Content uploaded by Christian Leyh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian Leyh on Jan 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
1
FROM TEACHING LARGE-SCALE ERP SYSTEMS TO ADDITIONALLY
TEACHING MEDIUM-SIZED SYSTEMS
Christian Leyh
Chair of Information Systems, esp. IS in Manufacturing and Commerce
Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
Christian.Leyh@tu-dresden.de
Abstract:
Today, standardised enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are used in a majority of enterprises.
There are many ERP systems with different technologies and philosophies available on the market.
Therefore, the need for providing ERP knowledge by teaching the concepts of ERP systems in study
courses and above all the possibilities of using these systems themselves in courses are frequently
discussed in literature. Thus, we suggest a 2-course combination for teaching ERP systems at German
universities where single courses dominate with mainly one large ERP system. Within this paper we present
our approach for setting up the courses, the description of the courses as well as the student evaluation of
this combination.
Keywords: ERP systems, university curriculum, small and medium-sized enterprise, learner-centered teaching
I. MOTIVATION
Today, standardised enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are used in a majority of
enterprises. According to a survey conducted in Germany in 2009, ERP systems are used in
more than 92 percent of all German industrial enterprises [Konradin, 2009]. Due to this strong
demand, there are many ERP systems with different technologies and philosophies available on
the market. Therefore, the ERP market is strongly fragmented, especially when focusing on
systems targeting small and medium-sized enterprises (S&ME) [Winkelmann and Klose, 2008;
Winkelmann et al., 2007]. This multitude of software manufacturers and systems makes it more
difficult for enterprises that use or want to use ERP systems to find the “right” software as well as
to hire the appropriate specialists for the selected system. Also for future investment decisions
regarding the adoption, upgrade, or alteration of ERP systems it is important to possess the
appropriate specialized knowledge and skills in the enterprise [Winkelmann and Matzner, 2009].
This is essential since errors during the selection, implementation, or maintenance of ERP
systems can cause financial disadvantages or disasters for the companies, even leading to
insolvencies of the affected enterprises. Several examples of such negative scenarios can be
found in the literature [e.g., Barker and Frolick, 2003; Hsu et al., 2006]. In order to prevent this,
the necessity arises for universities to transfer the specialized knowledge to their students and
graduates, in particular through study courses in the field of information systems [Venkatesh,
2008].
The need for providing this knowledge by teaching the concepts of ERP systems in university
courses and above all the possibilities of using these systems themselves in courses are
frequently discussed in literature [e.g., Antonucci et al., 2004; Boyle and Strong, 2006;
Fedorowicz et al., 2004; Hawking et al., 2004; Peslak, 2005; Stewart et al., 2000]. These
discussions clearly point out that ERP systems are or should be an important component of the
curricula of universities in information system-referred subjects and courses. However, this is not
a trivial task as Noguera and Watson [1999] discuss in their study.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
2
One of the goals of using ERP systems in university courses is to prepare students for their
career by obtaining at least a first insight in ERP systems. A further goal is promoted by ERP
manufacturers (especially by making their systems available for university courses) - students
shall learn their products as early as possible, since they, as the later graduates, will work with
these systems or will hold positions in the enterprises with an influence on ERP investment
decisions. Considering these two goals, it is necessary for universities to offer the appropriate
systems, processes, and suitable courses for their students [Brehm et al., 2009; Fedorowicz et
al., 2004].
However, the choice of systems and their number as well as the structure and number of ERP
courses differ from university to university [Seethamraju, 2007]. For teaching the respective
systems, the lecturer has to be familiar with the concepts and handling of these systems. Thus,
the choice of one or more ERP systems to be part of study courses strongly depends on the
knowledge and experiences of the lecturers themselves. This results in a situation with only a
small variety of systems and software manufacturers being represented at universities in spite of
the heterogeneous ERP market.
We are currently conducting a survey with a focus on ERP systems and their integration in study
courses at German universities. The first results of this survey show that among 87 chairs at 47
German universities more than the half are teaching only one or no ERP system. Above all,
rather complex large-scale ERP systems from major ERP manufacturers dominate courses at
universities. Smaller systems are rarely used in teaching. However, a more diversified integration
of ERP systems into education is advisable, especially from the viewpoint of S&MEs. The idea of
showing students large-scale systems and systems for small and medium-sized enterprises in
comparison in order to ensure a market overview supports this demand. Additionally, the
differences between S&MEs and large-scale companies [Welsh and White, 1981] should be
illustrated to students because they are reflected in the appropriate design of the respective
systems [Winkelmann and Klose, 2008]. Furthermore, by teaching different ERP systems the
students’ awareness of functional approaches, process support, interface ergonomics, and
architectural concepts will increase.
To summarize, both – courses about ERP systems for large companies as well as systems for
S&MEs – should be part of the curricula for students in information systems. However, teaching
ERP systems, especially systems for small and medium-sized enterprise is not a simple task.
There are two challenges which arise when someone wants to include ERP systems in the
curriculum. First, not many ERP system manufacturers do provide access to their systems for
universities. Obtaining access to large-scale systems is easier than providing systems for
S&MEs. Some ERP manufacturers (mostly the big players) have university programs (e.g.
University Alliance Program of SAP or the Oracle Academy Program) to spread their systems
throughout study courses. It is not an easy task to find the counterpart – ERP manufacturers for
S&MEs who would willingly make their systems available for universities. The second challenge
arises after the access to the systems is granted or established. Even if the systems could be
provided to the students for example for hands-on courses, additionally course materials or case
studies are needed. These materials are primarily necessary for teaching large-scale ERP
systems. Because of the system complexity students and even lecturers could easily “get lost” in
the systems without instruction materials and the systems could not be used adequately. Within
the mentioned university programs such materials (e.g., click-by-click instructions or detailed
case studies) are often made available. Therefore, setting up a course for large-scale ERP
systems is somehow easier than setting up a course for ERP systems for S&MEs, as in most
cases manufacturers for smaller systems do not provide course materials even if they provide
access to their systems. To become familiar with these smaller systems and to create the
required course materials and documentation a considerable amount of time and effort is needed
which makes it even more difficult and complicated to use ERP systems for small and medium-
sized enterprise in study courses. This could be one reason why only a few university chairs in
Germany are integrating smaller ERP systems in their curricula.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
3
Our suggestion, described in this paper, is a two-course combination: In order to provide a
solution for this dilemma a combination of ERP courses is described with which students gain a
detailed insight in at least two ERP systems. The focus of this paper lies in a detailed description
of our two ERP courses that familiarize students with one large-scale ERP-system and one
medium-sized ERP system. Our aim is to provide an insight into the preparation and execution of
our approach. An overview about other possible approaches of teaching ERP systems or a
comparison with other approaches [e.g. Fedorowicz et al., 2004; Noguera and Watson, 1999] will
not be given in this paper.
Our courses are based on problem-oriented, learner-centred approaches [Saulnier et al., 2008;
Stewart et al., 2000]. With case studies, the students train themselves independently. In the first
course (Course 1) they get detailed instructions and materials which explain how to use the
system (a large-scale ERP system) by providing click-by-click case studies. In this course the
students can work with the system individually. In the second course (Course 2) small groups are
formed and these groups have to explore the functionalities of another ERP system (a system for
small and medium sized companies) without instructions. Only a small case study with generic
tasks, which have to be fulfilled within the system, is provided to support the students. At the end
of the second course the students have to document their findings and experiences of the
respective system. Thereby, the course participants can increase their knowledge through
investigating different ERP systems (e.g. scope of functionality, interface design, and usability).
The students attend the courses in sequence – Course 1 within the first half of the semester,
Course 2 afterwards during the second half.
In our set up, all of the students studied in a bachelor program. Typically, the bachelor program in
Germany is a three year undergraduate program with an additional two years in the master
program. Yet, the groups of students were heterogeneous both with respect to the courses of
studies (students in information systems and students in business administration) and to the
number of team members in the second course (5-6 students).
Instead of an empirical evaluation which would not be appropriate because of the small course
sizes, our goal is to report on students’ and lecturers’ experiences. Therefore, our paper is
structured as follows. The second section describes in detail the procedural model for setting up
and conducting the courses. The third section presents the analysis of the course evaluations.
