Analysis
|
| < Day Day Up > |
|
In an attempt to understand areas of consensus and disagreement between the stakeholder groups, in addition to reviewing ranks of the sub-issues based on overall-agency mean scores, this section presents a comparison between strategic vs. operational personnel across the agencies. The number of IP (consultant) respondents was too few to yield meaningful comparison between the IP and the agencies, and the agencies were not surprisingly interested in agency perspectives. (Note that IP versus agency perspectives are being compared in a follow-up study of all agencies of Queensland Government nearing completion as of this writing. This larger study will also facilitate cross-agency comparisons.) The results of the "weights" round survey for these demographic groupings are presented in Appendix A. The sub-issues are numbered S-1 to S-38 in rank-order based on overall agencies' mean scores. A rank of 1 is ascribed to the sub- issue with the highest computed mean score, and a rank of 38 is ascribed to the sub-issue with the lowest mean score.
A total of 36 valid agency responses were eventually obtained from the "weights" round-30% (11) strategic respondents and 70% (25) operational respondents. Figure 2 is a line-chart of strategic and operational mean scores on the 38 sub-issues. Analysis of variance (independent sample t-test) identified only one significant difference: S27-organization appears unable or unwilling to be responsive to requests for changes in the system to resolve operational problems. Operational personnel rated this sub issue higher (mean=5.60 yielding a rank of 24) than strategic personnel (mean=3.17, rank=37). Regardless, for neither group was this sub-issue ranked in the top 10 of the sub-issues. Furthermore, although strategic personnel may be expected to be more concerned about management-related issues while operational personnel focus on operations-related issues, it is observed that there is broad consensus between these two groups, with only the one significant difference identified.
Figure 2: Strategic and Operational Personnel Mean Scores on 38 Sub-Issues.
It is noted that six sub-issues are ranked in the top-10 (S30, S13, S12, S21, S7, S9) based on both strategic and operational respondent weights (again suggesting broad concurrence of views-see Appendix A). These areas of agreement between strategic and operational respondents are discussed next, followed by brief discussion on issues of relatively greater concern to strategic respondents, those of relatively greater importance to operational respondents, and those of relatively lesser importance to both respondent groups.
Issues of Relatively Greater Importance to Both Respondent Groups
The SYSTEM-DEVELOPMENT—related issue, complexity of SAP means few, if any, people understand SAP beyond a single module, making overall design decisions very difficult (S30) was the number one issue overall. Survey respondents suggested that complexity and the integrated nature of SAP make it difficult to configure without being aware of potential consequences for other modules. Furthermore, they indicated that in-depth understanding of SAP is difficult to obtain within a short period of time and that the lack of sufficient understanding has an enormous impact on ability to use the system efficiently and effectively. Recent research too suggests that lack of ERP product knowledge has been a major concern in the late 1990s (Davenport, 1998; Markus, et al., 2000) for many organizations. Most organizations use consultants to facilitate the implementation process. Consultants may have experience in specific industries, comprehensive knowledge about certain modules, and may be better able to determine which suite will work best for a given organization (Davenport, 2000; Piturro, 1999; Thong et al., 1994). Evidence from workshop participants, however, suggested that although several knowledgeable experts in particular modules of SAP were involved, no one seemed to have a broad knowledge and expertise across SAP. This resulted in significant concerns for decision makers who had to decide on a complete business design rather than a module by module design. Other issues identified also reflect consequences of insufficient knowledge of SAP.
