Adaptive User Interface Personalization in ERP Systems ...

Adaptive User Interface Personalization in ERP Systems

Zdenek Eichler1 and Martin Dostal2

1 Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University Brno, Botanicka 68a60200 BRNO, Czech Republic

[email protected] Wolkerova 647/4

77900 OLOMOUC, Czech [email protected]

Abstract. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems had grown into complexapplications integrating various processes and large amounts of data in detail.Such complexity negatively impacts usability owing to providing single staticuser interface that should meet users with diverse roles, tasks and requirements.In this paper we introduce a concept of adaptive user interface personalizationin the SAP ERP system. We address two important aspects of personalization;(1) personalization to the user’s prominent tasks, (2) personalization of individ-ual on-screen task forms using adaptive progressive disclosure with ephemeralvisualization. In the next we describe a mock-up of our adaptive system in detailand results of brief questionnaire study.

Keywords: Adaptive User Interfaces, ERP Systems, Usability.

1 Introduction

Today Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are often large-scale complex sys-tems covering a huge number of different tasks performed across entire organization [1,18]. Among other aims, ERP systems struggle for an increase of the operational effi-ciency and information flow within the organization [2]. However, ERP systems hadbeen criticized for poor usability over a long period [21]. The reasons for usability is-sues can be identified in several causes; (1) ERP systems are complex systems coveringa huge number of tasks. (2) There is a lack of usability metrics and methodologiesthat address ERP specifics [11, 20]. (3) ERP’s user interfaces often do not follow Hu-man Interface Guidelines and principles of good user interface design appropriately.(4) A static, “one-size-fitts-all”, interface is shared by users with diverse roles, tasks,requirements and responsibilities. Typically, users use only a small fraction of the pro-vided functionality while the unused functionality represent a burden for efficient useof the system. Although there are no studies available on analyzing the differences be-tween ERP systems users, these had been analyzed in the area of word processing tasksin detail [3, 4, 16].

Poorly organized interfaces are obviously a particular cause for users’s annoyance,disorientation, confusion and cutting of productivity. Moreover, substantial differencesacross users can be identified even in performing a single task. The tasks in ERP user

W. Abramowicz, J. Domingue, K. W ↪ecel (Eds.): BIS 2012 Workshops, LNBIP 127, pp. 49–60, 2012.c© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

50 Z. Eichler and M. Dostal

interfaces are typically represented by complex on-screen forms composed of tenthsof user controls. However, users of different roles usually interact with a small subsetof user controls available within the form. These differences in requirements can beaddressed by user interface personalization.

User interface personalization is a process in which the user interface is adjusted toindividual user’s needs. Personalization may be either user- or system-driven. It is rep-resented by adaptive and adaptable user interfaces. Adaptive interfaces dynamicallyand automatically adjust the interface in order to conform to the user’s needs and us-age habits. Such systems provide a mechanism to understand the user and build-uppersonalized user interface. Again, adaptable interfaces provide customization mech-anisms which rely on the user to apply those mechanisms to do the adaptation. Forinstance, users can customize a menu, a toolbar or assign custom keystrokes. The ad-vantage of user interface personalization is that the user is provided with a user inter-face that is customized to individual requirements. On the other side, personalizationhas also disadvantages. It has been reported that the user-driven adaptation is usuallytoo complex for the “average user” [15, 17]. Various studies [10, 12–14, 19] reportedusers’ dissatisfaction by adaptive user interfaces when usability design principles areviolated. Also several comparative studies between adaptive, adaptable and static userinterfaces [7,9,15,23] showed that users preferred a static or an adaptable user interfaceover the adaptive one.

To date, adaptive interfaces have been studied mostly on research mock-ups (theseapplications serve for interaction research, no real functionality is provided), or eitherword processors or spreadsheets. However, the idea of adaptive personalization of ERPsystems is not new. It has already been mentioned by Singh et. al [20–22], for instance.In this paper we introduce a concept of adaptive user interface personalization in theSAP ERP system that (1) personalizes the user interface to tasks frequently and/or re-cently used by the user, and (2) personalizes on-screen forms to frequently and/or re-cently used parts of the form on the basis of the so-called ephemeral visualization [8].The concept is built upon our existing system called “Boulevard” which personalizesuser interface of the OpenOffice.org Writer text processor. We introduce Boulevardbriefly in the following section.