Finally, we address limitations and summarize the overall approach and major findings.
II. PROCEDURE MODEL AND DESCRIPTION OF THE APPROACH
Following our procedural model, we used a multi-level procedure for setting up the courses and
selecting the ERP systems adapted from Winkelmann and Leyh [2010]. This model is shown in
Figure 1. Therefore, we first defined the topic that students should examine during the courses
(e.g., examination of specific production processes or retail processes) and selected a domain-
specific framework to give students some structure and guidance for their experience with case
studies and ERP systems. This framework served as a basis for working on the tasks given to
the students (Step 1). Afterwards, we selected suitable ERP systems. To this end, we had to gain
an overview of the current situation on the ERP market (Step 2) so that we could select the
software manufacturers and systems that promised the largest success for learning in line with
the defined tasks (Step 3a). Our focus in the two courses was to make the students familiar with
one large-scale ERP system and one system for S&MEs. So, the courses primarily focused on
software training to provide a first insight in ERP systems. Therefore the selection of one system
for large companies and a system for small and medium sized enterprises was necessary. As
mentioned before, many ERP manufacturers of large-scale systems have universities programs.
Thus, it is reasonable to choose one of these manufacturers for Course 1 because of the
provided documentation und detailed instructions in case studies.
Problem-oriented learning has been established as a successful concept for teaching information
systems [Stewart et al., 2000]. Therefore, we chose a scenario that served as a starting point for
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
4
the students’ evaluation of the ERP systems especially in Course 2 (Step 3b). At the beginning of
the semester, Course 1 – the analysis of the large-scale ERP system (Step 4a) – took place. The
students had to gain experience with a specific large-scale ERP system (SAP ECC 5.0)
individually for themselves by using detailed click-by-click case studies. After getting used to this
system, the students had to evaluate the smaller ERP system (Microsoft Dynamics NAV 5.0) on
their own and they had to document their results (Course 2 – Step 4b). The lecturer was
responsible for Steps 1 to 3b, while the analysis and documentation were the tasks of the
participating students. For Course 2 we divided the students into groups of 5-6 each. Here, every
group had to fully explore the same ERP system.
Course 3 which is also illustrated in Figure 1 was not part of our two-course combination. This
third course can be added as an enhancement of the two-course combination later on. The
following sections will concentrate on Course 1 and 2, the optional Course 3 enhancement will be
discussed afterwards.
Figure 1: Procedure model for the implementation of the courses
Selection of evaluation area and framework
Even small and medium-sized ERP systems offer complex and extensive functionalities to cover
a broad spectrum of functionality for potential customers. Therefore, considering the knowledge
of the students participating and the limited amount of time, a serious limitation of the processes
that should be evaluated by students is reasonable. The ERP courses should not result in a
frustrating experience but should rather aim at providing an understanding of the basic capability
of a system [Winkelmann and Leyh, 2010].
Therefore, technical and domain-specific frameworks are suitable for the selection of appropriate
ERP systems and as a guideline for the evaluation of student participants. Adapted from
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
5
Winkelmann and Leyh [2010], we selected the Retail-H framework [Becker et al., 2001; Klaus et
al., 2000] for structuring our scenario, because it is internationally renowned for teaching as well
as in the international business community. This framework (shown in Figure 2) serves as
reference model for retail firms. It differentiates between functions, data, and processes.
Figure 2: Retail-H on course granular level.
Each function (e.g., contract management, purchasing) is divided into sub-functions that are
deposited with best practice processing concepts (modeled with event-driven process chains)
and data models (entity relationship models).
The form of Retail-H is based on the logical structure of a retail enterprise. On the left (vertical)
side (logically arranged) all functions interfacing with suppliers are positioned and on the right
(vertical) side the functions aiming toward the customers are represented. The functions on the
horizontals comprise the logistic tasks. Retail-H is particularly suitable for this two-course model,
since it allows viewing partial functionalities, whereby only specific functions can be used
depending upon the tasks stipulated. In addition, students become familiar with best practices
and the underlying data models. Therefore, they can gain experience with different approaches to
the requirements analysis for ERP systems on the data, function, and process levels
[Winkelmann and Leyh, 2010].
Market Overview
There are numerous possibilities for gaining an overview of the ERP market (shown in Table 1).
However, many of the so-called market reviews are often focused only on the large ERP
manufacturers (SAP, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.), so these market reviews can serve as a good
source of information for identifying manufacturers which might provide a university program.
Thus, for Course 1 these reviews are appropriate. However, many smaller systems are not part
of these market overviews and identification of manufacturers of such systems is needed for
Course 2. Winkelmann and Matzner [2009] suggest several methods with which the spectrum of
possible ERP manufacturers for the ERP courses can be extended – personal meetings on
conferences or fairs (e.g., CeBIT), articles about ERP systems in technical journals (e.g., ERP
Manager), and market review studies and/or platforms for software evaluation (e.g., IT-
Matchmaker, ERP Evaluation Centre (erp.technologyevaluation.com)). All of these methods offer
a fast and intuitive entrance to the ERP market.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
6
Table 1: Methods for identifying appropriate ERP products
Choice
Examples
Advantages and
disadvantages
Face-to-
face meeting at
conferences or
fairs
CEBIT, Hannover, Germany
CES, Las Vegas, USA
Retail Solution, Birmingham, UK
+ Face-to-face meeting
- mostly wrong contact person at
fair
- incomplete market overview
Discussion of ERP
systems in
technical or retail
journals
ERP Magazine
Retail Technology Journal
Computer Week
+ detailed ERP lists
+ reviews and background
information
- random search for articles
- incomplete market overview
Market overview
studies and
software evalu-
ation platforms
IT-Matchmaker
ERP Evaluation Center
Gartner studies
+ detailed ERP lists
+ in-depth functionality overview
Case studies
eXperience research methodo-
logy [Schubert and Wölfle, 2007]
+ comparability of systems with a
continuous structure
- different scenarios in case stu-
dies
- only one system is observed
per case study
Identification of appropriate ERP manufacturers
The selection of suitable systems took place according to the criteria of Winkelmann and Leyh
[2010]:
• Size of the enterprise/customer basis: Reputation and importance of the ERP
manufacturer in the market.
• Functionality: Range of the functions provided within the system for the scenario.
• Maturity: Experience of the manufacturer in the market.
• Ergonomics: Efficiency and effectiveness of the system handling for users.
• Access: System use at justifiable complexity, either through installation by the
students (for Course 2) or through remote access (for Course 1).
• University Programs: Provided materials and documentation for learning and using
the system in university courses (necessary for Course 1).
For Course 1 we chose SAP as one of the big players because our university was already
member of the SAP University Alliance Program and this course is already part of the curriculum
since several semesters. The access to the system (SAP ECC 5.0) was easy to establish. Also
detailed instruction materials and click-by-click case studies needed for Course 1 were provided
through SAP´s University Competence Centers (UCC). Furthermore, the lecturers were already
familiar with this course and with the corresponding system. For Course 2 we chose Microsoft as
manufacturer of ERP systems for small and medium sized enterprises. Even though Microsoft
has a university program, too – the so called Microsoft Business Solutions Academic Alliance
(MBSAA) – detailed instruction materials are not provided. Instead, access to the ERP systems of
Microsoft (Microsoft Dynamics NAV and Microsoft Dynamics AX) as well as to other Microsoft
Business Solutions are provided without fees. Therefore, in Course 2 the participating students
had to evaluate the functionalities of Microsoft Dynamics NAV 5.0.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
7
Both selected systems offered functionalities for trade, production, and inventory control. SAP
provided remote access to their system on computers at the university through the UCC and
Microsoft Dynamics NAV was made available locally on the students' own desktop PCs or
notebooks through an installation CD.
Preparation of the scenario
The selection of suitable ERP systems and the preparation of the scenario for the students are
interrelated tasks. It is unreasonable to ask manufacturers of ERP systems for their cooperation if
the scenario only contains retail functionality and processes. On the other hand, evaluating
production processes in systems that do not provide these functions is pointless, too
[Winkelmann and Leyh, 2010].