Two OPERATIONAL-DEFICIENCIES—related issues, developing reports is difficult in SAP (S12) and not all required reports were available at implementation time (S13) were ranked 2nd and 3rd based on overall agency scores (ranked 7th and 5th for strategic respondents and ranked 3rd and 4th for operational respondents). SAP was vastly different, in both presentation and functionality, to the previous QGFMS of which the agencies had deep experience, extending over the period 1983 to 1998. During this 15-year period, the agencies undertook significant customisation, particularly in reporting and in enhancing their business processes. With the advent of SAP, the agencies were faced with abandoning a system they had been using for 15 years and forfeiting the knowledge, development, and sophistication of reporting that had developed over that period. They were unprepared for SAP standard reports. Furthermore, survey respondents indicated that it was easier to develop reports on the old system (e.g., because the table names and field names were in English rather than German, as was the case with the then SAP standard report system). Differences in system operation were also perceived to impact on the accuracy and efficiency of operations and ease of use of the system. Some agencies found that the standard ERP reports do not offer the presentation and flexibility to which users are accustomed. This has resulted in some clients buying separate tools or developing their own in-house reporting system. It must be noted that views expressed at the workshops on reporting were sometimes diametrically opposed, with those who were more intimate with SAP reporting touting its advantages. This again suggests problems with knowledge of the product, rather than with the product itself.
The ORGANIZATIONAL-CONTEXT—related issue, implementation across multiple agencies led to sub-optimisation of the system configuration (S21), was ranked most important by strategic respondents (5th overall and 7th by operational respondents). When government is considering the adoption of an ERP package, management may have opportunity to choose between a single system across all of government, versus allowing each department to choose its own system and to bear responsibility for changing their processes to fit the system or the system to fit their processes. A main guiding management principle on the SAP Financials implementation in Queensland Government was to maximize commonality across the agencies. Workshop participants believed that, to have allowed greater latitude to the individual agencies would have significantly added to the cost and duration of implementation, and that unique agency systems would constrain their ability to benefit from vendor software maintenance and upgrades. Researchers also suggest that "configuration" should only be requested when essential, or when the competitive advantage derived from using non-standard processing can be clearly demonstrated (Appleton, 1997; Holland and Light, 1999; Janson and Subramanian, 1996; Parr and Shanks, 2000; Escalle and Cotteleer, 1999). Nonetheless, differences in business orientation, organization size, and related requirements may argue for unique processes. It is clear from the rank ascribed to this sub-issue that many felt important compromises had been made to achieve the level of standardisation sought.
Two KNOWLEDGE-MANAGEMENT—related issues, insufficient resources and effort put into developing in-house knowledge (S7) and shared knowledge among project team members was a problem-agency staff did not understand SAP and implementation personnel did not cover the diversity of circumstances encountered in normal daily operations (S9), rank 4th and 5th for the strategic respondents and 6th and 5th based on the operational respondent scores. Survey respondents felt that insufficient long-term planning had been undertaken for maintaining a knowledgeable and skilled in-house SAP team. The acquisition and maintenance of skilled personnel proved both difficult and expensive. Workshop participants further suggested that when SAP is implemented, it is important to retain the knowledge and skills gained by staff involved on the project and to ensure that sufficient ongoing training is provided within the agencies so that this is then converted to organizational knowledge. Grover et al. (1995) found that failure to commit required financial, human, and other resources is commonplace in reengineering projects and highly likely to be a problem with other related projects, like ERP implementation. According to the SAP Financials Project BusinessCase, skill transfer from contractors/consultants to permanent staff was a prime objective of the project. However, the ability to share knowledge among project team members was found to be a problem.
Several implementation concerns arose during the project when agency staff had insufficient knowledge of the workings of SAP, and the implementation partner had too little knowledge of the agency requirements. Workshop participants believed that continuing development of internal skills in SAP, and ensuring that appropriate primary and secondary functional support is in place for each SAP module, is key to addressing the KNOWLEDGE-MANAGEMENT—related issues raised by the workshop participants. Thus, it is suggested that dedicated resources for sharing experiences and knowledge gained are critical to realize the benefits associated with ERP (Davenport, 2000; Gable et al., 1998; Robinson and Dilts, 1999).
Though not amongst the overall top-10 sub-issues, broad consensus is noted on the OPERATIONAL-DEFICIENCIES—related issue S18—security is difficult to maintain in SAP resulting in some users being granted too much access and others not having access to data they need (ranked 8th and 11th by strategic and operational respondents). SAP security is considered complex and resource-intensive to maintain. Survey respondents suggested that there is a requirement for better definition of security management. Furthermore they indicated that with so many different security profiles in the new system, it is difficult for smaller agencies to comply with segregation requirements when implementing ERP. It is very important for the project team to consider how to handle security. The system must have proper access controls and partitioning so that unauthorised users cannot access information. In addition to general system security, other activities (e.g., data warehousing and e-commerce add-ons, and outsourcing of the ERP maintenance) require extra security controls (Riet et al., 1998).
