14 Strategic Erp Extension and Use

S T R AT E G I C E R P EXTENSION AND USE
Contents
Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

E. Bendoly and F. R. Jacobs ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints
PART I.
11 13
2 3
Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

S. Abdinnour-Helm and C. Lengnick-Hall
The New Users: SMEs and the Mittelstand Experience

T. Schoenherr, M. A. Venkataramanan, A. Soni, V. A. Mabert, and D. Hilpert
36
Enterprise Applications: Building Best-of-Breed Systems

V. A. Mabert and C. A. Watts
52 71
Getting More Results from Enterprise Systems

T. H. Davenport, J. G. Harris, and S. Cantrell Value Extensions Beyond the Enterprise
PART II.
85
Agility Through Standardization: A CRM /ERP Application

T. F. Gattiker, D. Chen, and D. L. Goodhue
87
ERP-Driven Replenishment Strategies in Make-to-Order Settings

E. P. Robinson Jr. and F. Sahin
97 108
ERP as a Platform for Vendor Managed Inventory

M. V. Tatikonda, C. V. Brown, and I. Vessey
vi
Contents
IT-Supported Productivity: Paradoxes and Resolution in R&D

D. A. Joseph and J. Ettlie
130
10
ERP as a Resource for Inter-Organizational Value Creation

T. E. Vollmann Future Visibility and Accountability
140
PART III.
153 155
11
Enabling ERP Through Auto-ID Technology

E. W. Schuster, D. L. Brock, S. J. Allen, P. Kar, and M. Dinning
12
13
Auditing the System in Use: Value Beyond the Baseline J. Sarkis and R. P. Sundarraj The Path of the Enlightened Manager: Prescriptions for ERP Evolution L. L. David and E. Bendoly
172
191
Contributors
Chief Editors
Dr. Elliot Bendoly is a faculty member in Decision and Information Analysis at Emory Universitys Goizueta Business School. Prior to academia, he worked as a research engineer for the Intel Corporation. He holds a Ph.D. in the elds of operations management and decision sciences from Indiana University. Along with these specializations, his academic background includes an information systems orientation including database, ERP, and knowledge management focuses. During this time, he served as an instructor and developer of SAP implementation and ABAP/4 programming curriculum. More recently, he has been involved with coursework on IT supported service operations and supply chain management. He has published in a number of academic journals, including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Operations Management, Journal of Service Research, European Journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Decision Support Systems, Information and Management, and Business Horizons. His current research focuses on operational issues in IT utilization and organizational behavioral dynamics. Dr. F. Robert Jacobs is the E-II Faculty Fellow and Professor of Operations Management at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. He has
viii
Contributors
degrees in industrial engineering and computer and information science, an MBA, and a Ph.D. in operations management. He is the author of over 50 research articles on topics that include inventory control, ERP systems, design of manufacturing facilities, cellular manufacturing, and the scheduling of manufacturing operations. He is coauthor of two widely used operations management textbooks: Operations Management for Competitive Advantage, 10th edition, and Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems for Supply Chain Management, 5th edition (both academic and professional versions of this book are available). He is coauthor of a book titled Why ERP? A Primer on SAP Implementation (widely used in college courses to introduce ERP concepts and the implementation process). These books are published by McGraw-Hill /Irwin. Professor Jacobs teaches the MBA core operations management course in the Kelley School and has recently taught courses in supply chain management and E-OPS. Over his 20 years of professional experience, he has been a consultant to many companies. He is currently involved in a technology transfer project with Honeywell Aircraft Landing Systems that deals with the development of a new aircraft brake disk using carboncomposite technology. Professor Jacobs is a fellow of the Decision Sciences Institute and past president of the institute.
Contributors
Dr. Sue Abdinnour-Helm, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Operations Management in the Barton School of Business at Wichita State University. Her research interests and expertise are in operations analysis and improvement, enterprise resource planning, facility layout, and supply chain management. Dr. Abdinnour-Helm has won several awards of excellence in both teaching and research. She has published her work in academic and practitioner journals, including European Journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Production and Inventory Management Journal, and Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. Dr. Abdinnour-Helm has consulted with different companies on topics of technology and operations management. She is a member of several professional organizations, including APICS, INFORMS,
Contributors
ix
POMS, AIS, and DSI. She regularly makes presentations at national and international conferences and to various other professional groups. Dr. Stuart J. Allen is professor emeritus at Penn StateErie, the Behrend College. He works on design of decision aids for application in manufacturing environments. His educational background includes a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Wisconsin, a masters degree in mechanical engineering from Seattle University, and a Ph.D. in engineering mechanics from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Allen began his research career in the eld of non-Newtonian uid mechanics and has published over 50 journal articles in engineering and management science. He has also owned and operated three businesses in Wisconsin and New York State. Dr. David L. Brock is Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Auto-ID Labs and the founding director of Brock Rogers Surgical, a manufacturer of microrobotic devices. He has worked with a number of organizations, including MITs articial intelligence lab, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Inrmary, DARPA, Celadon, Loral, BBN, and Draper Labs. Dr. Brocks interests include distributed systems control, Internet control, large system simulation, robotics, and AI. He has several publications and four patents. He has received several awards, including the Wunsch Foundation Award for outstanding mechanical design, Tau Beta Pi, and Pi Tau Sigma. Dr. Brock holds bachelors degrees in theoretical mathematics and mechanical engineering, as well as masters and Ph.D. degrees from MIT. Dr. Carol V. Brown is Associate Professor of Information Systems, Kelley School of Business, IUPUI Indianapolis. Her general areas of specialization are management and design of information systems in large organizations and the management of end-user computing strategies and tactics. Her recent work has surrounded enterprise system implementation issues, ITs role in mergers and acquisitions, and design and governance of the IT organization. Publications of her research can be found in highly respected outlets such as Information Systems Management, MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, and Organization Science.
Contributors
Susan Cantrell is a research fellow at the Accenture Institute for High Performance Business. Her work is focused on business innovation, human performance, and the intersection of organizational behavior and information systems. Ms. Cantrell has a masters degree in management information systems and has prior experience in the investment and education elds. Her work has been published in publications such as Industry Standard, Across the Board, Strategy and Leadership, and Outlook. Dr. Daniel Chen is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Texas Christian University. He received his Ph.D. in MIS from the University of Georgia in December 2004. He also holds an MBA from Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Chens research interests lie at the interface between information technology and strategic management. His primary areas of research are the organizational impact of IT application infrastructure, the role and value of IS leadership, and electronic commerce. His work has been accepted for publication in Business Intelligence Journal and the proceedings of several leading national and international conferences. Dr. Thomas H. Davenport is a fellow with the Accenture Institute for High Performance Business and holds the Presidents Chair in Information Technology and Management at Babson College. He is a widely published author and acclaimed speaker on the topics of information and knowledge management, reengineering, enterprise systems, and electronic business and markets. He has a Ph.D. from Harvard University in organizational behavior and has taught at the Harvard Business School, the University of Chicago, Dartmouths Tuck School of Business, and the University of Texas at Austin. He has also directed research centers at Ernst & Young, McKinsey & Company, and CSC Index. Dr. Davenports latest book coauthored with Larry Prusakis Whats the Big Idea? (Harvard Business School Press), which describes how organizations modify and implement new management ideas to improve their performance. Prior to this, Dr. Davenport wrote, coauthored, or edited nine other books, including the rst books on business process reengineering, knowledge management, attention in business, and enterprise systems management. He has written more than 100 articles for publications such as Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, California Management
Contributors
xi
Review, Financial Times, and many others. Dr. Davenport has also been a columnist for CIO, InformationWeek, and Darwin magazines. Loretta David, MBA, CPIM, CIRM, CDP, holds an MBA in business management with a BS in mathematics and is certied in data processing (CDP). Ms. David is currently a business consultant with SSA Global, responsible for proposing and demonstrating solution sales to installed base clients for BPCS and various partner products. She has been a member of APICS (American Production and Inventory Control Society) for over 20 years and has held many board positions, including president of the APICS Atlanta Chapter from 2002 to 2004 (with almost 1,000 members) and president of APICS Shreveport, Louisiana. Mark Dinning is the RFID Project Leader in the Supply Chain Engineering Group at Dell Inc. He coauthored Fighting Friction, an article about the applied use of RFID technology, which appeared as the February 2003 cover story in APICS Magazine. Mr. Dinning has a masters of engineering in supply chain management from MIT and an undergraduate degree in business economics from UCLA. Mr. Dinning wrote his thesis in conjunction with the MIT Auto-ID Center, the group responsible for the development and standardization of RFID technology. Prior to Dell Inc. and MIT, he was one of the original employees at Tickets.com. Mr. Dinning began his career at Deloitte & Touche and is a Certied Public Accountant. Dr. John E. Ettlie is the Malelon L. and Richard N. Rosett Professor of Business Administration and Director of the Technology Management Center at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He earned his Ph.D. at Northwestern University in 1975 and has held appointments since then at the University of Illinois Chicago, De Paul University, the Industrial Technology Institute, the University of Michigan Business School, the U.S. Business School in Prague, and Catolica University in Lisbon, Portugal. Professor Ettlie has been the consultant to numerous corporations and government projects, including the Saturn Corporation, Allied-Signal Corporation, Caterpillar Tractor, Inc., PACAR Reynolds Metals, Kodak, Delphi Corporation, and many others. He is the associate editor of sev-
xii
Contributors
eral professional journals, including the Journal of Operations Management and Production and Operations Management. He has authored six books, including the second edition of his textbook titled Managing Innovation to be published by Elsevier (expected summer 2005). Dr. Thomas F. Gattiker, CFPIM, is Assistant Professor of Operations Management at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and is an afliate of the interdisciplinary Engineering Management Program. He has published in Information and Management, Production and Inventory Management Journal, International Journal of Production Research, Quality Management Journal, and The Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. His current research is the application of information technology to the operations and supply chain areas. He was the 1999 APICS George and Marion Plossl Fellow. Before obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia, he worked in operations and inventory management, most recently at Rockwell Automation and Reliance Electric. Dr. Dale L. Goodhue is the C. Herman and Mary Virginia Terry Chair of Business Administration and Head of the Department of MIS at the University of Georgias Terry College of Business. He has published in Management Science, MIS Quarterly, Decision Sciences, Sloan Management Review, and other journals. His research interests include measuring the impact of information systems, the impact of task-technology t on individual performance, and the management of data and other IS infrastructures and resources. In particular, he is currently focusing on identifying the impacts and implementation success factors of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and data warehousing. Jeanne G. Harris is associate partner, Senior Research Fellow, and Director of Research (Chicago) at the Accenture Institute for High Performance Business. She has a masters degree in information science from the University of Illinois and is currently conducting research on the next generation of enterprise solutions and the economics of IT innovation. Her past research topics include improving managerial performance, knowledge management, business intelligence, building analytic capabilities, customer relationship management, customer-centric strategies, mobile personalization, and realizing value from enterprise solutions; she also speaks
Contributors
xiii
frequently on these topics to executive audiences. Jeannes work has been published in numerous business publications such as CIO, Strategy and Leadership, Sloan Management Review, California Management Review, and InformationWeek as well as numerous Accenture publications such as Outlook. Her research has been quoted extensively by the international business press, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Cinco Dias, and Nihon Keizai Shimbun. Dr. Ditmar Hilpert is Professor at the European School of Business (ESB), Reutlingen, Germany. He has earned a masters degree both in biotechnology and economics and holds a Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology. After more than 10 years in the pharmaceutical industry, he has held the chair in Strategic Management at ESB for the last 11 years. His current research interest is in the comparison of strategic approaches of SME on an international background. Professor Hilpert also serves the European Commission, DG XII, as an advisor and is the head of the ESB Executive Institute Dr. Daniel A. Joseph is Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in RITs College of Business. He holds a Ph.D. in management information systems with minors in computer science and organizational behavior (change management), an MBA from SUNY at Buffalo, a masters degree in economics from SUNY at Albany, and a bachelors degree in commerce from Niagara University. Besides teaching at RIT, Dr. Joseph is an active MIS consultant. His clients have included the Computer Task Group (CTG), Eastman Kodak Company, Samsung, the Stickley Furniture Company, the Japan Productivity Center, Maritz Research, Waste Management Corporation, the Knowledge Company, Raymond Corporation, and others. His current interests are focused on software development process improvement, workow analysis and design, and integrated business systems, particularly those implemented using SAP products. He is the author of 18 articles and commercial software products. Professor Joseph holds certication in use of the ASAP SAP Implementation Methodology. Pinaki Kar is currently an independent consultant working in the pharmaceutical industry on analysis and modeling to support strategic planning,
xiv
Contributors
business development, and marketing. He is interested in the application of operations research and statistical techniques for planning and decision support across a wide range of business issues. His experience spans multiple industries that include pharmaceutical, chemical, high tech, and insurance. Mr. Kars educational background includes a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, and a masters degree in logistics from MIT. Dr. Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall, Ph.D., is a Professor of Management in the College of Business at the University of Texas at San Antonio. She has consulting, executive education, and management experience in both private industry and higher education administration. Articles by Dr. LengnickHall have been published in numerous journals, such as the Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, European Journal of Operations Research, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Strategy and Leadership, Human Resource Management, Organization Studies, and many others. She has coauthored three books, the most recent being Human Resource Management in the Knowledge Economy: New Challenges, New Roles, New Capabilities published by BerrettKoehler in 2003. Dr. Lengnick-Hall has also contributed chapters to several other books. Her current research interests include strategic human resource management, orchestrating internal knowledge markets, achieving competitive superiority in high-velocity environments, and using intangible resources to achieve competitive advantage. Dr. Vincent A. Mabert is the John and Esther Reese Professor and Professor of Operations Management in the Department of Operations and Decision Technologies at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. He conducts research and consults in the areas of workforce planning, order scheduling, enterprise resource planning systems, new product development, and manufacturing system design. His publications include articles in Management Science, Decision Sciences, IIE Transactions, Journal of Operations Management, The Accounting Review, and the Academy of Management Journal. He routinely consults with the Rand Corporation concerning supply chain management issues for the U.S. military. He has been active and held ofcer positions in a number of profes-
Contributors
xv
sional societies, including industrial engineering, INFORMS, APICS, and decision sciences. Professor Mabert is vice president of the Harvey Foundation and a fellow of the Decision Sciences Institute. Dr. E. Powell Robinson Jr. is an associate professor of supply chain management at the Mays Business School, Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin and was previously a faculty member at Indiana University. His primary research interests are in the design of production and distribution networks, multilocation inventory control, supply chain strategy, and information technology applications in supply chain management. His publications are in Decision Sciences, Management Science, Journal of Operations Management, Naval Research Logistics, and Interfaces, among others. Dr. Funda Sahin is an assistant professor of logistics and transportation in the College of Business at the University of Tennessee. She received her Ph.D. from Texas A&M University. Her research and teaching interests are in logistics and transportation, operations and supply chain management, inventory planning and control, and information technology applications in supply chain management. Her publications are in Decision Sciences and Production and Inventory Management Journal. She is a member of CLM, DSI, and INFORMS. Dr. Joseph Sarkis is currently Professor of Operations and Environmental Management in the Graduate School of Management at Clark University. He earned his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo. His research interests include supply chain management and management of technology with a specic emphasis on environmentally conscious operations and logistics, performance management, justication issues, and enterprise modeling. He has published over 160 articles in a number of peer reviewed academic journals, conferences, and edited books. Tobias Schoenherr is a doctoral candidate in the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, majoring in operations management and decision sciences. He earned his B.S. (with High Distinction) and his M.B. from Indiana University and holds a Diplom-Betriebswirt (FH) from the European School of Business, Germany. Mr. Schoenherrs current research in-
xvi
Contributors
terests include supply chain management, electronic procurement and reverse auctions, e-commerce, industrial marketing, and ERP systems. Ed Schuster has held the appointment of Director of the Afliates Program in Logistics at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics and is currently helping to organize a new research effort involving the largescale analysis of data. His interests are in the application of models to logistical and planning problems experienced in industry. He has a bachelors of science in food technology from Ohio State University and a masters in public administration with an emphasis in management science from Gannon University. Mr. Schuster also attended the executive development program for physical distribution managers at the University of Tennessee and holds several professional certications. Dr. Ashok Soni is Chairperson and Professor of Operations and Decision Technologies and the SAP Faculty Fellow at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. He received a B.S. in aeronautical engineering from Manchester University, an M.S. in operations research from Strathclyde University, and an MBA and DBA from Indiana University. Professor Sonis teaching and research interests are in the areas of enterprise applications, technology, e-business, and decision support systems. His research interests are in enterprise technologies and decision support systems. His research has appeared in Management Science, Naval Logistics Research, Omega, IIE Transactions, and European Journal of Operational Research. Dr. R. P. Sundarraj is currently an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the University of Waterloo. He obtained his bachelors in electrical engineering from the University of Madras, India, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in management and computer sciences from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Professor Sundarrajs teaching and research encompass the development of methodologies for the efcient design and management of emerging information systems, as well as the use of massive parallel computing for solving large-scale problems. He has published in various national and international journals such as Mathematical Programming, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, and European Journal of Operational Research. In addi-
Contributors
xvii
tion, he has provided e-commerce solutions for marketing and inventorymanagement problems arising in Fortune-100 companies. Dr. Mohan V. Tatikonda is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at Indiana Universitys Kelley School of Business. Dr. Tatikonda holds a doctorate in operations management from Boston University and an M.S. in manufacturing systems engineering, an MBA in operations management, and a B.S. in electrical engineering, all from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is an APICS certied fellow (CFPIM) and a PDMA certied professional in new product development (NPDP). He has received several awards for teaching excellence, including the Otteson award and the MBA teaching excellence award. His research has received the best doctoral dissertation award from the Production and Operations Management Society. Professor Tatikondas research on new product development and the supply chain has been published in journals such as Management Science and Journal of Operations Management. He contributed three chapters to the recent book New Directions in Supply Chain Management. He has taught elective courses on the practice and theory of product innovation to MBA, Executive MBA, and Ph.D. students and has consulted for SAP, the World Bank, and other major organizations. Dr. M.A. Venkataramanan is a professor of Operations and Decision Technologies at the Indiana University, Bloomington. He received his Ph.D. in business analysis and research from Texas A&M University. His research interests include network modeling, optimization techniques, combinatorial models, articial intelligence, high-speed computing, and supply chain models. His teaching interests are in the area of decision support systems, computer programming, enterprise resource planning (ERP), optimization techniques, and project management. He is one of the principle investigators in the ERP research and teaching initiative at Indiana University. He has more than 20 research articles published in a variety of journals, including Operations Research, Decision Sciences, Annals of Operations Research, Naval Research Logistics, Computers and OR, EJOR, and Mathematical Modeling. Dr. Iris Vessey is a Professor of Information Systems at Indiana Universitys Kelley School of Business, Bloomington. Dr. Vessey received her M.S.,
xviii
Contributors
MBA, and Ph.D. in management information systems from the University of Queensland, Australia. She served on the faculties of the University of Queensland, the University of Pittsburgh, and Pennsylvania State University before joining the faculty at Indiana University. She is recognized for her research into evaluating emerging information technologies, from both cognitive and analytical perspectives. Much of her research has used qualitative research methods to assess the efcacy of new technologies. Dr. Vessey was recently ranked as one of the top 10 IS researchers during the period from 1991 to1996. Her publications have appeared in journals such as Information Systems Research, Communications of the ACM, Journal of Management Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Information and Management, Decision Sciences, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Software, Information Technology and Management Journal, Journal of Systems and Software, Behavior and Information Technology, and International Journal of Man-Machine Studies (now the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies). Dr. Thomas E. Vollmann is Professor (Emeritus) of Manufacturing Management at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland. Professor Vollmann received his B.S., MBA, and Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior faculty positions include Dartmouth College, University of Rhode Island, Indiana University, INSEAD, and Boston University. Professor Vollmann has served as a consultant to many rms on manufacturing and information systems, has lectured in executive programs throughout the world, has served as a member of the Certication and Curriculum Council of the American Production and Inventory Control Society (APICS), and is certied at the Fellow Level (CFPIM) by APICS. Professor Vollmanns research and consulting have primarily focused on operations management, manufacturing auditing and improvement, manufacturing planning and control systems, manufacturing performance measurement systems, benchmarking, and, most recently, supply-demand chain management and enterprise transformation. Professor Vollmann is the author or coauthor of 12 books, about 50 case studies (8 award winning), and approximately 100 journal articles.
Contributors
xix
Dr. Charles A. Watts, DBA, CPIM, Jonah, is a Professor in the Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics at John Carroll University. He received his B.S. in business administration and MBA from Bowling Green State University and his DBA from Indiana University. He has published research that appeared in Journal of Operations Management, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Management Science, Production and Inventory Management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, International Journal of Production Research, and Operations Management Review. He conducts research and consults in the areas of supplier development, purchasing and materials management, supply chain management, warehouse location and rationalization, scheduling in service and manufacturing organizations, and the Theory of Constraint thinking process. He was president of the APICS Toledo Chapter and is currently on the national steering committee for the Small Manufacturing Specic Industry Group.

ELLIOT BENDOLY AND F. ROBERT JACOBS
Is this it, is this as good as it gets? A question posed by misanthropic novelist Melvin Udall in the 1997 lm with the associated title. More recently, similar questions have been asked with regard to enterprise technologies, albeit often in distinctively more colorful terms.
Debates over the value provided by ERP architectures have existed since the inception of the enterprise-system concept. Though questions regarding the value of ERP systems remain, the nature of the argument has evolved over the years. No longer limited to the considerations of Fortune 500 rms and those faced by impending failures of aging systems, enterprise resource planning developers have survived the Internet bubble and are being viewed in a very different light these days. More than ever before, ERP systems are being viewed as the central binding mechanisms behind future cross-functional planning activities, both within individual enterprises and among their value-chain partners. However, research still seems preoccupied with discussions of implementation and adoption. Only a handful of studies have focused on the actual use of ERP systems or on their ability to enable the use of complementary systems that appear to be positioned as standard features of future commerce (e.g., CRM applications, infrastructural support for VMI, etc.) (Jacobs and Bendoly, 2003; Davenport, 2000). An understanding of current use and of apparent gaps between expectations and capabilities is a necessary precursor to future extensions of resource planning technologies into the inter-organizational realm. Whereas operations managers seem convinced of the benets of information sharing in contexts such as the supply chain, it is ironic that the basic intra-organizational mechanisms that support such sharing are given so little attention.
Transactional applications (B2B/B2C e-commerce)
Data warehousing
Data mining
SRM and collaborative R&D
ERP
CRM and collaborative R&D
Strategic enterprise mgmt
Advanced planning & scheduling
SCM and collaborative logistics

FIGURE
1.1
The Enabling Position of ERP Architectures
Source: Adapted from Bendoly et al. (2004)
Fundamentally, ERP systems and their implementations represent essential enablers of improvement, development, and growth with and ultimately among rms (Figure 1.1). As emphasized by operations management and information systems researchers alike, the critical research question is not whether IT expenditures in general lead to returns, but rather how to make the best use of the IT opportunities available to augment operations and support competitive gains (i.e., to ensure that new sustainable returns actually come about) (e.g., Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1998). The same directed question applies to ERP architectures. However, since such use necessarily involves human actors at some level, incorporating the question of use into studies of operational performance requires a willingness by operations management researchers and practitioners to consider relatively microlevel mechanisms and subsequently extend inferences based on these mechanisms to higher-level phenomena. Since mechanisms involving individual ERP users impact phenomena measurable at the business unit level, this also requires a willingness to consider models and relationships that span, rather than restrict themselves to, specic levels of analysis. This is not a traditional approach to operations management views of technology by any means And its about time!
Under the Microscope
To assist in groundbreaking efforts to contribute new knowledge in the ERP domain, several frameworks for guiding operations management research on the topic have been established. For example, the enabling capability of ERP can be described both in terms of the functionality of ERP systems and in terms of the implementation processes that allow their capabilities to be realized. The organizational and operational changes associated with ERP implementations often should be given as much, or more, credit for the potential benets as the systems themselves. Recent research, drawing on established theoretical frameworks in operations management such as the theory of swift-even ow (Schmenner and Swink, 1998) and its ties to the law of bottlenecks (Goldratt, 1984), refers to both product (system) and process (implementation) benets at the intra-organizational level as the foundation of benet enablement at the inter-organizational level (Bendoly and Kaefer, 2004). Examples of these potentially pervasive and ubiquitous enabling capabilities are illustrated in Table 1.1. Categorical groupings of these suggested enabled benets represent distinct facets that may or may not be dominant features in individual rms. As a whole, they represent elements that can contribute to a rms general pursuit of internal visibility, exibility, excellence in quality, and the capacity for inter-organizational extension. The dominant effectiveness of any subset of these benets, for whatever reason, represents a further means of distinguishing the capabilities of rms, building on idiosyncratic strengths and reafrming the uniqueness of individual rms that allows them to stand apart from others. These distinctions, based in established theory, appeal to researchers and practicing managers alike because they suggest methods of more easily pinpointing sources of benet, associating these benets with tangible operational metrics and, furthermore, planning or prescribing future changes aimed at supporting strategic objectives. In the end, it is these same enabled strategic gains that have been the most elusive to managers and generally absent from consideration in total benet assessments of ERP systems. Such a discussion of strategic enablement has been a long time coming, but it is slowly starting to be recognized and scrutinized.
Ta b l e 1 . 1 ERP product versus process benets

Example product effects Variability reduction Common DB. Elimination of redundancy and potential for multisystem data conicts Standardized interfaces. Reduction in variance in human-computer and computer-computer processing time Bottleneck reduction Common DB. Tracking of processing times and simplied identication of potential enterprise-wide bottlenecks Example process effects Rationalization of number of business procedures. Less uncertainty as to how a transaction will be executed Training/education of users. Reduced variation in interpretations of corporate goals, operational priorities, and transactional procedures Rationalization of number of business procedures. Fewer processes make the identication of bottleneck sources easier, and allow for smoother reactive capacity adjustments Training/education of users. More workers have the ability to recognize bottlenecks Rationalization of number of business procedures. Elimination of unnecessary, redundant or waste-generating business subprocesses Training/education of users. More workers have the ability to recognize waste and future waste-generating processes
Standardized interfaces. Signicant reduction of time required for transactions, in some cases eliminating bottlenecks Waste reduction Common DB. Monitoring of specic forms of waste, and prioritization of waste by enterprise-wide cost implications Standardized interfaces. Allowing easier comparability of interdepartmental sources of waste and hastening treatment
s o u r c e : Adapted from Bendoly and Kaefer (2004).
The role of this book is to provide both practitioners and researchers with a window into the cutting-edge strategic use of modern ERP systems. In contrast to the majority of books that have focused on ERP system implementation, our approach is to focus on current and future developments in ERP system applications. The viewpoint throughout this text is predominantly that of the operating manager, rather than the marketer or the information technician. Through essays provided by a myriad of operations management researchers and professionals, we hope to clarify
issues regarding the existing functional capabilities of ERP systems and the underutilization of these existing capabilities by rms. We also hope to illuminate the potential for extensions of the capabilities of these systems to support both intra-organizational and inter-organizational resource management decisions and strategies. If accomplished, these objectives begin to ll the knowledge gap that has served as a barrier to many managers in cost-justifying both their prior technology investments and future strategically focused management decisions (a gap that is currently not lled by the existing literature).
Its How You Use It, Stupid!
. . . Not whether you have an ERP system (system labels often dont mean much these days). . . . Not how much you spent (which says nothing of the complexity or appropriateness of the spending). . . . Not even whether youve gone big bang vs. phased, plain vanilla vs. customized, etc. The only real way to ensure that value is gained through resource planning system implementations is to ensure that the process changes associated with the implementation are followed through and that other forms of use enabled by the technology are leveraged. The development and retention of new competitive advantages drawn from these systems require a steady watch for appropriate and advantageous use and an organizational diligence that encourages novel applications of the system in problem solving, regulation, and innovation. In the rst section of this text (ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints), contributing authors discuss the new frontiers of use in the ERP realm that accompany the growing sentiment that resource planning systems can, indeed, enable strategic gains. The rst chapter in this section (Abdinnour-Helm and Lengnick-Hall) describes a major study of user perceptions concerning the strategic value of ERP system implementations. The study suggests that the role of ERP architecture as a signicant enabler of new capabilities can be expected to support strategic gains only if used specically to enhance the operational priorities and fundamental strategic orientation of the rm. If such vision and clarity describes
the mind-set of IT staff, operational planners, and strategic managers, the appropriate use of ERP should develop into strategic priority in itself. In the following chapter (Schoenherr et al.), strategic use is discussed in the context of the growing small- to medium-sized enterprise market. The chapter argues that the reasons for implementing ERP might be very different for such rms. Specic ndings from an associated study suggest an initial strategic emphasis on nancial information for traditionally studied large rms compared with an alternative strategic focus on distribution for small rms considering the value of ERP implementations. Chapter 4 (Mabert and Watts) deals with the strategic development and application of best-of-breed ERP extensions. The issue of whether a rm uses a single-vendor, plain vanilla ERP system or one that is enhanced with more advanced modules and add-ons from other vendors continues to be a topic of heated debate among practitioners. Using survey research, this chapter explores what companies are actually doing and measures the degree of success of the various approaches. Findings reveal potential strategic tradeoffs between additional accrued benets and substantial increases in system complexity. The nal chapter of Section I (Davenport et al.) attempts to tackle critical questions relating to the still untapped strength of modern ERP systems. These questions include: What types of value are business trying to draw from ERP architectures? How have specic rms progressed in these attempts? (E.g., what success have they achieved over time?) What did the rms that were most successful actually do to realize novel gains? By addressing these questions, we have the beginnings of a foundation for considering approaches that might engender further advancements in the idiosyncratic and strategic use of ERP systems in general. This in turn provides an excellent segue into the following section, which provides specic instances of ERP extension. The second section (Value Extensions Beyond the Enterprise) delves into the strategic extension of ERP systems as enablers of a variety of strategically oriented contemporary technologies. In some of these cases,
the focal extensions are critical to rms intending to position themselves as hallmarks of customer intimacy (e.g., assisted by customer relationship management tactics), while in other cases, the extensions are critical particularly to those seeking to stand out through excellence in cost control or through inter-organizational linkages that may facilitate sustained competitive gains in innovation across their supply chains. Accordingly, the rst chapter (Gattiker, Chen, and Goodhue) of Section II deals with advancements in agility driven by ERP-enabled customer relationship management (CRM) applications. The authors posit that the linkage between a rms strategic capabilities as an agile market player and its use of extended applications such as CRM tools represent some of the greatest value opportunities supported by ERP architecture. The authors recommend further emphasis (as already suggested by contemporary authors such as Bendoly and Kaefer [2004]) on a view of ERP as a foundation for strategic technology enhancement, rather than a strict focus on embedded best practices. This discussion is followed by a pair of chapters, each dealing with the operational activities that ultimately help to support customer service while simultaneously representing sources of excellence in cost control. The rst of these chapters (Robinson and Sahin) focuses on contemporary issues in ERP-driven replenishment activities. Specically, the chapter discusses ERP systems as enablers of information sharing and coordinated decision-making for direct materials acquisition in make-to-order (MTO) supply chains. Based on experience with Fortune 500 users of ERP systems and simulation analysis, the authors research reveals notable gains in operational effectiveness made possible through the novel replenishment schemas enabled and automated via ERP architecture. These gains in turn open the door for resource shifts that can shore up further corporate agility. The second of these chapters (Tatikonda, Brown, and Vessey) focuses specically on vendor managed inventory (VMI), its enablement through ERP architecture, and its subsequent ability to provide barriers to competition. One case of such a program, supported by ERP technology, is discussed in detail with insights and prescriptions for future VMI success and strategic customer integration. The last two chapters of this section explore the evolving nature of ERP-enabled interrm linkages from an overarching perspective that incorporates not only materials management but also the levels of shared
design and planning activities that support competitive gains in innovativeness across supply chains. The rst of these chapters (Joseph and Ettlie) discusses the value potential of both R&D collaborative technologies and the architectural standards (e.g., ERP) that support their use. Although optimistic of the ability to ultimately link market results to this use, the authors warn against myopic views of IT that still limit the realization of potential. In a subsequent chapter by Vollmann, this potential is given greater emphasis and detail in execution. Case studies are drawn on to illustrate how ERP architecture facilitates the evolution of dyadic relationships within supply chains as well as the creation of idiosyncratic inimitable gains that these relationships may embody. In our nal section (Future Visibility and Accountability), we present the thoughts of researchers regarding the safeguards required to ensure the maintenance of strategic capabilities and subsequently the competitive strengths drawn from an evolving techno-organizational operating architecture such as ERP. We begin this section with a chapter that touches on what may ultimately be one of the most pivotal business technologies of the early part of this century and one that is currently considered to be a terra-former of future competitive landscapesAuto-ID (Schuster et al.). The authors discuss the developing implications for ERP systems resulting from increased data obtained through Auto-ID technology. It is anticipated that nearly all components of existing ERP packages will be affected by Auto-ID, allowing many more applications in practice given the increased ow of data through the application of Auto-ID. This discussion is followed by a chapter (Sarkis and Sundarraj) outlining the critical nature of ongoing ERP architecture evaluation in-line with the support of sustained competitive advantage. The authors provide some detail on the process of evaluating these strategy-enabling systems within the context of a broad systems development or technology management framework. A number of methodological approaches and tools for evaluation are outlined. Insights related to the implementation of these approaches for ERP evaluation are also provided. Given the wide range of expert viewpoints and ndings depicted in these chapters, we conclude this compilation with a set of summary thoughts and prescriptions regarding strategic ERP extension and use (Davids and Bendoly). Based on the vast array of positive case experiences describing already substantial gains and notable suggestions for advancement (along
with common pitfalls that have ensnared misguided rms and misaligned implementations), we stress that an image of the strategic relevance of ERP as an enabler of novelty and agility is critical in valuing this technology not only from a business case perspective but also from the perspective of business landscape development. With emphasis on the fact that the strategic opportunities posed by ERP implementations are far from past and in fact continue to be revealed as technology and management practice evolve, we describe options and considerations essential to garnering strategic value from ERP in the future.
ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

SUE ABDINNOUR-HELM AND CYNTHIA LENGNICK-HALL
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems promise to solve the problem of fragmented information in large organizations by providing seamless integration of all the information owing through the company across the different functional and business units across the world (Davenport, 1998). They are also touted as backbone infrastructures that, through extension, can support the ow of information with suppliers (through supply chain management systems) and customers (through customer relationship management systems). To date, several academic and practitioner journals have discussed the topic of ERP and related issues (for example, see Jacobs and Bendoly [2003] for a review). Many of these papers have attempted to describe factors that drive success in ERP applications. Although more recent interest in ERP surrounds extension and use, the literature on critical success factors has primarily focused on implementation (Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairi, 2003; Umble, Haft, and Umble, 2003; Hong and Kim, 2002). One key factor often alluded to within this growing body of literature has been that of t or alignment, both strategic and tactical (Davenport, 1998; Brenner and Cheese, 1999; Peterson, Gelman, and Cooke, 2001; Somers and Nelson, 2003; Bendoly and Jacobs, 2004). These studies consistently argue that (1) ERP projects should be business driven rather than technology driven and (2) ERP requires an alignment with a rms source of competitive
14
advantage if it is to yield positive strategic outcomes. However, the majority of studies that explore the t between ERP and strategy have adopted a very narrow denition of a rms strategy and have failed to incorporate much of the recent literature and current perspectives in the strategic management eld. Given recent strategic literature, perhaps a more appropriate tactic would be to focus on a more multidimensional view of strategy when considering sources of ERP benet. Markus and Tanis (2000) describe an organizations experience with an enterprise system as moving through four phases: chartering phase (ideas to dollars); project phase (dollars to assets); shakedown phase (assets to impacts); and the onward and upward phase (impacts to performance). In our view, the chartering phase can also be called the adoption phase, in which a key decision must be made by executives of the company in consultation with others (IT specialists, vendors, etc.) about whether to adopt an ERP system or not and if one should be adopted, then which one. A common problem in both the adoption phase and in the later onward and upward phases is the failure to link the plan to implement an application system with the business strategic plan. This often leads to the adoption of an application or architecture that does not strategically t the organization or to the abandonment of the ERP project after it starts and incurs major costs. A solid consideration of strategic goals and requirements, as well as a system of checks and balances regarding the internal perspectives of those making direct use of the application, can mitigate these losses.
Conventional Views of Strategy
The vast majority of empirical studies examining the ERP-strategy connection have measured strategy in terms of a rms stated intent to compete on the basis of cost leadership, differentiation, or innovation. This single indicator of business-level sources of competitive advantage neglects other equally important elements of strategy, such as diversication, organizational-level strategic activities, expected nancial concerns, core competence development, dynamic capabilities, and the nature of competition in the industry. While these generic strategy types were certainly standard ways to dene strategy in the mid-1980s, the strategic management eld has moved far beyond these categorizations.
15
This limited cost leadership, differentiation, or innovation view of strategy raises several conceptual and empirical problems. First, these strategies reect a common set of causal premises and assumptions (Lengnick-Hall and Wolff, 1998, 1999). The underlying theory perspective is the structure-conduct-performance paradigm derived from industrial organizational economics (Mason, 1939; Bain, 1956, 1968). This paradigm asserts that rm performance is determined by the structure of the industry in which it competes. In other words, incumbent rms in industries that have high barriers to entry, relatively few rms with equal size or market power, inelastic demand, and strong sources of differentiation will typically earn higher returns than rms operating in industries that are not characterized by these conditions. Empirical research has demonstrated that the conceptual similarities across these strategies outweigh the conceptual differences (Segev, 1989). If measures of strategy reect the same foundation assumptions and causal expectations, one would not expect them to lead to different ERP-related prescriptions. This means that the expected variation in strategy to which ERP adoption and implementation practices are expected to t or not t may not be there to measure. Segev (1989) found that the same 31 strategic factors comprised both Miles and Snows (1984) typology of defenders, prospectors, and analyzers and Porters (1985) cost leaders, differentiators, and focus organizations. He further found that the fundamental difference between the prospector/differentiation strategy and the cost-leadership/focus/defender strategy was the degree to which strategy enactment was proactive in terms of deliberate risk-taking. This seems to be a slim basis for expected differences in ERP-strategy links, making the previously proposed models of ERP-strategy t less useful. Chadwick and Cappelli (1997) found that few differences in rm performance can be attributed to the Porter strategies after accounting for other important factors that are known to affect performance outcomes. Contingency approaches rely on the assumption that important differences in strategy should be reected in important differences in ERP adoption if effective organizational performance is to result. However, it appears that signicant differences in strategy have not been captured in most ERP-related studies to date. Second, the strategy measures used in most ERP-related research to date do not incorporate the more recent thinking in strategic management.
16
Concepts such as the resource-based view of the rm (Barney, 1991, 1995), knowledge-based views of the rm (Kogut and Zander, 1993), and hyper competition (DAveni, 1994) have been ignored or merely noted but not used to shape conceptual models (cf. Somers and Nelson, 2003). Nor do most studies appear to recognize the increasing evidence that no single approach to creating competitive advantage is sufcient to sustain a strong competitive position (Yip, 1995). The fundamental difference between these more recent strategy perspectives and the structure-conductperformance paradigm is the expectation that strategy and competitive advantage are derived by looking inside the rm to capitalize on its valuable, unique, and difculty-to-copy assets and capabilities rather than basing strategic choice on a reection of the structure of the external industry. Third, the strategy typologies typically employed in ERP research are meant to describe strategies at the strategic business unit (SBU) level, yet these generic strategy typologies are often applied to the more aggregated organizational level (Somers and Nelson, 2003). Large diversied rms operating in a number of different industries are pursuing many, and sometimes conicting, business unit strategies. For example, one product division might compete on price, while another product division competes primarily on technological innovation. Since ERP is an enterprisewide system, it is essential to be able to capture corporate-level strategy when assessing ERP-strategy issues. Summarizing multiple, different strategies and components of strategy with a single measure at the business unit level provides both a contaminated and decient measure of the strategy construct.
Contemporary Perspectives in Strategy
An important contribution to strategy theory is the resource-based view of the rm (Barney, 1991, 1995; Collis and Montgomery, 1995; Conner, 1996; Grant, 1991; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Stalk, Evans, and Shulman, 1992; Wernerfelt, 1984). The root premise of this body of work is that the rm is best seen as a bundle of unique assets and capabilities. Resources and capabilities that are valuable, rare, inimitable, nonsubstitutable, and exploitable are potential sources of competitive advantage and will determine a rms long-term strategic performance.
17
Valuable resources are those that enable an organization to exploit opportunities or neutralize threats. For example, information technologies that allow a rm to effectively manage a build-to-order manufacturing system or to reduce its cycle time for product development would be considered valuable. Rare resources are those that are unique to a particular rm. If a resource is valuable but common, such as an intranet, it often becomes a basic business requirement and leads to competitive parity rather than competitive advantage. If a resource can be easily imitated (such as best practice software offered by numerous vendors) or if viable substitutes are readily available (such as the rival HRIS systems offered by SAP and PeopleSoft), then the resource does not remain rare and leads to competitive parity over time. Resources that are path dependent (developed through a series of cumulative, small decisions over time, such as developing a rms unique capacity for innovation), socially complex (depending on unique relationships among individuals, such as organization culture), and causally ambiguous (depending on tacit knowledge and organizational routines, such as the ability to effectively balance innovation and efciency) are particularly difcult to imitate. Exploitable resources are those that a rm is able to use effectively because they complement the structure, values, practices, and operations of the organization. For example, rms with relatively at structures and process-based designs and that rely on self-managed teams are often better able to exploit innovative manufacturing techniques than rms with hierarchical structures that have clear functional divisions and specialized work assignments. Because of their value in meeting uid customer needs, exibility in responding to shifting market conditions, and difculty in replication, intangible resources such as social capital, intellectual capital, and organizational routines and capabilities have particular competitive and strategic importance. According to the resource-based view, a strategists job is to identify, nurture, and deploy the rms unique stock of assets and capabilities in ways that enable it to create value for its customers and to simultaneously protect these assets from imitation by rivals. In contrast to the cost-leadership/differentiation approach, which relies on the structure/conduct /performance paradigm and the characteristics of the market environment to derive strategy, the resource-based view of the
18
rm argues that strategy should be derived from the internal assets and value-creating capabilities of an organization. One extension of the resource-based view that is particularly relevant to ERP adoption decisions is knowledge-based theories of the rm (Grant, 1991, 1996; Kogut and Zander, 1993; Liebeskind, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; Spender, 1996). The knowledge-based view suggests that the main source of differences in rm performance lies in the heterogeneous knowledge bases and diverse capabilities for putting knowledge into action that vary from rm to rm. Thus, knowledge and the social, human, and intellectual capital needed to transform knowledge into competitive action are the most signicant resources and capabilities driving a rms competitive performance. Unfortunately, this realization is often neglected during the ERP adoption process. ERP advocates argue that enterprise systems are substantial, competitive assets on their own because of the benets of seamless functional integration, coupled with the ability to enable rms to more effectively leverage their other key resources (Davenport, 1998). However, from a resource-based perspective, the competitive utility of ERP systems contains an inherent paradox (Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, and Abdinnour-Helm, 2004). On the positive side, ERP systems are valuable because they enable rms to accurately assess and tightly coordinate production capabilities and to develop responsive relationships with customers based on reliable and precise information (Dillon, 1999). Moreover, through links between ERP systems, rms can coordinate with suppliers to manage the entire supply chain more efciently and smoothly (Fisher, 1997; Bendoly, Soni, and Venkataramanan, 2004). In addition, ERP systems as implementations are largely nonsubstitutable. Of course, ERP systems in themselves and in concept are not rare. Industry-wide ERP adoption promotes competitive parity among major players, and it moves an industry away from opportunities for sustained competitive advantage (Grant, 1991). In addition, ERP systems are not entirely inimitable, although idiosyncratic implementations and instances of these architectures can be as inimitable as the unique operational processes they support. Third-party vendors create ERP technologies, making basic standardized components easy to copy or acquire. Vendors create modules designed to capture the most signicant aspects of common industry activities and relationships. Both by denition and
19
design, these systems are replicated and transferred from one rm to another. Still, exploitation of the latent benets of ERP systems requires a life-altering, culture-changing experience for individuals and organizations, encompassing radical shifts in organization design and interpersonal relationships (Brenner and Cheese, 1999). We argue that it is these rm-specic exploitation differences that create the greatest potential for strategic benets from ERP; however, these rm-specic exploitation differences are more dependent on the social capital and culture of the enterprise than on the information system itself. ERP advocates agree that strategic benets are likely to accrue only to those rms that treat ERP implementation as a business process rather than an IT project and, therefore, orchestrate a culture change to capitalize on the potential benets that integration provides (Davenport, 1998, 2000; Markus and Tanis, 2000; Somers and Nelson, 2003; Bendoly and Kaefer, 2004). ERP systems can enable a rm to effectively leverage resources in new and more complicated ways. However, this potential is realized only if the rm is able to overcome the enormous pressures of inertia that an ERP system simultaneously creates (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2004). When ERP systems are examined through the lens of contemporary strategic management theories, it becomes clear that even if ERP is necessary to coordinate complicated, multifaceted operations, it is far from sufcient to guarantee a strong competitive position in shifting competitive markets. If an ERP only rearranges tasks and changes the procedures people use to do their work, it is unlikely to provide long-term competitive benets because these changes are neither rare nor inimitable. A sustained competitive advantage requires ERP to change the way people think about their work and their organization, to alter the type of relationships they develop within and across organizational boundaries, and to redesign the ways they use the information that integrated information systems provide (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2004). Fortunately, an ERP implementation has the potential to promote deep changes in relationships, culture, and individual behaviors. Social capital and intellectual capital can be crucial sources of advantage in a knowledge economy (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler and Kwon, 2002). An ERP can be a multidimensional platform for developing both social capital and intellectual capital if complementary capabilities and assets accompany ERP adoption.
20
How can ERP be used to promote the development of strategically important intangible assets? First, the connections encoded in ERP software can provide a roadmap for enhancing the structural elements of a rms social capital. ERP data ows and network connections present a valuable opportunity to enhance a rms conguration of impersonal links between people and units. For example, people and units that rely on ERP data have inherent interdependencies. If these interdependencies are made visible and if people are rewarded for facilitating effective coordination across parts of the system, then an enterprise-wide view of the rm can be developed. Second, ERP systems increase the opportunity for new relationships to be developed by exchanging information about formerly tacit processes. However, developing personal relationships in the presence of electronically mediated exchanges also introduces new challenges. An ERP implementation can suggest who needs to connect to whom, but other mechanisms such as knowledge fairs, videoconferencing, face-to-face meetings, cross-functional task forces, and similar relationship-building activities are necessary to provide the foundation for social capital development. Third, the dramatic change experience prompted by ERP implementation is both personal and widely shared across a rm (Laughlin, 1999; Xenakis, 1996). Massive organizational change is a difcult and emotional personal experience. If deliberately and strategically managed, the shared difculties associated with a culture shift can be a basis for building collaboration, trust, and new norms and values. However, if not managed carefully or well, the trauma of massive organizational change can promote dysfunctional conict and rigidity and encourage turnover among the very people the rm needs most. An ERP implementation experience can provide a powerful foundation for developing the cognitive dimension of social capital, or it can undermine the foundation of organizational cohesiveness. ERP systems also provide opportunities for intellectual capital formation (the development of knowledge, skills, and capabilities among employees) and knowledge enhancement (expanding the rms stock and ows of actionable information). Information provided by ERP allows workers to more clearly see the direct and indirect results of their performance. ERP offers a means for individuals to see how the processes they use and the outcomes of their work affect both internal and external customers. ERP can provide almost continuous feedback, which in turn
21
can be translated into opportunities for learning and continuous improvement in performance among individuals, groups, and the organization as a whole. Each of these elements offers a signicant route to enhancing intellectual capital and organizational learning. The managerial challenge is to translate this potential into organizational reality. If employees do not trust the information an ERP system provides, if they do not recognize the value of using the data to guide their behavior, or if they do not input information into the system in an accurate and timely way, ERP can undermine rather than enhance the rms knowledge. It is important to recognize that none of the potential social capital development, intellectual capital formation, or knowledge enhancement can be realized unless the people within an organization make it happen. Attitudes toward ERP, toward change, and toward the organization all inuence the likelihood that the potentially important strategic consequences of ERP adoption will be achieved.
A Case Study on Perceptions of ERP Use
One company, a major aircraft manufacturer in the Midwest employing over 5,000 employees, made the decision to switch from legacy systems to an ERP system and set the go live date to January 1, 2000. This date coincided with the Y2K deadline, which was one of the drivers for the adoption of the ERP system (as described in the companys business case). The company used an accelerated schedule to complete a big-bang implementation of a major ERP system. A survey instrument was used to collect data from employees several months before the go-live date, when the majority of the potential users of the system should have had at least introductory training on the system. The survey was taken again almost a year after the go-live date. The pre-go-live survey was taken shortly before phase II (project congure and rollout) and the post-go-live survey was taken in phase III (shakedown) of the Enterprise System Experience Cycle. There were a total of 931 respondents to the pre-go-live survey and 733 respondents to the post-golive survey. The majority of the respondents came from manufacturing operations and support functions and had been at the company for more than 16 years.
22
The demographic data that was collected included position, tenure, and afliation of the system users within the organization. Respondents were also asked to evaluate their perception of the ERP system based on three metrics: 1. Switch from legacy systems to ERP 2. Benets versus costs of ERP 3. Usage of ERP The above metrics measure the recipe for success in the chartering phase, as proposed by Markus and Tanis (2000). The authors write that in this phase, success occurs when the organization is well prepared to accept and use the system and related infrastructure of sufcient quality to meet business needs (Markus and Tanis, 2000, p. 29). Metrics 1 and 2 refer to acceptance of the system, in terms of employee buy-in that a switch to the ERP system was essential and worthwhile. Metric 3 refers to usage of the system, which has been a common metric of success in information system research (see Venkatesh et al. [2003] for a recent review of the literature). The subsections that follow describe each metric and the results by position, tenure, and organizational afliation at the company (metrics 1 and 2) and by highest and lowest expected usage (metric 3).
Metric 1: Switch from Legacy to ERP
Employees were asked: Overall, I think that the switch from legacy systems to ERP is . . . more trouble than it is worth {1} to absolutely essential at this time {7} (Figure 2.1).
Pre-Go-Live Results
An examination of the data by position revealed the following: Of the managers who responded to the survey, 68% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 18% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the supervisors who responded to the survey, 38% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 33% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth.
23
PreGo Live 200 Frequency 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 More trouble than worth 5 6 7 Essential
PostGo Live 200 Frequency 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 More trouble than worth 5 6 7 Essential
FIGURE
2.1
Switch from Legacy to ERP
Of the production workers who responded to the survey, 32% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 35% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the professionals and engineers who responded to the survey, 49% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 29% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. An examination of the data by tenure at the company revealed the following: Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for less than a year, 60% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 13% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 1 to 5 years, 55% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 19% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth.
24
Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 6 to 10 years, 45% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 32% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 11 to 15 years, 37% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 36% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for 16 or more years, 34% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 39% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. An examination of the data by organizational afliation revealed the following: Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in manufacturing operations and support functions, 44% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 32% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in nal assembly operations and support functions, 30% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 33% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in other areas, 55% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 19% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth.
Post-Go-Live Results
An examination of the data by position revealed the following: Of the managers who responded to the survey, 39% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 47% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the supervisors who responded to the survey, 19% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 66% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth.
25
Of the production workers who responded to the survey, 12% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 80% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the professionals and engineers who responded to the survey, 38% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 50% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. An examination of the data by tenure at the company revealed the following: Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for 5 years or less, 39% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 43% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 6 to 10 years, 33% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 54% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 11 to 15 years, 25% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 64% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for 16 or more years, 19% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 70% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. An examination of the data by organizational afliation revealed the following: Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in manufacturing operations and support functions, 27% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 61% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth. Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in nal assembly operations and support functions, 20% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 63% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth.
26
Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in other areas, 41% felt that the switch was essential, whereas 44% felt that the switch was more trouble than it was worth.
Metric 2: Benets Versus Costs of ERP
Employees were asked: What do you believe is the likelihood that the benets of ERP will outweigh the costs? Responses ranged from extremely likely {7} to extremely unlikely {1} (Figure 2.2).
Pre-Go-Live Results
An examination of the data by position revealed the following: Of the managers who responded to the survey, 46% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 33% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the supervisors who responded to the survey, 32% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 42% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the production workers who responded to the survey, 23% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 38% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the professionals and engineers who responded to the survey, 40% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 33% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. An examination of the data by tenure at the company revealed the following: Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for less than a year, 53% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 15% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs.
27
PreGo Live 250 200 Frequency 150 100 50 0 Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High
PostGo Live 250 200 Frequency 150 100 50 0 1 Low