The scenario for Course 1 was predetermined because of the used click-by-click instructions
provided by the UCC. For Course 2 the chosen scenario contained a generic retail process that
was examined by the students. Additionally, a generic production process that contained the
assembly of a product consisting of individual parts was added to the scenario. Because of the
lack of space the case studies of both courses including the scenario cannot be described in
detail. Therefore, Table 2 and Table 3 give a general overview of the processes and tasks that
make up the scenarios. However, the complete scenario for Course 2 in English and German can
be requested from the author. The scenario for Course 1 is part of the materials of the UCC. In
order to gain access to the detailed instructions, one has to be a member of the SAP University
Alliance Program.
Table 2: Scenario for Course 1 (compendium)
Generic
production
process
Create a stock of materials
Create bill of materials
Create routings
Generate a production order
Assembly of the individual parts
Assembly of the whole product
Controlling
Case Study
Create Cost Centers
Plan the Number of Employees
Plan Primary Cost Inputs
Plan Internal Activity Inputs
Automatic Price Calculation
Create Work Center
Integrate Work Center in Routing
Perform New Product Cost Estimate
Generic retail
process
Create master data for customers and vendors
Enter a framework contract
Create Sales Order
Create Production Order
Create Purchase Order
Outbound Delivery with Order Reference
Create Transfer Order for Delivery Note
Table 3: Scenario for Course 2 (compendium)
Generic
production
process
Create a stock of materials
Create bill of materials
Generate a production order
Assembly of the individual parts
Assembly of the whole product
Generic retail
process
Create master data for customers and vendors
Enter a framework contract (1,000 PCs for 299 Euro each)
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
8
Normal purchase price 349 Euro each
Order 150 PCs for next month for 299 Euro each
Supplier sends a delivery notification
Supplier delivers 150 PCs that have to be checked and stored
A customer asks for an offer for 10 PCs
The customer orders 8 PCs relating to the initial offer
Take order amount from the warehouse and ship to the customer
By providing the scenarios, the students should be able to identify the processes that have to be
performed within the ERP systems and therefore to define the necessary work packages that is
most notably in Course 2 where the students have to organize their teams for themselves.
Furthermore, additional literature is helpful to compensate possible gaps in the students’
knowledge (e.g., for retail literature, [Becker et al., 2001; Mason and Burns, 1998; Sternquist,
2007]). Students had to evaluate the ERP systems based on the requirements of the scenario.
They had to enter all necessary data in order to properly document the functionality later and had
to reproduce the processes based on the functionalities of their ERP systems. If some aspects of
the scenario were not supported by the system because of missing functions, students
mentioned this in their written documentation.
As seen in the two tables both scenarios are not identical. The main difference is the controlling
case study which is only part of Course 1. With respect to the workload students had to perform
in Course 2 by learning a complete new ERP system without instructions the controlling process
was not included. Also, the course scenarios in production and retail do not involve the exact
same parts and materials. But they are very similar so that the students gain a good comparison
of the functionalities and processes of an ERP system for large companies and a system for
small and medium-sized enterprises.
ERP system evaluation and documentation
During the first half of the third semester the students attended Course 1. Since the students
learned some theoretical basic knowledge about ERP systems within the lectures of the second
semester, the students got a first practical hands-on understanding of one ERP system (SAP
ECC 5.0) while attending Course 1. The three parts (production, controlling and retail) of this
course were performed in three separate sessions which took place in the computer lab of the
university. For every session a time slot of three hours was scheduled. This was enough time to
let the students perform the case studies in their own pace. Before the beginning of each case
study a lecturer gave a short overview of the process which should be performed during the
session. Additionally, one or two lecturers (depending on the number of students) stayed in the
lab during the whole session to provide helpful advises or solve problems if the students had
done a wrong click, forgot to enter some data, etc. Furthermore, before the three sessions took
place a “navigation-session” was offered to the students during which they could learn how to
work with a SAP system. This was optional for the students and was done by the majority of the
students who did not have any experience with SAP. For example, students who had worked with
SAP during internships did not attend this “pre-session”.
