Erp case study


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Comment
1 Like
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Erp case study

  1. 1. Agenda  Company Background, Current Situation, and ERP Project  Current Systems and Requirements for ERP System  ERP Implementation  Big-Bang vs. Phased In Approach  Conclusion and Questions
  2. 2. Company Background 3  World’s largest manufacture of storage devices  Largest producer of server and PC hard drives in 1996  Revenue of $4.4 billion  Purchased Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC) storage business in October 1994  Competitors – Seagate, IBM, and Western Digital  Outsource production of hard drives
  3. 3. Current Situation  Legacy systems  Material requirement planning (MRP) system maintained separate databases and transactions had to be manually consolidated  Delays in obtaining updated information  Acquisition of DEC caused implementation issues 4
  4. 4. ERP Project – Started April 1994  Worldwide Ask Replacement System - WARP  Three project teams  Steering committee – VP’s of Finance, IS, Logistics, Manufacturing, Purchasing, Sales, and Rep. from PW  Core team – 16 managers from department and business units  Project team (100 Members) – Members from IS and business unit key employees  Teams analyzed and improved business process  Selected Oracle, HP, and Price Waterhouse to assist with ERP implementation  Oracle 7 Database, Oracle Financial, and Manufacturing Modules  Expected implementation in Summer of 1995 5
  5. 5. Problems with the ERP Implementation  Acquisition of DEC slowed implementation process of ERP System  Project was more complex with the acquisition of DEC  Duplicate systems, processes, and artifacts  Project was put on hold – Project teams focused on the DEC acquisition (October 1994)  ERP was restarted in January of 1995  Project team had to redo a large part of the original ERP implementation in order to take into account the DEC acquisition 6
  6. 6. Quantum’s Current Systems  Nine different legacy systems that could not share information  Legacy system kept each division’s transactions in separate functional and business unit databases  Information was manually consolidated, since databases could not share information  Gathering faxes, emails, and written information took four days  Closing the books took seventeen days  Inventory availability could not be confirmed and delivery could take days or weeks 7
  7. 7. Quantum’s Requirements for ERP System  Sales people to take and confirm an order in real time.  Sales have to be able to confirm a delivery time and follow up to ensure that order was delivered in real time  Ability to access current inventory and to reserve that order for the customer in real time  ATP (Available To Promise) – ability to confirm and allocate inventory 8
  8. 8. ERP Implementation Phased implementation: Like the name implies means that modules are implemented one at a time or in a group of modules –often at a single location before moving on to more locations.  The installation of phase one could be the implementation of finance, controlling, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and purchasing modules.  Phase two could be to include materials management, production planning, and quality planning modules.  Following phases mean the deployment and implementation of remaining modules over a period of time. 9 “Phased” and “big-bang” are the two primary approaches used to implement ERP systems.
  9. 9. Big-Bang Implementation  Big-Bang Implementation: “everything is changed at once!” Once an ERP solution has been chosen to meet organizational needs –the system goes from a test version to being the actual system used to capture transactions in only a matter of days. 10
  10. 10. ERP Implementation: Consideration Factors  Organizational size and complexity. This includes factors related to the type of product that organization sells and the size and complexity of the customer  The organizations hierarchy and controls. Flat organizations with loose controls would have more difficulty deploying a phased implementation because its difficult to maintain commitment throughout the process. Organizations that have extensive hierarchy and tighter controls have the necessary mechanisms in place to sustain a phased approach  Extent of the implementation: based on the number of modules and the degree to which the organization changes those modules. 11
  11. 11. Phased Implementation 12
  12. 12. Big-Bang Implementation 13
  13. 13. Which do you Choose? 1. BIG BANG Or Phased-In Implementation? 2. What factors made you choose your implementation choice and why? Additional Questions: 3. What are a few benefits that could be gained from the implementation of your ERP choice? Be specific! Add value when writing the case study by looking up information about the Quantum online and include any finding in your answers 14
  14. 14. Questions? 15