The aim of this paper is to determine the relationship between the quality of information from the Enterprise Resource Planning system (ERP system) and business performance. The quality of information from the ERP system is assessed using a survey questionnaire examining the end users of the ERP system, namely middle and top management because they use information from the ERP system to make business decisions. Business performance is monitored from a controlling point of view, using selected indicators from the DuPont system. Empirical research was conducted on medium and large enterprises in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The existence of a positive correlation between information quality and business performance was examined using regression analysis and correlation analysis. Regression analysis and correlation analysis indicate that return on sale (ROS) and return on assets (ROA) have a medium significant correlation with the quality of information, and total asset turnover ratio (TR) does not correlate with the quality of information. Based on the obtained results, a positive relationship between the quality of information from the ERP system and business performance was confirmed. This can be interpreted that information is becoming an increasingly important resource in supporting organizational activities, and information quality has been identified as one of the main determinants influencing the decision-making process.
Amaratunga D, Baldry D. Moving from performance measurement to performance management. Facilities. 2002;20(5/6):217–23.
2.
Bailey JE, Pearson SW. Development of a Tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science. 1983;29:530–45.
3.
Belak V. Analiza poslovne uspješnosti: 130 ključnih pokazatelja performanse i mjerila za kontroling. 2014;
4.
DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research. 1992;3(1):60–95.
5.
DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A ten-year update. Journal of management information system. 2003;19(4):9–30.
6.
Dezdar S. User Satisfaction Issues in ERP Projects, Engineering and Technology. International Journal of Computer and Systems Engineering. 2012;6(8):2277–80.
7.
Even A, Shankaranarayanan G, Watts S. Enhancing decision making with process metadata: theoretical framework, research tool and exploratory examination. 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2006;(ICSS’06), Vol. 8):209–19.
8.
Freund RJ, Wilson WJ, Sa P. Regression Analysis: Statistical modeling of a response variable. 2006.
9.
Glowalla P, Sunyaev A. ERP system fit - an explorative task and data quality perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2014;27(5):668–86.
10.
Goodhue DL. Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information system. Decision Sciences. 1998;29:105–38.
11.
Haug A, Zachariassen F, Liempd D. The costs of poor data quality. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 2011;4(2):168–93.
12.
Matić I. Utjecaj razvijenosti organizacijskog učenja na poslovne performanse organizacije (magistarski rad. 2009;
13.
Nah F, Lau J. Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal. 2001;7(3):285–96.
14.
Nazemi E, Tarokh MJ, Djavanshir GR. ERP: A literature survey. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2012;999–1018.
15.
Nelson RR, Todd PA, Wixom BH. Antecedents of Information and System Quality: An Empirical Examination Within the Context of Data Warehousing. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2005;21(4):199–235.
16.
Nowak E. Controlling in company performance. 2004.
17.
O’Reilly CA. Variations in decision makers, use of information sources: the impact of quality and accessibility of information. The Academy of Management Journal. 1982;25:756–71.
18.
Očko J, Švigir A. Kontroling - upravljanje iz backstagea. 2009.
Petter S, DeLone W, McLean E. Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures,and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems. 2008;17:236–63.
21.
Petz B. Osnovne statističke metode za nematematičare. 2007.
22.
Pipino LL, Lee YW, Wang RY. Data quality assessment. Communications of the ACM. 2002;45:211–8.
23.
Porat A, Haas J. Information effects on decision making. Behavioral Science. 2006;14:98–104.
24.
Redman TC. Data Quality: The field guide. 2001.
25.
Ross JW, Weill P, Robertson D. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy. 2006.
26.
Seddon PA. Respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research. 1997;8, 3:240–53.
27.
Simkus J. What is ANOVA (Analysis Of Variance. In: Simply Psychology www.simplypsychology.org/anova.html, pristup na dan 1592022. 2022.
28.
Soh C, Kien SS, Tay-Yap J. Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution? Communications of the ACM. 2000;43(4):47–51.
29.
Strong DM, Lee YW, Wang RY. Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM. 1997;40:103–10.
30.
Šlibar D. Instrumenti i postupci analize financijskih izvještaja, Računovodstvo i porezi u praksi. 2010;5:1–4.
31.
Udovičić M, Baždarić K, Bilić-Zulle L, Petrovečki M. Što treba znati kada izračunavamo koeficijent korelacije? Biochemia Medica. 2007;17(1):1–15.
32.
Xu H. ERP Implementation Satisfaction - A Data Quality Approach. Journal of Technology Research. 2019;8:1–16.
33.
Xu H, Nord H, Jeretta B, Noel N, Daryl G. Data quality issues in implementing an ERP. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2002;102(1):47–58.
34.
Zakon o računovodstvu i reviziji u Federaciji Bosne i Hercegovine. Službene novine Federacije BiH. 2010;(83).
35.
Žager K, Žager L, Sever S, Mamić-Sačer I. Analiza financijskih izvještaja. 2008;
36.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
