5.1. Detailed item analysis The ite

5.1. Detailed item analysis

The item score versus the factor score correlations are used to determine if an item belongs to the factor as assigned, belong to other factors, or should be eliminated. If an item does not correlate highly with any of the factors, it is eliminated. Table 3 shows the Varimax rotation (correlation) matrix for the eight critical factors identified and the individual items that load on each factor. As shown in Table 3, most of the items have high correlations with the factors to which they were assigned relative to the other factors. Summarily, it was concluded that the items had been appropriately assigned to the critical factors. The internal consistency analysis for the factors is given in Table 4. The alpha values for the eight factors ranged from 0.67 to 0.93, with the project management principles being the most consistent. The next issue is to determine the extent to which the identified critical factors correlate with ERP implementation. On a seven-point scale ranging from very unsuccessful to very successful, the respondents were asked to rate how they would characterize ERP implementation in their respective companies. The response to this global item was correlated with the eight factors. The results are shown in Table 5. Six of the eight factors are significant at the 0.01 level. These are project management principles, feasibility/evaluation of ERP system, business process reengineering, top management support, cost/budget analysis, and consulting services. Top management support, process reengineering, and consulting services show the strongest correlation with ERP implementation. The correlations of human resource development and IT Kaiser Normalization as the rotation method, eight critical factors were identified based on the Eigenvalue criterion. The screen-plot (SPSS software) also revealed the presence of eight factors. The eight factors explained 86% of the variances. Table 4 presents the original items that make up each of the eight factors along with their internal consistency. business) and 4 (access the integrity of existing databases) were not plausible as their correlations with factors 3 (human resource development) and 8 cant. After taking a closer look at these two items, it is concluded that while all other 36 items belong to what the industry call best ERP practice, the two fell outside this best practice category and thus, should not have been included in the questionnaire. Rather than integrate ERP-software into existing business processes (item 2), successful companies draw their process requirement needs and select the system that best fits these needs to the greatest extent possible. Once these are done, the company would either customize the software or adapt their processes to particular software. Thus, items 2 and 4 were removed from the questionnaire. Two additional items, #19 implementation) did not show strong correlation when assigned to factor 7. Essentially, the items did not measure what they were intended to measure (validity) and thus, were not assigned to the appropriate factors. Obviously, having a stress breaker when times are tough (item 19) is an ambiguous question since the item has about equally low correlation within three infrastructure are weak and not significant. This might imply that either the factors are not properly loaded or that these two factors are not as crucial as the other factors in terms of successful ERP implementation.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

5.1. chi tiết mục phân tích The item score versus the factor score correlations are used to determine if an item belongs to the factor as assigned, belong to other factors, or should be eliminated. If an item does not correlate highly with any of the factors, it is eliminated. Table 3 shows the Varimax rotation (correlation) matrix for the eight critical factors identified and the individual items that load on each factor. As shown in Table 3, most of the items have high correlations with the factors to which they were assigned relative to the other factors. Summarily, it was concluded that the items had been appropriately assigned to the critical factors. The internal consistency analysis for the factors is given in Table 4. The alpha values for the eight factors ranged from 0.67 to 0.93, with the project management principles being the most consistent. The next issue is to determine the extent to which the identified critical factors correlate with ERP implementation. On a seven-point scale ranging from very unsuccessful to very successful, the respondents were asked to rate how they would characterize ERP implementation in their respective companies. The response to this global item was correlated with the eight factors. The results are shown in Table 5. Six of the eight factors are significant at the 0.01 level. These are project management principles, feasibility/evaluation of ERP system, business process reengineering, top management support, cost/budget analysis, and consulting services. Top management support, process reengineering, and consulting services show the strongest correlation with ERP implementation. The correlations of human resource development and IT Kaiser Normalization as the rotation method, eight critical factors were identified based on the Eigenvalue criterion. The screen-plot (SPSS software) also revealed the presence of eight factors. The eight factors explained 86% of the variances. Table 4 presents the original items that make up each of the eight factors along with their internal consistency. business) and 4 (access the integrity of existing databases) were not plausible as their correlations with factors 3 (human resource development) and 8 cant. After taking a closer look at these two items, it is concluded that while all other 36 items belong to what the industry call best ERP practice, the two fell outside this best practice category and thus, should not have been included in the questionnaire. Rather than integrate ERP-software into existing business processes (item 2), successful companies draw their process requirement needs and select the system that best fits these needs to the greatest extent possible. Once these are done, the company would either customize the software or adapt their processes to particular software. Thus, items 2 and 4 were removed from the questionnaire. Two additional items, #19 implementation) did not show strong correlation when assigned to factor 7. Essentially, the items did not measure what they were intended to measure (validity) and thus, were not assigned to the appropriate factors. Obviously, having a stress breaker when times are tough (item 19) is an ambiguous question since the item has about equally low correlation within three infrastructure are weak and not significant. This might imply that either the factors are not properly loaded or that these two factors are not as crucial as the other factors in terms of successful ERP implementation.