企業資源規劃(ERP)系統在台灣企業已發展普及，但ERP系統績效評估仍舊是企業所關心的課題。以往的研究顯示ERP系統成員對ERP系統的易用性、有用性的認知程度，會影響使用者對ERP系統的持續使用意願及行為，但影響其意願與行為，是受到更多因素影響。有鑒於ERP建置成本高，對於使用後之有用性及持續使用意願及行為亦深具探討價值。
本研究採用調查研究法，透過問卷的形式來蒐集資料，問卷對象為ERP使用人員，加入了科技接受模式3中的工作相關性、認知外部控制、電腦自我效能、來探討易用性、有用性對持續使用意願及行為的影響，並加入習慣因子來探討持續使用的行為。嘗試從分析結果中瞭解研究對象對研究構面是否影響ERP系統能持續改進的重要關鍵因素。本研究經實際驗證顯示，知覺有用、習慣為直接影響持續使用ERP系統的意願之因素，知覺易用影響持續使用ERP系統的意願較薄弱。

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have been extensively implemented in Taiwan, but its performance evaluation is still the focus of concern. Previous studies have shown that ERP systems users’ perceived the ease of use and perceived usefulness will affect the continued use of ERP systems and behavior, but more factors may also affect their continuance to use. In view of the high cost of ERP implementation, this area of research needs more investigation. 
In this study, the survey research method was used. A questionnaire was designed to collect information about job relevance, perceptions of external control, and computer self-efficacy. Those data are related to the technology acceptance model 3. And habit is incorporated into the model as a mediating factor to explore the continued usage behavior. The results show that Perceived Usefulness and Habit have significant effect on the intention of continuing to use ERP system, but Perceived the Ease of Use does not have significant influenced.

目　次

誌謝	II
目　次	III
表目錄	IV
圖目錄	VI
第一章	緒論	1
第一節	研究背景與動機	1
第二節	研究目的	3
第二章	文獻探討	4
第一節	ERP	4
第二節	科技接受模式	6
第三節	延伸科技接受模式（TAM2）	9
第四節	科技接受模式3（TAM3）	12
第三章	研究方法	14
第一節	研究架構	14
第二節	研究假說	15
第三節	操作型定義與衡量問項	19
第四節	資料蒐集	27
第五節	資料分析方法	28
第四章	資料分析與探討	31
第一節	敘述型統計分析	31
第二節	信度與效度分析	34
第三節	假設檢定	38
第五章	結論與建議	44
第一節	研究結論與限制	44
第二節	研究貢獻及建議	48
參考文獻	50
附錄	56
 
表目錄

表3-1研究假設一覽表	15
表3-2工作相關之衡量題項	20
表3-3電腦自我效能之衡量題項	21
表3-4認知外部控制之衡量題項	21
表3-5知覺有用之衡量題項	23
表3-6知覺易用之衡量題項	24
表3-7持續使用意圖之衡量題項	24
表3-8持續使用意圖之衡量題項	25
表3-9習慣之衡量題項	26
表4-1請問您使用ERP系統時間	31
表4-2請問您目前使用的ERP系統為何	32
表4-3您的性別	32
表4-4您的年齡	33
表4-5您的教育程度	33
表4-6在目前單位的服務年資	34
表4-7各構面題項因素負荷量分析表(*為未達標準)	35
表4-8潛在構面平均變異數萃取量、組合信度和 Cronbach’s α值	36
表4-9構面間之相關係數矩陣	37
表4-10路徑檢定表(bootstrapping =2000)	38
表4-11本研究假說檢定結果	39
 
圖目錄

圖2-1科技接受模式	7
圖2-2科技接受模式2	10
圖2-3科技接受模式3	13
圖3-1研究架構與假設示意圖	14
圖4-1完整理論模型之PLS路徑圖	42
圖4-2完整理論模型之 PLS Bootstrapping 方法分析路徑圖	43

參考文獻
一、	中文文獻
1.		劉忠峰(Chung-Feng Liu), 翁明正(Meng-Cheng Weng), 吳欽和(Chin-Ho Wu), & 郭光明(Kuang-Ming Kuo). (2011). 以科技接受模式3探討網路大學系統使用意向之研究. Electronic Commerce Studies, 9(4), 407-432.
2.		吳智鴻(Chih-Hung Wu), & 蔡依錞(Yi-Chuen Tsai). (2014). 以科技接受模式來探討社群網站facebook的使用意圖. 國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報, 10(1), 29-44.
3.		李淑美(Shwn-Meei Lee), & 陳怡芳(Yi-Fang Chen). (2015). 習慣對社群綱站持續使用之影響研究－以facebook為例. 修平學報, (30), 63-89.
4.		林美孜. (2012). 科技接受模式、關係品質與持續使用意圖間之關係研究- 以醫院網路掛號系統為例.
5.		洪新原(Shin-Yuan Hung), 梁定澎(Ting-Peng Liang), & 張嘉銘(Chia-Ming Chang). (2005). 科技接受模式之彙總研究. 資訊管理學報, 12(4), 211-234.
6.		許文楷(Wen-Kai Hsu), 黃秀慧(Sheree Huang), & 陳榮方(Rong-Fan Chen). (2006). 企業員工對新導入資訊科技之學習態度研究－以erp系統之使用者為例. 教育心理學報, 38(1), 19-36.
7.		高玉芬, & 邱雅萍. (2008). 以科技接受模式探討線上學習系統之使用意願－以網路大學爲例. 萬能商學學報, (13), 83-101.
二、	英文文獻
1.	Alambaigi, A., & Ahangari, I. (2016). Technology acceptance model (TAM) as a predictor model for explaining agricultural experts behavior in acceptance of ICT. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 6(2), 235–247.
2.	Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
3.	Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
4.	Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
5.	Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., and Huff, S., Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study, MIS Quarterly(23:2), June, 1999, pp.145-158.
6.	Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189.
7.	Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 505–515.
8.	Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.
9.	Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of Two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
10.	Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9-30.
11.	Fornell, C. R. & Larcker, F. F. (1981), “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp.39-51.
12.	Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What happens after ERP implementation: understanding the impact of interdependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes. MIS quarterly, 559-585.
13.	Gefen, D., “Unidimensional Validity: An Explanation and Example”, CAIS, 12(2),(2003): 23-47.
14.	Hill, T., Smith, N. and Mann, M. (1987) “Role of Efficacy Expectations in Predicting the Decision to Use Advanced Technologies: The Case of Computer”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 303−313.
15.	Hulland, J. (1999). "Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies, " 20: Strategic Management Journal, pp.195-224.
16.	Joo, Y. J., & Kim, N. (2016). Factors predicting online university students’ use of a mobile learning management system (m-lMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 611–630.
17.	Lee, A. C., T. J. Bussey, E. A. Murray, L. M. Saksida, R. A. Epstein, N. Kapur, J. R.
18.	Hodges, and K. S. Graham, “Perceptual Deficits in Amnesia: Challenging The Medial Temporal Lobe ‘Mnemonic’ View”, Neuropsychologia, 43(1), (2005):1-11.
19.	Kieras, D. E. and P. G. Polson, 1985. “An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity.” Internat, J. of Man-Machine Stud, 22, p.365-394.
20.	Kim, S. S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management science, 51(5), 741-755.
21.	Lankton, N. K., Wilson, E. V., & Mao, E. (2010). Antecedents and determinants of information technology habit. Information & Management, 47(5), 300-307.
22.	Legris, P., J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, “Why do People Use Information Technology? a Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model”, Information and Management, 40(3), (2003): 191-204.
23.	Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS quarterly, 705-737.
24.	Limayenm, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2003). Habit in the context of IS continuance: theory extension and scale development. ECIS 2003 Proceedings, 90.
25.	Lin, H. X., Choong, Y. Y., & Salvendy, G. (1997). A proposed index of usability: a method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems. Behaviour & information technology, 16(4-5), 267-277.
26.	Morris M. G. and A. Dillon, “The Influence of User Perceptions on Software Utilization: Application and Evaluation of a Theoretical Model of Technology Acceptance”, IEEE Software, 14(4), (1997): 56-75.
27.	Orbell, S.,Hodgkins, S.,&Sheeran, P. (1997). Implementation intentions and the theory of planned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 953-962.
28.	Park, K. S., & Lim, C. H. (1999). A structured methodology for comparative evaluation of user interface designs using usability criteria and measures. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 23(5), 379-389.
29.	Polson, P.G. and J. M.Carroll, ed., 1987. “A quantitative theory of human-computer interaction.” Interfacing Thought.MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, p.184-235.
30.	Scott, F & Shepherd, J. (2002). The steady stream of ERP investments. AMR Research Outlook, August 26, 2002.
31.	Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
32.	Taylor, D. G., & Strutton, D. (2010). Has e-marketing come of age? Modeling historical influences on post-adoption era Internet consumer behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 950–956.
33.	Thatcher, J. B., & Perrewe, P. L. (2002). An empirical examination of individual traits as antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 381.
34.	Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press.
35.	Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
36.	Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision sciences, 27(3), 451-481.
37.	Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Fred D. Davis. "A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies." Management science 46.2 (2000): 186-204.
38.	Venkatesh, V., C. Speier, and M. G. Morris, “User Acceptance Enablers in Individual Decision Making about Technology: Toward an Integrated Model”, Decision Sciences, 33(2), (2002): 297-316.
39.	Willems, J. R., & Bhuiyan, S. (2006). Implementing ERP software into business school curriculum: it is more common, less difficult and more important than you may think. Issues in Information Systems, 7(1), 278-283.
40.	Zhang, Z., Lee, M. K., Huang, P., Zhang, L., & Huang, X. (2005). A framework of ERP systems implementation success in China: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 98(1), 56-80.