What is ERP?

Helmut Klaus, Michael Rosemann and Guy G. Gable

Information Systems Management Research Center, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Table 1. ERP papers presented at selected international information systems conferences 1997-2000 (August)

(EWS) in the title of documents or the keywords, as well as by searching for key ERP vendor names (e.g., SAP, Baan, Oracle). References retrieved were then used to access the original documents. Full text, abstracts, and in a small proportion titles only, were used to subject index the references in a small database in order to establish a systematic overview of current themes.

ERP are highly applied, multi-faceted and multi- disciplinary and there are undoubtedly publications to be found in other than the IS discipline. Furthermore, conference proceedings, which account for the bulk of sources identified, somehow exist outside firmly established publication channels: most  proceedings are not distributed by commercial publishing houses, and only a selection of conferences achieves wider publicity by being indexed and abstracted for publicly accessible services. This creates a technical limit to producing a comprehensive, up-to-date overview of ERP literature. Thus, partly due to the selective approach detailed above, the study sample is small

and two conferences (AMCIS '99 and '00) account for the majority of papers identified. Nonetheless, we observe steady increase in the number of ERP papers (ignoring AMCIS '99 and '00, total papers rise from 3 to 7 to 9 in 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively). Steady growth is also observed at ICIS (1 to 3 to 5), the most academically rigorous and selective of all major IS conferences. In 1998/99 nearly all the IS conferences mentioned in Table 1 (AMCIS (Philippakis and Hardaway, 1999), ECIS (Rosemann, 1999), ACIS (Gable, 1998) as well as the ICIS (Veth, 1998) included panel discussions about teaching ERP. In 2000, ECIS will again host a panel on ERP at universities, while the number of ERP-related papers at AMCIS 2000 is similar to the previous year.

1.1.           The beginning

The term ERP made the press probably for the first time in 1992 (Lopes, 1992; Ricciuti, 1992; Lindholm, 1992). The article by Lopes, ironically of Dun & Bradstreet Software, a company soon after out-of

business, shows how ERP had been conceived of at the time the term was coined. Under the heading ""CIMII'' sic the features of these new systems are laid out in full: a qualitative leap beyond MRPII, integration across suppliers, departments and custo- mers, relational database, and on client-server architecture. Moreover, Lopes praises ERP systems as ""better, faster and more economical business solutions'' (1992:45) and ascribes to Gartner Group to have defined ERP, and proclaimed it as the new information systems ""paradigm''. More than three years later, Thomas Davenport introduced the IS community to ERP systems at AMCIS '96 (Davenport, 1996). Thomas Davenport avoided the ERP label and called these systems ""megapackages'', highlighting the challenges they allegedly posed for companies both in technical and organizational terms. One year later, ERP papers were presented at three international information systems conferences; this marks the beginning of the period of literature reported following.

1.1.          Conferences

Conference publications during the years 1997- August 2000 are mainly about: (1) ERP implementa- tion issues, (2) Teaching with and about ERP, and (3) further ERP research in progress.

1.1.1.     Implementation issues. Implementation re- lated publications account for about one third of the articles reviewed. This corresponds with the focus taken on ERP systems by the trade press, which also deals predominantly with implementation and asso- ciated problems. Several publications (Holland, Light et al., 1999; Stefanou, 1999; Sumner, 1999) attempt to identify critical success factors of implementations. Shanks et al., strongly recommend consideration of national cultural issues, since critical success factors may vary significantly, depending on the country in which an implementation is carried out (Shanks, Parr et al., 2000). Implementations have also been investigated through case  studies  with  varying intent: to describe the impact of ERP on job characteristics (Pawlowski, Boudreau et al., 1999); to explore strategic options open to firms beyond the implementation of common business systems (Holland, Light et al., 1999); to make recommenda- tions on how to maximize the benefits from ERP (Niehus, Knobel et al., 1998) or how to avoid ERP project failures (Scott, 1999); to identify issues of

alignment (Smethurst and Kawalek, 1999; Volkoff, 1999), Business Process Reengineering (Slooten and Yap, 1999), and change management (Pe rez, Rojas et al., 1999); to assess the ambiguous role of large systems as both catalysts and inhibitors of change (Mahrer, 1999); to analyze the special challenges of ERP implementations outside the business world (Sieber and Nah, 1999); and to  describe  global supply chain management (Chatfield and Andersen, 1998). Implementing ERP with or without BPR has been surveyed and analyzed (Bernroider and Koch, 1999). Theoretical considerations have focussed on global business processes (Basu and Palvia, 1999) and IT architecture options (Chan, 1999), as well as on enhancement of process engineering and development methodologies (Sato, 2000). The complex question of how to assess the organizational benefits derived from an ERP system has been addressed by Rosemann and Wiese (1999). This requires looking beyond the implementation phase to consider the operational performance of the system. Rosemann and Wiese suggest a variant of the balanced scorecard approach to grasp the main impact of an installed system. Spanning multiple phases of the ERP life cycle is also the suggestion of an ERP knowledge management framework, to aid companies in optimally handling information and expertise in relation to implementa- tion, operation and enhancement of a system (Rosemann and Chan, 2000).

1.1.2.     Teaching. A further significant number of articles reviewed relate to ERP subject matter in tertiary education. Access to ERP software systems and collaboration with their vendors provide tertiary educational institutions with effective and novel means for exposing students  to  valuable  business and business systems concepts (Gable, Heever et al., 1997; Watson, Rosemann et al., 1999). The partner- ship between an ERP vendor and universities may be beneficial for both parties involved, but requires careful management to overcome the  challenges (Scott and Gable, 1997). The university ERP-vendor link has already spawned new curricula at the postgraduate level, either under the banner of a new breed of MBA program (Winter, 1999), or within the Information Systems area as a Master of Science program (Holmes and Hayen, 1999).

The impact of reorganizing ERP subject matter into existing curricula and the special challenges posed to faculty has been reported by Stewart et al.

(Stewart, Gable et al., 1999). An example of a syllabus for remote delivery of an introductory subject via the Internet is given by Holmes et al. (Holmes and Hayen, 1999). The benefits and pitfalls of teaching conceptual knowledge with ERP systems as a learning vehicle have been critically evaluated in terms of learning outcomes and effort by Noguera and Watson (1999) and Scott (1999). Case studies of implementa- tions proved also to be a common method of teaching about ERP (Hirt, 1998; Avital, 1999; Ross, 1998).

