Dissertation P ERP Presentation - Enterprise Computing Community

Report
Fourth Annual National Conference on Enterprise Computing 2012 Marist College
Validating Academic Training
Verses
Organizational Training
An Analysis in the Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) Field
Dr. Jill O’Sullivan
Farmingdale State College
School of Business
Computer Systems Department
Table of Contents
• Introduction
• What is Enterprise Resource Planning
• Questionnaires, Interviews, Case Studies and
Surveys
• Researched Literature
• ERP Employer Survey Questions and Results
• Comparison of Training Methodologies
• Key Results
• Conclusions
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Presentation Intention
• What this researcher did.
• How this researcher did this.
• What results are, what results say and what
results mean.
• How the researcher can support what this
means.
• Why this information is important.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
This research disclosed





ERP in the workforce,
ERP academic history,
Business drivers impacting ERP strategy,
ERP importance to organizations, benefits,
Critical success factors in ERP training and
education.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Introduction
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Problem and Solution Strategy
• New hires not meeting the needs of
companies regarding their ERP education and
skills.
• The intent of this research was to determine a
correlation between colleges prepared
students and employees new to ERP that have
gone through their companies ERP training.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Significance
Training to use tools required in business is Critical.
• Lack of proper skills--and especially the latest
skills--can prevent a company from being a
leader, as well as affecting the bottom line
profits.
• Need in academia to effectively teach ERP
concepts using a hands on real world ERP tool
that reflects what is needed in new hires for
industry use. [9]
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Purpose of Study
• Explored what industry uses in their ERP
training, as compared to college prepared
students.
• Exposed a correlation between ERP prepared
students and employees new to ERP that have
gone through ERP training.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP
Enterprise Resource Planning
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
What Is Enterprise Resource Planning
• Packaged software applications that support
most of an organization information needs
within and across functional areas to
coordinate information in every area of
business.
• Helps to manage companywide business
processes, using a common database and
shared management reporting tools.[56].
Typical ERP Components
APICS Definition
12th edition
• Framework for organizing, defining, and
standardizing the business processes
necessary to effectively plan and control an
organization so the organization can use its
internal knowledge to seek external
advantage. [4].
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Infor Visual
• The use of the Infor Visual ERP is the focus of
this study since it is what the students
featured in the interviews (IDI) and Case
Studies have learned and mastered.
• Those companies solicited for responses to
the ERP Employer Survey are all Infor Visual
Users except for some of the APICS ERP Forum
Survey.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questionnaires, Interviews,
and Surveys
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
What this Researcher Did
How This Was Done
What The Results Were
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Student Self Reported Knowledge
Questionnaire
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Student Self Reported Knowledge
Questionnaire
• Created and used a questionnaire to assess
FSC students proficiency/skills at the
beginning and at the end of the ERP class
experience for four semesters.
• Nine Questions, likert Scale 1,2,3.
• A total of 72 students responded from four
classes.[48]
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
How Student Self Reported Knowledge
Questionnaire Was Completed
• ERP Students were given the questionnaire
with an envelope in class at the beginning of
the semester and then at the end of the
semester.
• Students completed this questionnaire in the
class then put this in a sealed envelope.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Student Self Reported Knowledge Questionnaire
Results
• Students learned how to use this real world
ERP Infor Visual Tool because of this class
experience.
• Students better understand business functions
per specific applications and the importance
of their cross functionality.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Interviews
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Students
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2011
Interviews -Students
• Conducted Interviews of ERP Students now in full
time positions in industry about their ERP
responsibilities and performance.
• Interviews were conducted:
– In the researchers office at FSC, in the Students offices
at their companies, in their Managers offices and in
the President’s Conference room of the company the
student worked for.
– Interviews lasted between one hour and twenty five
minutes to three hours including a class presentation.
– Interviews were based on an Interview script created.
– All interviews were recorded.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2011
Interviews Students Results
• Students revealed that they are more prepared,
knowledgeable, and skilled in using their
companies ERP because of the experience in this
ERP class.
• They were able to start faster than others with
less training and more accuracy.
• Therefore, what this tells us is that this type of
ERP preparation is beneficial to ERP user
companies as we saw in the many areas these
students described in their job functional
activities.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2011
Student’s Managers
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Interviews Managers
• Conducted Interviews of ERP Student’s Managers
acquiring information about these students now
in full time positions to determine how they
performed ERP tasks.
• Interviews conducted;
– In Managers offices, on teleconference, via email
responses.
– Interviews were based on an Interview script.
– Interviews lasted approximately forty five minutes.
– Recorded or written document responses.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Interviews Managers Results
• Students Managers revealed that these
students are more prepared, knowledgeable,
and skilled in using their companies ERP
because of the experience in this ERP class.
• They were able to start faster than others with
less training and more accuracy.
• ERP preparation is beneficial to ERP user
companies per students managers.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Professors Teaching SAP ERP
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Interviewed SAP Professors
• Conducted five telephone interviews of
University Professors who use the SAP ERP in
their Classrooms since there are No Infor
Visual Course available except for the featured
classes at FSC.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
How Interviewed SAP Professors
• Contacted five SAP Professors via telephone.
• Sent Script Questionnaire via email.
• Followed up with telephone call to discuss.
– Lasted around thirty minutes to one hour.
– Recorded
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Results Interviewed SAP Professors
• SAP Professors stated they did not have an
assessment or way to measure if what was
taught to students was successfully meeting
the needs of industry.
• They did not have information on follow up
with their students now in industry.