FIGURE
7 High
2.2
Benets Versus Cost of ERP
Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 1 to 5 years, 43% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 29% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 6 to 10 years, 35% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 36% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for a period of 11 to 15 years, 30% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas
28
44% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the respondents who had been employed by the company for 16 or more years, 22% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 46% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. An examination of the data by organizational afliation revealed the following: Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in manufacturing operations and support functions, 33% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 39% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in nal assembly operations and support functions, 22% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 38% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs. Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in other areas, 40% felt that there was a high likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs, whereas 34% felt that there was a low likelihood that the benets would exceed the costs.
Post-Go-Live-Results
An examination of the data by position revealed the following: Of the managers who responded to the survey, 27% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 55% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. Of the supervisors who responded to the survey, 24% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 65% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. Of the production workers who responded to the survey, 17% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 64% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs.
29
Of the professionals and engineers who responded to the survey, 27% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 53% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. An examination of the data by tenure at the company revealed the following: Of the respondents who have been employed by the company for 5 years or less, 34% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 46% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. Of the respondents who have been employed by the company for a period of 6 to 10 years, 23% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 61% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. Of the respondents who have been employed by the company for a period of 11 to 15 years 17% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 66% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. Of the respondents who have been employed by the company for 16 or more years, 17% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 70% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. An examination of the data by organizational afliation revealed the following: Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in manufacturing operations and support functions, 24% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 62% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in nal assembly operations and support functions, 19% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 59% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs. Of the respondents who indicated that they worked in other areas, 25% felt that the benets exceeded the costs, whereas 51% felt that the benets had not exceeded the costs.
30
Metric 3: Usage of ERP
Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed the ERP system would be used for a variety of specic activities and operations (Figures 2.3 and 2.4).
Pre-Go-Live Results
The expected usage of ERP was as follows: Highest expected usage: operations scheduling; MRP management and control; production management for assembly; production management for making parts; warehouse management; tool planning manufacture and maintenance; shop oor control; procurement; sales and operations planning; nancial and cost control. Lowest expected usage: workaround adjustments; HR administration; manufacturing and industrial engineering; quality assurance. Did not know: Across all of the items, nearly one-third of the respondents indicated that they did not know the extent to which ERP would be used for various activities and operations.
Post-Go-Live Results
The actual usage of ERP was as follows: Highest perceived usage: MRP management and control; operations scheduling; procurement; warehouse management; production management for assembly; production management for making parts; tool planning manufacture and maintenance; quality assurance. Lowest perceived usage: HR administration; workaround adjustments; manufacturing and industrial engineering. Did not know: Across all of the items, one-quarter to nearly one-half of the respondents indicated that they did not know the extent to which ERP was used for various activities and operations.
HR administration Manufacturing/ industrial engineering Procurement Warehouse management Tool planning manufacture/ maintenance Production management for assembly Production management for making parts Quality assurance Workaround adjustments Shop oor control Capacity management Operations scheduling MRP management and control Sales and operations planning Measuring (organization) performance Financial and cost control 0
12 10 7 8 10 9 9 13 16 9 8 6 9 9
10 11
39 46 56 57 57 58 58
38 33 28 26 22 24 23 29 35 22 30 22 27 28 28 32 50 60 Percent High 70 80 90 100
11 10 10 12 14 11 11 9
46 35 57 51 63 60
5 8 7 7 5 8 10 20 30 9 14
56 51 55 40
Low
FIGURE
Medium
Dont know
2.3
Expected Usage of ERP, PreGo Live
HR administration Manufacturing/ industrial engineering Procurement Warehouse management Tool planning manufacture/ maintenance Production management for assembly Production management for making parts Quality assurance Workaround adjustments Shop oor control Capacity management Operations scheduling MRP management and control Sales and operations planning Measuring (organization) performance Financial and cost control 0
11 17 16 21 18 22 23 20 24 24 19 19 16 13 19 13 10
16 13 10 10 13 14 14 15 15 13 10 11 12 29 41 43 29 15 13 20 30 30 40 50 60 Percent High 31 23 39 39 33 36 36 33 20 36
64 46 35 31 36 29 26 32 41 28 42 29 30 48 36 44 70 80 90 100
10
Low
FIGURE
Medium
Dont know
2.4
Perceived Actual Usage of ERP, PostGo Live
33
Discussion and Recommendations
The resource-based view of strategy and the knowledge-based view of the rm argue that intangible factors such as social capital, intellectual capital, culture, and employee attitudes lie at the heart of sustained competitive advantage. The results from this case study and additional private interviews suggest that in both pre- and post-implementation phases, employees were not convinced of the value of ERP, did not have condence that it would be better than the current legacy systems, and did not see it as a vehicle for value creation but as a mechanism to increase managerial control, tighten cost containment activities, and make the rm even more dependent on formal long-term planning rather than new insights generated by new knowledge. It is, therefore, not surprising that the rm ultimately perceived few widespread benets from its ERP initiative. Acceptance (metrics 1 and 2) of an ERP system ultimately leads to success. The case study illustrates that before going live, nearly one-quarter of the employees were undecided regarding the need to switch from legacy systems to an ERP system, with approximately equal percentages on either side of the undecided score. What seemed like a normal distribution before going live gave way to a skewed distribution afterwards, indicating that experience with the implementation and use of the system actually encouraged pessimism among the workers regarding the usefulness of the system. Similarly, the distribution representing the costs versus benets of the ERP system seemed to follow a normal distribution before going live. The distribution became skewed after going live, indicating that the majority of employees had become more convinced that the costs of the ERP system far outweighed the benets. The results based on these two metrics suggest that the employees had not accepted the cost justication for new ERP systems and were thus less likely to use it to its full strategic potential even a year after going live. As far as usage of the ERP system (metric 3), two factors are particularly revealing. One, the pre-implementation (expected) versus post-implementation (perceived actual) comparison regarding the use of ERP strongly indicates that expectations shape actual utilization. A large percentage of employees (22% to 38% depending on the specic application) indicated that they did not know how ERP was to be used. The
34
specic uses with the highest expectations prior to implementation (57% or higher) emphasized control (shop oor control; MRP management and control), preset coordination (production management for assembly; production management for making parts; operations scheduling), or support activities (warehouse management; tool planning manufacture and maintenance). Those activities most directly reecting value creation (measuring organizational performance; quality assurance) were associated with lower expectations. Of even greater concern is that across the board many employees reported that they did not know how ERP was being used after the system went live, in fact signicantly more than had stated such expectations prior to implementation. This suggests that ERP was, at best, seen as a new IT technology rather than a core business capability with a clearly articulated corporate-wide agenda. From an alternative perspective, it should be noted that the list of expected ERP-use activities captured in Figures 2.3 and 2.4 had been developed by the rm adopting the ERP system (rather than being based on system developer insights). These potential benet areas were included in much of their training materials and in their corporate vision of ERP benets. Strategically, the greatest concern might, therefore, be the possibility that certain activities may have been omitted from consideration in this case, even though the system may have been purposely designed to augment such practices. If other critical activities did show signicantly consistent benets, the difculty in assigning benet to the ERP system may be largely due to a misperception in the alignment of system functionality with the corporate strategic focus. There is no indication that the rm intended to use ERP as a platform for change or as a vehicle for building relationships, providing a foundation for organizational learning, or achieving resource-based competitive advantage. Without this intent, there is little possibility for sustained strategic gain even if the implementation proceeds smoothly and the ERP system operates as intended. There are likely several lessons to be learned from this rms experience. First, ERP systems cannot by themselves provide a sustained competitive advantage because they are neither rare nor inimitable although the complexity of idiosyncratic implementations may mitigate this issue. Systems that are well tuned to existing operational characteristics and that support long-term strategic goals can certainly foster greater
35
support and thus engender strategic benet indirectly. Second, the longterm competitive value from ERP comes from its ability to generate knowledge that a rm can act on to change its business practices, introduce innovation, and build social and intellectual capital. Unless these uses of ERP are highlighted and integrated into the selection of a system and its implementation process at the adoption stage, they will most likely be lost during subsequent stages of implementation. Third, without an accompanying investment in behavioral and culture change, ERP tends to augment the more rigid aspects of organizational activity (planning and control) and inhibit the more exible aspects of organizational activity (learning and innovation). These trends are likely to create barriers to competitive advantage in the uid knowledge economy.

TOBIAS SCHOENHERR, M. A. VENKATAR AMANAN, ASHOK SONI, VINCENT A. MABERT, AND DITMAR HILPERT
In the United States and much of Western Europe, especially Germany, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) form the backbone of the economy and lead in job creation. The manufacturing sector in both the United States and Western Europe is dominated by SMEs. In the United States, 97% of the exporters are SMEs, accounting for 30% of the value of the exports. In Germany, the SMEs number over a million companies and employ over 20 million people. Collectively known as the Mittelstand, German SMEs are responsible for almost 40% of total German gross investments and account for 30% of the exports (Hauser, 2000). While many of the SMEs are very successful, these companies are under considerable pressure from global competitors. The competitive pressures are expected to increase even more in the near future, primarily due to higher labor costs, increasing employee benets, the bargaining power of large customers, open markets, global competition, and the free ow of information. To stay competitive in this fast-moving and dynamic environment, the SMEs have to be nimble, reactive, and capable of providing quick responses to the market place. Many SMEs are countering these threats by using strategies in manufacturing and information technology (IT) to provide the agility to compete and ourish in the 21st-century marketplace. In manufacturing, SMEs are using strategies such as lean manufacturing, efcient supply chain operations, and outsourcing of noncore
37
components to counter the competition. Developing modular product designs, employing cellular production techniques, and utilizing pullmanufacturing logic have allowed rms to keep costs competitive and operations responsive. IT has played a key role in manufacturing rms in a number of areas. In the 1970s and 1980s, many implemented systems such as material requirements planning (MRP) and manufacturing resource planning (MRP II). By the early 1990s, the number of these systems deployed worldwide totaled over 60,000 (AMR, 1995). Many manufacturing rms have also used specialized applications such as computer-aided-design (CAD) and computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM), linking them into the rms information infrastructure. Thus, it is not surprising to see that manufacturing SMEs are using enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to stay at the leading edge. Some of these companies have also started to implement applications that use ERP systems as a backbone connection to more applications. These applications include advanced planning and scheduling (APS) systems, customer relationship management (CRM), and e-business and Web services. Collectively, ERP systems and these associated applications are generally referred to as enterprise systems (ES). Enterprise systems were initially developed to address the IT needs of large Fortune 1000 type companies. During the mid- to late 1990s, many such companies implemented these large-scale systems. These implementation experiences are well documented in trade and academic journals. Publications have chronicled both high-prole failures and extensive difculties at companies such as FoxMeyer and Hershey Food Corporation (Deutsch, 1998; Nelson and Ramstad, 1999) and model implementations (Kirkpatrick, 1998). In addition, several authors (Piturro, 1999; Zuckerman, 1999) have hypothesized that enterprise systems are a key ingredient for gaining competitive advantage, streamlining operations, and achieving lean manufacturing. The initial target of the large-scale ERP vendors, such as SAP, Oracle, and PeopleSoft, were large enterprises. As this market saturated, these vendors started to focus on small and medium enterprises. They did this by repositioning their systems and applications for the SME market by offering pared-down versions of their large-scale systems. During the 1990s, some of the MRP and MRP II vendors (for example, QAD and
38
BPICS) also started to transform their packages to ERP systems by providing more integrated functionalities such as accounting, order entry, and warehouse management. These new offerings, aimed at the SME market, motivated many SMEs to become willing players in the ERP arena. A recent study suggests that the experiences of large companies implementing enterprise systems (Mabert, Soni, and Venkataramanan, 2003) may be very different from those of small and medium enterprises. That study, for example, shows that companies, depending on size, tend to do different things with their ERP implementations across a variety of issues. These differences range from the motivation for implementing such systems to the types of systems adopted to the implementation process itself. In addition, there are key differences by company size in the outcomes and benets attained. For example, larger companies report improvements in nancial measures, whereas smaller companies report better performance in manufacturing and logistics metrics. This preliminary evidence suggests that the activities and experiences of large companies may not be applicable to SMEs. Thus, it is important and useful to study more fully the deployment of ERP systems and related applications as they apply to small and medium enterprises (Bendoly and Kaefer, 2004).
German SMEs The Mittelstand
Companies are usually classied as SMEs based on either the total number of employees or total revenues or a combination of these two measures (Mabert et al., 2003). A commonly used cut-off point for SMEs in the United States is around $600 million in revenues. The Mittlestand companies studied, by contrast, ranged from 24 million Euros to 380 million Euros in revenues (approximately $29 million to $460 million). However, this classication by itself falls short of fully describing the uniqueness of German SMEs and their impact. SMEs in Germany are the backbone of the German economy, with over a million companies employing over 20 million people. Located at Europes crossroads of commerce, many of these companies started as small, family-oriented enterprises with a few employees and have grown signicantly over the past few decades, primarily due to their innovative, competitive, and global orientation. The Mittelstand companies, many of
39
which are in manufacturing, tend to focus on highly customized and specialized products and services that are used in commercial applications, such as machine controls and precision laboratory scales. Concentrating on customized products and services also implies that they cannot take advantage of the economies of scale associated with mass production. The orientation toward customization requires a highly skilled and exible workforce. That SMEs rely on this formation of human capital is evidenced by the fact that the Mittelstand provides more than 80% of vocational training places in Germany. This leads to a very loyal and stable workforce. Labor turnover rates are often very low in Mittelstand companies, usually of the order of 3%. German SMEs in manufacturing, like SMEs in the United States, are under heavy competitive pressures. Their competition consists of similar-sized companies in Asia, other Mittelstand companies in Germany, and larger companies in Europe and the United States. While the U.S. manufacturing sector has seen a decline in recent years, German manufacturing, powered by Mittelstand companies, has been very competitive, countering threats by using various strategies in manufacturing and information technology. Similar to their counterparts in other countries, German SMEs have used lean manufacturing, efcient supply chain operations, and outsourcing of noncore components to stay competitive. In addition, German SMEs use exible manufacturing, cross-training of workers, a high degree of automation, and short design and manufacturing cycle times to stay agile and competitive. For Mittelstand companies, information technology has been a key and critical differentiator. Because of their global presence and highly competitive environments, they must have very responsive information systems. Also, because of their highly customized and specialized products and services, they tend to leverage information technology as a competitive tool. This is consistent with comparable manufacturing SMEs in the United States who also use IT to stay competitive (Taylor, 1999). Like their counterparts in the United States, the Mittlestand manufacturing SMEs typically operate with MRP and MRP II systems, usually coupled with manufacturing planning and execution systems. However, the German SMEs are moving increasingly to ERP systems that are more integrated between important business functions. Investments in information technology have been very signicant in recent years.
40
These characteristics of the German Mittelstand companies illustrate their uniqueness. Clearly, they have been able to compete very effectively, both nationally and globally, over a long period of time using a variety of strategies. Many of them cite information technology as a key component of their competitive strategy. For example, Voigt (2001) found that 22% of the German SMEs, a majority of them in manufacturing, see IT as a way to secure and improve their competitive position and ability to remain more responsive. This makes an investigation into the enterprise system experiences of Mittelstand SMEs not only interesting but also necessary. The next section outlines the methodology used in this study.
Out in the Field
To obtain a better understanding of the nature, scope, and impact of enterprise systems in Mittelstand SMEs, a eld study was conducted in which 18 different companies were investigated by interviewing key business managers and IT professionals. The specic companies were chosen so that a broad spectrum of the German manufacturing Mittelstand were represented. Almost all these companies, despite their size, have a global presence, conducting business in multiple markets. The annual revenues range from approximately $29 million to $460 million. While the sample of companies may be small relative to the size of the Mittelstand, it represents a diverse group of companies. Their products include parts for the automobile industry, sophisticated medical equipment, textiles, elevators, heat exchange systems, scales, industrial knitting machines, network systems and products, furniture, complete workstations, home appliances, heavy-duty processing machinery, machine controls, and specialty metal pipes. The demographics of the companies in the case study are presented in Table 3.1. The companies employ a mix of job and ow shop manufacturing processes (Table 3.2). About half have exclusively make-to-order (MTO) products, with only two companies entirely operating on a make-to-stock (MTS) basis. One-third provided a mix of MTO and MTS products. Of the 18 companies in the sample, 17 either already have an enterprise system or are in the process of implementing such a system.
41
Ta b l e 3 . 1 Characteristics of the case study companies

Company Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Company F Company G Company H Company I Company J Company K Company L Company M Company N Company O Company P Company Q Company R Industry type Scales, food processing equipment Industrial mixers and grinders Textiles Food technology, home appliances Material handling (forklifts) Furniture Machines for woodworking, tooling, grinding Elevators, medical technology, gear technology Heat and cooling technology Waste management Springs Parts for automobile industry Industrial precision scales Industrial knitting machines Gaskets for the automobile industry Medical surgery equipment Parts for the automobile industry Communications test and management solutions Size (# employees) 1,000 600 900 770 593 1,200 1,100 700 2,000 220 208 100 235 600 3,000 480 500 350 Revenue (million ) 378 120 64 90 100 140 320 80 85 100 Not available 25 24 60 200 380 70 275 100
One is operating with a legacy system but plans to implement an ERP package within the next 12 months. These companies are at various stages of enterprise system implementations, ranging from the advanced planning stage to completed implementations. This provides a range of experiences at different points in the implementation cycle. The systems being implemented are from eight different vendors. SAP is the primary system in over half of the case study companies, a fact that is understandable from a number of perspectives. First, SAP is the biggest worldwide vendor. Second, SAP has deep German roots, having been established and headquartered in Germany. And third, SAP has targeted SMEs as the growth market for the last half-dozen years. Interviews were exploratory in nature and were conducted with key business managers and IT professionals in March 2004. Each interview lasted from one to four hours and was conducted by four members of the research team. The interviews were conducted both in English and German, depending on the preference of the interviewees, and were
42
Ta b l e 3 . 2 Shop and product characteristics

Flow of materials Job shop Flow shop Mixture shop Products Standard products Custom products Standard and custom Order makeup Made-to-order Made-to-stock Mixed Number 10/18 5/18 3/18 Number 8/18 4/18 6/18 Number 10/18 2/18 6/18
tape-recorded and transcribed in English. While the format was semistructured with open-ended, predetermined questions, all discussions covered the following areas at a minimum: What is the state of enterprise systems? Why did the company decide on an enterprise system solution? How was the system implemented, and what was the implementation experience? What were the resources utilized and the benets accumulated? What areas of the organization experienced improvements after the implementation? Disappointments? What lessons were learned? What do these companies plan to do in the future? The primary objective of the case studies was to obtain reliable and detailed information on the current status of ERP practice and implementations in the manufacturing SMEs.
Comparing SME Experiences
Since the mid-1990s, there have been numerous studies conducted on ERP systems. However, very few have concentrated on small and
43
medium enterprises. The two exceptions and the ones most relevant to the current study are by Van Everdigen, Van Hillegersberg, and Warts (2000) and Mabert, Soni, and Venkataramanan (2003). Van Everdigen et al. surveyed 2,647 European companies to determine the adoption and penetration of ERP by functionality. This study provides a reference point on the status of enterprise systems in European SMEs in 1999, the year of their survey. Mabert et al. looked at the ERP implementation practices of manufacturing companies across a range of different-sized companies. Thus, their results not only provide key insights into the implementation and use of ERP systems in the manufacturing sector but also analyze the impact of company size on ERP implementations. They found that smaller companies differ signicantly from large companies on a number of dimensions. The Mabert et al. survey was undertaken in 2000 and provided the following observations: 1. Adoption of ERP systems by large companies is motivated more by strategic needs, whereas tactical considerations carry greater importance for smaller companies. Companies implement ERP systems for many different reasons. These reasons include gaining a strategic advantage, acquiring a simplied information systems infrastructure, standardizing processes, improving customer and supplier interactions, linking global operations, and solving the Y2K problem. For larger companies, the top three reasons for adopting ERP systems were gaining a strategic advantage, simplifying and standardizing processes, and replacing legacy systems. Over 90% of the large rms cited these three reasons for choosing ERP systems. For smaller rms, the top three reasons were replacing legacy systems, simplifying and standardizing processes, and improving interactions with suppliers and customers. There were clear and distinct differences between the priorities of the large and small rms. 2. Large companies use an incremental implementation approach by phasing in the systems, while smaller companies adopt more radical implementation approaches, such as implementing the entire system or several major modules at the same time. The strategies used for implementation are one
44
of the most important factors in assessing the impact of an ERP system on an organization. Strategies can range from a single go-live date for all modules (big bang) or for a subset of modules (mini big bang) to phasing in by module or site. The decision of which strategy to deploy depends on a range of issues, such as complexities of size, processes, and operations. The study found that there are very clear differences in the implementation strategies by size of company. Over twothirds (69%) of implementations in large companies were phased in either by module or by site, whereas 72% of small companies used a big-bang or a mini big-bang approach. 3. Larger companies implement large-scale systems and employ more ERP functionality than small companies. The issue of which ERP package to implement is an important decision for any company, not only for functionality and ease of implementation but also for future upgrades and for using other specialized packages with the ERP system. There are clear differences across the different-sized companies on the packages they adopt. Large companies favored SAP more than small companies (42% versus 10%). Sixty-six percent of the large companies used just three different packages (SAP, Oracle, and Baan), compared to 35% of the small companies. 4. Large companies more frequently customize ERP software, while small companies more often adopt business processes within ERP systems. Customization refers to modifying the package through code rewrites, changes, or additions. Because of the integrative architecture of ERP systems, customizations can be prohibitively expensive. Almost all companies went through some form of customization. The degree of customization, however, varied signicantly across the size of company. Results show that over 50% of the larger companies did either signicant or major modications, whereas most small companies (73%) made no or only minor modications. The Mabert et al. study was conducted in 2000, and signicant changes have taken place since then, primarily due to the increasing competitive pressures that SMEs face. Many SMEs have responded to
45
Ta b l e 3 . 3 Motivational factors
Motivational factor Gain competitive advantage Improve interactions with suppliers and customers Vendor support and ease of upgrades Link to global activities Product /process complexity Solve the Y2K problem Number 18/18 17/18 16/18 7/18 2/18 2/18
these pressures by using IT as a key component of their competitive strategy. As a result, many rms have implemented a range of package enterprise systems and applications over the last few years. This study of the Mittelstand SMEs provides a unique perspective into the current status of implementing and using enterprise systems in small and medium manufacturing enterprises. The management in all 18 companies saw enterprise systems as a key component of their competitive strategy. Seventeen of the companies had already either implemented one or were in the process of implementing such a system. The one company that had not as yet implemented an enterprise system planned to do so within the next 12 months. The leading reasons for implementing these systems were very consistent across all companies and are outlined in Table 3.3. All of these factors (with the exception of Vendor Support and Ease of Upgrades) can be considered part of their competitive strategy, the primary motivation for implementing these systems. The Vendor Support and Ease of Upgrades factor is very similar to the replacement of legacy systems, often mentioned in the ERP literature. The difference in the nuances is important to understand with regard to SMEs. While the replacement of a multitude of legacy systems is important to many companies, the Mittelstand SMEs are looking for vendors with long-term sustainability. Vendors such as SAP, Oracle, and PeopleSoft are considered long-term players. Many of the vendors providing extensions of MRP II products are either consolidating with these large-scale ERP vendors or being driven out from the market altogether. Several SMEs in the sample had switched to new ERP systems from different vendors specically for this reason.
46
Ta b l e 3 . 4 Enterprise systems characteristics by company

Single or multiple systems Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Single Single Multiple Multiple Single Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Single Single Single Multiple Legacy Major ERP package or niche provider Big (SAP) Niche (Oxion) Internal Big (SAP) Big (SAP) Big (SAP) Big (SAP) Big (Baan) Big (SAP) Niche (Rohna) Niche (Moves Intentia) Niche (Brain) Niche (Ratioplan) Big (SAP) Big (SAP) Big (PeopleSoft) Big (SAP) Legacy Standard system versus customized system Standard Standard Customized Customized Customized Standard Standard Standard Standard Customized Standard Standard Customized Standard Standard Standard Standard Legacy Implementation approach Phased in Big bang Phased in Phased in Phased in Big bang Phased in Big bang Phased in Big bang Phased in Big bang Phased in Phased n Phased in Big bang Phased in Still TBD
Company Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Company F Company G Company H Company I Company J Company K Company L Company M Company N Company O Company P Company Q Company R
The other key motivating factor is interacting with both suppliers and customers. These SMEs are increasingly looking at their entire supply chain for efciencies, and they see their enterprise systems as a key component of this strategy. Many of the Mittelstand SMEs are becoming global players and face erce competition from worldwide competitors, especially those in Asia. For example, several of the SMEs in the sample have international sales ofces. Integrated enterprise systems make the order management and fulllment process much more efcient, decreasing the time between order placement and manufacturing execution. These higher-priced manufacturers believe that the accurate information ow in their supply chain enhances their agility and provides a competitive edge. Several of the case study companies were also suppliers to larger rms who mandate ISO certication as well as a state-of-the-art information system as a part of vendor certication. For example, many of their customers have lean-manufacturing initiatives that require close coordination in the supply chain for just-in-time deliveries. Table 3.4 summarizes the details of the adoption by package breakdowns across all 18 companies. This table also includes other implementation information such as whether a single system or multiple
47
Ta b l e 3 . 5 Conguration and implementation of systems

Conguration of ERP systems Major package ERP system Niche ERP system Internally developed ERP system No ERP system Conguration of ERP systems Single ERP system ERP system and other systems No ERP system (legacy system) Customization of ERP systems Standard ERP system Customized ERP system No ERP system (legacy system) Implementation approach Big-bang approach Phased-in approach Number 11/18 5/18 1/18 1/18 Number 6/18 10/18 1/18 Number 12/18 5/18 1/18 Number 6/18 11/18
systems have been implemented, the degree of customization, and the approach used to implement the system (big bang versus phased in). These items are summarized in Table 3.5. The case study data show that the penetration of ERP packages in German SMEs is very different from that reported for manufacturing SMEs in the United States by Mabert et al. (2003) and in Europe by Van Everdigen et al. (2000). Half of the SMEs in these case studies have implemented SAP systems as opposed to only 10% in the United States in 2000, the year of that survey, and under 10% in Europe in 1999, the year of that survey. Just over 61% of the companies in this study have implemented a large-scale ERP package versus about 35% in the United States in 2000 and approximately 20% in Europe in 1999. Van Everdigen et al. (2000) concluded that best t with current business practices and package exibility were the key criteria in package adoption decisions. Thus, in 1999 and 2000, companies looking for a good t with their current business practices were more likely to adopt ERP systems that had evolved from their MRP and MRP II systems. In their survey of European
48
SMEs, Van Everdigen et al. found that 30% of the ERP systems implemented came from smaller or niche vendors, and over half of the companies preferred their in-house developed, tailor-made information systems to the package ERP systems. The case studies conducted for this project seem to show that companies looking for a good t with their business practices in 2004 are more likely to adopt a large-scale ERP system. Another area that appears to have changed over the last few years involves the strategies used for the implementation of enterprise systems. These strategies are one of the most important factors in assessing the impact of an ERP system on an organization. Strategies can range from a single go-live date for all modules (big bang) or for a subset of modules (mini big bang) to phasing in by module or site. While the big-bang approach usually results in the shortest implementation time, it is also the riskiest approach because it can threaten the entire stability of a company in case of any problems. The decision of which strategy to deploy depends on a range of issues, including complexities of geographical reach and the complexity of processes and operations. Our work shows that 61% of the Mittelstand SMEs implemented their ERP system using one of the phased-in approaches, while 28% used a big-bang approach. This is almost the reverse of the SMEs in the United States in 2000, whereas Mabert et al. reported that over 72% of the SMEs used one of the two big-bang approaches. Here again, the implementation strategies appear to have changed over the period from 2000 to 2004. SMEs also seem to have changed when it comes to customization of the systems. Because of the integrative architecture of ERP systems, customization can be prohibitively expensive. Mabert et al. determined that the degree of customization varies signicantly depending on the size of the company. Larger companies customize more, with over 50% of them making either signicant or major modications. On the other hand, most small companies in the United States made only minor modications, but the case studies show that 28% of the Mittelstand companies made major modications to their system. Another key difference among companies is the conguration of the ERP systems implemented. In 2000, approximately 56% of small companies in the United States used a single ERP package, while only 28% of the large companies used this approach. One clear distinction
49
driving this difference is the complexity of the organization. Large companies are more likely to have more global operations, more sites, and generally more complex operations that frequently reect mergers and acquisitions of diverse operations. Even the ERP systems may not be able to provide the functionality required to manage these complex enterprises and disjointed operations. To remedy such shortcomings, companies are increasingly using either self-contained add-on ERP modules or extension systems, called bolt-ons, for functions such as demand planning, order tracking, warehouse management, supply chain management, customer relationship management, online collaboration, e-procurement, and online business-to-business transactions. Not every ERP system can support these specialized add-ons. Thus, their use becomes a key decision factor not only for which system is adopted but also for how the package is implemented, as well as future enhancements and upgrades. This is demonstrated with the Mittelstand companies, in which 56% of the SMEs use multiple systems, a reverse of what the U.S. companies reported in 2000.
Summary and Conclusions
Mittelstand SMEs have been at the forefront of manufacturing in Germany for several decades. Over this period of time, they have been able to adjust to their competitive and environmental pressures by being nimble and innovative. Here, at the beginning of the 21st century, they are once again responding to competitive pressures, this time by leveraging their enterprise systems to stay ahead of the competition. They are doing some very unique things, including the following: These SME managers see enterprise systems as a key component of their competitive strategy. A majority of rms either have implemented or are implementing a packaged ERP system. Increasingly, they are implementing large-scale package solutions. While a few companies performed some type of ROI analysis to justify adopting these systems, almost all SMEs approached the decision simply as a strategic initiative or as a cost of doing business. For almost all of these companies, the issue was not
50
whether to invest in an enterprise system, but at what point in time. While companies had a number of criteria for selecting enterprise systems, a key selection criterion of the base ERP system was the long-term sustainability of vendors. Many SMEs selected large-scale system vendors such as SAP. Many have replaced their smaller niche packages with systems from companies such as SAP and Oracle. The companies congured their systems very closely to the functionalities needed for their businesses. This was a key criterion, even if it meant more customization. The amount of enterprise system customization among these companies was greater than previously reported in the literature. This reects a maturing of the systems and a better understanding by application programmers of how to integrate different functional modules. Many of the rms either had implemented or were planning to implement specialized applications, such as order picking or transportation management, using their ERP system as a backbone. Functionality was a major issue with these applications. Planning is a key component of the implementation process to reduce the risk of failure. The German SMEs spent much more time up front planning the implementation. The planning was often meticulous and very detailed. All major parts of the enterprise were involved in the planning process, including the type of system to implement. Most chose to use a phased-in strategy either phasing in modules one or a few at a time or phasing in the implementation by divisions, plants, business units, or locations. Fewer companies used the big-bang approach, a clear difference from the implementation practices of just a few years ago. The companies are generally satised with their enterprise systems, even if complications occurred during their implementation. Although companies were not able to provide objective data to gauge implementation success, benets that were
51
frequently mentioned include improved communications with external partners, as well as data availability, quality, and transparency, which enabled faster and more informed decisions. This analysis of the Mittelstand companies suggests that there has been a signicant shift from 2000 to the present in the implementation of enterprise systems across a range of issues. Competitive pressures and maturing sophistication in the implementation and application of enterprise systems have motivated the change. The data from the Mittelstand companies resemble that of large companies that have been more aggressive in customizing and pushing the envelope to maintain or gain an edge. Over the last ve years, these SMEs have evolved to the point where their enterprise system practices are very similar to those of large companies. Clearly, they are using their enterprise systems as one of the cornerstones of their competitive strategy. This suggests that large-scale enterprise systems and related applications in the SME sector are here for the long haul.