Within the second half of the third semester Course 2 took place. During a kick-off-meeting we
described the organizational basics and general conditions of the course as well as the idea of
the scenario and the tasks that had to be fulfilled. During the course, participants worked
independently in small groups on the given processes with their ERP system. The students were
given two months (until the beginning of the fourth semester) to evaluate the ERP system and to
write the documentations. There was no training for the students by the ERP manufacturers. The
initial skill adaptation training was performed by the students themselves independently after they
got access to the system. The mentoring of the lecturers was only required for individual group
meetings, during which the teams could ask questions concerning technical aspects or problems
with regard to the content of the scenario. The access to the system (Microsoft Dynamics NAV
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
9
5.0) was granted during the kick-off-meeting. There, the students had to install the system on
their own laptops. Afterwards, the students had to organize themselves to fulfill the tasks.
It has to be pointed out that Course 1 has been part of the curriculum at the university for several
years and can be attended independently from Course 2. Hence, the students could decide, if
they only wanted to attend the SAP course or if they wanted to perform the evaluation of Course
2, too. There were 38 students who attended Course 1, and 17 of them also attended Course 2.
Therefore, in Course 2 we formed three teams – two teams with six group members and one
team with five.
At the beginning of the next semester, they provided a written evaluation of “their” ERP system.
The main part of the written documentation was to create a click-by-click case study, similar to
the one with which the students received in Course 1. To be able to prepare the click-by-click
materials the students had to gain a deep insight into the processes of the system and to
understand what click had which effect. In addition, a summary of the basic technical principles of
the assigned system and a concluding upshot that showed the pros and cons of the solution were
asked for.
Alternatively, it is possible to let the students present their systems during a “live demo”, as it is
done in the seminar of Winkelmann and Leyh [2010]. But this was not done in our 2-course
combination.
Course 3 which is mentioned in Figure 1 as well can be seen as an optional enhancement of the
existing 2-course combination. This course is planned as an additional counterpart to Course 1.
In this course different ERP systems for small and medium-sized companies should be
experienced by the students in a manner which is not too time-consuming. As in Course 1
detailed click-by-click instructions will be handed out to the students so that they can learn the
different systems individually. Hence, this course is designed as course for large groups of
students who are to learn different ERP systems in a limited amount of time. Here, once again
the challenge arises on how to prepare the needed instruction materials for the systems to be
used. To solve this problem, Course 2 can be used. After repeating Course 2 several times with
different systems the lecturers gain different click-by-click instructions created by the participants
of Course 2. Afterwards, these materials can be used in Course 3 as instructions. Therefore,
Course 3 is planned to be part of the curriculum in some years after having repeated the existing
2-course combination at least two times.
III. COURSE EVALUATION
Students’ perspective
Since an evaluation of seminars and/or courses in general is of high importance for the
improvement of teaching concepts [Seethamraju, 2007], questionnaires were handed out to all
three teams that participated in Course 2 to evaluate the combination of the courses after the
semester. Each group could decide if they wanted to fill out one questionnaire for the whole
group or if every team member wanted to answer the questions individually. This questionnaire
served to identify possible weaknesses and opportunities for improvements with respect to the
course realization, scenario, and support from the lecturers as well as the adequateness of the
respective ERP systems. Also, the positive aspects that should be repeated in the next courses
could be emphasized. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions based on scale evaluations
(grades 1-5), yes/no, and free text answers. Some of the evaluation results are shown in Table 4.
Additionally, feedback discussions were conducted with each team separately to gather further
suggestions from the students.
Based on the results of the questionnaires and discussions we realized that without exception all
participants said they acquired knowledge and skills concerning functional, methodological,
social, and technical aspects. Also, the use of the scenario was classified as good.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
10
Regarding the complexity of the courses, especially the extensive evaluation of the ERP system
in Course 2, we noticed that the bachelor students classified the scope of work they had to
perform nearly as adequate. The students could communicate with each other across the teams.
During the kick-off meeting this was explicitly mentioned as being allowed. Therefore, important
information for solving problems could be inquired from the team members of the other groups.
