Presentation of my Bachelor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 38
About This Presentation
Title:

Presentation of my Bachelor

Description:

Term used: ambidextrous (using both hands) SB. Program. University of Jyv skyl . Mechanisms for ambidextrous organizations. Metaroutines ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:72
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: St127
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Presentation of my Bachelor


1
Presentation of my Bachelors thesis on Key
success factors of small software firms and an
overview of articleImplementing enterprise
resource planning and knowledge management
systems in tandem fostering efficiency and
innovation complementarity
  • Presentation for ITK B54 Research Seminar on
    Software Business
  • By
  • Peter Törnroos
  • 20.5.2003

2
Key success factors of small software firms -
Outline
  • Introduction
  • Identifying key success factors
  • Importance of small businesses
  • Key success factors of small software businesses
  • Flexibility
  • The importance of leadership and software talent
  • Networking
  • Customer relations
  • Operational efficiency
  • Challenges of small software businesses
  • Uncertainty
  • Internationalization
  • Corporate venturing
  • Literature and research of small businesses
  • Conclusions, Criticism and Discussion

3
Key success factors of small software firms -
Introduction
  • This part of the presentation is based on my
    bachelors thesis of the same topic
  • In this presentation I will also bring up issues
    that I had to left out from my bachelors thesis
    and give an overview of small businesses

4
Identifying key success factors
  • In my thesis key success factors are defined as
    factors that are critical for best performance,
    rather than performing good enough to keep alive
    (critical success factors)
  • There are many buzz words that have in some
    extend the same meaning
  • sticky factors vs. key success factors (same
    meaning according Ketelhöhn)
  • essential competencies, plain competencies, core
    competencies, spillover competencies, protective
    competencies, parasitic competencies
  • are all these buzz words really needed?
  • There are KSFs for everything
  • product launch
  • brand management
  • anything that challenges an organization
  • In my thesis the context is small software
    businesses

5
Importance of small businesses
  • Many governments see small software firms as
    important employers and builders of international
    competitiveness of future and therefore support
    their efforts (Ireland as a good example for
    supporting high-tech start-ups)
  • Small software businesses
  • Bring healthy competition
  • Introduce markets new ideas and solutions
  • Software embedded in the products and services of
    other industries
  • Can occupy positions that larger firms cant
    economically enter or dare not go, expect by
    corporate venturing
  • The importance of small software companies is
    indicated by an Austrian study which states that
    micro enterprises account for 55,7 per cent and
    small-to-medium enterprises 32,2 per cent of the
    Austrian software organizations

6
Nature of software business
  • Fierce competition
  • Technologies change fast, industry evolves
    rapidly and in unexpected ways
  • High uncertainty over markets and technology

7
Key success factors of small software firms
8
1. Flexibility
  • One main reason for the success of small
    companies
  • Possibility to adapt rapidly to new circumstances
    and tap opportunities
  • Identifying new opportunities and market niches
  • When focusing on market one has to be able to
    change the direction of the company when things
    go wrong

9
2 The importance of leadership and software talent
  • small firms core employees consists of managers
    that usually own the company
  • Low hierarchies between employees
  • Important characteristics of business leaders
  • previous experience on technology
  • knowledge of the industry
  • experience on entrepreneurship
  • Successful leaders identify opportunities that
    others can consider as too high risks or do not
    believe in them
  • developing new innovative ideas one must take
    risks
  • Downside of taking risks are mistakes
  • mistakes can be corrected and they need to be
    corrected fast to steer the company in more
    successful direction

10
3 Networking
  • The most important challenge for SMEs is their
    lack of resources
  • Resources can be gained through networking and
    partnering
  • Previous working relationships, families, friends
    and acquaintances are important sources of advice
    and information
  • There is great number of mechanisms of how to
    relate to external organizations

11
Other key success factors
  • Importance of customer relations
  • The research of tiger SMEs in Singapore
    identified good client and customer relationships
    as the sixth important KSF
  • Frequently satisfying customer needs (identifying
    and meeting)
  • Alliances and concentrating on few customers for
    better communication
  • Operational efficiency
  • Any system, like any argument, is as strong as
    its weakest link (Ketelhöhn in What Is a Key
    Success Factor? )
  • The resources that small software businesses have
    offer the opportunity to grow and perform well,
    but they have to be exploited thoroughly in order
    to achieve good results

12
Challenges of small software firms
13
Uncertainty
  • The uncertainty of markets presents challenges
    for high-tech SMEs and larger enterprises
    respectively
  • Uncertainty can be derived into two categories
  • The buyers can be uncertain, because they dont
    have experiences on the product and
  • Certain market circumstances such as
    heterogeneity and chancing technologies set
    requirements for customers ability to handle
    information

14
Sources for market uncertainty
15
Sources for technological uncertainty
16
Internationalization
  • Internationalization is brings both opportunities
    and a threats for small software businesses
  • Opportunities
  • Larger market share
  • More sources for revenuethicker skin against
    market ups and downs (European companies face
    problems derived from small markets and cultural
    issues)
  • Low barriers
  • Threats
  • Brings competition to local markets from foreign
    companies

17
Corporate venturing
  • Can be seen as way for larger companies to
    compete against smaller players
  • Ventures have the same structure as a small
    company would have
  • Can compete in the same markets, which are
    usually niche markets
  • Develop software for small market, can be highly
    specified user group, such as professional
    software
  • Brings a high threat to smaller companies,
    because ventures have the financial and other
    resources to back their business by the big
    corporate

18
Literature and research of small businesses
  • There isnt much research done from the small
    businesses point of view even though there is no
    arguing that small firms are important for the
    development of software business and economy
  • The issue of lack of previous literature is
    stated in many research articles that I have
    studied
  • Perhaps my masters thesis will give a
    contribution to the field of small businesses
  • Preliminary topic Networking of high-technology
    firms A technology and resource based view

19
Conclusions
  • There are KSFs for everything industry,
    strategies and company itself
  • KSFs have a substantial impact on the success of
    a company
  • The most important KSF of small software firms is
    their ability to adapt to no new circumstances
    rapidly
  • Small software firms encounter challenges derived
    from their limited resources
  • Can be tackled by networking (gaining resources)
  • Mastering only KSF isnt enough for a company to
    be successful they just prepare the company for
    the fierce competition

20
Criticism on the thesis
  • KSFs that are identified are universal in nature
    and dont reflect software SMEs in depth
  • KSFs are drawn from a wide variety of literature
    and they have a major impact on the way issues
    are discussed
  • literature of KSFs from other industries
  • nature of software business differs greatly from
    traditional industries
  • I have only theoretical base to understand
    software business and I cannot in depth compare
    how these KSFs would be adopted to practical
    level of doing business

21
Criticism on the thesis (cont.)
  • I identified an important KSF that is flexibility
    and adapting rapidly to new circumstances
  • literature I reviewed didnt address this factor
    directly and this is why that issue wasnt
    discussed in depth in the thesis
  • As the emphasis was on identifying KSFs the
    number of these factors made it impossible to
    discuss each factor in depth
  • Internalization is left out in order to keep the
    information manageable for this sized thesis
  • Keeping the talent in house can be a major
    challenge for a small software firm, but the
    current situation in Finland seems to be that
    there are a lot professionals out there in the
    field of IT

22
Discussion
  • Even though it is widely identified that SMEs are
    flexible there are also researchers that dont
    agree
  • Naumanen, M., 2002. Nuorten teknologiayritysten
    menestystekijät
  • Current situation of economy and the shape of IT
    field
  • more small businesses
  • more possibility to tap

23
Implementing enterprise resource planning and
knowledge management systems in tandem fostering
efficiency and innovation complementarity
  • Authors
  • S. Newell, J.C. Huang, R.D. Galliers and S.L. Pan
  • The paper examines the simultaneous
    implementation within a single organization of
    two contemporary managerial information systems
  • Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and
  • Knowledge Management (KM)
  • The study is done through interpretative single
    case method

24
Introduction
  • In this part of the presentation I will discuss
    the conceptual framework and findings, leaving
    out the case description
  • I will emphasize the findings on organizational
    efficiency and flexibility of the study
  • Implementation of multiple systems is likely to
    produce effects that differ from implementing a
    single system
  • The focus of the paper is to investigate the
    simultaneous implementation of IS/IT concepts
  • ERP and KM
  • As both ERP and KM systems are currently being
    widely implemented across organizations in all
    probability they are implemented simultaneously
    or at least their implementations are overlapping

25
Characteristics of ERP
  • Enterprise-wide packages that tightly integrate
    business functions into a single system with a
    shared database
  • Comprehensive software solutions that integrate
    organizational processes through shared
    information and data flows
  • ERP systems can play an important role in
    increasing organizational competitiveness through
    improving the way in which strategically valuable
    information is produced, shared and managed
    across functions and locations
  • ERP systems are promoted as systems that will
    improve organizational efficiency through both
    enhanced information capture and organizational
    redesign around defined best practices

26
Characteristics of KM
  • KM systems emphasize how firms can enhance
    competitive advantage through more effective
    utilization of their knowledge assets
  • Achieved by free flow of knowledge across
    organizations
  • Different approaches to KM
  • Personalization and codification strategy
  • Firm cannot be strong in both (80-20 rule)
  • Personalization face-to-face communication
  • Codification transferring documents through IT
  • Cognitive and community approach
  • Cognitive transfer of explicit knowledge where
    users have common understanding
  • Community approach sharing of tacit knowledge in
    case of multi-disciplinary teams

27
Characteristics of KM (cont.)
  • Distinction between personalization/community
    approach promote either efficiency or flexibility
  • First generation KM
  • Emphasize on dissemination, imitation, and
    exploitation
  • Second generation KM
  • Emphasize on education, innovation, and
    exploration
  • Focus shifts from the supply of knowledge to
    creation and maintaining knowledge
  • The case company was very much within the frame
    of the second company