VINCENT A. MABERT AND CHARLES A. WAT TS
The 21st century represents a time of numerous and ever-increasing challenges faced by global businesses to be competitive and responsive. Expanded global competition is the norm rather than the exception, with an unprecedented number and variety of products available to satisfy consumer needs and desires. Additionally, enterprises are more global in scope, with operations in all corners of the world, and need to adapt to local customs and norms. The dynamics of faster product development, more customized manufacturing, and quicker distribution have beneted the consumer. At the same time these changes have led to new and very high consumer expectations and standards for companies to meet in the marketplace. To meet these new challenges, many rms around the world have invested heavily in information technology (IT), with a major focus on enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. These new systems are designed to integrate the numerous business processes, such as order entry and production planning, across the entire enterprise. For example, by the late 1990s, companies responded to various business pressures by spending over $23 billion a year (Kirkpatrick, 1998) on enterprise applications, of which a major portion was ERP software. While ERP investments have been signicant, rms have also made other signicant IT commitments to systems such as demand management and warehouse management that interface with the ERP backbone. These other systems, provided by
53
vendors like I2 and HK Systems, are designed to employ best practices and enhance functionality for the enterprise. Selecting enterprise computer systems is a bit like purchasing a new car. Should you go to the dealer for the prepackaged model that is sitting on the lot with standard options from the factory, or should you order a more customized version that has additional features you want? For example, some rms have implemented the SAP R /3 system and have enhanced its functionality by adding components such as demand planning from SAPs Advanced Planner Optimizer (APO) product line. In other cases, one may even look to a third-party vendor such as I2 or Manugistics. This best-of-breed approach is being followed by a number of rms to meet desired requirements. If one is looking for the optimal solution in each area, the best-of-breed option usually provides richer functionality, satisfying more users. However, it comes with potentially extra costs and organizational integration. Contemporary management requires an exploration of the impact that these investments have on performance and a prescription of where rms should head in their efforts to build a best-of-breed system. This chapter presents an objective view of ERP systems and best-of-breed bolt-ons as management tools for coordinating and guiding the activities of an organization. Our observations are based on a survey conducted in January 2004. In the remaining sections, the authors provide an overview of the ERP promise and what many rms have done to expand their systems capability. We then describe a recently completed study focusing on IT investments and their impact on enterprise performance. Based on this work, observations for enterprise IT investments are provided.
ERP Promise
OLeary (2000, p. 7) suggests that enterprise resource planning systems provide rms with transaction processing models that are integrated with other activities of the rm, such as production planning and human resources. By implementing standard enterprise processes and a single database that spans the range of enterprise activities and locations, ERP systems provide integration across multiple locations and functional areas. ERP systems have led to improved decision-making capabilities
54
that manifest themselves in a wide range of metrics, such as decreased inventory (raw materials, in-process and nished goods), personnel reductions, speeding up the nancial close process, and others. Thus, ERP can be used to help rms create value. In particular, ERP facilitates value creation by changing the basic nature of organizations in a number of different ways. OLeary continues by indicating that the value creation is attained by the following capabilities: ERP integrates rm activities. Enterprise resource planning processes are cross-functional, forcing the rm out of traditional, functional, and locational silos. In addition, an organizations different business processes are often integrated with each other. Further, data that were formerly resident on different heterogeneous systems are now integrated into a single system. ERPs employ use of best practices. Enterprise resource planning systems have integrated within them a thousand bestpractice business processes. Those best practices can be used to improve the way that rms do business. Choice and implementation of an ERP require implementation of such best practices. ERP enables organizational standardization. Enterprise resource planning systems permit organizational standardization across different locations. As a result, locations with substandard processes can be brought in line with other, more efcient processes. Moreover, the rm can show a single image to the outside world. Rather than receiving different documents when a rm deals with different branches or plants, a single common view can be presented to the world, one that puts forth the best image. ERP eliminates information asymmetrics. Enterprise resource planning systems put all the information into the same underlying database, eliminating many information asymmetries. This has a number of implications. First, it allows increased control. Second, it opens access to information to those who need it, ideally providing improved decision-making information. Third, information is lost as a bargaining chip because information is now available both up and down the organization. And fourth, it can atten an organization; because information is widely
55
available, there is no need for non-value-adding workers whose primary activity is to prepare information for upward or downward dissemination. ERP provides online and real-time information. In legacy systems, much information is captured on paper and then passed to another part of the organization, where it is either repackaged (typically aggregated) or put into an electronic format. With ERP systems, information is gathered at the source and placed directly into the system. As a result, information is available online to others and in real time. ERP allows simultaneous access to the same data for planning and control. Enterprise resource planning uses a single database, where most information is entered once and only once. Since the data is available online and in real time, virtually all organizational users have access to the same information for planning and control purposes. This can facilitate more consistent planning and control, in contrast to legacy systems. ERP facilitates intra-organization communication and collaboration. Enterprise resource planning also facilitates intraorganizational (between different functions and locations) communication and collaboration. The existence of interlocking processes brings functions and locations into communication and forces collaboration. The standardization of processes also facilitates collaboration because there are fewer conicts between the processes. Furthermore, the single database facilitates communication by providing each location and function with the information they need. ERP facilitates inter-organization communication and collaboration. The ERP system provides the information backbone for communication and collaboration with other organizations. Increasingly, rms are opening up their databases to partners to facilitate procurement and other functions. In order for such an arrangement to work, there needs to be a single repository to which partners can go; ERP can be used to facilitate such exchanges.
56
OLeary is not the only one to sing the praises of ERP. When one talks to ERP software providers, reads various promotional brochures, or visits either vendor or other commercial ERP Websites, one gains the impression that ERP systems are the Holy Grail of information systems for enterprises. Some of the claims include the abilities to link the entire organization together seamlessly, improve productivity, provide instantaneous information, etc. However, there is another side to this story.
Improving Functionality
While ERP systems provide very fast and reliable transaction processing, they lack critical decision support capabilities that would enable better decision making or optimization of certain processes. Thus, most companies do not view an ERP system as one that will provide their entire end-to-end solution. In fact, many companies install a set of other systems to ll gaps in capability. These specialized systems are commonly called bolt-ons, incorporating numerous features that are considered best practices. The bolt-on provider can be an ERP vendor, a specialty vendor, or an in-house department. These systems typically perform tasks such as data analysis, scheduling, and demand planning and are intended to enhance organizational performance and create additional enterprise value. In Figure 4.1, Bendoly, Soni, and Venkataramanan (2004) provide a convenient representation of the connectivity of the ERP backbone with a number of these support systems, such as data warehouse (DW) and data mining (DM), within the supply chain structure. One of the most popular bolt-ons today is an advanced planning system (APS) to improve material management. APS is implemented at some level in most major Fortune 1000 companies and in many small rms today. The major APS vendors, in spite of a down market, have made signicant architectural and functional improvements in the last two years, adding additional capabilities such as improved collaboration work ows, pricing optimization and analytics, and Web services platforms to improve inter-enterprise access and ease of integration. For example, in the early 1990s, Eastman Chemical installed an ERP system from SAP to manage information throughout the supply chain, including bringing raw materials into the plants, operating the manufacturing processes within the plants, and fullling customer orders.
57
VALUE CHAIN DOMAIN Transactional applications (B2B/B2C e-commerce) DW Suppliers SRM and collaborative R&D SEM ENTERPRISE DOMAIN DM CRM and collaborative R&D APS Customers
ERP
SCM and collaborative logistics Third parties
FIGURE
4.1
Interrelationship of ERP with Other Value Chain Elements
Source: Adapted from Bendoly et al. (2004)
The R /3 system was limited in capability; Eastman later deployed SAPs Advanced Planner and Optimizer (APO) for functions that enabled intraand inter-company planning of the supply chain and for scheduling and monitoring various processes. For Eastmans business, acquiring rapid, accurate external data for planning purposes was critical, and business performance has been enhanced with these additions in functionality (Ng, Yen, and Farhoomad, 2002). However, it is not clear all enterprises experience the same level of success with bolt-ons and support systems. Discussions with other rms and one report (Grackin and Gilmore, 2004) suggest less success from deployments. For example, Owens Corning had an excellent experience when it deployed an ERP system in the late 1990s, but the attempts to enhance performance by deploying an APS proved very frustrating. Another hot area is customer relationship management (CRM). The promise of CRM is seductive: identify your customers, differentiate them in terms of both their needs and their value to your company, and then interact with them in ways that improve cost efciency and effectiveness. But in practice it can be perilous! For example, Monster.com rolled out a CRM program in 1998. The new system proved to be frighteningly
58
slow; in fact, salespeople in the eld found themselves unable to download customer information from the companys databases onto their laptop. Every time they tried, their machine froze. Eventually, Monster.com was forced to rebuild the entire system. It lost millions of dollars along the way, not to mention the goodwill of both customers and employees (Rigby, Reicheld, and Schefter, 2002). While billions of dollars have been expended on IT systems such as ERP and bolt-ons, the question remains as to their value to the enterprise. From limited reports in editorials and the popular press (Cliffe, 1999; Deutsch, 1998), the success of ERP systems in achieving the stated objectives is mixed at best. For example, FoxMeyer (Diederich, 1998) claimed that an ERP implementation was the reason for its ultimate failure, while it was reported that Hershey Foods Corporation (Nelson and Ramstad, 1999) had a major distribution problem when it went live with a new ERP system. Others (Piturro, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1998) emphasize that ERP is a key ingredient for gaining competitive advantage, streamlining the supply chain, contributing to lean manufacturing, and managing customer relationships. Thus, there are differing opinions on whether basic ERP systems are an asset that can deliver on the stated promises or a liability with signicant cost consequences. The limited research that has occurred addresses the implementation process itself, focusing on project management issues such as onbudget and on-time performance for system implementation (Mabert, Soni, and Venkataramanan, 2003). The next section presents an objective view of ERP systems and bolt-ons as management tools for coordinating and guiding the activities of an organization based on a survey conducted in January 2004.
Recent Experience
In an earlier study (Mabert, Soni, and Venkataramanan, 2000, p. 58) of ERP systems, the authors concluded that the . . . data indicate that some of the anticipated benets from ERP systems have not been realized. This is an unexpected outcome, given the billions of dollars that have been expended on these types of systems. To gain better insight, a data collection effort was initiated to address this important issue and provide a more complete picture of both ERP and bolt-on systems value
59
to a rm. The questionnaire focused on the following areas for data collection and evaluation: What are the rms characteristics? Is the rm currently an ERP user or non-ERP user? What bolt-on systems are currently deployed? What future bolt-on systems are contemplated? What have been the productivity and revenue changes? While ERP systems can vary from one vendor to another, they tend to have the following basic features or modules: Finance. This module tracks nancial information such as revenue and cost data through various areas within the company. Logistics. This module is often broken into several submodules that cover different logistics functions, such as transportation, inventory management, and warehouse management. Manufacturing. This module tracks the ow of products through the manufacturing process, coordinating what is done to what part at what time. Order fulllment. This module monitors the entire order fulllment cycle, keeping track of the progress the company has made in satisfying demand. Human resources. This module handles all sorts of human resources tasks, such as scheduling workers. Supplier management. This module monitors supplier performance and tracks the delivery of suppliers products. Since the ERP system utilizes a common platform, standardization of transaction processing and coordination across the enterprise is the key contribution. All vendors promote this point, and no attempt was made to differentiate between vendors or systems features. However, the addition of which bolt-ons to employ can vary widely between enterprises. In this study, the following bolt-on systems are of interest: Demand forecasting and planning system. This bolt-on uses various demand sources, such as sales history and customers
60
plans, to estimate future demand, which will be used as an input to other planning systems. Factory planning and scheduling system. This bolt-on provides best material schedules for the shop oor and factory planning that reduce lead times and decrease cost, generally using heuristics or simulation. Sometimes these systems are also known as manufacturing execution systems. Inventory management system. This bolt-on monitors inventory levels and tracks the ow of stock and materials from acquisition to nal disbursement. It attempts to have the right inventory at the right location at the right time, using various statistical procedures. Supply network planner system. This bolt-on is used to design the supply network by determining the best facility and product locations to meet customer service requirements at minimum cost. Call center management system. This bolt-on provides a system to manage customer and other telephone calls that are handled by an organization. They usually employ computer automation to evenly distribute phone trafc, provide database query features, and specify stafng schedules. Customer relationship management (CRM). This bolt-on includes the methodologies, strategies, software, and Webbased capabilities that help an enterprise organize and manage customer relationships. Companies utilize this approach to gain a better understanding of their customers wants and needs. E-procurement system. This bolt-on allows electronic procurement (e.g., electronic purchasing cards) and provides linkages from a rms purchasing system to its suppliers order systems. It may also include cataloging capabilities so that suppliers products can be looked up when the need arises. E-auction system. This bolt-on package assists in developing an RFQ and facilitates the use of auctions to procure materials and supplies through rapid online auctions. Data warehouse system. This bolt-on is a critical component of an enterprises decision support system. It organizes and collects information into databases that can then be searched
61
and mined for information. The collection of data often serves as the basis of crucial business decisions. Product data management (PDM) system. This bolt-on allows a rm to manage attribute and documentary product data, as well as the relationships between them. These systems facilitate quicker design of new products design by providing a database of information on current products. Quality management system. This bolt-on provides a set of tools for managing quality that can include statistical process control, failure mode effect analysis, key performance indicators, etc. for goods and services. This system helps improve quality of a rms products and processes. Warehouse management system. This bolt-on manages receiving, disbursement, and inventory in a rms warehouses and distribution centers. It typically contains order entry, tracking, and order-picking features. Trafc/transportation management system. This bolt-on manages the movement of goods from suppliers to production facilities, warehouses, distribution centers, and the customer. It frequently utilizes an interface with carrier services for vehicle dispatching. Project management system. This bolt-on is specically designed to manage the planning and execution of projects from initiation to the nal deliverables. In addition to typical features such as timelines and work breakdown structures, they utilize various heuristics to perform resource load leveling. The survey questionnaire reported here was developed and mailed to a key informant at randomly selected manufacturing rms in the United States. The mailing list was developed from APICSs active membership list. The questionnaire was pretested with a pilot study of managers from a representative set of rms. In early January 2004, the authors mailed 2000 questionnaires and personalized cover letters to individuals employed at randomly selected manufacturing rms in the United States. Six questionnaires were returned due to incomplete addresses. By mid-February, 191 surveys were returned, but four had insufcient information to be useful. Therefore,
62
the 187 useful responses, a 9.3% return rate, are the basis for the observations discussed below. Respondents were not asked to provide company-identifying information, and postage-paid return envelopes were provided to maintain condentiality.
Basic Company Information
Table 4.1 presents some basic information concerning the respondents and their rms. As can be seen, there is a wide variety of rms and respondents. The table indicates that 74% of the respondents are at the manager level or above in their respective organizations. The other category includes staff planners and project leaders. The sample rms span a wide range in size as measured by revenue and employment. Close to a quarter of the rms have annual revenues exceeding $1 billion per year, while about 40% are under $100 million. In terms of workforce level, about 50% employed fewer than 500 people. The demographic data indicate that the respondents represent a wide cross-section of rms and industries, suggesting a representative group for assessing current and future effort to build and utilize best-of-breed systems. For the purposes of this chapter, we focus on the data from rms in the survey that had already implemented ERP systems. In Table 4.2, you can see that 76% of our sample had already implemented ERP systems. These rms have average revenues that are about six times higher
Ta b l e 4 . 1 Respondent information
Current position Other Manager Executive/owner Percentage 25.9 53.5 20.6 Employment 1,000 X 500 X 1,000 100 X 500 X 100 Industry Chemical /pharmaceutical Automotive Aerospace Electronics General manufacturing Percentage 45.7 6.3 43.1 4.7 Percentage 16.1 7.0 5.3 9.1 62.6
Revenues ($) 5 billion X 1 billion X 5 billion 500 million X 1 billion 100 million X 500 million 50 million X 100 million 25 million X 50 million X 25 million
Percentage 6.8 18.7 9.6 23.8 16.4 11.9 12.5
63
Ta b l e 4 . 2 ERP users versus nonusers

With ERP system Percentage enterprises Average enterprise revenues Percentage employees above 1,000 76.4% $3.0 billion 82.1% Without ERP system 22.6% $.45 billion 17.9%
than those who had not implemented ERP. Also, 82% of the rms that already used ERP have more than 1,000 employees. These rms are on leading edge in building and employing best-of-breed systems because they have the nancial and technical resources necessary to attempt this complex task.
Current Best-of-Breed Systems
Leading-edge rms build best-of-breed systems by improving the functionality of their system so that they can operate their entire value chain in real time. This allows any entity in the value chain to have the right information at the right time so that they can make the right decision. As stated earlier, in order for rms to operate at this high level of performance, they need greater functionality than off-the-shelf ERP systems provide. Fox and Holmes (1998) proposed a model for supply chain evolution called the supply chain compass (illustrated in Table 4.3) that is composed of Stage I (Fundamentals) through Stage V (Supply Chain Communities). A necessary prerequisite of rms at Stage III (Integrated Enterprise) is that they are using an ERP system as their key IT execution tool. In order to move to Stages IV and V, they must add more functionality across the value chain by adding other systems that link them more tightly with trading parties outside their enterprise. Since ERP adopters are poised to move to the next two stages on the supply chain compass, these rms were selected for closer study of their experience and future expectations. The evaluation started by looking at what type of bolt-on systems ERP adopters were currently employing and then examined their future plans. Table 4.4 shows the current percentage of bolt-on software systems for ERP rms. Three types of bolt-ons are being used by over half of the ERP adopters in our survey: inventory management, demand
Ta b l e 4 . 3 The supply chain compass

Stage III Integrated enterprise Cost of customer service Slow growth margin erosion Protable growth Integrated supply chains (external) Customer-specic processes Share of customer Inter-operable Point-of-sale supply chain planning Customer management systems Protable customer responsiveness Integrated supply chains (internal) Cross-functional processes Total delivered cost Integrated Enterprise supply chain planning ERP Stage IV Extended supply chain Stage V Supply chain communities Nonpreferred supplier Market leadership Rapidly recongurable Reinvented processes New worth Networked Synchronized supply chain planning Network-centric commerce
Stage I Stage II Cross-functional teams Unreliable order fulllment Customer service Consolidated operations Cross-functional communications On-time, complete delivery Packaged Point tools MRP II
The fundamentals
Business pain
Cost of quality
Driving goal
Quality and cost
Organizational focus
Independent departments
Process change
Standard operating procedures
Metric
Predictable cost and rates
IT focus
Automated
Key planning tools
Spreadsheets
Key execution tools
MRP and other homegrown applications
65
Ta b l e 4 . 4 Current bolt-on system usage ranked by percent of users

Current bolt-on software Inventory management system Demand forecasting and planning system Factory planning and scheduling system (MES) Quality management system Data warehouse system Warehouse management system Product data management (PDM) system Project management system Call center management system Customer relationship management (CRM) system E-procurement system Supply network planner system Trafc management system E-auction system Percent of users 73.0 66.7 65.1 46.0 44.4 41.3 40.5 29.4 21.4 21.4 19.8 19.0 19.0 11.1 Product improvement 3.75 3.79 3.70 3.60 3.82 4.06 3.90 3.83 4.00 3.37 3.68 3.63 3.87 3.71 Sales increase 3.33 3.40 3.40 3.29 3.02 3.33 3.20 3.22 3.81 3.59 2.96 3.81 3.08 3.29
forecasting and planning, and factory planning and scheduling systems. These results are most likely inuenced by the fact that the survey was sent to APICS members, who are primarily employed by manufacturing rms. However, it is interesting to note that all of these systems are internally focused on the enterprise. It would appear that most of these rms are indeed at Stage III of the supply chain compass and that they are integrated enterprises. The focus of these three bolt-ons is to help improve the utilization of assets (e.g., inventories, plants, and equipment) within the rm. Enhanced inventory management capabilities allow a rm to keep investments in inventory to a minimum while satisfying customer service requirements. It improves the return on assets by reducing the assets required while increasing revenues. Demand planning helps a rm do a better job of making sure that they are making the right products and do not waste resources on products that are not demanded or required. Factory planning and scheduling helps reduce lead times, increases utilization, and improves customer service by making sure that the schedules support the inventory and demand plans that are derived from the other two systems. Returning to Table 4.4, the next ve types of bolt-ons in terms of percentage of use (quality management to project management) are internally focused as well. Here again, one sees that rms are currently
66
emphasizing systems that optimize the use of their current resources. The bottom six bolt-ons (in terms of the percentage of adopters) could all be characterized as systems that tend to be more external than the ones higher on the list. This suggests that rms want to have their internal systems in order before expending extensive effort on external facing systems. To estimate the impact of bolt-on systems on performance, data were collected on productivity improvements as a result of bolt-ons and on change in revenue over the last two years. In terms of productivity increases, the following ve-point scale: 1 (decreased), 2 (no change), 3 (increased 1% to 5%), 4 (increased 6% to 10%), and 5 (increase more than 10%). Using the provided responses, the average productivity for the adopters of each bolt-on is shown in Table 4.3. This average gives an indication of the amount of productivity improvement as a result of a particular bolt-on. However, the results are also inuenced by the fact that these rms may be using other bolt-ons as well. If one ranks the boltons based on the average productivity improvement, only two have an average of 4 or above: warehouse management systems and call center management systems. These bolt-ons gave an average improvement of 6% or greater. The top three adopted bolt-ons in Table 4.4 are, at best, ranked seventh in terms of productivity improvement. This indicates that these bolt-ons are probably the most mature and have much wider use in manufacturing rms. Given that there is a high percentage of adopters of these applications, there are likely to be some rms in the group that are not leading-edge users. These rms may have adopted the most popular applications, but they have not gained the same amount of benet as leading competitors. When looking at the change in revenue over that last two years, again a ve-point scale was used with the following descriptors: 1 (large decrease), 2 (moderate decrease), 3 (little change), 4 (moderate increase), and 5 (large increase). These results are shown in the fourth column of Table 4.4. The top two bolt-ons for companies with the highest average sales increases were call center management systems and supply network planner systems. Both of these systems are clearly externally focused, which explains their impact on increasing revenue. Customer relationship management systems are third, based on the average sales increases. These applications are also designed to improve customer information
67
and should have a positive impact on sales. Therefore, these results indicate that many of the bolt-ons with external focus are in fact providing the impact they are intended to provide. Looking at bolt-ons in the top half on each performance measure, there are only three that appear in both lists: Call center management systems, warehouse management systems, and demand forecasting and planning systems. All of these bolt-ons involve some component of a customer interface. Call centers take customer calls, answer questions, or place orders. Promptly and accurately handling these issues ensures that resource use is driven by customer desires, which helps improve productivity. These types of systems also mean the difference between a satised customer who generates repeat sales and a disgruntled customer who takes his or her business elsewhere. The warehouse management system performs a similar function in making sure that the right products are at the right warehouse at the right time to satisfy customer requirements. Knowing a products location in the distribution system improves productivity by reducing wasted effort and the inventory required to maintain the same level of customer service. The last bolt-on that is in the top half of both lists is demand forecasting and planning. These systems make sure that the right items are in the demand plan for production and distribution. Accurate demand planning improves both customer service and productivity. These systems also have an external component because they frequently use direct input from the customer in terms of demand information. Firms who are using these types of bolt-ons may already be transitioning from an integrated enterprise in Stage III of the supply chain compass to a Stage IV rm that has an extended supply chain. This transition raises the question of where rms will focus their future efforts in building their best-of-breed systems. When looking at these performance measures, one can surmise that rms with the highest productivity or the highest sales growth be rms that have created a best-of-breed system. Table 4.5 shows bolt-ons that are being used by 50% or more of the rms with productivity increases of 10% or above. The six bolt-ons that would comprise these best-of-breed systems are all internally focused with the possible exceptions of two, demand forecasting and planning systems (discussed earlier) and warehouse management systems that are tied to customers through the distribution system. These rms appear to be clearly focused on Stage III of
68
Ta b l e 4 . 5 Best of breed based on productivity

Current bolt-on software Inventory management system Factory planning and scheduling system (MES) Demand forecasting and planning system Warehouse management system Data warehouse system Product data management (PDM) system Percent of most productive 77.4 71.0 67.7 64.5 51.6 51.6
Ta b l e 4 . 6 Best of breed based on sales

Current bolt-on software Demand forecasting and planning system Inventory management system Factory planning and scheduling system (MES) Quality management system Call center management system Warehouse management system Customer relationship management (CRM) system Percent of best sales increase 90.9 81.8 81.8 72.7 54.5 45.5 45.5
the supply chain compass, using all of these bolt-ons to create a tightly integrated and successful enterprise. Thirty-one rms fell into the highest category for productivity improvement, and all of these rms were using at least one bolt-on, with 23 of those 31 rms using ve or more bolt-ons to their ERP system. We can conclude that those rms are selecting and applying multiple bolt-ons to build their best-of-breed system. The set of bolt-ons being used by about 50% of the rms that were in the top sales growth category are given in Table 4.6. The top three are the same as those in the list based on productivity with one important difference: demand forecasting and planning was the highest on the list. This particular bolt-on is the most externally oriented of the top three, heavily oriented to using customer input in determining the demand plan. A fourth bolt-on that appears on both lists was the warehouse management system. The other three in the top seven are customer oriented: call center management systems and customer relationship management systems are clearly focused on the customer, and quality systems that are designed correctly use information from custom-
69
ers as part of the improvement process. It appears that rms may want to use a different set of bolt-ons depending on whether they want to improve productivity or improve sales. Firms with the highest sales increases all use at least one bolt-on, and 8 out of the 11 use ve or more bolt-ons. This result shows that whether you are interested in increased sales or increased productivity, selecting several bolt-ons to enhance your information system is one path to success. The only bolt-on not used by one of the rms with the highest sales increases was the e-procurement system. Obviously, using the four bolt-ons that appear on both lists would be a good starting point for building a best-of-breed system to enhance enterprise performance.
Future Best-of-Breed Systems
Where are enterprises heading? Table 4.7 shows the bolt-ons that respondents say they are going to install in the future. When looking at future best-of-breed system plans, one sees a general change from an internal to an external focus. The top future bolt-on (factory planning and scheduling systems) is one of the top three currently being used. It is a critical foundation bolt-on that is still internally focused and that is helping to ne-tune the production process by improving execution on the shop oor. This package can be customer driven because it involves
Ta b l e 4 . 7 Future plans for bolt-on systems ranked by percent
Future bolt-on software Factory planning and scheduling system (MES) Customer relationship management (CRM) system E-procurement system Quality management system Demand forecasting and planning system Warehouse management system Supply network planner system Inventory management system Product data management (PDM) system Data warehouse system Call center management system Trafc management system Project management system E-auction system Percent of users 21.4 19.8 19.0 15.9 15.1 15.1 15.1 14.3 8.7 5.6 5.6 4.8 4.0 3.2
70
making sure that individual orders are completed as promised. The confounding factor about whether this system has an external focus depends on where the decoupling point for customer orders is located for rms using these systems. If the decoupling point is at the nished goods stage, then the rm is in a make-to-stock situation and the linkage to specic customer orders is not as strong. However, a company that decouples the orders further upstream in their process has a much tighter linkage with customers and is focusing on a more responsive approach to customer requirements. The more intriguing result is the ranking of the next two bolt-ons that are in these rms future plans: customer relationship management (CRM) and e-procurement systems. The purpose of these two bolt-ons is to provide better linkages to the extended supply chain. CRM improves the linkages to customers and enhances communication on the downstream side of a rms supply chain. E-procurement systems provide linkages to suppliers and strengthen communication on the upstream side of the supply chain. It appears that these rms are attempting to create an extended supply chain by obtaining better information on both the upstream and downstream supply chains. Based on the supply chain compass, this is the next evolutionary step in moving from an integrated enterprise to an extended supply chain. This chapter illustrates that rms that have already adopted ERP systems are trying to get more functionality by adding bolt-ons to create a best-of-breed system. The rms that are the top performers are the ones that have selected the appropriate ve or more bolt-ons to enhance their productivity and sales. The data suggest that rms in the future will implement best-of-breed systems that are more externally oriented. These enterprise application systems will allow rms to have an extended supply chain and eventually lead to value chain resource planning, as discussed by Bendoly et al. (2004).

THOMAS H. DAVENPORT, JEANNE G. HARRIS, AND SUSAN C ANTRELL
In the last decade, most large corporations and many government agencies undertook one of the most ambitious information systems projects in their histories: the implementation of packaged enterprise systems. Arguably the second most important technology of the last decade, enterprise systems may have been even more expensive for many rms than taking advantage of the Internet. And enterprise systems projects seem just as extensive as the Internet. Just as the idea of getting to the end of the Internet seems unlikely (and the subject of some humorous advertisements), no organizationto our knowledgeis completely nished with an enterprise systems (ES) implementation. Whether enterprise systems are a dream or a nightmare would make the subject of a good debate. Many observers have suggested that companies got caught up in the rush to x Y2K problems and overinvested in ES. Why spend so much and take so long, critics argue, to implement commodity back-ofce software that could never confer a competitive advantage? Others (Davenport, 2000) argue that enterprise systems are a necessary foundation for all sorts of competitive initiatives, including e-commerce. These systems might be viewed as the answer to a CIOs prayer, given that they work well, provide a high level of crossfunctional support, can automate virtually an entire business, and are global in scope.
72
Research Approach Accentures Institute for Strategic Change conducted a quantitative analysis in 2002 of information obtained from surveys of 163 large businesses around the world with enterprise solutions already in place. In addition, researchers studied the experience of 28 organizations considered to be leading adopters of enterprise solutions in the communications and high-technology, nancial services, government, products, and resources industries. Geographies represented were Australia, Europe, and the United States. In 2003, 180 additional interviews were conducted in the Asia-Pacic region, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Complete results from those studies were published in Davenport, Harris, and Cantrell (2002) and Broeking (2004). Most of the results reported in this chapter are from the original study, with discussions relating to the Asia-Pacic study specically identied.
FIGURE
5.1
Methodological Approach in Brief
Recent academic studies (Hitt, Wu, and Zhou, 2002; Anderson, Banker, and Ravindran, 2003) support the positive side of ES, suggesting that companies achieved substantial returns on their investments in ES in terms of both productivity and shareholder value. The specic means by which companies achieved value, however, have thus far been unknown. What types of business value did companies set out to achieve with enterprise systems, and at what types did they succeed? How long did it take? And for those organizations that achieved high levels of value, what were the key factors in their implementations that were correlated with the benets? We set out to answer these kinds of questions in a large survey of organizations that had implemented ES (see Figure 5.1). Companies had big plans for enterprise systems benets. Millions of dollarsnot to mention years of organizational attentionwere spent striving for a seamless ow of information and transaction processes across diverse business functions, business units, and geographic boundaries. Substantial benets of multiple types were envisioned by organizations, including headcount reductions, more accurate business planning, and the ability to serve customers better, cheaper, and faster. In our study, however, the most likely benets to actually be sought were less ambitious: better management decision making, which is difcult to measure, and better nancial management (Figure 5.2).
73
At an overall level, only 4% of the companies in our study said they had achieved all the benets they had targeted for their ES initiatives. Yet 78% said they had received at least half of the targeted value, and only 2% said they had gotten no value at all. In the Asia Pacic study, 93% of respondents said they had achieved business benets. When asked about specic benets, many rms noted that they received benets in areas they had not targetedin other words, they were pleasantly surprised. In terms of specics, the most likely benet to have been achieved was better nancial management, perhaps in part because nancial functionality was the rst capability to be installed in our sample (Figure 5.3). Faster transactions and better decision making came next in the list of achieved benets. These were also the top three benets achieved in Asia Pacic organizations, although faster information transactions ranked
Better managerial decision making Improved nancial management Improved customer service and retention Ease of expansion / growth and increased exibility Faster, more accurate transactions Headcount reduction Cycle time reduction Improved inventory and asset management Fewer physical resources and improved logistics Increased revenue 12 22 21 32 32 29 26 25 42
50
10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent of organizations naming the benet as a rst, second, or third priority to be achieved
FIGURE
5.2
Benets Sought from Enterprise Systems
74
Improved nancial management Faster, more accurate transactions Better managerial decision making Improved inventory and asset management Ease of expansion / growth and increased exibility Fewer physical resources and improved logistics Cycle time reduction Improved customer service and retention Headcount reduction Increased revenue 40 36 47 55 54 53 63 60
70 69
20
40 Percent
60
80
FIGURE
5.3
Benets Achieved from Enterprise Systems
rst there. These are certainly useful benets, but they are also undeniably difcult to translate into nancial returns. The most difcult (and nancially rewarding) change objectivessuch as headcount reduction and increased revenueswere at the bottom of the list. Firms might have achieved more value if they had worked harder on more measurable and nancially quantiable targets. Again, however, a comparison of Figures 5.2 and 5.3 indicates that rms often received benet in areas where they did not target it. All of these benets took time to be achieved (Figure 5.3). As we have noted, faster transactions and nancial management benets were among the rst to be delivered, with a majority of companies reporting benet in only one year. Only about 20% of the companies we surveyed, however, were able to achieve increased revenues or lower headcounts
75
within a year. Over 60% of surveyed rms had achieved some benet in these categories four years after implementation. As a result of this time lag, we have concluded that time itself is a critical prerequisite for extracting value from enterprise systems. We and other prognosticators argued that rms should attempt to change their businesses and extract value as during implementation, but this apparently proved too difcult. Instead, most organizations installed ES with little change to their businesses and gradually found value as they became familiar with their systems. What exactly takes so long? Our interviews suggested that three factors were implicated: Critical mass. Before an organization can use an ES to better integrate across processes and units, it has to have a critical mass of functionality installed. That takes a while for many companies, who put in the systems one module or business unit at a time. As one consumer goods CIO put it, The biggest factor that contributed to benet realization was getting critical mass, which leads to tight integration of business processes and real-time access to information globally. Infrastructure projects come rst, and add less value. The earliest aspects of an ES implementation are back-ofce and transaction-oriented components, but they are necessary to provide a foundation for later front-ofce functions such as CRM and supply chain optimization. A chemical company CIO (in the eighth year of ES implementation) noted, The emphasis this year will be on leveraging value from our applications. Benets are greater in the follow-up projects than in getting the core infrastructure in place. Were just now starting to gure out what they are. Getting to know the data. A big part of value derives from using ES data, and it apparently takes time to learn how to use it. As another consumer products executive described, One challenge has been going from a lot of transactional data to good business information. Slowly but surely, people are doing their jobs in different ways. About six months after implementation, people start to understand what they can do with the data.
76
We also found that making substantial expenditures was a prerequisite for value: with enterprise systems, you have to spend money to save or make money. Nobody ever said that implementing an enterprise system was cheap. There was an interesting difference between our Asian study and the original study involving the rest of the world. We found that Asian companies implemented their ES, on average, two years later than their counterparts in the United States and Europe. The data point to the fact that they beneted from the experience of earlier implementations. Most notably, we found that Asian companies got more value faster. U.S. and European companies, many in a rush to implement before Y2K, generally focused more on the technical implementation of the system. Asian companies, in contrast, paid more attention to transforming their business processes and other complementary business changes designed to help them target and achieve desired benets.
Driving Enterprise Solutions Value
What steps should companies take to maximize the value of their ES investments? Our research identied three actions that organizations should consider: to integrate, optimize, and informate their businesses in relation to enterprise systems. Organizations that completed their enterprise infrastructure installations and continued to focus on these three value drivers realized the majority or all of the benets they had targeted. These three actions, especially when taken together, can enable organizations to achieve value in the many forms weve listed. In addition, organizations that adopted these approaches earlier, as in our Asia Pacic study, achieved value earlier.
Integrate
Integration is the single factor that is most closely correlated to achieving greater value from enterprise solutions. Just implementing enterprise solutions does not mean that an organization has successfully managed to integrate its information and processes to their full potential. We dene integration as connecting information systems and bringing about common information and processes throughout an organization.
77
For most organizations, integration is an ongoing process that continues long after implementation of the core enterprise solutions functionality. Organizations must continue to integrate enterprise solutions from disparate best-of-breed vendors, as well as within existing legacy systems. Herman Miller, for example, has integrated its custom make-toorder system, an i2 supply chain application, with eight different instances of Baan ES, another ES from a different vendor, and legacy order management and distribution systems. Integrating with a companys customers, suppliers, and business partners can also lead to dramatic improvements in operational efciencies that can have a clear relationship to protability. Eastman Chemical, for example, has achieved signicant benet by aggressively addressing the cultural, technical, and operational challenges of connecting supply chain systems directly to their trading partners. One approach is simply to consolidate applications. Consolidation can not only improve integration but signicantly reduce the costs of enterprise solutions human and technical support. Some organizations, such as Microsoft, PolyOne, and Canada Post, choose to start with a single instance. Other organizations start with the assumption that multiple instances are necessary, only to realize later that consolidation makes sense. Mergers and acquisitions can also multiply the number of instances. At Dow Chemical, all acquisitions are integrated into Dows infrastructure, avoiding the kind of ad hoc approach that would normally prompt information inefciencies. Additionally, the company has been able to eliminate redundant processes that required handoffs and data replication. From 1996 to 2000, for example, Dow cut costs by consolidating IT work previously done in hundreds of sites into four technology centers. Some organizations, such as the Texas Education Agency and a group of North Sea oil companies, even share a single ES and IT support in a shared service center model, thereby achieving economies of scale across rms and further driving down costs. Another approach is to integrate enterprise solutions package modules with other legacy systems. For this approach, organizations may employ enterprise application integration (EAI) tools to connect disparate applications together. The Defense Logistics Agency, for example, is using EAI tools to link their disparate applications, which include legacy applications and applications from SAP and Manugistics. Organizations such
78
as Dow Chemical and Eastman Chemical are also experimenting with the use of emerging integration technologies like Web services.
Optimize
We dene optimization as the continuous renement of business processes and their t with an ES. The concept of reengineering business processes (Davenport, 1992; Hammer and Champy, 1993) led the IS implementation wave in the rst place. While few organizations are interested in radical, clean-sheet-of-paper process designs, there is still a need to continuously rene and improve key business processes that are supported by an ES, such as nancial management, supply chain management, and order management (Bendoly and Jacobs, 2004). In fact, process optimization has the second strongest relationship to value realization. Again, our research shows that few organizations were successful in changing everything at once; most found it difcult to institute enterprise solutions enabled change before living with the new system for a while and learning about its capabilities. As John Chiazza, the VP of supply chain and the former CIO of Kodak, explains:
In the early phases of implementing our ES, we thought a lot about process reengineering. As the complaints grew about the pace of conversion, however, and as we realized that we were ending up with too much custom code to support unique business processes, we kind of put our reengineering efforts on hold and just focused on getting the system in. And this is a good thingthe change in technology is so signicant that it takes the user community a good 9 12 months of living with the new system rst before they can think about how they can improve their processes with the new system.
What can an organization do to optimize its enterprise solutions? Leading organizations that have succeeded in capitalizing on their enterprise solutions continuously examine and improve how the processes ow and t with the system and how the system and processes support the needs of the business. One global consumer products company, for example, has implemented its enterprise solutions worldwide and now regularly examines the processes it supports. System deployment is highly centralized, but the process improvement program, while companywide, is implemented at the local level. Each operating unit or geography decides where to focus and how best to implement change.
79
Once an organization determines the process ows it desires, the organization often will need to modify the system to make sure the system ts the processes and the business that the processes support. Modication might involve some post-implementation customization to the systemusually through careful reconguration of the system through the setting of parameters or switches. In addition, better alignment between desired processes and the system itself can be achieved through the implementation of systems or modules that are specically built to t an organizations given industry. Canada Post, for example, has a dedicated SAP Center of Excellence team that resides on the business, not the technical, side of the organization to evaluate proposals for changes or additions to its enterprise solutions. The group also evaluates functionality in new releases and encourages SAP to incorporate missing but needed industry-specic functionality such as a new postal service application that reconciles accounts among the worlds major post ofces.
Informate
Driven by the desire for accurate, consistent, complete, real-time information, executives are seeking efcient, transparent, and real-time decision-making capability. To realize this goal, organizations must informate, a term coined by Shoshana Zuboff (1988). Organizations informate when they use information to transform work. In terms of enterprise solutions, organizations informate by transforming enterprise solutions data into context-rich information and knowledge that supports the unique business analysis and decision-making needs of multiple workforces. The rst step is to improve the availability and quality of enterprise solutions data by making sure it is timely, consistent, and accurate. As users become more familiar with the data available, their need for data often exceeds the standard reporting functionality that comes with enterprise solutions. Implementing data warehouses, ad hoc reporting functionality, and portals empowers employees to access and manipulate the data they need. Leading organizations, however, do not just give people access to data. They give access to the right data that are most applicable to the person and the problem at hand. In other words, they present the information in context, thereby empowering employees to better understand the implications of information and to act on it. Portals, for example, can
80
help knowledge workers access and interpret enterprise solutions information relevant to specic tasks. Once robust reporting and data access are widely available, the next major challenge is providing the analytical capabilities that managers need to analyze, correctly interpret, and apply their ES data to management decision making. Executives say that this is a separate issue, one that goes beyond data access or performance management reporting. At Briggs and Stratton, for example, executives originally assumed that their new ES would address all their reporting needs. However, once they completed their installation, executives found that their operational data was overwhelming in quantity and yet insufcient for making many business decisions. Management concluded that ES-based operational data was merely a starting point to addressing their information and analytic needs. Another way companies informate is by implementing new enterprise solutions functionality, such as performance measurement applications, to obtain managerial information not otherwise captured by their systems. For example, executives at the Texas Education Agency attribute much of their success to the extension of their ES to include performance measurement. Using PeopleSofts balanced scorecard, they are able to track performance on a monthly basis. Their ES capabilities enable them to handle information requests quickly and analyze management information in new ways to generate insights into their operations.
Managing for Value
Enterprise systems have delivered tremendous value to organizations. Most organizations, however, can still wring a signicant amount of additional value from their systems. We have suggested that organizations integrate, optimize, and informate in order to achieve more value, but successful organizations also: Invest the effort required to get a critical mass of implementation. Only organizations that have invested the time and resources necessary to extensively implement ES throughout their organizations will be able to capitalize on their promise of better integration and seamless information ows between functions, business units, and geographies (Figure 5.4).
81
100 Percentage of organizations that have achieved the benet 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Within 1 12 2 4 Time to achieve benet (years) More than 4
Faster information transactions Improved nancial management Better managerial decision making Improved inventory and asset management Cycle time reduction Fewer physical resources and improved logistics
FIGURE
Ease of expansion / growth and increased exibility Improved customer service and retention Head count reduction Increased revenue
5.4
Benets Achieved over Time
Prioritize benets and create an action plan to achieve them. It is clear that the benets of ES dont come by happenstance; they have to be planned for and managed. We found that organizations with formal approaches to benet measurement and management achieved benets signicantly faster than those without. The 31% of organizations that actively track metrics for the majority or all of the expected benets reported that they achieved benets signicantly earlier than those that did not actively measure or capture benets systems (Figure 5.5). Likewise, the 65% of organizations that held a
82
80 70 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 0 Within 1 12 2 4 More than 4 Time to benet since implementation (years) Actively track metrics for the majority or all of expected benets, and processes and incentives have changed to support Actively track metrics for a few key benets post-implementation Do not actively seek to measure and capture benets
FIGURE
5.5
Firms That Track Benets Achieve Them Faster
dedicated individual responsible for realizing enterprise systems benets also achieved benets earlier than those who held no one responsible for benet realization (Figure 5.6). At the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency, which has now implemented an ES in part of its business, the CIO commented on her plans for post-implementation benets assessment: We will have a methodology to ensure that as certain deliverables come into development, we have a mechanism to decide if thats still what the agency wants to do. There will be a second mechanism to see if key performance parameters are being met as they are delivered. Well be measuring them through postdeployment, to see that the transformational capabilities are delivered. We will have a value realization manager postdeployment, looking at whether the program is returning the value we envisioned and championing any necessary additional steps to ensure success.
83
Manage enterprise systems as an ongoing program. We now have evidence that getting value from enterprise systems is not a project, but a way of life. We found not a single organization in our qualitative survey of early adopters that was nished with its ES. If the ES program dies when the software goes live, it is unlikely that substantial value will be achieved. Dedicating ongoing resources to ES can help rms continue to focus on, measure, and manage the benets from them. Organizations such as Canada Post Corporation have set up SAP Centers of Excellence to help them achieve value from their enterprise systems. Other rms, such as Intel Corporation, plan to set up a permanent organizational unit. Organizational units may be positioned centrally within a company so that its staff can serve as internal consultants or leaders for specic enterprise systemsrelated initiatives and projects. Enterprise systems, as our study details, can be a source of considerable value to organizations, but many rms have not fully achieved that value.
70 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 0 Within 1 More than 4 or never achieved Time to benet since implementation (years) 12 2 4
Someone has primary accountability for realizing ES benets Someone does not have primary accountability for realizing ES benets
FIGURE
5.6
Firms That Put Someone in Charge of Benets Achieve Them Faster
84
To do so requires not only the technical implementation of the system, but also the adoption of several approaches designed to change the business in conjunction with the system. The more organizations adopt those changes, the more likely they are to achieve value. The faster they adopt those changes, the faster they achieve value.
II
Value Extensions Beyond the Enterprise
Agility Through Standardization: A CRM/ERP Application

