Enterprise Systems Implementation Model

1
Enterprise Systems Implementation Model
2
PEIT Model

• Pitfalls
• Undesirable circumstances that arise during
  implementation
• Implementation factors
• Characteristics that determine which pitfalls are
  likely to be relevant
• Strategies
• Actions that will mitigate the pitfalls

3
Pitfalls

• Inertia
• Resistance
• Mis-specification
• Misuse
• Nonuse

4
Inertia

• Inertia is the lack of progress over time on
  implementation decisions and other activities,
  even after all parties have agreed to proceed
  with the effort.
• It typically manifests itself as project delays
  and cost overruns
• Inertia results in preservation of the
  organizational status quo

5
Resistance

• Resistance is a lack of progress over time due to
  disagreement on whether the system initiative,
  as proposed, is a good idea.
• Like inertia, resistance manifests itself in the
  form of delays
• Resistance may show up as overt friction or may
  be more tacit
• Unlike inertia, resistance is largely a political
  phenomenon

6
Mis-specification

• Mis-specification is making configuration
  decisions incorrectly, resulting in an
  application that works in a technical sense but
  does not support the needs of the organization
• The symptoms include disrupted process execution
  and poor operational performance

7
Misuse

• Misuse is improper employment of a new system by
  its users
• Misuse includes incorrect or incomplete data
  entry or other task performance that negatively
  affects execution of other tasks or processes
• Like mis-specification, misuse manifests itself
  as disruptions and poor performance

8
Nonuse

• Nonuse is lack of adoption of a new system by its
  intended users after it has been put in place
• Nonuse is only possible when the technology is
  discretionary when failure to use the system does
  not automatically compromise other tasks or
  processes which would be misuse

9
Factors

• Processes being enabled
• Technology
• People who will use it
• Groups affected

10
Process

• Volume
• Number of business processes included
• Novelty
• Degree to which the new process is different from
  the previous process from the point of view of
  the people affected
• Complexity
• Difficulty of completely and accurately
  specifying the new process using the selected
  technology

11
Technology

• Templates
• Implementing best practices with minimal
  customization
• Tools
• Process must be entirely developed from a
  generalized tool

12
People

• Discretion
• Freedom to use the technology when executing the
  process
• Sophistication
• Technical sophistication of users
• This includes familiarity with information
  technology as well as with process interdependence

13
Groups

• Span
• The number of groups and the whether the groups
  are from the same organization or more than one
  firm
• Core
• Whether the groups consider the process to be
  core to their mission
• Autonomy
• Extent to which groups have decision making
  freedom with regard to the system

14
Pitfalls and Causal Factors
15
Rich-Con
16
Cisco
17
Mt. Auburn
18
Dubai Ports Authority
19
Strategies

• Level of governance
• Managerial style
• Phasing
• Scope
• Organizational preparation

20
Level of governance

• Refers to the rank of the members of the project
  steering committee
• High rank signals the importance of the effort to
  the organization
• Rank should be above the interfaces of the
  groups affected by the system so decisions about
  process changes, roles, responsibilities, etc.
  can be made
• Especially important when inertia or resistance
  are likely

21
Style

• Decision-making
• Rapidly surfacing and resolving issues
• Useful when inertia, resistance or
  mis-specification are likely
• Consensus-building
• Focus on achieving buy-in from involved groups
  and people
• Useful when nonuse is likely

22
Phasing

• Project timeline including number and dates of
  milestones, go-live date, big bang vs. phased
  implementation

23
Preparation

• Extent of resources devoted to organizational
  change efforts, training, structural changes,
  etc.
• Extent of preparation devoted to
  non-organizational stakeholders such as suppliers
  and customers

24
Scope

• Reducing scope in terms of the number of groups
  or functionality involved
• Adjustments may be necessary during
  implementation process
• Scope adjustments are usually temporary
• Opposite of scope creep

25
Pitfalls and Strategies