A model of ERP project implementation

1
A model of ERP project implementation
Presented to Dr. Dina Rateb Systems
508 Presented By El 3yal El Cobar
2

• Outlines
• Terminology and Introduction
• ERP implementation process models
• The PPM of ERP implementation
• The PPM phases
• The PPM CSFs
• Two case studies
• Implications of the PPM for practice and
  research
• Conclusion and future research

3

• Terminology
• ERP Enterprise Resource planning.
• PPM Project Phase Model Process Models).
• CSFs Critical Success Factors.

4

• Introduction
• ERP
• Is the Enterprise Resource Planning.
• Implementation of ERP system is an extensive,
  lengthy, and costly process.
• Investment in the ERP is investment in both the
  software itself and the related services such as
  consulting, trainingetc.
• Although companies spend millions on both the
  packages and the implementation process, most
  companies experience considerable problems in the
  actual implementation project.

5

• Introduction
• ERP
• Focus on
• Evaluate
• Define

Relevant company processes in precise details
6

• Introduction
• ERP
• Beginning with system planning.
• Constructing project team.
• Moving on discrete project phases.
• Post-implementation review.
• Stabilization phase.

7

• Introduction
• PPM /Process Models
• Provides deeper understanding of the process.
• Provides guidelines for successful ERP
  implementation.
• CSFS
• Addresses difficulties of ERP implementation.

Both help better planning and more successful ERP
implementation.
8

• ERP Process Models
• Justification of creating PPM of ERP
  implementation.
• Allocation of responsible individual.
• Discrete phases of implementation
• i.e. project is not another phase in the whole
  implementation enterprise.
• Presenting two case studies relating CSF to the
  PPM implementation phases.
• Unsuccessful case.
• Successful case.

9

• What is A Best Practice Of ERP Implementation
  Process Model?

10

• ERP Process Models
• First The Bancroft et al Model
• It has 5 phases
• 1.Focus
• 2.As is
• 3.To be
• 4.Construction Testing
• 5.Actual implementation

11

• ERP Process Models
• First The Bancroft et al Model
• 1.Focus
• Planning phase to set up key activities of the
  committee.
• Selection of team members.
• Developing guidelines principles.
• Creating project plan.

12

• ERP Process Models
• First The Bancroft et al Model
• 2. As is
• Analysis of current business process.
• Istallation of ERP.
• Mapping of the business process to ERP
  finctions.
• Training of project team.

13

• ERP Process Models
• First The Bancroft et al Model
• 3.To be
• Outlines the high level design then detailed
  user-accepted design.
• Interactive prototyping.
• Constant communication with the user.

14

• ERP Process Models
• First The Bancroft et al Model
• 4. Construction and testing phase
• Development of comprehensive configuration.
• Population of test instances with withreal data.
• Building and testing interfaces.
• Writing and testing reports.
• System and user testing.

15

• ERP Process Models
• First The Bancroft et al Mode
• 5. Actual Implementation
• Building networks.
• Installing desktops.
• Managing user training and support.

16

• ERP Process Models
• Second Ross Model
• It has 5 phases
• 1.Design
• 2.implementation
• 3.Stabilization
• 4.Continuous improvement
• 5.Transformation

17

• ERP Process Models
• Second Ross Model
• It has 5 phases
• 1. Design
• Planning phase for critical guidelines and
  decision making for implementation.

18

• ERP Process Models
• Second Ross Model
• It has 5 phases
• 2. Implementation
• Phases are similar to model 1.
• Stabilization

19

• ERP Process Models
• Second Ross Model
• It has 5 phases
• 3.Stabilization
• After cut-over.
• System problems are fixed.
• Improvement of company performance.

20

• ERP Process Models
• Second Ross Model
• It has 5 phases
• 4.Continuous improvement
• Functionality is added.

21

• ERP Process Models
• Second Ross Model
• It has 5 phases
• 5.Transformation
• Organizational boundaries and systems are
  maximally flexible.

22
Third Markus and Tanis model It has 3
phases 1.Chartering 2.Project 3.Onwards and
upwards
23

• Third Markus and Tanis model
• It has 3 phases
• 1.Chartering
• Focus and designing phase.
• Development of the business case of ERP.
• Package selection.
• PM identification.
• Budget and schedule approval.

24

• Third Markus and Tanis model
• It has 3 phases
• 2. Project
• Same as Bankrofts
• Software configuration, system integration,
  testing, data conversion, training.

25

• Third Markus and Tanis model
• It has 3 phases
• 3.Onwards and upwards
• Subsidiary of Ross continuous improvements and
  stabilization phases.

