Harley Davidson Erp It Study Essay Example

the new enterprise software was implemented. From that point, the team developed a Request for Quote (RFQ) to send out to potential software suppliers to see how they could meet Harley Davidson’s needs. This brought them to a provider selection process that the team analyzed and they then narrowed the field to their top three. Now that the three best software providers had been determined, it was necessary to make a decision that the company should pursue and implement across their whole organization.

Software Selection and Decision Rationale Based on the analysis listed in the table on the last page of this study and information in the case, the software provider that I would choose for Harley Davidson would be Provider1. The SiL’K team has done a very thorough analysis over the last two years of what they need in an enterprise-wide procurement and supplier management system. During that time, they developed the idea that Harley Davidson’s values and culture are very important factors in the overall decision.

The qualitative criteria areas that looked at the values and culture the most were “long term relationship potential,” “understanding Harley Davidson’s requirements,” and “enabling the SMS. ” This particular provider received very high marks in these sections. During the overall analysis of Provider1, it stated that, “the SiL’K team felt a natural affinity to its representatives who seemed to have a similar company culture. ” This was also mentioned several times in the appendix of the case and would make the software integration more seamless and help them work together more efficiently in the future.

Another area that the team thought was very important to the success of the new

software was the implementation process. This obviously encompassed the qualitative criteria area of “implementation/education/change management methodology,” but also encompassed the areas of “training approach”, and “architecture compatibility. ” This particular provider scored very high in these areas as well. With any group support system, it is very important that all the different functions in the business are able to work together.

It is equally important that all the employees that have access to this system have the training and education on the correct way to use it. Without that guidance, the software may never be used to its full potential. Ensuring that the software is compatible with the systems that are in place today is also a critical step to making the transition smoother. The high score in the architecture compatibility area shows that this provider took that into consideration as well. Provider1 was also able to customize the off-the-shelf package to meet the requirements that Harley Davidson has developed when the “best practices” fell short.

Since the company had already established specific goals that they needed this software to accomplish, looking at the overall functionality of the package is imperative. The qualitative areas that addressed this issue were “overall functionality,” “technical support offerings,” and “web functionality to go. ” Provider1 and Provider2 scored as high as possible in these first two areas. However, Provider2 already caries a software solution for the web functionality . The reason that I feel Provider1 is still the best option is because they understand that this will be a necessary component of Harley Davidson’s needs.

They have developed a work around for this problem with a partner solution that will help them

meet all their needs. Since there is no perfect functional fit offered by the three final providers, the ability to problem solve and develop solutions is a key factor to consider in the decision. Beyond the Matrix Evaluation The qualitative scores of each provider were not the only deciding factors for the SiL’K team. There are a couple other factors that played into the final decision. The first factor that was looked at was the quantitative analysis that was provided on each of the candidates.

This was initially based on each of the candidate’s self-ratings in these categories. Since this is the case, it would be easy to see that there could be a great deal of bias in these evaluations. Each of the providers that submitted a quote to Harley Davidson is trying to secure their business and would most likely want to oversell them on how well their system will perform. These evaluations would help Harley Davidson narrow down the field more effectively but are definitely not the best way to make a final decision. Of the three remaining software companies, Provider2, scored the highest in this category with a score of 98. 9%, Provider3 ranked second with 96. 83%, and Provider1 was last with 93. 44%. All three of them did rank above 90% so it hard to determine that any of them showed a clear competitive advantage at this stage of the examination. The second factor that played into the final decision was the written analysis of each of the three providers and the comments the team made about their presentations. Combining this information with way the project team analyzed their internal

processes showed that Harley Davidson knew exactly what they needed.

It appeared that the first and second providers would be the best options for the company and that the third would offer economic and political benefits. The first company had the best attitude, enthusiasm, and cultural fit with the Harley Davidson team. They were also the most prepared to meet their business needs or provide solutions where they came up a little short in terms of functionality. Provider2 was the most professional of the three and seemed to have the best overall software package available. The problem was that they were too formal and gave off more of a consulting feel than the others.

They did have a very functional product and fit all of Harley Davidson’s needs but seemed to focus their energy on the upper management in the group. Since Provider3 was already engaged with the company in another functional area, it was be easy to believe that the implementation would be easier for that provider. Based on how poorly the product presentation went and that they seemed completely unprepared to answer the functionality needs Harley Davidson was looking for, I dismissed them as a serious contender. The overall decision was more of a combination of these two areas and the scores on the qualitative section.