THOMAS F. GAT TIKER, DANIEL CHEN, AND DALE L. GOODHUE
Recently, several scholars (e.g., Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, and Grover, 2003; Chatterjee, Pacini, and Sambamurthy, 2002) have proposed reconceptualizing information technology (IT) as a platform for generating competitive agility (Goldman, Nagel, and Presis, 1995). Enterprise computing systems (also known as enterprise resources planning, or ERP, systems) are one of the most signicant investments in todays IT landscape. While there is much existing research on the implementation of these systems, there is less understanding of the post-implementation use of them (Jacobs and Bendoly, 2003). Because business conditions are sure to change after a system is implemented, part of developing a postimplementation picture of ERP success is understanding the relationship between enterprise computing and agility. Agility requires understanding and responding to customers and markets (Goldman et al., 1995; Gunneson, 1997; Amos, 1998). Contemporary management thus requires a deep understanding of the customer relationship management (CRM) dimension of enterprise computing. According to CIO Magazine, close to half of the companies in a 2002 survey reduced their IT budgets in 2002 from their 2001 levels. In spite of this, many companies are still buying ERP systems, and these systems top organizations IT budgets. Many companies apparently expect their investment in enterprise systems to pay off, even in tight economic times, but they also realize that benets may not be immediate. Looking
88
at it from the perspective of long-run agility however, ERP investments can provide extremely interesting food for thought. On one hand, the process and data integration provided by such systems should contribute to stronger digital options (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). On the other hand, ERP systems are extremely complex, difcult to understand, and dangerous to recongure or modify. This has led one IT professional to comment that installing ERP systems is like pouring concrete on a rms business processes. The above observations suggest two questions: Does investment in enterprise computing have positive (or negative) impacts on a rms competitive agility? If enterprise computing does impact agility, what are the mechanisms by which it has this effect? Various authors have suggested slightly different denitions of agility (e.g., Gunneson, 1997; Amos, 1998; Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Bendoly and Kaefer, 2004), but most imply a focus on addressing changing markets, products, or customers in such a way as to remain prosperous. In addition to customer agility, Sambamurthy et al. also include the possibility of both business partnering agility and operational agility. For our work, we will dene agility as an organizational ability to quickly detect opportunities and to assemble requisite resources to make a rapid and effective response. This could include a focus on customers, suppliers, or internal operations. As researcher and practitioner communities seek to understand agility, they naturally attempt to categorize it in useful fashions (e.g., those above). We nd it useful to make another distinction: sensing versus responding. Sensing agility emphasizes a rms capacity to rapidly discover and interpret changing opportunities. It implies an ability to distinguish information from noise and to transform apparent noise into meaning faster (Haeckel, 1999). Responding agility is the ability to quickly transform knowledge into action in response (Haeckel, 1999; Zaheer and Zaheer, 1997), such as marshaling and reallocating resources to capture the opportunities. Effective rms must be able to both sense opportunities and respond to them in order to be agile. Enterprise computing may have a number of impacts on sensing and responding agility. The enterprise systems global connectivity of data
89
and processes should make it far easier to integrate knowledge across the rm, which should allow organizations to better sense opportunities and problems. Examples include discovering changes in customer demand patterns, ascertaining worldwide purchase volumes, and so on. On the other hand, it is less clear that enterprise computing systems will facilitate response agility. The following quote from a case study participant typies the view of a signicant number of managers: In a way, we are slaves to the system, and we have accepted the technological imperative that that implies. We cannot improvise on process because such innovations will ripple through the company and cause problems for someone else (Ross and Vitale, 2000). Existing ERP research suggests some means by which enterprise computing has this type of effect. Response agility may entail changing the ERP conguration (i.e., a change to a conguration table). Although built-in conguration capabilities allow some changes to an organizations processes, the variety of process congurations supported by any single enterprise package is limited. Thus, rms sometimes nd desired functionality lacking (Soh, Kien, and Tay-Yap, 2000; Sommers and Nelson, 2003). Second, because ERP processes and modules are tightly interlinked with one another, any reconguration may be prohibitively resource intensive (Akkermans et al., 2003), in part because each conguration change runs the risk of unintended consequences that must be evaluated in advance to the extent possible (Bingi, Sharma, and Godla, 1999; Brown, 1998). Of course, any change that requires customization is still riskier and probably costlier. More generally, the increasing complexity of large-scale technologies, such as enterprise computing, creates knowledge barriers to organizations trying to leverage potential technologydriven benets (Boudreau and Robey, 2001; Robey, Ross, and Boudreau, 2002). Finally, because ERP typically increases the standardization and centralization of processes and data, it may diminish the options available to local personnel for responding to local challenges and opportunities (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2004; Jacobs and Whybark, 2000). Based on these notions, we suggest the following ingoing proposition: Enterprise systems should be excellent in support of sensing agility but more problematic in support of responding agility.
90
A Case Study in Agility
In order to explore the relationship between enterprise computing and agility, we conducted interviews with managers at seven companies (one or two interviews per company). Our ndings were enlightening, and they resulted in some adjustments in how we thought about ERP and agility. In addition, the cases demonstrated several strategic and innovative uses of enterprise computing. In this chapter, we focus on the experience of one company in one particular area of enterprise computing: customer relationship management (CRM). We bring in key data from other companies where needed.
Company Background Information
The organization in question manufactures and sells computer services, hardware, and software. The company has more than 4,000 (excluding congurations) hardware products, including PCs, servers, communications hardware, peripherals, and OEM semiconductor technologies. It has more than 400 software products and offers numerous types of services, including outsourcing, consulting, systems integration, and business recovery services. The company also provides nancing services in support of its computer business. The organization offers its products through its global sales and distribution organizations. The company operates in more than 100 countries worldwide and derives more than half of its revenues from sales outside the United States. The organization competes in a very dynamic business environment. Such dynamism is driven not just by rapidly changing technologies (i.e., Moores law), but also by accelerating globalization, rapid entry of new competitors, shifting strategic alliances, and rapid commoditization of products and services.
Enterprise Computing
The organizations management divides IT investments into two types: technical IT and application IT. For technical IT, investment decisions are based on internal business cases. For application IT investments, no formal business case is made. Rather the only criterion for management consideration is whether a certain application hastens business process
91
transformation. Enterprise class systems fall into the latter investment category because they are believed to enable the acceleration of business transformation. However, management also believes that ERP packages per se deliver zero value. In other words, the power of enterprise computing lies in its ability to improve business processes and thus contributes only indirectly to value. Enterprise computing in the organization consists of two major systems: SAP and Siebel Systems. The company started to implement SAPs ERP package in 1995. A variety of SAP modules have been implemented, including customer fulllment, production planning, procurement and accounts payable, xed assets, global nancing, and general ledger. In addition to SAP, the organization runs Siebels customer relationship management (CRM) system and IBMs WebSphere technology for customer information. The Siebel CRM project started in 2000. Key areas of the system are opportunity management and lead passing, as well as sales process management and creating a single global customer database. The organization estimates that its use of CRM is more advanced than at least 90% of its competitors. CRM (or CRM in conjunction with certain modules of SAP) has made the company more agile in responding to customer demand. Two business processes that have enabled this are its processes for lead management and its seven-step sales process.
Seven-Step Sales Process
Prior to ERP/CRM implementation, the rm, like most companies, did not have a well-dened sales process. There was a general sales process ow, and there were certain well-delineated steps (such as credit checking); however, without an enterprise-wide system, it was impossible for the organization to incorporate a standard sales process globally. Therefore, salespeople had a great deal of discretion regarding the overall process and the timing of steps in the process before ERP, and as a result there was a great deal of variation from sale to sale, even within a particular product line. However, when the company implemented CRM, it rolled out its seven-step opportunity management process at the same time. There are a number of potentially good reasons for standardizing a business process. One such reason is to ensure that the proper procedures are followed by all employees. However this was not the main motivation,
92
nor the main benet, of the seven-step process in this organization. Instead, having a standard sales process allows the company to collect a tremendous amount of meaningful data that can be used to improve prediction and execution in both sales and operations. In particular, each salesperson uses CRM to log the completion of each step in the sales process for each opportunity (i.e., each lead). Tracking the status of each potential sale also helps salespeople and their managers monitor the progress of each opportunity. However, the company has also developed other, more innovative ways to exploit the seven-step process and the resulting data. For example, management has calculated the relationship between the time that an opportunity spends at each step and the likelihood that the prospective sale will move to the next step. In other words, the likelihood that an opportunity will expire at any of the seven steps (i.e., the customer will go with a competitor or change purchasing plans) increases with the time that elapses before the lead moves to the next step. As a result, management has developed standards for the maximum amount of time that should elapse before a salesperson takes action to move a potential order to the next step (of course, these standards vary with product line, sales channel, and so on). The company refers to this as the sales cadence. Maintaining the cadence can help sales personnel prioritize their efforts. For example, the system can tell a sales person that a particular opportunity will probably expire if not acted on within the next ve days. Another result of the seven-step process is that it has enabled management to develop mathematical functions that estimate (for each product line) the likelihood of converting a lead to a sale. For each opportunity in the system, the probability of closing the deal is calculated from the step to which the lead has progressed and from other information such as the time of year. This probability data becomes an input to the manufacturing planning process.
Lead Management
Management believes that a key to success is the ability to sense and respond across multiple routes to market. The company has ve routes to market or channels: face-to-face sales, Web, telesales, a services outsourcing organization, and distributors (the rst four are internal channels, whereas distributors, of course, are not legally a part of the
93
organization). Adding to the complexity, the company does business in many countries and sells a wide variety of products and services. Orders vary in size and complexity, from a single laptop computer to arrangements that combine large servers, local networks, software, and services. In such an environment, it is a major challenge to manage sales leads. This is made more complex because leads are often generated in channels that are not the best equipped to handle them. For example, a blue suit sales person may learn about an opportunity to sell 10 desktop PCs, but it is not economical to pursue the deal. (The company estimates the cost of a face-to-face sales call to be approximately $10,000.) Nevertheless, the company needs to exploit the opportunity and must do so protably. The organization accomplishes this with CRM. Sales leads are entered into the system by players in any channel. The CRM system selects the appropriate channel, which is dened as the one that is the most qualied and the most cost effective based on the dollar volume, the type of product or service, and a number of other factors (which the company was reluctant to discuss). Within a channel, the system selects the best sales ofce, distributor, and so on. Eighty percent of the time, the process is completely automated (i.e., requiring no manual intervention). Considering that, for example, there are over 100 distributors (with widely varying qualications) for midrange servers in the North American market alone, this is a substantial task. There are a number of organizational factors that must be addressed to make this system work. For example, in order to give incentives to higher cost channels to pass on leads rather than exploit the leads themselves, individuals in these channels do not receive credit for sales that fall below a certain threshold. One mechanism to accomplish this involves ensuring that face-to-face sales people do not receive commission for sales below $100,000. However, provided they pass along a lead for this type of opportunity, they share in the commission if the sale occurs.
Key Findings: Mechanisms by Which Enterprise Computing Supports Agility
Several observations from the enterprise systems literature suggest that enterprise systems might contribute more to sensing agility than to responding agility. However, the details provided in the present case demonstrate that enterprise computing systems can facilitate responding
94
Ta b l e 6 . 1 Mechanisms by which ERP supports agility

Built-in exibility The extent to which information systems are designed to allow companies to quickly and easily change their business processes without having to rewrite program code The extent to which the interfaces of business activities across different organization groups are streamlined to form complete automated business processes The extent to which data denitions and structures are standardized across organizational data sources The extent to which there are, on the market, special-purpose software applications or modules that can be easily integrated with a rms existing information systems The extent to which there are, on the market, knowledgeable external consultants who understand the installed base of a rms existing information systems
Process integration
Data integration Availability of add-on software applications
Availability of consultant knowledge
agility (along with sensing agility) quite extensively. Lead passing among sales channels and using data from the opportunity management system in production scheduling are two excellent examples. Beyond this particular case, the ndings from six additional companies we have studied conrm this notion. To date we have observed a total of 28 instances of ERP facilitated agility; of these, 19 were examples of responding agility. In the beginning of this chapter, we also suggested that if enterprise computing does affect agility, we would want to know the mechanisms by which it has this impact. Based on interviews with the company described in this case and on our other case studies, we see evidence of at least ve different mechanisms through which enterprise systems provided agility. These are summarized in Table 6.1. The rst of these mechanisms, not too surprisingly, is the exibility built into the ERP system. Actions such as moving or reassigning employees or restructuring organizations seem to have been well anticipated by the designers of ERP systems, and there are simple processes designed to accomplish these changes by reconguring the system. Such changes have been theoretically suggested in recent ERP research (Bendoly and Kaefer, 2004).
95
Second, although the level of ERP integration varies from rm to rm (Markus, Tanis, and Fenema, 2000) enterprise computing, in comparison to other systems, tends to drive consistent processes and data across the organization, and highly integrated architecture provides fast global access to that data. This facilitates faster decision making and action. For example, the seven-step opportunity management process described in this chapter provides globally consistent information (and more of it) about the status of potential orders. This allows more directed action in converting leads to sales, and it facilitates more accurate planning and deployment of production resources. Consistent with this notion is the nding of Bendoly and Jacobs (2004) that greater ERP integration is associated with greater performance among rms who have implemented ERP well in line with operating requirements. Standardization and integration create simplicity. Although ERP systems are highly complex, a single enterprise system may well be less complex than having many nonintegrated or loosely coupled legacy systems. Each legacy system tends to have its own unique logic, data denitions, and special quirks. Boudreau and Robey (2001) have found that IT complexity negatively impacts companies abilities to innovate. The companies we have studied have found it much easier to implement or change a global process when using a single ERP system versus a collection of disparate legacy systems. For example, using SAP and Siebel, the company discussed in this chapter was able to roll out changes to its terms and conditions of sale overnight (literally) to 100-plus countries, whereas such a change would have taken months in its pre-ERP computing environment. Fourth, vendor-supplied software for special features, as well as third-party software vendor packages, is an important source of agility. Because the customer base for bolt-on systems is large, vendors (second and third party) nd it worthwhile to invest in special purpose packages that give the customer base a much larger set of options from which to choose. The organization we describe began its work on a single worldwide customer database using SAP; however, it then moved this initiative to Siebel and nally to WebSphere. Fifth, there is now a sizable cadre of knowledgeable consultants available to help in the conguration or design of customized solutions for the enterprise systems. Because of this, a major step in designing or revamping a process is not neededthese consultants already know the
96
existing system, its architecture, and its processes quite well. This means they can rapidly move to implementation, rather than spending months coming to understand the existing nonstandard legacy systems. Recognition of these ve mechanisms has a number of implications for managers and researchers. ERP systems are often seen as a homogenizing force diminishing a companys ability to differentiate itself (via its business processes) from its competitors. There are a number of wellpublicized examples of organizations eschewing broadly deployed packages, such as SAP, because these companies want to avoid using so-called generic ERP-driven processes. Somewhat paradoxically, the fourth and fth mechanisms in Table 6.1 suggest that there are strategic benets to adopting the more widely deployed packages. The breadth of the consultant knowledge base and variety of bolt-on software available both increase with the market share of core ERP package. Thus the logic of network externalities would apply: the more companies that have chosen a particular solution, the more benets accrue to each of them.
Summary
According to a systems view of organizations, agile rms constantly sense and respond to competitive challenges by either adapting to or changing their business environments. Thus agility can be broken down into leading agility and following agility. Leading agility is the capability of organizations to rapidly discover innovative ways of doing business and take earlier actions than their competitors (e.g., rst-mover advantage). Following agility refers to the capacity of a rm to quickly deploy an innovation pioneered elsewhere (e.g., by a competitor or a software vendor). Viewed as a collection of homogenous business process and standardized data, enterprise-computing systems are at best a source of following agility. However, we have discovered numerous examples of ERP as a source of leading agilitythe seven-step opportunity management system in this case being just one. Our experience suggests that gaining strategic advantage though leading agility is not a matter of viewing ERP as a source of strategic business processes; rather it is an organizations ability to select an ERP conguration and a set of enhancements that t a particular set of business conditions and opportunities. Viewed this way, important weapons then include implementation factors such as managing user involvement, business case analysis, and change management.

E. POWELL ROBINSON JR. AND FUNDA SAHIN
Advances in information technology are enabling enterprises to critically evaluate their operational strategies and explore new prospects for internal and inter-organizational cooperation. A key component of this development is linked to the evolution of ERP systems from the original vision of integrating data across the nancial, manufacturing, procurement, and distribution processes of a single enterprise to including data sharing and collaborative decision making among multiple enterprises. These objectives require integrating a broader range of business processes, including supply chain management, procurement, and logistics, by providing users both inside and outside the enterprise with a single access point to data. However, it is equally important for managers to critically analyze current business processes, which are often functionally oriented, and realign them to satisfy intra-organizational and interorganizational objectives. It is only from this broader decision-making perspective that the capabilities of ERP systems can be fully utilized to enhance customer value and channel performance. Forresters 1958 research on industrial dynamics laid the foundation for the application of information technology in supply chain management. In the study, he identies the natural tendency of decentralized decision making to amplify, delay, and distort demand information moving upstream in a make-to-stock supply chain, thereby causing inaccurate forecasts, inefcient asset management, and poor customer service. Lee, Padhamanabhan, and
98
Whang (1997) label this phenomenon as the bullwhip effect and suggest remedies such as sharing point-of-sales data with suppliers and the operational alignment of channel member activities. In the 1990s, the coemergence of advanced information technologies and supply chain management philosophies led to numerous industry successes based on the benets of information sharing and collaboration among channel members. Well-known examples include Wal-Marts retail link program, efcient consumer response in the grocery industry, quick response systems in the apparel industry, Dells direct sell and value chain models, and vendor-managed inventory programs. Sahin and Robinson (2002) surveyed the vast and growing literature on supply chain integration and proposed information sharing and decision-making coordination (problem scope) as the two primary drivers of supply chain cost performance. Their review of over 100 research studies found that operational improvements associated with enhanced information sharing and coordination ranged from 0% to 35% of total relevant costs, depending on the supply chain environment. While these research efforts are encouraging, they only address make-to-stock supply chains in which each channel member applies statistical inventory control procedures to plan inventory that is held in anticipation of demand. In spite of their importance in industry, not a single study investigates the application of extended ERP systems to improve channel integration in make-to-order systems, in which all supply chain activities are performed in direct response to a customers order, utilizing requirements planningbased procedures. While the basic functionality for managing procurement and fulllment processes exists in current ERP software, our research ndings indicate that the prospective capabilities of ERP systems to integrate intra- and inter-organizational replenishment activities, and thereby lower operating costs, are underutilized in industry. We feel that this is in large part due to an incomplete understanding of the alternative strategies for replenishment integration, the potential economic benet, and a clear implementation path. We draw conclusions about enhanced ERP replenishment systems from the authors research, addressing the value of information sharing and coordination in make-to-order supply chains. The research, based on the authors observations and experiences with several Fortune 500 companies in the construction equipment, building materials, and
99
power transmission industries, illuminates the managerial strategies and potential extensions of ERP systems necessary to better support replenishment decisions and strategies. Our ndings, derived from computer simulation studies of vendor-manufacturer replenishment processes utilizing industry data, reveal performance improvements ranging from 35% to 50% of total costs when moving from traditional functionally oriented processes to an inter-organizational approach. In this setting, ERP plays a critical role by providing all channel members with the requisite data and a platform for coordinated decision making.
Make-to-Order Production Planning and Scheduling
Make-to-order supply chains are employed in highly uncertain, erratic, and discontinuous demand environments, where it is not possible to forecast demand at the end item, module, or component levels with sufcient accuracy to enable product stocking in anticipation of customer demand. Special purpose electrical motors, construction equipment, and manufacturing tooling are examples of make-to-order products whose designs are customized to the particular application. We briey describe the production and replenishment processes of make-to-order supply chains as commonly implemented within ERP software systems. Orlicky (1975) and Vollmann, Berry, Whybark, and Jacobs (2004) provide in-depth descriptions of the processes. Our primary concern, however, is on managing the vendor-manufacturer replenishment activities through better utilization of the information provided by the ERP system for purchased components. Operational planning begins with an intermediate-term forecast in generic product units, or planning bills of material, which are assigned tentative completion dates in a nal assembly schedule (FAS). As rm customer orders are received, the generic planning units in the FAS are replaced with the specic end items ordered. An order time-fence, equal to the longest cumulative stacked procurement, production, and assembly lead-time path for any noninventoried item in the bill of materials (BOM), is established, indicating the minimum delivery lead time for accomplishing all supply chain activities. Any planning unit that is not replaced with a customer order on reaching the order time-fence is dropped from the forecast or rescheduled for a later date. Once a customers order passes
100
Vendors LT Slack time 18 days 2 days Tower fabrication 10 days Main frame Final assembly 23 days
Power pack
Procurement of longest lead-time components 30 days Order time-fence

FIGURE
53
7.1
Cumulative Manufacturing and Procurement Lead Times
the order time-fence, its conguration, quantity, and due date are locked into the production schedule and subject to change only in emergencies. This provides a stable FAS schedule for planning. A master production schedule (MPS) coordinates module fabrication with assembly operations and drives material requirements planning (MRP). Figure 7.1 shows the lead-time relationships among the order time-fence, the longest cumulative lead time in the BOM, nal assembly, module production, and procurement operations for an illustrative drilling rig from a construction equipment supply chain. The 53-day order timefence corresponds to the longest cumulative procurement and nal assembly lead-time path of a noninventoried component. The total lead time for drilling tower fabrication and nal assembly is 33 days, providing a 20-day planning horizon from the time when the end item crosses the order timefence until the manufacturer must order and receive the components for the tower fabrication. Table 7.1 illustrates the manufacturers MRP record for one of the many metal components that are used in the tower fabrication. Due to the schedule stability provided by the order time-fence, all gross requirements for the component are deterministic over the 20-day planning horizon. However, the timing and quantity of the planned orders, particularly in the later time periods, may oscillate during successive MRP record processing cycles as new orders are entered into the FAS and the MRP schedule is reoptimized. Standard practice for controlling this MRP nervousness and
Ta b l e 7 . 1 MRP tableau for a component with a 12-period frozen time-fence

4 5 6 14 15 16 12 10 4 4 12 8 16 4 6 16 4 13 4 12 22 7 8 9 10 11 17 8 18 10 19 6 20 16
Time
Gross requirements
16
Scheduled receipt 8 4 0 20 26 24 20 26 Frozen orders 24 22 8 30 8 0 10 6 0 4 0
6 12 22 24 Slushy orders 0 16 24 16 6 0 0 16
Ending inventory
Planned order receipt
16
Planned order release
16
30
102
providing a stable planning environment is to establish a frozen time-fence (Sridharan, Berry, and Udayabhanu, 1987; Vollman et al., 2004). The planned order receipts within the frozen time-fence are xed in both timing and quantity, while those in the remaining time periods are permitted to vary in the next planning iteration (Zipkin, 2000). This is illustrated in Table 7.1, in which the frozen time-fence is set at the end of period 12. The length of the frozen time-fence is set to attain a balance between the need for stable order schedules for upstream replenishment processes and MPS schedule exibility.
Vendor-Manufacturer Integration: Information Sharing and Coordination
The MRP record in Table 7.1 suggests alternative strategies for scheduling the replenishment activities of the vendors. The strategies are dened by the degree of information sharing between channel members and the decision makers problem scope or the level of decision-making coordination. Traditional replenishment processes, as illustrated in Table 7.1 and modeled by current ERP systems, portray functional coordination (FUNC) with no information (NI) sharing between channel members. In this approach, the purchasing manager optimizes the replenishment schedules for each individual item by considering the economic tradeoffs between ordering and inventory-holding costs. Orders are then released to the vendor one at a time according to the replenishment lead times. In the absence of any future demand visibility, the vendor responds to each order on a lot-for-lot basis and arranges for product shipments as required to meet the manufacturers delivery due dates. While multiple orders scheduled for shipment on the same date may share joint transportation costs, there is no formal attempt to explicitly coordinate multiple-item replenishment schedules or transportation schedules in the decision-making process. The traditional (NI /FUNC) strategy fails to fully utilize the data provided by the ERP system. A potential system improvement is for the manufacturer to place advance order commitments (AOC) for all or a subset of the planned order receipts in the planning horizon. The AOC information-sharing strategy provides the vendor with visibility into future orders, enabling the vendor to optimize the replenishment schedules and potentially reduce channel costs. The manufacturer could also pursue
103
a full information (FULL) sharing strategy by providing the vendor with the complete MRP record, which reveals, in addition to planned orders, all gross requirements and projected inventory balances by time period. This is analogous to providing the vendor with a perfect demand forecast over the items planning horizon. Note that the data required by these two enhanced information-sharing strategies are readily available within current ERP systems. Expanding the decision makers problem scope may also yield system improvements. For example, simultaneously coordinating multiple-item procurement and transportation decisions provides an intra-organizational (INTRA) decision-making strategy. Under this strategy, the manufacturer solves a separate coordinated lot-sizing problem for each supplier, in which multiple-item replenishment schedules and transportation delivery costs are jointly optimized. Problem data requirements include transportation cost structures, the set of items ordered from each vendor, and each items on-hand inventory balance, unit cost, gross requirements over the planning horizon, xed-ordering cost, inventory-holding costs, and delivery lead time. While the requisite data is modeled in existing ERP software, the decision models, data linkages, and solution algorithms for efciently solving coordinated lot-sizing problems are not incorporated into current ERP system capabilities. However, decision technology capable of nding highquality heuristic or optimal solutions to these mathematically complex problems in less than a second of CPU time currently exists. Robinson and Gao (1996) and Robinson and Narayanan (2004), among others, provide highly efcient optimization and heuristic solution procedures that are well suited for incorporation into ERP systems. We also dene an inter-organizational (INTER) coordination strategy in which all procurement, transportation, and fulllment costs are jointly considered. In the functional and intra-organizational strategies, the manufacturer independently optimizes the order schedules and then throws them over the wall to the vendor, while the inter-organizational approach requires consideration of all relevant channel information and cost tradeoffs to attain a global system solution. Consequently, the optimal system replenishment schedules may be considerably different from those associated with a functional or intra-organizational planning approach. In addition to the data required by the intra-organizational strategy, the inter-organizational strategy requires data describing the vendors order processing, equipment-setup and
104
Ta b l e 7 . 2 ERP enhanced replenishment strategies

decision makers planning problem Replenishment strategy No information sharing and functional coordination (NI /FUNC) Advance order commitments and functional coordination (AOC /FUNC) No information sharing and intraorganizational coordination (NI /INTRA) Advance order commitments and intra-organizational coordination (AOC /INTRA) Full information sharing and interorganizational coordination (FULL /INTER) Manufacturer Wagner-Whitin single-item lot-size problem Wagner-Whitin single-item lot-size problem Transportation Ship as required Vendor Replenish on a lot-for-lot basis Wagner-Whitin single-item lot-size problem Replenish on a lot-for-lot basis
Ship as required
Coordinated replenishment problem
Wagner-Whitin single-item lot-size problem
variable-production costs, and inventory-carrying costs. The global decision problem, although assuming a broader scope, can be modeled as a coordinated lot-size problem and efciently solved using procedures identical to those described for the intra-organizational replenishment strategy. The only difference in model implementation is in calculating the model parameters. Of the nine possible combined information-sharing and coordination strategies, NI /INTER and AOC /INTER are not feasible because inter-organizational coordination requires the sharing of all relevant system data. In addition, since full information sharing provides no economic advantage over AOC sharing when there is less than full system coordination, we do not consider the FULL /FUNC and FULL /INTRA strategies. Table 7.2 denes the ve remaining replenishment strategies along with the lot-size scheduling problem solved by each channel member.
105
Experimental Analysis and Results
In order to illuminate the potential economic benet associated with the enhanced replenishment strategies, we conducted computer simulation studies based on data collected from a vendor-manufacturer relationship in a construction equipment supply chain. However, to ensure that the results are reective of this general type of make-to-order environment and not a specic problem instance, we generated 108 different test problems by varying the number of purchased items, the demand patterns, total demand, the vendors equipment setup costs, and the transportation cost structures. Next, we constructed a separate computer simulation model to replicate the ERP processes and embedded lot-sizing models associated with each replenishment strategy. The computer simulations were implemented using rolling schedule procedures over a 200-time-period experimental horizon. Each MRP planning iteration considered a 20-time-period planning horizon with a 12-period frozen time-fence (see Robinson and Sahin [2003] for complete details of the study). The experimental results indicate an average systemwide cost reduction of 47.58% when moving from a traditional (NI /FUNC) strategy to an inter-organizational (FULL /INTER) replenishment strategy. The minimum and maximum percent savings are 36.5% and 51.3%, respectively; the largest cost savings are associated with problem environments that had larger number of items, higher vendor and transportation xed cost structures, and relatively constant demand. Figure 7.2 summarizes the experimental results across the replenishment strategies. While the capability of extended ERP systems to facilitate information sharing is widely recognized as a key contributor to improved supply chain performance, the ndings suggest that ERPs role in facilitating intra- and inter-organizational coordination may yield even greater benets. This is seen in Figure 7.2, which shows that increasing the level of information sharing by moving from NI /FUNC to AOC / FUNC yields an average 2.3% improvement, while expanding the problem scope from NI /FUNC to NI /INTRA yields a 30.69% improvement. Furthermore, sharing planned replenishment schedules with the vendor as AOCs while following an intra-organizational coordination strategy improves performance by 39.36% over the NI /FUNC benchmark. This 8.67% marginal gain over NI /INTRA illustrates the potential synergy that can be obtained from both enhanced information-sharing and
106
50 45 40 35 Percent 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 None AOC Information sharing Full
Problem scope Functional

FIGURE
Intra-organizational
Inter-organizational
7.2
Percent Cost Improvement over the NI /FUNC Benchmark
coordination strategies. Finally, moving to an inter-organizational coordination strategy with full information sharing (FULL /INTER) yields a marginal 8.22% improvement over the best intra-organizational coordination strategy. Overall, these results are promising and indicate that a signicant potential economic benet is associated with enhanced ERP replenishment systems.
Conclusions and Implications
Advances in ERP systems are rapidly evolving to include data sharing and collaborative decision making among channel partners. In the past, interoperability among trading partners proved to be a signicant hurdle, but today the availability of the Internet and the falling costs of B2B serverto-server integration have brought the cost of connectivity into the reach of most channel partners (Brown, 2001). However, a better understanding of the alternative integration strategies and their potential benets is necessary
107
for industry to move forward with the development of improved business processes that support intra- and inter-organizational objectives. Here we examined alternative replenishment strategies for make-toorder supply chains and found that enhanced ERP systems can play a critical role in improving channel performance by enabling both information sharing and coordinated decision making. While the basic data requirements are already available in current ERP systems, the capability of the ERP systems to support intra- and inter-organizational replenishment decision making is not fully harnessed. This is in large part due to the functional decision-making perspective commonly applied in the past and all too prevalent in todays business environment. However, the projected 3550% cost improvements reported here provide economic incentive for both supply chain managers and ERP system vendors to broaden the scope of their replenishment business models. For business managers, this calls for a realignment of incentive systems, intra-organizational responsibilities, and inter-organizational relationships to pursue system rather than functional performance objectives. For the ERP system vendor, the broadened problem scope is simply another step in the evolutionary development of enterprise and inter-organizational information systems. The requisite data, channel connectivity, and operations research models for coordinated replenishment planning currently exist. Perhaps it is time to put these pieces together and reap the benets of enhanced information sharing and decision-making coordination in make-to-order supply chains.

MOHAN V. TATIKONDA, C AROL V. BROWN, AND IRIS VESSEY
At its most basic level, vendor managed inventory (VMI) is an inventory replenishment program in which the supplier makes the inventory replenishment decisions for the customer. The supplier monitors the customers inventory levels and replenishes the inventory when necessary, based on prespecied inventory- and service-level targets. The customer benets from higher product availability and lower inventory costs. The supplier benets from lower overall costs (especially through reduction of the bullwhip effect), marketplace differentiation, and increased customer retention and sales due to the value-added services it provides. The supplier can be a manufacturer or distributor. The customer is any organization one tier downstream from the supplier, such as a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or end user. In the traditional customer-managed approach to inventory replenishment (called retailer managed inventory in some industries), the customer independently makes inventory reorder decisions and initiates the purchase order. The suppliers role is limited to communicating pricing and product availability and the actual provision of the goods. With VMI, the supplier relies on real-time inventory status information or periodic snapshots of the customers inventory status (e.g., daily inventory level counts). Inventory status and other relevant information is typically made available by the customer to the supplier via electronic communication from the customers ERP, point-of-sale (POS) systems, or other electronic information systems to the suppliers inventory planning
109
and management systems. Manual systems, although less common, exist as well. The supplier and customer pair in a VMI program is referred to as a partnership. There are two essential aspects that make VMI different from traditional approaches. First, there is information sharing (or information visibility) that extends well beyond the data required for simple order placement. Second, there is collaboration between the two parties. VMI programs typically require up-front, joint decision making about inventory level targets, reorder points, replenishment frequency, and other inventory policy agreements to guide the implementation. In constructing these agreements, the supplier considers prior customer usage histories and forecasts. The information sharing and collaboration require a notable level of trust between the parties. That is particularly true for the customer who must divulge proprietary information and relinquish tactical ordering decisions to the supplier. The term VMI is often confusing in practice. VMI goes by many names, including supplier managed inventory, automatic replenishment programs, and continuous replenishment. In the consumer retail arena (e.g., apparel), VMI is called efcient consumer response and quick response. Also confusing is that VMI is, in a sense, a misnomer because it implies no involvement by the customer. The customer is involved, but with up-front planning rather than with tactical inventory management. Accordingly, the alternative terms comanaged inventory and supplierassisted inventory replenishment are used by some companies.
Variations in Form
VMI programs differ considerably in practice, and those differences can be categorized into three dimensions: collaborative intensity, technology intensity, and program complexity (see Figure 8.1). First, the level of collaborative intensity of VMI programs varies based on the extent of joint planning and management and on what information is shared. By denition, VMI requires information sharing. However, the amount of information sharing can vary (e.g., length of the time-horizon of the historical product usage data shared with the supplier, amount of the customers downstream demand or forecast data shared with the supplier, and granularity of the shared data). VMI programs vary
110
H Technology intensity
L L Collaborative intensity
FIGURE
co Pro m gr pl am ex ity
8.1
VMI Programs: Variations in Form
in whether there is real-time data availability or periodic data transfer. If periodic, then programs vary in the amount of informational detail passed along in each snapshot and how often the snapshots occur. However, VMI programs require more than information sharing; they necessitate collaboration as well. Programs vary from slight to substantial collaboration both in the degree of up-front strategic planning and in the shorter term reviews of inventory performance and policy. Second, the level of technology intensity can vary both within each organization and across the supplier-customer boundary. VMI implementation can theoretically range from a 100% manual process to one that is a 100% closed-loop, electronic process that requires no human intervention (except for physical movement of the inventory). In the recent past, computer-based inter-organizational systems were used to transfer transactions from company to company, utilizing agreed-on formats for transmitting standard documents electronically (referred to as EDI). Since the mid1990s, however, extensions to ERP systems have been developed for VMI programs. VMI programs do not require an ERP system, but since ERP systems are robust and scalable transaction-processing systems with an integrated database, they have become the typical enabling system platform for
111
VMI. In the words of Jacobs and Bendoly (2003), VMI is a management concept, while ERP is a system by which VMI can be achieved. (For discussions of ERP system capabilities written for the business manager, see Jacobs and Whybark [2000] and Davenport [2000].) Third, the complexity of a VMI program differs based on the location of the given supplier-customer interface in the extended supply chain. In addition to company size and global (versus domestic) factors, program complexity can be inuenced by characteristics such as the number of partners, product variety (number of SKUs), product ow volumes and velocity, and distribution options. For example, VMI programs for B2B situations tend to differ from VMI programs for B2C situations in that there are fewer customers but a greater degree of industry-specic communication standards. Some partnerships are characterized by highvolume ows of a few unique inventory items, while others involve transfer of thousands of SKUs, not all in large volumes. Some suppliers service only a few select customers, while others service hundreds of branches for a given customer. Partnerships vary in replenishment frequency from long-cycle periodicity to practically continuous replenishment. In general, replenishment frequency tends to be greater in VMI situations than in non-VMI situations because of the cost-benet tradeoffs. Partnerships also vary in the diversity of transportation modes used to transmit inventory from supplier to customer. For example, a single VMI partnership may employ different modes at different times for different SKUs.
What VMI Is Not
VMI commonly uses EDI, but is not synonymous with EDI. EDI stands for electronic data interchange and involves the use of standardized electronic formats for B2B transactions such as order placement, order conrmation, and invoicing. By the early 1990s, many Fortune 500 rms had implemented custom software applications to transmit high volumes of orders and other documents electronically using EDI standards developed by industry groups or powerful buyers such as automobile manufacturers or large retailers like Kmart and Wal-Mart. VMI programs, due to their high level of transactions, also commonly use EDI standards for information exchange. However, VMI transactions can be communicated via document attachments to e-mail systems, Web-based forms (with or without XML),
112
File Transfer Protocol (FTP), and other electronic and telecommunication mechanisms. Small companies can also outsource their EDI requirements to value-added network providers (VANs). VMI should not be confused with consignment inventory. In consignment situations, the suppliers inventory resides on the customers premises. The customer owns the inventory and owes payment on it only when the customer draws on that inventory. In some consignment programs, the supplier actually physically manages the inventory at the customers site (called an in-plant store). Customers enter into consignment agreements to obtain increased service (inventory is available without delay) and lower costs (inventory is not owned until used). Suppliers enter into consignment agreements primarily to provide service-based competitive differentiation. The supplier off-loads inventory storage costs (e.g., secured physical space) to the customer but faces issues regarding timing of ownership, which in turn inuences payment cash ows. In general, consignment requires more human intervention and manual effort for the business transactions than VMI. However, VMI and consignment are not mutually exclusive. In many cases, both are used simultaneously on the same inventory items. VMI addresses decision making and timing of inventory replenishment, while consignment addresses timing of ownership. A concept related to consignment is that of bonded inventory or reserved product, in which the supplier prioritizes and segregates safety stock as a reserve inventory for select customers. This provides high condence about product availability to key customers. Like consignment, reserve inventories may or may not be used with VMI. Many VMI programs employ a demand-pull logic, including kanban order quantities, to guide the timing and quantity of inventory replenishment. The pull logic is central to the just-in-time (JIT) philosophy and has become common in the automotive industry, among others. But JIT and VMI are not the same thing. A JIT delivery (JITD) program need not have vendor managed inventories, and a VMI program need not be based on a pull logic. The JIT and VMI concepts are separate, but often used together, and as such parallel the VMI and consignment inventory situation. A typical VMI partnership is limited to two-party situations: a supplier and a customer. In contrast, collaborative forecasting, planning, and replenishment (CFPR) involves many players in an extended supply chain who provide information such as historical product usage and forecasts to
113
all the players in that supply chain. Multiparty collaboration based on this data can lead to effective global decision making and optimization of the extended supply chain rather than simple optimization of a given suppliercustomer partnership in the supply chain. CFPR clearly involves a more complex set of players, but the individual supplier-customer partnership dyads in VMI are often deeper and stronger than links between two partners in a CFPR (multiparty) program.
Case Study: NIBCOs VMI Program
The following case study illustrates the strategic motivation, implementation process, and performance outcomes for a new VMI program leveraging an ERP platform (Brown, Tatikonda, and Vessey, 2003).
The Company
NIBCO Incorporated is a worldwide provider of ow-control products, including valves, ttings, supports, seismic bracing, and struts used in applications for potable water, chemical and gas processing, and drain waste. Markets include residential construction, commercial construction (hotels, hospitals, and ofce buildings), and irrigation and environmental systems. In 2003, NIBCO had over $400 million in sales revenues, with 12 plants and four distribution centers worldwide. This privately held company was founded in 1904, is headquartered in Indiana, and employs over 2,900 people. NIBCO manufactures more than 20,000 different stock-keeping units (SKUs). Its plastic products include valves and ttings made by injection molding of plastics resins. Its metal products include pipe ttings, valves, and other pipe products made of copper, bronze, iron, and steel that are cast, machined, and assembled. Two-thirds of NIBCOs sales are in commodity markets; their customers include large wholesalers such as F. W. Webb, large (big box) retailers such as Home Depot, hardware cooperatives such as Ace Hardware, and many smaller customers. All tolled, NIBCO has approximately 9,000 customers. By the end of the 1990s, NIBCO had become the information technology leader in its industry. By early 1998, it had successfully executed a big-bang implementation of all major ERP (SAP R /3) modules across its
114
plants, distribution centers, and headquarters (Brown and Vessey, 2002). This initial implementation was viewed as an opportunity to begin redening the companys supply chain processes. A new director-level position for supply chain systems was created to oversee continuous improvement projects, as well as to focus on e-commerce initiatives with customers and suppliers. By the end of 2001, the company had completed two version upgrades, which provided enhanced supply chain capabilities.
Origins of the VMI Program
NIBCOs VMI program builds on the enabling capabilities provided by its ERP system, as well as the knowledge gained by its IT and business personnel about the capabilities of this type of packaged enterprise software. NIBCOs VMI program was envisioned as part of a multichannel e-commerce approach to customer interaction (including electronic catalogs, Web-based ordering, EDI, and other order-entry mechanisms for nonVMI customers), all supported by its ERP infrastructure. NIBCO viewed its ongoing investments in enterprise systems as a means to not only remain viable but also increase its competitiveness and ensure signicant growth in its commodity business. Three strategic thrusts help describe the motivation for VMI program implementation in particular. 1. Greater customer service. NIBCO could differentiate itself from competitors in its commodity industry by providing a more substantial, value-added product /service bundle. It was anticipated that this would offer its customers greater availability of products (in terms of fewer stockouts and higher ll rates), faster replenishment, greater order accuracy, and easier order placement and receipt. 2. Increased efciency. The rm could reduce costs through overhead reduction, greater utilization of physical assets, reduced paperwork and administrative costs, and fewer errors, deductions, and returns. The rm could also improve cash ow through faster cash cycles and lower working capital requirements. 3. Sales growth. The rm could expand market opportunities. With established customers, NIBCO anticipated increased sales of currently sourced items, addition of new lines, and customer
115
conversion to sole sourcing from NIBCO. VMI partners would be true strategic partners, with a deeper, longer-term, and more stable partnership than typical trading relationships. Customer retention and growth would accrue through increased customer loyalty and nontrivial switching costs. New customers would be attracted by the value-added product /service bundle that NIBCO could provide and competitors could not. NIBCOs rst VMI customer was a leading wholesaler whose president challenged all current and potential suppliers of copper parts in the late 1990s to provide a VMI capability. The supplier with the successful proposal would become the sole-source provider of its copper products (hundreds of SKUs). NIBCO, which at the time sourced products other than copper to this customer, prepared a detailed proposal and captured the contract. NIBCO rst developed a manual process and then a fully automated replenishment process driven by its ERP system. When the customers president made the challenge, his rms distribution centers were near capacity. One immediate benet of the VMI partnership was that the customer was able to delay growing its distribution centers. Since that rst customer, NIBCO has developed a deep competency in VMI, serving a number of strategic wholesale customers who enter into sole-sourcing agreements with NIBCO for high-moving commodity products. NIBCO has developed a business model to identify potential VMI customers based on sales levels and the attractiveness of a sole-sourcing arrangement to both parties. A targeted customer is typically EDI-capable and has a central distribution center, which in turn services multiple branches.
Partner Engagement Process
The partnership development proceeds in steps, which we describe here and illustrate in the owchart in Figure 8.2. The initial goal is to achieve buy-in from a potential VMI partner to move forward with a trial VMI partnership. NIBCOs marketing team makes an initial presentation to the customer, explaining the VMI concept and informing them of the types of improvements that NIBCOs established VMI customers have achieved. If the customer shows interest and approves, then NIBCO conducts a statistical analysis to model the customers purchase landscape and
START PARTNER IDENTIFICATION (via business model)
No VIABLE PARTNER? Yes MARKETING PRESENTATION TO POTENTIAL CUSTOMER
EXIT
PARTNER SHOWS INTEREST?
No
EXIT
Yes DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND DETAILED PROPOSAL
No PARTNER APPROVES PROPOSAL? Yes PILOT PROJECT
EXIT
BOTH PARTIES SATISFIED AND APPROVE FORMAL AGREEMENT Yes FULL-SCALE VMI PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GO-LIVE (regular daily transactions for all SKUs) PERIODIC PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND INVENTORY POLICY REVISION
FIGURE
No
EXIT
8.2
Typical VMI Partnership Process
117
determine specic potential benets for the customer. The customers last 24-month consumption history and sales activity data are analyzed in conjunction with customer inventory data, growth forecasts, and seasonality effects so that NIBCO can develop a VMI proposal. Based on the customers own critical business metrics (e.g., inventory turns and gross margin return on inventory investment), improvement projections are made and presented to the customer. If there is customer buy-in, NIBCO and the customer then discuss and nalize execution details, including which SKUs will be affected; inventory maximums, minimums, and reorder point levels; the frequency of the replenishment cycle (weekly, biweekly, or monthly); the number of customer locations; and the improvement metrics to be tracked. These inventory policy decisions can differ for each SKU. Although NIBCO may sell thousands of SKUs to a given customer, its preference is to manage only the high-volume items via VMI and to replenish low-volume items through traditional means instead. Essentially, a Pareto analysis is conducted to trade off transactional volume complexity with bang for the buck in terms of which SKUs are best served by a VMI plan (often 300 to 600 SKUs). The partners agree to a long-term, stable-rate pricing plan and a single-source relationship for the SKUs of interest. Single sourcing is essential to NIBCO to ensure data completeness and validity in terms of product usage rates, on-hand levels, and inventory level projections. Customers do typically identify a second source, but only as a contingency for emergency situations.
Partner Implementation Process
NIBCO works in parallel with the customers resources to analyze the customer data, perform EDI testing, agree to item selection and pricing terms, and gain nal approval to establish the VMI relationship. NIBCOs supply chain systems manager is responsible for the VMI program and establishes and coordinates the partnership core team. This VMI team typically consists of an inventory analyst, an EDI /information systems specialist, and the appropriate sales or account representative from NIBCO. From the customers side, there are three types of team participants: the purchasing manager, at least one EDI person from the customers IT group, and a
118
logistics person in the customers warehouse, distribution center, or branch location where NIBCO is replenishing supply. NIBCOs VMI approach is an automated, computer-to-computer process that utilizes its ERP system as the underlying platform and relies heavily on EDI transactions. The pilot project with each customer therefore includes testing of system-to-system EDI transactions between customer and supplier for selected SKUs. Trial runs of the inventory replenishment cycle are conducted. In the full implementation, the customers inventory system must submit EDI transactions to NIBCO each day for each SKU. As such, there is a signicant external transaction volume that must be handled by the ERP system, and a streamlined, reliable EDI communication process is essential. Part and product references (e.g., names, part numbers, or product codes) that differ between NIBCO and the customer are translated as part of the EDI interface or via cross-references embedded in the SAP modules (such as those for Universal Product Codes [UPCs]). Other product catalog information is also electronically referenced as necessary to accommodate a specic customers product name and labeling needs. Four EDI transactions are employed (see Figure 8.3). Each day, the customer system sends the product activity (EDI transaction number 852) for each SKU, which indicates, among other things, on-hand levels. NIBCOs system then determines whether replenishment is necessary. If so, an internal (or reverse) purchase order is generated and a purchase order acknowledgment (EDI 855) is sent to the customer to indicate that an order has been placed. Later, when the order is ready to be shipped, NIBCO sends an advance ship notice (EDI 856), which indicates the orders contents and arrival time. An electronic invoice (EDI 810) is also sent. The customer then makes payment via electronic funds transfer (EFT)hence the nancial aspects are fully electronic as well. For most customers, the physical inventory replenishment consists of a weekly truckload from NIBCO containing many SKUs. Regular weekly conference calls are held with the customer during the initial implementation. After implementation, the NIBCO core team typically stays on the project for three to four weeks to monitor issues on a weekly basis. Then, on a quarterly basis, NIBCO communicates to customers the benets that have been delivered, considers any relevant new forecast information, and makes inventory policy adjustments as needed.
119
(1) Product activity (2) Purchase order acknowledgement (3) Advance ship notice (4) Invoice (5) Funds transfer Supplier
FIGURE
EDI
EFT
Customer
8.3
VMI Partnership Electronic Communication
NIBCO and its customers rigorously collect and assess VMI partnership performance data. For NIBCO and its customers, the actual benets in terms of the overall VMI program and individual partnerships have been quite compelling. The proposed improvement levels for all VMI customers have been realized or exceeded. Relative to pre-VMI benchmarks, the customers have approximately doubled their inventory turns and reduced their inventory dollar value by one-third to one-half. These results are in line with customer benets reported for VMI programs by other companies (IOMA Group, 2003). All in all, NIBCOs VMI customers have seen notable benets. NIBCOs VMI team has honed its organizational processes and information systems so that a new VMI partnership can be established within a period as soon as two to three weeks after customer buy-in is achieved. This relatively short time frame for fully implementing a VMI partnership is due to NIBCOs competency in VMI program management and partnership execution.
NIBCOs Next Steps
NIBCO was the rst company in its industry to leverage its ERP infrastructure to offer VMI. Four years later, some of NIBCOs competitors tried to implement a comprehensive VMI program but did not succeed. Although VMI customers represent a small percentage of NIBCOs total customer base, they provide a large percentage of its sales. Overall, NIBCO is a stronger company with closer relationships to key customers as a result of its VMI program.
120
By 2003, NIBCO was moving forward with VMI-related activities on several fronts. First, it continues to seek additional customers for its VMI program. Second, it has applied the VMI concept in reverse by engaging in supplier-facing partnerships in which a supplier monitors and manages NIBCOs raw materials inventories for high-moving items. This supplierNIBCO interface exhibits signicantly lower program complexity (see Figure 8.1) because far fewer SKUs are involved than for a typical NIBCOcustomer interface. NIBCO, this time as the customer, has achieved the expected VMI benets and seeks to expand VMI to more key suppliers. This e-procurement effort further leverages the ERP system capabilities already in place. Third, NIBCO is working with industry trade organizations to help create a common, industry-wide database of parts and to help set and enhance a variety of industry-wide electronic communication standards. The benets of VMI have also begun to spread among NIBCOs partners. The rst customer who engaged in a VMI partnership with NIBCO has since developed numerous VMI relationships with its own customers and promotes its VMI-based value-added services as a differentiator in its marketplace. NIBCOs rst VMI supplier has expanded its customer-facing VMI relationships with other customers after using the NIBCO partnership as a pilot project.
Measuring VMI Performance Partnership-Level Measures
As in all complex business processes, the benets of VMI programs and partnerships are multidimensional (Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss, 2001). Some benets accrue to both the supplier and customer, while others are supplier or customer specic. Here we focus on the benets that are, for the most part, measurable and applicable across many VMI contexts. The supplier benets from: 1. Improved customer service and increased customer satisfaction. This is measured by greater product availability, higher ll rates (order, line, and piece) and on-time delivery, shorter delivery lead times, greater order accuracy, and order process error reduction. 2. Greater efciency and cost and time savings. These effects are measured by a reduction in demand volatility (particularly
121
through signicant reductions in the bullwhip effect), which in turn leads to more stable production and distribution capacity requirements; reduced inventory levels (in pieces and total dollar value), increased inventory turns, and reduced inventory space requirements; reduced overhead, administrative, and transactional costs (through the replacement of manual processes with automated ones and through prenegotiated agreements) and associated error avoidance; working capital reductions due to lower inventory levels (without reduced sales); and shorter cash-to-cash cycles (due to faster inventory ows, electronic funds transfer, and even shortened payment terms in some cases). 3. Strengthened business relationships. This is observed through initiation of strategic partnerships with established customers and attraction of new customers who seek the differentiated product /service bundle. The customer benets as well from effects similar to the rst two benets listed in (1) and (2) above. From the customers perspective, it is not volatility of demand that is reduced, but rather a reduction in supply uncertainty. Inventory savings and inventory turns increases are likely to be more pronounced for customers than for suppliers. The customer gains administrative efciencies by reducing procurement personnel, overhead, and errors. In addition, the customer, through its own greater product availability, provides increased service levels (higher ll rates) and other differentiating aspects to its own customers, in turn leading to some of the benecial effects listed in the last bullet above. Early benets are, in part, dependent on the customers initial inventory condition. The timing of benets for some customers is slower as excess inventories (typically hedging or just-in-case inventories) acquired pre-VMI are worked off. There is a large, but one-time, inventory level reduction. During this time, the supplier typically faces reduced sales (similarly a one-time event). A recent study found that VMI suppliers enjoyed an average inventory reduction of 35% and an average inventory turns increase of 53%. Companies also reported faster replenishment lead times, increased ll rates, and increased sales (Asgekar and Suleski, 2003).
122
Other Relevant Measures
There are also benets at the program level (that is, the supplier rms overall portfolio of VMI partnerships). For example, the supplier gains deeper insight into its customers actual needs, particularly through visibility into actual customer consumption levels. This makes it possible for the supplier to consider and prioritize the needs of all VMI partners. The supplier can make priority allocation decisions rather than treating all customer orders as equally important. This approach optimizes the suppliers asset utilization and increases customer service. Admittedly, it is difcult to parse out benets that accrue solely due to the VMI aspects of the partnership (that is, vendor decision making regarding the timing and quantity of replenishment) because there are commingled factors in many VMI programs. These factors would themselves alone logically lead to some benets. Such factors include electronic communication methods (e.g., increased speed and decreased transaction costs due to EDI and EFT), the demand-pull philosophy of inventory replenishment (versus the traditional forecast push approach, which tends to lead to higher inventory levels), and strategic partnership aspects (including long-term, stable-price contracts and sole-sourcing relationships). Other measures could be listed as well because different industry contexts call for different objectives. For example, noncommodity and retail VMI situations have some benets that are distinct from those in commodity situations. In the case of noncommodity products, part innovation by the supplier and joint product innovation between supplier and customer are benets that could arise from VMI partnerships. Both partners benet from less costly and simpler transitions (changeovers) when established parts are replaced with new ones (due to upgrades, engineering changes, etc.). Other measures appropriate for some situations include part quality, return on (information) technology investment, and the customers performance measures (that is, the second-tier customers ll rates, inventory turns, and overall satisfaction).
Strategic Implications for Organizational Capabilities and Competitive Competencies
The rst strategic implication is that an effective VMI program can signicantly differentiate the supplier rm from its competitors and, as
123
such, can be an essential competitive competency. The differentiated, value-added product /service bundle provided by VMI can achieve greater customer loyalty and retention, increased sales to established and new customers, longer trading relationships, and increased switching costs for customers. These aspects, combined with the internal efciency gains of VMI, allow supplier rms to offer lower prices, provide better service, and invest for the future. A critical question then is how lasting this marketplace differentiation might be. Competitors may join the VMI bandwagon, customers may become more sophisticated in partner selection or their willingness to share information may wane as time progresses, and emerging technologies may result in greater interface richness at ever lower costs. As shown in the NIBCO case, there is a potential for a rst-mover effect. A key aspect of NIBCOs VMI program was a sole-sourcing agreement in which new and established customers, once they were entered into a VMI program, became long-term strategic partners. Furthermore, installing and maintaining an effective VMI program is no simple matter. Although software to facilitate VMI programs and consulting services abound, there truly is no black-box solution. Large-scale VMI program operation requires not only a robust information technology infrastructure in terms of hardware, integrated software modules, network communications, and training, but also highly knowledgeable VMI management personnel with the ability to quite effectively engage partners and maintain individual VMI partnership relationships. Therefore, in addition to the technological capabilities, key management process skills must be obtained. Despite the benets afforded by standard ERP platforms, there is a signicant setup cost and learning curve to all this, so there is a differentiation capability that appears difcult to imitate in the short term. A second, related strategic implication is that the ability to support, plan, and execute both an overall VMI program and individual VMI partnerships is a fundamental, valuable organizational capability that is, in turn, a competitive competence. The ability to rapidly implement a partnership and smoothly execute, with low coordination costs, both the VMI partnerships and the VMI program as a whole is valuable. Having the technology and analytical skills in place to measure VMI performance, both proven and projected, for established and potential customers is valuable as well.
124
The essential aspects of VMI competence can be grouped into two areas, partnership development and program infrastructure. Partnership development consists of skills in the following areas: identifying promising customer partners persuading potential customers to buy-in to the VMI concept and the suppliers specic program helping the customer overcome technological and political hurdles, gain internal consensus, and develop trust with the supplier Program infrastructure is the installation of the VMI program that then supports continuous execution of individual partnership activity. Program infrastructure consists of the following components: installation and ongoing operation of the essential underlying operational systems (including technology, management processes, and personnel) installation and ongoing operation of the VMI-specic systems functionality (including technology, management processes, and personnel) development and operation of the VMI performance measurement system (including data analysis and periodic audits or feedback) for partnership and program evaluation and improvement As noted earlier, all this is not a simple matter, and there are signicant installation costs. Still, those who enter into VMI activity earlier than others can go down the learning curve to be ahead of competitors in obtaining the skills for VMI partnership engagement, setup, pilot, and execution. The third strategic implication is that an ability to effectively conduct a VMI program is, in a sense, a baby step down the path toward more sophisticated interactions with supply chain partners both upstream and downstream and at multiple tiers in the chain. A successful VMI experience conrms the suppliers ability to effectively interface with one customer in a given partnership. That is, there is condence in the technological infrastructure, the management processes, and the ability to foster trust with a partner. Recall that VMI is more than information sharing: it requires collaboration. This essential ability to interface with another rm is a collaborative competence that can be leveraged in other arenas. For example, if
125
the supplier rm is the focal rm of interest, then the VMI experience can serve to establish interfaces with the suppliers suppliers. VMI involves nontrivial interaction, but that interaction is only on the outer edges of the boundaries of the two rms. VMI experience can serve as a basis for richer and deeper interactions in established partnerships, ranging from twocompany integrated inventory-planning systems to collaborative development of new products. And it may help the rm contribute to, and operate in, a multi-tier CFPR-like environment more successfully.
Outlooks for VMI Growth Overcoming the Barriers
In general, the factors in Table 8.1 appear to be those most commonly associated with implementation of VMI partnerships and with VMI partnership effectiveness. The inverse of these factors can be seen as barriers to VMI implementation and success. Finding ways to reduce or overcome these barriers would allow growth in the number and depth of VMI partnerships. As one example, consider the high bang for the buck SKU items. Currently, VMI programs are applied primarily to higher volume SKUs. These are the A parts in the ABC inventory analysis logic. Should VMI be extended to B and C parts? And if so, then what is required for VMI to be made viable for those items? As a start, the traditional inventory control prioritization of A, B, and C items could be extended into the VMI context. As such, B and C items would be monitored less often by the supplier, perhaps once a month rather than once a day as might be done with A items.
Systems Integration
There are intra-rm and inter-rm technology barriers to seamless electronic VMI operation. Each linkage depicted in Figure 8.4 is a potential technology barrier. Some companies conduct VMI with some manual intervention, and others utilize vendors to perform intermediary roles. Although Internet-based EDI systems provide for standardized communications across different computer platforms, smaller companies that do not have integrated, cross-functional transaction systems (such as those afforded by ERP platforms), as well as rms of any size that do not have VMI functionality well integrated into their enterprise system, face internal integration
126
Ta b l e 8 . 1 Factors associated with VMI partnership implementation and effectiveness

