ISYS90036 – Enterprise Systems

ISYS90036 – Enterprise Systems

Lecture 8A

Lessons from “Go Live” Failure at RMIT

Dr. Sherah Kurnia

Slide 2

Outline

• Feedback: – Week 7 submission and SSLC

• Importance of Project Management • Project success factors• What happened at RMIT?• Explaining the problems at RMIT – Workshop

Week 7 Submission - Feedback• Q1. ES implementation affect all aspects of

organisational design based on Galbraith’s Star Model (Capability, Process, People, Structure and Rewards), including Strategy.

• Q4a. OOI – emphasis should be on overcoming, not the organisation’s resistance

• Q4b. Why OOI important? Should emphasize on significant changes introduced by ES which create resistance

• A handful students still do not answer all questions explicitly. Do not simply cut and paste from lecture notes.

Slide 3

References

• Seddon, P.B., Lessons from the Packaged Application Software “Go Live” Failures at Cambridge and RMIT Universities, 2007

• Motiwalla and Thompson (2012), Enterprise Systems for Management, 2nd Edition, Pearson

• Additional: Chen et al (2009) Managing ERP Implementation Failure: A Project Management Perspective, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(1), Feb 2009, pp 157-170.

Slide 4

Examples of ES Implementation Failures(Seddon 2007, p4)

ISYS20006 Shaping the Enterprise with ICT Slide 5

ES/ERP Implementation(Chen et al 2009)

• High failure percentage due to complexity involved• Diverse stakeholders are involved with different and

sometimes conflicting interests• Lifelong journey

– Ongoing project involving management of requirements, organisational change, user support, maintenance and upgrade

– Corporate strategy (involving power and politics) that affects ES projects may change over time (Lee and Myers 2004)

• Many reasons contributing to failure and some are highly related to poor project management

Slide 6

Project Management(Motiwalla and Thompson 2011)

• Project management is about “planning and executing the work required to deliver the end product” (p 228)

• The focus is on tactical matters• ERP implementation often involves several

functional projects• Each project is managed by a Project Manager

and involves different project teams• What skills are required from a Project Manager?

Slide 7

Project Manager Knowledge Areas• Scope

• Human resources

• Risk

• Communication

• Procurement – partnership relationship management

• Integration – alignment between business strategy and IT strategy

Slide 8Chen et al (2009)

Example: Importance of Project Management(Chen et al 2009)

Slide 9

• A study of a California-based multinational company that provides a total solution for the automation needs of industrial and commercial clients

• Established in 1958• Headquarters is in California• Strategic business units (SBUs) are located in California,

Australia, China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan• SBU in Taiwan has different taxation requirements• The company had an urgency to improve the visibility and

decided to replace the legacy Sales and Distribution system with an ERP

• Two phase implementation of an ERP was involved

Example: Project Management Improvement(Chen et al 2009)

Slide 10

Example: Project Management Improvement – cont’(Chen et al 2009)

Slide 11

IT Engagement Model(Chen et al 2009)

Slide 12

• Strategic• Corporate level

directives• Top-down

• Tactical• Project level activities• Bottom-up

Program Management(Motiwalla and Thompson 2011)

• Program management is about the coordination of inter-related projects over time to achieve particular business goals

• Managed by a Project Director (Program Manager or Project Executive or Executive Sponsor or Project Champion)

• Links various projects together to ensure that business goals are addressed

• The focus is on strategic matters• Skills: management, leadership, communication, negotiation

+ deep knowledge of the organisation and experience in large-scale system implementation

Slide 13

Slide 14

Important Roles in ES Implementations

• Executive Sponsor / Program Manager– “a vested interest in a successful outcome”– Provides the vision for the project

• Project Manager– Multilingual– Gatekeeper– Maestro– Cattle driver– Excellent communicator

Seddon (2007)

Sample Organization Project Structure(Motiwalla and Thompson 2011, p 230)

Slide 15

Slide 16

Project Management Success Factors: 3 streams of the literature (Seddon 2007)

Project Management generally

IT Project Management ERP Implementation projects

Pinto and Slevin (1988a, b) de Wit (1988) Belassi and Tukel (1996) Morris (1996, 2000) Pinto (2000) Cooke-Davies (2002) White and Fortune (2002) Ross (2003)

Ewusi-Mensah (1997) Larsen and Myers (1997) Standish (1999) Jurison (1999) Alter (1999a, b) Sauer et al. (1999, 2001) Schmidt et al. (2001)

Parr et al. (1999) Holland and Light (1999) Sumner (1999) Somers and Nelson (2001) Scott and Vessey (2002) Umble et al. (2003) Brown and Vessey (2003) Fitz-Gerald & Carroll (2003)

Slide 17

Project Management Success Factors: Project Management Perspective

Project Success factors Contextual factors Limited control or influence High level of control

External 1a. Business Competitive

environment 1b. Clear cost benefit 1c. Urgency, deadlines 1d. Vendor failure Organizational 1d. IT infrastructure 1e. Knowledge/skills 1f. Business processes 1g. Organizational

structure, e.g., multinational

1i. Organizational culture

2a. Top Management support

2b. Organizational commitment to change

2c. Clearly-defined goals and scope

2d. Adequate resources 2e. Effective leadership 2f. Project champion 2g. Flexibility 2h. Clear communication 2i. Managing stakeholders

3a. Sound project planning and control

3b. Competent staff and knowledge

3c. Achieving fit between software and business needs (e.g., vanilla)

3d. Training and change management

3e. Data conversion 3f. Testing 3g. Vendor support 3h. Technical problems 3i. Political influence

exercised by project leader

Slide 18

ES-project Critical Success Factors From Senior Management Perspective

Top Management support• Top-management support

(25)• Project champion (10)• Visioning and planning (15)• Business leadership of project• Commitment to change

Strong Project Management

• Best people fulltime (21)• Implementation strategy &

timeframe (17)• Deliverable dates• Strong project manager (6)• Good methodology• Data conversion• System testing• Vanilla implementation (6)Change Management and Training

• Change management (25)• Communicate, communicate

(10)• Training and job redesign (23)• Managing cultural change

Achieving Functional fit• Sound software selection (7)• BPR & software configuration

(23)• Balanced team (12)Other•Consultant selection & relationship (16)•IT infrastructure (8)

Note: most Key Success factors revolve around people and management issues, not technology!