1.1.3.     Research in progress. Initially, Heever, Erlank et al., (1997) identified the potential and challenges for information systems education and research in tertiary education posed by this new category of manufacturing and business packaged software. A historical perspective has been taken by Chung and Synder, (1999) and Kelly, Holland et al., (1999), who, from different contexts, emphasise the maturing of IS towards an unambiguous business focus, as attributed to ERP systems. This is seconded by Holland and Light, who argue that other, traditional approaches in systems development have proven to be less beneficial in the long-term than ERP systems (Holland and Light, 1999). A historical view, albeit from a business perspective is suggested by Sor (1999), expecting a better understanding of issues surrounding ERP systems to be achieved by moving the discourse towards management theory and dealing with ERP as a special case of theoretical premises that were developed already in the sixties.

Problems of managing the systems themselves have been thematised by Gable, Scott et al. (1998), who argue the value of cooperative knowledge management links between all business partners in implementation projects in order to better cope with the scale and expertise requirements of such projects. In a similar vein it has been proposed that the potential advantages of competence centers to support and maintain these large-scale systems be explored (Eriksen, Axline et al., 1999).

The benefit of ERP systems is seen as improving organizational decision-making by Holsapple and Sena (1999); consequently they claim that ERP and decision support systems should be further integrated and that further research and development effort directed in this area. ERP solutions have recently become increasingly accessible to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Gable and Stewart have therefore proposed to study adoption and application of ERP in

SMEs as an objective of research (Gable and Stewart, 1999). An explicit social science approach to ERP has been suggested by Southwick and Sayer (1999), who argue the importance of analyzing managerial and social issues surrounding ERP implementation by applying critical social theory. Strong theoretical foundations have already been applied in investi- gating ERP implementations. Using structuration (Volkoff, 1999) and actor network theory (Hanseth and Braa, 1998), the organizational changes brought about by the new system are critically highlighted; these changes are unintended and can affect the social environment (Volkoff ) as well as reshape the whole information infrastructure (Hanseth).

1.2.           Journal articles

Tertiary education in ERP systems has also been thematized in some of the few journal articles relating to ERP. As cases reported on by Winter (1999) and Holmes and Hayen (1999) (see above) show, engagement in the area of ERP in teaching has resulted in a complete redesign of curricula at both under- and postgraduate levels, in order to respond to the new competence requirements created in the labour market (Becerra-Fernandez, Murphy et al. 2000). Creating and implementing these new curri- cula can only be achieved through interdisciplinary collaboration across university department, a phe- nomenon reported on elsewhere as well (Victor, May et al., 1999). Extensive teaching cases have been provided by Ross (1999) and Hirt (1999).

Process  engineering  is  a  crucial  step  in  ERP

systems implementation. This will  be  even  more true in future, when manifold relations between businesses have to be set up to conduct e-business. Scheer (Scheer and Habermann, 2000) emphasises the significance of business process models to manage the ever-increasing complexity arsing from these solu- tions; process models are supposedly also a useful medium to communicate about business processes across various cultures. However, evidence from practice (Soh, Kien et al., 2000) suggests, that the best practices built into ERP software might not always be transferable on a global scale due to very country specific requirements relating to very funda- mental processes. Closer cooperation  between vendors and users and comprehensive knowledge on the part of the user appear to the only remedy to these misfits (Soh, Kien et al., 2000). How this cooperation can be successfully achieved, has been demonstrated

by Scott and Kaindl (2000); they have shown that collaborative efforts between vendors and customers can lead to the mutually beneficial result of rapidly added systems functionality. Yet, new functionality may not always be what companies are particularly keen on, especially when this requires moving to a new version of the installed software; this is one of the conclusions drawn by Kremers and Dissel (2000) who discusses vendors' and clients' attitudes towards migration of software. These attitudes appear to be adverse: while vendors prefer not to support too many versions simultaneously, due to the high personnel costs involved, client companies do not acknowledge that new versions always have the potential to enhance the business, and sometimes change versions only out of technical considerations. Technical problems relating to updates and new versions  are anticipated to be overcome in the future with the introduction of component based software according to Sprott (2000) and Fan, Stallaert et al. (2000). Software components are supposed to overcome the ""monolithic'' character of ERP systems, and increase the adaptability to business requirements considerably.

A new aspect of ERP systems, implementation for

global companies across many sites has been investigated by Markus, Tanis et al., (2000). They have identified that issues of large scale tend to evolve with regards to business strategy, software configura- tion, platform and management execution; the combination of these  issues  must be  addressed by the implementing company very carefully and a generic approach cannot be applied. Achieving the best fit between software and business is the main criterion for selecting a package for SMEs in Europe, as reported by Everdingen, Hillegersberg et  al. (2000); they point to the fact that the diversity between countries and industries sets up a new challenge for vendors in the new emerging markets, if they want to respond to the demands of clients in a comprehensive way.

For Willcocks and Sykes (2000), old managerial issues relating to the management of IT are perpetuated into the era of ERP systems. They maintain that lessons from the past still need to be learned for successfully implementing and operating an ERP system, and argue that the IT department needs to have established itself as the strategic partner of the business, and that systems should be viewed as a ""business investment in R&D'' rather than on a cost efficiency basis.

Given the low degree of stabilization of research activities indicated by the number of journal articles, it appears to be rather early to point out articulated areas of investigation. Considering both conference papers and articles, however, some observations can be made with regards to themes and methods in current ERP research. A new, ERP-specific issue appears to arise out of the scale of some ERP implementations and the internationalization of the software market. This ""globalization'' issue has the facets of implementing international business pro- cesses on one side and the adaptation to local environments on the other. Though the dominant concern appears to have so far been to study implementations through multiple  case  studies, issues regarding the further evolution of the installed ERP have already attracted some interest. These can be characterized as pertaining to knowledge manage- ment, small and medium enterprises, supply chain management, maintenance and enhancements regarding new functions and application  areas, such as e-business. The research method most commonly applied is the case study which underlines the rather descriptive type of research currently undertaken, aiming at immediate applicability for practice or teaching. Theory-driven approaches are still rare, but are likely to emerge in the future.