Even though Provider1 scored the highest in the qualitative factors; they actually scored the lowest of the three providers in the quantitative factors. Since this ended up being the case, I averaged the two evaluation approaches together to determine what their overall scores in these two categories were. When this was done, Provider2 was still slightly higher, at 93. 53%,

than Provider1 at 92. 90%. Provider3 scored much lower than the other two, at 84. 24%, providing another reason to eliminate them from the competition. Management Justification

I would summarize my reasons for choosing Provider1 to the senior executive team at Harley Davidson by reviewing the process discussed above. Provider1 scored themselves above a ninety percent on their self-rated match to the technology and process requirement that were sent out by the SiL’K team. This showed that they strongly believed that they had a very close fit for the software functionality that Harley Davidson requires. After the presentation and company visits that followed, it was clear that this provider is the best fit in terms of similar values, culture and focus on change management that Harley Davidson is seeking.

They ranked the highest on the qualitative analysis that was conducted and provided solutions when they had potential functionality short comings. The only problem in their functionality is that they cannot provide “web-enablement” internally but they have a proposed solution by integrating with a partner to solve this issue. They have the best training and education process in place of the three remaining providers and would be the most likely to develop long term relationships with Harley Davidson in the future.

This will help in the process of bringing “the organization from a short-term transaction mentality to a long-term focus on supplier relationships. ” This provider wants to help extensively in the initial change over and throughout the product’s lifecycle in technical support functions as well. This will help Harley Davidson solve their supply chain management issues and give them support if they have any problems with the enterprise

software in the future. Diagnosis of the Software Selection Method The overall software selection process at Harley Davidson was an effective one.

They were able to determine the scope of their problem at hand, implement a team of experts to analyze where the company’s IT infrastructure stood today, figure out where they would like the company to be, and determine the best potential software providers to help them meet their goals. The main strengths of the process are that they were very meticulous in establishing the goals of this project and selecting the best members from all of the procurement organizations that the enterprise system planned to unify. They were able to bring a great amount of ideas together and they took the time to fully plan out the whole project.

They also got to their goal of narrowing down the list of providers to three that could all potentially meet their needs in different ways. The weakness that became evident was the amount of time that it took them to get to the decision point. The project took two years of planning and research to arrive at a final software provider decision. They clearly had an immediate issue with supply chain management at the beginning of the process, so taking two years to get to the implementation phase is only delaying their problem.

With help from an outside, supply chain management and software consulting firm they could have organized this project more efficiently. This would have given them a better focus on the real problems they are facing and direction on how to solve them. It is clear the company was faced with barriers to change and

that is would be necessary to get a full company buy in, but they could have done it more productively. The value achieved by unifying their Supply Management Strategy and their many procure systems together should have been more of a motivation to move this project along more rapidly.

While the overall evaluating methods that Harley Davidson used helped them achieve the results they planned for, there was a lot of bias that was involved. Allowing each provider to do a self-assessment of how well they thought their product fit Harley Davidson’s needs could understandably lead to overselling of their actual capabilities. Having direction from a consulting firm would have helped them in the overall research and evaluation process in addition to the project organization mentioned above. Conclusion Harley Davidson built their brand around individual participation and teamwork.

The company valued the concept of “self-direct teams” so much that they organizational structure consisted of three interlocking functional “circles” instead of a traditional hierarchy. They took that approach to this project as well and involved members from each of the major segments of company on the team. Although this may not have been the fastest way to research, scope, and determine a solution to their software problem, it was the Harley Davidson way. They were able to develop their own evaluation methods that were very participative and interactive with the software providers.

This made a lot of sense because this enterprise-wide software solution would need to unify their supply chain in ways they had never experienced before. I think this will ultimately help them gain the organizational buy that is necessary to make this implementation successful and the transition

as smooth as possible going forward.

1. Harvard Business School, January 2003 – Harley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection, ps1-5.
2. Harvard Business School, January 2003 – Harley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection, ps7-8. 3
3. Harvard Business School, January 2003 – Harley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection, p11.
4. Harvard Business School, January 2003 – Harley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection, p11.
5. Harvard Business School, January 2003 – Harley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection, ps22-23.
6. Harvard Business School, January 2003 – Harley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection, p4.
7. Harvard Business School, January 2003 – Harley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection, p2.