RMIT University Case Study(Seddon 2007)

• “One of Australia’s leading educational institutions”

• Went live with PeopleSoft Academic Management Systems (AMS) on 29/10/01 to replace legacy systems already in use since 1982

• Goals: to “significantly streamline the University's administrative processes, and in turn provide enormous benefits to staff and an enhanced level of service to current and potential students” (RMIT 2000).

Slide 19

Slide 20

RMIT - “Go Live” Failure• Budget cost A$12.6M

• Repairing the system, including the corrupted database, cost A$18M in 2002

• Total cost after repairs was A$47 M (= 4 x budget)

• The software was so highly customized that two independent consulting firms advised it would be easier to reconfigure the system afresh, rather than to try to repair the current system. (Auditor-General of Victoria, 2003)

AMS Implementation Management Structure, 1999-2001

Strong informal channel, based on trust “The AMS Project

Steering Committee was viewed as ineffective.”(A-G report, para 5.79)

“An appropriately skilled internal Project Director and Project Manager were not part of the project team”(A-G report, para 5.79)

Strong informal channel, based on trust “The AMS Project

Steering Committee was viewed as ineffective.”(A-G report, para 5.79)

“An appropriately skilled internal Project Director and Project Manager were not part of the project team”(A-G report, para 5.79)

The VC “had people who were favorites and those who weren’t.” (The Project Director was a favorite.)

Two Important People• Project Director

– A highly influential person at RMIT – Head of the university’s academic Department of Computer Systems

Engineering, Director of the Learning Technology Services Group, and had also been Vice-President of the RMIT Branch of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) between 1993-1998

– a charismatic, “passionate RMIT person”, … someone who would “thump the table and yell” at meetings to get his way

• Vice Chancellor – Appointed to her position in October, 2000, a year after the project was

underway– Approved for AMS to go live based on assurances from the Project Director

and the AMS team that the system was ready– Resigned in August 2004

Slide 22

Slide 23

What happened at RMIT? Functionality

• “since going live, the AMS has suffered a number of functional and technical problems including:– Difficulty in billing fee-paying students

– Difficulties in issuing HECS statements

– Delays in processing and advising enrolment details

– Problems with meeting statutory and legislative reporting requirements

– Interface difficulties between the AMS and the RMIT general ledger; and

– Shortcoming relating to systems performance of both the hardware and software”

(Victorian Auditor-General’s report, 2003)

Slide 24

What happened at RMIT? Cost

• 1999 budget A$12.6 M + $6M over 3 years for other works

• Dec 2001 cost was $13.5 M

• By end 2002 an extra $18.2 M on remediation

• 2003 expenditure of $15.5 M ($7.4 M on consultancies)

• Grand total to end 2003 financial year is $47.2M (cf. RMIT’s annual budget of $480 M in 2002)

Slide 25

What happened at RMIT? Customization

• “RMIT needed to re-implement a student solution, as the implemented PeopleSoft-based AMS solution had been heavily customised resulting in significant technical and functional problems.

• The reviews also concluded that it would not be cost-effective to attempt to rectify the existing AMS solution”

(Victorian Auditor-General’s report, 2003)

Slide 26

Summary of Problems (Direct Quotes, Victorian Auditor-General 2003)

• “the AMS ‘go live’ decision did not consider whether all features required of the system had been fully delivered…”

• “the AMS implementation was based on a student administration solution that had neither been proven nor excepted elsewhere, within Australia”

• “the AMS ‘go-live’ decision was not based on assessing the readiness of the entire organisation”

• “The AMS went live during a critical RMIT processing period…”

• “The whole AMS project went live at the one time…”

• “RMIT did not undertake adequate user acceptance testing…”

Slide 27

Summary of Problems (cont’)• “Limited documentation to demonstrate an adequate level

of project governance”

• “…lack of communication… between the AMS Project Team and business users…”

• “…status reports to the Project Steering Committee were inadequate”

• “…lack of… documentation on the current problems with the AMS and the activities required to address these problems”

Victorian Auditor-General 2003

Slide 28

Explaining the problems at RMITContextual factors
















Slide 29

Explaining the problems at RMITContextual factors

• External factors– The late 1990s boom in IT industry, plus demand for

IT staff to solve the Year 2K problem, led to shortage of experienced consultants and staff in 1999 when the project commenced.

• Organisational context1. The VC and tensions at University Council2. Status and power of the AMS Project Director (who

also lacked experience with projects of this scale and complexity)

3. Organisational knowledge of ES - not in the Project Director’s head.

Slide 30

Discussion: Explain the problems at RMIT based on the project success factors
















Slide 31

Summary

• Enterprise System implementation is a lengthy and complex process, which needs to be managed very carefully.

• Various stakeholders in ES implementation have different interests that may create conflicts

• Sound project management skills in the areas of project scoping, HR, risks, communication, procurement and integration management can greatly improve the success of ES implementation.

• Project directors and project managers play a critical role in project success or failure.

Documents

ISYS90036 – Enterprise Systems