1.3.           Textbooks

Textbooks are fundamental elements for introducing novices in the university education system into a field of knowledge. They are commonly perceived to contain a consensually established set of problems and solutions that characterize the field of knowledge: textbooks rely on an accepted research tradition, or simply research precedes instruction. MIS textbooks, however, may need to deviate more or less from this principle, since the whole area is subject to frequent changes. One of the most recent of these changes that has had to be taken into account, was the rapid adoption of ERP packages by corporations all over the world. The following discussion of a sample of MIS textbooks shows that the synchronization of research with production of learning material may be a matter of concern.

Steven Alter (1999) tackles the complexity of today's information systems by following the tradi- tional typology of systems that takes into account their abstract tasks as the distinguishing feature; thus there are e.g., transaction processing, decision support,

management and executive information and execution systems to name but a few. It is obvious that ERP systems cannot be easily accommodated in such a categorization that does not consider the application areas of information systems in terms of business functions. Consequently, ERP systems are seen as hybrids, meaning that they contain a range of features from diverse categories of the systems typology. The development of ERP is depicted as a succession of extensions originating from MRP and leading into the current software offerings. However, ERP systems supposedly have an unexplained ""focus elsewhere''. The author characterizes ERP systems as being controversial, mainly due to their ""integrated data- base'' which ""structures .. . incorporate many process variations'' making them ""enormously complicated''. Installations of single modules ""may be called ERP'' too, due to their provenance, even though they do not ""accomplish the integration'' aimed at.

In contrast, James O'Brien (O'Brien, 1999) maintains that ""information systems in the  real world are typically integrated combinations of functional information systems .. . that support business processes.'' Furthermore, ""cross-functional information systems'' enable re-engineering of busi- ness processes and may be used in a ""strategic way'' to ""improve the efficiency and effectiveness of business processes''. He fails to distinguish between ERP and SCM, claiming that these systems run with ""enterprise resource'' planning (ERP) or  supply chain management (SCM) software. This  suggests that ""ERP software focuses on supporting the supply chain processes of a business''.

Crossing functional boundaries within a company and integration of business processes is also the main emphasis of ERP according to Turban, McLean and Wetherbe (1999). They contrast the promises of ""benefits from increased efficiency to improved quality, productivity, and profitability'' with the difficulties of implementing such a system, usually associated with changes of existing business pro- cesses.

One of the core principles of ERP, the inter- dependence of business functions has also been stressed by Effy Oz (1998: 80). He discusses ""strategic information systems'' and links re-engi- neering efforts to this concept. Furthermore, a detailed account of what is commonly seen as one of the origins of ERP, production management systems like

MRP and MRPII as well as manufacturing execution systems (MES), is given, yet, ERP is not mentioned at all.

For Laudon and Laudon (2000), ERP systems, or as they call  them-enterprise  systems-need  to  be viewed from a contextual and comprehensive perspective, which they call ""enterprise computing''. This is composed of the concepts of ""IT investment portfolio'', ""IT  infrastructure'',  ""business  logic'', and ""information architecture''. External factors that have driven the deployment of enterprise systems are identified as resulting from changed market dynamics, industry structures, and an orientation of managerial thinking towards business processes and entrepre- neurial strategy. On the technology side, networks, relational databases, client/server architecture and enterprise software applications, paralleled the shift in the business world. Enterprise systems are then discussed by contrasting the ""promise to integrate the diverse business processes of a firm into a single information architecture'' and the resulting business benefits with the five ""issues'' that have to be tackled to make these promises real: implementation, cost/ benefit analysis, robustness, interoperability and the realization of strategic value.

This random selection of textbooks shows  that ERP systems are often simply presented as being problematic, if they are not ignored. Except for Laudon and Laudon (2000), ERP is dealt with more in a cursory fashion, i.e., a few paragraphs or pages. Nearly all of the authors point to severe issues related to ERP. The criticism of Alter (1999) is mostly from a software perspective, suggesting that ERP systems are poorly implemented databases. Also software focussed, albeit without critical remarks, is the definition of ERP given by James O'Brien (1999), which strongly implies that ERP is very similar to supply chain management. For Turban, McLean and Wetherbe (1999) the problems of ERP systems appear to be more related to the change that the business must undergo. Problems of ERP systems are not reducible to software or a business issue for Laudon and Laudon (2000), who rather holistically see ERP as a complicated product within a complicated business and market environment.

1.4.           The emerging focus on ERP in the IS field Apparently, ERP attracted attention from the IS field once it became obvious that large, and especially U.S based corporations had begun to install these systems;

Judy Scott, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Colorado at Denver, USA.

Graeme Shanks, Department of Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

Christina Soh and Kenny (Kwai Fong) Lee, Information Management Research Center, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Iris Vessey, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, USA.

Michael Vitale, Melbourne Graduate  Business School, Australia.

Following is a synthesis of responses in relation to each of four questions posed (note that respondent codes used below e.g., E1, E2, etc., reflect the sequence in which responses  were  received  and have no relationship with the list sequence above).

1.1.          Question 1-It is believed by many that IS academics have been slow to recognize the impor- tance of packaged application software. Discussion on ERP has only begun to emerge in recent years. Please comment.

The literature review suggests that academic interest in ERP and packaged software began to emerge only in the second half of the 1990s. Yet the common view (Section 2) suggests that large, packaged application software has been an important phenomenon since the 1970s and that the concept of complete integration has also been pursued for more than two decades (see also Markus and Tanis, 1999). Here, respondents were asked whether academics have been slow to appreciate the importance of ERP  software, and  if so, why.

1.1.1.     Why  a  lag?-The   lag   is   under- standable. Several respondents suggest that the lag has not been very long, the lag is natural, or that some researchers were in early, perhaps even on time. Several respondents imply that ERP was the ""big bang'' (in an evolutionary sense). A major question this raises, is whether ERP represent a quantum leap in packaged application software, or the next stage in an evolution? Gable and Rosemann's (1999) survey data supports the contention that the lag has not been as long in Germany. Anecdotal evidence also supports

the view that computer science have mostly paid little

attention to this area, but are now like IS, increasingly interested.

