]. It can include software for different functionalities. For example, transportation and

human resources, accounts receivable and payable, order entry, purchasing, manufacturing

and warehousing among others. Since ERP came from the manufacturing sector, it

insinuates that it uses a packaged software instead of proprietary software made for or

written by one customer. The ERP should be able to interchange and mix with any

institution’s software, with different degree of effort. This however, will depend on the

software. Furthermore, the ERP modules may be able to be altered via the vendor’s

proprietary, tools and ordinary programming languages [33].

11
2.2.1 History of Enterprise Resource Planning

The limelight of manufacturing systems in the 1960’s was on the control of inventory. It was

based on the old inventory concepts. Majorly the software package were built to handle

stock. The focus changed to MRP (Material Requirement Planning) in the 1970. These

systems were used to translate master schedule made for end items into time phased net

necessities. This was meant for procurement, material planning, and sub-assemblies [37].

I980’s saw the evolution of MRP-II. This was an advancement of MRP to be able to

accommodate the distribution management functions. MRP-II was further advanced in the

1990’s to cover other areas. The areas include, finance, management, projects, engineering

and human resource. This was to complete the many functionalities within any commercial

enterprise. The term ERP system insinuates a comprehensive and sophisticated software

package manufactured to integrate commercial processes and activities [34]. The last decade

has witnesses a tremendous increase in the use of ERP in the world, more so in other fields

such as the education sector. This is so even though there are many challenges and risks in

the implementation of such systems [35].

2.2.2 ERP in Higher Education

Big organizations around the globe are using the ERP systems. They are phasing away the

old administration, management and financial computer systems in the universities [36]. The

system has played an important role in the ICT management of the universities. However, it

was not the main business of universities. The ERP system in the universities is very diverse

in its functionalities. It has different modules for different functionalities. They range from

the Learners information systems, finance systems and the HR systems among others [34].

12
Institutions in the corporate world that operate in a free and competitive financial

environment rip more benefits than the non-profit organizations like the universities. This is

so despite the fact that they face many challenges and risks in the implementation.

Universities as an entity has always had unique demands and institutional models and core

functionalities as well as aims and objectives compared to other commercial activities. The

systems in the universities support normal educational activities. Some of them include;

examination activities, learning activities, scheduling activities, performance activities

among others. According to other studies, there are plenty of similarities between

implementation of the ERP systems in other institutions and educational institution.

Other studies have identified some familiarities between ERP implementation. That includes

other commercial organizations and education institutions [36]. Hence, it is crucial to study

the outcome of using ERP systems in universities, gather the required information to avoid

the challenges posed by the same system. This is important in order to outline the role of

ERP in the rapidly evolving educational centers and state of its use in similar organizational

culture.

2.2.3 Higher Education ERP software Misfit

Universities ERP software has some weaknesses due to poor procurement processes. ERP

can be found to be unfitting with the requirement they have i.e. business requirements. For

example, if ERP does not comply with the legal requirements the vending companies will

not be able to provide its customers with the correct legal guide. This is so because the

university is not a profit making organization. Other than that, other ERP software misfit are

discussed below. [34], [37].

13
[Link] Great change of the system team staff

There seems to be a great change of staff in non-profit oriented organizations. This includes

the staff that is employed to implement the ERP in universities. One of the reason may

include high workload and burn out. These may lead to burn out and resignation to some

members. Other may get other opportunities to implement the system somewhere else. The

challenge to this is inadequate knowledge and skills needed in the implementation of the

system. These hinders their ability to fully implement ERP in the daily use of the

system[38].

[Link] Too much customization

Due to software differences in their environment, too much customization is needed in the

areas of software customization and report customization. This could cause delays in

implementation and use due to many consultative reasons. The budget could be stretched

and the system may end up being unreliable due to too much customization. The

customization may make the vendor to compromise good practice in order to satisfy the

customers’ needs. Other reasons may be due to unresolved system and insufficient testing.

[38].

[Link] Insufficient consultant efficiency

Other consultants can be said to be having inadequate skills with the ERP systems more so

in the academic sector. These leads to them providing unprofessional advice to the

management on ERP implementation. Such consultants suggest workarounds without

factoring in the professional skills to bridge the gap between ERP systems used in the

commercial industries and the ones that are used for education purposes.

14
[Link] Inferior IT facilities

In some cases, the top management has inadequate financial resources that is set aside for

the implementation procedures. Such cases leads to cutting costs hence the budget for the

entire project of implementation is reduced. The inferior IT infrastructure will definitely

have a negative impact on the long term running of the infrastructure [38].

[Link] Scanty skill dissemination

This is through the inexperienced consultants engaged. They are not conversant with the

commercial industry environment. Such trainers will not deliver professional knowledge to

the ERP users. The training materials also is not always written well. This may lead the

information to be short and not very helpful[38] .

[Link] Ineffective Project Management

The ERP project will have many challenges and said to be demanding if there is little or no

knowledge on its implementations. This is so because it involves the management of

systems and the people, as well as re-engineering of the commercial process. It is also of

great importance that the project head efficiently manage the consultants. That is in terms of

their training, performance, communication, and even testing the system. [34].

[Link] Inferior standards of Business Process Reengineering (BPR)

Another factor to consider is the knowledge of the people involved in the entire process of

the project implementation and their vision towards the same. These may have resulted from

the misinformation given by the consultants pegged to their requirements and specifications.

This will lead to poor BPR, which will lead to incorrect ERP configuration challenges. If the

activities and procedures are not successfully, implementation of the entire system will not

15
be a success. With that in mind, the consultant may not map the software functionalities with

the university requirements. As a result, this may create a great gap between the software

functionalities and the activities it’s intended to do [34] .

[Link] Weak standards of testing

The schedules of ERP implementations are always tight. This leads to a rush and low quality

during the process of testing. The standards are the pointers for revealing the preparedness

of the system to be used in the real field. Testing includes the staffing capacity, the

infrastructure capacity, system configuration, the people and the users of the ERP system. It

should show the data used in testing. All this fails due to the schedules that are tight and do

not permit the above procedures to take place. [34].

[Link] Inadequate Support from Top Management

The management is supposed to provide the necessary support in the process of the

continuation of the project. This include financial support, human resource, the good will,

and political resolutions if any. Some of the challenges that goes with inadequate top

management include rushed implementation, project team members will be overloaded

among others. Poor top management support may lead to political problems such as

licensing which may cause poor BPR. Uncooperative staff and low user satisfaction among

the users of the system[34].

[Link] Unrealistic Project Schedule

In some cases, the system project reduces the costs of the ERP system implementation in

collaboration with the management. These forces the implementation team to rush over the

implementation of the entire process. In such scenario the team, the users will end up

16
overloading the system. The concept, nature and the use of the system will not be clear from

the users’ perspective. Inadequate training and implementation will be hindered due to the

schedule, which will not factor in the users. This has a serious outcome since most of the

users will resist change hence become hindrance to the use and implementation[34].

[Link] High Expectations from Management on ERP

The management of most universities put many expectations on the ERP. They assume that

the system will provide solutions to most of the challenges in the institution. They never

consider the sophistication nature of the system, the challenges and risks associated with the

implementation. Too much pressure is given on the people who implement the system. The

situation leads to underestimation of the project costs, resources leading to the failure of the

ERP implementation hence failure of the whole project [34].

[Link] Components of ERP used in education

The functional suitability wants describes what universities ERP should have and perform,

while non-functional wants places setbacks on how the universities ERP systems will do

based on the same. Hence, it is important to differentiate between universities ERP

functional and non-functional requirements.[34]. The following are some of the components

of the ERP systems used in education;

17
Table 2. 1: Components of ERP used in Education
NO. COMPONENT
1. Organization outline
2. Employee outline
3. Learner outline
4. Response module
5. Courses
6. Accomplishment analysis
7. Register
8. Index
9. Odel examination
10. Odel assignment
11. Registration
12. Payment
13. Timetable Module
14. Occurrence Management
15. Notice board
16. Hostel management

Source: ERP Systems Functionalities in H.E [39]

2.4 Related Studies

“Mohamed et al (2015): ERP System as an Innovative Technology in Higher Education

Context kin Egypt”. The authors focused on the adoption of ERP systems globally in

universities. The focus of the study was in the Egyptian higher education. As the demand

for ERP systems grows, the makers of ERP targets higher education more so universities.

However, very little has been published on the topic concerning ERP. The study as a report

is published as a sub-topic to help in the understanding of the concept of the ERP adoption

in higher education in Egypt as a country. The authors state that educational systems of

commercial activities in universities undergo alternative modules. They argue that ERP in

universities should respond to the main functionalities of an academic system. The

18
modification and or the adoption the other legacy systems, which originated from the

experience in commercial activities which are not always useful. The authors state that the

ERP serves the education sector successfully. An invention will make the education system

better in its operations. They encourage for its adoption in the universities in Egypt. Apart

from its educational values, they state that the ERP helps in the better management of the

resources available in any organization. It allows for automation of the departmental

activities. Information is available to users whenever it is needed. This facilitates accurate

decision making by the management. The ERP system has brought more benefits that are

important to the organizations as well as the users. [40].

“Leo et al (2005): Implementing ERP Systems in Higher Education Institutions”. The

computerization of the higher education sector has opened up a new market opportunity for

the ERP vendors. The modification and or the adoption the other legacy systems, which

originated from the experience in commercial activities which are not always useful.

Different environments were analyzed for both domestic higher education and the vendors’

side. The major environments analyzed included the present needs and the future

expectations of the higher education in a global view perspective.

The study presented research results in the field of ERP in abroad countries like Slovenia. It

focused mainly on their use in universities i.e. faculties and higher education institutions.

Through the study of the supply in the market, mainly focusing on the case study cases, the

author looked at differences and similarities between the world trend and Slovenian higher

education systems.

[41].

19
“Mohamed et al (2019): Modelling Intention to Use ERP Systems among Higher Education

Institutions in Egypt: UTAUT Perspective”. The authors state that organizations strive to

achieve sustainable competitive environment. This is done in changing and diverse market

places. For firms to cope with such circumstances, they have to align information

technology with business strategy. This is so in order to exploit their capabilities and change

commercial practices. In regards to that, the ERP systems have become important to

organizations for different reasons including, enhancing decision making, improve

operational performance, building strong capabilities and competing in a global business

context. The organizational resources are integrated by the ERP and it involves business

processes and institutional changes. Implementation of ERP systems has grown strongly

with the universal growth of Information System investment. ERP systems are being

adopted in higher education systems. However, from the past research ERP systems have

been known to have a great rate of failure in implementation. This is one of the reasons why

many users resist using the system. Conversely, ERP user acceptance is the key to its

implementation. The study strives to find out the key factors that influence users’ intentions

to use ERP during the implementation phase in the lifecycle in the universities [42].

“Singh et al (2018): ERP Challenges in Higher Education”. The authors state that ERP in

universities and colleges should respond to the exact requirements of education systems.

Additions or other modifications, which are carried from other past systems, do not always

match the needs of the current environments. The authors state that it is prudent to outline

those ERP systems in universities as being wide in their scope. The scope ranges from

administrative duties, the human resource activities, financial systems, information systems

among others. It is therefore necessary to learn the implication of using the ERP in

20
universities and information obtained in order to avoid challenges created by inherited

systems. This is important because it addresses the functions performed by the ERP in the

ever-changing universities and its effects in the use in the same institutional environment.

The authors outline the contents of the ERP that provide the education system successfully

and present the requirements and future expectations of higher learning institution [43].

“Christian et al (2017): Implementing ERP Systems in Higher Education Institutes: Critical

Success Factors Revisited”. Investigation of the ERP project critical success factors with the

focus in universities was the major focus of this study. The authors carried out a step-by-step

review of the literature to bring out specific CFC affecting higher education projects

outcome. There is little literature that deals with higher education. Furthermore, almost all

factors in the literature were also mentioned. In the general studies, there are general factors

that are important CSFs in general studies. They include; top management support, ERP

systems tests, project management, configuration among others. Research for specific types

of organizations is still important in spite of the maturity of the field [41].

“Matilda (2006): Change management success factors in ERP implementation”. Just like

any endeavor, ERP project implementation is challenging. To ensure a successful

completion of the project goals, the stakeholders’ commitment and competence need to be

brought to the right level. This is in addition to the related business processes and the ever-

changing core information systems.

