It is in this phase that the human factors are taken into account. In ERP implementation settings, reengineering has two different connotations. The first connotation is the controversial one, involving the use of ERP to aid in downsizing efforts. And there have been occasions where high level executives have invoked the reengineering slogan, and purchased an ERP package with the aim of reducing the significant numbers of employees. While every implementation is going to involve some change in job responsibilities, as process become more automated and efficient, it is best to treat ERP as an investment as well as a cost-cutting measure, rather than as a downsizing tool. 'Downsizing' is a business practice that may have its place, but it should not be cloaked within the glossier slogan of 'reengineering', or justified by the purchase of an ERP package. ERP should engender business change, but should not endanger the jobs of thousands of employees.

The second use of the word reengineering in the ERP field (or business process reengineering (BPR) as it is usually called), refers to an ERP implementation model initially designed and used with much success by the 'Big Six' consulting firms. The BPR approach to an ERP implementation implies that there are really two separate, but closed linked implementations involved on an ERP site: a technical implementation and a business process implementation. The BPR approach emphasizes the human element of necessary change within organizations. This approach is generally more time consuming, and has received its share of criticism for creating bloated budgets and extended projects. But adherents of the BPR approach to ERP would argue that there is no way that you can ignore the human element in an implementation that involves significant changes in responsibilities. As the ERP market shifts to a mid-market focus, and as all implementations are becoming most cost-sensitive, the BPR approach has come under some real scrutiny.