2 Boulevard

Boulevard, our system for adaptive user interface personalization (depicted on Fig. 1),is represented as a panel container window containing the personalized user interfaceof the application — currently the OpenOffice.org Writer word processor. In contrastto the adaptive user interfaces these days, it does not modify the static part of the inter-face destructively (e.g. menu or toolbar contents or structure) so that a user is able toclearly understand which part of the user interface is static and which part is dynamic(adaptive). Seemingly, this approach could reduce user disorientation and improve theunderstanding of the user interface. It also provides a choice to use or not to use theadaptive part of the user interface. Furthermore, since the panel container centralizesthe most preferred functionality of the application, the user’s effort required to find acommand in complex menus or toolbars is reduced. In contrast to pull down menus,

Adaptive User Interface Personalization in ERP Systems 51

Fig. 1. Boulevard in OpenOffice Writer word processor

the functionality provided by our adaptive panel container is directly available withoutthe need to open and navigate within a menu — this feature is sometimes referred as“one-click” approach.

Our system addresses various aspects of personalization, such as personalization touser preferred commands, preferred user interface representations and most frequentlyused parameter values applied to user commands. The system automatically tracks theuser activity in the Writer application and considers the frequently and/or recently useduser commands (see Section 2.1 for more detail) as the prominent for the user. Boule-vard is driven internally by a forward-chaining expert system, more information aboutthe expert system implementation can be found in [5]. Boulevard provides the followingfeatures to support the user:

Discovering prominent functionality — we propose innovative algorithms for com-puting the user command prominence. See section 2.1 for details.

The “Sweeping-back” feature — provides an intelligent organization of similar usercommands. Besides the frequency and/or recency of usage, our system organizesuser commands in the panel according to their semantical relationships using thegrouping at rows. For example, “Bold”, “Italic” and “Underline” represent a groupof font style related commands, or “Align-left”, “Align-right”, “Center” and “Jus-tify” command represent the text alignment group.

Adaptive representation — performs the personalization on user interface usage style.In addition to the user commands usage, our system also tracks interaction stylesused to issuing user commands. Most user commands can be applied using var-ious interaction styles, typically using a menu, a toolbar button, a pop-up menu,a keystroke or a dialog. Our system presents user commands in the panel con-tainer visually, according to the most frequently used interaction style. The mostfrequently used interaction style on a command is considered as the most preferred


representation. Presumably, users associate user commands with their visual repre-sentation, e.g. “Print” as a toolbar icon with a printer symbol or “New” as a menuitem in an upper part of “File” menu category. It enables a visual association witha user command representation in the panel container corresponding to the interac-tion style preferred by the user.

Recommending parameter values for user commands — we extend the personal-ization procedure by recommending the most frequently used values to apply touser commands, e.g., most frequently used colors or font sizes. Actually, such pa-rameters are offered to the user as individual commands applied directly with thedesired value, e.g. red text color button, blue text color button, etc. See the next-to-last row of the Boulevard depicted on Fig. 1.

Adaptive disclosure — the panel container allows to contain, apart from the menuand toolbar items, also dialogs depicted in Boulevard as forms. However, only thefrequently used parts of dialogs are presented. In fact, it is an adaptive variant ofthe well established interaction technique called progressive disclosure, which se-quences complex dialogs or screens to several parts (i.e. from basic to advancedfeatures) that can be disclosed progressively by the user in order to manage the vi-sual clutter and reduce overwhelming number of presented features to the user. Theprincipal difference from the common progressive disclosure is that the our variantis controlled adaptively.

2.1 Discovering the Prominent Functionality

Here we describe how the prominence of a user command is observed from the user’sinteraction with the application. Basically, we consider the most frequently used com-mands the most prominent for the user. It well reflects long-time usage patterns. Inaddition to tracking the frequency of user commands usage, we also track recentlyused commands in order to personalize to short-time usage patterns. The motivationfor tracking the recently used commands can be expressed by the following example:a user obtains a new task which requires the usage of not yet frequently enough usedfunctionality of the application. Nevertheless, such functionality may also be useful tobe included in the panel container in order to support the user’s work on the new task.Using the tracking of user command usage frequency only, such functionality would notappear in the panel container until it is used frequently enough. However, by utilizationof the recently used commands tracking in conjunction with tracking of the frequencyof usage, such functionality can quickly appear in the panel container. Again, if the userstops using such recently used functionality, it will disappear quickly from the panelcontainer.