Characteristics Customer has established electronic capabilities (EDI in place) Customer employs centralized inventory planning (even if customer has many branches) VMI partner represents a signicant percentage of suppliers sales Product characteristics High-volume, fast-moving items High bang for the buck items (these SKUs represent a large percentage of the suppliers sales) High product unit accountability (discrete, unitized, countable pieces) Highly dened part reference and communication standards for the industry Partnership characteristics Customer willing to collect and share proprietary information with supplier Customer has sufcient personnel and management resources for implementation Customer and supplier trust each other Potential employee resistance is managed (especially among customers purchasing/ procurement personnel and suppliers sales representatives/agents)
Suppliers information systems
Customers information systems
Enterprise functionality
VMI functionality
EDI /EFT
VMI functionality
Enterprise functionality
Inter-rm communication
FIGURE
8.4
Potential Information Systems Integration Barriers
barriers. Conversely, partners with the same ERP platform or VMI system will have the potential advantage of deeper inter-rm integration of planning and execution systems (the suppliers and customers MRP systems, for example). Today, extranets commonly provide visibility into a partners data, but truly integrated, multiparty systems have the potential to provide simultaneous visibility to multiple tiers in the supply chain.
127
Finally, even with VMI, there is dependence on an intermediate party between the supplier and customerthe logistics entity involved in the actual physical distribution of the goods. The logistics entity may be internal or external to the supplier. Subsequent to VMI implementation, it is common for replenishment deliveries to increase in frequency while replenishment quantities decrease for a given SKU. The increased shipping costs are defrayed through better freight consolidation capabilities that arise through increased visibility into customer requirements. Still, system integration with the shipper can be further developed, and better models and techniques for incorporating the shipper into the VMI process are necessary.
Performance Measurement Systems
There is a pressing need for better VMI performance measurement capabilities. Industry needs comprehensive, practical models of the strategic and tactical costs and benets of VMI opportunities, implementation, and execution. Metrics for costs, inventory, and service currently exist, but quantiable measures of the benets of strategic partnerships and market growth opportunities brought about by VMI would be especially helpful. Also needed are performance measures that span three or more players in a supply chain (3 echelons). Current VMI effectiveness measures focus on a single organization (e.g., the customers inventory levels) or the customer-supplier dyad (e.g., ll rates). To our knowledge, measures to assess the benets of linking the supplier to the customer to the customers customer are not usually captured.
Technological Progress
To some rms, it is simply too costly to purchase, install, and operate VMI software functionality that can be integrated with their existing enterprise systems. However, the availability of dedicated VMI software packages from ERP vendors and other software rms is increasing, and installation is easier and less costly than in the past. XML and other Internet standards for communicating electronic transactions are developing and offer alternative solutions that may be cheaper than EDI in some cases. Together these factors increase the population of rms, especially smaller rms, that can afford to engage in VMI (at least as customers).
128
A constant challenge is the conversion and synchronization of one rms part numbers to anothers. The development and usage of common industry standards and part databases are accelerating, and industry-wide systems that act as universal translators are coming into play. With this increase in industry-wide standards and systems developed for supply-chain partners, VMI partnership setups should become faster and simpler. For the supplier, this makes it economical to enter into more partnerships. However, the customer gains an advantage as well because switching costs will also go down. Some rms have the types of parts that lend themselves to automated inventory level monitoring (e.g., through point-of-sale systems). These are typically unitized, discrete-part types of items. Automated monitoring is more challenging for bulk-type items, and currently, sophisticated weighing, volumetric, optical sensor, and other techniques are employed. As technologies progress and their costs fall and with the increasing functionality of bar codes and RFID (radio-frequency identication), the ability to monitor inventories becomes physically easier and less costly. The impact of these technology-based physical unit measurement and tracking systems will be signicant going forward and will make VMI feasible for more rms and products.
Conclusions
VMI is clearly a win-win relationship for both customer and supplier. VMI represents an essential, initial step toward the electronically integrated extended supply chain. The rm that moves early to implement customerfacing VMI may be able to lock-in customers. Successful early adopters may also be able to leverage a learning curve advantage. On the other hand, partner implementation costs may be lower for late adopters due to enhanced technological capabilities, facilitated translation of part references, and greater understanding and acceptability of VMI by customers. Suppliers, particularly those seeking to smooth out their product demand (i.e., mitigate the bullwhip effect), have an additional motivation to convince customers to adopt VMI. However, in some industries in which customers have high buyer power (e.g., electronics manufacturing and automobile manufacturing), it is the customers that demand VMI from their suppliers. As less powerful customers become more technologically sophisticated,
129
they may also demand VMI partnerships. In operations strategy terminology (Hill, 1999), the suppliers ability to offer VMI may be an order winner characteristic today, but will become an order qualier characteristic in time. What is a competitive advantage today may become a competitive necessity tomorrow. Firms need to assess trends in their industries to anticipate customer demands for VMI as a basic supplier capability. Furthermore, rms with a robust enterprise system architecture that includes integrated back-ofce systems and e-commerce capabilities have the technological advantage today for quickly ramping up a large-scale VMI program. The vendors of the rst-wave ERP packages of the 1990s now offer supply chain and customer relationship management (CRM) modules to support multichannel interactions with customers and efcient e-procurement programs. We believe the competitive advantage of the ERP adopter rests in how well the companys enterprise system investments are leveraged to take advantage of its own internal management competencies for multichannel approaches with customers and suppliers.

DANIEL A. JOSEPH AND JOHN ET TLIE
Nicholas G. Carr, as editor-at-large for the Harvard Business Review, authored the provocative editorial piece IT Doesnt Matter (Carr, 2003). He compared the development of information technology with the development of railroad and electrical technologies in that article and concluded that IT had reached its commodity stage. His advice to his readers was to spend less on IT; to follow and not lead; and to focus on vulnerabilities instead of opportunities. As one might expect, a urry of letters to the editor protesting this point of view followed from some very prominent academics in the IT and MIS elds. Responses to the article pointed out that IT would be a commodity if one chose to view it as such and that management makes the difference between productive and nonproductive use of IT (Various, 2003). Succinctly put, when IT productivity is an issue, management matters! Brynjolfsson and Hitt (1998) had earlier observed that if computerbased information technology were not combined with a realignment of workow in an organization, then information technology could actually result in reduced productivity. Feld and Stoddard (2004, p. 74) lent further support to this contention when they cited an undisclosed study from the Gartner consulting group that specied, The average business fritters away 20% of its corporate IT budget on purchases that fail to achieve their objectives. They made the observation that making IT work has little to do with technology itself. Just because a builder can acquire a handsome
131
set of hammers, nails, and planks doesnt mean that he can erect a quality house at reasonable cost (Feld and Stoddard, 2004, p. 74). In other words, it does not matter how powerful the hardware or how elegant the software if strategy and structures for execution are inappropriate. Feld and Stoddard suggest that management teams who wish to capitalize on IT investments should observe three principles in their approach to IT management: (1) develop a long-term IT renewal plan aligned to corporate strategy; (2) replace vertically oriented data silos with clean, horizontally oriented architectures designed to serve the company as a whole; and (3) strive to develop a highly functional, performance-oriented IT organization. Unfortunately, the authors place the blame in much too general terms (poor IT management) to be really useful. This is the equivalent to saying that all the worlds problems would be solved by better communication.
The Paradox Revisited
Our concern about the current resolution of the productivity paradox is illustrated by an example in the automobile manufacturing industry. Consider the case of Toyotas work with the Lexus luxury car division. Toyota, and Japanese car companies generally, have been slow to adopt advanced information technology, and yet the Lexus brand is the perennial winner of the J. D. Powers award for reliable quality. Five of the top 10 brands in reliable quality are Japanese, and yet these same companies are not known as leaders in use of information technology, especially in engineering and for car design. How can this be? Intuitively, most people have a difcult time accepting that the introduction of computing technologies into the nancial, insurance, manufacturing, and health-care industries has been counterproductive. Information and communications technologybased supply chain linkages in place today certainly appear to have enhanced just-in-time production planning. E-commerce and computer controls in motor vehicle manufacturing facilities as well as in their products have revolutionized the automobile industry and brought about new ways of designing, building, and marketing motor vehicles. Lynds (2003, p. 2) rhetorically poses an interesting question in this regard:
Is it possible, I wonder, that wide-scale implementation of information technology has in fact greatly increased productivitybut the productivity
132
not of the US, but of the vast, underdeveloped Asian region. [sic] Information technology is making it possible to move jobs from the US to China and India; to where those jobs are beyond the reach of the productivity statistics.
Perhaps the best place to look for the answer to this question is to look at how the Japanese view the relationship between quality and technology and apply this lesson generally. For example, Ettlie (1997) studied 600 durable goods rms in 20 countries and found that technology signicantly moderated the association of R&D intensity and total quality management (TQM) with market share, controlling for industry category. In high-technology rms, R&D intensity was signicantly associated with market share; in low-technology rms, TQM was signicantly associated with market share. R&D intensity and TQM were signicantly and inversely related, while R&D intensity and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) were signicantly and directly related. Given such spurious results, it is, therefore, not surprising that many scholars have raised the questions of how much and, more important, what type and application of IT is enough to support real strategic gains for a company. Clearly, the uniqueness of innovations developed through the support of IT should represent a necessary objective qualifying the purchase of such systems by innovative rms, yet standards-based architectures required as a medium for such creative development cannot be discounted.
Collaborating Engineering: Standardization Versus Innovation
One of the vexing challenges of any technology manager of support systems, such as the CIO, plant engineering, or the manager of customer service, is nding that delicate balance between standardization of practices and dealing with the inevitable exception that always seems to arrive at the wrong time. The technical unit responsible for core technology of any organization is still the last holdout in ES deployments. Economic theory can help explain why this happens and why it is likely to continue for quite some time. The appropriation of rents from investments in new technology is best under strong conditions: when the fruits of these investments in new technology can be protected with solid intellectual property protection. Therefore, why struggle to protect purchased technology such as hardware and software systems, which are owned by
133
outsiders? Rather, as suggested in prior chapters in this compilation, the focus should be on idiosyncratic use. Consider for example the use of collaborative engineering applications, which are now being increasingly supported by modern ERP infrastructures. The information processing view of the innovation process developed over the last several decades by multiple disciplines argues that uncertainty reduction and resolution of the ambiguity of information is amenable to organizational design interventions (Daft and Lengel, 1986). However, more recent ndings suggest that this view is inadequate to explain outcomes in the new product development process (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000). Alternative views (e.g., incremental reduction of information asymmetry [Hauschildt, 1992]) have met with only limited success in adding to this original stream of research. Accordingly, we argue that a new dimension needs to be incorporated into the information processing view of the innovation process. Specically, we suggest further consideration of the relationship between the IT (information technology functional) core and the R&D (functional core technology of the business) trajectory needed to support the products and services offered by the organization. We test this augmented view of information processing and innovation using the context of new engineering collaborative software systems, which are ERP supported and often Web enabled and which hold out the promise of reducing or eliminating problems of interoperability. To obtain an appropriate representation of system users, we surveyed respondent companies in two waves: a survey of automotive engineering managers directly involved in the new product development process (n 72) and a broad survey of manufacturing in durable and nondurable goods and assembled and nonassembled products (n 237). We also did follow-up interviews with a select group of automotive companies: rst-tier suppliers and assemblers (Ettlie and Perotti, 2004). Our ndings show that a very robust, causal pattern is evident in both samples for predicting the adoption of new virtual team support systems, which is ultimately and signicantly related to improved new product protability in almost 300 companies across numerous manufacturing industry categories and construction. Companies adopting these new systems were signicantly more likely to (1) report having an integrated IT strategy (e.g., ERP); (2) coevolve organizational innovations (such as new job titles) to implement new collaborative engineering technologies; (3) report a formalized new product development strategy;
134
and (4) have recently introduced a major new product characterized as new to the world, new to the industry, or new to the company. Overall, these preliminary results suggest that in order to fully understand the adoption of collaborative engineering hardware and software systems, one can take cues from the innovation and new product development processes in these rms. Based on such data, not only were our models able to replicate the new product success rate (60% after launch) in both samples, we also found that the impact of the adoption of collaborative engineering systems on performance outcomes (i.e., new product protability) was signicantly moderated by the adoption of tailored hardware and software systems. Given the collaborative bolt-on options available to rms with integrative IS architectures such as ERP, the focus should, therefore, remain not on distinguishing the specic designs of ERP architectures per se but rather on the tailored selection and use of such bolt-ons.
Research & Development Organizations
When one considers the best commercial R&D organizations in the world, a few may come to mind: Xeroxs Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), Lockheed Martins Lockheed Advanced Development Projects Unit (better known as the Skunk Works), and Scaled Composites (formerly Rutan Aircraft Factory), developer of the Rutan Model 61 Long-EZ (an aircraft that will not stall) and Spaceship One (the rst privately funded spacecraft). Of course, universities and think tanks such as the Brookings Institution also support research and, in some cases, development effort. The salient feature of these organizations is the loose hierarchies that govern them. Decision-making authority is delegated to very low organizational levels in loose hierarchies, and yet there is a universal need for people to stay in close communication with one another (Malone, 2004). Goals and changes to design are normally determined or approved by a central gure in these organizations, but most members of these organizations do not feel that they work for someone so much as they feel that they work with someone. There is an important point here: Effective R&D employees perceive their managers more as facilitators and coordinators and less as managers and directors of their work. Indeed, there is evidence suggesting that people who work in R&D environments perform best when they are permitted the exibility to determine their own project controls
135
and allowed to pursue their own processes and procedures in carrying out their work. In addition, it suggests that members of project teams prefer to be involved in the development of the operational controls for the projects on which they work and that they perceive management intervention in project activities as onerous (Bonner, Ruekert, and Walker, 2002). Creativity is not a 9 5 job. Nor is it something that can be turned on and off. It comes and goes somewhat serendipitously, and it requires a strong discipline and, most often, intense synergistic interaction with others. More to the point, it requires the kind of seamless access to information across business units, functions, and corporate boundaries that only integrated systems such as ERP can provide. At one time, it may have been possible for one individual to design a motor vehicle, but not today. Today there are so many aspects to designing a motor vehicle that such a proposition is unreasonable as an effective and timely mechanism for innovation. Some require embedded programs on electronics boards, some require the design of aerodynamic exteriors, and other R&D activities may require anything from packaging science to color science. New developments in software that take ERP beyond the monolithic suites it was in the 1990s and into an entirely new realm where process architectures dominate will allow for the necessary control to be maintained while providing exibility in processes. Presently this is accomplished through bolt-ons and middleware: software designed to support a set of process architecture standard interfaces so that any vendors application can interact with the middleware, provided that it abides by the interface standard. Process architectures are normally depicted as activity maps in which each activity connects with other steps in a process. Someday soon, a plug-and-play process architecture could be developed for the automobile manufacturing industry. Such a product would be shared throughout the industry and would permit an entirely new level of exibility. New processes could be developed and then redesigned quickly as needs change by using plug-and-play product components. As an example, a process architecture map for designing a car would dene all basic activities that could be involved in the car design process, along with common variations on the activities and key interfaces between the activities. It would also include many levels of detail so that different audiences involved in the process (e.g., top managers, middle managers, operations managers, operations staff, and operators)
136
could view their activity and see how it ts into the entire process. This will make it possible for the person in one step to see who gets the output from his or her activity so that, in the event that this persons step changes, he or she will be able to discuss the change with the recipient of the output before the change is made. This will provide greater freedom to the people doing work activity over how they accomplish their work, and it will allow them to tailor their activities to the situation at hand. As an added benet, when appropriate, these maps include tools for nding appropriate people or services to perform each of the various activities or to whom the activities might be outsourced (Malone, 2004).
Views from the Frontline: Heads in the Sand?
We administered a brief survey to select members of a local chapter of the Americas SAP Users Group (ASUG) in an attempt to determine the proportion of spending that their rms dedicated to IT as well as the types of ERP-related applications they had implemented. The results appear in Table 9.1. The group consisted of individuals who attended a meeting focused on upgrading to newer releases of SAP R /3. Companies from the following industries were represented among respondents in the survey: juice preparation and distribution, packaging, medical devices, computer boards and chips, frozen foods, writing instruments and accessories, and gas and electric utilities. To these rms, we asked the following question:
What do you see as the major issues for enterprise systems over the next ve years? (This includes challenges, matters arising in your business environment that interact with ES, or any other big issues confronting your area and its use of IT.)
Interestingly, our respondents focused on short-term issues. Compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is perhaps the best example of this; implementation of measures to ensure conformance to the law are undoubtedly a top priority, especially in view of the fact that the CEO and CFO face a real prospect of jail terms and substantial nes if their corporations are found out of compliance with the law. However, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance is not a strategic issue, nor is the coordination of outsource agreements or anything else that our respondents mentioned. These are operational issues and, as such, represent the focus of our survey respondents. However, the responses
137
Ta b l e 9 . 1 Potential information systems integration barriers

Respondents perception of major issues for ERP over next five years Integrating RFID into ERP Outsourcing coordination Net-based business, SCM Upgrades and enhancements Sarbanes-Oxley compliance Adapting to advances in technology Keeping up with a changing business model Maintenance costs and issues User satisfaction, meaningful information delivered in a timely, easy-to-use format. BW was brought up with the R /3 Go-Live, limited number of cubes. Mostly its are the executives happy? 3 Users did not know what they wanted 1 Technology issue interfacing with IBM I-Series Computer 1 Training and expertise 1Developing standards for deployment 6 Finance 4 Production (including SCM) 4 Marketing/sales Information Requirements Analysis Clear definition of Project Scope Understanding information delivered by the system 1%; 1%; 3%; 5%; <10%; 10% Little or no relationship with R&D Where there are relationships, most are poor
How did your firm measure success for the business intelligence project?
Major challenges in implementing business intelligence module
Which functional areas were involved in your business intelligence project? Major challenge your firm had to overcome to implement the business intelligence module Percentage of total business intelligence project budget that went for training Your assessment of relationship between IT and R&D or tech function of your core business
to this question suggest that the people who use ERP systems today may not be aware of future directions in the business environments of their rms; if this is true, it does not bode well for American business. There was no mention of process architecture maps, Web services architectures, systems or application architectures, the integration of R&D with ERP systems, improved information requirements gathering models, and, perhaps most important, the evaluation of new technologies for competitive advantage. Six of the seven rms represented in the survey were at some stage in the installation of the business intelligence component of the SAP software
138
suite. This module is focused on the evaluation of a rms data for strategic and tactical use. Its importance is evident in the number of implementation projects under way in our sample. In every case, the nance department was involved in the business intelligence project. Marketing and production were the only other areas where interest was found. For us, the interesting nding in this area was that despite the fact that six of the seven rms were pursuing installation of the business intelligence application, respondents from half of the rms surveyed indicated that their users were unable to adequately dene their information requirements. Moreover, there appeared to be no knowledge among the respondents regarding what, if any, metrics were being used to measure the projects success. All of these issues, including the comments regarding the problem with scoping and with understanding the information in the SAP database, we think might suggest that the users of ERP systems do not necessarily understand the systems well enough to use them to full advantage. If this is so, this situation can be resolved quickly with additional training. Unfortunately, training is often ignored in these sorts of projects. The Gartner group estimates that 17% of a typical ERP project budget should be spent on training (Kelly and ODonnell, 2001), but the data clearly indicates that this level of expenditure was missing from these projects. In areas such as R&D, it is more likely that much autonomy will be permitted in the design of work processes. Our work on collaborative engineering suggests that economic models which include intermediate appropriation conditions are very much a part of the future of most rms. However, in other areas, such as production, it would probably be better to allow less autonomy and more standardization.
Legacies Versus Emerging Futures
What does all of this mean? Our world is more complex than even a decade ago. First, it is not a matter of make or buy but make and buy with partnership assistance. Second, the new economy requires a constant tending of the new dual-core model of the rm: the rearranging, upgrading, and continuous and simultaneous improvement of both information technology and core technology in any enterprise. Third and nally, the future workplace will resemble in part what we see today but in great measure will be more mobile, more challenging, more global, and, of course, more virtual.
139
Firms will need to face these challenges head-on, not by myopically opting for fads directed solely by the whims of potentially agenda-biased IT managers but by shoring up extensions to existing architectures that align with operational and strategic goals. For rms that distinguish themselves through innovation, this means developing idiosyncratic patterns of use for collaborative technologies that draw on existing ERP architectures and augmenting such strategic idiosyncrasies by ensuring that such use is bolstered on both sides of the corporate boundary (i.e., among its collaborators). In turn, this may necessitate greater levels of commitment among partners, yet it opens the door for repeated shifts in project and partner focus (i.e., technology-facilitated exibility) as such bolt-ons gain greater diffusion in the marketplace.
10

THOMAS E. VOLLMANN
Today we stand at the end of a 40-year evolution in manufacturing systems and thinking. We started with a focus on lean manufacturing, which has the factory as the primary unit of analysis: material requirements planning (MRP), total quality management (TQM), manufacturing resource planning (MRPII), and other programs to increase speed, reduce inventories, and improve quality. All of these have been applied with good results in many (not all) cases. The 1990s witnessed an evolutionary shift from the factory as the unit of analysis to the business unit. ERP systems now focus on lean enterprise, in which the objective is integration across the various functions of the business, coordinating manufacturing with sales, order management, downstream logistics, purchasing, cost accounting, nance, and human resource management. The objective is to manage the business unit in a coordinated way, using standard software packages that are implemented function by function. Recently, we are witnessing a further evolution to what can be deemed lean organization. Now companies need to achieve benets that go beyond individual business units, such as joint purchasing of materials and responding to global customers such as Wal-Mart who do not wish to buy from the individual business units of Unilever or Procter & Gamble. Lean organization is not easy to achieve, and the large, fast-moving consumer goods companies are struggling to make this a reality. Lean organization typically involves signicant efforts to standardize ERP
141
systems and, even, more important, to standardize or reduce product and component specications. Extending these efforts goes beyond lean organization to lean supply chain: how to achieve the major benets that accrue from coordination of activities across companies. The major benets of lean supply chain come when the same diligence and hard work of lean organization are applied to processes and systems that cross company boundaries. Several key questions now need to be addressed: What are the major challenges facing rms as they attempt to achieve lock-on with their customers? How does ERP enableand constrainthe approaches needed to create inter-organizational value? What are the best practices, lessons learned, and future directions in supply chain management?
Understanding the Needs of Key Customers
The lean supply chain embraces one major shift in thinking from that seen in the progression from MRP to ERP and related systems. Rather than a monolithic approach to systems design one that focuses on integration of all activitiesthe approach becomes one of implementing the processes and systems that uniquely address the needs of particular customers. It is critical that we not see this as a technical problem or one in which more integrated information systems will lead the way. The lean supply chain requires critical strategic decision making directed by pairs of key supplier-customer decision makers and followed up by a very different implementation approach. The approach, as well as the processes and IT support, are fundamentally different.
The Nestl Globe Project
In 2000, Nestl launched their Globe (Global Business Excellence) project to transform the company from a set of individual operating units into an integrated global company. The project is expected to cost SFr 3 billion ($2.4 billion) and return major benets only after ve years, when the majority of the operations have been converted to a common, integrated approach. The three major objectives of the program are to create a set of best-practice processes that will be used throughout the company, create a standard set of Nestl data, and implement a
142
standard information systems infrastructure. The payoffs are to come from standardizing materials to achieve consolidated purchasing, better coordination of the supply chain, reduced support function costs, and improved demand generation. Although the Globe project is the largest SAP (ERP system) rollout in the world to date, Globe is denitively not viewed as an IT project inside Nestl. The objective is essentially to achieve lean organization an integrated, coordinated organization that responds to individual markets as well as global customerswith optimum internal efciency. The Nestl Globe project is fundamentally internal, seeking to achieve the benets of standardization, rationalization and coordination of their operations, elimination of redundant activities, coordination of marketing regions, and implementation of best practices, but some of the Globe project activities are indeed focused on improvements with customers and suppliers. The major benets of lean supply chain come when the same diligence and hard work of lean organization are applied to processes and systems that cross company boundaries. These include elimination of duplicate inventories, much faster responses to end customer needs, doubling or tripling the rate at which new products can be introduced, joint new product or service development, elimination of transactions and cumbersome record keeping, and wholly new ways of jointly working with customers and suppliers. A critical lesson to be drawn from the Nestl Globe Project is that there is denitive evolution from individual business unit thinking (unique ERP systems) to joint business unit thinking (coordinated ERP systems)and then to leveraging the coordinated information to achieve major improvements in cost and value with both key suppliers and key customers.
A Key Customer Initiative at Heineken
A few years ago, Albert Heijn, a large Dutch retailer, asked Heineken to adopt their today for tomorrow replenishment approach. That is, Albert Heijn would tell Heineken at the end of each day how much beer had been shipped from their central warehouse to the stores and Heineken would replace those quantities the following day. At the time, it took Heineken four days to make replenishments: On day 1, an order was created and entered into an overnight batch-processing system.
143
It was then scheduled in manufacturing on day 2, shipping on day 3, and delivery on day 4. The x was not to run the same systems more often it was necessary to redesign the work, the processes, and the IT. Moreover, the interactions between sales at Heineken and purchasing at Albert Heijn also changed structurally. Heineken was asked not to send sales people at each months end to try to increase salesthis only caused inventory problems: Do not send any sales peoplewe will tell you each day what to ship the following day. Fire the sales people and give us the cost savings! Implementing the necessary changes required major changes in the organizational structure in both companies. Instead of working in classical functional silos with traditional systems, new ways of operating were required. Structural changes were necessary in the ways the work was done in both companies, in the processes utilized, and in the information systems that supported the processes. Moreover, the work, processes, and information systems could not be constrained by existing functional thinking. Achieving the necessary structural changes requires transformation of the supply chain (that is, in both the supplier and the customer). It is not sufcient to only do the same things better!
Redening Customer Needs at Zara
Zara has not only responded to changing customer needs: They have redened what customers can expect! Doing so requires a completely new approach to supply chain management. Fortunately for Zara, they did not start with the traditional functional baggage that Heineken had to overcome. Instead, Zara was able to think differently from the outset. Their approach has been to deliver unheard of levels of quality, cost, and speed. In doing so, they have clearly exceeded existing levels of customer satisfaction. To make this a reality, Zara implemented processes and systems to achieve the following results: The time from new product concept to the goods being in their stores is two weeks, versus the standard industry average of many months. More than 20,000 new designs are created and sold every year.
144
The stores place no ordersthey are just sent new merchandise as it is created. There is daily feedback from the retail stores to Zaras design group as to how well new products are selling. Manufacturing of high-fashion goods is done in Europe, close to the market, in short production lots. Zara utilizes state-of-the-art distribution, logistics, and dispatching trucks all over Europe and uses air cargo for the rest of the world. Design adapts to respond quickly to latest developments and new trends. There are no reorders of fashion goodsand the customers know this. The customers must buy nowit will not be there long and will not return. The average customer comes to the store 17 times per year. Suppliers work without formal contracts, based on frequent telephone contacts. Stores are designed and built by Zara to match their sales approach. There is no advertising; all funds thus saved are invested in stores, which are in the absolute best locations in every city.
Dyad Management and Modications to Classic ERP Systems
In order for supply chain management to function effectively, it is necessary for individual pairs of supplier-customer partners to create detailed operational systems that coordinate the ows of materials and information between the companies. The typical approach here is to rst implement e-based systems that replicate other inter-company linkages such as electronic data interchange (EDI) systems. Figure 10.1 is just such a result that is being implemented currently in a major fast-moving consumer goods company (customer), working with some of its key suppliers. Study of Figure 10.1 clearly shows why this is not at all sufcient: internal, functional-based systems (classic ERP) create overly complex and costly systems and processes.
Manufacturing Purchasing
Finance
Customer Raw materials Sales Manufacturing
Supplier Finished goods
Finance
Plan manufacturing
Stock outow forecast (X) Evaluate forecast (X) Projected balance
Evaluate (conrm) replenishment (X) Propose replenishment (X) Plan manufacturing
Create consignment stock order (VMI) Receive goods
Pick ship
Plan manufacturing Issue to manufacturing Create (X) purchase order
Create (X) sales order update VMI
Create invoice (X)
Reconcile inventory
Reconcile inventory
Pay invoice
FIGURE
10.1
Operational Systems: Eliminating Complexity
146
Constraints of Functional Management
As is often the case, the customer in Figure 10.1 wants the supplier to provide materials on consignment (vendor managed inventory, or VMI). Starting with the upper-hand portion of Figure 10.1, we see the customer planning manufacturing (with ERP-based systems), which leads to an expected outow of stock from their inventory. This information is passed to the sales organization of the supplier, who evaluates the forecasted outow and proposes a replenishment shipment to the purchasing function of the customer. That group evaluates the replenishment and conrms or modies the result. The authorized replenishment quantity is then passed back to the suppliers sales function and subsequently to its manufacturing unit, which plans manufacturing based on the suppliers nished goods inventory (and other criteria and constraints). When the order is ready, the sales organization creates the consignment order, which is then picked and shipped. When the order arrives at the customer, it is put into inventory. Then, when the customer needs these materials for its planned manufacturing, they are issued to the manufacturing function. At that time, the purchasing group creates a purchase order for the amount issued to manufacturing and sends this to the sales function of the supplier. This is the point where title for the goods passes from the supplier to the customer. The supplier now creates a sales order for the amount used by the customer and passes the sales order to its nance group to create an invoice. The invoice is sent to the customer for payment. Finally, as shown in the gure, there is a periodic reconciliation of inventory between the rms. All of these activities take place in typical supply relationships. Figure 10.1 improves them by replacing classic transactions with e-based systems and processes.
Breaking Out of ERP-Based Systems
If the approach in Figure 10.1 seems very complicated, it is only because that is indeed the case. But why? The reason is because both rms operate with classical ERP systems that are functionally based, with a command and control philosophy. In fact, the boxes with an X in Figure 10.1 are not necessary and could be eliminated. Almost all of these
147
boxes require human intervention, which implies unnecessary work and longer response times. From the customer side, there is no real need to prepare and check the stock outow forecast. With the proper degree of trust, the supplier can and should be privy to the manufacturing plans: it is their job to support them as they wish (perhaps within some constraints). With this philosophy, there is no need for the sales function to review the forecast, nor to propose a replenishment shipment quantity. Similarly, there is no need for the customers purchasing organization to authorize the shipment or create a purchase order. Finally, there is no need for the supplier to prepare a sales order or create an invoice. In both rms, these are probably required only because existing systems are not able to operate without them or because existing control systems (and management mentalities) do not believe they can properly operate without these cross-checks. Achieving these improvements in operational systems requires a focus beyond internal systems and ERP thinking. It is necessary to implement joint business-process reengineering and the development of trust and good working relations. This implies a fundamental change or transformation: It is not enough to do the same things better one needs to do better things. The payoffs are there: reductions in work, transaction costs, response times, inventories, logistics, and coordination. Making these a reality typically involves exchanges of personnel between a particular customer-supplier pair for perhaps 6 12 months to redesign the processes, systems, and working relations. It also requires a commitment at a senior level in both companies to create the win-win supply chain.
Moving Beyond the Lean Enterprise
Figure 10.1 clearly shows us that the new operating systems required for lean supply chain are quite different from those used to achieve lean enterprise. Moreover, the implementation is also different in one fundamental way: Whereas the payoffs in lean enterprise require standardization and rationalization across the operating units, lean supply chain payoffs can be achieved in individual supplier-customer pairs. Thus, for the Nestl Globe project, there is a long implementation period with delays before the benets can be fully realized. In a lean supply chain effort, it is quite possible for an individual supplier to work with an individual customer and achieve major payoffs in 6 12 months. The similarity to
148
lean enterprise is that one still has to design and implement new business processes, and best practices can also be fostered or copied. What is perhaps more important is that lean supply chain does not need to wait until lean enterprise is completed. This is not an either/or decision. One can work on achieving the benets of lean enterprise through rationalization, standardization, and best practices, while simultaneously working with selected supplier and customer partners to achieve the payoffs from excellence in supply chain management.
Best Practices and Future Directions
As mentioned earlier, we are today at the beginning of a new paradigm for supply chain management. There will be many changes implemented: in operational systems, in organizational structures, and in strategic choices. It would be nice to provide senior managers with a clear-cut blueprint for how all of this will take place. Unfortunately, given the limited experience with these ideas, we can only provide a few basic ideas and hints from early successes. Best practices have yet to be dened, and there is signicant unlearning that must take place to do so. Let us now examine what appears to be the approach and sequence for implementing the evolving supply chain paradigm. Figure 10.2 provides a hierarchical series of three implementation stages through which dyads seem to evolve. We say seems because we truly are at the beginning. In stage 1, we are seeing rms replace existing processes with newer, e-based systems. In fact, replacing also needs to encompass eliminating. In this stage, there is a progression from simple transactions to more complex interactions between rms. Unfortunately, the problems we illustrated in Figure 10.1 are all too prevalent in this stage. Too many rms are hamstrung by existing functional based systems and locked into zero-sum based thinking. Unlearningi.e., breaking away from the integrated systems, such as those that support classic ERPrequires new processes and the elimination of classical crosschecks. More fundamentally, progress requires dyad-based improvement initiatives. This implies dyad-by-dyad working, as well as joint working and joint commitment to change. In far too many situations, we have seen rms such as the customer in Figure 10.1 dictating conditions (poor practice conditions!) to all its suppliers. Asking suppliers to adopt the
149
The following is a set of stages of dyad transaction complexity that can be approached through e-based B2B systems. Implementing the successive stages will require a series of transformations, supported by cross-rm education programs and new IT systems support: Stage 1: Replacing existing processes (a) Ordering Invoicing Payments (b) Order acknowledgement Delivery information Logistics documents (c) Pricing RFQ Quality certication Payments linked to contractual terms Stage 2: Joint planning and information sharing (a) Planning visibility (knowledge, not guessing) Planning/forecasting tracking Allocation VMI ( uphill skier) Hubs (b) Product specications Project management New product introduction Dyad performance measures Stage 3: Joint Execution (a) Multiple sources/ destinations Quality monitoring Traceability Virtual hubs Multiple orchestration ( shifts) Manufacturing exibility (b) Joint scheduling Synchronous manufacturing Joint new product design /development Real-time visibility (materials and demands) Chain KPIs
FIGURE
10.2
Dyad Implementation Hierarchy
systems shown in Figure 10.1 (with none of the Xs removed) is clearly suboptimal. Figure 10.2 appears to be the way rms are achieving early success and subsequent improvements. What one can observe here is companies evolving dyad by dyad in stage 1: from step (a), ordering and invoicing, to step (b), order acknowledgement and logistics documents, to step (c), request for quotation (RFQ). Best practice involves making the improvements with the best dyad partners (suppliers and customers) and thereafter cascading the learning to other dyad partners. There is an important lesson here; the progress is within specic dyads, rather than trying to push all suppliers (or customers) through step (a) before step (b), etc. The progress tends to match thinking as to market segments as far as working with customers, and supplier evaluation with suppliers. In both cases, the fundamental questions is: who is smart, trustworthy, and interested in working with us? There are clearly choices to be made as to which dyad partners to work with at any given point in time. Practice indicates that most rms start with key suppliers, before customers. This is probably because they
150
believe that they have more leverage with suppliers. However, it is often one of their customers who initiates the process, as was the case for Heineken. It also is true that although each dyad tends to be unique, there are always lessons to be learned; moreover, most leading-edge rms try to develop modular approaches to the systems and processes. Those who move rst, proactively, can often dene the ways of working, rather than being put into the position of adopting multiple, incompatible approaches. Stage 2 requires new interactions and systems operating between dyad partners. More important, it assumes that partnership does in fact exist. Stage 2 implies a much greater degree of trust and mutual working relationships than stage 1. Thus, planning visibility requires transfer of knowledge from customer to supplier. VMI uphill skier involves even greater transfer of knowledge and responsibility. In this case, the exact needs of the customer are passed to the supplier, who can satisfy them as it wisheswith payments made as the customer uses the supplied goods; this is similar to skiing, in which it is the uphill skier who is responsible for not colliding with the downhill skier. These changes in practice can be achieved only when the dyads have been working together for extended time periods. A good current example is Hewlett-Packard working jointly with Flextronics in the manufacture of tape drives. In the end, the key to success was the development of shared values from top to bottom in both organizations. With this overall level of trust, it has been possible to develop quick response times to market dynamics, visibility across the supply chain, fast time-to-market and time-tovolume, and high-quality products. All of the features of stage 2 have been achieved. Stage 3 may look like nirvana, but all of the activities depicted there are in fact possible. It is important to compare step (a) with step (b). The specic activities depicted in step (b) are more related to extensions of classic lean manufacturing concepts, but step (a) is where the really big payoffs are achieved. Concentrating on the systems and transactions associated with coordinating the ows of material is necessarybut not sufcient! The improvements depicted in step (a) of stage 3 involve some key strategic choices, such as when the customer should direct dyad orchestration and when the supplier should do it. It is critical that these decisions not be based exclusively on power or politics.
151
Manage behavioral change
Effort
Software development
Replacing existing processes
Joint planning and information sharing Time
Joint execution
FIGURE
10.3
Dyad Implementation Evolution
Figure 10.3 extends the thinking in Figure 10.2, focusing on the evolution in dyad implementation. Here, the three stages of Figure 10.2 are depicted in terms of two critical issues. As shown, there is a need for major developments of new processes, systems, and software as one evolves through the three stages, but this progression is linear. On the other hand, the evolution in managerial behavior is shown as exponential. That is, as the rm moves from stage 1 through stage 3, the changes in working relations with dyad partners are profound. This is not a renement of existing purchasing and sales procedures (or thinking!). When we shift focus back to step (a) in Figure 10.2, the required change in managerial behavior becomes enormous. We are indeed at the beginning of a new paradigm. This is good news and bad news. Fundamental change is never easy, but it can also be exciting when one can make it a reality. Make no mistake, though; the kind of performance illustrated in the Zara case is not a uke. This is the standard to which rms will increasingly be held, and those who cannot stand up to it are as doomed as the competitors of Zara. When all is said and done, supply chain
152
management is indeed todays best bet to improve competitiveness. Senior managers need to understand this fundamental truth and then make the commitments to change their companies appropriately. Even if the exact pattern for change is not known, the directions are clearand the errors of wrong choices are becoming more obvious with each passing day.
Concluding Remarks
There has been continuing progress in the systems and processes that plan and control manufacturing and that match this planning to the ongoing needs of the customers. The progress can be seen as having four complementary objectives: The rst has been to gain major improvements in factory operations (lean manufacturing). The second has been to expand the focus to the effectiveness of the overall business unit (lean enterprise). The next extension encompasses optimization of the entire businessacross all business units (lean organization). But now we are experiencing a fourth shiftto achieve major improvements in working jointly with key suppliers and key customers (lean supply chain). Todays ERP systems are the direct result of lean manufacturing being extended into lean enterprise. These systems and thinking are now being used to address some of the key issues in lean organization, and ERP systems are also often the basic source of information for achieving lean supply chain. However, it is important to understand that lean supply chain embodies key differences in approach: The focus is on individual dyads; the functional approach of ERP needs to be at least augmented and often replaced; the objectives especially in regard to time and responsivenessare revolutionary, not evolutionary. We are at the beginning of a long learning (and unlearning!) process.
III
Future Visibility and Accountability
11