• Many recommended this study as an
important contribution.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Case Studies
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Case Studies
• Created a case study script to guide students into
describing their transition experience from the
ERP classroom into the business world.
• Sent this script via email to these students.
• Went over some in person face to face and some
returned the script completed.
• Based on the featured Students input;
– Highlighted Students ERP skills, proficiency and
knowledge acquired in the ERP class and currently
used in their positions on the job.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Case Studies
• The case studies include In Depth Interviewing
(IDI) of students from this ERP class that have
transitioned over into industry.
• Students that have taken the ERP class and are
now in industry using ERP as a part of their
daily functions exposes their significant
distinct advantage because of this ERP hands
on learning experience.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Case Studies Results
• Students conveyed how the class ERP
experience made a difference in their ability
to perform their responsibilities using ERP.
• The hands on ERP experience preparation in
the ERP Class at FSC prepared students very
well for industry ERP positions.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Employer Survey
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Employer Survey
• Created an ERP employer survey in many
iterations until we concluded with a 31 question
survey, the ERP Employer Survey.
• The survey was put on a tool called Lime Survey
due to its open source, user friendly and fantastic
report bearing capabilities.
• Survey was open for two weeks with one
reminder after the eight day.
• Solicited responses to an ERP Employer Survey
from Infor Visual Customers.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Employer Survey
• The survey had thirty one questions and was
segregated into six different groups including;
– ERP experience which had four questions.
– ERP Training and Education which had thirteen
different questions.
– ERP Skills which had two questions.
– New to ERP Capabilities which had four questions.
– Performance Measurements which had two
questions .
– Demographic Information which had six questions
total.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Employer Survey Results
• There were seven hundred seventy one Infor
Visual Customers in the United States and
Canada solicited.
• Three hundred thirty one opened the first eblast; and of those, 41 clicked on the survey
link, out of those 39 proceeded to complete
the survey.
• Actual Results in section ahead, slide 51.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
APICS NYC/LI ERP Survey
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
APICS ERP Survey in ERP Forum
• Conducted an APICS ERP Survey in ERP Forum.
• Sent using Survey Monkey
• Soliciting APICS NYC/LI Membership
– Survey had 12 questions
• Combination fill-in blank and multiple choice
– 19 responders
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
APICS ERP Survey Results
• Most important information revealed from this survey that
correlates with this study is in response to this question:
– Cross-functional collaboration is a critical factor in the success of
an ERP system. Select the functions that are actively involved in
the development or continuous improvement of the ERP system
in your organization:
• Because we saw cross functional collaboration identified in
the answers of ; sales, engineering, manufacturing, quality,
customer service, logistics, IT, accounting and HR we induce
that this tells us that the students experience in this class
in the same module areas proves the validation of this
study of Academic Training Verses Organizational Training.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Researched Literature
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Researched Literature
•
•
•
•
ERP In Academia
ERP Curriculum Development
Collaboration Efforts-Industry and Academia
Training Profiles
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Academic ERP Program
• The research on the integration of ERP into
university curricula loosely falls into four
general themes: (SAP ONLY Represented here)
– (a) ERP curriculum development
– (b) adoption levels of ERP software in curriculum
– (c) integrating ERP concepts into a single course
or project
– (d) lessons learned from implementing ERP into
university curricula. [21]
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Collaboration
Industry and Academia
• Companies are eager to consult with faculty
on developing realistic hands on exercises
because they are aware that students in these
classes will then the be better prepared as
potential employees. [6]
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Training
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Generic Training Profile
Training, instruction, or educational courses can be provided through a variety of
media:
• Personal instruction
– Classroom instruction
– Seminars
– On-the-job (OJT) training
•
Written instruction
– Text books
– Manuals
– Guides
•
Teaching via computers
– Computer-Based Training
– Web-Based Training
•
•
•
Teaching via audio tapes or video tapes
Distance learning
Or a combination of the above.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Industry ERP Training
• A Full Coverage Support System for Business
• The primary focus of ERP is to improve and increase
the flow of accurate information within an organization
(Norris, Hutley, Hartley, Dunleavy, & Balls, 2000).
• ERP software improves cooperation, collaboration and
interaction between all business functional areas or
units in an organization including accounts payable,
receivable, payroll, HR, purchasing, inventory
management, shop floor, sales, customer entry,
engineering and manufacturing.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Academic ERP Program
• The research on the integration of ERP into
university curricula loosely falls into four
general themes:
– (a) ERP curriculum development
– (b) adoption levels of ERP software in curriculum
– (c) integrating ERP concepts into a single course
or project
– (d) lessons learned from implementing ERP into
university curricula. [21]{SAP}
FSC ERP Program
The ERP courses at FSC utilize a variety of media:
• Personal instruction
– Classroom instruction
– Seminars (Visiting Specialists)
– On-the-job (OJT) In Class apprenticeship type training
• Written instruction
– Text books
– Manuals
– Guides
• Teaching via computers
– Computer-Based Training (SLN)
– Web-Based Training (Remote)
• Teaching via audio tapes or video tapes (SLN)
• Distance learning (between classes)
• A combination of the above.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Employer Survey Questions
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Employer Survey
• The survey had thirty one questions and was
segregated into six different groups including;
– ERP experience which had four questions.
– ERP Training and Education which had thirteen
different questions.
– ERP Skills which had two questions.
– New to ERP Capabilities which had four questions
– Performance Measurements which had two
questions .
