CIS3009 Enterprise Systems in Practice
Assignment 3 – SAP ERP Case Study Analysis and Reflective Essay (2026)

Unit details

• Course code / title: CIS3009 Enterprise Systems in Practice
• Study period: Semester 2, 2026
• Assignment number: Assignment 3
• Weighting: 25% of final grade
• Due date: 20 October 2026, 11:55 pm (AEST)
• Submission mode: Online via StudyDesk (Turnitin + EASE)

Assessment overview

Assignment 3 consolidates your learning about enterprise systems by asking you to evaluate a well-known SAP ERP implementation case and to reflect critically on your own SAP end-user experience. You will apply concepts from the prescribed text and current research to analyse the NIBCO SAP “big bang” implementation, then connect theory to practice through a reflective essay informed by your SAP GBI tutorials and personal learning journal. Together, Section A and Section B assess your ability to reason about ERP strategy, implementation and user experience in a way that is relevant to both management and practice.

Assessment structure

• Total marks: 50
• Section A – Case Study Report: 35 marks
• Section B – SAP Practical Exercise, Journal & Reflective Essay: 15 marks
• Indicative workload: Approximately 25–30 hours across the semester

Submission requirements

1. File 1 – Case Study Report + Reflective Essay & Journal
   • One integrated document containing:
     • Section A: Case Study Evaluation Report
     • Section B: SAP Reflective Essay
     • Appendix: SAP Learning Journal
   • File type: .doc, .docx, or .rtf (PDF accepted only if formatting is preserved).
   • Length:
     • Section A: 2,500–3,000 words (excluding reference list)
     • Section B: 800–1,200 words (excluding references and appendix)
2. File 2 – SAP Practical Exercise Outputs
   • Collate all outputs from SAP Practical Exercise 2 (tutorials 7–9) into a single file.
   • Include key screenshots or exported reports that clearly show your SAP User ID and transaction activity.
   • File type: .doc, .docx, .rtf, or .pdf.
3. Turnitin requirement
   • Submit File 1 to Turnitin via StudyDesk before final submission.
   • Revise if the similarity score is above 10% or if there are significant matches with another student or source.
   • Do not upload the Turnitin report itself; staff will access it directly.
4. Technical constraints
   • Each file must be < 5MB.
   • Retain a personal backup of all submitted work.

Academic integrity

You must adhere to the University’s Academic Integrity Policy. Any use of generative AI tools must be disclosed as per current university guidelines and cannot replace your own critical analysis or reflection. Failure to acknowledge sources, including AI-generated text, may result in academic misconduct processes. Paraphrasing must be genuine and supported by proper citation in Harvard or APA style, according to the School convention.

Section A – Case Study Evaluation Report (35 marks)

Case study

• Brown, V & Vessey, I 2001, ‘NIBCO’s “Big Bang”: An SAP Implementation’, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–42.

The NIBCO case describes a medium-sized US manufacturer’s decision to implement SAP R/3 using a “big bang” strategy across multiple plants and distribution centres, with significant commitment from the executive team and internal managers. You will use this case to identify lessons for a competing firm, OCBIN, that is planning its own SAP ERP implementation.

Scenario

You are an external consultant engaged by OCBIN, a competitor to NIBCO in the industrial manufacturing sector. The CEO, Mr F. Brown, has asked you to evaluate NIBCO’s SAP implementation and to advise on how OCBIN can achieve a better outcome. Your report must be written in a professional consulting style addressed to the CEO and senior leadership team.

Task

Drawing on the NIBCO case, the Motiwalla & Thompson textbook (chapters 5–9 or equivalent content on ERP life cycle, implementation and change management), and at least four recent peer-reviewed sources, you must critically analyse how NIBCO structured and executed its SAP implementation and propose well-justified alternatives for OCBIN.