EDMUND W. SCHUSTER, DAVID L. BROCK, STUART J. ALLEN, PINAKI KAR, AND MARK DINNING
In many respects, MRP, the subsequent development of manufacturing resource planning (MRP II), and ERP represent increasingly sophisticated databases that over time have improved tactical and strategic business planning. Essentially, ERP serves an uncertainty absorption function (Miles, 1980). It is impossible to know with certainty all future outcomes that might occur for a business. However, with enough data and proper methods of analysis, reasonable projections of future outcomes become feasible. Having data allows for the possibility of calculating risk, in which several different outcomes are possible, and a probability calculated from the data can be assigned to each outcome (for example, see Allen and Schuster, 2004). The crowning achievement of ERP systems in practice is that business decision making has moved from an uncertainty basis, in which no comprehension of risk exists, to a risk basis, in which ERP serves the important function of mitigating uncertainty. The result: Much more effective business decision making based on rational analysis of data available rather than on pure conjecture. With the established success of ERP in practice, it is realistic to begin thinking about what changes in information technology will further enhance ERP, thus reducing even more uncertainty within business planning. Since ERP is at its essence a data management tool, it is reasonable that any advancement in the way that
156
data is obtained, organized, and employed will have a signicant impact on the structure of ERP software.
RFID Versus Auto-ID Technology
A great deal of confusion exists concerning the meaning of two terms, radio frequency identication (RFID) and Auto-ID. While RFID has been in existence for more than 50 years, Auto-ID represents a new technological development (Sarma, Brock, and Ashton, 2000). Though both technologies share commonalities, several important differences exist. Historically, the term RFID has been applied to situations in which an object identies itself through the transmission of radio waves that are received by an antenna and processed into positional information. Transponders on commercial and military aircraft that use two-way communication are early examples of RFID technology. In these situations, a radio signal broadcast from a ground station or another aircraft activates the transponder, which then returns a signal containing important proximity information. Other examples include the application of RFID tags to steamship containers and rail cars. Most of these applications involve different types of capital asset tracking and management. This type of two-way communication is tightly coupled with highly specic applications such as air trafc control, proximity warning, and shipyard management systems. Many in industry classify these applications as closed loop to denote that direct feedback occurs between two objects coupled by RFID types of communication. Because most of these applications are highly specialized, RFID has evolved into mostly proprietary technology characterized by closed standards. Though RFID has been used in some highly innovative applications, the technology has never achieved mass use for supply chains because the cost of electronic tags powered with tiny batteries remained relatively expensive. Manufacturing breakthroughs during the last several years, including uidic self-assembly and vibratory manufacturing methods, offer signicant potential to place individual transistors onto an integrated circuit at a sharply lower cost (Sarma, 2001). Projections show that the new generation of tags will reach a price that allows individual
157
tagging of cases and pallets. At some time in the future, the price might be low enough to tag individual consumer goods on a large scale. With these new manufacturing methods, production of the silicon chips needed for Auto-ID becomes a continuous manufacturing operation, in contrast to the current batch method for producing the integrated circuits that make up silicone chips. This development opens the possibility of tag application to a large number of objects, such as individual units, cases, and pallets of merchandise within the consumer goods supply chain. Given that the scale of retail supply chains includes billions of items, industry consortiums recognized very early the need for a comprehensive information technology infrastructure to manage the large amount of data potentially available from linking objects to the Internet. With such an infrastructure, the practical possibility exists of ERP systems that have continuous, two-way communication with objects located anywhere within a supply chain. This Internet of things will create unprecedented interconnectivity and have an important impact on the ERP systems of the future. The infrastructure needed to manage the Internet of things is Auto-ID technology, an intricate yet robust system that utilizes RFID. An important feature of Auto-ID technology includes open standards and protocols for both tags and readers. This means that a tag produced by one manufacturer can be read using equipment produced by a different manufacturer. This type of interoperability between tags and readers is essential for wide-scale application within supply chains. Beyond the sophisticated information technology, Auto-ID lays the groundwork for the intelligent value chain of the future (Brock, 2000). Creating smart products that sense and respond with the physical world requires unique identication, which is an element of Auto-ID technology. With this capability, distributed control systems can interact and give instructions to a specic object. For example, some time in the future smart objects within the consumer goods supply chain might dynamically change price based on sensing demand and communicate this information to ERP systems without human intervention. Because it offers much more than merely identifying objects using radio communication, Auto-ID technology holds the potential to drive rapid advances in commerce by providing the infrastructure for true automation across supply chains.
158
How Auto-ID Technology Works
In addition to the advances in manufacturing technology for producing the integrated circuits, there are several other important advances worth noting that deal with the way tags are powered. Currently, two basic types of tags are used most often. An active tag requires a small battery that provides electric power to continuously generate and transmit the radio frequency signal. Active tags can be read from a relatively long rangeup to 30 meters. In general, these tags have signicant amounts of memory to store information such as bill of lading details. In some cases, specialized readers called interrogators can not only read data from an active tag, but can also send signals to reprogram the tag with new information or instructions. However, active tags have several drawbacks. Because these tags transmit signals signicant distances, there is greater chance of a frequency collision with other radio waves such as those emitted by radios, transformers, or cellular phones. This type of interference could cause the reader not to pick up the tag signal. In addition, with longer read distances, the opportunity of providing exact location information diminishes. The tiny batteries are also somewhat expensive, thus limiting widespread use. Common prices for active tags are $2 or more per unit, depending on capability, memory, and order size. Beyond the expense, the other disadvantage of active tags is that the batteries sometimes wear out, resulting in total loss of signal. This is disastrous if the tag fullls a critical function such as providing data for a moving rail car. Battery life varies a great deal depending on many different factors, so it is difcult to predict in advance when a failure might occur. Beginning in 1999, industry and academics undertook research to develop low-cost passive tags. With this technology, each tag does not contain a battery. Rather, the energy needed to power the tag is drawn from electromagnetic elds created by readers that also serve to gather the signals emanating from the passive tags. The read distance of a passive tag is usually no more than 3 meters. Since no xed power source is required, passive tags hold a great advantage over active tags in terms of lower cost per unit. This opens the possibility for the use of passive tags in a far greater number of applications. Gradually, as costs decrease, passive tags will challenge bar codes as a means of gathering information within supply chains.
159
Ta b l e 1 1 . 1 Comparison of different tags

Tag Power source Active Battery Passive Induction from electromagnetic waves emitted by reader 3 meters Good Medium 2 kb (read only) 25 Semipassive Battery and induction
Read distance Proximity information Frequency collision Information storage Cost /tag
Up to 30 meters Poor High 32 k or more (read/write) $2 $100
Up to 30 meters Poor High 32 k or more (read/write) Under development, some applications
A third type, the semipassive tag, is a hybrid of both active and passive tags. It has a smaller battery that is partially recharged each time the tag enters the electromagnetic eld of the reader. These tags are currently under commercial development and are not widely used in industrial applications, although there is promise that such a technology might be an important factor in the near future. Designed to operate at low energy levels, these tags store relatively little information. Just enough memory exists to store a serial number that can reference an IP address on the Internet. Information is stored on the Internet, not on the tag. This provides a distributed means of holding information. Table 11.1 summarizes the capabilities of tags. Overall, passive tags hold the promise of ubiquitous application to objects within a supply chain. However, a comprehensive information technology infrastructure must also exist to organize and communicate the data gathered from passive tags. Auto-ID provides such an infrastructure.
The Components of Auto-ID Technology
In conjunction with advances by tag and equipment manufacturers, the objective of Auto-ID technology is to create infrastructure and set open standards that will make it possible for wide adoption of passive
160
RFID technology (Dinning and Schuster, 2003; Schuster et al., 2004). The four components that make up Auto-ID Technology include: EPC (Electronic Product Code) ONS (Object Naming Service) PML (Physical Markup Language) Savant (data handling) The EPC is a numbering system that contains enough combinations to identify trillions of objects. This is necessary because the ultimate goal is to provide a structure for low cost identication at the item level, meaning that every single product will have its own unique code. PML is the communication format for the data and is based on XML (extensible markup language), which is gaining popularity in e-commerce transactions. PML represents a hierarchal data format to store information. By providing a standardized means of describing physical objects and processes, PML will facilitate inter- and intra-company commercial transactions and data transfer. The ONS acts as a pointer to connect the EPC to the PML le stored on a network, either a local area network or the Internet. It performs a function similar to that of the Domain Naming Service (DNS) of the Internet, which connects a text-based Web address to an underlying IP address. An IP address consists of a 32-bit numeric address written as four numbers separated by periods and used to nd resources over the Internet. However, with the EPC, we start with a number and use the ONS to nd the product information linked to that number. Savant is a lower-level software application that processes the data and performs error checking and de-duplication procedures in the event that more than one reader receives a signal from the same tag. It handles the scalability problem associated with the massive amount of data captured by Auto-ID. To summarize, the EPC identies the product, PML describes the product, and the ONS links them together. To make the system work, products are tagged with passive RFID chips containing the EPC. The tags are placed on surface areas of pallets or cartons or are contained within item packaging. Readers are positioned at strategic points throughout the supply chain where companies need to capture data. Readers constantly emit an electromagnetic eld that is received by the tags through a small antenna. This energy activates
161
PML
ONS
Savant
Reader
Antenna Serial number EPC EPC
Antenna
EPC
EPC
PMLPhysical Markup Language ONSObject Naming Service EPCElectronic Product Code

FIGURE
11.1
Technology Overview
the tag, and in turn, a signal is generated and transmitted to the reader. Through this process, readers capture the EPC and interact with Savant to look up the information on the product using the ONS. The position of the reader receiving the EPC signal provides important information on location and environmental conditions such as temperature, vibration, and humidity, which is then linked through databases to the EPC. All this information is housed and written to corporate databases using the PML format (see Figure 11.1).
Advantages of Auto-ID Technology Relative to Bar Codes
Few other inventions developed during the 20th century have had as wide an impact on everyday life as the bar code (Haberman, 2001). First implemented in 1974, the bar code has drastically reduced the amount of labor needed to operate retail stores, improved pricing accuracy, and shortened countless checkout lines, saving great amounts of time.
162
Beyond retail stores, bar codes have been applied in many other situations to provide important information, such as the coordination of production within manufacturing plants or tracking data for overnight packages in transit. Bar codes transmit a small amount of information that identies the manufacturer and links to a description of the object. Nonprot standards groups such as GS1 administer the numbering system used for the bar codes, ensuring unique identication without duplication by other rms. New research efforts have led to the development of a two-dimensional bar code that is able to carry more data about an object. This opens the possibility of attaching important information such as billing details directly to the object as it passes through the supply chain. A basic characteristic of bar codes is that all information travels with the object. In the case of a two-dimensional bar code, more information travels with the object as compared to a regular bar code. This is a common attribute shared with active RFID tags, although in most cases, active tags contain much more information than two-dimensional bar codes. Furthermore, although two-dimensional bar codes do provide much more information beyond product identication, all bar codes have limitations, including: The need for a direct line of sight from the scanner to the bar code The ability to read only one code at time The need for human intervention to capture data or to orient packages in the case of overhead bar code readers In addition, bar codes provide only one-way communication and seldom provide real-time information or Internet connectivity to the data. There is always a chance that the bar code will be missed or, in other cases, read twice. Bar codes can also be damaged or compromised in a way that makes them impossible to read. Auto-ID technology is designed to overcome all of these limitations and make it possible to automate the scanning process, providing real-time data. With all the advantages of Auto-ID, it is natural to begin thinking about how this new identication technology will affect the overall design and operation of ERP systems. At its core, ERP is essentially a large database. As increasing amounts of data become available through Auto-ID
163
technology, the nature of ERP and the infrastructure needed to support the system will change dramatically, opening new possibilities to do things that were previously thought to be impossible to achieve in practice.
Data and ERP Systems
Since the inception of ERP, accuracy of data has been an important goal for long-term success. Early efforts focused on improving the accuracy of the bill of materials (BOM), an important part of MRP. In the past, popular management programs such as Class A MRP II were important in helping practitioners get the most benet from these systems. With the perfection of the BOM approach, emphasis has shifted to raw data accuracy as a means of further improving the overall results of planning. Though data accuracy has been an important issue for many years, it continues to attract the interest of practitioners. A recent online survey conducted by APICS supports this observation. When polled about the relevance and main goal of Auto-ID technology, 55% of respondents indicated that improved inventory accuracy was the most important objective. The total results of the poll are shown in Table 11.2. The goal of tracking items through an entire supply chain with 100% inventory accuracy remains elusive. This type of effort represents a huge challenge to current information technology infrastructures that are a critical part of ERP. In the future, automated methods of planning and control within manufacturing and service operations, and even entire supply chains, will depend on accurate, real-time information and unique identication of individual objects. Because manufacturing systems are in
Ta b l e 1 1 . 2 Auto-ID poll (spring 2004)
What is your main goal in implementing an Auto-ID solution? Improve inventory accuracy Satisfy trading partner requirement Increase inventory turns Reduce out-of-stock situation Enhance supplier relationship Improve ll rates Sample size 55% 13% 10% 9% 9% 4% 658 respondents
164
constant ux, data accuracy is not just a function of having the correct value, but of having the correct value at the correct time to reect the proper state of the system. Accurate data that is old is useless in a dynamic system. Thinking beyond the utilization of real-time data, Auto-ID offers other opportunities to capture detailed data about objects within a supply chain on a scale never before experienced in commerce. However, organizing EPCs represents a challenge that requires signicant changes to ERP systems.
Organizing Data from the EPC
Though it is early in the development of Auto-ID technology, it appears that ERP will hold an important role in managing the EPC data needed for supply chainwide visibility. The EPC, a fundamental tenet of Auto-ID Technology, provides the capability for unique identication of trillions of objects. Unique identication on this scale results in useful information for track and trace (Koh et al., 2003a; Schuster and Koh, 2004) and for the authentication of objects located anywhere in a supply chain (Koh et al., 2003b). However, managing serial numbers for trillions of objects presents a difcult challenge for current ERP systems. As a result, there will be a measured transition from lot control, currently available in some ERP systems, to serial number control, enabled by new software concepts such as the transactional bill of materials (T-BOM). With the T-BOM approach, serial numbers contained in the EPC are organized to provide the history of movement for an item (pedigree information), a schematic of the serial numbers for all components contained in the nished item, and a mechanism to allow a query for authentication by any party within a particular supply chain (Bostwick, 2004). This is accomplished through sophisticated database technology that utilizes EPC information gathered from the middleware interface to Auto-ID. The T-BOM represents a new generation of software intended to enhance system integration as Auto-ID technology begins to take hold in industry. Since current ERP systems use only lot control for tracking and tracing, it is important to add capabilities that handle EPC data so that that it can be queried and communicated as needed. Without these types
165
of new structures to enhance ERP, there will be much less effectiveness in using data from Auto-ID technology. Besides tracking, tracing, and authentication, serial data on components opens new possibilities for gaining insight into complex operations. There are many situations in which lack of detailed information leads to ineffective supply chain management. For example, difculties with the management of versions is a common problem in capital asset industries in which service parts for long-life-cycle items such as aircraft frequently undergo modication and redesign midway through the life of the asset (Engels et al., 2004). With most part numbering systems, different versions of a service part cannot be identied, inventoried, traced, or tracked. In situations involving large networks that perform maintenance of deployed assets, such as airbases in support of combat aircraft, knowing the exact version of a service part in inventory is essential to providing high levels of service and readiness. In addition, the ability to track failure rates by serial number (version) is also critical to understanding overall reliability as service parts move from manufacture, to distribution, and nally to installation and use (Kar, Li, and Schuster, 2003). There is no question that Auto-ID has great potential to provide detailed data about objects within a supply chain. The data capabilities of the technology also allow other possibilities, such as a change in the algorithmic structure of ERP. The next section explores just a few of these possibilities.
Capacitated Planning and Automated Scheduling
One of the most basic processes of ERP is planning and scheduling. Figure 11.2 provides a conceptual overview of the various planning and scheduling functions common to all ERP systems. Two aspects of Auto-ID technology have the potential to change the way that practitioners use ERP for planning and scheduling. First, the ability to have manufacturing plant and supply chain wide visibility of objects identied with the EPC allows for large amounts of information and executable instructions to be assigned to an object. An example that has been in application for several years involves attaching an electronic tag to a component that is a work in process (WIP). As the component moves through different manufacturing stages, the tagged
166
HIERARCHY OF PRODUCTION DECISIONS Forecasts of future demand
Aggregate plan
Master production schedule Schedule of production quantities by product and time period
Materials requirements planning system Explode master schedule to obtain requirements for components and nal product
Detailed job shop schedule To meet specication of production quantities from MRP system
FIGURE
11.2
Sequencing of Value-Added Operational Tasks
Source: Adapted from Nahmias (1993)
item is scanned and instructions are downloaded from databases into computer numeric control (CNC) milling machines that automatically cut the component to exact specications. As the component moves to the next stage of manufacturing, another scan takes place and a new set of instructions are loaded into processing machines. It is even feasible that a queue of tagged parts for an individual work center could be scanned simultaneously to identify important information for adjusting work center priorities. In this manner, detailed day-to-day shop scheduling and management of instructions become automated processes. With this level of control, there are almost unlimited opportunities to improve information handling and automation within manufacturing plants. The opportunity also exists to increase the level of automation across entire supply chains so that a component manufactured at one plant can be transferred to another with the knowledge that all relevant information and manufacturing instructions are attached to the component and can be processed automatically. The open standards and protocols are
167
an important feature of Auto-ID technology that allow for this type of information transfer and communication within the supply chain. The second important aspect of Auto-ID technology that will change the way planning and scheduling is performed within ERP involves the continuous ow of data. A well-designed Auto-ID system is always on. With this improved sensing capability, critical subsystems of ERP will have accessibility to more data for scheduling calculations. Given real-time data, new possibilities exist to apply advanced algorithms such as math programming and heuristics in every practical aspect of planning and scheduling. One of the most important goals of manufacturing is the management of capacity utilization. Several ERP subsystems are crucial in achieving this short- and medium-term goal. The master production schedule, the MRP system, and the detailed shop schedule, all visualized in Figure 11.2, are the current tools within ERP to manage capacity. For many years, all of these systems assumed innite capacity when doing planning and scheduling. This assumption, though widely recognized as an important weakness, reected the reality that, in many cases, data did not exist to support advanced nite planning and scheduling. Planners have spent untold hours manually balancing production to meet available capacity. When the problem could not be solved manually, due dates were not met and customer service suffered. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the advent of microcomputers resulted in the introduction of master scheduling software that accomplished capacitated planning and scheduling for end items. These software packages existed outside ERP systems and required signicant integration to achieve operability. During this time, computer spreadsheets began to be used as a powerful means to build models and do nite capacity scheduling for end items (Schuster and Finch, 1990; Allen and Schuster, 1994; Allen, Martin, and Schuster, 1997; DItri, Allen, and Schuster, 1999). However, achieving capacitated planning and scheduling for a single-level, nished good is far easier than achieving the same task for dependent demand (MRP). In this case, the consideration of capacity constraints and cost optimization must take place through multiple levels for the BOM. Manufacturing multiple complex end items at a single
168
facility adds to this complexity. MRP has been singled out by managers and academics alike for the lack of consideration of capacity constraints when planning lots sizes. As Billington, McClain, and Thomas (1983, p. 1130) write, MRP systems in their basic form assume that there are no capacity constraints. That is, they perform innite loading in that any amount of production is presumed possible. . . . For some types of industries, such as heavy manufacturing, this limitation is an annoying inconvenience. With nished items requiring high labor inputs, the primary capacity constraint is often the availability of skilled workers to do the job. If high production levels press the capacity of available trained labor, more workers can be hired or existing workers can be retrained. In other situations, such as process industries, lack of capacitated planning and scheduling is a much more serious matter. The process industries are asset intensive, with huge investments in long lead-time equipment. In this case, adding additional capacity is not a short-term managerial prerogative, so it becomes imperative to get the greatest amount of capacity utilization possible through scheduling methods that nd the optimal solution and consider dynamic capacity constraints. The lack of capacitated MRP is such a serious issue that some leading companies have declined to use MRP for planning and scheduling (Taylor and Bolander, 1994). While the algorithms to do aspects of capacitated MRP (CMRP) are available, the drawback to implementation is partially dependent on lack of real-time data needed for a meaningful solution. To deal with dynamic demand for end items, manufacturers must account for capacity constraints at all levels of the supply chain. This ambitious goal remains elusive for most rms. Auto-ID technology overcomes one barrier to the implementation of advanced algorithms for capacitated MRP by providing a continuous stream of data for mathematical programming models to achieve CMRP in practice. Although there are a number of complicating factors that limit the widespread use of advanced models, a major drawback appears to be schedule stability (Unahabhokha et al., 2003). Because of a lack of continuous data, replanning often occurs less frequently than needed. In addition, small changes in inventory and production values caused by inaccurate counts or poor execution to plan (for production and the sales forecast) also contribute to the schedule stability problem. The combination
169
of these two factors can create large changes in out-front schedules and a great amount of instability within CMRP. Having a continuous stream of data allows quick adjustment to variances and frequent updates. If the proper buffers exist, a stable schedule results, with only minor changes occurring over the time horizon with each new planning run. There are several documented examples of the application of CMRP in industry (Schuster and Allen, 1998; Schuster, Allen, and DItri, 2000). Most notable is the work of Leachman et al. (1996). This article provides a comprehensive report on the successful application of CMRP for a semiconductor company. The approach uses large-scale linear programming (LP) to accomplish CMRP with the goal of improving on-time delivery. The authors note that before implementing the LP approach, sector-wide planning took place only once per month because of the poor quality and availability of data on demand, work in process, and inventory. Essentially, planners always had incomplete information. A large part of the project included the design of databases to feed the LP planning model and the development of standard ways to represent data. In the end, the authors state that data accuracy, availability, and timeliness were signicant factors in the overall success of their efforts to implement CMRP as a management tool. These are just a few examples of how Auto-ID technology will change the nature of ERP systems in practice. However, the concepts of Auto-ID do not apply just to supply chains. The nal section of this chapter explores the application of Auto-ID concepts beyond the Internet of things. In many ways, this is Auto-ID part II. This effort will have a longterm impact on ERP system design.
Semantic Modeling
The underlying aspects of Auto-ID technology will form the bedrock of international commerce in the years to come. Unique identication, interoperability, standards, and the use of automated Internet-based systems to track, trace, and control physical objects all are important elements of Auto-ID technology that are moving out of the laboratory and into practical application. There will be new applications that can only be dreamed about today, and other applications that are beyond what currently can be conceptualized.
170
Though there is a long road to full implementation of Auto-ID technology in business, the merging of data with physical objects opens so many new opportunities that it is important for all rms that use or create ERP systems to plan for future operations by learning as much as possible about the technology. One of the most common questions that managers have about the future of Auto-ID involves improved ways of analyzing the data generated by the technology. As a result, there is a renewed research effort to examine ways to make sense of data gathered using Auto-ID technology. The new initiative, termed semantic modeling, examines how various types of mathematical models can be applied quickly to the volumes of data produced by Auto-ID (Brock, 2003a, 2003b; Brock et al., 2004). Using the principles of computer languages, protocols, standards, interoperability, and unique identication rened during the development of Auto-ID technology, the research initiative focuses on new ways to connect mathematical models with data. This will substantially increase the clockspeed (Fine, 1998) of modeling and the computational efciency of applying models to perform the sense, understand, and do functions that comprise the underpinning of creating smart objects within supply chains. In many ways, this effort is a step beyond linking the physical world, the underlying concept that has made Auto-ID technology successful. Networks of physical objects or of abstractions such as models share the premise that leaps in productivity arise from the free ow of information. Creating an intelligent modeling network will accelerate the ow of information to the greater advantage of many practitioners who apply Auto-ID technology. Semantic modeling also has important implications for ERP systems. Auto-ID technology offers the prospect of signicant improvements over bar codes in the identication of physical objects. Specically, the EPC will provide unique identication on an unprecedented level. This development will lead to large amounts of data streaming into ERP systems. Beyond changing the basic architecture of ERP, Auto-ID also lays the groundwork for other technologies such as semantic modeling. In time, Auto-ID will create an Internet of things that will have a signicant impact on business. This is consistent with the long-term trend toward interconnectivity. ERP systems cannot escape being affected by this trend.
171
Semantic modeling may offer a powerful alternative to the traditional packaged software employed by ERP vendors. In essence, the approach provides a means of establishing a repository of model elements located on the Internet that can be searched, recombined, and employed as needed. The primary search criteria are precise semantic denitions that describe data inputs for a particular model. In this way, a model can be matched exactly to a stream of data within a rm. In addition, the outputs of one model can become the inputs of another model. For example, there are hundreds of models that deal with all types of master production scheduling problems. Many of these models are long forgotten or have never been applied to more than one scheduling problem in practice. Using semantic modeling, it is possible to build an Internet-based repository of master scheduling models that are interoperable and easily applied to the available data within rms. This would facilitate the rapid interchange of models and allow for a better chance of nding an exact match to business processes.
12
Auditing the System in Use: Value Beyond the Baseline

JOSEPH SARKIS AND R. P. SUNDARR AJ
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems require signicant investment in terms of labor, time, effort, and, most of all, dollars. A standard quote of managers in industry has been I know exactly how much an extra million dollars spent on marketing can generate in new revenue but what about another million on computing? I dont even know whether our spending on IS has been necessary, or what its added to the value of our business (Semich, 1994, p. 46). This quote is still as applicable today as it was in the early periods of IT investment. It may even be argued that it is more pertinent now, as systems have become more strategic and pervasive. Even after a slight dip in ERP investments in 2001 2002, it is expected that investment in these systems will continue to grow, especially among small- and medium-sized organizations. An important aspect concerning the use of ERP systems is to evaluate the manner in which they are being used. That is, once ERP systems are evaluated, justied, and implemented, the issue arises as to whether they are doing the job that they were initially designed to do and whether they have actually met the goals and performance metrics used in the initial evaluations for their justication. Thus, the post-implementation auditing (PIA) and evaluation of operating systems to help determine what was effective (i.e., what worked) and what did not meet expectations become indispensable. This process needs to be included for the purposes of continuous improvement of the system and for future investments, to
173
name a couple of reasons. Yet, PIA and evaluation is one of the least attractive areas for practice and investigation. As part of determining the value of an ERP system and strategy to an organization, it is necessary to consider a more holistic picture than dollars and cents. There are many factors that come into play. What these factors may be and how they may be evaluated (before and after implementation) are two core issues that are addressed in a more complete value evaluation of implemented ERP systems. Such a discussion, with particular attention to PIA concerns, can prove extremely valuable within the scope of a larger management of technology framework.
Review of Development Phases
ERP systems and their implementations can be viewed as strategic efforts. They are meant to pervade the whole enterprise, integrating functions, processes, and product families. In many cases, they also cross boundaries to integrate the external supply chain. They have broad and long-term implications for an organizations competitive advantage. To help manage this type of technology, the literature has introduced a number of strategic evaluation and implementation models and frameworks; see Jacobs and Bendoly (2003). In this section, using this literature, we summarize a strategic framework for managing strategic technologies in general and ERP, specically. The major stages of this management process are shown in Figure 12.1. After initial discussion of the early stages, we focus especially on the PIA.
Strategy Formulation and Integration
The decision for the development and implementation of strategic technologies and programs begins at the upper levels of management. The technology that should be selected needs to t within the vision, goals, and strategic objectives of the organization. Otherwise, the maintenance of a competitive gridlock may be encountered by these organizations (Skinner, 1996). The development of information technology and other functional strategies should be closely linked to the corporate and business strategy. Associated management practices should allow for continuous improvement, and feedback should be present throughout the
Uncertainty and external competitive environment
Strategy formulation and integration
Corporate strategic planning
Functional strategic planning and integration
Process and systems engineering
Conguration design and functionality requirements
Reconcile factors, performance, expectations, and strategy
Systems evaluation and justication
Systems implementation
Postimplementation audits
FIGURE
12.1
A Strategic Management Framework for ERP
175
technology management framework. The SWOT-MOSP process is usually completed at this stage. Within SWOT-MOSP, organizations assess their S trengths and Weaknesses in light of environmental Opportunities and Threats (SWOT); then, relying on and rening a shared sense of basic identity and Mission to inform the choice of a few overarching Objectives, they can then formulate a S trategy for activities that can achieve the objective and then operationalize these principles in a set of Policies (MOSP) (Adler, 1989).
Process Planning and Systems Engineering
The next level of planning is the initiation of the specic planning and development of the ERP system that will later need to be justied and implemented. The three primary concerns of this level are: what type of system is presently in operation and what level of actual operation it presently provides (the as-is study); at what level this system has the potential to function (the should-be study); and nally what we want any new system to provide in terms of operations and outputs (the to-be study). For each of these studies, there needs to be a development and determination of the inputs, outputs, and parameters necessary for effective evaluation of all these systems; these same evaluation elements are needed at the later stages and should be linked to organizational and functional strategies. This phase could be also be dened as a reengineering stage of the project development process (Davenport, 2000; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Scheer, 1994). A rule of thumb in implementation is that more thorough initial phases of planning and development typically lead to fewer problems in later stages of a projects life.
System Design and Functionality Requirements
The next step in the process is to determine what alternate ERP congurations are required for the system. The technical development of various information technology functionalities (e.g., what functional areas and modules will be integrated into ERP systems) need to be addressed at this stage of the process development. Having the appropriate conceptual models of the systems to be implemented allows the project group to conduct a preliminary analysis of the operational, technical, and
176
economic feasibility of the alternative systems. Once the conguration and data relating to alternative systems have been developed, this information should be integrated at the justication phase of the development cycle.
System Evaluation and Justication
At this stage, the primary nancial analysis determines the economic feasibility and justication of the system or subsystem. Factors for evaluation need to be determined and utilized by the organization. These factors and measures should evolve from the previous phases. They will also be required for auditing and maintenance of the systems performance. A listing of potential factors is presented later in this chapter. Typically, there are many factors with many characteristics to consider in an evaluation: tangible, intangible, nancial, quantitative, qualitative, etc. For effective analysis of this type of data, utilizing multiple objective decision techniques is clearly warranted. Some of these multiple objective techniques are also provided with an overview and concern, especially from an auditing perspective. At this stage, the nal outcome should be a business case for ERP in general and the selected system in particular. This business case must be well documented so that PIAs can be completed efciently (Tompkins and Hall, 2001).
System Implementation
Implementation issues can be separated into these four major steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. Acquisition and procurement Operational planning Implementation and installation Integration
There are four major strategies for implementation (especially suitable for replacement cases) that a manufacturing rm would be interested in; these are: Parallel conversion. The existing system and the new system operate simultaneously until there is condence that the new system is working properly.
177
Direct conversion. The old system is removed totally, and the new system takes over (also called the cold turkey approach). Phased conversion. Modules of the new system are gradually introduced one at a time using either direct or parallel conversion. Pilot conversion. The new system is fully implemented on a pilot basis in one segment of the organization. System integration of ERP is one of the nal goals in the implementation process and one of the most difcult to achieve. The difculties arise primarily from the use of multiple types of subsystems, platforms, and interfaces, as well as dispersion in terms of control and physical location of these subsystems. Legacy system integration is a critical matter for most systems implementers. Making sure that future systems can link modularly to current and past systems is a concern for systems managers.
Post-Implementation Auditing
The post-implementation audit (PIA) stage is one of the most neglected steps of many ERP management projects (Levinson, 2003). It helps close the loop for future development of the system and is also the primary step required for the inclusion of the concept of continuous improvement. There are a number of reasons posited by the literature on why PIAs are not completed, including: They take too much time and drain away valuable personnel resources. They require reams of documentation so that processes and results can be validated. Project sponsors and implementers fear that the results of an audit, if unfavorable, will be used against them. To overcome these difculties, auditing should: Encourage personnel to prepare investment proposals in a more realistic and objective manner because the results of their forecasts will be monitored. Help improve the evaluation of future projects.
178
Help improve the performance of projects that are already in operation but do not perform and operate as originally planned. Call attention to projects that should be discontinued. Some of the requirements for this stage include: Monitoring the factors and performance measures that were identied in the justication stage Developing a productivity improvement tracking report that identies information necessary to monitor the key justication factors, original source data, and new source data Reviewing and reporting elements that were not previously reported that would have signicant impact on the overall evaluation Documenting all sources of information previously identied Among these stages, there should always be some form of feedback. That is why consistent and common factors and their measures are necessary. This consistency is needed for effective design, evaluation, implementation, auditing, and overall management of technology. These iterative feedback mechanisms among and between the stages are illustrated in Figure 12.1. Besides ensuring structured feedback mechanisms, another issue that arises for managers is the specic timing of PIAs. When to start typically depends on the type of system or application that is deployed, the amount of time it will take before the application begins generating some results or data, and the amount of time it takes staffers to get acclimated to the new system and new processes. It has been recommended that audits take place 6 18 months after implementation of the system or module. As additional modules or bolt-ons are implemented, subsequent PIAs must be administered with sufcient time for valid data collection on sustainable use to take place.
Factors for Performance Evaluation
As we have mentioned, to fully conclude a business case and to further complete a PIA, performance measures must be determined. These measures, especially for strategic evaluation, need to go beyond standard operational or cost factors. The literature provides a number of possible performance measures that can be used, and we have categorized them into cost measures and IT requirements.
179
Ta b l e 1 2 . 1 Project cost categories