This was positively appraised, even though this option was not used very often. Rather, the
teams preferred to solve occurring problems internally within their own group. During the
feedback discussions the seminar (Course 2) turned out to be very popular among students.
Table 4: Results of the course evaluation
Average grade per team
(1=very high, 5=very low)
Team 1
Team 2
Team 3
ERP knowledge before course 4 2.5 2.5
Interest in ERP issues after course
2
2
2.5
Motivation for thoughts and opinion building
1
1
1
Increase of ERP knowledge in general
1
2.5
2
Increase of knowledge regarding the respective ERP
system 2 2 1.5
Usefulness of the scenario
2
2
2
Adequateness of the respective ERP systems 2 2.5 1
Level of difficulty
(-2=much too low, 0=reasonable, 2=much too high) 0 0 0
Effort needed
(2=much too high, 0=reasonable, -2=much too low)
0 -0.5 0
Effort needed in comparison to other courses
(2=much too high, 0=reasonable, -2=much too low) 0 -0.5 0
Lecturer’s perspective
The expansion of the already existing SAP course (Course 1) with the addition of a “self-learning”
ERP course (Course 2) was a good opportunity to enhance the information systems curriculum at
our university. This did not only enable a deeper insight in an ERP system for small and medium-
sized enterprises for the students, also the lecturers gained a valuable insight into ERP systems
previously not known to them. A further benefit of these courses, especially of Course 2, lies in
the documentation of the respective ERP system produced by the students. Thereby, the
lecturers obtained click-by-click instructions that an be used in a further enhancement of the 2-
course combination (Course 3) in the next years. If the teams perform well in Course 2, these
documentations can be used without considerable effort for adjustment of the materials. Hence,
by repeating this 2-course combination several times, the lecturers gather a large amount of
materials with which the ERP system education can be expanded and enhanced by allowing
various ERP systems and teaching formats. Therefore, it is advisable to repeat the courses
(especially Course 2) by changing the ERP system, which has to be evaluated, in each cycle.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
11
IV. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The idea of the course-combination was to create an additional education unit for the application
of ERP systems at the university with which the students gain insight in two different ERP
systems and become familiar with using these systems (software training). This idea resulted in
an extension of the SAP course which was already taught at the university. Additionally, a course
was created during which students had to evaluate an ERP system for S&MEs in small groups.
Although we regard this type of course combination as very successful, there are some
limitations. First, we are only able to handle two ERP systems per semester and are not able to
fully cover the market. However, we do not consider this a severe disadvantage. Furthermore,
not all ERP systems on the market are suitable for such an ERP course. For example, older
systems are often very complicated in their installation procedure. Also, ERP systems for large
companies may also not be very suitable for Course 2 as they may be too complex for
unsupervised student exercises.
In conclusion, for both students and lecturers/tutors, the seminar offers a good opportunity to gain
a deeper insight into ERP systems and extend their knowledge about a variety of ERP systems.
Future steps are repeating the 2-course combination each winter semester at the university and
varying the ERP system used in Course 2 in each cycle. After several iterations of this course
combination an additional course (Course 3) will be included in the information systems
curriculum in order to provide even more diversified ERP systems to students.
References
Antonucci, Y. L. et al. (2004) “Enterprise systems education: Where are we? Where are we
going?”, Journal of Information Systems Education, (15)3, pp. 227-234.
Barker, T. and M. N. Frolick (2003) “ERP implementation failure: A case study”, Information
Systems Management, (20)4, pp. 43-49.
Becker, J. et al. (2001) Retail information systems based on SAP products, Berlin, Germany:
Springer.
Boyle, T. A. and S. E. Strong (2006) “Skill requirements of ERP graduates”, Journal of
Information Systems Education, (17)4, pp. 403-412.
Brehm, N., L. Haak and D. Peters (2009) “Using FERP Systems to introduce web service-based
ERP Systems in higher education”, in Abramowicz, W. and D. Flejter (eds.) Business
Information Systems Workshops: BIS 2009 International Workshops, Poznan, Poland,
Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 220-225.