The most frequently cited critical success factor in ERP implementation is the change

management factor. Change management in the theoretical coverage is very limited. This

study sets to provide answers to this research question that is; “how should organizational

change be managed in an ERP implementation project?” Prescriptive framework is the

21
answer. It is based on Hannus’ [44] strategic change process model Salmien’s [44]change

management success factors.

The global ERP implementation of Wartsila [44] is the empirical case. The full-scope SAP

R/3 implementation was successful despite it being challenging. The project ended in 2007

and started in 2002. The six informant held the key roles. The realistic and insightful case

study dwelled on the pilot implementation project. It covered mainly the go-live,

implementation and support phases. Also included in the global project is the reflection and

analysis in its entirety. Empirical cases revealed three key things in the analysis of change

management practices. They improved change management success. They include, 1.

Systematic standardization and improvement of the selected approaches brings in efficiency

and consistency 2. Stakeholder management lays the foundation for building change

readiness effectively. 3. The change management activities should be integrated with other

project activities. This is so that individual change management competence can be turned

into institutional change management ability.

In the form of two new success factors, the three key findings were appended to the

framework. Relevant in the context of a global ERP implementation are the success factors.

The concept of change management and stakeholder management need further development

[44].

2.4.1 Software Engineering Design Concept

Software engineering involves a number of processes. It includes examining user

requirements and architectural designs, building, and testing applications among others. The

whole process is directed towards meeting the requirements of user needs using

programming languages. Software engineering is used for bigger and more sophisticated

22
software systems in contrast to simple programming. It is an application of engineering

principle to software development. The systems developed by this principle are used as

critical systems for business and institutions.

2.4.2 User Centered Design

UCD is a prudent idea in usability engineering. An area outlines the various categories of

design interactive application [45] . The design is based on actual requirements of users.

They include iterative design, task analysis, evaluation and prototype development. The five

objectives of UCD as mentioned by Thimbleby [46] include; 1. To iterate design to

continuously improve 2. To eliminate areas that have challenges from the design including

the requirements 3. To identify and prioritize usability values with users. [Link] test against

usability criteria and 5. To match task requirements to design. In UCD [47] as stated by

Buurman[47], it involves all the users in the whole process of design. This sis done so as to

link the product to the users’ needs and requirements. Users are involved in the entire

process. This is in order to match the product to the users requirements. It increases user

acceptance of new technology. That is according to Kotogiannis and Embrey [48]. It allows

users to join in the design process . This design procedure reduces the development time and

expenses. This is achieved by reducing the amount of change needed in the future design

stages [49]. In the whole process, the users should be able to comprehend the design

procedures and the designers should be able to understand the users who are to use the

design [50];[51].

The process of design causes great interaction between clients and designers [52]. Other

stakeholders also facilitate communication around the design. Interaction design is classified

as contextual by nature by Saffer [51]. It acknowledges that it must provide solutions to

23
certain challanges under specific environment using the available materials. ISO 9241

includes necessities and proposals to the original ISO 13407:1999 [53]. This is in order to

conduct and organize the practical application of knowledge in ergonomics and usability.

The changes include; it emphasizes that the methods of UCD can be used throughout the

system life cycle, clarifies the whole iterative process and not just the evaluation, clarifies

UCD principles, and also explains the activities of design. A number of principles that

should be considered in the development of the interactive system are listed by ISO 9241-

210[53]. The principles should be considered when the goal is to design an interactive

system centered on users and their needs. The system should also be useful and easy to use.

They include;

a) “The project should be based on the explicit knowledge of users, their tasks and

surroundings. The design should take into consideration aspects involved in the

project, indirectly or directly. The importance of this is the establishment of system

requirements. An interface to be used in the social activity, for example, should be

very different from the one to be used in traffic lights[53]” .

b) Users should be involved throughout the development process project; user

engagement is a valuable source of knowledge about the context of use and should

be used to explore solutions. The nature and frequency of engagement will depend

on the type of project in question [53].

c) “All users should be involved throughout the process of project development.

Engagement of users is an important source of information about the context of use.

This should be used to explore solutions. The frequency and nature of engagement

will depend on the type of project being undertaken[53]”.

24
 d) The design process should be repetitive. In ISO 9241-210[53], the iteration is the

refinement and review of design specification from the acquisition of new

information. This seeks to reduce the danger of developing a system that does not

reach the requirements and user expectations.

e) The users architectural integrity encounters should be looked at; "The user

experience is a result of the presentation, functionality, system performance, the

interaction behavior and assistive capabilities of an interactive system, both in terms

of hardware and software. The user experience is also consequent of previous user

experience as well as their attitudes, skills, habits and personality the capabilities,

limitations, preferences and expectations must be taken into account in the

specification that features are the user's competence and what system of competence"

[53].

f) Multidisciplinary skills and perspectives should be included in the project team.

Team members should come from different areas. This is to gather enough skills,

experiences and views so that they can be shared and benefit projects with this

diversity.

2.5 ERP Architecture

2.5.1 MVC Architecture

MVC is a common architecture that is used to implement the ERP. M stands for MODEL

classes, C stands for Controller and V stands for View Pages. The pattern of the MVC is

made up of the following three major sections; [54]

The pattern of the Model View Controller MVC is composed of three major sections;

Model – This model is found at the low most section of the mound. It is in charge of

data maintenance.

25
 View – This section is in charge of presenting a large chuck or the whole chuck of

data to the users.

Controller – This program code manages the interactions between the model section

and the view section.

The MVC is liked as it separates the application logic from the user interface. It also

supports separation of concerns [54] [55]. The controller accepts all the requests for the

application. It then works with the model to provide the data required by the view mound.

The view then uses the data made by the controller to prepare a final presentable response.

The MVC abstraction can be presented as follows graphically.

Event
Event

Controller
Controller

View
View

Model
Model

Figure 2. 1: MVC System Architecture [54]

The model is in charge of organizing the data of the application layer. It answers to the

request from the view and responds to instructions from the controller to make itself up to

date.

View: it presents data in a particular format, influenced by a controller’s decision to present

the data. They are script based templates. For example, PHP,ASP, JSP. They are very easy

to integrate with AJAX technology.

26
Controller: this section is responsible for answering to user input and perform interactions

on the data model objects. It receives the input, authenticates it and then performs the

operations required which modifies the state of the data model [54] [55] [1].

2.6 Theories, models and framework

This section will look at same of the theories, models and frameworks that contribute to the

functionality of the ERP in higher education. They contribute to the final conceptual

framework that guide the work.

2.6.1 Task Technology Fit Theory

TTF provides a relevant and comprehensive theoretical framework for addressing the issues

related to the current Enterprise Resource Planning design studied. First, task characteristics

apply to the underlying characteristics that differ among the different users of the ERP in

different sections of the higher learning institution. Second, technology characteristics

pertain to the attributes associated with consumer interface design; specifically interfaces of

the different modules of the ERP [29].Third, individual characteristics encompass the

inherent differences that exist across a heterogeneous set of consumers, in this particular

case – personality. Finally, the congruence of these three preceding factors is used to predict

and understand any performance related issues, such as functional suitability, user

satisfaction among others [29].

27
 Task
Characteristics

Technology Task- Technology

Characteristics Technology Fit Characteristics

Individual
Characteristics

Figure 2. 2: Task Technology Fit Theory [29]

2.6.2 Software Quality Models

The last few years have witnessed an increase in studies conducted concerning the

evaluation of software functional suitability. A number of factors, whose mandate is to carry

out the examination of these characteristics, has come into being as a direct result of that

work [56]. Models of software are important to get information so that action can be taken to

ensure that their performance is improved. Such performance can be in terms customer

satisfaction improvement, measured standards and decrease in prices of standards [57].

Quality models and software metrics play a vital role in gauging the role in measurement of

software standards. Different scholars have proposed different models of software quality to

help gauge the standards of software outcomes[57]. Below are some of the models from the

quality management gurus;

28
2.6.3 McCall’s Quality model (1977)

This model is one of the most common quality model in the literature of software

engineering. The McCall model is targeted towards the system development process and

system developers[58]. It reduces the gap between developers and users. This is done by

focusing on a number of software quality characteristics that show the views of both

developers and users. This model has three main aspects; product revision, product

transition and product operations [59].

29
 Traceability
Correctness
Completeness

Consistency
Reliability
Accuracy

Error tolerance
Efficiency Execution efficiency

Storage efficiency

Integrity Access control

Access audit

Usability Operability

Training

v Maintainability Communicativeness

Simplicity

Conciseness
Testability
Instrumentation

Self-descriptiveness
Flexibility
Expandability

Generality
Portability
Modularity
Software System independence

Reusability Machine Independence

Communications commonality

Interoperability Data communality

Figure 2. 3: McCall Quality Model [59]

This model is made up of eleven quality characteristics to give a description of the external

view of the software i.e. users’ view. It also has twenty three quality factors to give a

30
description of the internal view of the software i.e developer’s view. A set of metrics are

used for quality evaluation. The product revision category consists of the following

attributes, efficiency, usability, correctness, reliability and integrity [58], [60]. This model’s

fundamental idea is to asses the relationship among product quality criteria and external

quality factors. The relationship between metrics and quality characteristics is the main

contribution of this model [60].

[Link] Criticism of the McCall’s Quality model (1977)

There are some criticism towards the McCall model. For instance, not all the metrics are

objective [61]. Furthermore, functionality of the software product in this model is not

considered [62]. Furthermore, the model completely leaves out the functional suitability in

organizations including the education institutions [6]. The design coherence is not

considered in the model. Furthermore, not all the factors or standard processes in the model

is related to the design integrity about the knowledge and integrity to the design decisions.

The model is perfect fit for general application systems, and thus some features are not in

the domain specific. Another disadvantage is the accuracy in quality measurement of the

model. It is based on responses of Yes or No. the users’ vision is also diminished since the

model does not consider the functionality.

2.6.4 Boehm Model (1978)

Boehm introduced this model for assessing both the quantitative and the quality of software

[61]. Its hierarchical structure is similar to McCall structure. It consists of the high level,

intermediate level, and the low level characteristics. The average standard of the software is

contributed by each of these factors. The model takes into consideration some account of

software product with regard to the utilization of the program. The extended factors by

31
 Boehm to the McCall model by putting emphasis on the maintainability factor of a software

product. This is one of the positives of this model[59]. The standard metrics can be used to

give the foundation for definition of quality metrics. This use is one of the most significant

objectives established by Boehm when he created his quality model. One or more metrics

are supposed to weigh a given primitive factor. Boehm defined the ‘metric’ as “a measure of

extent or degree to which a product possesses and exhibits a certain (quality) characteristic.”

Device independence

Portability
Self - Contentedness

Accuracy

Reliability
Completeness

As –Is
Utility Robustness/Integrity
Efficiency
Consistency

Accountability
Human
General engineering Device efficiency

utility
Accessibility

Testability
Communicativeness

Self -descriptiveness

Structuredness
Maintainabilit Understandabilit
y y Condseness

Legibility

Modifiability Augment ability

Figure 2. 4: Boehm’s Model [61]

32
[Link] Criticism of the Boehm Model (1978)

Just like McCall, Boehm model ignores the functionality aspects of the software which is

not mentioned anywhere within the model [6]. All the software evolvability sub

characteristics in the Boehm’s quality model is not explicitly taken care of. Additionally,

analyzability is partly addressed in the character understandability. Understandability is

supposed to give a description that the reasons of the code is clear to the inspection.

Furthermore, none of the circumstances or measurable characteristics are able to describe

the ability to assess the impact at the software integrity level due to change initiators. [63].

In this model, also architectural integrity is not covered in the model.

2.6.5 FURPS Model

FURPS model as put by Robert Grady and Hewlett Packard subdivides factors into two

categories of requirement. They include the functional requirements and the non-functional

requirements [64]. The functional requirements consists of only input and the output. The

nonfunctional requirements consists of performance, usability, supportability and reliability.

The term FURPS is an acronym that entails five characteristics. That is functionality,

usability, reliability, performance, and supportability [64].

33
 Joint of characteristics
Functionality Capacities

security

Human factors
Usability Aesthetic
Documentation of the user
Material of training
Frequency and severely of failure
Recovery to failure
Reliability
Time among failure
Efficiency
Availability

Performance Time of answers

Time of recovery

Utilization of resources

Testability
Extensibility

Adaptability

Supportability Maintainability

Capability

Configurability

Serviceability

Instability

Localizability

Figure 2.5: FURPS Model [7]

34
[Link] Criticism of the FURPS Model

It is important to note that domain specific attributes and software product portability were

not addressed in this model [38]. The model does not consider the subsets of functionality

such as suitability, accurateness, interoperability, security and compliance [6]. The traits or

sub-traits in the model are not related to the architectural integrity. This is in respect to the

comprehending and coherence of the decisions of the architecture. [64] One major

disadvantage of the FURPS model is that it does not take into account the software

portability. Furthermore, other attributes like domain specific are not addressed [63].

