## 6 Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions  
This empirical research addresses issues regarding the use of IS in Northern Greek industry, the drivers and barriers of their implementation, as well as the cost efficiency due to IS adoption. The statistical analysis of the responses in the 96 questionnaires filled by Northern Greek manufacturing companies leads us to some very interesting results. Northern Greek manufacturers have adopted IS in a percentage of 86.5% (83 out of 96). The vast majority of them have implemented the ERP system (85.4%). WMS, OMS, and CRM are the next in line with a respective percentage of 39.0%, 37.8%, and 35.4%. It is also worthwhile to refer that SCM is used only by 13.4% of the companies. In addition to the financial crisis that the country has suffered since 2009 the majority of the companies which use IS (90.4%) they have invested in an IS in the last decade. Of those which have adopted an IS the vast majority consider that has led to a high or relatively satisfying level of profitability for the company. A company's desire to reduce the errors is considered to be the main motivation to adopt an IS, while production planning is the second best. The greatest inhibitor for any company--whether they use IS or not--is the cost of the system they consider to adopt. On the other hand, any negative reaction from the employees is not considered such a significant barrier. Companies that have adopted IS mostly consider its cost as a great barrier to invest in IS compared to those which have not adopted one. To those that do not use an IS, having a current system that satisfies them completely is a major inhibitor not to invest in an IS. Both companies with high or relatively satisfying level of profitability seek firstly to reduce the errors as a motivator to invest in IS, yet there is a statistically significant difference between these two groups. In addition, those with high level of profitability have given higher average ratings in every variable on Table 4 regarding those with relatively satisfying level of profitability. In fact, the first ones consider every motivating factor at least \"very important\" (4) in a five-point Likert scale. The major inhibitor for investing in IS for both groups, is its cost. A closer observation of Figure 4--the motivating factors to adopt an IS--could lead to a very interesting logic that seems to be followed by the respondents which could be described as: \"from internal to external\". In other words, for every company its priority regarding choosing an IS is to solve its internal problems (error reduction, better production \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Average Rating**} \\ \cline{2-4}
**Barriers** & **High Level of** & **Profitable in Relatively** & \(p\)**-Value** \\  & **Profitability** & **Satisfying Level** & \\ \hline Cost of IS & 3.75 & 3.90 & 0.530 \\ Financial crisis & 3.28 & 3.46 & 0.472 \\ Completely satisfied by the system & 3.61 & 3.55 & 0.618 \\ that has been already adopted & 3.72 & 3.58 & 0.376 \\ The existed system is considered & 3.31 & 3.66 & 0.307 \\ Management decided to invest in & 2.03 & 1.68 & 0.187 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Barriers of IS adoption—level of profitability. planning, maintain appropriate inventory, reduce production cost), and then it expands its viewpoints to the external environment (customer satisfaction, competitive advantage, select appropriate suppliers). In regards of the barriers that would prevent a company from investing in IS, it is important to note that the \"employee's opposition\" is not considered as a significant inhibitor. Although it would be good for the company to inform the employees and try to find ways to limit their counteractions as much as possible, so as to make them go along. The cost of an IS is the number one inhibitor. In addition to its actual cost, companies have to consider its implementation cost, its integration cost with the already existing systems, probable employees educational costs, etc.