26
Comments on the three models 1.Markus Tanis
and Ross models include a planning phase which
occurs prior to the actual implementation
project. 2.These two models,unlike the Bancroft
et al. model, collapse the actual implementation
into one discerete unit. 3.Ross Markus and
Tanis models include a post-project phase in the
model of the whole ERP implementation
enterprise. 4.None of them relates critical
success factors (CSFs) to the phases of
implementation.
27
The following points will be discussed Introducti
on ERP implementation process models The PPM of
ERP implementation The PPM phases The PPM
CSFs The case studies Implications of the PPM for
practice and research Conclusions and future
research
28
Introduction -ERP is the Enterprise Resource
Planning. -Implementation of ERP system is an
extensive, lengthy, and costly process. -Investmen
t in the ERP is investment in both the software
itself and the related services such as
consulting, trainingetc. -Although companies
spend millions on both the packages and the
implementation process, most companies experience
considerable problems in the actual
implementation project.
29
ERP implementation process models In this section
we review three of the ERP implementation process
models Firstly, The Bancroft et al.model It has
5 phases 1.Focus 2.As is 3.To
be 4.Construction Testing 5.Actual
implementation Secondly, Ross Model It has 5
phases 1.Design 2.implementation
3.Stabilization
30
4.continuous improvement 5.Transformation Thirdly,
Markus and Tanis model It has 4
phases 1.Chartering 2.Project 3.Shake-down 4.Onw
ards and upwards Comments on the three
models 1.Markus Tanis and Ross models include
a planning phase which occurs prior to the actual
implementation project. 2.These two models,unlike
the Bancroft et al. model, collapse the actual
implementation into one disceret unit.
31
3.Ross Markus and Tanis models include a
post-project phase in the model of the whole ERP
implementation enterprise. 4.None of them relates
critical success factors (CSFs) to the phases of
implementation.
32
The PPM of ERP implementation The PPM model
consists of two concepts 1-Implementation
phases 2-Critical success factors (CSFs)
Implementation phases
Implementation Phase
Analysis Phase
Design Phase
SDLC
Preliminary Investigation
Focus
As Is
To be
Construction Testing
Actual Implementation
Bankroft et al.
Design
Stabilization
Continuous Improvement
Ross
Transformation
Implementation
Markus Tanis
Chartering
Onward Upwards
Shake-down
Project
PPM Phase
Planning
Project
Enhancement
33
The PPM Project Phase
Planning
Enhancement
Project
Installation
Set-up
Configuration testing
RE-engineering
Design
34
The CSFs Those few critical areas where things
must go right for the business to flourish.
Planning
Enhancement
Project
Outcomes Project
Outcomes Enhancement
Outcomes Planning
Outcomes Planning
Outcomes Enhancement
Outcomes Project
CSFs that are necessary and sufficient for
success
CSFs linked to the success of the outcome by a
known causal mechanism
CSFs that are associated with success
CSFs that are necessary for success
Commitment to change
Release of full time business experts
Definition of scope
Management Support
Balanced Team
Unswerving Champion
Deliverable Date ( realistic )
Empowered decision makers
Vanilla ERP
35
Combining the PPM with CSFs

• Not every CSF is necessary for each Outcome
• The CSFs level of power and criticality is as
  follows
• 1- Causal Links ,
• 2- Necessity Sufficiency,
• 3- Necessity,
• 4- Association.
• When comparing a successful case and an
  unsuccessful case there exist differences in the
  relationship between the phases of the PPM and
  CSFs

36
The case studies Two case studies are
discussed 1-OilcoERP1 - unsuccessful case,over
budget over time. -Reasons full
automation,improved levels of customer
service,..etc. -Benefits better sales forecast,
better data quality. 2-Exploreco ERP 2
-Successful case, under budget on time.
Reasons dissatisfying system -
37
Benefits Reduction in mannual processes,
re-engineering of processes, and improved time
accounting.
Phase CSFs Oilco
Exploreco 1.Planning Management
support Management support Champion Champion
Commitment to change Commitment to
change Vanilla ERP Vanilla ERP Best
people ful-time Deliverable
dates definition of scope
38
Phase CSFs Oilco Exploreco 2a.Set-up Manage
ment support Management support Balanced
team Champion Definition of scope Balanced
team goals Vanilla ERP Deliverabl
e dates Definition of
scope goals
39
Phase CSFs Oilco Exploreco 2b.Re-engineerin
g Balanced team Empowered decision
makers Definition of scope Management
support Balance team Definition of
scope goals 2c.Design Best people
full-time Management support Management
support Deliverable dates
40
Phase CSFs Oilco
Exploreco 2d.Configurationtesting Best people
full-time Management support Balanced
team Installation Management
support Management support Commitment to
change Balanced team Balanced team Commitment
to change Best people full-time
41
Case findings-similarities 1.The planning phase
was clearly considered the most critical by both
companies. 2.The installation phase was very
similar in both cases. 3.Full-time were
considered crucial in the installation phase of
PPM. 4.There are no significant enhancement phase
in either companies.
42
Case findings - differences 1.The importance of
CSFs over all phases of the PPM in the
Exploreco case 2.The CSFs within the Exploreco
were generally considered more important than
with Oilco. 3.Strategic differences in the
planning phase. 4.Facilitating the achievement of
the CSFs. 5.Focus on the set up phase for the
Exploreco. 6.Consistency and persistence of the
CSFs throughout all phases.
43
Explanations for the similarities and
differences

• 1-Organizational learning
• 2-The scope and complexity of each project
  Comprehensive, Middle Level, Vanilla
• What Characteristics are used?
• -Physical scope
• - Technical scope
• -Module implementation strategy, and
• -Type of re-engineering involved and resource
  scope level

44
Implications of the PPM for practice and research
1.Large-scale ERP implementation projects are
high risk and difficult to implement on time and
within budget. 2.In both cases there was no
marked enhancement phase. 3.The appointment of an
experienced ERP implementer early in the project
as a champion who is empowered to make
decisions about the project is important to the
success of the project. 4.The PPM model together
with associated CSFs from the Exploreco case
provides practitioners with a useful example of
successful Vanilla ERP implementation.
45
Conclusions and future research The PPM has a
dual function
1.For researchers it provides a foundation for
further empirical research.
2.For parishioners need to pay more attention to
planning phase and the CSFs in each phase.
46
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN

• Till We Meet