2.6.6 Research gaps in Reviewed model

After analyzing the above models, the study was able to identify the following research

gaps. They were summarized as follows;

Table 2. 2: Summary of Limitations of Software Quality Models

MODEL LIMITATIONS
 Metrics are not objective.
 Software functionality is not considered.
 Functional suitability in organizations (including HE institutions)
McCall Quality Model not covered.
 No quality architectural integrity
 Proposed for general applications only
 No accuracy in measurement of quality
 Software functionality is not covered.
 No quality architectural integrity.
Boehm Quality Model  No software evolvability
 No architectural integrity
 Software portability not addressed.
 Software functionality not considered.
FURPS Quality Model  Subsets of functionality are ignored
 No architectural integrity

35
2.7 Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework is an argument that the concepts chosen for examination or reading

and other anticipated relationship among them. The concepts will be important and useful

under the research gap under study. It contributes to a research report in at least two ways;

first, it identifies research variables; secondly, it clarifies relationship among the variables

[34].

System features and tools determine the system’s functionality attributes. According to

ISO/IEC IS 9126-1 system attributes that affect that affect functional suitability of a

software functionality and user satisfaction include; suitability, accurateness,

interoperability, compliance to standards and security [34].

Accurateness
 Correctness
 Traceability
 Completeness

Interoperability
 Communication Functional Enterprise
 Data communality
 Modularity Affects Resource Planning

Compliance System
 Accordance
 alignment

Security
 Access
 Integrity
 Confidentiality

Training
Management support
Skills
Policy Framework
Dynamism in Technology

Figure 2. 6: Conceptual Framework

36
2.7.1 Accurateness

It is the degree of precision of the functionality of the system software. The system should

be able to meet the specific tasks of the users without any challenges. Accurateness is an

important characteristic since it will determine the users’ willingness to use the system.

2.7.2 Interoperability

A certain software part or parts of the software do not typically work in isolation. The sub-

set functionalities concerns the capability of a software part to it interact with other parts of

the system. The structure of data exchange if defined by the interoperability structure. It

makes sure that the exchange between data technology systems can be explained at the data

field level.

2.7.3 Compliance

According to ISO/IEC 25010, compliance is defined as the rate at which functionalities

enhance the success of the activities and objectives that have been set. Every organization,

industry and even the government has rules that need to be followed to the latter. The sub

unit deals with the compliant capability of the software.

2.7.4 Security

The ability to prevent to allow only authorized access to data, information or a system is

considered security. This at architectural and design level means to have a way of

performing exclusively that task. This may be a part or a functionality that is integrated into

another part. It can be shaped into a characteristic whose value is a no or yes. This depends

on the availability of the device or mechanism

37
2.7.5 Training

Training is an activity that is planned systematically. It is supposed to improve level of

skills, information and efficiency that are required to perform work effectively [65]. It is

evident that human resource is a crucial resource. It’s essential to maximize the output of the

employees to the organization. The goal is to to meet the goals and sustain effective

performance. This therefore calls for organizations to ensure that there is enough human

resource that is viable both technically and socially [66]. This will not only propel their

career but also help to provide specialists in departments. The firm’s only intellectual

property are the employees. They are the only source of resource that will help the firm to

gain competitive advantage. For any organization to be successful, they have to fully invest

in the training of its staff [65].

2.7.6 Management support

Information system management support refers to the degree, to which an individual

believes that institutions are committed to the successful implementation and use of the

interactive technology, including information systems [67]. In this study, management

support refers to the degree to which a HE institute supports the adoption and the use of the

ERP as a new technological tool in teaching, learning and management of the HE. Mutohar

[68] puts forth the idea that an important measure is the provision of support for staff in the

integration of technology [68]. Ideally, institutions should provide technological support for

example: teach the staff to troubleshoot and to overcome instructional issues if any, instead

of relying on vendors and sellers that may cause many technological and economical break

down when they arise.

38
2.7.7 Skills

A skill is a capacity and ability that one gets through systematic, deliberate and sustained

effort. It enables one to carry out sophisticated functions or job activities that involve ideas,

technical skills or other people [69]. Skills lead to competence. Competence is a group of

commitments, skills, knowledge and related abilities. Competence point to abundance of

information and skills that enables anyone to act in different situations. Knowledge involves

practical skills, involved in efficient use of ICT and the electronic information resource.

Skills go beyond the technical skills. It influences also the cultural and even the

philosophical context and impact [69].

2.7.8 Policy framework

For organizations to stay put in today’s turbulent commercial environments, they must

heavily invest in the information systems available [70]. Ways of providing protection of

data and information held in these systems is proving to be key to management in different

organizations. Institutions often use security methods such as the firewall to provide

protection to important information systems assets [71]. Other sophisticated mechanisms put

into practice include content monitoring technologies, log file management and data leak

prevention. As much as organization use these tools to protect their data, they are never a

sufficient way to protect the information systems resources [71]. Socio organizational

imperatives are important in enhancing the output for institutions in such issues [72].

Among the methods used to streamline the behavior of their employees in regard to how

information systems are used. The common methods used include the use of guidelines,

rules and requirements put out in their use of information systems security policies [72].

39
There are policies, rules and regulations to safeguard the information systems at work place.

That include against misuse, destruction of assets, abuse, employees always do not comply

with such rules [73]. A lot of research is needed to improve people’s understanding to

encourage information system policy compliance in institutions [73].

40
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

This chapter provides the methods that were used to carry out this research. It covers areas

such as the design, tools for analysis, testing, development technology and the proposed

architecture.

3.2 Research design

Research design elaborates the way the study was planned and conducted[74]. The design is

to help control the variation due to independent variables and do away with or reduce

influence of extraneous variables. It also helps reduce error variance and at the same time

ensure that the findings can be tested for significance.

The study used a case study. The case study is an empirical inquiry that looks at

contemporary phenomenon, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and

context are not evident. Quantitative and qualitative research was applied. In qualitative

analysis, regression methods were applied. Tables were used to explain the data obtained

about the current state of functionality of the ERP under study.

41
Table 3. 1 : Summary of Methodology

Objectives Research Questions Data Collection Data Analysis

Procedure
To determine the What is the status of Literature review Content Analysis
status of ERP ERP system Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics
implementation in implementation in
Kenyan universities universities in
Kenya?
To identify factors What are the factors Questionnaire Descriptive
that affect the that affect Interviews
functionality of the functionality of ERP
Enterprise Resource systems in
Planning systems in universities in
universities in Kenya Kenya?

To develop a model How can a model to Questionnaire Multiple Regression

to assess functional measure functional Interviews Inferential Statistics
suitability of suitability of
education software education software
systems in system be developed
universities in to improve
Kenya. functionality of
education software
systems in
universities in
Kenya?

3.3 Target Population and Sample

A population is the total collection of element about which we wish to make some

inferences. The major target population was universities in Kenya. The universities in Kenya

include both private and public universities. A sample of public universities and private

universities were sampled for the same. The ERP functionality of these universities were

considered before narrowing down to the University of the case study, which is MMUST.

The population of interest in this study were the users of ERP system; staff members,

technical ICT staff and the top ICT management staff in MMUST. Technical because they

42
are the ones who majorly interact, use and execute the functions of the ERP in the

institution.

The researcher adopted purposive sampling technique where subjects with desired

characteristics are to be identified using purposive sampling technique. Ideally, the typical

case sampling technique was employed. According to Patton, this is a technique used when

you are interested in the normality/typicality of the units (e.g., people, cases, events,

settings/contexts, places/sites) you are interested, because they are normal/typical. This

method was chosen because the target population was large and unknown. In this case, the

researcher was interested with users who use ERP in their daily operations. The method is

justified because that population is the one that uses these systems or have an idea what ERP

is.

Table 3. 2: Table of Target Population

SAMPLE PERCENTAGES STRATA VALUE (n)

SAMPLE SIZE
STAFF 80 120
TECHNICAL STAFF 7 10
TOP MANAGEMENT 13 20
TOTAL 100 150

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling techniques

A sampling frame is the list of a group or a cluster, which forms the basis of the sampling

processes. This is where a representative sample is drawn for the purpose of research. Ten

percent of the target population of both the target university ICT technical, staff and

management respondents, was the representative sampling frame for the research.

This study used stratified random sampling technique. A stratification is the process of

dividing members of the population into homogeneous subgroups before sampling. The

study used stratified sampling to select departments in MMUST. Stratified sampling allowed

43
the researcher to target the most representative sample elements that are equipped with the

knowledge about the intended phenomena.

The following formula by Robert for determining sample size of the population was used

[75];

S= ꭓ2NP (1-P)

d2 (N-1) + ꭓ2P (1-P)

Where

Where;

S = “Required sample size”.

ꭓ2 = “The table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence

level (3.841)”.

N = “The population size”.

P = “The population proportion (assumed to be .50 since this would provide the

maximum sample size)”.

d = “The degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (0.05)”.

The above formula and data can be combined to calculate the sample size as follows;

For the general population:

S= {3.841 * 150 * 1.70(1-0.5)} ÷ {0.1502 (150-1)} + 3.841* 0.150( 1-0.150)}

S = 80

44
Table 3. 3: Table of Strata Value (Sample Size)

SAMPLE PERCENTAGES STRATA VALUE (n)

SAMPLE SIZE
STAFF 80 64
TECHNICAL STAFF 7 6
TOP MANAGEMENT 13 10
TOTAL 100 80
Source (Author)

3.5 Data collection instruments

This research study used primary data. The primary data was gathered using the interview

and questionnaire methods. A pre-test was done before the main data collection.

Questionnaires were given to the respondents. Those that seemed not very clear were

revised and corrections made to make them as clear as possible. Both open-ended questions

and close-ended questions were used in the research study. It is simple to administer

questionnaires and they are highly reliable. The questions were developed based on the

research objectives. The questionnaire e contained three sections; Section A addressed

background information, Section B will sought information on factors that affect use of ERP

applications while Section C and others will address technology preferences on ERP

applications by users.

3.5.1 Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a tool to gather data. It contains questions that are written down and given

to other people referred to as respondents. The respondents also give their answers in written

form. The questionnaire can be given to the respondents using different ways. They can be

sent through the mail delivery, hand delivered or even online [76].

45
The research questionnaire was administered with the help of the research assistants. They

administered the questionnaire in different departments to different categories of people in

the field. The questionnaire had six different sections namely;

Section A - (Demographic Section) – Section got the demographic information of the users

of the ERP. For example, their gender, age and level of education among others.

Section B - (ERP awareness Section) - this section gathered information on whether the

users are aware of the existence and use of ERP in the university. It gathered information

about their general knowledge on ERP existence.

Section C - (User Involvement) – this section gathered information about user involvement

in ERP functional suitability analysis. It sought to establish whether users helped developers

capture user needs and expectations.

Section D - (Functional Success of ERP) – this section got information on whether the use

of ERP was successful or not. It explored on whether the users got exactly what they

expected from the ERP system.

Section E - (Causes of ERP Failure/Underutilization) – this section gathered information on

user needs and expectations. It also explored the various causes of ERP

failure/underutilization from the users’ perspectives.

Section F - (Functional Process) – this section captured information from the users on what

they think affects the functionality process.

3.5.2 Interview

Another common data collection method is the interview. The respondents are orally asked

question as a person or as a group. The person asking the question can note down the

46
answers one by one or can use other means like tape recording. The person asking the

question can also use both methods to get the answers [76].

Interviews can be conducted with varying degrees of flexibility. The two extremes, high and

low degree of flexibility, are described as High degree of flexibility Low degree of

flexibility [76]. The researcher sought to get critical information from the key stakeholders

of the ERP system. These are the people are largely involved in the running, implementation

and functioning of the ERP system in the university. The key areas the interview gathered

information from included;

The nature of users – the researcher wanted to know the specific group of people that

heavily uses the ERP system in their daily operations. The university is big and has many

groups of people ranging from students to the staff.

The user needs – From the varying users of the ERP, the researcher gathered the different

needs of the users from an expert’s point of view.

Functionality – the researcher sought to get the functionality of the ERP in its environment.

The knowledge.

