Harley Davidson in Selecting an Appropriate ERP Provider - Case Study Example

Rating Matrix Qualitative Criteria Weight Provider Rating Provider 2 Rating Provider 3 Rating Long Term Relationship Potential 5 H H MH Research and Development 4 MH H MH Training and Approach 4 H MH ML Implementation / Education / Change Management Methodology 5 H MH M Understanding Harley's Requirements 5 H MH M Enabling the SMS 3 MH H MH Out of the box Fit 2 MH H MH Financial Viability 2 MH H MH Cost 3 H L M Technical Support Offerings 4 H H M Overall Functionality 3 H H MH Number of Partner Providers Included in Solution Proposal 2 MH H MH Architecture Compatibility 4 H MH H Platform Portability 4 H M H Web Functionality "to go" 4 MH H ML Manufacturing Experience 3 H MH M Total Score 285 268 244 200 2. Selection of Provider Based on the information provided in the case study and based on the scores of the rating matrix, I would choose Provider 1 because only Provider 1 has the advantage in the more critical areas of software selection and implementation. The basic contention in creating a matrix is to evaluate available options in a quantitative manner. The provider with the greatest score in the rating matrix should automatically “win” unless there would be little point in creating a rating matrix. Rejection of results from the scoring matrix indicate that the team creating the matrix still has underlying reservations that are not being expressed positively for resolution. The composition of the rating matrix provided above encompasses all major concerns that Harley Davidson has to face in selecting an appropriate ERP provider. Furthermore, all major facets of the Harley Davidson team are included in the assessment team such as purchasing, finance, training etc. so there is little room for unaddressed concerns. Analysis of Harley Davidson’s original rating matrix in terms of provider scores shows that there is little difference introduced by using the additional weight criteria to the overall score of each provider. The table below shows the comparison of the score percentage of each provider with and without the additional weight factor. Method Provider 1 Provider 2 Provider 3 Without Weight Factor 74 / 80 = 92.5% 69 / 80 = 86.25% 57 / 80 = 71.25% With Weight Factor 268 / 285 = 94% 244 / 285 = 85.6% 200 / 285 = 70.2% Based on the table presented above it can be seen that the rating matrix provides little difference with and without the weight factor. Hence, it could be conclusively argued that the rating matrix is a stable and representative method of choosing an ERP provider that reflects the aspirations of all participants from the Harley Davidson family. If asked to summarize my reasons for selecting an ERP provider for Harley Davidson, I would choose to clarify my choice based on the major selection factors outlined in the rating matrix. I would tell the senior executives that the provider was chosen to ensure sustainability of the ERP platform along with a high degree of flexibility for present as well as future operations. The primary concern in choosing the provider was seeing if the provider and Harley Davidson could accomplish a long-term working relationship. Additionally it had to be ensured that the ERP provider could understand the peculiar requirements of the Harley Davidson work environment that demanded a high degree of flexibility along with little interruption in operations as the implementation was undertaken. Another major focus in choosing the ERP provider was the method in which the provider dealt with implementation, education and change management methodology because Harley Davidson is about to undergo a major SMS change. Lessons learnt by the provider from prior experience would ensure that Harley Davidson’s transition from one set of business ideals and the supporting IT framework would be as smooth as possible. This in turn would ensure that Harley Davidson would lose as little value addition and money as possible during, after and in the longer run of the transition. Among other things, the secondary focus in choosing the provider rested with research and development along with the training and approach potential of the provider. The domain of technical support offered by the provider was also evaluated to ensure that timely support was available when and where it was required. Finally, it was taken into account that the provider would be able to afford Harley Davidson compatibility with existing platforms along with the capability to move into the future through web connectivity. 3. Software Selection Procedure The software selection procedure at Harley Davidson is highly structured and logically derived though it tends to miss out the smaller details. Attention and focus on the smaller details tends to make the lasting difference in the longer run for software selection especially where major business process changes are about to occur. For one thing, only the business “big wigs” handle Harley Davidson’s software selection procedure without fully accounting for base modalities. In order to develop a logical choice for software selection it was highly appropriate to include people who actually operated the software on the software selection teams. For example, when the Harley Davidson team carried out software testing at the providers’ facilities it made sense to bring along people who operated ERP software on a daily basis. This would have helped to work out common glitches such as GUI clutter ups, lack of intuition or other usability issues. These concerns could have been included on the rating matrix better if the input came directly from the end consumers of the new ERP software. It could be said that the software selection procedure at Harley Davidson failed to account for the end users in required detail. A careful look through the rating matrix used by Harley Davidson’s software selection team reveals an eclectic mix of software, management and strategic objectives. Some of these elements are well defined such as architecture compatibility, platform portability, web functionality “to go” etc. while others are vague objectives such as overall functionality, understanding Harley’s requirements etc. The more “management oriented” objectives reflect that the software selection team at Harley Davidson was able to keep everyone happy by including everyone on board but failed to account for more vague objectives. The element of overall functionality spans a large domain such as usability, ease of use, compatibility with existing software etc. and such details should have been left to IT experts to deal with. In contrast, it is positive to see a software selection team looking into the prospects of developing long-term working relationships with a software provider. The emphasis of the software selection team on finding a provider with cultural diversity also shows that the human factor was taken into account during software selection. Given the fact that Harley Davidson has varying IT structures that deal with ERP, it was important to find a software team that could integrate and bridge up gaps by discovering unique aspects about the people they work with. Furthermore, culturally diverse teams are more at home at working with different ways of doing things. This is all the more important in terms of training and approach as well as implementation, education and change management methodology because different facets of Harley Davidson are used to doing things differently. A provider with a culturally diverse team would be fully capable of assessing differing demands and then meeting the required expectations. Read More