Direct project costs Environmental operating costs Initial hardware costs Initial software costs Installation and conguration costs System development costs Project management costs Training costs Maintenance costs Unexpected hardware costs Unexpected software costs Security costs Consumables Indirect human costs Management /staff resources Management time Cost of ownership; system support Management effort and dedication Employee time Employee training Employee motivation Changes in salaries Staff turnover Indirect organizational costs Losses in organizational productivity Strains on organizational resources Business process reengineering Organizational restructuring
s o u r c e : Adapted from Irani et al. (1997).
Cost Factors
There are many components to the tangible factor of cost. From a project cost perspective, there are many decisions, policies, and activities that should be included. A set of potential costs associated with implementation of ERP systems is provided in Table 12.1. There are a number of direct and indirect costs that should be considered and evaluated, beyond just the purchase costs of the software. The determination of some of these costs cannot occur until after implementation, especially items such as unexpected hardware and software costs and losses in organizational productivity. Typically, these costs can be monetized, but some are more difcult to determine, such as organizational strain.
IT Requirements and Factors
From an information system operational perspective, there needs to be some consideration on the actual ability of the ERP system to meet some of the following basic requirements: Platform Neutrality and Interoperability. The architecture of the system must be such that it can operate on different platforms and interact with other systems built for a different platform. Interoperability is a key characteristic of software systems because
180
the lack of integration can be expensive. For example, the Department of Defense maintains 1,700 nonstandardized systems, making it time consuming to exchange information from one to another and thereby consuming a major portion of its $9 billion IT budget (Aiken, Muntz, and Richards, 1994). For this reason, the IT eld is concerned with developing technologies for integrating systems rather than having isolated information systems (Weingard, Verharen, and Dignum, 1997). Technologies, as well as management and developmental processes that provide interoperability and integration, are given in, for example, Sage and Lynch (1998), Li and Su (2001), Sousa and Garlan (2001), Gimenes and Barroca (2002), Plachy and Hauser (1999), and Henn (1998). Scalability. The performance of a system must scale well with business size. Scalability is a quality that allows a system to operate without wear and on any volume of data. In the context of software systems, scalability implies the alteration of the scope of the methods and processes according to the problem size (Laitinen, Fayad, and Ward, 2000). For example, Arens, Knoblock, and Shen (1996) describe a system that automatically reformulates a database query based on changes to the data sources, and Henn (1998) describes the use of different methods to accomplish scalability. Scalability is important to businesses and the lack of scalability has been the reason for the failure of FoxMeyer Drugs enterprise system (Bartholomew, Jesitus, and Kreitzburg, 1997). It should be noted that scalability entails both scaling up as well as scaling down. Scaling down requires that processes which consume too much overhead in order to provide their relative benets not be used for small problem instances. Adaptability. Adaptability refers to how the ERP system accommodates changes in either the process or other components with which the system is interacting. Irani et al. (2003) argue that information systems need to evolve over time, according to the needs of the business, especially with the emergence of e-commerce and inter-organizational systems. Technologies for developing adaptable software are discussed by Stavridou (1999).
181
Security. Security of the databases and of the ERP processes must be inviolable because breaches therein are hard to detect and even harder to correct. Parkin (1996) argues that security must be viewed as a business issue and not just as an IT issue. Security violations are often costly. For this reason, Liao and Cheung (2001) and Devaraj, Fan, and Kohli (2002) view security as a component of the transaction costs of IT adoption, although the context of these two research works is from the consumer perspective. Reliability. Reliability consists of the time for which the system is running as well as the accuracy of the systems outputs. According to Kettinger and Lee (1994), reliability is a key component of the perceived quality of a software system. More recently, Devaraj et al. (2002) have studied the importance of reliability to e-shopping end users. Customer Support. As with system reliability, customer support is another issue that contributes to the perception of system quality. However, it is a post-implementation issue (unlike system reliability, which is a function of pre-implementation developmental processes, such as the capability maturity model given by Paulk, Curtis, and Chrissis [1991]). Customer support is important to managing users expectations of a system during maintenance and upgrade activities (Hinley, 1996), which have been found to occupy a huge proportion of the IT budget (Banker, Davis, and Slaughter 1998). Ease of Use (EOU). EOU has been widely employed as a performance measure of IT systems. It is dened as the degree to which a prospective user expects the system to be free of effort (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, 1989). Davis et al. (1989) found that EOU affects the acceptance of an information system, as measured by the usage of the system. This has been validated for different types of IT, such as e-mail and voice mail (Adams, Nelson, and Todd, 1992), and for electronic commerce systems (Geffen and Straub, 2000). Perceived Value. Perceived value is another widely used performance metric that can inuence system usage and adoption.
182
Davis et al. (1989) and Adams et al. (1992) have considered the importance of perceived value from the individuals perspective, while Brynjolfsson and Hitt (1996) and Kohli and Devaraj (2003) have studied rm-level value of an IT.
Business Performance Factors and Measures
Strategic (and related operational) measures and categories also need to be considered if a truthful PIA is to be conducted. A number of sources of these measures already exist, and there is signicant literature on these issues. For example, one method of evaluating an ERP systems inuence on the organization is to consider how an ERP implementation inuences the supply chains performance. This issue requires consideration of supply chain performance measurement, which is an evolving area of research and practice (Beamon, 1999; Guenasekaran, Patel, and Tirtiroglu, 2001). Examples of performance measures beyond mere cost and related to strategic performance measures such as time, speed, exibility, and quality are shown in Table 12.2 (see Gunasekaran, Patel, and McGaughey [2004] for a description and development of these measures). Examples of strategic, tactical, and operational level performance measures are presented. Gunasekaran et al. (2001) also describe how these and similar performance metrics can be applied across supply chain functions. They consider functions within a single organizations supply chain and provide metrics appropriate to manage the four basic links of the supply chain, including plan, source, make/assemble, and delivery functions. Thus, not only do vertical management decision hierarchical relationships and related performance measures need to be considered in PIA, but so do the inuences of these relationships on various functions along the value or supply chain. This is true regardless of whether they are internal or external measures.
Relationships Among Factors
The right half of Figure 12.2 summarizes the possible relationships and linkage among these factors and management levels. There are two points worth noting in the gure. First, the factors map approximately to the strategic, tactical, and operational levels of an organizations managerial and decision hierarchy. That is, strategic factors are typically evaluated by
183
Ta b l e 1 2 . 2 Strategic, tactical, and operational performance metrics within an organizational supply chain or value chain
Level Strategic Performance metrics Order lead time Customer query time Customer perceived value of product Variations against budget Supply lead time Suppliers level of defect-free deliveries Level of buyer-supplier partnership Delivery lead time Level of exibility to meet particular customer needs Suppliers ability to respond to quality problems Delivery reliability Accuracy of forecasting techniques Level of suppliers assistance in solving technical problems Product development cycle time Planned process cycle time Effectiveness of enterprise distribution planning schedule Supplier cost saving initiatives Purchase order cycle time Level of nished goods inventory Information carrying cost Inventory level of incoming stock Cost per operation hour Human resource productivity index Quality of delivered goods Supplier rejection rate Capacity utilization Actual versus theoretical throughput time
Tactical
Operational
s o u r c e : Adapted from Gunasekaran et al. (2004).
upper-level management, tactical supply chain factors by middle or line managers, and the IT-related factors by line managers or IT system users. Even though these mappings are suggestive, organizational characteristics may have the same person evaluating different levels of these factors. For example, in a small company, all factors may be evaluated by the owner of the company, while in a large company, the decision-making divisions are clearer (see dotted lines in the gure). The second point to note concerns the relationship among the factors. Clearly, decisions on the strategic factors have an effect on those at the levels below them, signifying a hierarchical relationship among the factors, but it is also possible for lower-level factors to inuence those at the higher level (e.g., a technologys platform neutrality can be quite
184
Monolithic ERP
Strategic performance metrics/factors
Senior management
Component ERP
Supply chain factors
Middle management
Local system
FIGURE
IT factors
Operational managers
12.2
Relationships Among Factors, Alternatives, and Managerial Hierarchy
important to a general strategic objective of exibility). Furthermore, factors within a level can be interdependent (e.g., for certain organizations that design custom products, the marketing and design functions must be closely interlinked). These aforementioned relationships are modeled by the two-way and block arrows, respectively. The reader is referred to Sarkis and Sundarraj (2000) for more details. Research has also shown that the factors which need to be considered, as well as relationships among the factors, are affected by the type of the system under consideration (Sarkis and Sundarraj, 2003); see the left side of Figure 12.2. Local (or departmental) systems, which are managed, maintained, and operated internal to its user group and which seldom have an impact on the strategy direction of an organization, need not be evaluated directly on strategic performance metrics (as signied by the dotted line in Figure 12.2). Instead, such systems must be evaluated on the basis of cost as well as on a number of IT factors (see the bold line in Figure 12.2). On the other hand, monolithic ERP systems encompass the entire organization and take an inordinate amount of time for implementation. A business process embedded in a monolithic system holds for an entire organization (Fan, Stallaert, and Whinston, 2000). As such, these systems must be evaluated from an organizational viewpoint, by considering their utility to the organization from the short- and long-term perspectives, from the strategic perspective, and from various functional and IT perspectives (see the bold lines in Figure 12.2). The newer types of ERPs (namely componentized systems) share a number of common characteristics with both local and monolithic
185
ERP systems. Each component of the entire ERP system is used by a restricted group of employees in the organization; each component is essentially implemented internal to its group; and because it does not cost as much in terms of money and time, a component can be changed periodically to suit the needs of an organization. Hence, each component should be evaluated by the set of IT factors that are used for local systems. Strategic factors do not have a signicant inuence on these systems. Finally, a key issue with componentized systems is the methodology that is used to integrate the components in question. Thus, intercomponent compatibility becomes a key consideration (see the block arrow next to the componentized systems in Figure 12.2).
Methodologies for Post-Implementation Audit and Evaluation
In nalizing the post-implementation documentation of a business case, a number of methodologies exist. Yet these methodologies will need some restructuring because initial justication models are used typically for selection purposes. The explicit consideration for PIA has not been a focus in these models development. Thus, there is potential for signicant research in this area to further model and methodology development for PIA. We will provide a brief overview of these evaluation models and some considerations in their implementation, with a focus on bias associated with their implementation.
Evaluation Methodologies
A number of methods have been proposed in the literature for the evaluation of the factors and relationships discussed thus far. These methods typically fall within the scope of multiple criteria decision making. Included among these techniques are the analytical hierarchy process (AHP); analytical network process (ANP); data envelopment analysis (DEA); expert systems; goal programming; multiattribute utility theory (MAUT); and outranking, simulation, and scoring models. These are examples of the techniques that can address a mix of tangible and intangible factors, and they are well described in the literature. Thus, we restrict ourselves to listing the techniques and providing certain important characteristics of these techniques in Table 12.3.
Ta b l e 1 2 . 3 Summary of multiple-criteria evaluation techniques and methodologies for evaluation of ERP systems and factors (H high, M medium, L low)
Economic rigor Management understanding Mathematical complexity L H H H M M H L M L M L M L H H L M H H M M H L
Evaluation technique Data requirements Ease of sensitivity L L L M M L H L M M H M H M H L
Cost of implementation
Parameter mixing/ exibility H M H L H M M H
References* A, B, C D, E F, G C, H, I J, K L M, N O, P
Borenstein Parsaei,
AHP DEA Expert systems Goal program MAUT Outranking Simulation Scoring models
M M H M H M H L
*A Albayrakoglu (1996), B Kleindorfer and Partovi (1990), C Suresh and Kaparthi (1992), D Khouja (1995), E Sarkis (1997), F (1998), G Padmanabhan (1989), H Stam and Kuula (1991), I Suresh (1991), J Chandler (1982), K Pandey and Kengpol (1995), L Wilhelm, and Kolli (1993), M Suresh and Meredith (1985), N Primrose (1991), O Nelson (1986), P Semich (1994).
187
Managerial Issues Concerning Biases in Post-Implementation Auditing and Evaluation
Our discussion thus far has focused on (a) the importance of considering intangible issues in ERP evaluation and (b) methodologies for evaluating those issues. This evaluation, initially, involves signicant judgment elicitations using eld interviews and surveys. A protocol suggested for conducting this elicitation is given in Keeney and von Winterfeldt (1991): Identication of issues Identication of expert Renement of issues Training for elicitation Elicitation Analysis, aggregation, and resolution of disagreements Documentation A number of the above steps are affected by judgments biases stemming from both the decision maker and researcher, whether before or after implementation of the ERP system. Biases can affect the selection of the factors for consideration, as well as the methodology used to evaluate those factors. Even though the following bias discussion is particularly relevant for subjective measurement through management perceptual input, more tangible information and its acquisition may also fall prey to many of these biases. Availability Bias. Availability bias arises when issues that are not mentioned explicitly are not considered; that is, out of sight is out of mind (Fischchoff, Slovic, and Lichtenstein, 1978, p. 333). To handle this bias, auditors and managers must follow in their interviews a debiasing strategy that entails asking disconrming questions aimed at refocusing the subjects attention on what was left out. An example by Fischchoff et al. (1978) is as follows: In particular, wed like you to consider its completeness. That is, what proportion of the possible reasons . . . are left out, to be included in the category all other problems. Overcondence Bias. This bias relates to situations in which individuals tend to be overcondent in their fallible judgment
188
(Bazerman, 1986). A number of researchers have found that overcondence is most extreme with tasks of great difculty and is reduced when tasks get easier (Lichtenstein, Fischchoff, and Phillips, 1982; Pitz, 1974). As such, Fischhoffs (1982, p. 427) review of methodological manipulations to debias overcondence has found that overcondence is relatively resistant to many forms of tinkering (other than changes in difculty level), and he suggests decompositional approaches as one of the restructuring debiasing strategies. Kleinmuntz (1990) contends that decompositional approaches reduce informationprocessing demands as well as errors, and Russo and Shoemaker (1989) state that people have difculty simultaneously handling (or making assessments across in the case of PIA) several factors. Finally, Armstrong, Denniston, and Gordan (1975) have experimentally found that decomposition can reduce cognitive biases. In other words, the research literature suggests that judgments must be elicited by breaking down a complex question into a series of simpler questions. Of the methodologies surveyed in the previous section, the AHP approach does decomposition naturally, which may support the use of one technique versus another. If the auditing team feels that overcondence bias is prevalent, then the incorporation of a technique such as AHP may be more appropriate. Management Bias. Management bias can occur when a subjects responses are inuenced by some kind of reward structure, such as: Well, if thats the variable the boss wants minimized, well minimize it! (Merkhofer, 1987, p. 746; Shephard and Kirkwood, 1994). It would, therefore, be important to select people for PIAs who would not be subject to pressure from management. Anchoring Bias. Anchoring occurs when an individual starts with an initial estimate and makes insufcient adjustment from that anchor (Bazerman, 1986). Merkhofer (1987) states that organizational frames create strong anchors, and only those individuals who understand the context of such frames are able to free themselves of that anchoring effect. Anchoring could also happen when the expert is inuenced by the framework of
189
the analyst (Russo and Shoemaker, 1989). One way to mitigate the effects of this bias is to ask the expert to substantiate each factor that is being considered. Other Interviewer or Auditor Bias. Sometimes interviewers and auditors unwittingly communicate information to the respondent (for example, through a comment). This can produce expectations about how the respondent must answer the interviewers or auditors question and thus bias the response (Hyman, 1970; Krosnick, 1999). An example drawn from Hyman (1970, p. 58) is the following statement by the interviewer: The average woman thinks only of her job.
Managerial and Research Implications of PIA Factors and Methodologies
A number of issues arise when seeking to complete PIAs with respect to factors and methodologies. Many of these issues occur in practice and have not been fully researched to determine how they should be addressed. Addressing them may help to further the development and adoption of PIAs in organizations, further enhancing their competitive position by improving the use of ERP systems and thus the strategic competitive positioning of the organization. We now enumerate what may be considered some major issues and characteristics. 1. In ERP environments, the fuzziness or uncertainty of the measures used in PIA may be because much can be based on data archived by these systems, rather than simply on subjective experiential estimates. This reduces reliance on managerial perceptions and may cause a shift in the biases associated with the acquisition of data and application of methodologies. 2. Methodological evaluation approaches will need to consider variances in valuations and factors, not just absolute values. Thus, methodologies may need adjustments for gap analysis or focusing more on variance qualities of the factors. 3. Methodological approaches that are more intangible and perceptually or preferentially focused (i.e., expert systems) may be less useful for post-audit implementation than methodologies
190
that are more structured and quantitatively oriented (e.g., mathematical programming). The veracity of this point needs to be investigated. 4. Selection of factors must be carefully and rigorously conducted so that before and after data are comparable and measurable to similar extents. For example, return on investment, a nancial metric, may be used in before and after measures and integrated into a broad variety of methodologies. 5. The methodological approaches selected should be consistent (even with differing factor and data availability). This issue gets into the exibility of methodologies for pre- and postimplementation audit. An investigation into this exibility, considering some of the decision environments we have discussed, needs to be completed. 6. The availability of various levels of management for information and data acquisition must be taken into consideration when determining which factors and methodologies are suitable. Those that require signicant interaction with managers (e.g., expert systems and AHP) may be at a disadvantage. It is expected that this interaction is lessened in PIA.
Bottom Line
One of the major concerns in ensuring continued success in ERP implementations and extensions is that of the post-implementation audit (PIA) and evaluation of these systems in-use. Yet regardless of their importance in improving management decisions and operations relating to these systems, formal and valid PIAs are still not common. To further the integration of PIAs into organizations, understanding the roles of factors and evaluation methodologies, especially for strategic systems such as ERP, becomes critical. Managerial and research insights into the application of various factors (cost, IT operational, and general business) into the PIA must be developed. Similarly, methodologies and considerations facing their application and the issue of biases must be more rigorously addressed by researchers and practitioners alike. With continued advancements in ERP system capabilities and extensions, this task will only get more complex in the future. Becoming familiar with PIA processes in the near term should establish a corporate knowledge base for emerging developments.
13
The Path of the Enlightened Manager: Prescriptions for ERP Evolution