ERP challenges – the researcher wanted the key stakeholders to mention some of the

challenges they encounter with the use of ERP system.

The key informants the researcher interacted in the interview included;

Director ICT, System Administrator and the network administrator

3.6 Validity and Reliability

3.6.1 Reliability

Research tools should be able to give the same results repeatedly after different trials. This is

referred to as reliability in research. This type of reliability is called test retest. In this

47
scenario, the results of test number one should be the same results of test number two even if

they are done after some period of time (Yin, 2003).

Alpha coefficient was used to test reliability of the instrument whereby a coefficient of 0.70

Or more is acceptable. A high Cronbach alpha coefficient (0.7 and above) implies that the

items correlate highly among themselves, that is, there is consistency among the items in

measuring the concept of interest.

3.6.2 Validity

Validity refers to the relationship between measure used and some external/alternative

measure “criterion” of the same concept. A predictive validity deals with how well does the

measure used predict performance on another indicator (which is assumed valid)? A

theoretical, empirical approach to validation deals with the sample for pre-test which was

also used to test data validity [77],[78]. The validation of the instrument aimed at ensuring

the instrument was measuring what they were intended to measure.

The researcher utilized experts in the IT, (who included the supervisors) field in order to

ensure face and content validity of the instrument. The experts ranking them in a scale of out

of ten examined the questionnaires and interview schedule. They were examined to

determine if they extensively covered the topic under study. The questionnaire was ranked

as follows by the three experts consulted; the first one gave seven, the second one seven

while the third one gave eight to the scale out of ten. This averaged to seven out of ten,

which showed the questionnaire was aligned to the research values. The interview schedule

was also examined and given the following score out of ten. The first expert assigned eight

out of ten, the second seven and the third eight out of ten. This averaged to eight out of ten.

48
3.7 Data Processing and Analysis

Descriptive statistics was used for the analysis of primary data. This was in order to give an

over view of the respondents perception of the different aspects of the research objectives.

Graphs were used where necessary for clarity of the research findings and understandability.

Clean up for mistakes was done on all the secondary data that was gathered. The data was

then coded to allow response put into groups. After the coding, the data was then grouped

according to similar characteristics. The common traits were tabulated in an intact form

using rows and columns. This was to facilitate detailed analysis, comparisons and

explanations. Furthermore, quantitative analysis was used to interpret and elaborate the

outcome of the study. In order to remove the possibility of getting wrong relationships, the

study ensured that all the variables incorporated into the predicted model are clearly

established in the literature

3.8 Ethical Consideration

The research considered all the requirements to maintain its ethical considerations. First of

all, the respondents were assured of confidentiality of their responses. Besides, the

researcher sought for a letter of approval from the directorate of postgraduate studies

(Appendix IV). A research permit was also granted from the National Commission for

Science technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) (Appendix V). This was to facilitate the

process to be carried out under laid down procedures.

49
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the research analysis, findings and data presentation of the study.

Descriptive statistical analysis included; frequencies, means, standard deviations, and

percentages. The chapter also presents correlations and regression analysis, and inferences

drawn from the analysis.

4.2 Reliability and validity tests

Reliability of an instrument is the consistency of an instrument in measuring what it is

intended to measure. This was established by first ensuring internal constancy approach

followed by carrying out a pilot study. A questionnaire is considered reliable if the

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is greater than 0.70. The variables were subjected to reliability

test using SPSS and the results obtained are shown in Table 4.1

Table 4. 1: Reliability test

Variable Cronbach alpha

Functional Enterprise Resource Planning System 0.791
Functional Accurateness 0.771
Functional Interoperability 0.736
Functional Compliance 0.903
Functional Security 0.902

The results indicated that all the variables obtained had Cronbach’s Alpha greater than 0.7

thereby achieving the recommended 0.7 for internal consistence of data (Mugenda &

Mugenda, 2008).

50
Data validity is the degree to which a test measures that which it is supposed to measure

(Porter, 2010). Mugenda and Mugenda (2008) define validity as the degree to which the

research results obtained from the analysis of the data represent the phenomenon under

study.

According to Table 4.2 Kaiser –Meyer -Olkin measure of sampling adequately indicated

KMO value of greater than 0.5 meaning thereby that the sample size was good enough to

treat the sampling data as normally distributed. Bartlett’s test sphericity which tested the null

hypothesis “item to item correlation matrix based on the responses received from

respondents for all the effective variables was an identity matrix”. The Bartlett’s test was

evaluated through chi-square test as shown in Table 4.2 for the entire variables and were all

significant at 5% level of significance, indicating that null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 4. 2: Test for validity

Factors KMO test Barlett’s test of sphericity

Chi-Square df Sig.
Functional Enterprise Resource Planning .906 221.26 4 0.000
System
Functional Accurateness .907 340.74 4 0.003
Functional Interoperability .310 220.28 4 0.000
Functional Compliance .868 310.05 4 0.000
Functional Security .772 243.50 4 0.004
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

4.3 Response Rate

In this study, out of 80 questionnaires that were distributed to the sampled respondents, 77

of them were filled and returned. Therefore, 77 were correctly filled and were used for the

analysis, which made up a response rate of 96.25%.

51
Table 4. 3: Questionnaire Return Rate

Frequency Percent

Valid Returned 77 96.25

Not Returned 3 3.75
Total 80 100.0
Source: (Researcher, 2019)

In this study, the researcher employed various strategic techniques that attributed to the high

response rate. The researcher recruited two research assistants who distributed and collected

the questionnaires while the researcher carried out the interview schedules with the key

informants in the study.

4.4 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

This section contains the analysis of the respondent’s information on the gender of the

respondent, education level, designation of work, age of the respondent, level of experience,

school where they belong and location of the place of work. The main purpose of this was to

find out on any trend from the respondent’s profile that was directly linked to the variables

of the study.

4.4.1 Distribution of the respondent by Gender

The study sought to establish the gender status of the respondents in the Study. Table 4.4

shows the distribution of the respondents according to their gender status.

52
Table 4. 4: Gender status of Respondent

Gender Std.
Frequency Percent Mean Deviation
Male 50 64.9 1.35 .480
Female 27 35.1

Results in Table 4.4 illustrates that the majority of the respondents were male at 64.9%

while the female respondents were 35.1% with a mean of 1.35 and a standard deviation of

0.480. The study attributed to show the existence of a gap in the employment in the Kenyan

public sector which is predominantly dominated by male gender.

4.4.2 Distribution of the respondent by Level of education

The study sought to establish the education level of the respondents in the study. Table 4.5

shows the distribution of the respondent according to their education levels.

Table 4. 5: Education level of ERP users

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Diploma 12 15.5 3.29 0.825
Degree 37 48.1
Masters 22 28.6
PhD 6 7.8

The findings in Table 4.5 indicate that majority of the respondents were degree holders

representing a 48.1%, 28.1% were masters’ holders, 7.8% were Doctorate degrees’ holders

(PhD) and 15.6% of the respondent were Diploma holders. This meant that the sample used

in the study was well distributed in terms of the education level, as many non-teaching staffs

are diploma, degree and masters’ holders. This also shows most of the respondents had

53
necessary skills and competencies required to perform their duties effectively. In addition,

majority of the respondents had enough experience with the ERP system. Therefore, they

can perform their duties effectively.

4.4.3 Designation of the respondent.

The study sought to establish the designation of the respondents in the study. Table 4.6

shows the designation distribution of the respondents.

Table 4. 6: Designation of ERP users

Frequency Percent Mean Std, Deviation

Secretary 25 32.5 2.99 0.881
Administrator 30 39.0
Academic Staff 18 23.4
Others staffs 4 5.1

The study findings in Table 4.6 indicate that majority of the respondents were

Administrators serving at various capacities in the university representing a 39.0%; 32.5%

of the respondent were designated as secretaries serving in various schools and department.

Academic staffs were representing a 23.5% and other supporting staff were representing a

5.2%. Thus, the highest number of ERP users in the university are the Administrators and

Secretaries followed by members of the academic staffs.

The administrators and secretaries are the key users of the ERP system as they access it

daily either on reporting of student, checking of student details and requesting of office

accessories online. On the other hand, most of the academic staffs rarely uses the ERP

except when loading and approval of marks in the ERP system.

54
4.4.4 Distribution of the respondent by Age

The study sought to establish the age groups of the respondents in the study. Table 4.7

shows the distribution of the respondents according to their age groups

Table 4. 7: Age of users of ERP in the University

Age Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Below 25 2 2.6 2.64 0.810
26-35 38 49.4
36-45 23 29.9
46-55 12 15.6
Above 55 2 2.5

Table 4.7 illustrates that majority of the respondent (ERP users) in the university were

between the age bracket of 26 – 35 years representing a 49.4%. 29.9% of the respondents

were between 36 – 45 years of age. While 2.6% of the respondents were aged below 25

years; 15.6% were aged between 46 – 55 years of age and 2.6% of the respondent were

above 55 years of age with a mean of 2.64 and a standard deviation 0.810. This meant that

the sample used by the study was well distributed in terms of the age and therefore it gives a

reliable information about the use ERP.

The study establishes that the majority of the respondent were mainly young adults (26 – 35

years of age). Majority of the office administrators and secretaries in the university are

young people who are innovative and creative in problem solving. They are the majority that

are in use of the ERP users in various operations of the university. The working forces in the

public universities are becoming increasingly diverse in age demographics, creating

professionalism environs that are rich with experience and maturity. Institutions that employ

55
workers in wide ranges of ages have the advantage of creating a dynamic, multi-generational

workforce, with a diverse range of skills sets that is beneficial to the institution.

4.4.5 Distribution of the respondent by their working Experience.

This study also sought to establish the working experience of the respondents. This was

done to link the study with the previous studies that indicated a strong relationship between

the experience and employee working performance. Table 4.8 shows the distribution of the

working experience of the respondents.

Table 4. 8: Length of Experience of ERP users.

Experience in
years Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation
Below 2 14 18.2 2.7 1.405
3-5 30 39.0
6-8 16 20.8
9-11 11 14.3
Above 12 6 7.7

The findings in Table 4.8 indicates that majority of the respondents at 39.0% had worked in

the university for between 3 – 5 years. Those who had worked in a university for less than 2

years were representing an 18.2% with a mean of 2.7 and standard deviation of 1.405.

Ideally, all combined, more than 80% had worked in the university for more than 2 years.

From the findings, the researcher concluded that majority of the respondent had enough

experience in the use of ERP system and therefore would provide a valid and credible

information concerning the ERP system usage and challenges met when using the system.

Therefore, it was established that experience in ERP usage meant most of the respondents

were aware of the challenges and failures of it.

56
4.4.6 Distribution of the respondent by their working Experience.

This study also sought to establish the school where the respondents belongs. The findings

were illustrated in Table 4.9

Table 4. 9: Distribution of the Respondents by School

School Frequency Percentage (%)

SCI 21 27.2

SEDU 6 7.7

SASS 12 15.5

SONAS 5 6.4

SOBE 7 9.0

SEBE 9 11.6

SONMAPS 5 6.4

SOM 4 5.1

SAVET 5 6.4

SHDMA 4 5.1

77 100

The study findings of Table 4.9 shows that majority of the respondents were from the

School of Informatics and Computing representing 23.7%. While School of Arts and Social

Sciences represented 15.6%. Additionally, 10.4% of the respondents were from the School

of Engineering and Built Environment (SEBE). Other respondents were distributed as the

summarized in Table 4.9 This meant that the sample used by the study was well distributed

according to all the school in the universities and eventually cutting across all the

57
departments in the university. Therefore, provide reliable information about the ERP usage

across the university.

4.4.7 Place of Work of the respondent.

The study sought to establish the location of the respondent in the study. The summary of

the findings is presented in Table 4.10

Table 4. 10: Location of the ERP users.

Location Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Main Campus 60 77.9 1.22 0.417
Satellite
17 22.1
Campus

The study findings in Table 4.10 shows that majority of the respondents were from the main

campus representing a 77.9%. While 22.1% of the respondents were from different satellite

campuses of the university. This meant that majority of the ERP users were from the main

campus where there is centralization of all operations done from the satellite campuses.

Most of the satellite campuses have limited access to internet therefore affecting the

functionality and usability of the ERP system.

4.5. Usability of the ERP system

In this section, the study sought to examine the usability of the ERP system in the university

by the respondents. The summary of the findings was presented as below:

58
4.5.1 Usage of ERP of day-to-day activity of the university.