– Demographic Information which had six questions
total.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Survey Elements
• Nine Tasks for Comparison
• Six Training Methodologies
• Four Employee Categories
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Nine Tasks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Search to find data/understand impact on functions
Drill down in different module
Perform basic activities per modules
Obtain reports and use for decision making
Track activities per operation flows
Display existing data and create new data
Create reports to perform analysis
View and manipulate data
Inquire from any module to any other for data
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Four Training Methodologies
• Training Methodologies:
1. On the Job Apprentice; includes working closely
with functional manager in the position hired
for.
2. On the Job Training Program includes; Inside
trainers (responsible for ERP training Inside
company)
3. Outside trainers includes; Outside Consultant.
4. Outside trainers includes; Third party Trainer.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Employee Categories
1. NO ERP EXPERIENCE; Includes;
a) 1st time job out of college,
b) new employee with work experience
c) current employee
2. ERP EXPERIENCE BUT NOT CURRENT ERP TOOL;
Includes;
a) academic trained
b) work trained
3. ERP EXPERIENCE WITH CURRENT ERP TOOL; Includes;
a) not with company experience
b) in the company but in a different functional area.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
ERP Class Equivalent Activities To Nine Tasks
A description of what these ERP students due in
each area that equates to these tasks follows.
All required exercises, assignments,
homework's, quizzes, tests and presentations
are put in to the SUNY Learning Network SLN
Angel system that controls all class materials
per chapter modules.
All grades are derived per a rubric and
automatically go into the gradebook once
graded.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
1. Search to find data/understand impact on
functions
• Students required to search per exercises, assignments, homework,
quizzes tests and projects. Required to prove that they have found certain
items per each module when searching; customers, addresses, PO’s, part
numbers, revisions, ECN’s, work orders, BOM’s, quotes, suppliers, vendors,
employees, reports, invoices, pricing, receivables, customer orders, RFQ’s,
employee pay rates, category, delivery dates, due dates, order dates,
customer credit limits, late shipments, MRO returned material, sales per
period, PO’s per period, shipments per period, jobs on shop floor,
resources, warehouses, inventory, locations, burden rates, labor rates, job
profiles, profits by date, part number, customer order departments,
delivery dates. Students go to help menu to find information then tell
how they found it and what it means. Requires students to describe what
they have done, what it means and how it affects other functional areas
Students must prove with screen shots on all assignments exercises,
homework, quizzes, tests and projects that they comprehend.
• They are graded on what they provide as evidence of the requirements.
They must prove they know this with screen shots of what they did.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
•
2. Drill down in different module
.
Students are required in this hands on class to go
into their ERP database and drill down into every
module to find, gather and input data.
• This is required for exercise, assignments, quizzes,
tests and projects all which are graded.
• Each module has a drop down selection of
between five to eight areas for drilling down into.
See next slide for actual systems visual graphical
view.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
3. Perform basic activities per modules
• Students are required to perform tasks per
exercise, assignments initially giving them an
overview of the system.
• Then students perform more detailed tasks
per exercises, assignments, homework,
projects, quizzes and tests.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
5. Track activities per operation flows
• The student activities build on each other as if
they were a company building and selling a
product.
• As a manufacturer of the parts (solar panels)
they are responsible for all aspects of the
companies information flow.
• They have to input data that affects other
areas and track that information, specifically
when they run MRP for the solar panels.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
6. Display existing data and create new data
• Students are required to prove that they can
find data and create new data whether in the
form of quotes, purchase orders, invoices, bill
of materials, work order, shop floor resources,
receivable and any other real life transaction a
company does. They prove they can do this
buy submitting screen shots per assignments.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
7. Create reports to perform analysis
• Students must create specific reports and
explain the analysis of these reports. As with
all other assignments these are graded.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
8. View and manipulate data
• Students prove they can view information in
their system and be able to manipulate that
data for example they will have to find or
enter a quote, they might have to change the
ship to, terms, unit of measure or part
revisions or anything else that real companies
have to deal with.
• They then have to either find existing
information or create it.
9. Inquire from any module to any other for data
• Students often do this in their assignments,
they must be able to understand where to get
info and where info goes when entering. They
must be able to pull from different screens in
completing their assignments. Examples on
exercise and activities slide.
Students Exercises and Activities Includes all Nine Tasks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enter Quotation Order on the Shop
Floor
Enter Customer Order from Quotation
Evaluating Backlog
Evaluating our forecast against true
orders
Entering the Parts
Entering the Product Structure
Adding Material to Product Structure
Customer Order Entry Exercise
Entering a Customer Line Item
Creating a Linked Work Order
Modifying the standard Work Order
Product Structure
Planning for Make to Stock Work
Orders
Setting up a MTS Part ID
Create reports for analysis
• Material to a Work Order
• Reviewing the Cost of the
Work Order
• Completion of the Work Order
• Processing a Shipment
• Measuring Profit and Loss
• Accounting Transactions
• Lean activities
• Execution of Work Order
• Creating a New Product
Structure
• Using a Master Schedule to
Create Demand
• Entering a Master Schedule
into Visual
• Running MRP
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
All Nine Tasks are found in Student
Requirements and were derived from
student activities, literature and company
information
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Survey Questions Results
Questions 1-5 Results
• Majority of company responses
1.
2.
3.
4.
IT departments manage ERP training.
Department managers decided who gets trained .
Companies use an On the job apprentice training.
Companies create their ERP training database in
house.
5. ERP Experience But Not with Current ERP was the
employee category chosen when hiring for an
opportunity.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questions 6-7 Results
6. Training methodology used was the on the job apprentice
which includes working closely with functional manager in
the position hired.
Validates the method used in the classroom as apprentice type
training. We also saw evidence of in the interviews and
featured case studies.
7. ERP revealed that the most important per training
methodology came out to be Improve production /
process for on the job apprentice.
Therefore the tasks in the class within production and
processes validates the correlation and ties into
research about key performance factors.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questions 8-10 Results
8. Revealed that those with No ERP use a training
database while those with current system or not use a
live ERP system.
*conclude that the system in the classroom is validated.
9. Those with no ERP and or without the current tool
receive apprentice on the job training while those
with ERP experience received training from an inside
trainer.
* in class training is validated.
10. Companies train about one to five new employees a
year.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questions 11- 14 Results
• Time and money are the driving forces in ERP
Training.
The time of training ranges from one week to
eight weeks while the class is fifteen weeks
twice a week.
Therefore we see more actual training with the
ERP class resulting in a student who is more
prepared which correlates with the interview
and case studies.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questions 15- 17 Results
• The modules new hires exposed to in training
are inventory, sales, purchasing, engineering
and manufacturing.
This correlates directly with the course material
subject ERP offering per the case studies
herein and is highlighted by the students
interviews. [27]
Because we saw this we induce a direct
validation.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questions 18 Results
• Critical skills required are;
– How to interpret demands & supplies
– Have knowledge and experience with
Manufacturing Work orders.
Therefore and because of this information the
case study and interviews validate that this is
taught in the class and required by industry.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Question 19 Results
• Companies would include in training:
– ERP Knowledge of a general overview of standard
flow of organization
– General system navigation. [27]
• Because we saw this in these results and
recognize industries need for these skills we
therefore confirm that the class utilized these
and validates the correlation.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questions 20-23
• These four questions resulted in 576 answer
which are reviewed here in graph form for a quick
view of the conclusions. Slides 79-109
• The first to be viewed are NO ERP experience
starting with On the Job Apprentice; Inside
trainers, Outside Consultant and Outside Third
party Trainer.
• The second to be viewed are ERP experience
starting with On the Job Apprentice; Inside
trainers, Outside Consultant and Outside Third
party Trainer.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
New to ERP Capabilities
Each of these questions asked the company to rank their responses with Ranking Choices; 1
Least Competent, 2 Competent and 3 Most Competent. The Results follow in the form of
graphs .
•
20. When you put an employee through the company's ERP education and training
program (in a Job Training Apprentice), how do they rate in being competent after
completion per employee category?
•
21. When you put an employee through the company's ERP education and training program
(in a Job Training Inside), how do they rate in being competent after completion per
employee category?
•
22. When you put an employee through the company's ERP education and training program
(in a Job Training by Outside Consultant), how do they rate in being competent after
completion per employee category?
•
23. When you put an employee through the company's ERP education and training program
(in a Job Training by Outside Third Party), how do they rate in being competent after
completion per employee category?
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
When you put an employee through the company's ERP education and training program how do
they rate in being competent after completion? Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task
NO ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
1. Search to find
data/understand
impact on functions
0.5
2. Drill down in
different module
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
0.6
Competent
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
Most Competent
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –NO
ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
3. Perform basic
activities per
modules
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
0
0.5
4. Obtain reports
and use for
decision making
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
Competent
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
Most Competent
0.1
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –NO
ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
5. Track
activities per
operation flows
Least
Competent
Competent
0.2
0.1
0
0.6
0.5
6. Display
existing data and
create new data
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
Most
Competent
0.1
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –NO
ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
7. Create
reports to
perform analysis
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
8. View and
manipulate data
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.1
0
Most Competent
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
9. Inquire from
any module to
any other for data
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 NO ERP Class Per Task ; Category -NOERP -Knowledge; Training Method - Inside Training
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
1. Search to find
data/understand
impact on
functions
0.5
Least Competent
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
2. Drill down in
different module
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.2
Competent
0.2
Competent
0.1
0
Most Competent
0.1
0
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2011
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 NO ERP Class Per Task ; Category -NOERP -Knowledge; Training Method - Inside Training
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
3. Perform
basic activities
per modules
0.4
Least
Competent
0.3
Competent
0
0.5
4. Obtain reports
and use for decision
making
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
Most
Competent
0.1
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 NO ERP Class Per Task ; Category -NOERP -Knowledge; Training Method - Inside Training
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
5. Track
activities per
operation flows
0.6
Competent
0
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.2
0.1
6. Display existing data
and create new data
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
0.5
Most Competent
Most Competent
0.1
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 NO ERP Class Per Task ; Category -NOERP -Knowledge; Training Method - Inside Training
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
7. Create reports
to perform analysis
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
0.1
0
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
0.6
0.2
8. View and
manipulate data
Most Competent
1
0.6
9. Inquire from any
module to any
other for data
0.4
Least Competent
0.8
0.2
0
Competent
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NOERP Knowledge ; Training Method -Outside Consultant Training
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
1. Search to find
data/understand
impact on functions
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
0.5
2. Drill down in
different module
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.6
Most Competent
Competent
Most Competent
0
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NOERP Knowledge ; Training Method -Outside Consultant Training
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.8
3. Perform
basic activities
per modules
Least
Competent
0.6
0.5
0.4
4. Obtain reports
and use for
decision making
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.2
Competent
0.1
0
0.1
0
0.7
Most
Competent
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NOERP Knowledge ; Training Method -Outside Consultant Training
1
0.9
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
5. Track
activities per
operation flows
0.6
Least Competent
0.4
0.5
0.4
6. Display existing
data and create new
data
Least Competent
0.3
0.3
0.2
Competent
0.1
0.2
0.1
Competent
0
Most Competent
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NOERP Knowledge ; Training Method -Outside Consultant Training
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
7. Create reports
to perform
analysis
8. View and
manipulate data
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.1
Most Competent
1
0.6
9. Inquire from
any module to
any other for data
0.4
Least Competent
0.8
0
0.2
0
Competent
Most Competent
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 23 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NO
ERP Knowledge; Training Method-Outside Third Party Training
1
0.9
0.8
0.6
1. Search to find
data/understand
impact on
functions
0.5
Least Competent
0.7
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2. Drill down in
different module
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
0.1
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 23 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NO
ERP Knowledge; Training Method-Outside Third Party Training
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
3. Perform
basic activities
per modules
Least
Competent
Competent
0
0.5
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
0.2
Competent
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.6
4. Obtain reports
and use for
decision making
0
Most Competent
Most
Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 23 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NO
ERP Knowledge; Training Method-Outside Third Party Training
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
5. Track activities
per operation
flows
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
0
0.5
6. Display existing
data and create new
data
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
Competent
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
Most Competent
0.1
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 23 To ERP Class Per Task; Category -NO
ERP Knowledge; Training Method-Outside Third Party Training
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
7. Create
reports to
perform
analysis
Least
Competent
Competent
Most
Competent
Competent
0.3
0.2
0
8. View and
manipulate
data
Least
Competent
0.4
0.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Most
Competent
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
9. Inquire
from any
module to
any other for
data
Least
Competent
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
1. Search to find
data/understand
impact on functions
Least Competent
0.4
Competent
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2. Drill down in
different module
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
0.2
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
3. Perform basic
activities per
modules
Least Competent
0.5
4. Obtain reports
and use for decision
making
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
Competent
0.1
Most Competent
0
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1
0.9
0.8
1
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
5. Track
activities per
operation flows
0.9
Least
Competent
0.6
Competent
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
6. Display existing
data and create new
data
Least Competent
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.2
Most
Competent
Competent
0.1
0
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 20 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP Knowledge; Training Method -On Job Apprentice
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
7. Create
reports to
perform
analysis
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Least
Competent
8. View and manipulate
data
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.1
0
Most
Competent
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
9. Inquire from any
module to any other for
data
Least Competent
Competent
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP -Knowledge; Training Method- Inside Trainer
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1. Search to
find
data/understa
nd impact on
functions
Least
Competent
0.4
0.3
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
2. Drill down in
different module
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
0.2
Competent
0.1
0.2
0
Most Competent
0.1
0
Most
Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP -Knowledge; Training Method- Inside Trainer
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
3. Perform basic
activities per
modules
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0
0.7
0.6
0.5
4. Obtain reports and
use for decision making
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.2
Most Competent
0.1
Competent
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP -Knowledge; Training Method- Inside Trainer
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
5. Track
activities per
operation flows
0.8
0.6
0.4
Least
Competent
6. Display existing data
and create new data
0.5
Least Competent
0.3
Competent
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
0
0.7
0.4
Competent
0.3
Most
Competent
Most Competent
0.2
0.1
0
ERP Class Academic
New
Current
Employee Emply Dif
w/work
Fnctn
exp
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graphs Task Comparisons Question 21 To ERP Class Per Task; Category –
ERP -Knowledge; Training Method- Inside Trainer
1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
8. View and
manipulate data
0.4
Least Competent
0.8
7. Create
reports to
perform
analysis
0.2
Competent
0
Least
Competent
Most Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.1
0
Most
Competent
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
9. Inquire from
any module to any
other for data
Least Competent
Competent
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task
Category -ERP ; Training Method-Outside Consultant Training
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
1. Search to
find
data/underst
and impact
on functions
Least
Competent
0.5
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2. Drill down in
different module
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
0.1
0
Most
Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task
Category -ERP ; Training Method-Outside Consultant Training
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
3. Perform
basic activities
per modules
0.7
Least
Competent
0.4
Competent
0.2
0.1
0
0.6
0.5
4. Obtain reports and
use for decision
making
Least Competent
0.3
0.2
Competent
0.1
0
Most
Competent
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task
Category -ERP ; Training Method-Outside Consultant Training
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
5. Track activities
per operation
flows
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
Competent
0.2
0.1
0.5
6. Display existing
data and create new
data
0.1
Most Competent
Most Competent
0
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 22 To ERP Class Per Task
Category -ERP ; Training Method-Outside Consultant Training
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.6
0.5
Least
Competent
0.4
0.3
0.2
Competent
0.1
Current Employee Dif Fnctn
New Employee w/work exp
Academic
ERP Class
0
Most
Competent
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Least
Competent
ERP Class
7. Create
reports to
perform
analysis
0.7
9. Inquire from
any module to any
other for data
Least Competent
Current Employee Dif…
0.8
8. View and
manipulate
data
Academic
0.9
New Employee…
1
Competent
Most
Competent
Competent
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 23 To ERP Class Per Task
Category -ERP Knowledge; Training Method-Outside Third Party Training
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1. Search to
find
data/understan
d impact on
functions
Least
Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
2. Drill down in different
module
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
ERP Class Academic
0.1
0
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Most
Competent
New
Current
Employee Emply
w/work Diff Fnctn
exp
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 23 To ERP Class Per Task
Category -ERP Knowledge; Training Method-Outside Third Party Training
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
5. Track
activities per
operation flows
Least Competent
0.4
0.3
Competent
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
6. Display existing data
and create new data
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
0.2
Competent
0.1
Most Competent
0
Most Competent
0
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Graph Task Comparisons Question 23 To ERP Class Per Task
Category -ERP Knowledge; Training Method-Outside Third Party Training
0.8
0.7
1
0.6
7. Create reports to
perform analysis
0.5
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
0.2
Competent
0.1
0
ERP Class
Academic
New
Employee
w/work exp
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
8. View and
manipulate data
0.4
Least Competent
0.3
0.2
0.1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
8. View and
manipulate data
0
Least Competent
Competent
Most Competent
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Competent
Most Competent
Question 24 Results
Performance Measurements
• Majority of companies surveyed measure the
results of their ERP system training and skills
with On the job performance reviews.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Question 25 Results
• Critical to this study, is the answers herein because we
see that the following has resulted from ERP training
which related directly to literature about ERP
implementation, interviews and case study findings;
– Ease of use of the system
– Lack of supervision required,
– Increased productivity
– Empowering employees
– Improved task management skills. [52]
Therefore we can conclude that these benefits are achieved
with these ERP students.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Demographic Information
Questions 26,27,28,29 and 30
•
•
•
•
Reveal the demographic information about these companies. Those responding
included: Presidents, CEO’S, Vice Presidents, Directors, IT Managers, Engineering
Managers, Operation Managers, Finance Managers, and ERP Managers.
Only one response for Public Industry Sector reported and that was as an
Assembler, no other categories we inputted. The results indicate for the Private
Industry selections that sixty six point sixty seven (66.67) percent are
manufacturers, eight point thirty three responded in the categories of; apparel,
government, military, and consultant. The remaining sectors had zero.
The responding companies indicated that twenty one point forty three (21.43)
percent had Sales less than $5 million, $5 million to $10 million and $20 million to
$50 million. Fourteen point twenty nine percent selected $20 million to $50
million and over $50 million. Seven point fourteen answered unknown while no
answers were given for No answer.
The results indicate that out of those that responded fifty seven point fourteen
(57.14) percent had one location while thirty five point seventy one (35.71)
percent have between 2 to 5 locations. Seven point fourteen (7.14) percent have
more than 10 locations.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Comparing Results of Training Methodologies
For NO ERP Experience
• Apprentice to Inside Company Training
Because the data revealed that the apprentice on the job
type training was used more therefore this tells us that
there is more confidence in this type of training.
• Apprentice to Outside Consultant Training
Because the data revealed that the apprentice on the job
type training was used more therefore this tells us that
there is more confidence in this type of training.
• Apprentice to Outside Third Party Training
Because the data revealed that the apprentice on the job
type training was used more therefore this tells us that
there is more confidence in this type of training.
Comparing Results of Training Methodologies
For ERP Experience
• Apprentice to Inside Company Training
Because the data revealed that the apprentice on the job type
training was used more therefore this tells us that there is
more confidence in this type of training.
• Apprentice to Outside Consultant Training*
Because the data revealed that the apprentice on the job type
training was used more for those new to the company
those with experience were more likely trained by an
outside consultant.
• Apprentice to Outside Third Party Training
Because the data revealed that the apprentice on the job type
training was used more therefore this tells us that there is
more confidence in this type of training.
Comparing Results of Training
Methodologies For No ERP Experience
• Inside Company to Outside Consultant Training
Because the data revealed that the outside
consultant type training was used more therefore
this tells us that there is more confidence in this
type of training.
• Inside Company to Third Party Training
Because the data revealed that the third party type
training was used more for those new to the
company with No ERP therefore this tells us that
there is more confidence in this type of training.
Comparing Results of Training
Methodologies For ERP Experience
• Inside Company to Outside Consultant Training
Because the data revealed that the outside
consultant type training was used more therefore
this tells us that there is more confidence in this
type of training.
• Inside Company to Third Party Training
Because the data revealed that the third party type
training was used more for those new to the
company with No ERP therefore this tells us that
there is more confidence in this type of training.
Comparing Results of Training
Methodologies For NO ERP Experience
• Outside Consultant to Outside Third Party
Training
Because the data revealed that the third party
type training was used more therefore this
tells us that there is more confidence in this
type of training.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Comparing Results of Training
Methodologies For ERP Experience
• Outside Consultant to Outside Third Party
Training
Because the data revealed that the third party
type training was used more therefore this
tells us that there is more confidence in this
type of training.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Key Results
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2011
Key Results
Because of the data received in Interviews, Questionnaires, Case
Studies and the ERP Employer Survey within this study the key
results are as follows;
• We saw proficiency in the use of ERP on the job by these students
and conveyed by their management.
• We conclude that these ERP Students are more prepared and have
better skills in using an ERP database than new employees in these
companies that have gone through initial ERP training.
• Management in these companies concur that these Students are
more prepared than new employees trained in ERP at companies
and the survey data indicates that those new to ERP can have just
as much confidence or competency as those that have ERP
experience but with a different ERP.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Key Results
• People new to ERP that go through an
academic program like the one featured here
specifically can acquire skills and ERP
knowledge that new employees new to ERP
might not acquire even after their companies
ERP training.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Key Results
• Apprentice on the job training is validated as a preferred method of
training.
• Those with NO ERP experience but with work experience are
equivalent to those who are in a different functional area with in
the company and do about the same in competence after training.