28
Background on efficiency and/or flexibility
  • The trade-off between efficiency and flexibility
    is perhaps the most enduring in organization
    theory
  • Mechanistic structures are characterized by high
    degrees of standardization, specialization and
    hierarchy organic structures structures are
    characterized by low degrees of each of these
    aspects of structure
  • These opposing structures have formed the idea
    that organization either had to focus on
    efficiency or flexibility
  • There are now a few writers who haw suggested
    that it is possible to be both efficient and
    flexible at the same time
  • Term used ambidextrous (using both hands)

29
Mechanisms for ambidextrous organizations
  • Metaroutines
  • Routines to standardize internal processes that
    focus on flexibility or innovation
  • Non-routines to more specified processes
  • Job enrichment
  • Motivation potential is increased
  • Through increased autonomy and responsibility
  • Giving flexibility to routine tasks
  • Switching
  • Person is given time to spend on non-routine
    tasks and then switched back to routine tasks
  • Partitioning
  • Divisions of tasks that are defined to certain
    group of the organization
  • E.g. RD focuses on innovation while production
    department focuses on efficiency

30
Objectives of the company
Objectives and characteristics of the ERP and KM in Company A Objectives and characteristics of the ERP and KM in Company A
Objectives and characteristics of ERP Objectives and characteristics of KM
Replacing diverse legacy systems, so creating a common IT structure Creating innovation communities including suppliers and retired staff
Creating a common productivity measure Continuous learning and training
Restructuring production, logistics and warehouse divisions Creating an intranet for storing and sharing information and knowledge
Centralized procurement Building strategic partnerships with suppliers
Efficiency improvement through improved information sharing Improving innovation and flexibility through improved knowledge sharing and creation
31
Research findings
  • Both systems were judged by organizational
    members to be successful
  • Within Company A the ERP and KM initiatives were
    complementary rather than contradictory
  • Each system was designed and implemented for
    clear managerial purpose
  • Managing organizational information to improve
    efficiency or knowledge to improve innovation

32
ERP and KM initiatives
  • Implementation of SAP (the selected ERP system of
    the company) has drastically improved the time to
    produce and gather critical information for
    strategic decision making
  • Help in effective coordination activities from
    SAP
  • The implementation of KM was found to facilitate
    the effective and systematic exploitation and
    exploration of knowledge
  • Both intra- and inter-organizationally
  • Improved continuous learning from past actions
  • Organization of innovation communities created an
    environment where products and processes were
    constantly under evaluation
  • Involvement of retired engineers and suppliers

33
Organizational efficiency and flexibility
  • Impact of implementation of ERP and KM to
    suggested mechanisms (transparency) in Company A
  • Partitioning
  • Pre-existed in Company A and had not really been
    influenced by the ERP and KM initiatives
  • On the other hand efficiency and flexibility were
    achieved achieved simultaneously by different
    divisions
  • The KM initiative had opened up opportunities for
    improving flexibility even in divisions where
    efficiency was the primary goal

34
Organizational efficiency and flexibility (cont.)
  • Metaroutines
  • Both ERP and KM appeared to promote the enactment
    of metaroutines
  • Adoption of ERP enabled standardized activities
    of information processing and management
  • New organizational processes were designed and
    implemented to maximize the potential of ERP
  • The KM initiative transformed continuously
    non-routines to routines while ERP stopped this
    process once the system was implemented and
    solidified processes

35
Organizational efficiency and flexibility (cont.)
  • Job enrichment
  • The ERP system hindered enrichment because it
    encouraged process dependencies on pre-defined
    routines
  • The ERP system did not take into account
    non-routine tasks
  • Maximized efficiency with the cost of flexibility
  • The KM initiative encouraged innovative
    communities to generate knowledge on non-routine
    basis
  • Forming of various pilot teams for process and
    product innovation

36
Organizational efficiency and flexibility (cont.)
  • Switching
  • The ERP system also hindered switching activities
    in some divisions
  • E.g. The Product division has to have
    standardized activities to accomplish following
    advantages
  • Predictability
  • Feasibility
  • Efficiency
  • The KM initiative encouraged switching in
    particular through involvement in training and
    participation in innovation communities
  • Ability to exchange, reassess and refine what he
    had learned in routine work

37
Conclusions
  • The study has demonstrated how a particular
    organization was able to promote both
    flexibility/innovation as well as efficiency
  • ERP and KM initiatives revealed that the two
    systems can be successfully implemented in tandem
  • While ERP emphasizes the improvement of
    information processing efficiency, KM can
    facilitate the simultaneous development of
    organizational knowledge exploration and
    exploitation capability

38
Criticism
  • The study did not discuss in more depth that
    should different divisions implement both ERP and
    KM
  • E.g. is there any use for KM in the production
    department and if it is implemented, what should
    be the proportion between the use of ERP and KM
    in daily routines and activities (80-20 rule)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com