The study sought to establish the usability of the ERP system in the day-to-day activities of

the university. Table 4.11 shows the findings on the usability of the ERP system

Table 4. 11: Daily use of ERP in university activities.

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Strongly
29 37.7 1.62 0.488
Agree
Agree 48 62.3
Not Sure 0 0.0
Disagree 0 0.0
Strongly
0 0.0
Disagree
The study findings presented in Table 4.11 shows that majority of the respondent agreed at

62.3% that the ERP system was used on day-to-day activity of the university with a mean of

1.62 and standard deviation of 0.488. While 37.7% of the respondent strongly agree that

every university activity run by the university were based on the ERP.

4.5.2 Usage of ERP.

The study sought to the usability of the ERP system by the respondent. Table 4.12 shows

the findings on the individual use of the ERP system by the respondent.

Table 4. 12: Use of ERP

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Yes 71 92.2 1.08 0.270
No 6 7.8

The findings in Table 4.12 shows that majority of the respondents were aware of the

usability of the ERP system representing a 92.2% with a mean of 1.08 and standard

deviation of 0.270. However, 7.8% of the respondent had not used the ERP in any of the

59
activities of the university. This meant that the sample used in the study was well distributed

as majority of the respondent have interacted with the ERP in one way or another.

Therefore, a reliable and valid information on the ERP system use was provided.

4.5.3 How often does the Respondent use the ERP?

The study sought to establish how often the respondent uses the ERP system. The findings

were summarized in Table 4.13

Table 4. 13: Frequent use of ERP

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Daily 49 63.9 1.73 1.210
Weekly 14 18.2
Once a semester 6 7.8
Rarely 2 2.6
Never 6 7.8

From the study findings in Table 4.13, most of the respondents were daily users of the ERP

representing a 63.9%. 18.2% of the respondent reported to be weekly users of the ERP

system. While a total of 7.8% of the respondents uses the ERP system once per semester. 2.6

% of the respondent reported that they rarely uses the ERP system and 7.8% of the

respondents have never interacted with the ERP system.

4.5.4: Training of the Respondent on the use the ERP.

The study sought to evaluate whether the respondents were trained on the use of the ERP

system by the university. The findings were summarized in Table 4.14.

Table 4. 14: Trained on use of ERP

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Yes 53 68.8 1.47 0.754
No 24 31.2

60
The study finding, most of the respondents were trained on the use of ERP system by the

university representing a 68.8% with a mean of 1.47 and a deviation of 0.754. Additionally,

31.2% of the respondents reported that they never had any training on the use of the ERP

system. However, this proportion of the untrained ERP users reported that the system is self-

explanatory and no much is needed on how to use the system. This meant that the sample

used would give a credible information on the ERP usability.

4.5.5 Functional Analysis Process involvement.

The study sought to establish the functional analysis process involvement of the respondents

before the university acquire the ERP system or any other educational software. The

findings were as presented in Table 4.15 below.

Table 4. 15: Functional Analysis Process involvement

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Yes 33 42.9 1.57 0.498
No 44 57.1

The study findings in Table 4.15 shows that 57.1% of the respondents were not involved in

the functional analysis process before the university acquire any education software.

However, 42.9% of the respondents reported that they were involved in the process of

functional analysis prior to acquire of any of the educational software by the university.

This meant that majority of the ERP users are not involved by the university on the

functional analysis prior to acquire of the educational software.

61
4.5.6 Importance of Functional Analysis Process involvement.

The study sought to evaluate the importance of the involvement of the respondent in the

functional analysis process to prior to acquire of the educational system by the university.

The summary of the findings is as shown in Table 4.16

Table 4. 16: Importance of User Involvement in Functional Analysis

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Yes 69 89.6 1.10 0.307
No 8 10.4

The study finding in Table 4.16 shows that 89.6% with a mean of 1.10 and deviation of

0.307 of the respondents supported that opinion that there is importance of the ERP users to

be involved in the process of functional analysis of the educational software before

acquiring it. Additionally, 10.4% of the respondent rejected the opinion that there is need for

their involvement on the functional analysis process before the university acquire the

educational system. This meant that the majority of the respondent support their importance

in the involvement in the functional analysis process prior to acquiring of the software.

4.5.7 Acquisition of the ERP system.

This sought to establish how the university acquired the educational software that they use.

This summary of the finding was as shown in Table 4.17.

Table 4. 17: University ERP Acquisition

Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Developed 8 10.4 1.90 0.307
Bought 69 89.6

62
The findings in Table 4.17 shows that 89.6% of the respondent reported that the educational

system in use by the university was bought from vendors with a mean of 1.90 and deviation

of 0.307. However, 10.4% of the respondents reported that the software was developed by

the university itself. The ERP system link the university website, the portal, and other

software developed by the university, this support the 10.4% of the respondent who are in

use of the software developed by the university.

4.6 Correlation Analysis

This sought to establish the correction analysis relationship between the variable of the study

ie. Interoperability of the system, Accurateness of the system, Compliance of the system and

Security of the system. The results of the correlation analysis are as shown in Table 4.18

63
Table 4. 18: Correlation analysis of the study variables.
Correlation
Functional
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
Interoperability Accurateness Suitability Compliance Security
Interoperability Pearson
1
Correlation
Sig. (1-
tailed)
N
Accurateness Pearson
.324* 1
Correlation
Sig. (1-
.002
tailed)
N
Functional Pearson
.095 .821* 1
Enterprise Correlation
Resource Sig. (1-
.206 .000
Planning tailed)

Pearson
.225* .648* .785* 1
Compliance Correlation
Sig. (1-
.025 .000 .000
tailed)

Security Pearson
.094 .631* .566* .575* 1
Correlation
Sig. (1-
.209 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 77 77 77 77 77
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

The findings in Table 4.18 indicated that there was a strong positive and significant

association between Interoperability and Accurateness of the ERP. This is depicted by a

Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.324, p-value = 0.002 < 0.05 which was significant at

64
0.05 level of significance. This implies that an improvement on the completeness of the ERP

would result to more comfort and at ease use of the system.

The study also indicates that there was a strong positive and significant association between

the Accurateness of the system and the security with a Pearson correlation coefficient, r

=0.631, p-value= .000 <0.05 which was significant at 0.05 significance level. This meant

that an increase in functionality of the system results to more user satisfactions.

The results indicates that there was a weak positive and non-significant association between

the correctness and suitability of the ERP system with a Pearson correlation coefficient, r =

0.095, p-value =0.206 > 0.05 which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. There

was also a strong positive and significant relationship between the compliance and the

Accurateness of the ERP system. This is depicted by a Pearson correlation coefficient, r =

0.648, p-value = 0.000 <0.05 which was significant at 0.05 level of significance. This

implies that the functionality of the ERP system directly relates to the appropriateness

encountered in its use.

4.7 Effect of the user involvement in Functional Suitability Analysis.

The study used the parameters where: 1 = Strongly Agree (SA), 2 = Agree (A), 3 = Not Sure

(NS), 4 = Disagree (D) and 5 = Strongly Disagree (SD). The summary of the findings are as

shown in Table 4.19

65
Table 4. 19: Responses on the user involvement in Functional Suitability Analysis.
Statement N SA (%) A (%) NS (%) D (%) SD (%)

Institution asked staff for their needs 77 20(26.0) 14(18.2) 21(27.3) 12(15.6) 10(13.0)
and expectations
User not involved in any step of ERP 77 18(23.4) 32(41.6) 8(10.4) 11(14.3) 8(10.4)
functionality.
Process of functionality capture is 77 8(10.4) 37(48.1) 18(23.4) 10(13.0) 4(5.2)
systematic and well captured
Users are later conducted for 77 6(7.8) 24(31.2) 2(2.6) 31(40.3) 14(18.2)
verification and validation
Technique used to capture 77 0(0.0) 33(42.9) 20(26.0) 18(23.4) 6(7.8)
functionality was appropriate
Time and place of functionality 77 12(15.6) 23(29.9) 18(23.4) 18(23.4) 6(7.8)
capture was suitable for user
User not informed about the 77 14(18.2) 34(44.2) 8(10.4) 11(14.3) 10(13.0)
functional requirement

The study sought to investigate the ERP user’s involvement in its functionality suitability.

The study findings in Table 4.19 shows that 26.0% of the respondents strongly agreed that

the institution asks their staff for their needs and expectations before acquiring the ERP

system. It is observed that majority at 27.3% of the respondents are not sure of the

institution involvement for their need and expectation of ERP before its acquisition.

Majority of the respondent agreed that they were not involved in any step of the ERP

functionality capture representing 41.6%. Additionally, 48.1% of the respondent agreed that

the process of functionality capture is systematic and well organized. 40.3% of the

respondents disagree that they were conducted again for verification and validation of their

expectations after giving their opinion. The respondents representing 42.9% agreed that the

techniques used to capture the functionality of the system was appropriate to them.

Likewise, 29.9% of the respondents agreed that time and place for functionality capture was

suitable for them, with 23.4% not sure of how suitable time and place of functionality

66
capture was. Lastly, 44.2% of the respondents agreed that they were aware about the

functionality requirement process.

4.8 Functional Suitability success of the ERP

An educational software system is successful if its users get exactly what they expected

from the system. The study sought to establish the functional suitability success of the ERP

system. The summary of the findings was presented in Table 4.20.

Table 4. 20: Responses on the functional suitability success of the ERP.

Statement N SA (%) A (%) NS (%) D (%) SD (%)

Success of ERP starts from its 77 46(59.7) 22(28.6) 0(0.0) 5(6.5) 4(5.2)
functional suitability
ERP in institution meets the needs 77 18(23.4) 41(53.2) 8(10.4) 8(10.4) 2(2.6)
and the expectations of its users
Not all functions were captured for 77 12(15.6) 31(40.3) 16(20.8) 10(13.0) 8(10.4)
the ERP at my institution
ERP is rarely used because it doesn’t 77 6(7.8) 16(20.8) 22(28.6) 21(27.3) 12(15.6)
meet the needs and expectations of
users
ERP in my institution is generally 77 12(15.6) 37(48.1) 18(23.4) 4(5.2) 6(7.8)
successful
ERP is rarely used because its users 77 8(10.4) 26(33.8) 8(10.4) 17(22.1) 18(23.4)
don’t know how to use it

According to the study findings in Table 4.20, 59.7% of the respondents strongly agreed that

the success of ERP system starts from its functional suitability. Likewise, 53.2% of the

respondent agreed that the ERP system in their institution meets their needs and

expectations. Majority of the respondents representing 40.3% agreed that not all functions of

the institution were captured in the ERP system. However, 28.6% of the respondents were

not sure if or not the ERP system meets their needs and expectations. Additionally, 48.1%

of the respondents agreed that the ERP is generally successful in their institution. Lastly,

67
33.8% of the respondents agreed that they rarely use the ERP system because they don’t

know how to use it.

4.9 Cause of ERP failure /Under Utilization

An educational system fails if it does not meet the need and expectation of the user, which

leads to system under-utilization or not used correctly. The study sought to establish the

causes of the failure of the system. The summary of the findings were as shown in Table

4.21 below.

Table 4. 21: Responses on the Causes of ERP Failure/Under Utilization.

Statement N SA (%) A (%) NS (%) D (%) SD (%)

Lack of user involvement in 77 20(26.0) 41(53.2) 10(13.0) 0(0.0) 6(7.8)

functional suitability capture process
Failure to capture functionality from 77 4(5.2) 46(59.7) 21(27.3) 2(2.6) 4(5.2)
all users
Wrong requirements captured from 77 12(15.6) 35(45.5) 18(23.4) 8(10.4) 4(5.2)
users
Poor identification of real users of 77 12(15.6) 32(41.6) 16(20.8) 13(16.8) 4(5.2)
ERP
Wrong interpretation of functionality 77 6(7.8) 34(44.2) 20(26.0) 11(14.3) 6(7.8)
analysis
Lack of skilled expert 77 2(2.6) 50(64.9) 8(10.4) 17(22.1) 0(0.0)

Lack of user understanding by ERP 77 18(23.4) 34(44.2) 12(15.6) 10(13.0) 3(3.9)

developers
Lack of resources to help in the 77 6(7.8) 36(46.8) 28(36.4) 3(3.9) 4(5.2)
entire process of development
Lack of management support for the 77 6(7.8) 28(34.6) 20(26.0) 13(16.9) 10(13.0)
entire process
Inappropriate tools used in 77 8(10.4) 34(44.2) 16(20.8) 15(19.5) 4(5.2)
functional suitability capture process

According to the study findings in Table 4.21, 53.2% of the respondent agreed that the

failure of the system was attributed by lack of user’s involvement in functional suitability

capture process of the system. The respondents also agreed (59.7%) that the failure to
68
capture functionality from all ERP users causes failure to ERP system. Likewise, 45.5% of

the respondents agreed that failure of the ERP system might be due to wrong requirement

captured from the users. However, 23.6% of the respondents were not sure if the system

failure was attributed by the wrong requirement captured during functional process. They

also agreed (41.6%) that the system failure would be due to poor identification of the real

users of ERP in the institution. Additionally, 44.2% of the respondents agreed that wrong

interpretation of functionality analysis would be a possible cause of failure to the ERP

system. The majority of the respondents agreed (64.9%) that a possible cause of system

failure was attributed by lack of skilled experts to use the ERP system. The respondents also

agreed (44.2%) that lack of user understanding by the ERP developer might be the cause of

failure in the system.

