United states army
What were the key goals in the army using an ERP system?
There were various key goals in the army using an ERP system. Firstly, an ERP system aims to allow the army to efficiently manage its information and knowledge. This standardized information and knowledge will allow the army to be able to efficiently witness, foresee, and take action to the rapidly changing operational environment once this ERP system is executed. Its purpose is to make its information flow more organized and functional by so that it can be used in the most beneficial way possible.
And secondly, the implementation of the ERP system aims to assist the army in responsive combat by presenting a common view of the situation, foreseeing changes and also helping the army by providing crucial and prevailing combat capabilities.
What were the key implementation considerations that were addressed as part of the planning process, especially related to using an integrated ERP and transforming the culture?
One point that was given a lot of consideration was the fact that transformations in businesses are usually not successful. The reason discovered behind this was the inability to manage cultural and organizational change. There were five key implementation considerations. First of all, an ERP system needs sponsors for extended periods of time so that they can understand the ERP system enough to make key decisions related to it. However, the army leader’s positions and jobs rotate very often because of which these sponsors have to be changed very often giving them very little time to connect with the system and prove themselves useful for the system.
The second key implementation consideration was stakeholder alignment. The control and store of information within the army was very divided because of which the ERP model cannot be successfully implemented.
The extremely high cost of transformation management was the third key implementation consideration. This cost can go as high as 15 percent of the entire program budget because of which organizations choose to overlook this. Transformation management may be expensive but that is no reason to not disregard its value for a project.
The next key consideration also has to do with transformation management. It must be started from the time project starts and must be continued all the way to the completion of the project in order for it to help.
Because of its history and tradition, bringing a change in the operations of the army may become difficult. This is the fourth key consideration.
Lastly, because of the huge amount of stakeholders related to the ERP project, communication may get affected. In order to successfully implementing the ERP system, effective communication is very important and this is why this is a key implementation consideration.
How was the change management process incorporated into the implementation?
The change management process was incorporated into the implementation using a variety of strategies to overcome various considerations made that would hinder the projects success. Firstly, the problem of changing sponsors because of excessive rotation was solved by engaging the officials with the system for longer periods of time and by conveying important information to the successors in transition. The strategy used to overcome stakeholder alignment was ensuring that the governance of the project is on enterprise level. The value of transformation management must be pointed out and justifications must be made by the help of lessons learnt in the past. Another strategy used by the army to over come the resistance to change is by making someone from within the army to point out the need to change and head the entire project. And lastly, in order to ensure that the communication is effective, a communication strategy was designed that includes planned methods of circulating program information.
HUMAN RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION AT THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE
What were the key strategies or success factors for Smithsonian’s ERP implementation?
There were three key strategies or critical success factors for Smithsonian’s ERP implementation. First of all, the implementation team for the ERP system project had everything from hardware configuration to the “fit-gap” analysis under its control. This allowed the work to be more efficient, systemized and faster.
The second success factor was that whatever changes were made were compared with the requirements set prior to the implementation. This allowed them to constantly keep a check whether or not the project was unfolding the way it was planned previously and this practice also allowed Smithsonian to measure the progress of the project.
Lastly, the functional users were involved in the entire project from the start till the testing and stabilization stage. This helped the organization as every division of the company were drawn in the project which helped them get familiarize with the system before it was fully implemented. All these three success factors made the ERP system implementation a success for Smithsonian.
In setting up goals for each system component, what did Smithsonian do that many businesses or institutions do not with an ERP implementation?
There were many reasons for the success of Smithsonian’s implementation of the ERP system. One important reason is something that it did while setting up goals for each system component. Assessable aims were set up by Smithsonian for each stage of the ERP implementation project. As the implementation was done, actual progress was measured and was compared with these measurable goals. This helped it determine the degree of success. If the time that its takes for customer results to be retrieved and other actions was being compared, the actually results after the implementation would be compared with the state of the system before the implementation. This difference would then be compared with the amount that was planned prior to the implementation and inferences can be made if it was a success or not. For example, If it took 12.03 days for awards before the implementation and after the implementation, the results show that it takes 6.45 days to get the same work done, 45 percent improvement is made. If this percentage figure is more than what was expected at the beginning of the project, then it can be concluded that this project was a success and vice versa.