Fedorowicz, J. et al. (2004) “Twelve tips for successfully integrating enterprise systems across
the curriculum”, Journal of Information Systems Education, (15)3, pp. 235-244.
Hawking, P., B. McCarthy and A. Stein (2004) “Second wave ERP education”, Journal of
Information Systems Education, (15)3, pp. 327-332.
Hsu, K., J. Sylvestre and E. N. Sayed (2006) “Avoiding ERP Pitfalls”, Journal of Corporate
Accounting & Finance, (17)4, pp. 67-74.
Klaus, H., M. Rosemann and G. G. Gable (2000) “What is Enterprise Resource Planning?”,
Information Systems Frontier, (2)2, pp. 141-162.
Konradin Business GmbH (2009) Konradin ERP-Studie 2009: Einsatz von ERP-Lösungen in der
Industrie, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany: Konradin Mediengruppe.
Mason, J. B. and D. J. Burns (1998) Retailing, Houston, Texas, USA: Cengage Custom
Publishing.
Christian Leyh Teaching large-scale and medium-sized ERP systems
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2010 Conference
12
Noguera, J. H. and E. F. Watson (1999) “Effectiveness of using an enterprise system to teach
process-centered concepts in business education” in Proceedings of the 5th Annual
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, Paper 279.
Peslak, A. R. (2005) “A twelve-step, multiple course approach to teaching enterprise resource
planning”, Journal of Information Systems Education, (16)2, pp. 147-155.
Saulnier, B. M. et al. (2008) “From teaching to learning: Learner-centered teaching and
assessment in information systems education”, Journal of Information Systems
Education, (19)2, pp. 169-174.
Schubert, P. and R. Wölfle (2007) “The eXperience methodology for writing IS case studies” in
Proceedings of the Thirteenth American Conference on Information Systems, Keystone,
Colorado, USA, Paper 345.
Seethamraju, R. (2007) “Enterprise systems software in business school curriculum – Evaluation
of design and delivery”, Journal of Information Systems Education, (18)1, pp. 69-83.
Sternquist, B. (2007) International Retailing, London, England: Fairchild Books & Visuals.
Stewart, G., M. Rosemann and P. Hawking (2000) “Collaborative ERP curriculum developing
using industry process models” in Proceedings of the 6th Annual Americas Conference
on Information Systems, Long Beach, California, USA, August 2000, Paper 128.
Venkatesh, V. (2008) “One-Size-Does-Not-Fit-All: Teaching MBA students different ERP
implementation strategies”, Journal of Information Systems Education, (19)2, pp. 141-
146.
Welsh, J.-A. and J.-F. White (1981) “A small business is not a little big business”,Harvard
Business Review, (59)4, pp. 18-32.
Winkelmann, A., and K. Klose (2008) “Experiences while selecting, adapting and implementing
ERP systems in SMEs: a case study” in Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference
on Information Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 2008, Paper 257.
Winkelmann, A., R. Knackstedt and O. Vering (2007) Anpassung und Entwicklung von
Warenwirtschaftssystemen - eine explorative Untersuchung. Handelsstudie Nr. 3,
Münster, Münster, Germany, Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://www.wi.uni-
muenster.de/udoo/downloads/publications/1975.pdf.
Winkelmann, A. and C. Leyh (2010) “Teaching ERP systems: A multi-perspective view on the
ERP system market”, Journal of Information Systems Education, (22)2, p. 233-240.
Winkelmann, A. and M. Matzner (2009) “Teaching medium sized ERP systems – a problem-
based learning approach” in Papadopoulos, G. A. et al. (eds.) Information Systems
Development: Towards a Service Provision Society, New York USA: Springer, pp. 891-
901.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Christian Leyh is research assistant at the Chair of Information Systems; esp. IS in
Manufacturing and Commerce at the Technische Universität Dresden since 2008. He graduated
from the University of Applied Science Schmalkalden information systems program and
completed his Masters Degree in business and engineering at the Steinbeis University Berlin.
Currently, he teaches in both the undergraduate and graduate IS programs. His research
interests are centered within the field of ERP systems, esp. ERP systems for small and medium
sized enterprises.