Lack of resources to help in the entire process of development might be the cause of system

failure; this was supported by 46.8% of the respondents. However, 36.4% of the respondent

were not sure if lack of resources to help in the entire process of development would lead to

system failure. Majority of the respondents agreed (34.4%) that lack of management support

for the entire process would cause the failure of the educational software functionality in the

institution. Lastly, 44.2% of the respondent agreed that the system failure caused by use of

inappropriate tools in the functional suitability capture process. Overall, from the findings

in Table 4.9, majority of the respondents agreed all the indicators used to measure the causes

of failure of the system on. This calls for the institution, especially the top management to

look into the causes of the failure of the system and possibly have refresher trainings,

support and employ expert’s users of the ERP system.

4.10 Factors Affecting Functionality Suitability Process

69
The suitability of the system is an important and extensive process of capturing the needs

and expectations of the users. The study sought to establish the issues affecting the

functional suitability process ranging from human, organizational to environmental.

70
Table 4. 22: Responses on the Factors Affecting Functional Suitability Process
Statement N SA (%) A (%) NS (%) D (%) SD (%)

Gender and age of ERP users 77 0(0.0) 31(40.3) 6(7.8) 32(41.6) 8(10.4)

Level of education of ERP users 77 5(6.5) 31(40.3) 25(32.5) 10(13.0) 6(7.8)

Computer literacy level of ERP users 77 21(27.3) 36(46.8) 6(7.8) 10(13.0) 4(5.2)

Experience of ERP users 77 14(18.2) 47(61.0) 8(10.4) 4(5.2) 5(5.2)

Availability of the ERP users 77 47(61.0) 22(28.6) 4(5.2) 4(5.2) 0(0.0)

Diverse cultural background of the ERP 77 6(7.8) 14(18.2) 41(53.2) 12(15.6) 4(5.2)
users
Geographical distribution of the users of 77 14(18.2) 21(27.3) 24(31.2) 10(13.0) 8(10.4)
ERP
Communication breakdown between 77 6(7.8) 46(59.7) 7(9.1) 6(7.8) 4(5.2)
ERP users and analysis
Varied preferences of the ERP users 77 6(7.8) 41(53.2) 22(28.6) 8(10.4) 0(0.0)

Awareness and training on the 77 22(28.6) 39(50.6) 6(7.8) 6(7.8) 4(5.2)

functionality capture process
Time of the functionality capture 77 14(18.2) 30(39.0) 23(29.9) 5(6.5) 5(6.5)
process
Techniques/Methods used to capture 77 12(15.6) 53(68.8) 6(7.8) 6(7.8) 0(0.0)
functionality from users
Management support and decision 77 10(13.0) 47(61.0) 14(18.2) 2(2.6) 4(5.2)
making
Institutional policies And bureaucracy 77 16(20.8) 36(46.8) 12(15.6) 9(11.7) 4(5.2)

Institutional functional suitability policy 77 12(15.6) 38(49.4) 20(26.0) 7(9.1) 0(0.0)

Participants lack of cooperation and 77 12(15.6) 43(55.8) 16(20.8) 2(2.6) 4(5.2)

motivation
Experts experience when capturing 77 6(7.8) 46(59.7) 19(24.7) 2(2.6) 4(5.2)
functionality
Lack of resources e.g. finance 77 12(15.6) 36(46.8) 16(20.8) 3(3.9) 10(13.0)

According to the study findings in Table 4.22, majority (41.6) of the respondent disagree

that the functional suitability process of the ERP system would depend on the gender and the

age of the ERP user. However, 40.3% of the respondents agreed that age and gender are key

71
factors affecting the functional suitability process of the ERP system. They also agreed

(40.3%) that the level of education of the ERP user affects the functional suitability process.

Majority of the respondents agreed (46.8%) that computer literacy level of ERP user affects

functional suitability process of the ERP system.

The experience of the ERP user also was a key factor affecting the functional suitability

process of the ERP system; this was agreed by 61.0% of the respondents. The respondents

strongly agreed (61.0%) that the functional suitability process of the ERP system depends on

the availability of its user. This also was supported by 28.6% of the respondents who agreed

that availability of ERP user is a key factor. A proportion representing a 53.6% of the

respondent were not sure of the involvement of diverse cultural background of the ERP user

as a factor affecting its functional suitability process. However, 18.2% agreed that diverse

cultural background of the ERP user affects the functional suitability process. Likewise,

31.2% of the respondents were not sure of the ones geographical distribution affects the

functional suitability process of the ERP system. 59.7% of the respondent agreed that

communication breakdown between the ERP users and analysts affects its functional

suitability process.

The respondents agreed (53.2%) that varied preferences of the ERP users affects the system

functional suitability. Additionally, 50.6% of the respondents agreed that functional

suitability process of the ERP system was affected by the awareness and training of its users.

Majority of the respondents agreed (39.0%) that time of the functional capture process

affects the suitability process of the ERP. 68.8% of the respondents agreed that the

method/technique used to capture functionality from the users affects its suitability.

72
Likewise, 61.0% of the respondents agreed that management support and decision-making

affects the functional suitability.

The respondents agreed (46.8%) that the institutional policies and bureaucracy affects the

suitability process of the ERP. 49.4% of the respondents agreed that institutional functional

policy affects the ERP system suitability process. Additionally, 55.8% of the respondents

agreed that participant’s lack of cooperation and motivation affects the functional suitability

process of the ERP system. 59.7% of the respondents agreed that experts experience when

capturing functionality of the ERP affects the functional suitability process. Lastly, 46.8% of

the respondents agreed that lack of resources e.g., finance affects the functional suitability

process of the ERP users.

73
 4.11 Thematic Review of Functional Suitability Model for Enterprise Resource

Planning Systems In Kenyan Universities.

Table 4. 23: Approach to Thematic Analysis

Evidence of each theme prior and after functional ERP Examining of concepts before and after functional ERP
implementation from interview schedule implementation from stakeholders’ perception
Characteristics of a good functional ERP through EXTERNAL FACTORS
different stakeholders  Economic (e.g. crisis)
 Social-cultural (e.g. demographic
1. Work experience trends, social economic inequality etc)
2. ERP acquisition approach  Political/legal (e.g. political situation,
3. User functional suitability regulations, laws etc)
4. Satisfaction of user needs  Institutional (e.g. industry’s specific
5. Existence of functional suitability Sub regulations/requirements)
Sub model Theme  Technological (e.g new banking
Themes 6. Functional suitability policy s systems, e-banking )
7. User awareness  Globolisation (e.g workplace diversity
8. Re-invention functionality in- & variation, expansion to new markets,
house temporary work etc)
9. User classification  Industry Restructuring (e.g. business
10. Special user groups amalgamations)

INTERNAL FACTORS
Organizational culture/Business Climate/ corporate
structure & Strategies/Stakeholders’ Expectations

74
Shaping Factors Strategic
Characteristics

External Highly favored:

 Globalization  Adoption of proactive ERP practices
 Technological advancements  Synergy with ERP
 Favorable institutional factors  Extensive role of ERP professionals
 Strategic Evaluation of ERP programs
 ERP ability to influence management culture
Internal and environment
 Innovation/expansion of ICT Partially favored
strategies  Strategic partnerships with key university
 Strong institutional culture (ICT stakeholders
culture)  Environmental scanning from all university
 Supportive ICT environment members
(e.g. ICT policies, infrastructure)  Shaping university goals, mission &
Strategies

Figure 4. 1: Pre- Implementation Period of ERP System

Shaping Factors Strategic Characteristics

External Highly Restrictive ERP ability to:

 Economic instability  Shape university goals, mission and strategies
 Lack of standardization  Strategically partner with key organizational
bodies participation stakeholders
 Major Restructuring within  Strategically partner with ERP practices.
the industry.  Favor an extensive role for its professionals
 Strategically influence management decisions
 Promote its strategic evaluation of its benefits
Internal
 Cost reduction business
strategies. Partly promoted a strategic alignment between ERP and
 Weak/under revision of ERP new management objectives, thus favored the adoption
policies and implementation of flexible, agile and adaptive ERP
 Unsupportive environment practices so to ensure the achievement of the new
 Shift of management business focus.
objectives

Figure 4. 2: Post Implementation Period of ERP System

75
4.12 Regression Analysis
The ANOVA test id used to determine where the model is important in predicting the

functionality of the educational software (EPR) in Kenyan universities.

4.12.1 Proposed Functionality Suitability Model

The summary of the model was presented in Table 4.24 below.

Table 4. 24: Model Summary

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the Sig. F Durbin-

Model R R Square Square Estimate Change Watson
1 .534a .285 .245 1.83015 .000 1.922

Predictors: (Constant), Security, Interoperability, Compliance, Accurateness

Dependent Variable: Functional Enterprise Resource Planning System

From the findings in Table 4.24, the value of R-Square is 0.285. This indicate that, 28.5% of

the variation of the functionality suitability process of the ERP.

Table 4. 25: ANOVA Table.

ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 96.008 4 24.002 7.166 .000b
Residual 241.160 72 3.349
Total 337.169 76
a. Dependent Variable: Functional Enterprise Resource Planning System
b. Predictors: (Constant), Security, Interoperability, Compliance, Accurateness

At 0.05 level of significance, the ANOVA test indicated that the independent variables

namely; Accurateness, Security, Interoperability of ERP and Compliance variables were

76
good estimators of the functional suitability of the ERP system as indicated by p-value =

0.000 which is less than 0.05 level of significance.

From the finding in Table 4.25 below, at 0.05 level of significance, the association of the

dependent and the independent variable is summarized as follows

……………………………………………………… i

Here, Y represent the functional suitability of the ERP, X1 represent the functionality of the

ERP system, X2 represents the usability of the ERP system, X3 represents the user

challenges of the ERP system and X4 represents the satisfaction of the ERP user. Ε

represents the error term in the model

Therefore, using the regression coefficient in Table 4.12.2, we have;

……………………… ii

The equation above indicates that an increase by one unit in functionality of the ERP, its

functional suitability will increase by 0.334.

77
Table 4. 26: The Regression Coefficient

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Std.
Model B Error Beta T Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 9.684 .977 9.910 .000
Accurateness .334 .072 .875 4.670 .000 .283 3.536
Interoperability -.383 .097 -.853 -3.961 .000 .214 4.670
Compliance .137 .049 .469 2.807 .006 .355 2.815
User s -.049 .027 -.246 -1.832 .071 .551 1.815
a. Dependent Variable: Functional Enterprise Resource Planning

b. Predictors: (Constant), Security, Interoperability, Compliance, Accurateness b

4.13. Empirical Validation of Proposed Functional Suitability Model

In order for adoption of the above model, it was subjected to validation process. It involves

judgement of the proper design and integration of the underlying technology supporting the

model. Validation does not just lie on mathematical exercise performed by quantitative

specialists. It looks at all aspects of coming up with the model. It ranges from the data used,

accurateness, the literature to the output. Following the best practice procedure, the model

was subjected to validation from some experts in the area of software engineering drawn

from university. They include the director of ICT, the system administrator, the network

administrator and the other ICT personnel. Ten experts were consulted to give out their

opinion on the same. They first went through the whole document using given scorecards to

outline their findings. They then went to the model variable to check on their effects on

78
functional suitability of ERP in the university. Their validation was compiled and

summarized as follows in table 4.27 and table 4.28;

Table 4. 27: Feedback of Expert Validation

SCORECARD EXPERT VALIDATION ASSESMENT

Methods/ From the study, various models and theories were used. Good
theory/approaches They focused on the topic understudy by bringing out the
similarities, differences and even the shortcomings in the
used theories and models. The study was built
systematically its problem and model basing on the
existing theories and models.
Assumptions/variables/sen The study employed the use of certain variables to be Good
sitivity tested. The variables have an impact to the final output of
the model. They were carefully chosen from the relevant
literature. Any changes to the data and the effects to the
final output were considered.
Data The data was evenly collected for the research. The Good
relevant samples were collected from the field. It was
evenly distributed since it covered a large field of the
study.
Mathematical There was limited use of mathematical formula. However, Average
calculation/Algorithms this did not affect the study since it was not pegged on the
same. The mathematical calculations were majorly used in
methodology to get the sample sizes and target groups
under study.
Code generation The study did not employ coding. It was not built around N/A
the same.
Scenarios There were different scenarios in data analysis. The study Average
was able to outline and test different variables using
different formula.
Output The output of the study was a model. The study was able Average
to produce one which is able to be tested.
Benchmarking Through the literature, there was comparison of the study Good
to other studies. This was able to bring out what has been
done concerning the topic under study and the research
gaps that are to be filled.
Documentation Study was documented from the beginning to the end. All Good
the procedures, processes and functions to the last output
which is a model is well documented. Any person can
follow the process to the final product without any
difficulties.