Using Formula 1 the user command prominence is computed. In this formula, |x|expresses the count of user command x activations, T expresses the total count of allcommands activations. This part of the formula represents the frequency of usage factor.The rest of the formula is related to the recency of usage factor. Each user commandmay appear in the queue of size q at multiple positions. We put the set Px which containsthe positions of occurrence of user command x in the queue. The topmost position is 1(refers to the most recently used user command) and the lowermost position is q.


The w ∈< 0, 1 > parameter represents the weight of relative frequency of usagefactor (long-time usage patterns), while 1 − w represent the weight of recently useduser commands factor (short-time usage patterns). The result of the formula is a valuewhich we term as the rank of a user command x. Rank(x) ∈< 0, 1 > expresses theprominence of a particular user command x for the user.

rank(x) = w|x|T

+ (1− w)

∑pi∈Px

(q − pi + 1)∑q

i=1 i(1)

2.2 Proof-of-Concept Usability Study

The goal of the study was to verify the basic concepts behind our system. We usedboth quantitative and qualitative measures focused on task time and error rate analysismeasured on selecting user commands using three different interaction styles: toolbar,menu and Boulevard. The study provided promising results because the utilization ofBoulevard was found comparable to toolbars in quantitative measurements (althoughno statistically significant difference was found) and faster than menus. More impor-tantly, Boulevard was well received by users. According to qualitative measures, it wasrated as a better interaction style than toolbar and menus by most of the participants.Furthermore, most participants reported that they would like to use Boulevard. Moredetails can be found in [5, 6].

3 Adaptive Personalization of ERP System

We introduce an adaptive user interface that inherits Boulevard benefits and principles.Boulevard integrated in ERP system should be little different from the Boulevard inword processor owing to different interaction techniques and nature of ERP systemsand enterprise environment.

Adaptive user interfaces seem promising to be used in ERP systems for several rea-sons. From the economic point of view, a properly personalized user interface couldreduce task times and thus increase productivity. Furthermore, a precise customiza-tion of ERP individual developers is very costly and must be performed repeatedly toachieve good results. That is why we introduce the adaptive user interface which canperform continuous, fine-grained adaptation without additional costs for customization.Below we present principles and features of Boulevard modified and designed for theERP system environment. Not all features of Boulevard’s word processor implementa-tion are utilized, because screens in ERP systems are typically more complex than mostdialogs in word processors, thus some features seem not suitable for ERP systems andsome must be adapted from the word processing environment to ERP.

3.1 Nondestructive Approach

Boulevard separates the user interface into the adaptive (dynamic) part and the staticpart. The adaptive part of the interface does not affect the static part in contrast to de-structive approach used in many adaptive user interfaces. Usage of an add-on panel,


where the functionality is duplicated and the original interface remains in its originalstate, was found beneficial in our study [5,6]. It has been recognized that interfaces de-structively changing under the user’s hand are considered annoying and causes excessesin task times in cases when adaptivity does not supports the user correctly. We considersuch property especially important for enterprise environment, for the following rea-sons: (1) when the prediction fails to meet users’ requirements, they can easily continuetheir work using the original static part of the user interface without an excess in tasktime. (2) A user support (e.g. on telephone or by manuals) is much more easy whenboth advisor and user see exactly the same user interface, which is hard to accomplishin destructively adapted user interfaces.

Fig. 2. SAP ERP Easy Access

Fig. 3. Original SAP ERP user interface


3.2 List of Prominent Functionality

In the ERP environment user commands are represented by the so-called transac-tions (i.e. data manipulation tasks) and reports. Todays ERP systems often utilize acustomizable list (in SAP ERP called SAP Easy Access) of user defined commands.Such a list we depict on Fig. 2. The list of prominent functionality must be maintainedmanually and repeatedly by the user, while performing such a customization is quite acomplex task. It has been recognized that the user-driven adaptation is often too com-plex for the user [15, 17]. Furthermore, as users’ work habits change, they need torecustomize the user interface again.