• The academic trained category was able to compete well with the
current and new to company employees after training.
• Therefore, what this tells us is that students understanding of
different aspects of business due to their studies can compete and
be competent after initial training with those already in the
workforce.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Key Results
• The academic preparation of students for
industry positions is validated as worthy since
based on this information and because of
these results, the researcher can conclude
that the academic training meets or exceeds
that which is done in industry according to
this research.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Key Results
• The results revealed when comparing the types of training
for both No ERP experience and ERP experience revealed
new knowledge at least to this researcher.
• Results indicate that;
– Apprentice On the Job type training was the preferred training
type when compared to all others.
– When comparing Insider training to outside consulting and
third party consulting, both the outside consulting and third
party consulting respectively where preferred.
– When comparing outside consultant to third party type training
the third party was preferred.
• Therefore what this tells us is that companies pay for
outside training because their internal inside training is not
as preferred.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Conclusion
• As technology becomes more advanced in the
industry, the need for a better trained and
prepared workforce becomes more critical to
building a sustainable talent pipeline.
• Lockhead Martin, VP Manufacturing Operation, Mike Packard
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Conclusion
• Today’s business people (and tomorrow's)
should understand what an ERP system can do
for a company.
 The intent, as in any educational environment,
is not only to help students attain an
understanding of the material,
 but to also master that material in the
environment in which they will be required to
use it.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Conclusion
• The areas of concentration for the training,
the training methodology is very similar if not
the same as college prepared per the entity in
this study.
• The training system mostly used for new hires
is a training system, which is what is used in
the studied cases.
Comments
Preparing students for entry and success in the
workforce is paramount.
There is a demand currently for students and
employees with this experience.
• PM100 Award
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
Questions?
• Dr. Jill O’Sullivan
• Farmingdale State College
• [email protected]
• 516 984-7122
129
Dr. Jill O’Sullivan
• Professor Farmingdale State College Computer System
Department
• President APICS NYC/LI Chapter www.apicsnyc/li.org
• Manufacturing Executive Leadership Council
– Workforce Task Force
– Operational Excellence Task Force
 Manufacturing Skills Initiative
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2012
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
References
A. Shtub, “A Framework for teaching and training in the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) era, 2000, INT.J.Prod. RES., Vol.39, No.3, 567-576
A.A. Chawdhry, M. J. Donohoe, Delivering ERP Learning To Students In A University Business Program.
Adnan A. Chawdhry, California University of Pittsburgh, [email protected] Michael J. Donohoe, University of Pittsburgh, [email protected], Issues in Information Systems, Volume
X, No. 1, 2009, Delivering ERP Learning to Students in a University Business Program.
APICS dictionary, 2008 twelfth edition.
Beccerra-Fernandez, I., Murphy, K. E and Simon, S.J.(2000): Integrating ERP in the Business School Curriculum.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43No.4, pp.39-41
Bloom, BS 1970, Toward a Theory of testing which includes measurements-evaluation-assessment’ in Wittrock, M. C. and Wiley, D.E. (eds), The Evaluation of Instruction’, pp25-50. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston in J.C Clift, B.W. Imri. 1980, ‘The Design of Evaluation for Learning’ Higher Education, Vol. 9 No.1, pp 69-80.
Bonwell and Eison, Active Learning; Creating Excitement in the Classroom, ERIC Digest, IRIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1991.
C. Jutras, 2010 Aberdeen Group, “ERP in Manufacturing 2010, Measuring Business Benefit and Time to Value”, June 2010, www.aberdeen .com
C. Ptak, “ERP Tools, Techniques, and Applications for Integrating the Supply Chain, Second Edition, The St. Lucie Press.
Chickering and Gameson, Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, AAHE Bulletin 39:3-7. ED282 491, Mar 1987.
D. M. Cannon, H. A. Klein, L. L. Koste, S. R. Magal, “Curriculum Integration Using Enterprise Resource Planning: An Integrative Case Approach, Journal of Education for Business, November
, December 2004.
E. Watson and H. Schneider, Using ERP Systems in Education, Communications of AIS Volume 1, Article.
E.A. Steyn, A Framework For Implementing and Assessing Enterprise Resource Planning Systems, A dissertation from Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, October 2004.
E.E. Watson., H. Schneider., Using ERP Systems in Education, communications of AIS Volume 1 Article 9, February 1999.
E. Monk, B. Wagner, Concepts in Enterprise Resource Planning, Third Edition, Cengage Learning, Course Technology, 2009.
G. G. Gable, M. Rosemann, “ERP In University teaching & Research: An International Survey, Sapphire 99 Singapore, 3rd Annual SAP Asia Pacific, Institute of Higher Learning Forum.
G. Swan, G. (2009). Tools for Data-Driven Decision Making in Teacher Education: Designing a Portal to Conduct Field Observation Inquiry. Journal of Computing and Teacher Education. 25
(3), 107-113.
G. Swan, (2009). Information Systems in Teacher Preparation Programs: What can we learn from a Five-Year Longitudinal Case Study of an Electronic Portfolio Database. Journal of
Educational Computing Research. 41 (4).
G. Swan, G. (2009). Using Internet Applications to Enhance Formative Assessment in Teacher Education. Social Studies Research and Practice Journal. 4 (1) .
Hlupic, 2000 Simulation Software: An Operational Research Society Survey Of Academic and Industry Users, Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference. Cronan, Douglas,
Alnuaimi, and Schmidt.