79
4.13.2 Validation of the Model

The study used the parameters where: 1 = Strongly Agree (SA), 2 = Agree (A), 3 = Not Sure

Table 4. 28: Validation of the Model

(NS), 4 = Disagree (D) and 5 = Strongly Disagree (SD) to get the experts view on the model

variables after the analysis. The summary of the findings are as shown in Table 4.13.2

N SA (%) A (%) NS (%) D (%) SD (%)

Accurateness 10 3(30.0) 3(20.0) 2(20.) 2(20.0) 0(00.0)

Interoperability 10 4(40.0) 4(40.0) 1(10.0) 1(00.0) 0(00.0)

Compliance 10 4(40.0) 3(30.0) 2(20.0) 1(10.0) 0(0.0)

Security 10 1(10.0) 1(10.2) 6(60.0) 1(10.0) 1(10.0)

According to the study findings in Table 4.28, 60.0% of the respondents strongly agreed that

the success of ERP system starts from its functional accurateness. Likewise, 80.0% of the

respondent agreed that the ERP system in their institution needs to be more interoperable.

Majority of the respondents representing 70.0% agreed that compliance is key to

functionality. However, 60.0% of the respondents were not sure if security issues contribute

functionality suitability of the system.

80
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Chapter Overview

This chapter contains a summary of the findings obtained from the research, conclusions and

recommendations on the topic of study. The researcher evaluated the findings and made

recommendations deemed necessary. The researcher answered the research questions based

on the findings of the study. In conclusion, the study contains the findings,

recommendations and suggestions on how the ERP can be used in universities to facilitate

better learning and management in universities in Kenya.

5.2. Summary
As much as higher learning institutions including universities heavily rely on the use of the

ERP as an education software system; they have to consider its usefulness it their daily

operations. This is because as stated earlier the ERP system was originally build for business

enterprises for business purposes. This was so before it evolved and started to be used in the

education sector in many countries including Kenyan institutions. Most of the ERP by then

focused on non-functional aspects. However, functionality aspects are important in the

education sector. This is so because functionality of this software goes hand in hand with

their quality. The quality of this software comprises of different characteristics, which

include software functional suitability, software reliability, software performance, software

efficiency, software operability, software security, software compatibility and software

transferability as stated by the ISO/IEC, 2011b. Functionality is emphasized since it

addresses the specific needs of the users of the software. User satisfaction is a priority since

it’s a prerequisite in the smooth use of the software.

81
5.3 Conclusion

This study was designed to respond to the following general objective: The main objective

of the study is to determine the status of ERP implementation in Kenyan universities,

identify the factors that affect the functionalities of the ERP systems in universities in Kenya

and to develop a model to measure functionalities of enterprise resource planning systems in

Kenyan universities, Kenya. In KMO analysis, we studied the four independent factors in

isolation but realized that they all contribute to the overall research objective of coming up

with the model.

Specific objective number one was to determine the status of ERP implementation in

Kenyan universities. Based on the study findings and the literature review constraints were

identified based on the ERP system in universities. The research identified lack of users’

involvement in functional suitability capture process of the system, failure to capture

functionality from all ERP users and wrong requirements captured from the users to be the

major constraints in the use of ERP in universities in Kenya.

The specific objective number two was to determine the functionality of Enterprise

Resource Planning systems in universities in Kenya. The research revealed that the success

of the ERP would start from its functional suitability. It further revealed that the ERP meets

the user needs and expectations. However, not all functions of the institution were captured

in the ERP system. The research also looked at the factors affecting the functional suitability

process. It revealed that functional suitability of the ERP system would depend on the

gender and age bracket of the ERP users. Furthermore, the age bracket affected the use of

the ERP to a large extend. Other factors such as the level of education of the users,

82
experience, availability of its users, varied preferences also affected the functional suitability

of ERP in universities in Kenya.

Literature was reviewed on the existing software quality models and technology adoption

models. Among the software quality models studied include the McCall Quality Model,

Boehm’s Quality Model and FURPS Quality Model. The characteristics of these models

were put into consideration and their weaknesses analyzed in relation to software functional

suitability. There characters were considered. Among other characteristics that were found

to be their major weaknesses in the three models include; software functionality was not

considered, functional suitability in all organization (including HE institution) is not

covered. In addition, no architectural integrity was covered in the three models.

Specific objective three was to develop a model to measure functional suitability of ERP

systems in universities in Kenya. This was achieved through analyzing the domains initially

identified and coming up with a model which acted as the output of the study.

Further, the results demonstrate that, there are moderating factors that need to be put into

consideration for successful use of the ERP in universities in Kenya. Top management

support, commitment of government bodies and ICT literacy levels can more effectively

encourage the use of ERP. This is because ERP relies on top management to provide

financial resources this goes hand in hand with commitment of government bodies. There is

also need for adequate well-trained technical and support staff who can successfully

implement ERP in universities.

5.4 Recommendations

83
For all government institutions including higher learning institutions to deploy fully the

education software systems like the ERP, the developers must spend much time

understanding the needs of these institutions. The developers must understand and satisfy

the needs and requirements of higher education, more so functionality. The ultimate goal

must and should always be user satisfaction. These does not come in vain but always

depends on functionality. Satisfaction always depends on different functionalities available

on the ERP application. The aperture that exists between institutional practice and the ERP

system works has to be reduced to a considerable amount. The specific issues that needs to

be addressed in this process includes but not limited to:-

i. The need to address ERP functionality through higher learning institutions

and its users being involved in the process of functional suitability analysis in

planning, before and in the process of ERP acquisition.

ii. There is need to address the causes and challenges that lead to ERP failure or

under-utilization in the learning institutions.

iii. There is an apparent need to look into stakeholders’ involvement (top

management) bureaucracy, ownership and business process re-engineering in

a coherent manner. This is necessary to investigate and understand how they

affect software functionality in higher education.

iv. Management support is very important in the proper functioning of the ERP.

Creation of awareness in staff, training, and all other forms of support go a

long way in making the ERP succeed or fail in learning institution.

5.5. Future Work

5.5.1. A Model for evaluating the quality Education Software Systems in Universities

84
Future study to explore on the possibility of coming up with a Model for evaluating the

quality of ERP system and other education systems in the higher education institutions,

focusing on their characteristics and sub-characteristics

5.5.2. Develop tools for Education Software Systems Quality evaluation

There is need also for further research and development of tools for quality evaluation,

focusing on empirical assessment of users’ satisfaction on the use of education software

systems.

REFERENCES

[1] S. K. R. Jharana Paikaray, Smaranika Mohapatra, “A New Approach toward

Locating ERP Components on Cloud Computing Architecture,” J. Comput. Sci.

Appl., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 143–146, 2015.

[2] G. G. A. A. Rabaa’i, W. Bandara, “ERP systems in the higher education sector: a

descriptive study,” in Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on

Information Systems, 2009, pp. 456–470.

[3] N. P. and J. Cornford, “ERP systems and the university as a ‘unique’ organisation,"

Information technology & people,” vol. 17, pp. 31–52, 2004.

[4] H. A. Awad, “One ERP system for twenty five universities An empirical investigation

for development ERP private cloud: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia universities case,” J.

Inf. Eng. Appl., vol. 4, pp. 77–81, 2014.

[5] ISO/IEC, “Software Engineering-Systems and Software Quality Requirements and

Evaluation,” ISO/IEC, 2011.

[6] F. et Al, “Evaluating the Quality of Software in e-Book Using the ISO 9126 Model,”

85
 IJCA, vol. 5, no. 2, 2012.

[7] M. et Al, “A Review of Software Quality Models for the Evaluation of Software

Products,” vol. 5, pp. 31–53, 2014.

[8] H. et Al, “Assessing ERP Post-Implementation Success at the Individual Level,” vol.

8, pp. 925–942, 2015.

[9] E. & Romero, “A System Quality Attributes Ontology for Product-Service System,”

CIRP, pp. 78–83, 2016.

[10] H. EI, “Effects of Outsourced Service Providers’ Experiences on Perceived Service

Quality,” vol. 8, pp. 1656–1677, 2016.

[11] W. et Al, “Software Quality,” ICSE, 2004.

[12] S. & Mika, “Quality Requirements for Software Dependent Safety Critical Systems

History, Current Status, and Future Needs.”

[13] Ashwin & [Link], “A Systematic Study of Software Quality Models,” IJSEA, vol.

2, no. 4, 2011.

[14] “Standard fo Software Maintenance, Software Engineering Standards Subcommittee

of the IEEE Computer Society,” IEEE, 1998.

[15] “IEEE STandard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology,” IEEE, p. 12, 1990.

[16] S. et Al, “Quality Models: Role and Value in Software Engineering,” ICSTE, pp.

320–324, 2010.

[17] P. & James, “A Probabilistic Model for Predicting Software Development Efforts,”

IEEE, vol. 31, no. 7, 205AD.

[18] K. & Taghi, “An Empirical Investigation of Filter Attributes Selection Techniques for

Software Quality Classification,” pp. 10–12, 2009.

86
[19] ISO/IEC, “Product Quality:Quality Model,” 2001.

[20] J. et Al, “A Review of Software Quality Models for the Evaluation of Software

Products,” IJSEA, vol. 5, no. 6, 2014.

[21] ISO/IEC, “Software Product Evaluation Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for

their use,” ISO/IEC, 2001.

[22] ISO/IEC, “Information Technology Software Process Assessment,” ISO/IEC, 2003.

[23] ISO/IEC, “Software Product Quality Requirements and Evaluation,” ISO/IEC, 2011.

[24] P. et Al, “Safety,Security,Now Sustainability,” 2014.

[25] Z. et Al, “Benefits and Quality of Software Development Documentation,” TJSSC,

no. 99, pp. 175–198, 2015.

[26] J. et Al, “Extending Software Architecture Views with an Energy Consumption

Perspective:A Case Study on Resource Consumption of Enterprise Software,” pp. 1–

21, 2016.

[27] R. et Al, “A note on Software tools and Technologies for Delivering Smart Media-

Optimized Big Data Applications in the Cloud Computing,” pp. 1–5, 2016.

[28] D. et Al, “The Impact of Automating Laboratory Request Forms on the Quality of

Healthcare Services,” vol. 9, pp. 749–756, 2016.

[29] ISO/IEC, “Systems and Software Engineering- Vocabulary,” IEEE, 2010.

[30] ISO/IEC, “Systems and Software Engineering - Lifecycle Processes Requirements

Engineering,” IEEE, 2011.

[31] R. & Piattini, “Systematic Review of Software Product Certification,” CISTI, pp.

631–636, 2012.

[32] Bahar, “ERP System Implementation,” 2005.

87
[33] Lehrstuhl, “What you should know about ERP,” Technische Universitat Munchen,

2010.

[34] Amin, “ERP Systems Functionalities in Higher Education,” PCS, 2015.

[35] Althonayan, “Evaluating Stakeholders Performance of ERP Systems in Saudi Arabia

Higher Education,” 2013.

[36] P. & Cornford, “Implcations of Enterprise Resource Planning for Universities.”

[37] Charisma, “Analysis and Case Studies,” 2014.

[38] Grady, “Practical Software Metrics for Project Management and Process

Improvement,” 1992.

