Database development (MIS 533) MBS in Management Information Systems and Managerial Accounting Systems (2007 / 2008) Fergal Carton Business Information Systems

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development Last week Accenture project team and “doubling up” ERP project resources and what they do –Team creation –Collecting requirements –Data issues –Handover and helpdesk issues –Post go-live (including examples) Cisco case study: the project and the outcome

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development This week Cisco –What did they do right? –What did they do wrong? ERP project success factors

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development What did Cisco do right? Team structure (cf. Exhibit 4) Relationship with Steering Committee (address committee members questions before the meeting) Bought KPMG experience, not greenies Team calibre (handpicked the very best) Short project, not a career change Seen as the opportunity for advancement Bonus, incentivising engagement …

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development What did Cisco do wrong? 1 st implementation of a new release or Oracle? Deadline driven by go-live date, not scope? Replace all systems, big bang, 9 months Scope creep –Major modifications required –Oracle wouldn’t support after-sales

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development What did Cisco do wrong? Data warehouse requirement incorporated only at CRP2 Under-engagement of IT until late in the day (from 30 developers to the entire dept. (100 people) What happened IT support for other applications / services during that period, and after go-live? Frequent system downtime due to hardware architecture Poor final testing: things breaking at high transaction volumes

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development What did Cisco do wrong? Sizing tests, why didn’t they work? Processes tested sequentially, not simultaneously Partially loaded database used No conversion of legacy data Renumbered customers, products, changed BOM’s

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development What did Cisco do wrong? On-time ship fell from 95% to 75% Pressure to go-live, no one functional lead can say stop it 30 people from hardware vendor on-site at one point after go-live 3 months chaos, was it worth it?

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development What did Cisco do wrong? Dot.com bust led economic downturn Did they see it coming? ERP = today’s information, not tomorrow’s If forecasts were wrong, was that the ERP system’s fault?

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development Critical Success Factors (Parr & Shanks, 2000) Top management Support Full-time release of business experts Empowered decision makers Realistic milestones and end date Steering Committee determines scope & goals Smaller scope Champion Vanilla ERP Balanced team Commitment to change Project Technology People

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development Some Intriguing Survey Data Top three factors preventing greater ERP implementation success –Lack of organizational readiness –Organizational resistance to change –Insufficient executive leadership Top ERP implementation error –Failing to invest adequately in change management and communications © 1997 Hammer and Company. All rights reserved. Source: Deloitte Touche, 2004

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development Consequences of ERP –Changes to existing jobs –Integration of independent units –Increased authority of process owners –Creation of new jobs –Increased corporate control Critical success factors for ERP –Executive involvement and commitment –Strong project management –Revised compensation system Some Intriguing Survey Data (continued) © 1997 Hammer and Company. All rights reserved. Source: Deloitte Touche, 2004

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development ERP project resources : CSF’s Adequate on-site project team to engage users –Specification –Testing –Conversion –Go-live Key functional expertise for workarounds Users with 4 weeks hands-on before go-live Managers defend design decisions made Project team keeps ownership of project Prototype early, prototype often

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development ERP project resources : CFF’s Adequate on-site project team to engage users –Specification –Testing –Conversion –Go-live Key functional expertise for workarounds Users with 4 weeks hands-on before go-live Managers defend design decisions made Project team keeps ownership of project Prototype early, prototype often Loss of know-how to SI Legacy experts unwilling to make jump System untested by users, processes not validated by users Management buy-in not secured Project team gets bogged down in bureaucracy No time for re-design in plan

MBS (MIMAS) / MIS533 / Database development Project issues: resources Availability of team members / users Decision making processes Developing workarounds Timeline too tight to allow resolution of issues Massive learning curve for team Expectation management Retaining ownership of process related decisions