1.1.2.     Why a lag?-Today's packages and package implementation are different.  Several  of  the experts suggest that today's ERP are different from earlier packages, thereby justifying the lag. We fully agree that package implementation is quite different from implementing custom software. Also, ERP packages have evolved dramatically over the years.

Nonetheless, we expect (E5) would agree that IS academics have to some extent been lax. Perhaps this is due to ERP selection and implementation often being driven by the business unit  rather  than  IT, with IT playing a lesser role;  perhaps  to  some degree a consequence of the ""not invented here'' syndrome; perhaps because ERP implementation is even more multi-disciplinary than earlier IS projects (less IS).

1.1.3.     Why a lag?-because its too hard! (E6) states

I agree; there's a bit of a learning trajectory involved & there isn't that much good ERP reference material around-most of which are practitioner- or vendor-generated. Also there are a number of knowledge & expertise domains to be traversed before getting to a stage of being comfortable with such systems & their poten- tial-first, a familiarity  with  the  complex, advanced business environment & enterprise structures within which such software are deployed for strategic advantage (e.g., that of the large conglomerates, MNCs, M&As, etc.) is beneficial. So is a good (systems) background in one business process or key value chain  area-featuring  in- depth, real-world expertise in the activities & information flow complexities that make up the area ... There is also the need to get a handle on the various ERP-related technologies such as client/ server distributed architectures, open systems, RDBMS concepts, etc. Added to these, package vendors have never made it easy for those outside their customer/user base to grasp the  design concept that they employ, having shrouded their design philosophy & system configuration con- vention in a vocabulary unique to themselves & packaging it all in a complex, proprietary design that is intended to lock in their customer base ...

Coming to grips with such ""entry barriers'' therefore takes a bit of time & effort, following which it becomes possible to appreciate the strengths of the software design, & the unique environments to which they bring their advantages to bear.

Thus, whether seeking to teach or research ERP, there is a significant investment required in understanding the complex melange of technologies, processes and issues involved; a daunting and risky undertaking. Also, it would appear that there exist significant economies of scale in pursuing system-building research into large-scale application package soft- ware. Small-scale system-building efforts of academics are unlikely to yield insights into the complexities of large-scale systems integration.

Finally, though not explicitly stated, several survey responses alluded to a further source of reluctance being the high cost of installing and operating an ERP system for teaching and research. Perhaps not surprisingly, increased ERP research and publication activity appears to coincide with increased university activity with ERP in teaching, and correspondend increased ERP vendor support of their systems for this purpose (in example, SAP's University Alliance Program only came into existence in 1997, with the first SAP systems installed in universities for the purposes of teaching and research going live that year. Note that SAP had given their software away freely in Germany for several years prior).

1.1.4.     Why a lag?-Fear of change.   (E2) implies that fear of change has been a motivation for the delayed response from IS academics.

ERP are a competency-destroying innovation, not only for traditional IS developers, but for some traditional IS researchers as well. Neither group has been in any hurry to abandon (or perhaps even to question) their existing competency base.

(E5) notes that

Many IS academics have come from a systems development background. Their expertise is in the areas of traditional requirements acquisition and modeling and systems design. This is particularly the case with the many academics obsessed with object orientation. ERP systems implementation is

much more concerned with understanding business processes and focuses on implementation rather than development. I think the realisation that most software is now packaged and much of that is ERP systems is finally dawning.

(E3) suggests that

If we are not researching this topic, it may mean that we are afraid to face the implications for our own intellectual capital.

A further possible explanation for the lag in IS attention to application packages may be the tendency for academics who develop depth and breadth in the area, to move out of academe. The pull from practice is strong. Universities must move quickly to adjust their reward systems and structures to encourage closeness with practice, while at the same time enticing their increasingly marketable staff to remain. The alternative strategy is to continue researching and teaching on a micro-scale and avoid or discourage staff gaining the exposure, breadth and relevance they require to be involved with large application software packages. It is our belief that this approach cannot be

sustained.

1.2.           Question 2-Technical, managerial and marketplace dynamics have influenced the evolution of ERP. please suggest what you feel have been

the more influential developments in each of these three areas.

Table 3 reflects a synthesis of comments made by the experts in relation to question 2.

Most often mentioned ""technical developments'' impacting ERP were: the advent of the Internet; faster, better and cheaper computing power; and the scalability and openness of client/server technology. (E5) suggests that ERP themselves are the technical innovation that has made organization-wide systems integration possible.

It is not always easy or useful to separate technical, managerial and other influences. (E9) suggests that

... there is a loop-back, i.e. from the managerial point of view these managerial concepts will influence and promote new technical develop- ments. Inter-organizational data transfer, which is essential for supply chains, requires standardized data formats and convenient ways to perform the

Table 3. Dynamics that have influenced the evolution of ERP

Respondent dynamic

Technical

(E7, E9, E10, E6, E12)                             The advent of client/server/scalability

(E1, E4, E8, E9, E12)                                Internet/need to clean up the back-office for e-business

(E2, E8, E6, E12)                                      Faster, more reliable and cheaper computing capacity ( processing, storage,

(E2)                                                             Improving understanding of how to put together very large systems

(E3)                                                             Frustration with client/server for in-house development

(E5)                                                             The dream of integration was too complex for in-house development

(E9)                                                             XML and standardized data formats

(E10)                                                           Telecommunications and networks

(E6)                                                             Microsoft NT, GUI/Unix, workflow, data mining, executive IS, mess from legacy

Managerial

(E3, E5, E6, E8, E10, E12),                      A desire to fulfill the promise of BPR/move to a process-orientation/recognition of ""best practices'' (E4, E10, E6) Globalization-1 face to the customer, 1 view of the customer

(E2, E4, E6, E12)                                      Larger and more complex organizations/The evolution towards ""federal'' firms/lean,

Flat, flexible, adaptive organizational designs

(E1, E10)                                                    Continuing desire for improved managerial decision making

(E7, E11)                                                    Focus on timely performance management and ""balanced scorecard'' approach

