Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

CRITIQUING RESEARCH ARTICLE

ASMAA MASOOD

Introduction

Data Collection

There is no definition for the ERP systems and the references is too much and all of them included between article words, it was uncomfortable for me as a reader.

On the other hand, it give a sense of what was done in the study, also it introduced the problem and developed background of the study.

Research scope and setting

The source of population and sample is included.

The questionnaire is consistent and reliable.

The sample is representative, so we can generalized the findings.

The sample was chosen based on sectorial and layered bases.

The researchers are honest, they mentioned that they distributed 500 questionnaires, the returns is only 122 questionnaires (effective response rate of 24.4%) only 109 were counted!!!!!!

The summarized profile and for included firms were attached, this give us an idea about the nature of those firms and their characteristics. Demographic profile for respondents (109) was attached too.

To test that this is the intended sample, the researchers used the Chi-square tests. Using many tests, e. g. Harmon one factor test was used to assess if such biases were a problem in the sample.

Instrument development

Key Words

The researcher described the instrument that he used, and each measure from where he obtained it, he used different measures for each dimension.

The key words is relevant and informative. It identify the main ideas and covers all topics that discussed in the research

Theoretical Background

Data Analysis

The Abstract

The context: how we consider the ERP system is a successful one?

A different view from the traditional concept of success, where the researchers identified the definitions of success from too many previous writers' points of views.

The researchers mentioned the disadvantages of current used measures. They indicated it with more focusing on the most famous one " D&M (1992) IS success model", this model is easy and meaningful? So why not using it? Why the researchers payed efforts to introduce another one and promote it for others?

Why we -as readers- should pay attention for the results of this study?!

The researchers mentioned the names of the used tools, why they used it. In addition, for which part of analysis. Adding, they mentioned the version of used software.

It introduces a summary for the topics, it also listed the dimensions of the variable that the research going to study.

It encourages the readers to continue due to being informative and give them summarized picture to determine if they are interested or not.

It is within the range of 50-250 words in length. –Based to the publisher requirements-.

Discussions

The figures are so simple and easy to understand,

Which fields the previous researchers studies? What parameters/dimensions of success they study? A detailed description of " D&M (1992) model. Moreover, how it evolved over years until 2004.

Clear history record for evolving the IS success measures was expressed.

D&M (1992) model --> D&M (2003) model --> Sedera and colleagues. 2004

--> Ifinedo, 2006; Ifinedo, Nahar 2007 --> this model under testing (I did not understand who developed it!)

There is too many references used in this part, and the researchers was neutral, there is no bias or preferences for one model over others, the researchers mentioned the advantages and disadvantages of each model objectively.

The researchers does not present new model, they just tested an existed one.

The Study Title

Starting with the goal of this study, the researchers listed the findings, where results provided strong support only for 5 out of 6 H. surprisingly, the study did not give support for one H. and the researchers explained the expected reasons.

they suggested that more studies are needed to consolidate insight in this aspect.

The researchers listed about 6 key points for the importance of this study.

Relationships among ERP post-implementation success constructs: An analysis at the organizational level

The title clearly indicates what the research is about, without being extremely long or too short to be informative.

The variables and the theoretical issues stated in the title

Hypotheses Formulation

The Publisher

The Researchers

References

Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, W., & Chen, J. (in press). What leads to post-implementation success of ERP? An empirical study of the Chinese retail industry. International Journal of Information Management.

Zviran, M., Pliskin, N., & Levin, R. (2005). Measuring user satisfaction and perceived usefulness in the ERP context. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(3), 43–52.

.

Simplified description of the dimensions of ERP success evaluation, but there was no scientific definitions with references.

Based to the model, there is 6 applicable correlation relationships, but there is more based to the D&M 2003 (another model), the researchers proved the existing relationships using a positive relationship, it would be better if they considered the rest of relationships as null relationships and prove it.

The researchers listed others results about the existence of such relationships or not.

There is sth wrong; the explanations of the H. is different from the definition of the dimensions

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi