1. Enterprise Resource Planning Research Enterprise Systems Research Center University of Arkansas Paul Cronan, David Douglas, & Pam Schmidt Information Systems Walton College of Business 1Cronan, Douglas and SchmidtHICSS-43 2010

2. ERP Learning & Attitudes Paul Cronan & David Douglas (with Pam Schmidt & Omar Alnuaimi) ERP Learning – traditional classroom approach includes in examples and exercises Learners follow examples and then use SAP to learn functionality Attitudes – in our experience What if – Real world experiences – real problems Demonstrate and utilize integration Higher level of learning Attitudes toward SAP 2HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

3. ERP Learning & Attitudes ERP implementations run into the many millions of dollars Many fail because of attitude and change management The impact is not totally accounted for because of all the people who interface with the system Benefits – more/better system usage and better decision making 3HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

4. ERP Simulation Game – Learning & Attitudes ERP Simulation used at the Walton College (UA) to learn ERP & SAP Cereals -- made to order manufacturing supply chain; sales process, procurement process, production process, entire cash-to-cash cycle ERP Simulation reacts real-time to multiple teams’ decisions – SAP is the interface between simulator and participants 4HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

5. ERP Simulation Game – The simulation program, ERPSim, automates the sales process such that each firm receives a large number of orders in every minute, the procurement process to account for delivery delays, the production process to account for capacity constraints, inventory, and raw materials. 5HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

6. ERP Simulation Research Companies & Students ConocoPhillips – July 2008 – 22 new hires February 2009 – 29 new hires July 2009 – 20 new hires Pre, Post, & 2 nd Post (+90 days) Simulation Instrument “self assessment” of ERP & business knowledge – 16 items attitude toward SAP Student Samples – Spring (35) plus Fall (46) for a combined sample of 81 6HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

7. ERP Learning Factors (self-assessed) – Enterprise Systems (ES) Management Knowledge - the extent to which an individual understands the impact and use of an ERP system (and the integrated information it provides) on the organization as a whole. Business Process Knowledge - the extent to which an individual has a general understanding and knowledge of business terminology, business processes, and their inter-relatedness. SAP Transaction Skills - the extent to which an individual has the user skills required to utilize SAP to perform transactions. 7HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

8. ERP Attitude Items – Attitude/feeling about SAP SAP’s ease of use integrated business processes ERP Performance Expectancy (expectations regarding gains in job performance) Effort Expectancy (ease associated with the use of the system) Attitude toward using technology (affective reaction to using the system) 8HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

9. ERP Simulation Research Company Support can be found the - Walton Enterprise Systems web site – http://enterprise.waltoncollege.uark.edu/ http://enterprise.waltoncollege.uark.edu/ 9HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

10. July 2008 New Hires Sample HICSS-43 201010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

11. ERP Simulation Results – July 2008 Factor NPre ERPSim Mean Post ERPSim Mean DifftSignific ance ES Management Knowledge223.85.31.57.5.00 Business Process Knowledge223.75.51.812.4.00 SAP Transaction Skills222.6 below avg 5.3 above avg 2.611.2.00 Attitude about SAP225.16.11.04.5.00 Attitude - SAP’s ease of use223.65.11.64.6.00 Attitude – integrated business processes 225.66.20.62.5.02 Attitude – ERP225.16.31.25.4.00 11HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

12. Results – User Acceptance of IT 2008 FactornPost ERPSim Mean MinMax Performance Expectancy (job performance) 226.04.007.00 Effort Expectancy (ease) 225.63.007.00 Attitude toward using the Technology 225.63.007.00 Table 3: User Acceptance of IT (Post ERP Simulation – Conoco Phillips) 12 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

13. Results – Simulation Experience 2008 Table 3: User Acceptance of IT (Post ERP Simulation – Conoco Phillips) Factor NSimulation Experience Mean MinMax The ERP Simulation was a worthwhile learning experience22 6.826.00 7.00 I learned about Enterprise Resource Planning as a result of the ERP Simulation 22 6.455.00 7.00 I learned about SAP as a result of the ERP Simulation 22 6.555.00 7.00 I learned how to use SAP to accomplish business processes as a result of the ERP Simulation 22 6.646.00 7.00 SAP is a great system to accomplish integrated business processes 22 6.414.00 7.00 13 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

14. ERP Simulation Results (+ 90 days) Factorn Post 1 ERPSim Mean Post 2 ERPSim Mean DifftSignific ance ES Management Knowledge135.14.8- 0.3- 0.59.56 Business Process Knowledge135.45.0- 0.4- 1.40.17 SAP Transaction Skills135.04.8- 0.2- 0.82.43 Attitude about SAP135.9 0.00.2.82 Attitude - SAP’s ease of use134.95.00.10.14.88 Attitude – integrated business processes 136.06.20.20.56.58 Attitude – ERP136.1 0.0.99 14 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

15. Results – User Acceptance of IT (+ 90 days) FactornPost 1 ERPSim Mean Post 2 ERPSim Mean DifftSignif Performance Expectancy (job performance) 135.95.2- 0.7- 1.94.08 Effort Expectancy (ease) 135.3 0.00.05.96 Attitude toward using the Technology 135.35.1- 0.2- 0.52.61 15 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

16. February 2009 New Hires Sample HICSS-43 201016Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

17. ERP Simulation Results – February 2009 FactorNPre ERPSim Mean Post ERPSim Mean DifftSignific ance ES Management Knowledge293.95.51.68.1.00 Business Process Knowledge293.55.21.78.2.00 SAP Transaction Skills292.45.12.710.4.00 Attitude about SAP295.16.11.04.1.00 Attitude - SAP’s ease of use294.34.61.30.9.37 Attitude – integrated business processes 295.56.20.74.2.02 Attitude – ERP295.56.10.63.5.00 17 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

18. Results – User Acceptance of IT 2009 FactorNPre ERPSim Mean Post ERPSim Mean DiffSignif Performance Expectancy (job performance) 294.65.71.1.00 Effort Expectancy (ease)294.25.00.8.00 Attitude toward using the Technology 294.65.40.8.00 Table 3: User Acceptance of IT (Post ERP Simulation – Conoco Phillips) 18 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

19. Results – Simulation Experience 2009 Table 3: User Acceptance of IT (Post ERP Simulation – Conoco Phillips) FactorN Simulation Experience Mean MinMax The ERP Simulation was a worthwhile learning experience 29 6.726.00 7.00 I learned about Enterprise Resource Planning as a result of the ERP Simulation 29 6.555.00 7.00 I learned about SAP as a result of the ERP Simulation 29 6.485.00 7.00 I learned how to use SAP to accomplish business processes as a result of the ERP Simulation 29 6.316.00 7.00 SAP is a great system to accomplish integrated business processes 29 6.213.00 7.00 19 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

20. ERP Simulation Results (+ 90 days) FactorN Post 1 ERPSim Mean Post 2 ERPSim Mean DifftSignific ance ES Management Knowledge205.65.0- 0.6- 3.46.00 Business Process Knowledge205.34.5- 0.8- 4.38.00 SAP Transaction Skills205.24.4- 0.8- 3.26.00 Attitude about SAP206.35.0-1.3-3.90.00 Attitude - SAP’s ease of use205.14.1-2.56.02 Attitude – integrated business processes 206.55.6- 0.9-2.90.01 Attitude – ERP206.35.9- 0.4-1.71.10 20 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

21. Results – User Acceptance of IT (+ 90 days) FactorNPost 1 ERPSim Mean Post 2 ERPSim Mean DifftSignif Performance Expectancy (job performance) 206.04.7- 1.3- 4.62.00 Effort Expectancy (ease) 205.44.6- 0.8- 3.45.00 Attitude toward using the Technology 205.74.6- 1.1- 3.29.00 21 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

22. July 2009 New Hires Sample HICSS-43 201022Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

23. ERP Simulation Results – July 2009 FactorNPre ERPSim Mean Post ERPSim Mean DifftSignific ance ES Management Knowledge204.45.30.92.5.02 Business Process Knowledge203.85.01.23.8.00 SAP Transaction Skills202.95.02.15.8.00 Attitude about SAP205.25.90.73.0.00 Attitude - SAP’s ease of use204.35.20.92.9.01 Attitude – integrated business processes 205.76.20.52.2.03 Attitude – ERP205.76.20.52.2.03 23 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

24. Results – User Acceptance of IT 2009 FactorNPre ERPSim Mean Post ERPSim Mean DiffSignif Performance Expectancy (job performance) 205.35.50.2.00 Effort Expectancy (ease)204.75.20.5.00 Attitude toward using the Technology 204.95.30.4.00 Table 3: User Acceptance of IT (Post ERP Simulation – Conoco Phillips) 24 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

25. Results – Simulation Experience 2009 Table 3: User Acceptance of IT (Post ERP Simulation – Conoco Phillips) FactorNSimulation Experience Mean MinMax The ERP Simulation was a worthwhile learning experience 20 6.005.00 7.00 I learned about Enterprise Resource Planning as a result of the ERP Simulation 20 6.255.00 7.00 I learned about SAP as a result of the ERP Simulation 20 6.355.00 7.00 I learned how to use SAP to accomplish business processes as a result of the ERP Simulation 20 6.355.00 7.00 SAP is a great system to accomplish integrated business processes 20 6.305.00 7.00 25 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

26. Student Sample HICSS-43 201026Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

27. ERP Sim Results – Student Sample FactorNPre ERPSim Mean Post ERPSim Mean DiffTSignifica nce ES Management Knowledge814.45.20.86.5.00 Business Process Knowledge804.65.30.75.5.00 SAP Transaction Skills814.35.20.95.6.00 Attitude about SAP81 5.2 5.40.21.1.28 Attitude - SAP’s ease of use81 4.1 4.50.42.6.01 Attitude – integrated business processes 81 5.8 5.90.10.8.43 Attitude – ERP81 5.6 6.00.41.8.07 27HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

28. Factor N Simulation Experience Mean MinMax The ERP Simulation was a worthwhile learning experience 80 5.81.00 7.00 I learned about Enterprise Resource Planning as a result of the ERP Simulation 81 5.51.00 7.00 I learned about SAP as a result of the ERP Simulation 81 5.61.00 7.00 I learned how to use SAP to accomplish business processes as a result of the ERP Simulation 81 5.71.00 7.00 SAP is a great system to accomplish integrated business processes 81 5.41.00 7.00 HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Student Sample 28

29. ERP Simulation Research ConocoPhillips – how do these new hires feel about SAP today (one year on the job)? Other Company Samples Hitachi Consulting Tyson Foods Wal-Mart Canadian Company Samples What about employees who have been using SAP/ERP – can we influence their attitude about ERP/SAP and its role in the company? 29HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

30. ERP Simulation Research More information regarding these studies can be found at: Information Technology Research Institute Working papers at the Walton College Web site - http://itri.uark.edu/http://itri.uark.edu/ ‘New Hires’ WP 122-1008 (11-15-2009) ‘Students’ WP 123-1008 (8-25-2009) Slides can be downloaded from Walton Enterprise Systems web site – http://enterprise.waltoncollege.uark.edu/ http://enterprise.waltoncollege.uark.edu/ 30HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

31. ERP Competencies Research Project (w/HECM) Objective - What learner characteristics (factors) determine competency and knowledge transfer? Link between performance and characteristics. Measures – Objective measures (knowledge, transactions, process, etc.) Self assessment Usage (ERPSim game) Performance data (assessing competency within a situation adding complexity) 31HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

32. ERP Simulation Research Learning Studies - Compare “ERP Simulation approach” to “traditional lab exercise approach” for ERP Learning Learning and Attitude ERP Knowledge and Adaptation Research (Pam Schmidt) Decision Making - ERPSim Performance (profit, etc.) ERP Implementations User Acceptance Virtual Teams 32HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

33. ERP Knowledge and Adaptation Research Pamela J. Schmidt University of Arkansas ERP Hierarchy of Knowledge Types ERPsim attributes that promote learning Research Model of ERP Adaptation Preliminary Results HICSS-43 201033Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

34. Hierarchy of Knowledge (Sein et al. 1999, Kang & Santhanam 2003-4) 34HICSS-43 2010 Application -Tool-conceptual -Tool-procedural -Tool-command Business Context -Bus. Motivational -Bus. Procedural -Task Interdependencies - Collaborative Problem solving Cognitive Knowledge Skills Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

35. ERP Knowledge Transfers (Santhanam et al. 2007) HICSS-43 201035 Know-Why: Top among users Know-Why: Top between users & tech support Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

36. Simulation Attributes: Learning Value ( New Hires Sample, N=38) HICSS-43 201036 % Simulation Attribute 73% Use of an actual 'live' SAP R/3 system. 36% The experience of running a 'real' business 36% Knowledgeable SAP facilitator. 30% Quick reference sheet of SAP transaction codes 30% Opportunity to experiment and make mistakes 18% Teamwork 18% Doing simulation training in few days vs. weeks. 12% Competition among teams. 12% Enjoyment of the “Muesli game" P. J. Schmidt Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