(E7, E10)                                                    Need to respond rapidly to the changing marketplace

(E10, E6)                                                    e-business/increasingly demanding customers

(E2)                                                             Continuing growth in demand for access to more and more data

(E3)                                                             Need to integrate across functions for competitive success

(E4)                                                             Standardisation of base-level processes in order to empower decision-makers

(E5)                                                             Trend towards outsourching of IT

(E5)                                                             The need for integration to support CRM

(E6)                                                             German strength in manufacturing and production management

(E9)                                                             Supply chain management

Marketplace

(E1, E3, E5)                                               Y2K

(E2, E3)                                                      Strong ERP vendor marketing

(E2, E10)                                                    IT skills shortage augers in favor of ""buy'' over ""make''

(E3, E5)                                                      Emergence of a strong slate of alternative ERP vendors, and assured ongoing

(E3, E10)                                                    The promise (maybe not fulfilled) of lower IT/support costs

(E2)                                                             Application service providers put ERP in reach of SMEs as well as large firms

(E3)                                                             Lots of hype

(E7)                                                             Availability of industry solutions

(E10)                                                           The right solution and message at the right time .. . following the BPR craze

(E6)                                                             Supply chain competition

(E6)                                                             Increasing customer service/value orientation

transfer. This requirement had a major impact on the development of XML which it is now experiencing. Obviously new forms of business arose due to changed conditions on the markets. Many of them shifted from seller to buyer markets and concurrently consumer needs became more demanding. A way for companies to react was to improve their internal and external structures and processes. The control of these processes implied the use of ERP systems which could provide the necessary information.

Comments on marketplace dynamics were relatively sparse, most ideas having already come out in relation

to technology and business dynamics. More respon- dents mention the Y2K problem here than under technical dynamics. Whether an overreaction to market-hype or a practical reality, Y2K undoubtedly contributed to dramatic growth in ERP sales in the second half of the 1990s as many organizations scrambled to replace their non-2000 compliant legacy systems. This glut of activity is also part of the reason why ERP sales plateaued in 2000.

Overall, respondents have cited a breadth of influences on the evolution of ERP, beyond the more readily identifiable technological developments of client/server, Internet, and declining costs of com- puting power. Important managerial developments

Table 4. Significant further developments coming

Respondent                                                     Coming development

(E1, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10)                             ERP vendors seek to transform themselves into e-business solution providers/

integration of intra- and inter-organizational systems

(E4, E5, E9, E10, E12)                                 Dominance of the web interface

(E3, E10, E6)                                                 Componentization of ERP

(E5, E7, E9)                                                   Application Hosting/Success in the SME marketplace

(E2, E11)                                                        ERP will become more feature rich

(E3, E9)                                                          Emergence of 3rd-party electronic markets (aka hubs and exchanges)

(E2)                                                                 The ERP marketplace will consolidate (as has happened for other packages, e.g., The Desktop)

(E4)                                                                 Move away from standard, global processes to data warehouses and middleware

(E5)                                                                 Support for interorganizational systems

(E5)                                                                 Focus on customer relationship management

include: process-orientation, globalization, outsourc- ing, new organizational designs, e-business, a focus on timely performance management and supply chain management. Major marketplace developments have been: Y2K, the IT skills shortage, ASPs, customer relationship management, and the emergence of a small number of strong ERP vendors.

1.3.          Question 3-What significant, further developments do you see coming?

Table 4 reflects a synthesis of responses to question 3. Over half of the respondents mentioned the movement to integrate intra- and inter-organizational systems, as reflected in the current stampede to e-business and customer relationship management systems. Both client demand and vendor posturing were mentioned. The web is clearly the network and interface of choice. Application hosting was cited as a means of reducing implementation and support costs and for

broadening access to ERP. Componentization was cited as the ""holy grail'' in the face of exponentially increasing software complexity (note that the holy grail has never been found).

1.4.          Question 4-Please relate your definition of ERP? Do not be concerned that your definition may not be complete or all encompassing. All definitions received will be useful to the study. If possible, please describe any reservations you have with the definition you supply.

Table 5 reflects a synthesis of comments made by the respondents in relation to question 4. Definitions tended to be brief with several expressing difficulty doing justice to the question. Not surprisingly, there was some overlap between responses to questions 2, 3 and 4. Defining ERP seemed to distract from the real issues or in some sense belittle the impact of ERP. Emphasis was on cross-functional integration of

Table 5. Salient characteristics of ERP

Respondent                                                                             Characteristics

E2, E4, E5, E11, E7, E8, E9, E10                                        Complete set of integrated software modules (e.g., production, logistics, finance,

human resources, output design)

(E3, E5, E6, E7, E12)                                                            Cross-functional integration (intra-organisation)

(E3, E7, E8, E9)                                                                     Configurable software

(E3, E6)                                                                                  Best practice process models

(E7, E9)                                                                                  Single, common, enterprise-wide database

(E2)                                                                                         Cross-enterprise business processes (inter-organisation)

(E7)                                                                                         Single, common user interface

(E9)                                                                                         Hooks to other systems (e.g., output design)

(E9)                                                                                         Multi-tier, client/server architecture

internal processes, comprehensiveness, configur- ability and ""best practice'' process models.  (E1) notes that

ERP is difficult to define. The enterprise software is only part of the concept. From an academic point of view, the interesting issues are organizational. The impact of ERP has been massive. Industries, organizations, IS departments, outsourcing and employees' jobs have been affected.

Like (E1), (E4) also suggests that

it is not the ERP that is interesting. It is the implementation and the accompanying new pro- cesses that are interesting.

(E10) suggests that

""Enterprise resource planning'' system is not an appropriate term for these systems. The term is too close to MRP/MRP II, and many people, even some who should know better, like to say that ERPs developed from MRP systems. Clearly, this is not true for the major players. I support the use of the term ""enterprise system  or         Perhaps we

might call ERPs BOISEs-back-office integrated systems for enterprises (with thanks to Bob Glass).