[39] A. & Fekry, “ERP Systems Functionalities in Higher Education,” ICCMIT, 2015.

[40] Mohamed, “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System as an Innovative

Technology in Higher Education Context in Egypt.,” 2015.

[41] Z. & Velkavrh, “Implementing ERP systems in higher education institutions,” in

proceeding of the 27th international conference on information technology, 2005.

[42] S. M. #3 Mohamed Soliman Mohamed Soliman #1, *Noorliza Karia #2 and I. M. Md

Shamimul Islam#4, “Modelling Intention to Use ERP Systems among Higher

Education Institutions in Egyp,” 2015.

[43] 2SANGEETA ARORA 1RAMINDER PAL SINGH, “ERP CHALLENGES IN

HIGHER EDUCATION.”

[44] Matilda, “Change management success factors in ERP implementation,” 2006.

[45] A. Baharum, A., & Jaafar, “Evaluation Of Asean Mental Models Pattern Of Web

User- Centered Interface Design Using Eye-Tracking Technology.,” J. Comput. Sci.,

vol. 10(12), p. 2494., 2014.

88
[46] A. Baharum, A., & Jaafar, “Investigating Adaptive Asean Cultural Diversity Through

Users’mental Models For User Interface Design.,” J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol., vol.

61(3)., 2014.

[47] R. Buurman, “User-centred design of smart products. Ergonomics,” vol. 40(10), no.

1080/001401397187676, pp. 1159–1169, 1997.

[48] & E. Kontogiannis, T., “A user-centred design approach for introducing computer

based process information systems. Applied Ergonomics,” vol. 28(2), pp. 109–119,

1997.

[49] G. P. Brown, A. R., & Mulley, Do it yourself: home-made aids for disabled elderly

[Link] and Rehabilitation. 1997.

[50] V. PAPANECK, “Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change.

Frogmore,” 1994.

[51] D. SAFFER, “Designing for Interaction,” 2010.

[52] M. A. GRAY, C. M.; STOLTERMAN, E.; SIEGEL, “Reprioritizing the Relationship

Between HCI Research and Practice: Bubble-up and Tricke-Down Effects,” DIS, pp.

21–25, 2014.

[53] I. 9241-210, “Ergonomics Of Human-System Interaction,” ISO 9241-210, no. Part

210, 2010.

[54] D. P. and M. C. . Stefan Dumbrava, “A Three-tier Software Architecture for

Manufacturing Activity Control in ERP Concept,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., vol.

Volume: 04, no. Issue: 07.

[55] and P. K. Rerup Schlichter, Bjarne, “A comprehensive literature review of the ERP

research field over a decade,” J. Enterp. Inf. Manag., 2010.

89
[56] B. et Al, “Metrics to Evaluate Functional Quality,” CISTI, 2012.

[57] Jamwal, “Analysis of Software Quality Models for Organization,” EISSN, vol. 1, no.

2, 2010.

[58] T. et Al, “A Systematic Study of SOftware Quality Models,” IJSEA, vol. 2, no. 4,

2011.

[59] M. et Al, “Factors in Software Quality,” vol. 1, 1977.

[60] K. & Jawad, “Quality Model Based on Cots Quality Attributes,” IJSEA, vol. 4, 2013.

[61] Al-Qutaish, “Quality Models in Software Engineering Literature,” vol. 6, no. 3, pp.

166–175, 2010.

[62] B. et Al, “Customizing ISO 9126 Quality Model for Evaluation of B2B

Applications,” JIST, vol. 51, no. 3, 2009.

[63] Jamwal, “Analysis of Software Quality Models for Organizations,” IJLTC, vol. 1, no.

2, 2010.

[64] M. et Al, “A Systematic Quality Model for Evaluating Software Products,” 2002. .

[65] Gordon, “Are Canadian firms under Investing in Training?,” CBE, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.

25–33, 1992.

[66] Af. et Al, “Impact of training on employee performance,” IJCRB, p. 4,6, 2012.

[67] V. & Bala, “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on

Intervention,” pp. 273–315, 2008.

[68] Mutohar, “The Case of Teacher Utilization of Government Sponsored Technological

Resources,” in In society for information technology & teacher education

international conference, 2012, pp. 3411–3414.

[69] S. & Hughes, “Information Literacy as a Liberal Art,” no. 2, 1996.

90
[70] N. et Al, “A Theory of Behavior in Organizations,” 1980.

[71] G. et Al, “Understanding nonmalicious Security violations in the workplace,” JMIS,

vol. 2, pp. 203–236, 2011.

[72] H. et Al, “Does dererrence work in reducing information security policy abuse by

employees,” vol. 6, pp. 54–60, 2011.

[73] P. et Al, “Employees’ Behavior Towards IS Security Policy Compliance,” in In

proceeding of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2007.

[74] P. et Al, “Designing and Managing a Research Project,” vol. 5, 2009.

[75] Robert, “Determining sample size for research activities, educational and

psychological measurement,” vol. 6, pp. 607–610, 1970.

[76] Ongmany, “Training Course in Reproductive Health Research,” 2009.

[77] O. et Al, “Selecting the best and Brightest,” vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 325–340, 2002.

[78] T. & Rupp, “Assesment centers in Human Resource Management,” New Jersey,

2006.

APPENDIX 1: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

Dear respondent,

91
RE: MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a postgraduate student pursuing a Master of Science degree course in Information

Technology at Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology. My research topic is

“A Model to Measure Functional Suitability of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in

Kenyan universities”.

The aim of this letter is to humbly request you to fill the attached questionnaire to the best of

your knowledge to help me complete this academic endeavor. The information you will

provide will be treated with utmost confidentiality and shall be used for academic purposes

only. I will collect the completed questionnaire from your departmental office, or can be

sent online to osoredickson@[Link].

Your assistance is highly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

…………………………………………..

OSORE [Link] – SIT/G/14-58185/2016

SCHOOLOF COMPUTING AND INFORMATICS

92
APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION A DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

A1 Gender Male [ ] Female [ ]

A2 Level of Study Certificate [ ] Diploma [ ] Degree [ ] Masters

[ ] PhD [ ]

A3 Designation Secretary [ ] Administrator [ ] Academic Staff [ ]

Others …….…………………………………(Specify)

A4 Age in years Below 25 [ ] 25-30 [ ] 31-35 [ ] 36-40 [ ]

41-45 [ ] 46-50 [ ] Above 50 [ ]

A5 Level of experience in years worked in the university Below 2 [ ] 2-4 [ ]

4-6 [ ] 6-8 [ ] 8-10 [ ] Above 10 [ ]

A6 School you belong SCI [ ] EDU [ ] BIOLOGY [ ]

JOURNALISM [ ] ENGINEERING [ ] OTHERS

…………………….(SPECIFY)

A7 location Main Campus [ ] Satellite Campus [ ]

A8 Can you use a computer on your own Yes [ ] No [ ]

SECTION B – EDUCATION SOFTWARE SYSTEM (ERP) USE IN UNIVERSITY

B1 The University uses ERP to carry out its day to day activities

Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Not Sure [ ]

Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ]

B2 Have you ever used the ERP Yes [ ] No [ ]

B3 How frequent do you use ERP Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Once a

semester [ ] Rarely [ ] Never [ ]

B4 Have you been trained on how to use the ERP Yes [ ] No [ ]

93
B5 Have you ever been involved in the process of functional analysis before acquiring of

any education software in the university Yes [ ] No [ ]

B6 In your opinion, is it important for staff and other users to be involved in the process of

functional analysis before acquiring any education software system Yes [ ]

No [ ]

B7 How do universities acquire education software system they use

Developed by university [ ]

Bought from software vendors [ ]

SECTION C: USER INVOLVEMENT IN FUNCTIONAL SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

User involvement in ERP functional suitability analysis is important because it helps

developers capture user needs and expectations. Using the following scale, rate the extent to

which you agree to the statement above.

Key SA- Strongly Agree, A – Agree, NS – Not Sure, D- Disagree, SD- Strongly Disagree.

RESPONSE

STATEMENT SA A NS D SD

The institution asks staff for their needs and

C1 expectations of ERP before acquiring them.

I was not involved in any step of ERP functionality

C2 capture

The process of functionality capture is systematic

C3 and well organized

After I gave out my opinion, I was conducted again

C4 for verification and validation of my expectations.

94
 The technique used to capture functionality was

C5 appropriate for me

The time and place of functionality capture was

C6 suitable for me.

I was not informed about the functional requirement

C7 process

SECTION D: FUNCTIONAL SUITABILITY SUCCESS OF THE ERP

An education software system is considered successful if its users get exactly what they

expected from the system software i.e. when it meets the needs and expectation of users.

Using the following scale, rate the extent to which you agree to the statement above.

Key SA- Strongly Agree, A – Agree, NS – Not Sure, D- Disagree, SD- Strongly Disagree.

RESPONSE

STATEMENT SA A NS D SD

The success of any education software system

D1 starts from its functional suitability.

The ERP at my institution meets the needs and

D1 expectations of its users.

Not all functions were captured for the ERP at

D1 my institution.

I rarely use the ERP because it doesn’t address

D1 all my needs and expectations.

D1 The ERP at my institution fails to meet the

95
 needs and expectations of users.

The ERP in my institution is generally

D1 successful.

I rarely us the ERP because I don’t know how

D1 to use it

SECTION E: CAUSES OF ERP FAILURE/UNDER UTILIZATION

ERP fails when it doesn’t meet the needs and expectations of users. This leads to system

underutilization/ not being used well. Using the following scale, rate the extent to which you

agree to the statement above.

Key SA- Strongly Agree, A – Agree, NS – Not Sure, D- Disagree, SD- Strongly Disagree.

RESPONSE

STATEMENT SA A NS D SD

Lack of user involvement in functional

E1 suitability capture process.

From Failure to capture functionality from all

E2 users

E3 Wrong requirements captured from users

E4 Poor identification of real users of ERP

E5 Wrong interpretation of functionality analysis.

E6 Lack of skilled expert

E7 Lack of user understanding by ERP developers

E8 Lack of resources to help in the entire process

96
 of development.

Lack of management support for the entire

E9 process

Inappropriate tools used in functional

E10 suitability capture process.

F: FACTORS AFFECTING FUNCTIONAL SUITABILITY PROCESS

Education software system suitability is an important and extensive process of capturing the

needs and expectations of the users. However, this process is affected by a number of issues

ranging from human, organizational to environmental. Using the following scale, rate the

extent to which you agree to the statement above.

Key SA- Strongly Agree, A – Agree, NS – Not Sure, D- Disagree, SD- Strongly Disagree.

RESPONSE

STATEMENT SA A NS D SD

F1 Gender and age of ERP users.

F2 Level of education of ERP users

F3 Computer literacy level of ERP users

F4 Experience of ERP users

F5 Availability of the ERP users

F6 Diverse cultural background of the ERP users

F7 Geographical distribution of the users of ERP

Communication breakdown between ERP users

F8 and analysts

97
F9 Varied preferences of the ERP users.

Awareness and training on the functionality

F10 capture process

F11 Time of the functionality capture process

Technique/Method used to capture

F12 functionality from users

F13 Management support and decision making

F13 Institutional policies and bureaucracy

F14 Institutional functional suitability policy.

Participants lack of cooperation and motivation

F15

Experts experience when capturing

F16 functionality

F17 Lack of resources e.g. finance

98
APPENDIX 3: EDUCATION SOFTWARE SYSTEM INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
1. Gender [ ]

2. Designation …………………………………………………………….

3. What is your work experience in years?

4. How can you describe the software users in the university?

5. What approach does the university take in acquisition of software?

6. In any of the approaches taken, user functional suitability is carried out. How Important

ie functional suitability to Education software system success?

7. In your opinion do you think you are able to capture the needs and functionality of all

users of the university software?

8. Are there any existing functional suitability models used in the university?

9. If yes, describe briefly…………………………..

10. Is there any existing formal functional suitability policy in the institution?

11. Are there any factors that affect the functional suitability of education software systems

in your institution?

12. If yes, describe briefly………………………………

13. Do you conduct user awareness before functional suitability elicitation?

14. Do you sometimes re-invent functionality in-house?

15. Do you classify users into groups before extracting functionality from them?

16. Do you tailor a particular technique for a particular user group?

17. Is there a need to have a model tailored for heterogeneous education software system

users?

Thank you for taking your time to attend to this interview

99
APPENDIX 4: APPROVAL LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY

100
APPENDIX 5: RESEACH PERMIT FROM NACOSTI

101