Question 1: At the start of the case, Ciscos information systems are failing, yet

no one steps forward to lead the effort to replace them. Why is this? Why were
no managers eager to take on this project?

No one within the company stepped forward to lead an effort to replace the
outdated system though there was misalignment between the capability of their
IT system and business demand based on growth
mega project consuming lot of time and resources.

self-governing management approach

to maintain Ciscos strong tradition of standardization and consistency in

budgetary structures
they preferred to keep going with their existing legacy systems by
updating/repairing it when needed until it completely failed
no one wanted to be the first to present a new application before the board for
approval
Cisco was growing fast in the market as shown by their sales so the managers
Continued
As Pond stated in the case they were afraid to do
something big and throw away out the legacies.

However, Cisco mangers decided they should take an

autonomous approach and realized what they had done thus
far to fix the problems was not going to be enough and
change needed to be implemented without knowing if they
were going to compensated fairly for their efforts.
Question 2: Cisco was highly successful with its enterprise resource planning
(ERP) effort. What accounts for this success? What were the most important
things that Cisco did correctly?

Creation and implementation of a strong cross-functional task force. A team composed

of the very best people, both IT professionals as well as business professional so that
ERP plan was technically formulated and implemented with business settings.

Some other important things that Cisco did correctly were:

Big Bang implementation

Made it a priority

Implemented responsibilities at two levels

Strict scheduling

Formulated a dream team

Standardized package
Question 1: At the start of the case, Ciscos information systems are failing, yet
no one steps forward to lead the effort to replace them. Why is this? Why were
no managers eager to take on this project?
No one within the company stepped forward to lead an effort to replace the
outdated system, though there was a clear misalignment between the
capability of their IT system and business demand based on growth. This may
have been due to the lack of direction necessary for such a large-scale project,
perpetuated by the self-governing management approach that was
implemented throughout the company.
The managers at Cisco were worried about the risk involved in converting the
existing legacy systems with ERP systems because they thought that the
implementation of ERP systems would turn out to be a mega project
consuming lot of time and resources.
Also, they preferred not to choose ERP systems in order to maintain Ciscos
strong tradition of standardization and consistency in budgetary structures
which were in place in Cisco.
The managers who were asked to make their own decision regarding the
software packages were not ready to try any packages individually as they
considered it a huge risk financially and in terms of time and so they preferred
to keep going with their existing legacy systems by updating/repairing it when
 The CIO originally instructed each business unit to select its own application
and to set a time for implementation. This type of decentralized decision-
making may have been confusing, as it was unfamiliar at Cisco, which is a
company that historically thrived on standardization and centralization. This
break from traditional business operations may have stifled the managers
motivation for fear of failure. As such, no one wanted to be the first to present
a new application before the board for approval, who would then in turn invest
a large sum of time and money. This may have been too much pressure and
seemed too risky, especially since theold system could still be utilized.
Also, Cisco was growing fast in the market as shown by their sales and at the
same time managers were unsure if it was necessary because Cisco was so
successful until then with a significant annual growth rate with current system
that if an implementation of a completely new strategic plan might change the
growing success rate of Cisco.
As mentioned in the case, people understood the magnitude of the
implementation of a huge project and the risk of it getting so big that it could
get out of hand. As Pond stated in the case they were afraid to do something
big and throw away out the legacies. However, Cisco mangers decided
they should take an autonomous approach and realized what they had done
thus far to fix the problems was not going to be enough and change needed to
be implemented without knowing if they were going to compensated fairly for
their efforts.
Question 2: Cisco was highly successful with its enterprise resource planning
(ERP) effort. What accounts for this success? What were the most important
things that Cisco did correctly?
1) Cisco selected a partner, KMPG, to help with selection of a good vendor of an ERP system:
Cisco realized that the implementation of a huge project would require the involvement of others in the
community to share their expertise therefore, it was important to select those who were the best. Cisco
found KPMG who was one of the best and consequently became a critical partner for Cisco. KMPG had
seen the opportunity to build business with Cisco. Cisco benefited because KMPG had a set of people who
were experienced in the industry field like Mr. Lee who had been director of IT in various parts of an ERP
system. This was a smart move because they expanded their knowledge by getting help from someone
who had more experience than them to implement new software that would be reliable. This would allow
them to not blindly incorporate an ERP system that would not be successful because they did not chose
wisely who would be that company.
2) Market research and ask other companies what they know about ERP systems and got Oracle;
Once KPMG became a partner they then explored the software market and identified the best software
packages by obtaining knowledge and experience from others in the market. Thy soon narrowed the
choice to 5 packages within a short period of time. This allowed them to narrow choices to the best
options to ensure success with the help of KMPG. Using the experience of others to insure success was
also a great decision because it increases your chances for success since you learn from others mistakes.
