Article Preview
Top2. Literature Review
ERP system provides the flawless integration of all the information curving through the company such as secretarial, finance, supply chain, human resource and client information (Mukti & Rawani, 2016). ERP systems can be distinct as assimilated software bundle composed of a set of distinctive practical elements such as manufacturing, sales, human capitals, economics, etc., which can be adapted to the specific needs of each organization (Botta-Genoulaz & Millet, 2006). The ERP thoroughly integrates all the operational processes in the organizations (manufacturing and production, finance and accounting, sales & marketing and human capitals) that have been implemented as scattered systems into a solo software system. This system facilitates the integration of information by utilizing a central data storehouse allowing effective use of information by different parts within an organization (Laudon & Laudon, 2015) (Botta-Genoulaz & Millet, 2006).
Implementation of ERP systems in an organization gives the new opportunity to the managers of the companies to connect with their counterparts i.e. employees and staffs working under different departments. ERP system also helps to achieve many benefits including the accessibility of incorporated information, a high responsiveness to customers’ and suppliers' need and the stipulation of timely information to decision-makers. As the majority of researchers have investigated ERP success. Only a few studies have concentrated on users’ point of view (Po-An Hsieh & Wang, 2007). Assessing the post-implementation success of ERP systems from the side of individual users is crucial as ERP systems may be due in part to underutilization of the systems by the users. As studies have exposed, a common cause for ERP failures can be credited to users’ disinclination or refusal to adopt and use the recently implemented ERP system (F. F. Nah, Lau, & Jinghua, 2001).
Knowledge and its management were emphasized on the mid-1980s, the organizations started to appreciate and focus on an individual’s knowledge and the importance of their knowledge. In this era, organizations emphasized product quality, quality, and facilities, the receptiveness of products, using the appropriate placement of an individual’s knowledge. Many of the literature has defined the Knowledge Management (KM) but Davenport (1994) postulated KM as “the process of capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organizational knowledge” (Davenport, 1994). Later Duhon (1998) provided another definition: “KM is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise's information assets” (Duhon, 1998). According to Gloet and Terziovski (2004), KM is the interpretation of experience and how to access that knowledge and proficiency, that produce new competencies, empower superior routine, boost innovation, and increase customer satisfaction. This study also described the KM act as an umbrella for a variety of interconnecting terms, such as knowledge conception, knowledge assessment, and metrics, knowledge aligning and indexing, knowledge conveyance, storing and circulation and knowledge allocation (Gloet & Terziovski, 2004).