In order to effectively answer the
proposed questions we have decided as a group to focus our answers on the
following four key variables: Quality, Cost, Time and Scope. These key
variables directly affect the success of a project.
Scope
We believe that Cisco were both
successful and unsuccessful in different aspects of managing the scope of the
project. However we feel that overall they failed to manage the project scope
successfully.
Cisco has done both good and bad
things in term of managing the scope of the project; however, they did more bad
things than good things.
Firstly, they prioritised
establishing the time and cost goals of the project, before having a clear
understanding of the scope of the project. "For software
development, scope is the most important variable to be aware of. If you actively
manage scope, you can provide managers and customers with control of cost,
quality, and time." (Beck and Cynthia, 2000) We believe that
Cisco should have primarily determined the scope of the project before setting
any other goals or targets for the project. In Cisco’s case, the
timeframe goals for ERP implementation were approved by the Board (Tom and
Solvic), despite the fact that they “did not have a scope yet”. This is a
considerably large error for a Board of Directors to make, and is surprising
that they approved of cost and time goals for the project without a
sufficiently detailed scope of the project being presented to them. We believe
that the scope was not detailed enough, as if it had been it would not have
neglected essential aspects of the project such as after-sale support.
Similarly, the fact that they
estimated cost before setting up scope led to unexpected additional cost.
Although the decisions of time and cost were constraint by other managerial
factors (e.g. ERP could not be implemented in fourth quarter), the fact that
they did not set a scope in the beginning was dangerous and prone to failure.
Second, as mentioned above, Cisco
failed to include critical functionality (after-sale support) and design (the
way systems communicate with each other) in the scope. As a result, they had to
buy additional after-sale package, and even had to change the data
communication method from “point to point” to “data warehouse”. The later
change highly affected Cisco’s IT department: “IT did nothing else that year”,
rather than adapting to new data communication method.
Even though Cisco did not
prioritise establishing the scope of the project as a primary activity, they
managed to save the project by being able to effectively manage the scope on an
on-going basis when a new issue would arise. The team reacted rapidly to any
situations that arose. As soon as implementation began, teams were established
to understand the Oracle application in depth. It was at this time that the
team discovered missing functions and features, and highlighted what aspects
needed to be modified. The activity of applying classification of modification
(as Red, Yellow or Green) is similar to well-known MoSCoW rule for scope
establishment (Defining what feature we Must/Should/Could/Want to have) and is
a critical factor contributing to the smooth transition of a project. This was probably thanks to the strategic
choice of integration partner (KPMG) and product provider (Oracle): KPMG was
“very experienced in the (ERP) industry” and Oracle was “particularly motivated
to make the project success”.
Time
We believe that the rigid structure
of Cisco’s time planning and goal setting was a key factor in their success.
Implementing the project on time was the company’s priority over customization.
They had to be confident when setting their timeline that they were not setting
unrealistic delivery times which would result in failure. The project team was
made aware that timing was a priority and in our opinion we believe when
decisions had to be made, the members questioned if the outcome would be
realistic in fitting with their time plan. They compressed many tasks that
often took twice the length of time, to still incorporate these essential
activities while still adhering to their most important factor of time
management.
The project team understood how
valuable time was, and we believe they never sat idle. On occasions when the
team was waiting for an activity to be completed, which they could not speed
up; instead of waiting for this to be completed, the team was versatile and
moved onto a different activity that needed to be completed, returning to the
first activity upon it’s completion. Some organisations would refuse to operate
in this manner as it can be considered unfocused, and teams appear undedicated
to their goals, however as time was emphasized as such an important factor in
the project it was more important for the team members not to waste time, as
opposed to remaining fully committed to one particular activity.
The decision making process
contributed to the success of Cisco’s time planning. Cisco’s team was highly
trusted and well educated therefore they were all willing to, and allowed to,
make decisions independently without having to gain permission from authority,
therefore time was not wasted referring back to authority. When decisions had
to be brought to authority the team prepared a very strong case collectively
beforehand, instead of presenting a weak case and relying on feedback from the
board in order to produce a strong case.