In Boulevard, the list of frequently and/or recently performed user commands ismaintained automatically, which saves user’s time and energy required to maintain cus-tomization manually. Also skills required to perform such personalization by user arenot necessary. Prominent commands are easily accessible using direct, “one-click” ac-tivation. The algorithm for discovering prominent commands is basically the same asin Boulevard for the word processing environment. In order to support the readabilityand predictability of the Boulevard behavior, the user interface changes are supportedby animations.

3.3 Recommending Predicted Parameter Values

This feature assists the user in performing user commands (transactions) repeatedlywith some constant invariant parameters (fields values). Boulevard ensures automaticfill-in of frequently and/or recently used values in particular fields. This feature preventsthe user from entering the same values in particular form fields repeatedly.

3.4 Adaptive Disclosure with Ephemeral Visualization

This feature should reduce the visual search time and accelerate interaction in complexscreens (transactions) while maintaining spatial consistency. Adaptive disclosure is pro-cessed in three stages: (1) discovering the prominent functionality, (2) visualization ofthe prominent functionality and (3) adaptive focus traversal in the on-screen forms.

Discovering the Prominent Fields. Prominent fields are discovered using the sameapproach as discovering prominent user commands as it was discussed in Section 2.1.

Ephemeral Visualization. Ephemeral visualization introduced by Findlater et.al [8]reduces the visual search time in complex screens while maintaining spatial consis-tency. Using ephemeral visualization, predicted prominent fields become visible im-mediately, while the rest of fields (those that were not predicted as prominent) willfade-in gradually, but stops at 75% of visibility, so that the user is able to easily dis-tinguish between prominent and non-prominent fields, even after animation completes.Ephemeral visualization preserves original positions of the fields, which conforms theabove-mentioned nondestructive principle and maintains users’ orientation in the formby preventing moving or reordering of form fields.


When prediction works perfectly, the user perceives only fields he/she use withoutbeing disturbed by constantly unused fields. But when the prediction fails, the rest offields (the not predicted ones) will get more visible in time gradually. Ephemeral-basedmenus was found faster than static menus when accuracy of predicted items is highand also not significantly slower when it is low [8]. This property is very beneficial forenterprise application where the excesses in task times are unwanted. The duration ofephemeral visualization (gradual fade-in) is also adaptive — Boulevard tracks how longdoes it take a user to fill-in the particular form.

Adaptive Focus Traversal. The user is navigated in fill-in form more effectivelythrough predicted fields. During the focus traversal, the non-predicted fields are skippedautomatically. Such optimized interaction optimizes the time needed to navigate throughfields. When needed, the user is able to skip into a non-predicted field using theCTRL + TAB keystroke respecting the original field order on screen strictly. Whensuch not-predicted field gets focus, the visibility of the field changes from 75% to 100%immediately.

4 Boulevard Mockup for the SAP ERP

In this section we present a mockup of Boulevard for the SAP ERP which is a well-known widely used ERP system, depicted on Fig. 3. We depict a mockup of Boulevardfor the SAP ERP on Fig. 4(c) . The adaptive part on the left contains the predictedprominent (frequently and/or recently used) user commands (transactions). Boulevardprovide the so-called “one-click” availability of prominent user commands. The rec-ommending prominent parameter values ensures the automatic fill-in of correspondingfields (purchasing document and selection parameters) by the frequently used identicalvalues.

Fig. 4 depicts how the adaptive disclosure with ephemeral visualization helps the userto operate with a complex user interface with overwhelming number of user controls.We depict three stages of ephemeral visualization which describes the progression ofvisualization through time, where the prominent fields are displayed immediately (sub-figure a), while the rest of fields gradually fade-in (subfigure b), and stops at 75% ofvisibility (subfigure c). In this example, the prominent fields are: Purchasing Organiza-tion, Purchasing Document, Document Category, Delivery Date, Selection Parameters,Season, Item Category and Article.

