Functional Analysis of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems

0 Comment

The purpose of the research is written in an unimpressive manner. After reading the abstract, the reader is left with the feeling that more information should have been included in this section.
Stoilova et al (2008) provide the basic information about ERP systems and their application in the organization. History and the process of their evolution have also been included in the paper. The authors have chosen three ERP systems and do a comparative analysis between them.
The introduction and overview section of the paper is detailed and gives the reader a fair idea about the application of ERP systems and their usage. However, it does not highlight one of the major advantages of ERP system. Gregus et al (2006) state that ERP systems help the organization in reducing labour cost since ERP systems automate business operations and processes to a great extent. The history of ERP systems is also discussed in the ‘Overview’ section. Some of this information is redundant as it is also stated in the next section of “Evolution of ERP Systems”. The historical information stated in the ‘Overview’ section seems irrelevant when the reader reads further in the ‘Evolution…’ section. Then, a comparative analysis has been done by the authors, for three ERP systems. This analysis is not very detailed and does not give many facts and figures on the basis of which their performance and usability can be compared. This shall be discussed in detail, further in the report.
The research objective of the paper has been briefly mentioned in the abstract section. The author remains focused on the hypothesis which is to justify the functionality of ERP solutions in organizations.
The authors have made a good effort in providing their readers with relevant background information on the respective topic. The literature review is directly related to the hypothesis and helps in understanding the historical aspects of ERP solutions. However, the comparative analysis of ERP solutions should have been supported with more literature and reasoning.&nbsp.