Enterprise Systems – Tech. solutions, strategic persp. and org. considerations TDEI13, 2014-­‐09-­‐17 Özgün Imre Agenda •  Report presenta=ons •  With candy as reward •  Literature Discussion •  Lee, Jinyoul; Keng Siau and Soongoo Honget (2003) Enterprise integra=on with ERP and EAI. Communica)ons of the ACM 46:2, pp 54-­‐60. •  Markus, M. Lynne; Cornelis Tanis and Paul C. van Fenema (2000) Mul=site ERP implementa=ons. Communica)ons of the ACM, Vol. 43, No. 4 pp. 42-­‐46. •  Westelius, Alf (2006) Muddling through – the life of a mul=na=onal, strategic enterprise systems venture at BT Industries. Linköping Electronic Ar)cles in Computer and Informa)on Science, Vol 10:1. •  Jones, Mary C.; Melinda Cline and Sherry Ryan (2006) Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementa=on: an organiza=onal culture framework. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 41, pp. 411 – 434 •  Strategy and technical and organiza=onal solu=ons are more interconnected than we first assume. •  Today we live in the informa=on economy, thus we must be more aware of the issues. •  Informa=on economy is based on the premise of networks and thus we are increasingly affected by actors we have no influence on, and some=mes, have no business with. •  This uncertainty of the economy necessitates some kind of strategizing Need for IT •  Lee et al. argues: •  The key to conquering a compe==ve and rapidly changing environment is agility and flexibility. Do ERP systems give companies a sense of these two promises. •  “To rapidly respond to a changing environment, an enterprise must integrate business func6ons into a single system efficiently u6lizing IT, and share data with third-­‐party vendors and customers.” But where to start? Strategic level, strategy formula=on: Goals, strategies, and policies Tac=cal level, management control: Strategy implementa=on Opera=ve level, task control: Efficient and effec=ve performance of individual tasks What about multisite? •  Most organisa=ons today run in several loca=ons. •  Historically these might have very different systems. How to implement an IT solu=on in such a case? • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
4 levels of confusion business strategy, soAware configura)on, technical plaDorm, management execu)on •  (Marcus et al) Different levels of ERP implementations •  Business Strategy: BU rela=onship • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Total local autonomy Headquarters control only at the financial level Headquarters coordina=on of opera=ons Network coordina=on of opera=ons Total centraliza=on •  Solware configura=on • 
• 
• 
• 
Single financial/single opera=on Single financial/mul=ple opera=ons Mul=ple financial/single opera=on Mul=ple financial/ mul=ple opera=ons •  A combina=on of a central database and one or more applica=on servers •  It is easier and olen cheaper to configure ERP systems for centralized architectures •  ”Big Bang” deployment •  Phased rollout Or one can go with EAI •  EAI: Plans, methods, and tools aimed at: •  modernizing •  consolida=ng •  coordina=ng, computer applica=ons in an enterprise. •  “EAI automates the integra=on process with less effort than that required with ERP.” EAI is preferred because •  ” The premise of EAI is that it allows a business-­‐oriented approach to map business processes rather than technology driven business process reengineering.” •  ”EAI implementa=on involves an extensive long-­‐term investment in design.” •  “Successful EAI implementa=on requires that there exist strong communica6on, coordina6on, and coopera6on between informa=on technology and business personnel.” •  (Lee et al) •  ”While ERP forces the adop=on of standard business process, EAI enables enterprise integra=on over business object levels.” •  ”ERP thereby supports centralized business strategy while EAI naturally accommodates decentralized business processes How to muddle through •  The IT project at BT began as a strategic venture •  But soon began to have a life of its own, and the strategic view was lost •  Different actors that came to play during the process •  Top managements commitment, and different roles the actors took during the process helped the project. Muddling through •  The implementa=on is a social process, it shapes and reshapes the system, both the way it is et up, and the way its rou=nes work. •  Similarly, having a say in the process, “being able to influence the development process” is likely to affect acceptance. •  Back to square one, all change processes are cultural processes. •  Iden=ty plays a main role. The case •  Case exercise •  Pilot installa=on was chao=c, things didn’t pan out as it was foreseen. •  Changes in project manager “changed the climate in the project team…much more aqen=ve to the social climate, exhibited lower power distance…” •  Implementa=on teams were created of people from different backgrouonds “experienced BT employees, young academics recruited for the project and a few Inten=a employees” •  The strategy …was “train the trainer”. Each implementa=on team should train local key users, who would par=cipate in serng up the system The end results of the project (?) •  Turnover per employee doubled during the same period – increased produc=vity •  ” the Enterprise System is not the sole explana=on. Increased efficiency from re-­‐structuring and consolida=on, and increased capacity u=liza=on also play a role”. •  ““The close of books 2001 was the first =me ever that I and my staff did not work weekends to perform consolida=ons and complete the financial statements. “” Things to keep in mind •  the impression of muddling through; a project with a life of its own, adap=ng and surviving, rather than somebody’s planned and implemented vision.” •  EMERGENT STRATEGY RATHER THAN PLANNED •  “The project formed a culture of its own” •  “The strong local market orienta=on in the market companies (and among some corporate top managers) posed a problem for the idea of a shared informa=on system. “ Another example (Jones et al) •  ERP enables organiza=ons to achieve decision support benefits such as improved knowledge processing, enhanced decision making reliability, and beqer ability to gather corporate evidence to support the decisions made” •  “In order for this to occur…organiza=onal knowledge must be incorporated into an ERP system so that … [it] has a sufficient underlying knowledge structure to achieve this support.” •  ” Successful ERP implementa=on requires organiza=onal groups to break down barriers to knowledge sharing.” Eight dimensions of organizational culture Stability Orienta6on to change Concentrated Control, coordina6on Isola=on Orienta6on to collabora6on Hard data Basis of truth, ra6onality External Mo6va6on Process Orienta6on to work Internal Orienta6on and focus Short term Nature of 6me horizon Change Autonomous decision Collabora=on Personal experience Internal Results External Long term Some results •  Company A and Company D encouraged knowledge sharing throughout the en=re implementa=on. •  Company B’s knowledge sharing started out strong, but broke down later in the implementa=on. •  Company C team members felt inhibited to share knowledge from the start of their implementa=on •  Try to read the ar=cle to come up with a configura=on that yields the best results •  But don’t forget things change in =me, and with culture and organisa=onal structure •  Would we find similar results in Sweden or in India? Some concerns •  If you are stuck at one of these cultural dimensions, it doesn’t mean that you admit defeat. •  There are ways to change the culture and overcome these problems •  Usually there is a pressure to see the results, if possible then extend the deadline, organise extra mee=ngs to rethink what doesn’t seem to be working, go back to data. •  If members are not sharing experien=al data, use team building exercises to enable them to listen to eachother. •  Don’t forget that knowledge sharing doesn’t happen on its own. •  There are factors that come into play. •  Aside from these cultural dimensions, others, such as “leadership, technology, organiza=onal change, and the evalua=on and administra=on of knowledge management may also influence knowledge sharing.” can and will influence the knowledge sharing.