In this section we presented results from a survey of twelve notable researchers working in the area. The experts, like the authors have difficulty arriving at a complete definition of ERP; they too appear to feel that ERP is ""in the eye of the beholder'', its definition being a function of perspective and intent. Many feel that IS have not been lax in studying and teaching ERP, that ERP exploded onto the IS scene only in the mid-1990s, and that the lag in IS academic activity is thus understandable. Other reasons given for the lag were: fear of change and loss of intellectual capital, the complexity of ERP and the significant investment required in understanding the complex melange of technologies, processes and issues involved; and the high cost of installing and operating an ERP system for teaching and research, all of which make a commitment to researching and teaching ERP a daunting and risky undertaking. Whether system- building or studying practice (empirical research), survey responses implicitly argue for closer coopera- tion with practice in research, R&D and curriculum

and closer academic awareness of practice. A further difficulty implied in the survey responses, is the need to adjust university reward systems to both encourage the study of large multi-disciplinary systems, and to retain academic staff who are increasingly attracted to industry.

The expert opinion survey has revealed that there are conceptual obstacles to overcome, such as the label ERP and the fact that ERP is strongly rooted in manufacturing. The following discussion will hope- fully shed some light on these issues.

2.            Discussion: ERP-a Meaningful Label?

There exists dissent regarding the term ERP. Objections to the term usually read as follows: ERP denotes a particular category of software; this soft- ware, however, is not necessarily focused on managing resources; it has furthermore, no particular strength in the area of planning; and finally, current software extends its functionality beyond the enter- prise. Thomas Davenport and Laudon and Laudon, therefore have attempted to match words with ""reality'' by suggesting we refer to integrated packages as Business Systems. The underlying assumption is that the term ERP should denote something unambiguously by the words it contains. We concur with the observations of these authors, without necessarily sharing their recommendations. To clarify this matter we revisit critically the development path of MRP (50s)      MRP II (70s) CIM (80s) as suggested in section two and compare these predecessors with ERP in more detail. This path suggests a continuous extension of generic integration models.

Firstly, there are strong similarities between the

approaches taken by MRPII and CIM and the successor ERP. CIM has been defined as

The integrated management of information for all business and technical functions of a manufacturer

(Scheer, 1994: 2), while the broader approach of ERP has been captured as:

It (ERP) integrates logistics, manufacturing, financial and human resource management func-

tions within a company to enable enterprise-wide management of resources. (META Group, 1998).

In a similar vein, MRPII software solutions in the form of production planning and control systems can be regarded as the predecessors of ERP software.

Davenport (1996) sees in ERP as a

turbocharged version of manufacturing resource planning (MRP II), modified and strengthened to help manufacturers face the competitive chal- lenges of the 1990s.

Thus it can be said that,  like  ERP,  MRPII systems support a range of  typical  business functions, are based on the  concept  of  one (logically) integrated database, and  have  one common user interface. In the period of the CIM discussion, various integration  models  were designed, that served as conceptual models for the development of integrated packages. From a methodological viewpoint, the related CIM research led to the design of easier to understand modeling techniques, that in addition to the traditional data models (Chen, 1976) also included process models. However entire turnkey off-the-shelf CIM solutions were never available, yet related research helped to develop internally and externally used standard interfaces (like STEP or EDIFACT). Despite these similarities several key differences separate  ERP from MRPII and CIM and cast doubt on the theory of a linear, incremental development.

MRP, MRP II and CIM are comprehensively addressed in the production literature where accepted integration concepts, independent from specific solutions, are presented. ERP however, is  at  this stage mainly driven by currently available software products. A reference integration model for ERP, similar to the CIM approaches does not exist. This can be regarded as a major weakness of the ERP-related research up to now. This deficiency may also help to explain that a wide consensus across academe and practice for ERP related concepts and terminology has not been established.

MRP, MRPII and CIM were characterized by the

continuous extension of production  functionality. ERP however, can be implemented without any production-related functionality. MRPII e.g., is not a sub-module of ERP solutions targeting industries like banking or retailing. Moreover, while CIM included

many technical functions like CAD or CAM, ERP solutions typically do not have embedded modules for these functions. Moreover, the problems with inte- grating an ERP solution with the more technical systems are a major challenge for many companies. As MRP, MRPII and CIM concentrated on internal functions, they could not contribute to current ERP issues like the integration of business  partners (supply chain management, customer relationship management).

In conclusion, the suggestion that ERP derives from the MRP discussion is misleading in three ways. First, ERP does not have a particular focus on resources. At least of equal importance to the resource view is the process view. Second, the planning functionality is not the main strength of current ERP packages, which emphasize the execution of opera- tional transactions like sales order processing, more than support for sophisticated planning procedures in the areas of procurement, production, sales or finance. Third,  the  term  ""enterprise''  is  now  too  narrowly focused. While MRP covered all functions related to material management, and MRPII and CIM indeed concentrated on manufacturing issues. The develop- ment of integrated solutions for processes that span suppliers, customers or banks, extends the classical perspective that was limited by the borderlines of a company. The term ERP suggest the outcome of the historical development process; yet this process has some discontinuity, and it would be erroneous to assume that ERP literally means enterprise-wide planning of resources.

Thus, Thomas Davenport (2000) and Laudon and Laudon (2000) have argued strongly in favor of replacing the term ERP with business systems. This would also take into account that these systems are universal and not limited to manufacturing installa- tions. Furthermore, this would more closely align the rest of the world with continental Europe, which appears to favor the phrase ""standard business application software.''

Regardless of these terminological deficiencies, scholars in IS have adopted this ""island of technology'' term and an IS research domain is now evolving steadily under this banner. The phrase enterprise resource planning has become the most commonly used term to signify integrated business application packages; this is evidenced by the pervasiveness of the words ""enterprise resource planning'' and their abbreviation ""ERP'' in the

commercial press, in all types of IS publications, and in the vocabulary of widely used indexing services. We prefer to remain impartial in this debate over terminological normalisation; it might suffice to know how a phrase is used, in order to understand its meaning, and the widespread usage of ERP signals that the ambiguity assumed to exist due to its provenance, is apparently a non-issue. Wittgenstein compared those who demand definitions to ""tourists who read Baedeker while they stand before a building and through reading about the building's history, origins, and so on are kept from seeing it'' (cited in Blair 1990:154).

3.            Limitations and Future Directions

Finally, we discuss what we believe to be both limitations of the study reported and opportunities for further valuable research.