37. ERP Knowledge Effects on ERP Adaptation HICSS-43 201037 ERP Hierarchy of Knowledge UI Navigation Skills Business Context Business Process Knowledge Finance & Accounting Knowledge Hypotheses: Simulation preview of ERP (EUCS) Increases Self-Efficacy Informs cognitive appraisal of ERP use Contributes to Satisfaction Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

38. ERP Simulation Learning & ERP Adaptation Exploratory Research Model 38 IT Self-Efficacy ERP Simulation Primary Appraisal (Opportunity) Secondary Appraisal (Perceived Controllability) ERP Satisfaction Cognitive Appraisal HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

39. Coping Model of User Adaptation (Beaudry & Pinsonneault 2005) HICSS-43 201039 Cognitive Appraisal of IT Use: Opportunity or Threat Affected by level of perceived control Adaptation Strategies: Maximize Benefits Benefits ‘Satisficing’ Disturbance Handling Self-Preservation Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

40. HICSS-43 2010 40 IT Self-Efficacy Primary Appraisal (Opportunity) Secondary Appraisal (Perceived Controllability) ERP Satisfaction Cognitive Appraisal.75*.53*.45*.41* * Significant with p-value <.05 (Preliminary Results) ERP Simulation Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt ERP Simulation Learning & ERP Adaptation Exploratory Research Model

41. 41 IT Self-Efficacy Primary Appraisal (Opportunity) Secondary Appraisal (Perceived Controllability) ERP Satisfaction Cognitive Appraisal R-sq =.56 R-sq =.20 R-sq =.65.75*.53*.45*.41* * Significant with p-value <.05 (Preliminary Results) ERP Simulation HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt ERP Simulation Learning & ERP Adaptation Exploratory Research Model

42. Thank you to participating Universities! Ball State University California State University, Chico Emporia State University Georgia Southern University So. Illinois State Univ., Edwardsville Ted Rogers School of IT Management University of Arkansas University of Delaware University of Houston University of Nevada, Reno University of Southern California University of Tampa A request to traditional ERP and ERPsim instructors: Please participate in Spring 2010 ERP survey (ERPsim) by contacting Pam Schmidt at pschmidt@uark.edupschmidt@uark.edu HICSS-43 201042Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

43. Research Projects – what is your interest? Learning Self-Assessment & Attitudes Students Company Employees Comparing to traditional methods ERP Competencies Research Project Knowledge Structures Team/Group Interaction Technology Acceptance Decision Modeling 43HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

44. Enterprise Resource Planning Research Thank you ! 44HICSS-43 2010Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

45. HICSS-43 201045Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

46. Backup Slides HICSS-43 201046Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

47. Simulation Attributes: Highest Learning Value Survey of Company New Hires, Pilot Results (n=38) % Simulation training characteristics 73% Use of an actual 'live' SAP R/3 system. 36% The experience of running a 'real' business 36% Knowledgeable SAP facilitator. 30% Quick reference sheet of SAP transaction codes 30% Opportunity to experiment and make mistakes 18% Teamwork 18% Accomplishing simulation training in a few days vs. over weeks. 12% Competition among teams. 12% Enjoyment of the "museli game" 9% Time compression (non-real-time business quarters) 9% Clear business goal (revenue, ROI). 6% Challenge of the "museli game" HICSS-43 2010 47 Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

48. ERP Knowledge Structures Theory: Cognitive Psychology Kraiger et al. 1993, JAP Theory: Collaborative Application Training Kang and Santhanam 2003 48HICSS-43 2010 LEARNING Cognitive Skills Affective Applic. Knowledge Bus. Context Collaborative Task Appropriation In Use Good Practices In Use Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

49. ERP Knowledge Acquisition Learning Theory: Cognitive Psychology Kraiger et al. 1993, JAP 49HICSS-43 2010 LEARNING Skills Cognitive Affective Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

50. ERP Knowledge Structures Theory Background of Kang & Santhanam: Sein, et al. 1999 (J. of End User Computing) Evolution of knowledge in organization context 50HICSS-43 2010 Org. Team Individ. Tool Procedural Bus. Procedural Tool Conceptual Business Motivational Time Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt

51. ERP Knowledge Effects on ERP Adaptation HICSS-43 201051Cronan, Douglas and Schmidt