4.1 Real Implementation of Boulevard in SAP ERP

Here we describe briefly how the above mentioned concept could be be implemented.Since source code of SAPGUI application is not publicly available, the SAPGUI cannotbe easily extended with Boulevard. We performed a feasibility study that proved thatthe Boulevard implementation would be possible. Fortunately, we discovered severalfeasible ways to develop such adaptive SAPGUI with integrated Boulevard adaptiveuser interface. One of the possible approaches is to use SAP GUI Scripting API, whichutilizes the original SAPGUI application and through the provided API a two way com-munication with SAP is possible. In this approach, there is a need of having SAPGUI


(a) Phase 1 — visualization start

(b) Phase 2 — visualization in progress

(c) Phase 3 — visualization completed

Fig. 4. Gradual progress of fields fade-in visualization


installed on the client side. Other approach could be to use SAPGUI FOR HTML, wherethe HTML code can be relatively easily analyzed and high-level user interface descrip-tion can be extracted (with some HTML limitations, e.g. double-click does not triggeranything). The last solution we found, was to use SAP Automation GUI Interfaces,which seems as a more complex approach, however, it provides probably a good way toperform since it provides a direct connection to the SAP and does not require SAPGUIinstallation on the client side.

The above mentioned approaches discussed briefly how the core of the client canbe implemented. However, there is also need to maintain Boulevards adaptive data —collected data of how the user operates the application. Such data represent a core in-formation for expert system and are unique for every particular user. The data must bemaintained on the server side in order to preserve long-term continuos adaptation. Thiscan be covered by using of a file server or by a native integration of Boulevard intothe SAP ERP, where the user data can be stored directly in SAP database.

4.2 Brief Questionnaire Study

We conducted a brief questionnaire study in which six professional SAP ERP usersevaluated the above introduced user interface. We created a web page for that purpose.The page contained in addition to brief description and images of the interface also ananimated demo where the ephemeral visualization was demonstrated. We used online-based questionnaires (LimeSurvey) to determine subjects’ opinion to the proposed userinterface. The study was conducted on six participants (all males), aged from 28 to42 (Mdn=34 years), subjects were not paid for participation. Most subjects had highexperience using computers, subjects’ experience with SAP ERP system differs from 1to 14 years (Mdn=6). Particularly, there were two regular SAP ERP users, four users onSAP support level and one developer.

Subjects were asked to evaluate the following statements on the five-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree):

– I found adaptive user interfaces suitable for ERP applications (Mode=4, Mdn=4).– I do understand clearly the basic principles behind Boulevard (Mode=4, Mdn=4).– Boulevard is intuitive and predictable (Mode=4, Mdn=4).– Boulevard is interesting (Mode=5, Mdn=4.5).– Overall, I like Boulevard (Mode=4, Mdn=4).– I would like to try Boulevard (Mode = 5, Mdn=5).

Although this brief study produced promising results, it does have some drawbacks.First, we realize that results of study conducted on only six participants may be inac-curate. Second, the study include only subjective, not quantitative measures. However,the preliminary results are encouraging for the further development.

5 Conclusion and Future Work

Since ERP systems are complex applications with complex user interface, it is be-lieved that adaptive user interfaces can help users to operate more effectively and thus


increase productivity which is a crucial factor in enterprise environment. We presentedthe current adaptive user interface Boulevard implementation in a word processor andthe design of the Boulevard integrated in the ERP system. We found the key features ofBoulevard suitable for an ERP system, mostly because of the nondestructive adaptationprinciple that seems appropriate for enterprise applications.

Brief questionnaire study showed promising response from SAP ERP users. We be-lieve that a real implementation for the SAP ERP will be developed soon and the con-cept presented in this paper will be verified on a prototype by a field user study (bothquantitative and qualitative measures). However, there are other features that could alsobe considered, namely:

Sweeping Back — which is successfully used in Boulevard in word processor. To date,we did not find a way how to beneficially apply this approach to ERP Boulevard.In complex ERP systems, users possibly perceive semantical relationships betweentransactions differently from each other. Utilization of this approach is under con-sideration, since “intelligent” layout of items in Boulevard decreases time neededto find and use a desired command.

Workflow Adaptation — which would trace and identify repeated patterns (calledepisodes) in the user’s behavior and aggregate them into “compound” user com-mands (transactions).

Adaptable Personalization — in enterprise environment it can be sometimes advan-tageous to predefine Boulevard content and behavior, where the further adaptationcan be disabled partially or completely. Predefining Boulevard content should bemuch less expensive in contrast to customizing the system to a particular user.