A major limitation of the analysis is due to our constraining the literature review to information systems academic publications. While we hope this approach yields a clearer indication of developments and insights specific to the IS area, we are very well aware of contributions made to the ERP area from different disciplines like software engineering, pro- duction                 management  and       accounting.         These contributions need to be considered in order to arrive at a more complete repository of ERP publications and conceptions. The variety of com- peting terms like COTS in software engineering present a special challenge. This is a central goal of future work we are continuing to pursue in the area. Further, our historical analysis has emphasized the lineage of ERP in MRP II and CIM. Yet we admit there has occurred a parallel evolution of large, administrative application software packages in practice. An example is the predecessor of the current market leading ERP solution, SAP R/2, which entered the market in 1973. A more complete analysis of the history of packaged software would carefully consider this parallel evolution; reasons for the apparent divide, and how the divide has ultimately been bridged by ERP. A further level of important integration not reflected in the preceding discussion and yet to be well addressed in practice, is between data collection

hardware and devices and the ERP software.

Our  expert  opinion  survey  too  is  skewed,  the

sample including a preponderance of empirical researchers. Though the software engineering per- spective is marginally represented, a more complete canvassing of alternative perspectives (e.g., OR/MS, OM, and manufacturing) through a similar survey approach would be revealing.

In tackling the question ""what is ERP?'' we did not intend to be prescriptive and arrive at an authoritative definition. While we believe the analyses and discussion have helped to surface complexities associated with ERP-related concepts, we recognize that we are yet far away from compelling and complete definitions.

References

Alter S. Information Systems: A Management Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1999.

Basu C, Palvia PC. Towards Developing A Model for Global Business Process Reengineering. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Becerra-Fernandez I, Murphy KE, et al. Integrating ERP in the business school curriculum. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):39-41.

Becker J. CIM-Integrationsmodell: die EDV-gestu·tzte Verbindung betrieblicher Bereiche. Berlin, 1991.

Becker J, Rosemann M, et al. Business-to-Business-Process Integration: Functions and Methods. 5th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS '97), Cork, 1997.

Bernroider E, Koch S. Decision Making For ERP-Investments From

the Perspective of Organizational Impact-Preliminary Results From an Empirical Study. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Blair DC. Language and Representation in Information Retrieval. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990.

Chan SS. Architecture Choices for ERP Systems. Americas Conference on Information  Systems,  August  13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Chatfield AT, Andersen KV. Playing with LEGO: IT, Coordination

and Global Supply Management in a World Leader Toy Manufacturing Enterprise. 6th European Conference on Information Systems, 4-6 June, Aix-en-Provence, Granada: Euro-Arab Management School, 1998.

Chen PP-S. The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1976;1(1):9-36. Chung SH, Synder CA. ERP Initiation-A Historical Perspective.

Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Davenport TH. Holistic Management of Mega-Package Change: the Case of SAP. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 16-18, Phoenix, AZ, 1996.

Davenport TH. Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 2000.

Eriksen LB, Axline S, et al. What Happens After ""Going Live""

With ERP Systems? Competence Centers Can Support Effective Institutionalization. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Everdingen Yv, Hillegersberg Jv, et al. ERP adoption by European midsize companies. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4): 27-31.

Fan M, Stallaert J, et al. The adoption and design methodologies of component-based enterprise systems. European Journal of Information Systems 2000;9(1):25-35.

Gable GG. Large package software: a neglected technology? Editorial. Journal of Global Information Management 1998;6(3):3-4.

Gable GG. Panel Discussion. 9th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, NSW, 1998.

Gable GG, Heever Rvd, et al. Using large packaged software in teaching: the case of SAP R/3. AIS Americas Conference, 15-17 August, Indianapolis, 1997.

Gable GG, Rosemann M. ERP in University Teaching & Research: An International Survey. 3rd Annual SAP Asia Pacific Institutes of Higher Learning Forum. Maximizing the Synergy Between Teaching, Research and Business, 1-2 November 1999, Singapore, North Sydney: SAP Australia Pty Ltd, 1999.

Gable GG, Scott JE, et al. Cooperative ERP Life-Cycle Knowledge Management. 9th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, September 29-October 2, Sydney, NSW: School of Information Systems, University of New South Wales, 1998.

Gable GG, Stewart G. SAP R/3 Implementation Issues for Small to Medium Enterprises. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Gunmaer   R.   Beyond   ERP   and   MRPII.   IEE   Solutions

1996;29(9):32-36.

Hanseth O, Braa K. Technology as Traitor: Emergent SAP Infrastructure in a Global Organization. 19th Annual International Conference on Information Systems, December 13-16, Helsinki, Finland, 1998.

Heever Rvd, Erlank S, et al. Large Packaged Software: The Need for Research. 3rd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane,  Information  Systems  Management Research Concentration, Queensland University of Technology, 1997.

Hirt SG, Swanson EB. Adopting SAP at Siemens Power Corporation. Journal of Information Technology (1999);14(3):243-251.

Holland CP, Light B. Generic Information Systems Design Strategies. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Holland CP, Light B, et al. A Critical Success Factors Model for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation. 7th European Conference on Information Systems, 23-25 June, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.

Holland CP, Light B, et al. Beyond Enterprise Resource Planning Projects: Innovative Strategies for Competitive Advantage. 7th European Conference on Information Systems, 23-25 June, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.

Holmes MC, Hayen RL. An Introduction to Enterprise Software Using SAP R/3: A Web-Based Course. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Holmes MC, Hayen RL. The Master of Science in Information Systems in a Regional Midwestern University. Americas

Conference on Information  Systems,  August  13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Holsapple CW, Sena MP. Enterprise Systems for Organizational Decision Support: A Research Agenda. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Kelly S, Holland CP, et al. Enterprise Resource Planning: A Business Approach to Systems Development. Americas Conference on Information   Systems,   August   13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Kremers M, Dissel Hv. ERP system migrations. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):53-56.

Laudon KC, Laudon JP. Management Information Systems: Organization and Technology in the Networked Enterprise. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 2000.

Lindholm  E.   ""Manufacturing   open   systems.''   Datamation

1992;38(20):105-6.

