Change Management of People and Technology in an ERP Implementation Assignment - 1

Change Management of People and Technology in an ERP Implementation - Assignment Example Although the company had an internal IT department, its operation was not done in an efficient way. Similarly, the firm had poor application domain knowledge so that they struggled to carry out various functions effectively. Therefore, company management believed that the proposed strategy would assist the organization to improve its weaker areas. The case writers assert that the ‘areas of relative strength’ of the selected approach as ‘High’, ‘High’, and ‘Low’. It must be noted that a concept of expertise ‘buying in’ is associated with this approach rather than risking with unorganized development strategies. Since the proposed strategy was decided to acquire from a third party, it was possible for them to obtain high software expertise and application domain expertise. On the other hand, when purchasing an ERP approach from a third party vendor, probably the package may contain poor local company knowledge. Therefore, it is clear why the writers ranked ‘3rd party modified off-the-shelf solution’ as ‘High’, ‘High’, and ‘Low’ in terms of relative strength areas. Several problems encountered during the selection and implementation phases of the project. According to Edwards and Humphries, the chief executive officer and other senior managers had only a little knowledge regarding the proposed project. Since the persons at the helm of affairs lacked adequate information regarding the structure of the approach, they could not properly organize their employees. Naturally, this situation led the project to an operational failure. Similarly, PowerIT failed in the selection of a business development manager also. The firm gave emphasis only on the technical skill of the manager, but the appointed manager did not have sufficient social skill which was essential while operating in a traditional manufacturing environment. As a result, it caused some persona l conflicts between business development manager and other managers; and subsequently, lack of coordination in the project implementation phases. Even though none of the vendors submitted the project model in an accurate manner, the development manager awarded the contract to a vendor without considering the option for a review. Since the development manager could not get willing staff to attend the user group meetings, he made their attendance mandatory and that led to inactive participation. The new system was implemented in 2000 and some organizational sections viewed the system a failure one year after its full implementation. As Edwards and Humphries say, a considerable decline in productivity was the most major issue after the project implementation. The ‘brown paper mapping’ undertaken by business development manager was another issue encountered after the project implementation phase as it was not used for any detailed analysis. It is a known fact that the effec tiveness of an organization largely depends on the knowledge and experience of its employees. However, we have seen that even PoweIT’s CEO did not have adequate knowledge regarding the implemented project and it added to the strategic failure of the company. Moreover, the inefficient PowerIT management could not integrate the implemented changes into the existing structure of the organization and that gradually led to customer dissatisfaction.