References

1. Boudreau, M.-C.: Learning to use erp technology: A causal model. In: Proceedings of the36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2003) - Track 8,vol. 8, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2003)

2. Chou, S.-W., Chang, Y.-C.: The implementation factors that influence the erp (enterpriseresource planning) benefits. Decis. Support Syst. 46(1), 149–157 (2008)

3. Dostal, M.: An analysis of usage patterns in utilization of interaction styles. In: HCI Interna-tional 2011 – Posters’ Extended Abstracts, pp. 128–132 (2011)

4. Dostal, M.: On the Differences in Usage of Word Processing Applications. In: Stephanidis,C. (ed.) Posters, HCII 2011, Part I. CCIS, vol. 173, pp. 133–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

5. Dostal, M., Eichler, Z.: Fine-Grained Adaptive User Interface for Personalization of a WordProcessor: Principles and a Preliminary Study. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) Posters, HCII 2011,Part I. CCIS, vol. 173, pp. 496–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

6. Dostal, M., Eichler, Z.: A research framework for performing user studies and rapid proto-typing of intelligent user interfaces under the openoffice.org suite. In: Proceedings of the 3rdACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, EICS 2011, pp.153–156. ACM, New York (2011)

7. Findlater, L., McGrenere, J.: A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus. In: Pro-ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2004,pp. 89–96. ACM, New York (2004)


8. Findlater, L., Moffatt, K., McGrenere, J., Dawson, J.: Ephemeral adaptation: the use of grad-ual onset to improve menu selection performance. In: Proceedings of the 27th InternationalConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, pp. 1655–1664. ACM,New York (2009)

9. Gajos, K.Z., Czerwinski, M., Tan, D.S., Weld, D.S.: Exploring the design space for adaptivegraphical user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced VisualInterfaces, AVI 2006, pp. 201–208. ACM, New York (2006)

10. Hook, K.: Designing and evaluating intelligent user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 4thInternational Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI 1999, pp. 5–6. ACM, New York(1999)

11. Hornbaek, K.: Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies andresearch. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64(2), 79–102 (2006)

12. Jameson, A.: Adaptive interfaces and agents. In: The Human-Computer Interaction Hand-book, pp. 305–330. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (2003)

13. Keeble, R.J., Macredie, R.D.: Assistant agents for the world wide web intelligent interfacedesign challenges. Interacting with Computers 12(4), 357–381 (2000)

14. Kuhme, T.: A user-centered approach to adaptive interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 1st Inter-national Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI 1993, pp. 243–245. ACM, New York(1993)

15. McGrenere, J., Baecker, R.M., Booth, K.S.: An evaluation of a multiple interface designsolution for bloated software. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factorsin Computing Systems: Changing Our World, Changing Ourselves, CHI 2002, pp. 164–170.ACM, New York (2002)

16. McGrenere, J., Moore, G.: Are we all in the same ”bloat”? In: Graphics Interface, pp.187–196 (2000)

17. Oppermann, R., Simm, H.: Adaptability: user-initiated individualization. In: Adaptive UserSupport, pp. 14–66. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (1994)

18. Ragowsky, A., Gefen, D.: What makes the competitive contribution of erp strategic. SIGMISDatabase 39(2), 33–49 (2008)

19. Shneiderman, B.: Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable userinterfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces,IUI 1997, pp. 33–39. ACM, New York (1997)

20. Singh, A., Wesson, J.: Evaluation criteria for assessing the usability of erp systems. In: Pro-ceedings of the 2009 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Com-puter Scientists and Information Technologists, SAICSIT 2009, pp. 87–95. ACM, New York(2009)

21. Singh, A., Wesson, J.: Improving the usability of erp systems through the application ofadaptive user interfaces. In: ICEIS (4), pp. 208–214 (2009)

22. Singh, A., Wesson, J.: The design of adaptive interfaces for enterprise resource planningsystems. In: ICEIS (4), pp. 281–286 (2011)

23. Tsandilas, T., Schraefel, M.C.: An empirical assessment of adaptation techniques. In: CHI2005 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2005, pp.2009–2012. ACM, New York (2005)

Adaptive User Interface Personalization in ERP Systems ...

Documents

Transcript of Adaptive User Interface Personalization in ERP Systems ...