LORET TA L. DAVID AND ELLIOT BENDOLY
The ability of future enterprise applications to support corporate business objectives and the requirements demanded of a new century remain subject to debate. Many of these IT solutions have been extremely painful (if not disastrous), though some have paved the way for companies to explore new markets and technologies. Nevertheless, many operations and IT managers feel like battle survivors and still wonder what they have won. Now faced with industry pressures to widen the scope of ERP applications and nd solutions to manage entire supply chains, they are looking back to their ERP implementations for cues to the possible future. In a 2003 presentation to the SSA Global Client Forum, Mike Greenough (President and EO of SSA Global) stated the case plainly: Implementing an ERP system is like brain surgery: you only want to do it once. Others, such as Graeme Cooksley (Executive VP, Global Sales and Marketing, SSA Global), suggested that given the economic realities of today, companies are looking for more efcient ways to conduct business and remain competitive . . . while purposely avoiding major IT investments. In other words, having gone through the effort to get an ERP architecture up and running . . . nd ways to better use what you have, before looking for new things to get (or change). In looking ahead, managers rst need to look back and recognize the accomplishments they may
192
have achieved through ERP implementation. Depending on the nature of the business and type of success achieved, this may include: The majority of key business processes now linked and supported by a common ERP architecture Unique, proprietary system customizations to resolve critical procedural gaps that previously existed A strengthened foundation for understanding, tracking, and managing cross-linked operations However, the question of the relevance to new practices (e.g., new SCM initiatives) still needs to be addressed. The task is complicated by the fact that not all ERP benets have been equally realized by a large number of rms that possess completed implementations. With pressure to secure competitive supply chain positions among other rms with potentially disparate ERP capabilities, managers are weighing a range of often seemingly dramatic options. Upgrade or change architecture. Only a select few companies have embraced the very disciplined (if not questionable) approach of banning customizations (or at least limiting them to business critical areas). These few are perhaps best positioned to take advantage of upgrades designed to stay current with emerging application benets. Each new version has the potential of contributing new functionality and easing contemporary compatibility concerns across the architecture. In fact, the traditional model for ERP software had always been keep current and always plan to move to the most current software release. Benets touting such modications have been: Access to new functionality that matches a rms strategic or tactical needs Replacement of previous heavy-seam customizations, making processing smoother and laying the groundwork for easier future changes The leveraging of existing system strengths, which were previously underutilized
193
Potentially minimal disruptions to end users and processes, if much of the front-end protocols and interfaces go unchanged At the same time, these modication projects do require the drafting and approval of new project plans and often drive rms to call for additional assistance from experts (either in-house or outsourced) to provide net change education and perhaps re-implementation if several critical modules or releases have previously been skipped. Furthermore, aside from migration assessments from vendors to determine the scope and cost of such upgrades, post-implementation assessments involving net operating changes and surveys of end users are required to ensure that the greatest benets from such changes are ultimately realized. Overall, and not surprisingly, it often takes so much time, money, and effort to modify these systems, few veteran managers are willing to consider such overhauls seriously. Expand with bolt-on solutions. A potentially less disruptive, and increasingly popular, option is to keep existing ERP architectures intact and seek out solutions designed to enhance the rms ability to support its strategic vision and mission. As discussed in several of the previous chapters, this often comes in the form of what have become known as bolt-on applications. Such extensions can support both strategic and tactical solutions to emerging competitive requirements. As Mabert and Watts (Chapter 4) suggest, the benets of bolt-onbased evolution provides opportunities for best-of-breed extensions while retaining the underlying efciencies made possible by existing enterprise capabilities. Of course, the loss of seamlessness from the use of bolt-ons from vendors other than the ERP architecture provider may raise some red agsbut with modern awareness of ERP architectural design, such seams need not be extensive. The near seamlessness of light-seam options suitable for specic rms, architectures, and applications is becoming more commonplace. Major concerns for this approach still exist in industries in which novel extensions are not common practice, even from an operational standpoint.
194
When heavy-seam options are the only options available, bolt-on solutions require considerable scrutiny to justify from a medium-term risk perspective. Sweat and exploit. Many rms, having made a signicant investment in their ERP systems, may still have signicant ROI to achieve directly from existing untapped capabilities. It is important to keep in mind that data is not the only thing that can be mined from ERP architecture. Underutilized functionality can also be discovered with sufcient time, experience, and effort. Just as data mining is not driven entirely by automated algorithms (Bendoly, 2003), the search for functionality involves a wide range of contributors, including managers, high-level super users, and end users faced with seemingly rote and repetitive tasks. Three critical components should be kept in mind during exploitation effortsaccess to information, increased productivity, and collaboration. The focus should not be on a better mousetrap, but on the efciency of the traps in place. ERP systems offer a wealth of data, but it is information that drives business. Access to answers relating to the business operations within hours rather than days is an advantage. Producing consistent real-time measurements of the key performance indicators within hours of the results is competitive. Providing workers with tools to give visibility to customer orders and service levels is strategic. Shared information between customers and suppliers extends solutions to the entire supply chain.
Recommendations
Bottom line: If its broken, x it; if its failing, shore it; if its working, advance it! If the system is not supporting current operations, or on the road to that state, then either modify the system or modify operational procedures for conformity. Firms that simply ignore misalignment set themselves up for a myriad of unorganized local decisions. A sustained policy of usage accountability must be engaged as an extension of the implementation process to ensure that ERP systems continue to complement operational processes and are advantageously leveraged through time
195
(e.g., Sarkis, Chapter 12). We outline some of the tasks required in such an ongoing accountability below: Broadly review current processes and procedures. Current operational procedures may have changed to meet changing market requirements since initial implementation. Evaluate the changes against existing processes and ERP functionality. Additional core ERP products may have been bundled with the original purchase or could be added for a minimum investment. The real advantage here is that all of the new processes will build on the existing database and the new functionality may be fully integrated throughout the system. This is a good way to leverage the knowledge of your business, customers, and markets to gain competitive advantage. Perform a formal gap analysis. Analyze how the solution or system is being used. Assess how the rm is currently using the ERP architecture. Get consulting help if needed to maximize the use of the software to support operations. Consider using consulting like you would laser surgeryvery focused for a short duration. Make sure internal managers have an understanding of the global picture to guide this focus. Consider the physical resources that drive ERP effectiveness. Determine whether a hardware upgrade would improve system operation. The technology race has reaped fast, more efcient, economical hardware, but do not limit resource considerations to the technology. If slow response time or problem-resolution accuracy is a problem, look for efciency improvements in the workforce. Training and greater exposure of users to enterprise-wide functional linkages can create a culture of extended useand can yield much greater results than many technical options. Consider rolling out the solution to a wider user base. Expand to eld personnel via intranet and Internet access, share information, and link customers and vendors. There are several software solutions that can Web enable the software, even if the current vendor does not offer it at the current ERP release that is running.
196
Maintain an active partnership with the ERP vendor. Many vendors have answered the wake-up call to listen to customers and have had to re-invent solutions to become more agile and responsive. An active partnership requires commitment through renewing or continuing ongoing maintenance support, which invests in the vendors and entitles customers to shape the direction of the solutions offered in the future. This will also open the opportunity to report all open issues and follow up until resolved. Dont feel locked into extensive prior customizations. Time and money spent on such customizations often dissuade the consideration of upgrade benets. However, new versions may include the solution that warranted initial customization in the rst place, as well as added functionality that could bypass future customization projects. Keep long-term goals in mind, and remember that sunk costs are, after all, sunk. Consider further consolidation. Again, with market changes in mind, if the company has many sites using different software solutions, determine whether a conversion to one standard system is now or will soon be warranted. Of course, this depends on the extent of homogeneity across business units and divisions. Also, understand that consolidation does not need to be strictly an IT issue. Procedural consolidation may end up being much more operational and organizational in scope. To that extent, consider whether local technical expertise at each site may serve the rms purposes more effectively than centralized IT support. Furthermore, evaluate the potential tradeoffs between centralized and decentralized operational planning that may only now be possible given the IT infrastructure. Look to bolt-on solutions when exploitation fails to yield. Work with the existing ERP vendor to enhance the solutions. Many vendors have established partnerships with best-of-breed solutions with collaborative efforts in developing the software integration between the core ERP and the partner solutions. At the same time, dont discount third-party options. Theyre
197
often ahead of the curve relative to base vendors on innovative extensions. To determine the partner solutions that may help: Go to market leader literature to compare feature functionality. Attend web presentations, exhibits, and workshops. Speak with references and read client testimonials.
Its Usage That Supports Strategy, Stupid!
Regardless of the numerous strategic implications of ERP, there remain critics. Those that (a) view ERP simply as an imitable technology that imposes common and inexible standards and (b) choose to ignore the process dynamics derived from its implementation and associated with its usage are likely to be closed minded to a number of opportunities available to their rms. Such managers seldom represent positive stabilizers and are much more likely to serve as dead weight, limiting the exibility of the rm much more so than any set of imposed standards. Moreover, such managers have most likely bought the line that imitable and inexible assets cant possibly advance the competitive objectives of rms (a mindset analogous to the common misinterpretation of resource-based thinking on the behalf of some academics). They fail to see that even highly imitable and inexible resources can give rise to high levels of exibility and inimitability in other resources (e.g., human resources, process designs, etc.). This point is signicant in that although it is not in conict with either the original statement of the resource-based view or dynamic capabilities discussions, it has not been one of the main points of focus by academics. For example, Barney (often praised as the originator of the resource-based view) only mentions such an alternative notion in passing in his 1991 treatise (p. 113):
It may be that the [imitable] formal planning system in a rm enables a rm to recognize and exploit other resources, and some of these resources might be sources of sustained competitive advantage.
This new recognition and exploitation necessarily assumes changes in other resources (e.g., new processes designed to exploit these newly recognized or rediscovered resources). Furthermore, this recognition
198
Imitable technology resources
Technology adoption
Inter-org. externalities Strategic process and relational resources
Inter-org. external cues Fuzzy knowledge resources
Inter-org. tech ambiguity Strategic valueclarifying knowledge
Composite tech assessments
Higher-level knowledge resources
FIGURE
13.1
Supply Chain Enablement Through ERP Development and Use
Source: Adapted from generic model by Bendoly (2005)
and exploitation doesnt have to be catalyzed by the resources within the rm alone. Given the relational nature of modern supply chains, it is very likely that the use of imitable resources (e.g., off-the-shelf ERP packages) by partnering rms can create the same result, even if a rm does not possess that same imitable resource. The concept of knowledge generation through imitable resource usage among a network of rms gives rise to an inspiring notion of the mechanisms behind supply chain technical advancement and strategic evolution. Necessarily such a process is iterative and cyclical even for individual rms (as depicted in Figure 13.1). What makes ERP so profound from a strategic perspective is its role as a foundation and launching pad for such inter-organizational development. The wide variety of extended applications as described in the preceding chapters attests to its exibility in this regardin sharp
199
contrast to any inexibility imposed by embedded standards. This diversity of opportunities in turn opens the door to levels of competitive distinction that many rms may not have even considered in the past provided that these resources are in fact used to their full potential at all levels of the rm. This includes use of the system in identifying capabilities and driving new strategic directions by top-level managers, as well as application in the weeding out of process constraints by front-line workers familiar with the direct links between the transactional data collected and the ow of operational activities. Much of this is not the kind of use mandated by system design, but rather promoted by a concerted organizational culture of development. This isnt a missed ship. It still waits in the harbor for intrepid rms interested in preventing extinction through inertia. When asked, Is this as good as it gets? regarding resource planning technologies, competent and responsible managers need to feel condent in replying, You aint seen nothing yet. They need to be aware of their options and of deciencies of their current capabilities. Resources that have as great a potential as ERP systems to motivate the evolution of competitive strengths and strategic prowess can make the sky the limit, but only for managers and organizations willing to embrace inward scrutiny, confront long-lived challenges, and drive continual development through the future. There will always be a few that are willing to test the waters. For these we have the highest regard and look forward to seeing the new worlds, innovations, and fortunes that await them.
References
Adams, D., Nelson, R., and Todd, P. 1992. Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly 227245. Adler, P. S. 1989. Technology strategy: A guide to the literature, research in technological innovation. In Management and Policy, Rosenbloom (Ed.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 25 151. Adler, P. S., and Kwon, S. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27(1): 17 40. Aiken, P., Muntz, A., and Richards, R. 1994. DoD legacy systems. Communications of the ACM 37(5): 26 41. Akkermans, H. A., Bogerd, P., Yucesan, E., and van Wassenhove, L. N. 2003. The impact of ERP on supply chain management: Exploratory ndings from a European Delphi study. European Journal of Operational Research 146(2): 284 301. Albayrakoglu, M. M. 1996. Justication of new manufacturing technology: A strategic approach using the analytical hierarchy process. Production and Inventory Management Journal 37(1): 7176. Allen, S. J., and Schuster, E. W. 1994. Practical production scheduling with capacity constraints and dynamic demand: Family planning and disaggregation. Production and Inventory Management Journal 35(4): 15 21. Allen, S. J., and Schuster, E. W. 2004. Controlling the risk for an agricultural harvest. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 6(3): 112. Allen, S. J., Martin, J., and Schuster, E. W. 1997. A simple method for the multi-item, single level, capacitated scheduling problem with set-up times and costs. Production and Inventory Management Journal 38(4): 39 47.
202
References
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., and Zairi, M. 2003. Enterprise resource planning: Taxonomy of critical factors. European Journal of Operational Research 146: 352 364. Amos, J. 1998. Transformation to Agility: Manufacturing in the Marketplace of Unanticipated Change. New York: Garland. AMR. 1995. A Brief History of Manufacturing Systems. Boston: Advanced Manufacturing Research, pp. 10 14. Anderson, M. C., Banker, R., and Ravindran, S. 2003. The new productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM 41(8): 6773. Arens, Y., Knoblock, C., and Shen, W. 1996. Query reformulation for dynamic information integration. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 6: 99130. Armstrong, J., Denniston, W., and Gordon, M. 1975. The use of the decomposition principle in making judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 14: 257263. Asgekar, V., and Suleski, J. 2003. Vendor-managed inventory: Smart investments lead to big payoffs. AMR Research Report. Bain, J. S. 1956. Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Bain, J. S. 1968. Industrial Organization (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Banker, R., Davis, G., and Slaughter, S. 1998. Software development practices, software complexity and software maintenance performance: A eld study. Management Science 44(4): 433 450. Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99 120. Barney, J. B. 1995. Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive 9(4): 49 61. Bartholomew, D., Jesitus, J., and Kreitzburg, C. 1997. Managing the internetworked corporation: Promises versus reality. Industry Week 246(20): 26 36. Bazerman, M. 1986. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. New York: Wiley. Beamon, B. M. 1999. Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 19(3): 275 292. Bendoly, E. 2003. Theory and support for process frameworks of knowledge discovery and data mining from ERP systems. Information and Management 40(7): 639 647. Bendoly, E. 2005. The resource enablement cycle: Implications for studying the diffusion of inter-organizational information technology. Working Paper. Bendoly, E., and Jacobs, F. R. 2004. ERP process and operations task alignment: Performance insights at the order processing level. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 24(1): 99 117.
References
203
Bendoly, E., and Kaefer, F. 2004. Business technology complementarities: Impacts of the presence and strategic timing of ERP on B2B e-commerce technology efciencies. Omega 32(5): 395 405. Bendoly, E., and Schoenherr, T. 2005. ERP system and implementation-process benets: Implications for B2B e-procurement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 25(4). Bendoly, E., Soni, A., and Venkataramanan, M. A. 2004. Value chain resource planning: Adding value with systems beyond the enterprise. Business Horizons 47(2): 79 86. Billington, P. J., McClain, J. O., and Thomas, L. J. 1983. Mathematical programming approaches to capacity-constrained MRP systems: Review, formulation, and problem reduction. Management Science 29(10): 1126. Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., and Godla, J. 1999. Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. Information Systems Management 16(3): 714. Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., and Walker, O. C. 2002. Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19(3): 233. Borenstein, D. 1998. IDSSFLEX: An intelligent DSS for the design and evaluation of exible manufacturing systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49(7): 734 744. Bostwick, P. 2004. Method and system for creating, sustaining, and using a transactional bill of materials (TBOM). Washington, DC: U.S. Patent Ofce. Patent Pending. Boudreau, M. C., and Robey, D. 2001. Enabling organizational transition with complex technologies: Understanding post-implementation learning. Presentation, Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Brenner, B., and Cheese, P. 1999. Reaping the rewards of enterprise solutions: What you must knowand doto optimize the return on your investment in enterprise business solutions. Enterprise Perspectives. Anderson Consulting. Brock, D. L. 2000. Intelligent infrastructure: A method for networking physical objects. MIT Smart World Conference. Brock, D. L. 2003a. The data projecttechnologies, infrastructure, and standards for distributed interoperable modeling and simulation. MIT Data Project Workshop, Cambridge, MA. Brock, D. L. 2003b. Beyond the EPC: Making sense of the dataproposals for engineering the next generation intelligent data network. Cambridge, MA: MIT Auto-ID Center. Brock, D. L., Schuster, E. W., Allen, S. J., and Kar, P. 2004. An introduction to semantic modeling for logistical systems. 2004 Logistics Educators Conference, Philadelphia.
204
References
Broeking, A. 2004. Directing a blockbuster: The return of enterprise solutions in Asia Pacic. Accenture. Brown, C. 1998. Advantage 2000 at Owens Corning. In Managing Information Technology, E. Martin, C. Brown, D. DeHayes, J. Hoffer, and W. Perkins (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 640 658. Brown, C. V., and Vessey, I. 2002. NIBCOs big bang. In Managing Information Technology (4th ed.), Martin, Brown, DeHayes, Hoffer, and Perkins (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, C. V., Tatikonda, M. V., and Vessey, I. 2003. NIBCO: MySAP supply chain management. SAP Case Study Series. Available online at www.sap.com /solutions/scm /customersuccess. Brown, R. 2001. RosettaNet standards a big dice game. Available online at www.line56.com /articles/default.asp?newsid 2720, July 12, 2001. Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. 1996. Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Science 42(4): 541558. Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. 1998. Beyond the productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM 41(8): 49 55. Carr, N. G. 2003. IT doesnt matter. Harvard Business Review 81(5): 41. Chadwick, C., and Cappelli, P. 1997. Alternatives to generic strategy typologies in strategic human resource management research. Paper presented at the Conference on Research and Theory in SHRM: An agenda for the 21st century. Chandler, J. S. 1982. A multiple criteria approach for evaluating information systems. MIS Quarterly 6(1): 6174. Chatterjee, D. D., Pacini, C., and Sambamurthy, V. 2002. The shareholderwealth and trading-volume effects of information-technology infrastructure investments. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(2): 7 42. CIO. 2002. IT planning for the economic recovery. CIO Research Report. Cliffe, S. 1999. ERP implementation. Harvard Business Review 77(1): 16 17. Collis, D. J., and Montgomery, C. A. 1995. Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review 73(4): 118 128. Conner, K. R. 1996. A resource based theory of the rm: Knowledge vs. opportunism. Organization Science 7(5): 477501. Cooksley, G. 2003. SSA Global Technologies Brings Return on Investment Seminar Series to North America. SSA Global Client Forum, Orlando, FL. Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science 32(5): 554 571. DAveni, R. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. New York: Simon and Schuster. Davenport, T. H. 1992. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
References
205
Davenport, T. H. 1998. Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review 121131. Davenport, T. H. 2000. Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., and Cantrell, S. 2002. The Return of Enterprise Solutions: The Directors Cut. Accenture Institute for Strategic Change. Available online at www.accenture.com /xd/ xd.asp?it enweb&xd _ins%5Cresearchreportabstract_174.xml Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., and Warshaw, P. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8): 982 1003. Deutsch, C. 1998. Software that can make a grown company cry. New York Times 148(51): 328. Devaraj, S., Fan, M., and Kohli, R. 2002. Antecedents to B2C channel satisfaction and preference: Validating e-commerce metrics. Information Systems Research 13(3): 316 333. Diederich, T. 1998. Bankrupt rm blames SAP for failure. ComputerWorld. Dillon, C. K. 1999. Stretching toward enterprise exibility with ERP. APICS The Performance Advantage 38 43. Dinning, M., and Schuster, E. W. 2003. Fighting friction. APICS The Performance Advantage 13(2): 2731. DItri, M. P., Allen, S. J., and Schuster, E. W. 1999. Capacitated scheduling of multiple products on a single processor with sequence dependencies. Production and Inventory Management Journal 40(5): 2733. Engels, D. W., Koh, R., Lai, E. M., and Schuster, E. W. 2004. Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain. Army Logistician 36(3): 20 23. Ettlie, J. E. 1997. Quality, technology, and global manufacturing. Production and Operations Management 2(6): 150 167. Ettlie, J. E., and Perotti, V. 2004. The information processing view of innovation and new product development. Working Paper. Fan, M., Stallaert, J., and Whinston, A. B. 2000. The adoption and design methodologies of component-based enterprise systems. European Journal of Information Systems 9: 25 35. Feld, C. S., and Stoddard, D. B. 2004. Getting IT right. Harvard Business Review 82(2): 72 81. Fine, C. H. 1998. Clockspeed. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Fischchoff, B. 1982. Debiasing. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, A. (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 422 444.
206
References
Fischchoff, B., Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S. 1978. Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptions and Performance 4: 330 344. Fisher, M. L. 1997. What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review 105 116. Forrester, J. W. 1958. Industrial dynamics. Harvard Business Review July/August: 37 66. Fox, M. L., and Holmes, J. L. 1998. A model of market leadership. Supply Chain Management Review 54 61. Gattiker, T., and Goodhue, D. 2004. Understanding the local level costs and benets of ERP through organizational information processing theory. Information and Management 41(4): 431 443. Geffen, D., and Straub, D. W. 2000. The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 1(8): 235 261. Gimenes, I., and Barroca, L. 2002. Enterprise framework for workow management. Software-Practice and Experience 32: 755 769. Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., and Presis, K. 1995. Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Goldratt, E. M. 1984. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press. Grackin, A., and Gilmore, D. 2004. Advanced planning systems implementation: A four-year analysis of results and benets. Available online at www.scdigest.com /archive/articles.cfm Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 114 135. Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 108 122. Greenough, M. 2003. Corporate Presentation, SSA Global Client Forum, Orlando, FL. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., and McGaughey, R. E. 2004. A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics 87(3): 333 347. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., and Tirtiroglu, E. 2001. Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 21(1/2): 71 87. Gunneson, A. O. 1997. Transitioning to Agility: Creating the 21st Century Enterprise. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Haberman, A. L. (Ed.). 2001. Twenty-Five Years Behind Bars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
References
207
Haeckel, S. H. 1999. Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-andRespond Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hammer, M., and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business Press. Hauschildt, J. 1992. External acquisition of knowledge for innovationsa research agenda. R&D Management 22(2): 105 110. Hauser, H. E. 2000. SMEs in GermanyFacts and Figures. Bonn, Germany: Institut fr Mittelstandsforschung. Henn, J. 1998. IBM San Francisco. Software-Concepts and Tools 19: 37 48. Hill, T. 1999. Manufacturing Strategy. New York: Irwin /McGraw-Hill. Hinley, D. 1996. Software evolution management: A process-oriented perspective. Information and Software Technology 38: 723 730. Hitt, L. M., Wu, D. J., and Zhou, X. 2002. ERP investment: Business impact, productivity measures. Journal of Management Information Systems. Hong, K. K., and Kim, Y. G. 2002. The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational t perspective. Information and Management 40: 25 40. Hyman, H. 1970. Interviewing in Social Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. IOMA Group. 2003. Vendor Managed Inventory: Reducing Inventory with a Win-Win Program for Suppliers and Distributors. The Institute of Management and Administration. Irani, Z., Sharp, J. M., and Race, P. 1997. A case experience of new product introduction within a once traditional subcontract manufacturing environment. Production and Inventory Management Journal 38(2): 4751. Jacobs, F. R., and Bendoly, E. 2003. Enterprise resource planning: Developments and directions for operations management research. European Journal of Operational Research 146(2): 5 12. Jacobs, F. R., and Whybark, C. 2000. Why ERP? New York: Irwin /McGrawHill. Kar, P., Li, M., and Schuster, E. W. 2003. A case study of computer service parts inventory management. In Service Parts Resource Guide. Falls Church, VA: American Production and Inventory Control Society. Keeney, R., and von Winterfeldt, D. 1991. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 38(3): 191201. Kelly, R., and ODonnell, T. 2001. Enterprise Application Implementation: Failure to Train Properly Ensures Implementation Failure. Training Dimensions, Inc. Kettinger, W., and Lee, C. 1994. Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with information-services function. Decision Sciences 25(5/6): 737766.
208
References
Khouja, M. 1995. The use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection. Computers and Industrial Engineering 28( 2): 123 132. Kirkpatrick, D. 1998. The w-ware war: Competition comes to enterprise software. Fortune 138(11): 103 112. Kleindorfer, P. R., and Partovi, F. Y. 1990. Integrating manufacturing strategy and technology choice. European Journal of Operational Research 47: 214 224. Kleinmuntz, D. 1990. Decomposition and the control of error in decision analytic models. In Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, R. Hogarth (Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 107126. Kogut, B., and Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the rm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625 645. Koh, R., Schuster, E. W., Chackrabarti, I., and Bellman, A. 2003a. Securing the pharmaceutical supply chain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Auto-ID Center. Koh, R., Schuster, E. W., Lam, N., and Dinning, M. 2003b. Prediction, detection, and proof: An integrated Auto-ID solution to retail theft. Cambridge, MA: MIT Auto-ID Center. Kohli, R., and Devaraj, S. 2003. Measuring information technology payoff: A meta analysis of structural variables in rm-level empirical research. Information Systems Research 14(2): 127145. Krosnick, J. 1999. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50: 537567. Laitinen, M., Fayad, M., and Ward, R. 2000. The problem with scalability. Communications of the ACM 43(9): 105 114. Laughlin, S. P. 1999. An ERP game plan. Journal of Business Strategy January/February: 32 37. Leachman, R. C., Benson, R. F., Liu, C., and Raar, D. J. 1996. IMPReSS: An automated production-planning and delivery-quotation system at Harris Corporation, semiconductor sector. Interfaces 26(1): 6 37. Lee, H. L., Padhamanabhan, V., and Whang, S. 1997. The bullwhip effect in supply chains. Sloan Management Review Spring: 93 102. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., and Wolff, J. A. 1998. Achieving consistency of purpose. Strategy and Leadership 26(2): 32 38. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., and Wolff, J. A. 1999. Examining the similarities and contradictions in the logic of three strategy research streams. Strategic Management Journal 20(12): 1109 1132. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., and Abdinnour-Helm, S. 2004. The role of social and intellectual capital in achieving competitive advantage through enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management.
References
209
Levinson, M. 2003. It aint over . . . until you do the post-implementation audit. CIO 17(1): 74 80. Li, H., and Su, S. 2001. Business objects modeling, validation, and mediation for integrating heterogeneous application systems. Journal of Systems Integration 10: 307328. Liao, Z., and Cheung, M. 2001. Internet-based e-shopping and consumer attitudes: an empirical study. Information and Management 38(5): 299 306. Lichtenstein, S., Fischchoff, B., and Phillips, L. 1982. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 306 334. Liebeskind, J. P. 1996. Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 93 107. Lynds, J. 2003. Does the productivity paradox really exist? Available online at http://www.jlion.com Mabert, V. M., Soni, A., and Venkataramanan, M. A. 2000. Enterprise resource planning survey of U.S. manufacturing rms. Production and Inventory Management Journal 41(2): 52 58. Mabert, V. M., Soni, A., and Venkataramanan, M. A. 2003. The impact of organization size on ERP implementations in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Omega 31: 235 246. Malone, T. W. 2004. The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Markus, M. L., and Tanis, C. 2000. The enterprise experience from adoption to success. In Framing the Domains of IT Management. Zmud and Price (Eds.). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaex. Markus, M. L., Tanis, C., and Fenema, P. C. 2000. Multisite ERP implementations. Communications of the ACM 43(4): 42 46. Mason, E. S. 1939. Price and production policies of large-scale enterprises. American Economic Review 29: 6174. Merkhofer, M. 1987. Quantifying judgmental uncertainties: Methodology, experiences, and insights. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 17(5): 741752. Miles, R. H. 1980. Macro Organizational Behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Miles, R., and Snow, C. C. 1984. Designing strategic human resource systems. Organizational Dynamics 13(1): 36 52. Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242 266.
210
References
Nahmias, S. 1993. Production and Operations Analysis. Boston: Irwin. Nelson, C. A. 1986. A scoring model for exible manufacturing systems project selection. European Journal of Operational Research 24: 346 359. Nelson, E., and Ramstad, E. 1999. Hersheys biggest dud has turned out to be new computer system. Wall Street Journal CIV 85: A1 and A6. Ng, P., Yen, B., and Farhoomad, A. 2002. Constructing an e-Supply Chain at Eastman Chemical Company (HKU222). University of Hong Kong, School of Business, Centre for Asian Business Cases. Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science 5: 14 37. OLeary, D. 2000. Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Systems, Life Cycle, Electronic Commerce, and Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Orlicky, J. 1975. Material Requirements Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Padmanabhan, S. 1989. A tandem expert support system as justication for a exible manufacturing system. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 8(3): 195 205. Pandey, P. C., and Kengpol, A. 1995. Selection of an automated inspection system using multiattribute decision analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 39(3): 289 298. Parkin, J. 1996. Organizational decision making and the project manager. International Journal of Project Management 4(5): 257263(7). Parsaei, H. R., Wilhelm, M. R., and Kolli, S. S. 1993. Application of outranking methods to economic and nancial justication of CIM systems. Computers and Industrial Engineering 25(1 4): 357360. Paulk, M., Curtis, B., and Chrissis, M. 1991. Capability maturity model for software. SEI Technical Report CMU/SEI-91-TR-24, Carnegie Mellon University. Peterson, W. J., Gelman, L., and Cooke, D. P. 2001. ERP Trends. Report 129201-RR, The Conference Board. Piturro, M. 1999. How midsize companies are buying ERP. Journal of Accountancy 188(3): 41 48. Pitz, G. 1974. Subjective probability distributions for imperfectly known quantities. In Knowledge and Cognition, L. Gregg (Ed.). New York: Wiley, pp. 29 41. Plachy, E., and Hauser, P. 1999. Enterprise solutions structure. IBM Systems Journal 38(1): 4 11. Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press, Chapter 2, pp. 33 61; Chapter 3, pp. 64 70. Prahalad, C. K., and Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review June: 79 91.
References
211
Primrose, P. L. 1991. Investment in Manufacturing Technology. London: Chapman and Hall. Rigby, D. K., Reicheld, F. F., and Schefter, P. 2002. Avoid the four perils of CRP. Harvard Business Review February: 5 11. Robey, D., Ross, J. W., and Boudreau, M. C. 2002. Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(1): 17 46. Robinson, E. P., and Gao, L. L. 1996. A dual ascent procedure for multiproduct dynamic demand coordinated replenishment with backlogging. Management Science 42(11): 1556 1564. Robinson, E. P., and Narayanan, A. 2004. Heuristics procedures for the coordinated uncapacitated lot-sizing problem. Working Paper, Texas A&M University, Mays Business School. Robinson, E. P., and Sahin, F. 2003. Information sharing and coordination in make-to-order supply chains. Working Paper, University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration. Ross, J. W., and Vitale, M. 2000. The ERP revolution: Surviving versus thriving. Information Systems Frontiers 2(2): 233 241. Russo, J., and Shoemaker, P. 1989. Decision Traps. New York: Doubleday. Sage, A., and Lynch, C. 1998. Systems integration and architecting: An overview of principles, practices and perspectives. Systems Engineering 1(3): 176 227. Sahin, F., and Robinson, E. P. 2002. Flow coordination and information sharing in supply chains: Review, implications, and directions for future research. Decision Sciences 33(4): 505 536. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., and Grover, V. 2003. Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary rms. MIS Quarterly 27(2). Sarkis, J. 1997. Evaluating exible manufacturing systems alternatives using data envelopment analysis. The Engineering Economist 43(1): 25 48. Sarkis, J., and Sundarraj, R. P. 2000. Factors for strategic evaluation of enterprise information technologies. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 30(3/4): 196 220. Sarkis, J., and Sundarraj, R. P. 2003. Evaluating componentized enterprise technologies: A multiattribute modeling approach. Information Systems Frontiers 5(3): 303 319. Sarma, S. 2001. Towards the 5 tag. Cambridge, MA: MIT Auto-ID Center. Sarma, S., Brock, D. L., and Ashton, K. 2000. The networked physical world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Auto-ID Center. Scheer, A. W. 1994. Business Process Reengineering: Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
212
References
Schmenner, R. W., and Swink, M. L. 1998. On theory in operations management. Journal of Operations Management 17(1): 97113. Schuster, E. W., and Allen, S. J. 1998. Raw material management at Welchs. Interfaces 28(5): 13 24. Schuster, E. W., and Finch, B. J. 1990. A deterministic spreadsheet simulation model for production scheduling in a lumpy demand environment. Production and Inventory Management Journal 31(1): 39 42. Schuster, E. W., and Koh, R. 2004. To track and trace. APICS The Performance Advantage 14(2): 34 38. Schuster, E. W., Allen, S. J., and DItri, M. P. 2000. Capacitated materials requirements planning and its application in the process industries. Journal of Business Logistics 21(1): 169 189. Schuster, E. W., Brock, D. L., Allen, S. J., and Engels, D. W. 2004. Raising the Bar (Code): The Value of Auto-ID Technology. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. Segev, E. 1989. A systematic comparative analysis and synthesis of two businesslevel strategic typologies. Strategic Management Journal 10(5): 487505. Semich, J. W. 1994. Heres how to quantify IT investment benets. Datamation 40(1): 45 47. Shephard, G. G., and Kirkwood, C. W. 1994. Managing the judgmental probability elicitation process: A case study of analyst-manager interaction. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 41(4): 414 425. Skinner, W. 1996. Three yards and a cloud of dust. Production and Operations Management 5(6): 15 24. Soh, C., Kien, S., and Tay-Yap, J. 2000. Cultural ts and mists: Is ERP a universal solution? Communications of the ACM 43(3): 4751. Somers, T. M., and Nelson, K. G. 2003. The impact of strategy and integration mechanisms on enterprise system value: Empirical evidence from manufacturing rms. European Journal of Operational Research 146: 315 338. Sousa, J., and Garlan, D. 2001. Formal modeling of enterprise JavaBeans component integration framework. Information and Software Technology 43: 171188. Spender, J. C. 1996. Making knowledge a basis of a dynamic theory of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 109 122. Sridharan, V., Berry, W., and Udayabhanu, V. 1987. Freezing the master production schedule under rolling planning horizons. Management Science 33: 11371149. Stalk, G., Evans, P., and Shulman, L. 1992. Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review March /April: 57 69.
References
213
Stam, A., and Kuula, M. 1991. Selecting a exible manufacturing system using multiple criteria analysis. International Journal of Production Research 29(4): 803 820. Stavridou, V. 1999. Integration in software intensive systems. Journal of Systems and Software 48: 91104. Suresh, N. C. 1991. An extended multi-objective replacement model for exible automation investments. International Journal of Production Research 29(9): 1823 1844. Suresh, N. C., and Kaparthi, S. 1992. Flexible automation investments: A synthesis of two multi-objective modeling approaches. Computers and Industrial Engineering 22(3): 257272. Suresh, N. C., and Meredith, J. R. 1985. Justifying multimachine systems: An integrated strategic approach. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 4(2): 117134. Tatikonda, M. V., and Montoya-Weiss, M. M. 2001. Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation. Management Science 47(1): 151172. Tatikonda, M. V., and Rosenthal, S. R. 2000. Successful execution of product development projects: Balancing rmness and exibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations Management 18(4): 401. Taylor, J. 1999. Fitting enterprise software in smaller companies. Management Accounting 80(8): 36 39. Taylor, S. G., and Bolander, S. F. 1994. Process Flow Scheduling: A Scheduling Systems Framework for Flow Manufacturing. Falls Church, VA: American Production and Inventory Control Society. Tompkins, J. A., and Hall, B. 2001. Did you get what you expected? IIE Solutions 33(7): 43. Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., and Umble, M. M. 2003. Enterprise resource planning: Implementing procedures and critical success factors. European Journal of Operational Research 146: 241257. Unahabhokha, C., Schuster, E. W., Allen, S. J., and Finch B. J. 2003. Master production schedule stability under conditions of nite capacity. Working Paper. Van Everdigen, Y., Van Hillegersberg, J., and Warts, E. 2000. ERP adoption by European midsize companies. Communications of the ACM 43(4): 2731. Various. 2003. Does IT matter? An HBR debate. Harvard Business Review (Letters to the Editor) 81(6): 117. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unied view. MIS Quarterly 27(3): 425 478.
214
References
Voigt, T. 2001. Mittelstand in Deutschland. Cologne: Gruner Jahr. Vollman, T. E., Berry, W. L., Whybark, D. C., and Jacobs, R. F. 2004. Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems for Supply Chain Management (5th ed.). Chicago: Irwin /McGraw-Hill. Weingard, H., Verharen, E., and Dignum, F. 1997. Dynamic business models as a basis for interoperable transaction design. Information Systems 22(2/3): 139 154. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 5: 171180. Xenakis, J. J. 1996. Taming SAP. CFO March: 23 30. Yip, G. S. 1995. Bases of competitive advantage. In Financial Times Handbook of Management (2nd ed.), S. Crainer and D. Dearlove (Eds.). London: Prentice Hall, pp. 253 263. Zaheer, A., and Zaheer, S. 1997. Catching the wave: Alertness, responsiveness, and market inuence in global electronic networks. Management Science 43(11): 1493 1509. Zipkin, P. H. 2000. Foundations of Inventory Management. New York: Irwin / McGraw-Hill. Zuboff, S. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books. Zuckerman, A. 1999. ERP: Pathway to the future or yesterdays buzz? Journal of Transportation and Distribution 40(8): 37 43.
Index
Italic page numbers indicate material in tables or gures. Page numbers followed by n indicate notes. ABC inventory analysis logic, 125 Accenture, Institute for Strategic Change, 72n accountability of usage of ERP systems, 194 97 Ace Hardware, 113 acquisitions, 77 active RFID tags, 162 active tags, Auto-ID, 158, 159 adaptability, 180 add-ons, 49 ad hoc reporting functions, 79 adoption phase, 14, 18, 21, 46. See also chartering phase Advanced Planner and Optimizer (APO), 53, 57 advanced planning and scheduling (APS) systems, 37, 56 57 advance order commitments (AOC), 102 3, 104, 105 advance ship notice (EDI 856), 118 agility, 8796; case study, 90 93; dened, 87 88; mechanisms of ERP support, 93 96, 94; summary, 96 AHP (analytical hierarchy process), 185, 186, 188, 190 aircraft manufacturer, 21 Albert Heijn, 142 43 American Production and Inventory Control Society (APICS), 61, 65, 163, 163 Americas SAP Users Group (ASUG), 136 analytical hierarchy process (AHP), 185, 186, 188, 190 analytical network process (ANP), 185 analyzers as strategy factor, 15 anchoring bias, 188 89 ANP (analytical network process), 185 AOC (advance order commitments), 102 3, 104, 105
216
Index
APICS (American Production and Inventory Control Society), 61, 65, 163, 163 APO (Advanced Planner and Optimizer), 53, 57 apparel industry, 98 appropriation of rents from investments, 132 APS (advanced planning and scheduling) systems, 37, 56 57 Asia-Pacic region benets studies, 72n, 73 as-is study, 175 ASUG (Americas SAP Users Group), 136 auctions, 60 auditing the system, 172 90; biases, 187 89; development phases of ERP systems, 173 77; methodologies for PIA and evaluation, 185, 186; performance evaluation, 178 85; post-implementation audit (PIA), 17778; research implications, 189 90 auditor bias, 189 Australia, 72n authentication of objects, 164 65 Auto-ID technology, 155 71; vs. bar codes, 161 63; capacitated planning and automated scheduling, 165 69; components of, 159 61; data and ERP systems, 163 64; data from EPC, 164 65; how it works, 158 59; vs. RFID, 156 57; semantic modeling, 169 71 automated inventory level monitoring, 128 automatic replenishment programs, 109 automation of manufacturing, 39, 165 66
automobile manufacturers, 111, 131 32, 133, 135 availability bias, 187 Baan, 44, 77 bar codes, 118, 128, 158, 161 62, 170 Barney, J. B., 197 batteries for Auto-ID tags, 158 before and after data, 190 Bendoly, Elliot, 56 benets of ERP systems: vs. costs, in perceptions survey, 26 29, 27, 33; exploitation of, 19; identied in Accenture studies, 72 75, 73, 74; measurement and management, 81, 81 83, 82, 83; product vs. process, 3, 4; of upgrade modications, 192 93 benets of VMI programs, 119, 120 22 best t, 47 48 best-of-breed systems, 52 70; and bolt-on benets, 193; current systems, 63 69, 65, 68; demographic data in survey, 62 63; ERP characteristics, 53 56; functionality improvement, 56 58; future systems, 69 70, 69; integrating ES solutions, 77; recent experience, 58 62 best practices, 54, 141, 148 52 biases in PIA, 187 89 big bang implementation strategy, 48, 50 bill of lading, 158 bill of materials, transactional (T-BOM), 164 bill of materials (BOM), 99 100, 163 bolt-ons, dened, 56 bolt-on systems: current usage by ERP rms, 63 69, 65, 68; evolutionary
Index
217
option, 193 94; functionality improvement, 56 58; recommended in exploitation failures, 196 97; SME use of, 49; as source of agility, 94, 95; study of value to rms, 58 63; types of, 59 61 BOM (bill of materials), 99 100, 163 bonded inventory, 112 bottleneck reduction, 4 BPICS, vendor, 38 Briggs and Stratton, 80 Broeking, A., 72n Brookings Institution, 134 built-in exibility, 94, 94 bullwhip effect, 98, 108, 121, 128 business analysis, 79 business case, 176, 178 business intelligence project, 137, 13738 business partnering agility, 88 business performance factors and measures, 182 85 business processes: integration into ERP, 52, 54, 97; in monolithic ERP system, 184; optimization of, 78; standardization rationales, 9192 business transactions in VMI partnerships (B2B, B2C), 111 business unit, 140 business unit strategies, 16 CAD (computer-aided-design), 37 call center management system, 60, 66, 67, 68 CAM (computer-aided-manufacturing), 37, 132 Canada Post Corporation, 77, 79, 83 Cantrell, S., 72n capability maturity model, 181 capacitated material requirements planning (CMRP), 168 69
capacitated planning and scheduling, 167 69 capital asset tracking and management, 156 Carr, Nicholas G., 130 carrier services for vehicle dispatching, 61 causally ambiguous resources, 17 cellular production techniques, 37 centralization of processes, 89 centralized operational planning, 196 CFPR (collaborative forecasting, planning, and replenishment) program, 112 13 channel performance and integration, 9799, 107 channels (routes to market), 92 93 chartering phase, 14, 22. See also adoption phase Chiazza, John, 78 China, 72n CIO Magazine, 87 Class A MRP II, 163 closed-loop applications, 156 CMRP (capacitated material requirements planning), 168 69 CNC (computer numeric control) milling machines, 166 cold turkey implementation approach, 177 collaboration: intra- and interorganizational, 55; in VMI programs, 109 10, 124 collaborative engineering systems, 132 34 collaborative forecasting, planning, and replenishment (CFPR) program, 112 13 comanaged inventory, 109 commercial transactions, 160. See also electronic data exchange (EDI)
218
Index
commissions for sales, 93 commodity stage of IT, 130 communication, intra- and interorganizational, 55 communication standards, industrywide electronic, 120, 128 companies: large companies, ERP implementation, 38, 43. See also rms; small and medium enterprises (SMEs) competitive advantage: and business strategy, 14, 16 19; ERP culture change, 19; and ERP systems, 34 35, 58, 71; and VMI, 129 competitive competencies, 122 23 competitive gridlock, 173 competitive parity, 17, 18 complexity: of classic ERP system, 144, 145; of VMI program, 111 componentized systems, 184 85 computer-aided-design (CAD), 37 computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM), 37, 132 computer business, agility study, 90 93 computer numeric control (CNC) milling machines, 166 computer simulation studies, 105 6 conguration of ERP systems, 48 49, 89 connections in ERP software and among employees, 20 consignment inventory, 112, 146 consolidation of applications, 77, 196 construction equipment supply chain, 105 contextual information, 79 contingency approaches, 15 continuous data ow, 167, 168 69 continuous improvement, 177 continuous replenishment, 109, 111
conversion strategies for ERP implementation, 176 77 Cooksley, Graeme, 191 coordinated lot-sizing problems, 103 4 cost factors in performance measures, 179, 179 cost leadership, 15 costs of ERP systems vs. benets, in perceptions survey, 33 creativity, 135 36 critical mass of implementation, 75, 80 critical success factors, 13 CRM. See customer relationship management (CRM) cross-training of workers, 39 culture change, 19, 33, 35 customer: benets of VMI programs, 121; in consignment agreements, 112; understanding needs of, 141 44; in VMI partnership, 108 9 customer interface, 66 67, 69 70 customer relationship management (CRM): as bolt-on system, 57, 60, 66, 68, 70; and competitive agility, 87, 90; implementation in computer rm, 9192 customer satisfaction, 120, 143 44 customer service and support, 114, 120, 181 customization: evaluation of prior, 196; of German SMEs, 39; getting results, 79; and response agility, 89; of SMEs, 44, 48, 50; upgrade ERP architecture, 192 93 data accuracy, 163 64 database, single underlying, 54, 55 database query, 180 data envelopment analysis (DEA), 185, 186
Index
219
data: for manufacturing planning and scheduling, 167 69; in semantic modeling, 170 71 data mining, 61 data transfer, 160. See also electronic data exchange (EDI) data warehouse, 60, 79 Davenport, Thomas H., 72n DEA (data envelopment analysis), 185, 186 debiasing strategy, 187 decentralized operational planning, 196 decision making: authority in R&D, 134; as ES benet, 73 74, 81; multiple criteria, 185, 186; suppliercustomer, 141; from uncertainty basis to risk basis, 155 decision-making coordination, replenishment strategies, 9798, 102 decompositional approaches, 188 decoupling point for customer orders, 70 defenders as strategy factor, 15 Defense Logistics Agency, 77, 82 Dell, 98 demand forecasting and planning system, 59 60, 63 65, 67, 68 demand management, 52 demand planning, 53 demand-pull inventory replenishment, 112, 122 demand volatility, 120 21 departmental systems, 184 Department of Defense, 180 dependent demand, 167 design and manufacturing cycles, 39 development phases of ERP systems, 173 77, 174 differentiation, 15 digital options, 88
direct conversion, 177 direct sell model, 98 distributed control systems, 157 distributor for computer sales, 92 93 Domain Naming Service (DNS), 160 Dow Chemical, 77, 78 dyad implementation, 148 52, 149, 151 dyad management, 144 48; suppliercustomer partnership, 141, 150 dynamic capabilities, 14, 197 dynamic demand, 168 EAI (enterprise application integration), 77 ease of use (EOU), 181 Eastman Chemical, 56 57, 77, 78 E-auction system bolt-on, 60 economic theory, 132 EDI (electronic data exchange), 110, 111, 11718, 127, 144 efciency of rm, 114, 120 efcient consumer response, 109 EFT (electronic funds transfer), 118 electromagnetic eld of Auto-ID reader, 158, 159, 160 electronic communication standards, industry-wide, 120, 128 electronic data exchange (EDI), 110, 111, 11718, 127, 144 electronic funds transfer (EFT), 118 electronic invoice (EDI 810), 118 electronic product code (EPC), 160 61, 161, 164, 170 electronic tags (RFID/Auto-ID), 156, 158 59, 159, 162, 165 electronic VMI transactions, 11112 employee attitudes, 33 employees. See personnel enterprise application integration (EAI), 77
220
Index
enterprise computing systems, 87 enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: and Auto-ID technology, 163 64; characteristics, 53 56; componentized systems, 184 85; dened, 13; development phases, 173 77; enabling position, 2; evolution prescriptions, 19199; modication to classic systems, 144 48; modules or extension systems, 49, 59; planning and scheduling, 165 69; pros and cons, 88; required investments, 172; successes and failures, 56 58; as VMI platform, 110 11 enterprise systems (ES): dened, 37; ongoing management of, 83; pros and cons, 71 EOU (ease of use), 181 EPC (electronic product code), 160 61, 161, 164, 170 e-procurement in VMI partnership, 120 e-procurement system bolt-on, 49, 60, 69 70 ERP. See enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems ERP-driven replenishment. See replenishment strategies, ERP-driven Ettlie, John E., 132 Europe, 72n evaluation methodologies, 185, 186 evaluation of operating systems, 172 73 expense of enterprise systems, 76 expert systems, 185, 186, 189, 190 exploitable resources, 17 exploitation, 194, 196, 19798 extended supply chain, 112 13, 128 extensible markup language (XML), 127, 160
external systems of rms, 66 68, 69 70 extranets, 126 face-to-face sales, 92 93 factory, as unit of analysis, 140 factory planning and scheduling system, 60, 65, 69 failure mode effect analysis, 61 failure rates tracked by version, 165 FAS (nal assembly schedule), 99 feedback, 20 21, 178 File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 112 nal assembly schedule (FAS), 99 nance module, 59 nancial management, 73, 74 rms: demographic data in bolt-on survey, 62 63; efciency of, 114, 120; integration of enterprise solutions, 77; knowledge-based view, 16, 18, 33; major issues for, 136 38; resource-based view, 16 18, 33, 197; in supply chain compass, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68; systems of, 66 68, 69. See also companies rst-mover advantage, 96, 123, 150 attening an organization, 54 55 exibility as source of agility, 94, 94 exible manufacturing, 39 Flextronics, 150 ow-control products, 113 uidic self-assembly, 156 focus as strategy factor, 15 following agility, 96 forecast push inventory replenishment, 122 Forrester, J. W., 97 FoxMeyer, 37, 58, 180 frequency collision, 158 frozen time-fence, 101, 102 FTP (File Transfer Protocol), 112
Index
221
full information (FULL) sharing strategy, 103, 104, 105, 106 functional coordination (FUNC), 102, 104, 105, 106 functionality, underutilized, 194 functionality requirements, 175 76 functional management, 146 F. W. Webb, 113 gap analysis, 189, 195 Gartner consulting group, 130, 138 Germany, Mittlestand SMEs, 36, 38 40, 40 42, 49 51 Global Business Excellence (Nestl), 141 42 global competition, 36, 52 goal programming, 185, 186 go-live date, 21, 48. See also post-golive survey; pre-go-live survey Greenough, Mike, 191 grocery industry, 98 GS1 standards group, 162 hardware upgrade, 195 Harris, Jeanne G., 72n Harvard Business Review, 130 headcount reduction, 74 heavy-seam customizations, 192, 194 hedging inventories, 121 Heineken, 142 43, 150 Herman Miller, 77 Hershey Food Corporation, 37, 58 heuristic solution procedures, 103 Hewlett-Packard, 150 HK Systems, 53 Home Depot, 113 Hong Kong, 72n human capital of German SMEs, 39 human resources module, 59 hyper competition, 16
IBM WebSphere, 91 identication technology. See Auto-ID technology imitated resources, 17 implementation approaches, 43 44, 46 47, 48, 50 implementation of ERP systems: of Asian companies vs. U.S. and European companies, 76; conversion strategies, 176 77; infrastructure projects rst, 75 implementation stages of dyads, 148 52, 149, 151 India, 72n industrial dynamics research, 97 industry-wide electronic communication standards, 120, 128 informate, 79 80 information asymmetry, 54, 133 information sharing: ERP-driven replenishment systems, 105 6, 106; supply chain management, 98; vendor-manufacturing integration, 102 4; in VMI partnership, 109 10, 124 information technology (IT): German SMEs use of, 39 40; performance measure requirements, 179 82; productivity support, 130 32; SME use of, 36; system adoptions, 52. See also productivity of IT information visibility, 109 infrastructure: Auto-ID technology, 159; implementation of, 75; for supply chain automation, 157; VMI program, 124 innovation: and creativity in R&D, 135 36, 139; in ERP environment, 15, 35 innovation process vs. standardization of practices, 132 34
222
Index
in-plant store, 112 intangible resources, 17, 20 integrated circuits, 156, 157 integration: of business processes, 54; maximizing value from ES, 76 78; as source of agility, 94, 95; and strategy formulation, 173 75 Intel Corporation, 83 intellectual capital, 17, 19, 20 21, 33, 35 intellectual property protection, 132 intelligent modeling network, 170 intelligent value chain, 157 interconnectivity, 170 interdependencies of people and units, 20 intermediate appropriation conditions, 138 internal purchase order, 118 internal systems of rms, 66, 69 international competition, 36, 52 Internet: and Auto-ID automated systems, 159, 160, 169; compared to ES, 71; model elements repository, 171 Internet-based EDI systems, 125 Internet of things, 157, 170 interoperability, 179 80 inter-organizational development, 198 inter-organizational (INTER) coordination strategy, 103, 104, 105, 106 inter-organizational value creation, 140 52; best practices, 148 52; dyad management, 144 48; understanding customer needs, 141 44 inter-organization communication, 55 interrogators (tag readers), 158 interviewer bias, 189 intra-organizational (INTRA) decision-making strategy, 103, 104, 105 intra-organization communication, 55
inventory level reduction, 121 inventory management system, 59, 60, 63, 65 inventory policy decisions for VMI partnership, 117, 118 inventory replenishment programs. See vendor managed inventory (VMI) inventory status, 108 inventory turns increases, 121 invoice, 146, 147 IP address, 159, 160 ISO certication, 46 IT. See information technology (IT) i2 systems, 53, 77 Japanese quality and view of technology, 131, 132 J. D. Powers award, 131 justication, 176 just-in-case inventories, 121 just-in-time delivery (JITD) program, 112 just-in-time (JIT) production planning, 112, 131 kanban order quantities, 112 key performance indicators, 61 Kmart, 111 knowledge-based view of rm, 16, 18, 33 knowledge enhancement, 20 21 Kodak, 78 Korea, 72n labor turnover rates, 39 large companies, ERP implementation, 38, 43 leading agility, 96 lead management, 92 93 lead times in manufacturing and procurement, 100, 100
Index
223
lean enterprise, 140, 147 48, 152 lean manufacturing, 36, 39, 46, 140, 150, 152 lean organization, 140 41, 142, 152 lean supply chain, 141, 142, 147 48, 152 learning curve to VMI program, 123, 124, 128 learning to use the system, 75, 78 legacy systems: as agility inhibitors, 95, 96; compared to ERP systems, 55; integrating ES solutions, 77; switch from ERP, perceptions survey, 22 26, 23, 33 linear programming, 169 local systems, 184 Lockheed Martin, Advanced Development Projects Unit, 134 logistics entity in inventory distribution, 127 logistics module, 59 loose hierarchies, 134 lot control, 164 Lynds, J., 131 Mabert, Vincent A., 43 maintenance support, 196 make-to-order (MTO) systems: German Mittelstand companies, 40; production planning and scheduling, 99 102; replenishment strategies, 9799 make-to-stock (MTS) systems: customer linkage, 70; German Mittelstand companies, 40; and supply chain management, 97, 98 Malaysia, 72n management bias in PIA, 188 management of version numbers, 165 managerial hierarchy, 184
managers: ERP evolution prescriptions, 19199; and performance metrics, 183; in R&D organizations, 134 35, 135 36. See also personnel manufacturing: automated, 165 66; capacity management, 167 69. See also small and medium enterprises (SMEs) manufacturing execution systems, 60. See also factory planning and scheduling system manufacturing module, 59 manufacturing resource planning (MRP II), 37, 47, 155 Manugistics, 53, 77 marketplace differentiation of VMI partnership, 123 market share, R&D intensity and TQM, 132 Markus, M. L., 14, 22 master production schedule (MPS), 100 master scheduling software/models, 167, 171 material requirements planning (MRP), 37, 47, 100, 100, 167 69 mathematical models, semantic modeling, 170 mathematical programming, 190 MAUT (multiattribute utility theory), 185, 186 mergers, 77 Microsoft, 77 milling machines, computer numeric control (CNC), 166 mini big bang implementation strategy, 48 Mittelstand: dened, 36; eld studies, 40 42; German SMEs, 38 40; summary, 49 51
224
Index
model elements on Internet, 171 modication projects, 193. See also customization modular product designs, 37 monolithic ERP systems, 184 Monster.com, 5758 Moores law, 90 motivational factors, 45, 45 motor vehicle design, 135 MPS (master production schedule), 100 MRP (material requirements planning), 37, 47, 100, 100, 167 69 MRP II (manufacturing resource planning), 37, 47, 155 MTO. See make-to-order (MTO) systems MTS. See make-to-stock (MTS) systems multiattribute utility theory (MAUT), 185, 186 multiparty collaboration, 112 13 multiple-criteria decision making, 185, 186 multiple-item replenishment schedules, 102 3 multiple-objective decision techniques, 176 Nestl Globe Project, 141 42 network externalities, 96 new product development, 133 34, 143 NIBCO Incorporated, VMI study, 113 20; company overview, 113 14; next steps, 119 20; origins of VMI program, 114 15; partner engagement process, 115 17, 116; partner implementation process, 11719 no information (NI) sharing, 102, 104, 105, 106
nonsubstitutable systems, 18 North Sea oil companies, 77 object naming service (ONS), 160 61, 161 OLeary, 53 54, 56 online auctions, 60 online information, 55 ONS (object naming service), 160 61, 161 onward and upward phase, 14 open standards and protocols for Auto-ID, 157, 159, 166 67 operating manager, viewpoint of, 4 operational agility, 88 operational performance metrics, 183, 183 operational planning, 99 operations management, 2, 3 optimization, maximizing value from ES, 78 79 optimization solution procedures, 103 Oracle, 37, 44, 45, 50 order entry feature in bolt-on system, 61 order fulllment module, 59 order-picking feature in bolt-on system, 61 order time-fence, 99 100 order winner/qualier characteristics, 129 organizational afliation of employees in survey, 24, 25 26, 28, 29 organizational capability of VMI partnerships, 123 24 organizational change, 20 organizational standardization, 54 outranking, 185, 186 outsourcing of noncore components, 36, 39 overcondence bias, 187 88 Owens Corning, 57
Index
225
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), 134 parallel conversion, 176 Pareto analysis, 117 part databases, 128 partnership in VMI program: compared with multiparty collaboration, 112 13; dened, 109; development process, 115 17, 116, 124; implementation process, 11719; performance measures, 120 21; replenishment frequency variations, 111; supplier-NIBCO interface, 120 partnership: with ERP vendor, 196; in supplier-customer dyad, 141, 150 passive RFID chips, 160 passive tags, Auto-ID, 158, 159 path-dependent resources, 17 PDM (product data management) system, 61 pedigree information, 164 PeopleSoft, 37, 45, 80 perceived value, 181 82 performance evaluation, 178 85; business factors and measures, 182 85; cost factors, 179; IT requirements and factors, 179 82; metrics, 182 83, 183 performance measurement: applications, 80; for VMI programs, 120 22, 127 performance of rm: determined by structure, 15; measures of, 65, 65 69, 68; sources of differences, 18 periodic data transfer, 110 personal relationship development, 20 personnel: perceptions of ERP use, 2132; in R&D organizations, 134 35, 135 36; VMI management, 123; VMI team participants, 11718. See also managers phased conversion, 177
phases of ERP projects, 14 physical markup language (PML), 160 61, 161 PIA. See post-implementation auditing (PIA) pilot conversion, 177 planning and scheduling: advanced planning and scheduling (APS) systems, 37, 56 57; capacitated planning and automated scheduling, 165 69; factory planning and scheduling system, 60, 65, 69; JIT production, 112, 131; make-toorder production systems, 99 104 platform neutrality, 179 plug-and-play process architecture, 135 PML (physical markup language), 160 61, 161 PolyOne, 77 portals, 79 80 positional information on RFID tags, 156 position of employees in survey, 22 23, 24 25, 26, 28 29 postal service application, 79 post-go-live survey, 21, 24 26, 28 29, 30, 32 post-implementation auditing (PIA): auditing the system, 172 73; biases in evaluation, 187 89; completion of, 17778; methodologies and evaluation, 185, 186; performance evaluation factors, 178 85; research implications, 189 90 post-implementation of ERP systems, 87 pre-go-live survey, 21, 22 24, 26 28, 30, 31 process architecture map, 135 36 process architectures, 135 process planning, 175
226
Index
process reengineering, 78 process vs. product, 3, 4 Procter & Gamble, 140 product activity (EDI 852), 118 product catalog information, 118 product data management (PDM) system, 61 product identication, 162 production planning and scheduling. See planning and scheduling productivity improvements of bolt-on systems, 65, 66 69 productivity of IT, 130 32; future, 138 39; in R&D organizations, 134 36; standardization vs. innovation, 132 34; survey on use of IT, 136 38 product variety, 111 product vs. process, 3, 4 program infrastructure, VMI program, 124 project management system, 61 project phase, 14, 21 prospectors as strategy factor, 15 pull logic, inventory management, 112 pull-manufacturing logic, 37 purchase order, 146, 147 purchase order acknowledgment (EDI 855), 118 QAD, vendor, 37 quality management system bolt-on, 61 quick response, 109 radio-frequency identication (RFID), 128, 156 57 radio waves, 158 rail cars, 156, 158 R&D: intensity, 132; organizations, 134 36
rare resources, 17 readers for Auto-ID tags, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 real-time information, 55, 163 64 reengineering business processes, 78 reengineering stage, 175 reliability, 181 replenishment deliveries, 118, 127 replenishment frequency, 111 replenishment strategies, ERP-driven, 97107; experimental analysis, 105 6; make-to-order production, 99 102; traditional, 9798, 102, 105; underutilization of, 9799, 106 7; vendor-manufacturer integration, 102 4, 104 research & development (R&D): intensity, 132; organizations, 134 36 research: on ERP, 13 14, 15; implications of PIA factors, 189 90; on industrial dynamics, 97. See also studies reserved product /inventories, 112 resource-based view of rm, 16 18, 33, 197 resources as sources of competitive advantage, 16 17 resource usage, 19799 responding agility (or response agility), 88 89, 93 94 results from enterprise systems, 71 84; value management, 80 84; value maximizing, 76 80 retailer managed inventory, 108 retail link program, Wal-Mart, 98 return on investment (ROI), 49, 190 revenue changes, 65, 66, 74 reverse purchase order, 118 RFID (radio-frequency identication), 128, 156 57 risk basis, 155
Index
227
ROI (return on investment), 49, 190 routes to market, 92 Rutan Aircraft Factory, 134 sales cadence, 92 sales growth, 114 15 sales lead management, 92 93 sales order, 146, 147 sales process, seven-step, 9192, 95 SAP: Advanced Planner and Optimizer (APO), 53, 57; Centers of Excellence, 79, 83; installed systems, 56, 77, 91, 95; largest rollout in world, 142; and Mittlestand SMEs, 37, 41, 44, 45, 50; R /3 system, 53, 57, 113, 136 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 136 savant (data handling), 160 61, 161 SBU (strategic business unit) level, 16 scalability, 180 Scaled Composites, 134 schedule stability, 168 69 scheduling. See planning and scheduling scoring models, 185, 186 seamless functional integration, 18 seamlessness in bolt-on solutions, 193 security, 181 semantic modeling, 169 71 semipassive tags, Auto-ID, 159, 159 sensing agility, 88 89, 93 94 serial number control, 164, 165 seven-step opportunity management process (sales process), 9192, 95 shakedown phase, 14, 21 shop scheduling, 166 should-be study, 175 Siebel Systems, 91, 95 silicon chips, 157 simulation, 185, 186 Singapore, 72n
single sourcing: in VMI partnerships, 117. See also sole sourcing Skunk Works, 134 SKUs. See stock-keeping units (SKUs) small and medium enterprises (SMEs), 36 51; comparison of experiences, 42 49; conclusions, 49 51; eld studies, 40 42; German SMEs, the Mittelstand, 38 40 smart protocols, 157 social capital, 17, 19, 20, 21, 33, 35 socially complex resources, 17 sole sourcing: in VMI partnerships, 115, 122, 123. See also single sourcing Soni, Ashok, 43, 56 Spaceship One, 134 spreadsheets, 167 SSA Global, 191 standardization, organizational, 54 standardization: of business process, 89, 9192; of practices vs. innovation, 132 34; as source of agility, 94, 95 standards groups, 162 statistical process control, 61 stock-keeping units (SKUs): inventory policy decisions, 117; inventory replenishment implementation, 118; NIBCO products, 113; product variety in VMI program, 111 strategic business unit (SBU) level, 16 strategic partners in VMI program, 122 25 strategic performance metrics, 182 83, 183, 184 strategy, 13 35; benets vs. costs, 26 29; contemporary perspectives in, 16 21; conventional views of, 14 16; perceptions of ERP use, 2122; recommendations, 33 35;
228
Index
switch from legacy to ERP, 22 26; usage of ERP, 30 32 strategy formulation, 173 75 structure-conduct-performance paradigm, 15, 16, 17 studies: as-is, should-be, to-be, 175; on supply chain integration, 98 99; of VMI program on ERP platform, 113 20. See also studies of ERP systems studies of ERP systems: agility interviews, 90 93; of bolt-on system value, 58 63; of European SMEs, 42 49; getting value and results, 72 76; of Mittlestand SMEs, 40 42; perceptions of ERP use, 2132. See also surveys sunk costs, 196 supplier-assisted inventory replenishment, 109 supplier: benets of VMI programs, 120 21; in consignment agreements, 112; in VMI partnership, 108 9 supplier managed inventory, 109 supplier management module, 59 supply chain: and ERP development and use, 198, 198; extended, 112 13, 128; item tracking, 162, 163 64; performance measurement, 182; and RFID technology, 156 57; of SMEs, 46 supply chain compass, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 supply chain management, 9799, 148, 152; Auto-ID information, 165; and customer needs, 141 44; make-to-order systems, 99 104; manufacturing operations, 36, 39 supply network planner system, 60, 66
surveys: on Auto-ID technology, 163; best-of-breed bolt-ons, 53; major issues for rms, 136 38; perceptions of ERP use, 2132. See also research switching costs, 115, 123, 128 SWOT-MOSP process, 175 system design, 175 76 system evaluation, 176 system implementation, 176 77. See also implementation of ERP systems systems engineering, 175 systems integration barriers to VMI, 125 27, 126 tactical performance metrics, 183, 183 tactical supply chain factors, 183 tags, Auto-ID, 156 57, 158 59 Taiwan, 72n Tanis, C., 14, 22 T-BOM (transactional bill of materials), 164 team participants in VMI partnership, 11718 technology in VMI programs, 110, 12728 telephone calls, 60 tenure of employees in survey, 23 24, 25, 26 28, 29 Texas Education Agency, 77, 80 Thailand, 72n third-party options, 196 97 time-fence, 99 100, 101, 102 title for goods, 146 to-be study, 175 today for tomorrow replenishment, 142 total quality management (TQM), 132 Toyota, 131
Index
229
TQM (total quality management), 132 tracking and tracing, 164 65 traditional replenishment strategy, 97 98, 102, 105 trafc/transportation management system bolt-on, 61 training on ERP systems, 138, 195 transactional bill of materials (T-BOM), 164 transactional volume complexity, 117 transactions, faster, 73, 74 transistors on integrated circuit, 156 transponders on aircraft, 156 transportation function in logistics module, 59 transportation modes: diversity for VMI partnerships, 111 transportation schedules, 102 3 trust: in dyad implementation, 147, 150; in VMI partnership, 109, 124 two-dimensional bar code, 162 Udall, Melvin, 1 uncertainty absorption, 155 uncertainty basis, 155 underutilized functionality, 194 Unilever, 140 United States: benets studies, 72n; SMEs, 36 Universal Product Codes (UPCs), 118, 128. See also bar codes universal translators, 128 unlearning, 148, 152 upgrading ERP architecture, 192 93, 196 usage accountability, 194 97 usage of ERP systems, perceptions survey, 30, 31, 32, 33 34 U.S. Defense Logistics Agency, 77, 82
U.S. Department of Defense, 180 user base, expanding, 195 valuable resources, 17 value-added network providers (VANs), 112 value chain domain, 57 value chain model, 98 value creation, 34, 54, 140 value management, 80 84 value of ERP systems, 1, 5, 18 Van Everdigen, Y., 43 Van Hillegersberg, J., 43 VANs (value-added network providers), 112 variability reduction, 4 variances in PIA evaluations, 189 vehicle dispatching, bolt-on interface, 61 vendor certication, 46 vendor managed inventory (VMI), 108 29; case study: NIBCO, 113 20; conclusions, 128 29; constraints on functional management, 146; as example of industry success, 98; Heineken example, 142 43; measuring performance, 120 22, 127; outlooks for growth, 125 28; strategic implications, 122 25; variations in form, 109 11, 110; what it is not, 11113 vendor-manufacturer replenishment programs, 99 vendor-manufacturing integration, 102 4 vendors: and best-of-breed approach, 53; choice of, 44; creation of ERP technologies, 18; long-term sustainability, 45, 50; in Mittlestand SME study, 41; partnership recommendation, 196; targets of, 3738
230
Index
vendor software: dedicated VMI packages, 127; as source of agility, 95 Venkataramanan, M. A., 43, 56 version number management, 165 vibratory manufacturing, 156 VMI. See vendor managed inventory (VMI) volatility of demand, 120 21 Wal-Mart, 98, 111, 140 warehouse management system, 59, 61, 67, 68 Warts, E., 43
waste reduction, 4 Web-based VMI transactions, 111 WebSphere, 91, 95 work in process (WIP), 165 Xerox, 134 XML (extensible markup language), 127, 160 Y2K deadline, 21, 43, 71, 76 Zara, 143 44, 151 Zuboff, Shoshana, 79

14 Strategic Erp Extension and Use

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

14 Strategic Erp Extension and Use

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

S T R AT E G I C E R P EXTENSION AND USE

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

The New Users: SMEs and the Mittelstand Experience

Enterprise Applications: Building Best-of-Breed Systems

Getting More Results from Enterprise Systems

Agility Through Standardization: A CRM /ERP Application

ERP-Driven Replenishment Strategies in Make-to-Order Settings

ERP as a Platform for Vendor Managed Inventory

IT-Supported Productivity: Paradoxes and Resolution in R&D

ERP as a Resource for Inter-Organizational Value Creation

Enabling ERP Through Auto-ID Technology

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Transactional applications (B2B/B2C e-commerce)

SRM and collaborative R&D

CRM and collaborative R&D

Strategic enterprise mgmt

Advanced planning & scheduling

SCM and collaborative logistics

The Enabling Position of ERP Architectures

Source: Adapted from Bendoly et al. (2004)

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Under the Microscope

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Ta b l e 1 . 1 ERP product versus process benets

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

Introduction: Realizing the Epic Dream of ERP

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

Switch from Legacy to ERP

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

PreGo Live 250 200 Frequency 150 100 50 0 Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High

PostGo Live 250 200 Frequency 150 100 50 0 1 Low

Benets Versus Cost of ERP

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Metric 3: Usage of ERP

38 33 28 26 22 24 23 29 35 22 30 22 27 28 28 32 50 60 Percent High 70 80 90 100

Expected Usage of ERP, PreGo Live

Perceived Actual Usage of ERP, PostGo Live

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

Discussion and Recommendations

ERP Rebirth and Advanced Viewpoints

Strategy as a Critical Factor in Applied ERP Success

The New Users: SMEs and the Mittelstand Experience