Focus topics

You must restrict your analysis to the following six topics, each clearly signposted with subheadings in your report:

1. Objectives for adopting an ERP system
   • Identify NIBCO’s stated and implicit objectives (e.g., process integration, inventory reduction, data visibility, strategic growth).
   • Evaluate how clearly these objectives were defined, prioritised and translated into project scope and success metrics.
   • Recommend how OCBIN should articulate and align ERP objectives with its business strategy.
2. Implementation strategies
   • Describe NIBCO’s “big bang” strategy (single go‑live across plants and distribution centres) and the rationale for selecting it over phased options.
   • Critically assess the benefits and risks of “big bang” compared with phased or pilot-based rollouts, supported by research.
   • Propose an implementation strategy for OCBIN, justified in terms of risk appetite, organisational readiness and resource constraints.
3. Vendor selection
   • Explain how NIBCO selected SAP and its consulting partners, including selection criteria and governance arrangements.
   • Evaluate the adequacy of NIBCO’s vendor evaluation, contracting and relationship management.
   • Recommend a vendor selection and governance approach for OCBIN, including criteria such as industry fit, implementation track record and support model.
4. Knowledge transfer
   • Describe NIBCO’s approach to knowledge transfer between consultants, internal IT, and business users, including training and documentation.
   • Assess the effectiveness of this approach for building sustainable internal capability.
   • Outline a knowledge-transfer strategy for OCBIN that addresses user training, super-user networks and post go‑live support.
5. Critical success factors (CSFs)
   • Identify key CSFs evident in the NIBCO case, such as executive sponsorship, dedicated project team, change management, and scope control.
   • Evaluate how well NIBCO addressed each CSF and where gaps emerged.
   • Prioritise at least five CSFs for OCBIN and explain how they should be embedded into project governance and planning.
6. Organisational commitment
   • Discuss the nature of organisational commitment at NIBCO (ELT support, resource allocation, willingness to change processes).
   • Critically examine resistance, cultural barriers and workload pressures reported in the case.
   • Propose strategies for building and sustaining organisational commitment at OCBIN through the full ERP life cycle.

Report structure

Your report for the CEO must follow a clear professional structure:

1. Executive summary (approx. 250–300 words)
   • Concise overview of NIBCO’s implementation, your key findings across the six topics, and high-level recommendations for OCBIN.
2. Introduction
   • Briefly describe NIBCO, the SAP project, and the purpose, scope and organisation of the report.
3. Analysis by topic
   • Six themed sections (a–f) as listed above, each with:
     • Brief description of NIBCO’s approach, grounded in the case.
     • Critical evaluation drawing on the textbook and academic literature.
     • Specific implications and recommendations for OCBIN.
4. Synthesis and conclusion
   • Draw together cross-cutting insights (e.g., how implementation strategy, CSFs and organisational commitment interact).
   • Highlight 3–5 priority actions for OCBIN and summarise expected benefits and risks.
5. Reference list
   • Use Harvard or APA 7th style consistently, including the NIBCO case, the Motiwalla & Thompson textbook (or equivalent), and at least four additional scholarly or high-quality industry sources published between 2018 and 2026.

Research expectations

• Minimum of six distinct sources:
  • NIBCO case (required).
  • Motiwalla & Thompson ERP textbook or equivalent (chapters 5–9).
  • At least four recent peer-reviewed journal articles or recognised industry reports on ERP implementation, SAP projects, or enterprise systems CSFs.
• Sources must be credible and retrievable via library databases, Google Scholar or publisher sites.
• Wikipedia, anonymous blogs and “homework help” sites are not acceptable as academic sources.

Marking criteria – Section A (35 marks)

Section B – SAP Practical Exercise 2, Journal and Reflective Essay (15 marks)

Overview

Section B assesses your engagement with the SAP GBI environment as an end user and your ability to reflect critically on that experience using theory and research on user acceptance, usability and training. Your SAP activity report, journal and reflective essay will be considered together when awarding marks. No marks will be awarded if the SAP report indicates no activity under your User ID.