However, even though the team had
rigid time plans they changed a time plan when it was essential. This
highlights how sound minded the team was. They had made time management a major
factor, yet when an important issue arose that would affect their overall goal
of implementing the new ERP they were capable of accepting reality. Instead of
dwelling on the situation, they made a swift decision to modify the ERP
software. This ability to not dwell on decision making played a huge role in
the success of the ERP’s implementation.
Cost
We feel that there was a strong
correlation between time and cost in this project. In this case we feel Cisco
accepted that the new ERP had to be implemented so it was more so a matter of
how much they could save in terms of not wasting any business time, rather than
how cheap they could have the project implemented in regardless of time.
“At $15 million, the project would
constitute the single largest capital project ever approved by the company.” We
believe this is an indicator of how essential the project was. Authority was
shocked at the amount of money they would be spending on one single project,
but they continued as they knew it was essential. Once again indicating that
the project would go ahead regardless of price (within reason) once there was a
sensible and rapid schedule behind it; that would not result in a huge loss due
to systems crashing leading to the company being unable to function for periods
of time.
Quality
Quality assurance involves
sustaining a certain standard of performance in order to yield a seamless
result. In regards to the implementation of the ERP system, it was essential
that the standard of the system was of a high quality in order to allow the
company to perform as efficiently as possible, unlike their previous system
that in fact had a diminishing level of performance.
Cisco expressed how important the
selection process for choosing a reliable and successful company to choose and
deliver the new system for them. The management team decided to only choose a
company whose standards of work was homogeneous to theirs and the same size or
larger than theirs. This played a major role in the success of the project.
Furthermore the involvement of excellent business personnel, and not just IT
personnel, to effectively evaluate the system translates to Cisco’s willingness
to emerge with high quality system.
Given the magnitude of the system
required to effectively handle Cisco’s business processes, quality assurance
was imperative to facilitate every stage. Implementation of the “rapid iterative technique”, close attention
to every phase of business process, and their interconnectedness affirmed the
systems efficiency and overall success. Cisco was willing to pay a high price
(the largest single largest capital project) in order to implement the ERP at a
high standard of quality within a certain timeframe.
Essentially, quality is directly
affected by the triple constraints of any project; cost, scope and time. The
adoption of the CRP – conference room prototype aided the success of the
project. The constant release of various versions and frequent feedbacks
allowed for swift progression and recognition of possible faults in the system.
The CRP’s also allowed the team to identify issues in certain business
processes that would render the system inefficient and also ultimately
facilitated the decision of modification.
Lastly, Solvik understood how
longwinded and cumbersome the implementation of an ERP system could be, hence a
set of business processes to be included in the ERP were agreed upon. This set
a benchmark for the quality of this system and avoided unfeasible goals with regards
to functionalities.
Conclusion
We have discussed scope, time, cost and quality as the four main variables
that we believe attribute to Cisco’s successful ERP implementation. However we
also highlighted their faults within these variables. From an in depth analysis
of these variables, we have decided that the company made successful critical
decisions on an on-going basis. Due to their efficient risk management
processes, they were able to contain any issues when they arose. Even though it
took three months longer than scheduled to have a stable system, in the end it
was a complete success. For this reason we believe it is clear that it was a
continuos effort to achieve this success.
References
Comments:
This is a well-written and well-organized paper that used a
clear structure to address part of the question. Your use of language is good
and appropriate for the audience.
Your decision to structure the paper around three topics –
scope, quality and timing – is interesting and provided a novel approach to the
question. Unfortunately, in the process of structuring your paper this way you
seem to have omitted any answer to the second part of the question (the “smart
vs. lucky” question). This is a very
significant problem with your paper. This approach also seems to have impeded
your consideration of other important success factors, such as relationships
between Cisco and their partners, which you mention only in passing.
You do a good job of being critical about the degree to
which Cisco is successful. For example, your comments on the failure of Cisco
to successful scope the project are good. I think an improved answer might have
taken an even more nuanced position on this critique and asked why the project
was allowed to go ahead even without the complete scope being understood. We
might argue that Cisco’s had few choices except to proceed even without fully
understanding the scope of the project because of the degree to which the
company was in a state of systems crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment