Friday, July 23, 2010

A Thought Byte from Yeliz - Which Implementation Strategy?

Hi All,
Here is a scenario I would like you to think about.

You are implementing an ERP system in a global company which has offices in Turkey (Ankara, and Istanbul (Headquarters), Azerbaycan and Russia. You want to implement about 10 modules.

How would you implement? Would you implement only one module first and then the rest of the modules? Would you implement in one location first? If so which one? Would you implement all modules at the same time? in all countries at the same time?

Let me know what you think by posting comments. Tell me why you choose the alternative you choose (what are the benefits and disadvantages of the alternative you choose?)



tequila said...


Looking forward to seeing your comments to my posting called 'thought byte'.


Seray said...

I would start implementing first in Headquarters and then transfer the expertise into other regions. That way, I'd be able to see what went wrong during the initial implementation and try to avoid those in other regions. Also, during the implementation in the headquarters, I'd go module by module. (I’d start with the module that is core to the company, and then the others) The implementation time would be longer but it'd be easier for the company to adapt itself to this new system. However, another disadvantage could be that this approach necessities developing temporary bridges between the old and the new systems. Maybe to avoid this temporary development stage in other regions, (and since I’d have already gained expertise in implementing all the modules within the same company), I’d implement all modules at one time when I replicate the implementation in other regions.

DERYA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DERYA said...

I would start with the most critical module to company and first in headquarter as pilot application. But I would consider the relations between the business process and go on to implementation. For instance, output of design process is input for production. After implementation of the module related to design, I would go on with production. As a pilot application, I would select the headquarter. Because I think if it is done successfully in the headquarters, the deployment of the implementation would be more efficient to other locations. Efficieny of the deployment is an advantage(I think end users within the other locations would believe the success more if it is done in the headquarters first.).

Gun Gokmen said...

It depends. There are three strategies of implementation. One is the big-bang method, in which the system is implemented once-at-a-time, with all modules ready to be used. Another is the phased option, in which the system is started using module by module. The last is the parallel one, in which the old and new system are used at the same time in the initial period of the new system. All these options have their pros and cons, so I would look at the company's situation, timeline, urgency, etc.
For example if there is not enough capital to execute big bang launch, I would prefer a phased option, which would cost a longer time but less one at a time money, and lower risk. Or if I decide that the new system would be too tricky and risky to implement at once, I would go parallel to reduce the risk.
In this case, I would implement a pilot application in the headquarters, which would both allow me to track the situation, reduce the overall risk, and allow to develop super users to assist in the implementation of other branches.

Sarisoy said...

We want to establish an ERP system, we have 10 modules that want to be formed, and we have 4 places that are in Ankara, in İstanbul, in Azerbejan and in Russia. According to my way of thinking, firstly, the company should start applying the system from the main places in Ankara and in İstanbul with the help of a careful, informative and controlled manner. But, all modules in case should be applied at the same time in terms of combining and dealing with different departments. Then, the departments will get used to comprehend the system while integrating with works and each other. Thus, modules can improve equally, timely, comparably and apparently. On the other hand, there can be some correlation and time usage problems in the company and it means complexity and "out of control". That is, processes rearrangement as to the new ERP system can be easier, more useful and more reasonable in terms of feasibility.

After catching durability with the system in Ankara and in İstanbul, and if the results' efficiency and effectiveness make sense in short-term and it seems hopeful and returnable in the long-term, the company must think about bringing the ERP system in Azerbejan and in Russia also.

It will be very useful to point out that there are some hidden parameters exist for whole subject.. For example, are the operation styles similar in Russia and in Azerbejan according to Turkey? How training and implementation will be supplied in different cultures? How is the perspective to the change in Turkey, in Russia and in Azerbejan? Do the company really need an ERP system or does it really need an ERP system in foreign country? and does it really need all the modules? In fact, how is the works in Ankara and in İstanbul? which is the center? do they similar?

In conclusion, I made my comments according to my "imaginative company" standards. I imagine some companies such as Borusan and Efes Pilsen.. Then my ideas based on those at the first paragraph. In other circumstances, a company should masterly answer the questions that I asked in the second paragraph. Yes, ERP is an excellent technology. It provides you an integrated and complete way of working atmosphere efficiently, but if you decide its size, its cost, its necessities and its application techniques perfectly, appropriately and timely.

Nurcan said...

I also think that it depends. Both implementation types have advantages and diasadvantages. But in my opinion I would rather go with phase type. Firstly I would go with theimplementation of the headquarters of the company since they manage the other subsidiaries and have much more complex systems in terms of the communication with subsidiaries. And in terms of the module implementation, I would prefer to implement the crucial modules first and the connected modules to the crucial modules. After implementing the crucial modules in the headquarters of the company, I will observe the failing parts of the implementation, and take precautions when I implement the other subsidiaries systems. With this way I believe that the risks are going to be decrease. But on the other hand, not implementing the departmental modules at the same time may cause some failures by going live. I think that the other advantage of this way is about costs, by long term this way may cost much more than implementing all the modules at the same time at each site but we get rid of paying all the implementation costs one at a time. So if our companys budget not suffices one at a time we can prefer implementing phase by phase. Additionally long term implementation may also cause much more time but we can embedded the extra working times in the normal working time of the employees. The other important thing about choosing the type of implementation is the culture of the company. I beleive that the culture of the company is nearly similar with the headquarters but the employees behaviours may show some differences. For instance, if the Russian subsidiaries employees are much more adaptable to change, Russian subsidiary may choose one at a time implementation.
In brief I would implement the most crucial modules and the dependent modules if there are, and the headquarters both at one time. After finished the headquarters implementation, if the system is working efficiently I would implement the other subsidiaries one at a time according to their cultural structure.

Meric Turker said...

To test the ERP System and minimize the implementation risk, I would first select some pilot offices from each country that my company operates.

The number of pilot offices would be proportionate to the company’s operation scale in that country. For instance, if the company has 10branches in Russia, and only two in Turkey, I would choose more pilot offices in Russia. Also, the variety of the organizational structure in each office is a criterion in that case. This would be the case, especially for the offices in the same country I think. For instance, if in Russia we have 5 offices each of them sharing a very similar structure, it could be sufficient to choose only one pilot region in Russia. The pilot office approach would also allow the company to use its budget incrementally. So it would have some financial advantages.

In terms of module implementation in pilot regions, I would test all 10 modules at once in pilot offices to see if they integrate and work together efficiently. Otherwise, for instance, 5 modules might work flawless by themselves but during integration there may appear some problems.

As a result, the method I use would be a combination of bing-bang implementation (in terms of using all 10 modules at once in pilot offices) and phased implementation (in terms of selecting pilot regions first and later widening to other offices).

Cheapermobiles said...

Thanks a lot, i would like request you to provide more informations. I am working in ERP Software Developers Chennai