Infor and IBM Deliver Solutions for Midsized Businesses, IBM Renew Services Capabilities for Manufacturing Industry Solutions, Atlanta and Armonk, NY Sept 10, 2007.
J.A. Joines, R.R. Barton, K. Kang, and P.A. Fishwick, eds. A Strategic Supply Chain Simulation Model, IEEE supply chain simulation dissertation article, proceedings of the winter 2000 winter
simulation conference.
J. Connolly, J. Sager, J. Mensching, G. Corbit, “Market Power of ERP Education – An Investigative Analysis,” Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 17(2).
J. Fedorowicz, J. Gelians, Jr., U., Usoff, C. (2004) Twelve Tips for Successfully Integrating Enterprise Systems Across the Curriculum. Journal of Information Systems Education Vol 15930,
2004.
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2011
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
J. C. Stewart, C. Sher DeCusatis, K. Kidder, J. R. Massi, and K. M. Anne, “Evaluating Agile Principles in Active and Cooperative Learning, Proceedings of Student-Faculty Research Day, CSIS,
Pace University, 2009.
J. Esteves, J. Pastor, Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Research: An Annotated Bibliography, Communications of The Association for Learning Information System, Vol 7, Article 8,
August 2001.
J. O’Sullivan, G. Caiola., Enterprise Resource Planning a Transitional Approach from the Classroom to the Business World, McGraw Hill, 2008.
J. Scott, ERP Effectiveness in the classroom: Assessing Congruence with Theoretical Learning Models, AMICS, paper posted at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL),
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1999/274.
K. Cameron, R. E. Quinn, “Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture”, Jossey-Bass, Wiley, 2006.
Koch, C., "Surprise, Surprise," CIO, June 15, 1996.
L. Antonucci., M.zur Muehlen., Developing An International Business to Business Process Curriculum: Extending the Classroom Walls with ERP Software.
M. Bradford, B.S. Vijayaraman, A. Chandra, “The Status of ERP Integration In Business School Curricula: Results Of A Survey Of Business Schools”. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems (Volume 12, 2003) 437-456.
M. Komarraju, S. Musulkin, G. Bhattacharya, “Role of Student-Faculty Interaction in Developing College Students Academic Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement, Journal of College
Student Development, Vol 51 No 3, June 2010.
M. Packer, “Solving the Skills Crisis”, Manufacturing Executive Leadership Journal, September 2010, page 24.
P. Bingi; M. K. Sharma and J.K. Godla, “CRITICAL ISSUES AFFECTING AN ERP IMPLEMENTATION”, Information Systems Management, Summer 99, Vol. 16 Issue 3, p7, 8p.Item Number:
1907155, Auerbach Publications Inc
Policy Report, www.comptroller.nyc.gov, 2008.
R. Seethamraju., Enterprise Systems (ES) Software in Business School Curriculum-Evaluation of Design and Delivery, Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 181).
Rynes, L., Bartunek, J., Dradt, R., 2001”Across The Great Divide: Knowledge Creation And Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics, Academy of Management Journal, 2001, Vol. 44,
No2, 340-355.
R. Nelson, I. Millet, “A Foundation Course In ERP And Business Process: Rationale, Design, And Educational Outcomes, Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) AMCIS 2001
Proceedings, AMICS 2001, Association for Information Systems.
S. Eckartz, M. Daneva, R. Wieringa, J. van Hillegersberg, “A Conceptual Framework for ERP Benefit Classification: A Literature Review,” Technical Report.
S. Eckartz, M. Daneva, R. Wieringa, J. van Hillegersberg, “Cross-Organizational ERP Management: How to Create a Successful Business Case? ACM, 2009.
T. Boyle, “Technical-Oriented Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Body of Knowledge for Information Systems Program: Content and Implementation, Journal of Education for Business,
June 2007.
T. H. Davenport, J. G. Harris, D. W. Long, and A. L. Jacobson for "Data to knowledge to Results: Building an Analytic Capability" (Vol. 43, No. 2).
T.H. Davenport, Mission Critical: Putting the Enterprise Into the Enterprise System, Harvard Business Review, 76 (4). 121-131. 1998.
T.H. Davenport, Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA 2000.
T. P. Cronan, D.E. Douglas, O. Alnuaimi, P. J. Schmidt, 2009 ITRI, Working Paper Series, 122-1008
T. P. Cronan, F.E. Douglas, Q. Alnuaimi, and P.J. Schmidt, 2009 ITRI, Working Paper Series, 123-1008.
T. Reinzo, Dissertation, Conceptual Change Resulting From Experiential Learning With Business Enterprise Software, Western Michigan University, 2007, Validated Instrument, ERP
Questionnaire Pilot Technology Attitude.
The State Education Department/ The University of The state of New York, The Joint Committee on Higher Education and EMSC, Transforming Teaching and Ensuring an Equitable
Distribution of Qualified teachers in New York State., November 2009.
Tinto, Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd Ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993.
Y. L. Antonucci Assessing Your SAP Program or Initiative: Using Maturity Models and Outcome Assessments, Widener University Lorraine Gardiner, California State University, Chico
March 13, 2009. SAP Curriculum Congress 2009.
www.aberdeen.com, 2010 Aberdeen Group; SaaS ERP: Trends and Observation
Validating Academic Training Verses Organization Training Using ERP
www.infor.com, INFOR Visual.
http://www.manufacturing-executive.com/message/1140#1140
(c) Jill O’Sullivan 2011
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/history/index.html
http://www.sap.com/corporate-en/our-company/history.epx
www.toc.com

similar documents