Issues of Relatively Greater Importance to Strategic Personnel
The SYSTEM-DEVELOPMENT—related issue S35, requested system functionality was sacrificed in order to meet implementation deadlines, was ranked 3rd most important by strategic respondents, but only 19th by operational respondents. While sacrifices were undoubtedly made to keep the project on track, workshop participants indicated that the weekly cost of continuing the implementation project was very high, and that this was not widely understood across the agencies. The feeling was that tradeoffs are unavoidable, and that those made were well informed and well considered.
A further KNOWLEDGE-MANAGEMENT—related issue S6, difficult to retain people with SAP skills due to market pressure to leave, is ranked among the top-10 (10th) by strategic respondents (ranked 20th by operational respondents). A stable team of SAP skilled personnel is necessary for the smooth implementation and running of the SAP system. Nonetheless, personnel with SAP experience were much sought after in the marketplace, particularly in the late 1990s, thereby further complicating the task of building a strong base of SAP knowledge within the agencies. The study found little evidence of special incentives for SAP skilled personnel in agencies, at a time when employee turnover was relatively high. These difficulties with finding and retaining skilled ERP people, staffing the project team, and maintaining staffing post-implementation have been recognised in prior studies (Bryan, 1998; Markus et al., 2000; Niehus et al., 1998; Somers and Nelson, 2001).
The COST-BENEFIT—related issue, SAP implementation benefits do not justify costs (S4), is ranked 9th by strategic respondents, yet 29th by operational respondents. Survey respondents claimed with hindsight that the value for money obtained from any SAP implementation has to be carefully evaluated. They suggested that the implementation costs increase as the degree of customisation increases, and the cost of hiring consultants can consume a substantial proportion of the implementation budget. A recent survey of Fortune 1000 companies regarding ERP customisation policies indicates that 41% of companies re-engineer their business to fit the application, 37% choose applications that fit their business and customise only marginally, and only 5% customise the application to fit their business (Davis, 1998). As suggested earlier, because customisation is usually associated with increased information systems costs, longer implementation time, and the inability to benefit from vendor software maintenance and upgrades (Janson and Subramanian, 1996), it should only be requested when essential.
Many researchers suggest that a key benefit of ERP is the seamless integration of information flowing through the organization (Bryan, 1998; Shang and Seddon, 2000; Somers and Nelson, 2001; Sumner, 2000). To successfully achieve this benefit, the business processes and functions must be integrated (Davenport, 2000). Although it is likely that many benefits will not be realized for some time post-implementation, workshop participants indicated that the agencies have been able to accomplish tasks with SAP that would not have been possible with the previous system. With the aim of increasing benefits from the SAP investment, a continuous improvement process and benefits realisation program was established across the government agencies after "go live" of the system.
Though not among the top-10, it is noteworthy that the four "costs"-related sub-issues (S1, S2, S3, S4) are all ranked relatively higher by strategic respondents (12th, 18th, 14th, 9th) than by operational respondents (23rd, 27th, 31st, 29th). Clearly, and understandably, strategic respondents are more attuned to costs of the new system than are operational respondents. Having said this, the overall rankings of these 4 sub-issues (19th, 25th, 28th, 22nd) puts them all in the bottom half of the sub issues (moderately important).