Components

1. SAP Practical Exercise 2 outputs
   • Complete SAP Exercise 2 as directed in tutorials 7–9.
   • Record key outputs (e.g., transaction reports, process screenshots) in a Word or RTF document. Ensure that your User ID is clearly visible where relevant.
2. Learning journal
   • Maintain an ongoing journal of your SAP learning activities throughout both SAP exercises.
   • For each session, briefly record:
     • Date and time.
     • Tasks attempted (transaction codes, process steps).
     • Issues encountered and how you addressed them.
     • Key insights about SAP functionality, business processes or your own learning.
   • Include the journal as an appendix to your reflective essay (File 1).
3. Reflective essay (800–1,200 words)
   • Write an essay that uses your journal as a primary data source to reflect on your experiences as an SAP end user.
   • Support your reflection with relevant theory and at least two academic or high-quality industry sources on ERP usability, user experience, training or user acceptance published between 2018 and 2026.

End-user evaluation criteria

In your reflective essay you must:

1. Identify five end-user evaluation criteria that you will use to evaluate SAP (for example, perceived usefulness, ease of use, learnability, error recovery, integration of business processes, quality of online help and documentation).
2. Justify why each criterion is appropriate, with reference to course readings and at least two additional academic or professional sources (e.g., TAM literature, ISO usability standards, UX frameworks).
3. Use these criteria to structure your reflection, drawing specific examples from your journal entries to support your evaluation.

Suggested essay structure

1. Introduction
   • Briefly introduce SAP GBI, the context of your exercises, and the purpose of the reflection.
2. End-user criteria and theoretical framing
   • Introduce your five selected criteria and link them to relevant theory (e.g., technology acceptance, usability engineering, user experience models).
3. Reflections by criterion
   • For each criterion:
     • Describe what you experienced.
     • Interpret the experience using concepts from readings and literature.
     • Comment on how your perceptions shifted over time as your skills developed.
4. Synthesis and personal learning
   • Discuss how your SAP experience has shaped your perspective on enterprise systems and your own approach to learning complex software.
5. Conclusion
   • Offer 2–3 key takeaways or recommendations for improving end-user training or interface design in ERP contexts.

Marking criteria – Section B (15 marks)

Formatting and style

• 12-point font (e.g., Times New Roman, Calibri), 1.5 line spacing, standard margins.
• Use clear headings and subheadings that align with the assessment structure.
• Insert page numbers and include your student ID in the header or footer.
• File names should follow the pattern: CIS3009_A3_StudentID_Surname.docx

Late submissions and extensions

Late submissions without an approved extension will attract penalties in line with School policy (for example, a set percentage of available marks per working day). Extension requests must be submitted through the University process before the due date and must be supported by appropriate documentation.

References / learning resources

(Students are not required to use these specific sources, but they illustrate the standard expected for recent, credible references.)

1. Ahmad, M, Haleem, A, Javaid, M & Singh, RP 2018, ‘Critical success factors for successful implementation of ERP systems in SMEs’, International Journal of Business Information Systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 48–79, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2018.10012711.
2. Momoh, A, Roy, R & Shehab, E 2019, ‘Challenges in enterprise resource planning implementation: state-of-the-art’, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 537–565, https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2018-0378.
3. Al-Jabri, IM & Roztocki, N 2018, ‘Adoption of ERP systems: Does information transparency matter?’, Telecommunications Policy, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 360–370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.09.008.
4. Mendonça, J, da Silva, MM & da Silva, FF 2020, ‘User experience in ERP systems: a systematic mapping study’, Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 673–694, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09926-6.
5. Tarhini, A, Ammar, H, Tarhini, T & Masa’deh, R 2018, ‘Analysis of the critical success factors for ERP implementation from stakeholders’ perspective: A systematic review’, International Journal of Business Information Systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 190–225, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2018.093009.

