The strategies adopted by both the companies gave different outcomes because of which it is clear that the implementation plans should be made with great care so that the organisation can get desired results from ERP system.
The Explore CO and Oil CO has used different ERP strategies for implementation as per their need and plan. As mentioned above, the Oil Co adopted the most complex implementation which was based on mainframe ERP solutions. According to this implementation, various changes were made in processes so that it can match with the ERP processing method. Besides this, it also helped in maximisation of benefits through integration process with correct matching of existing business process. The plan also included the module of development which involved developments as per oil industry specific models (Nour and Mouakket, 2011). The implementation process adopted by Explore CO was inspired from Oil CO. for this purpose, at first stage different cost analysis was done. According to that the scope was set and recommendations were given. The head of a project was fixed and given a name of Project Champion.
Both companies adopted there implementation process in their own way but there were some similarities in them along with several differences. As per the above discussion the similarities in both implementation process exists in the adoption of CSFs or critical success factors. This helped in proper implementation of ERP process for both firms. Both enterprises focussed on inducing minimum changes in the software and major changes in the business process so that desired objectives can be achieved in right manner (Pabedinskaitė, 2010).
The major difference that two companies had in their implementation process is discussed in following table:
A person called project champion was appointed to keep watch over whole project and implementation process.
The manager was appointed for heading ERP implementation but was not properly engaged throughout the project and person use to change frequently.
The said organisation stressed on implementation through large focus.
The ERP implementation process adopted by the firm was complex and very large along with focus on industry specific module.
The project champion headed the entire project to make it more stable.
The head of project did not work on continuous basis asd they use to change timely.
The people aspect of this enterprise were strong and gave their full time with best efforts (Amini and Sadat Safavi, 2013).
The people appointed for the project were not efficient as the Explore Co.
The management of project was done in an efficient manner and followed the deadlines strictly.
The project was not managed in proper manner and it caused delay in completion time as well.
The projects were successful through their implementation of ERP processes. Several benefits were gained by both firms due to the right implementation processes they adopted in the ERP system. Processes embraced by Oil Co gave positive results and the organisation made considerable amount of profits. The firm became able to forecast better about sales volume, the automating process for order and delivery was also improved and the financial data was retrieved in more easier manner. Besides this, reforms were made in data and business process because of which it became more smooth and efficient. Similarly, Explore CO's project was more focussed due to which scope of budget was also better. The expenses were less and project completion time was also little (Peng and Nunes, 2010).
The factors through which both firms made a good progress and were right methods of implementation also implementation of CSFs. The two organisations had same CSFs with a slighter differences which gave positive consequences. The Explore Co adopted a project champion who had a specific roles and responsibilities towards the implementation of ERP. While the same was not with Oil Co. the role of project champion was not given to any particular person and persons use to change timely. Besides this, they also adopted the policy of minimal customisation with adherence to dates of delivery. Oil CO also considered the important factor of industry specific module which helped in achievement of set objectives. Besides this, the governance structure of both firms was also in better position which helped in proper implementation methodology (Velcu, 2010).
The case clearly depicts that success of implementation process is completely dependent on CSFs adopted by companies. The implementation methodology should be followed in proper manner so that the results can be achieved positively. Apart from this, it is also evident that the project managers are key factors for success in the industry. Further, it is necessary to have a right governance structure so that the delivery times can be followed appropriately. As the Oil Co was not having proper project champion, the decision making was affected largely which resulted in expanded time for completing the project (Lee and et.al., 2010).
The report on ERP presented here depicts various essential requirements that helps in making the process of implementing easier. The ERP refers to various processes that are related with connecting assorted and significant procedures of a business. The two companies have been taken in present study, the Explore CO and Oil CO and both were successful in their aims with the help of correct methodologies. The Oil co has adopted a vast and complex structure for implementation while the Explore CO's plan was based on Oil Co structure. The CSF's of both organisations helped in carrying out the implementation properly along with greater success. Moreover, the enterprises used available skills and experiences for their work which helped in alignment of corporate objectives with the implementation process. Also it is found in the case that the system and procedure used by Explore CO was better than Oil CO as it used more systematic method.
Journals and Books
Amini, M. and Sadat Safavi, N., 2013. Review paper: critical success factors for ERP implementation. International Journal of Information Technology & Information Systems. 5(15). pp. 1-23.
Dezdar, S. and Ainin, S., 2011. The influence of organizational factors on successful ERP implementation. Management Decision. 49(6). pp. 911-926.
Hung, W.H. and et.al., 2012. Relationship bonding for a better knowledge transfer climate: An ERP implementation research.Decision Support Systems. 52(2). pp. 406-414.
Kale, P.T., Banwait, S.S. and Laroiya, S.C., 2010. Performance evaluation of ERP implementation in Indian SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 21(6). pp. 758-780.
Lee, D. and et.al., 2010. The effect of organizational support on ERP implementation. Industrial management & data systems. 110(2). pp. 269-283.
Maditinos, D., Chatzoudes, D. and Tsairidis, C., 2011. Factors affecting ERP system implementation effectiveness. Journal of Enterprise information management. 25(1). pp. 60-78.
Nour, M.A. and Mouakket, S., 2011. A classification framework of critical success factors for ERP systems implementation: A multi-stakeholder perspective. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (IJEIS).7(1). pp. 56-71.
Pabedinskaitė, A., 2010. FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF ERP SYSTEMS. Economics & Management.
Peng, G.C. and Nunes, J.M.B., 2010. Why ERP post-implementation fails? Lessons learned from a failure case in China. In PACIS 2010-14th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (pp. 296-307). AIS.
Velcu, O., 2010. Strategic alignment of ERP implementation stages: An empirical investigation. Information & Management. 47(3). pp. 158-166.
Top 10 ERP Implementation Strategies. 2015. [Online]. Available through: <http://www.compudata.com/top-10-erp-implementation-strategies/>. [Accessed on 11th January 2017].
just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time
offer valid for limited time only*
someone in is bought