Issues of Relatively Greater Importance to Operational Personnel
Operational personnel viewed the KNOWLEDGE-MANAGEMENT—related issue, training provided was inadequate and did not cover the diversity of circumstances encountered in normal daily operations (S8), as most important overall (ranked 16th by strategic respondents). This concern would be close to the consciousness of staff who are responsible for the day-to-day running of the system or handling month- and year-end processes. Survey respondents suggested that significant problems were encountered with interfaces, business-area balancing, legal consolidations, and controlled and administered reporting, which were not well-documented, nor was adequate training provided. Several studies have suggested that when implementing an ERP package, training is an important component and should be a high priority (Bryan, 1998; Crowley, 1999; Ross, 1999; Wilder and Davis, 1998). Organizations in the current study are realising the need for improved training, not only in the software, but also in the new job function. Workshop participants suggested that the government agencies have already taken action, soon after "go live" (e.g., making a large investment in staff training and ongoing support of the SAP system), to minimise reliance on external contractors and to build in-house expertise. A performance planning and development program within the agencies (which looks at staff training over time) was implemented to manage this issue with in-house skills development, and to ensure all staff receive appropriated SAP training prior to the pending upgrade project.
The DATA-CONVERSION—related issue S5, errors were found in data converted from former QGFMS, is ranked 8th most important by operational respondents (ranked 24th by strategic respondents). A fundamental requirement for the effectiveness of the ERP system is the availability and timeliness of accurate data. Somers and Nelson (2001) suggest that management of data entering the ERP system represents a critical issue throughout the implementation process. Data conversion problems can cause serious implementation delays and cost overruns (Neihus et al., 1998; Holland and Light, 1999). Survey respondents stated that the new fields did not always encompass the old-field data during data conversion testing. They further indicated that a substantial number of transactions were posted to a "blank business area" before anyone realized the extent of the problem. Data adopted from prior systems must be mapped into the correct fields and subsequently maintained. DATA-CONVERSION can be an overwhelming process, especially if organizations do not understand what should be included in the new systems and what needs to be omitted. Workshop participants indicated that this issue has been addressed but needs to be considered more carefully in any future conversion exercise.
Two SYSTEM-DEVELOPMENT—related issues, too little effort put into redesigning the underlying business processes, resulting in a system that represented a "technology swap" that failed to capture many of the benefits of SAP (S37) and inadequate system testing left many errors in the implemented system (S33) are ranked 9th and 10th most important by operational respondents (24th and 21th respectively by strategic respondents). Implementing an ERP system involves re-engineering existing business processes to meet the best business process standard (Davenport, 2000; Markus et al., 2000). One major benefit of ERP comes from re-engineering the organization's way of conducting business. However, workshop participants indicated that the costs and benefits of aligning with an ERP model can be very high because it is difficult to gain agreement to the new process from all who are affected. Furthermore, they suggested that some existing business processes are so specific to the agency(ies) that they need to be preserved or appropriate steps taken to customise them.
Clear goals and objectives are critical in any ERP implementation. Owing to the Y2K deadline, the then looming GST and the uncertain costs/benefits of business re-engineering, management chose to pursue a "technology swap" for the five agencies. Workshop participants too felt that it was easier and appropriate to first complete the project, secure the system, and resolve problems, and then seek to realize the benefits. Nonetheless, a surprising number of transactions failed on implementation due to insufficient testing and lack of time. A general finding is that too much was relegated to "being fixed later" in an effort to meet "go live" deadlines. Workshop participants suggested that the areas experiencing the most problems tended to relate to functionality that was added to SAP to meet a specific business requirement. It is clearly necessary to ensure comprehensive testing during user acceptance testing and to ensure sign-off of test results.
Issues of Relatively Lesser Importance to Both Respondent Groups
Strategic and operational personnel concur on the relatively lesser importance of the five sub-issues ORGANIZATIONAL-CONTEXT: S19-differences in work ethic among project personnel, S24-political issues had negative impact on the project, and S26-timing of implementation was inappropriate because of change underway in the public sector; OPERATIONAL-DEFICIENCIES: S17--SAP lacks some functionality of QGFMS; SYSTEM-PERFORMANCE: S38-system performance is inadequate to meet operational requirements. The fact that only one of the eight sub-issues associated with the ORGANIZATIONAL-CONTEXT major-issue was rated in the top-half of the rankings (S7), and five of these 8 are rated in the bottom-10 by both operational and strategic respondents, is strong evidence that agencies did not perceive organizational context as a primary concern overall.
|
| < Day Day Up > |
|
EAN: 2147483647
Pages: 207