Lopes PF.  CIM  II:  the  integrated  manufacturing  enterprise.

Industrial Engineering 1992;24(11):43-45.

Mahrer H. SAP R/3 implementation at the ETH Zurich-a higher education management success story?. Americas Conference on Information   Systems,   August   13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Markus ML, Tanis C. The Enterprise System Experience-From Adoption to Success. Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past. RW Zmud. Cincinnati, OH, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, 1999:173-207.

Markus ML,  Tanis  C,  et  al.  Multisite  ERP  implementations.

Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):42-46.

Niehus J, Knobel B, et al. Implementing SAP R/3 at Queensland Departments of Transport and Main Roads: A Case Study. 6th European Conference on Information Systems, 4-6 June, Aix-en-Provence, Granada: Euro-Arab Management School, 1998.

Noguera JH, Watson EF. Effectiveness of Using Enterprise Systems to Teach Process-Centered Concepts in Business Education. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

O'Brien JA. Management Information Systems: Managing Information Technology in the Internetworked Enterprise. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1999.

Orlicky J. Material Requirements Planning: The New Way of Life in Production and Inventory Management. New York: McGraw Hill, 1975.

Pawlowski S, Boudreau M-C, et al. Constraints and Flexibility in Enterprise Systems: A Dialectic of System and Job. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Pe rez M, Rojas T, et al. SAP, Change Management and Process Development Effectiveness (II): Case Study. Americas Conference on Information   Systems,   August   13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Philippakis A, Hardaway D. Panel ERP in the MIS Curriculum: A Tri-Perspective. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Ricciuti M. Connect Manufacturing to the Enterprise (software).

Datamation 1992;38(2):44.

Rosemann M. ERP Software: Characteristics and Consequences. 7th European Conference on Information Systems, 23-25 June, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.

Rosemann M, Chan R. Structuring and Modeling Knowledge in the Context of Enterprise Resource Planning. 4th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Hong Kong, Publishing Technology Center, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2000.

Rosemann M, Wiese J. Measuring the Performance of ERP Software: A Balanced Scorecard Approach. 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, New Zealand, 1999.

Ross J. Dow Corning Corporation: Business Processes and Information Technology. Journal of Information Technology 1999;14(3):253-266.

Sato R. Quick Iterative Process Prototyping: A Bridge Over the Gap Between ERP and Business Process Reengineering. 4th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Sytems, Hong Kong, Publishing Technology Center, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2000.

Scheer A-W. CIM-Towards the Factory of the Future. Berlin: Springer, 1994.

Scheer A-W. ARIS-Business Process Modeling. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1999.

Scheer   A-W,    Habermann    F.    Making    ERP    a    success.

Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):57-61.

Scott JE. ERP Effectiveness in the Classroom: Assessing Congruence with Theoretical Learning Models. Americas Conference on Information   Systems,   August   13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Scott JE. The FoxMeyer Drugs" Bankruptcy: Was it a Failure of ERP? Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13- 15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Scott JE, Gable GG. Goal Congruence, Trust and Organisational Culture: Strengthening Knowledge Links. International Conference on Information System, 14-17 December, Atlanta, GA, 1997.

Scott JE, Kaindl L. Enhancing Functionality in an Enterprise Software Package. Information and Management 2000;37(3):111-122.

Shanks G, Parr A, et al. Differences in Critical Success Factors in ERP Systems Implementation in Australia and China: A Cultural

Analysis. 8th European Conference on Information Systems, Vienna, 2000.

Sieber MM, Nah FHF. A Recurring Improvisational Methodology for Change Management in ERP Implementation. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Slooten Kv, Yap L. Implementing ERP Information Systems Using SAP. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13- 15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Smethurst J, Kawalek P. Structured Methodology Usage in ERP Implementation Projects: An Empirical Investigation. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Soh C, Kien SS, et al. Cultural Fits and Misfits: is ERP a Universal Solution? Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):47-51.

Sor R. Management Reflections in Relation to Enterprise Wide Systems. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Southwick R, Sawyer S. Critical Views of Organization, Management, and Information Technology: Applying Critical

Social Theory to Information System Research. Americas Conference on Information  Systems,  August  13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Sprott D. Componentizing the Enterprise Application Packages.

Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):63-69.

Stefanou CJ. Supply Chain Management (SCM) and Organizational Key Factors for Successful Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Stewart G, Gable GG, et al. Lessons From the Field: A Reflection on Teaching SAP R/3 and ERP Implementation Issues. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Sumner M. Critical Success Factors in Enterprise Wide Information Management Systems Projects. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Turban E, McLean E, et al. Information Technology for Management: Making Connections for Strategic Advantage. New York: Wiley, 1999.

Veth T. Acquiring and Implementing ERP: The View From Business and Academia. 19th Annual International Conference on Information Systems, December 13-16, Helsinki, Finland, 1998. Victor F, May R, et al. Doing the Right Thing Right: Experiences on an Interdisciplinary SAP R/3 Education Project. 3rd Annual SAP Asia Pacific Institutes of Higher Learning Forum. Maximizing the Synergy Between Teaching, Research and Business,   1-2 November 1999, Singapore, North Sydney: SAP Australia Pty

Ltd, 1999.

Volkoff O. Using the Structurational Model of Technology to Analyze an ERP Implementation. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Watson EF, Rosemann M, et al. An Overview of Teaching and Research Using SAP R/3. Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 13-15, Milwaukee, WI, 1999.

Willcocks LP, Sykes R. The Role of the CIO and IT Function in ERP. Communications of the ACM 2000;43(4):32-38.

Winter R. HSG Master of Business Engineering Program: Qualifying High Potentials for IS-enabled Change. 7th European Conference on Information Systems, 23-25 June, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.

Yusuf Y, Little D. An empirical investigation of enterprise-wide integration of MRPII. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 1998;18(1):66-86.

Michael Rosemann is Senior Lecturer  at the School of Information Systems and Associate Director of the Information Systems Management Research Center (ISMRC), Queensland University of Technology (QUT). His Ph.D. is from the Department of Information Systems, University of Munster, Germany. He is the author of two books and editor of two books about process management, process modeling and production management. Furthermore, he wrote 15 chapters for several books and published