Sample Assignment Help Notes

A well-performing Assignment 3 response may argue that NIBCO’s decision to pursue a big bang SAP rollout delivered rapid process standardisation and visibility but concentrated operational risk in a single cutover window, which would be unacceptable for a competitor with lower change readiness. In that line of reasoning, the student might propose a hybrid strategy for OCBIN that uses a phased rollout of non-critical modules while piloting high-impact processes in one distribution centre before scaling. A strong paper also ties these strategic choices back to clearly articulated ERP objectives, such as inventory turns and order fulfilment reliability, and shows how executive sponsorship, super‑user networks and structured knowledge transfer collectively lower the probability of post go‑live disruption. Careful use of the NIBCO narrative, supplemented by empirical studies of ERP critical success factors, can demonstrate that implementation risk is not only technical but organisational, and therefore must be managed through governance, communication and training as rigorously as system configuration. For instance, Tarhini et al. highlight that cross-functional coordination and top management commitment are consistently associated with ERP success across sectors, which suggests that OCBIN’s steering committee design may be just as consequential as its choice of rollout strategy (Tarhini et al., 2018).

Building on that line of argument, high-quality work frequently integrates more recent analyses of SAP implementations in manufacturing contexts to test whether lessons from NIBCO still hold in an environment that now includes S/4HANA, cloud deployment options and more mature change management practices. For example, Mendonça et al. suggest that user experience in ERP environments increasingly hinges on how well the system supports task flows and reduces cognitive load, which reinforces the need for OCBIN to embed usability considerations into configuration decisions rather than treating them as a post go‑live training issue. A strong essay therefore not only critiques NIBCO’s approach on its own terms but also asks how an updated ERP programme could leverage modern tooling, data analytics and iterative deployment practices while preserving the organisational discipline that underpinned NIBCO’s eventual success.

Students often ask how far they should go in contrasting big bang and phased deployments, and a useful way to deepen the answer is to frame the choice as a portfolio of risks rather than a binary decision. A more advanced discussion might examine how OCBIN could segment its processes by criticality and complexity, then align rollout waves with those segments while maintaining a single integrated SAP template to prevent localisation drift. From a reflective standpoint, connecting this risk-based design back to your own SAP GBI experience, including where training materials felt misaligned with transaction complexity, can demonstrate an awareness of how end-user perceptions mediate the impact of high-level implementation strategies. Referencing recent ERP cases that encountered cutover issues because of inadequate data migration or insufficient end-to-end testing can also help you meet the rubric’s emphasis on insight and the ability to draw appropriate conclusions for practice.

1. “CIS3009 Assignment 3 NIBCO SAP ‘Big Bang’ case study report and SAP reflective essay sample guidelines”
2. Write a 2,500–3,000-word CIS3009 Assignment 3 report analysing NIBCO’s SAP “big bang” ERP implementation plus an 800–1,200-word SAP reflective essay, using specified topics, theory and Harvard/APA referencing.
3. Prepare a 4–6 page case study report on NIBCO’s SAP project and a 2–3 page SAP reflective essay, integrating course readings, recent ERP research and your SAP GBI journal to meet the 50-mark CIS3009 rubric.
4. CIS3009 Assignment 3 brief: analyse NIBCO’s SAP big bang case for OCBIN and reflect on your SAP end-user experience, with clear structure, marking criteria and research requirements.

Assessment – CIS3009 Assignment 4 (Week 11–12)

Assignment 4 – Enterprise Systems Strategy Briefing (Indicative)

Title: Assignment 4 – Enterprise Systems Strategy Briefing for the CIO

Weighting: 20% (indicative)

Timing: Week 11–12

Overview: In the final written assessment, students prepare a strategic briefing (1,500–2,000 words) for the Chief Information Officer of a mid-sized organisation that is evaluating its post-implementation roadmap for SAP or another ERP platform. The briefing typically requires students to synthesise learning from earlier assessments by evaluating options such as cloud migration, integration with CRM or analytics platforms, adoption of SAP Fiori or similar UX enhancements, and the development of an enterprise systems capability roadmap. Requirements normally include a short organisational context, analysis of 2–3 strategic options, risk and benefit assessment, and a prioritised recommendation, supported by recent industry and academic sources and formatted as a professional management report.