Like any other project, the ERP implementation project also has to go through different phases. There are no clear separating lines between these phases and in many cases, one phase will start before the previous one is completed. But the logical order is followed. Also, all the phases that we are discussing in this session may not be applicable in all cases. For example, in some cases, the organization might have already identified a particular package; then the pre¬selection screening and package evaluation phases are not done.
The different phases of the ERP implementation are given below: . Pre-evaluation Screening
. Package Evaluation
. Project Planning Phase
. Gap Analysis
. Reengineering
. Configuration
. Implementation Team Training
- Testing
. Going Live
. End-user Training
. Post-implementation
Although these phases, may seem very linear and distinct from each other, in reality, throughout an actual implementation, the phases are
in fact quite fluid. In many cases, companies go through many implementations ¬
in different business units, different modules, or manufacturing locations. So at any given time, more than one of the phases may be operational. Some companies opt for the one and only 'Big Bang', while other companies favor sequential rollouts - each company has different needs. But whether it is the 'Big Bang' method or sequential rollout, the lifecycle phases are the same. Once the company has decided to go in for the ERP system, the search for the perfect package starts. But there are hundreds of ERP vendors - of all sizes and shapes - all claiming to have the solution that is ideal for you. Analyzing all the packages before reaching a decision is not a viable solution. It is also a very time consuming process. So it is beJter to limit the number of packages that are evaluated to less than five. It is always better to do a thorough and detailed evaluation of a small number of packages, than going a superficial analysis of dozens of packages. Hence, the company should do a pre-evaluation screening to limit the number of pakages that are to be evaluated by the committee. Not all packages are equal - each has its own strengths and weakness. The pre evaluation process should eliminate those packages that are not uitable for the company's business processes. One can zero in on the few best packages by looking at the product literature of the vendors, getting help from external consultants and most importantly, by finding out wliat package is used by companies which are similar. It is always better to find out how the different packages are performing in environments similar to yours.
If one studies the history of ERP packages and finds out how each package evolved, it soon becomes evident that every ERP package grew out of the experience or opportuniw of a group of people, working in a specific business, who created systems that could deal with certain business segments. It is generally accepted that most ERP packages are stronger in certain areas than in others, and each one is madly trying to add functionality in areas where they have been lacking. For example, PeopleSoft is strong in HR and less so in manufacturing; Baan, on the other hand, is historically stronger in manufacturing than in finance and so on.
As the companies grew over time the ERP packages evolved. The experience gained from implementation, the feedback by the users, the need to enter into new markets and the pressure from the competitors forced most ERP vendors to redefine and expand the scope of the activities and functionality of their products. The concepts were expanded upon, new functions were introduced, good ideas were copied from others, and so on. But still, each package has a history (or origin) that determine in which type of business it is best suited for.
While making the analysis it would be a good idea to investigate the origins of the different packages. Now, most packages cater to almost all business and service sectors. It would be wrong to say that a system that was developed initially for manufacturing is now not capable of catering to the needs of another business |