Prior to decision they requested a Request For Proposals to the vendors and their choice was to go with
Oracle in 2 days for three good reasons
I. they had better manufacturing capabilities
II. they made number promises such as long-term development functionality in the package
III. the company was close by therefore making them easily accessible.
3) Cisco took a risk and was aggressive with timeline and budget defined without justification;
When they decided to set a timeline they mentioned wanting to take 15 months to get the project
done since they felt Cisco was under a time constraint and even though it is mentioned a s a
ridiculous timeline they decided to do it in 9 months and decided the budget would be 15 million
dollars for the while thing without a formal economic justification but as Redfield mentions you dont
approach this kind of thing from justification perspective. Cost is not an appropriate way to look at it
because you are institutionalizing a business model for your company. Cisco took a risk and as we all
know we must do risky behaviour to expect higher returns. The board approved and took the risk
even though it was the biggest expense Cisco had made ever.
4) Built Implementation Teams after approved by board
from different departments & Cisco, KPMG, and Oracle for steering committee;
Another good decision was the decision of creating an Implementation Team which consisted of Five
tracks used:
Order Entry Track, Manufacturing Track, Finance Track, Sales/Reporting Track, and Technology Track.
Workers were removed from their regular business position to work on this project therefore, showing
their commitment to the project as well as this would allow the representatives to make better
decisions for the department they were serving. They also had a steering committee with the high
performing executives from Cisco, Oracle, and KPMG. The steering committee would overlook the
implementation teams and provide high level sponsorship for the project, to ensure visibility, and to
motivate the team. This was a productive way of managing the project and an effective way to
ensure quality work given there was a limited amount of time available to finish
5) Good Plan Implementation Method through CRP; .
The team stuck to their deadlines and developed a well structured plan to execute the project which
was vital for the success of the project. There was Conference Room Pilots (CRP); CRP0, CRP1, CRP2,
CRP3. The CRP0 was developed to train the implementation teams and set up technical
environments in order to get application up and running. CRP1 learned form the previous CRP0 and
its goal was to make the ERP work within each specific area and carefully documented the different
issues they ran into to resolve them in order to keep the project advancing. The issues they ran into
were issues with the software because their were processes the software was not able to support
therefore the implementation team was to close these gaps by initially classifying them and fixed
them. This was an important strategic plan because this would prevent problems in the future once
the software was in place. CRP2 was an expansion, which included major modifications while the
team further understood the packages, which allowed them to determine how to best make it work
for Cisco. Lastly, CRP3 tested the full system by implementing on full days worth of actual business
data. This was a smart move since it was mimicking its real demands just on data from a previous
date and once it was satisfactory it was launched.
***The most important part of the ERP implementation was the willingness to seek help in a
process they were not completely familiar with, created teams with representation from different
departments, and development of a team that would execute plan. They stuck to their decision
and commitment, which allowed a group of people to be supported by the members to deliver a
successful project. Without the support they were not going to have enough knowledge therefore
not allowing them to meet the deadlines set up. They developed a plan, which was successful.
 The Ciscos ERP effort was highly successful because of the efficient
planning and highly qualified resources involved in the effort.
The Ciscos action team was chosen to include only the very best of
the people from each department. They just didnt leave all the
burden of installing and implementing the new ERP system on IT and
oracle teams. Every department was involved and the changes were
closely tracked to match the existing legacy system.
Every person in the action team, not only Cisco employees but also
the KPMG, Oracle and the hardware provider know the importance of
the job they are performing and they were passionate and gave
their best to make it work. The estimates were drawn accurately and
the contracts were chosen appropriately....
 One of the primary contributing factors of Ciscos success with the ERP effort was the creation
and implementation of a strong cross-functional task force that was able to facilitate the
project according to the systems development life cycle approach. The makeup of the team
was essential to the success of the project. They pulled together a team composed of the very
best people they could find, which had a suite of skills. They recognized that the team needed
to have both IT professionals as well as business professional from all ends of the spectrum.
This partnership between IT and the business users ensured that the ERP would formulate a
plan that not only worked technically, but could also be implemented in the business setting.
Once formed, the team was able to complete the project in a timely and organized fashion.
Some other important things that Cisco did correctly were:
Big Bang implementation:Instead of a phased implementation, they performed the switch
all at once
Made it a priority:Top management made the project one of the companys top 7 goals
Implemented responsibilities at two levels:Executive Steering Committee and Project
Management Office
Strict scheduling:Formulated a schedule that was doable and defined by business practices,
then stuck with it, tracking the progress of the project at executive meetings
Formulated a dream team:Selection of a strong integration partner, KPMG, as well as a
software vendor, Oracle, which both had a vested interest in the success of the project
Standardized package:They did not allow for a great deal of customization to the new system,
they wanted a standard package that was ready for implementation