Proposing a New Framework and an Innovative Approach to Teaching Reengineering and ERP Implementation Concepts

1. INTRODUCTION Over the last decade, numerous organizations have significantly changed their business processes in order to remain competitive in the global market. Such process improvements were obtained mainly by combining business process reengineering (BPR) efforts with the adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. While the objective of BPR is to eliminate non--value-added activities and administrative barriers, ERP implementation projects seek to streamline an organization's processes by integrating the information flow into a single system. Benefits related to both BPR and ERP implementation projects result from the capability to efficiently combine organizational changes with information technology (Davenport 1993; Esteves et al. 2002; Hammer and Champy 1993). There has always been a strong relationship between these two business transformation mechanisms, as ERP implementation projects also involve the examination and adaptation of business processes (Boudreau and Robey 1999; Taylor 2000). In fact, BPR is one of the most cited critical success factors in ERP implementation projects (Al-Mashari et al. 2003; Bancroft et al. 1998; Bingi et al. 1999; Holland et al. 1999; Nah et al. 2001). However, it is still not clear which of these transformation mechanisms comes first, as some organizations use ERP systems to promote BPR programs (Martin and Cheung 2000), while others conduct BPR initiatives as part of an ERP implementation project (Kraemmergaard and Moller 2000; Pellerin and Leger 2005). Nonetheless, ERP implementations and BPR need to be closely connected (Al-Mashari and Zairi 1999). From an academic standpoint, Boyle and Strong (2006) recognized that focusing on business processes rather than on specific ERP functions can give students a better understanding of the complex relationships between the various business functions and the business decision-making process. However, teaching BPR and ERP implementation concepts simultaneously is a complex task as it requires the development of a wide spectrum of competencies, ranging from technical and business functional knowledge to team development and interpersonal skills. To date, numerous research initiatives have been undertaken to better understand the skill requirements of ERP graduates (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2000; Boyle and Strong 2006; Watson and Schneider 1999) and further integrate ERP concepts into business and engineering school curricula (Boykin and Martz 2004; Hawkins et al. 2004; Haynen et al. 2000; Johnson et al. 2004; Peslak 2005). However, most universities still limit the scope of their ERP curriculum to technical implementation and configuration issues, rather than addressing more strategic issues tied to the adoption and use of such systems (Bendoly 2005). This limited focus can be explained by the fact that ERP concepts are still taught mainly in information system (IS) programs, which continue to attract IS analysts and engineers looking for tools and methods to help them deal with complex ERP implementation projects. Also, as we discovered after an informal review of ERP education programs, most universities still favor separate courses to teach BPR and system implementation concepts. This content separation reinforces the student's perception that ERP projects revolve around technology issues. To maximize the quality and relevance of ERP training, it must integrate BPR concepts and take into consideration the various disciplines involved and the different types of competencies needed to effectively transform an organization. Therefore, rather than focusing solely on configuration activities, universities should make a stronger effort to set up training activities that reflect the complex reality of ERP implementations. Some universities have partly responded to these challenges by using the case teaching method or simulation tools to try to re-create the organizational context in which ERP systems are implemented and used (Davis and Comeau 2004; Draijer and Schenk 2004; Leger 2006; Stewart and Rosemann 2001). …