Written by Helene Abrams Sunday, April 19 2009
The value of an ERP system lies in the promises of better information, consistent systems, and reduced operational costs. With an ERP system, the ability to share data across applications and among different business units translated into more clearly defined business processes. The promise and the value depended on consultants who defined the current state of the business and who had a crystal ball made up of their vast experience to anticipate the future state. Companies counted on their ERP systems to accommodate growth and business changes.
Alas, those crystal balls seem to be a bit cloudy, and not even the best consultants could predict the substantial changes that a company undergoes over the life span of an ERP system.
As companies approach 5, 10, and even 20 years running the same systems (albeit with numerous upgrades and additional functionality), they are deriving less value from the system that was originally implemented. The number of spreadsheets has multiplied, many are considering a re-implementation, and there are hundreds, if not thousands of interfaces to systems that perform similar functions, consolidate the data, or translate it so that it is useful to the ever-changing business requirements. The promise of reduced operating costs and consistent systems has resulted in a very high cost of ownership and a loss of business value.
The character of ERP systems also changed from supporting a business’ requirements to supporting regulatory and control compliance. Of course, as those requirements changed, there was a need to invest more capital and add more resources to support the ERP systems.
Further exacerbating the problem of a changing business is the growing complexity of the ERP systems. As the following chart illustrates, complexity of Oracle E-Business Suite has escalated with each new version release, resulting in a system that is extremely difficult to maintain. For example, Oracle E-Business Suite R12.0.6 contains over 2.6 million columns (about a 25% increase over the number of columns in R11.5.10.2), each of which could be related to any other, or could be part of a check constraint, or part of a unique or primary key. There are about 36% more constraints in R12.06 than in R11.5.10.2. Even relatively “simple” changes such as finding the impact of a chart of accounts change now affects several hundred more columns in R12.06. Thus, the complexity of changing a chart of accounts went up by more than a third between releases.
Obviously, the larger the ERP footprint, and the more complex those systems are, the greater the capital requirements for maintaining and changing them. The economics and the corresponding value of the ERP system has changed. To compensate for the higher costs, ERP systems must be able to be extensible and adaptable to changing requirements over a longer life span. ERPs must provide data consistency and process integrity in addition to system consistency across the enterprise, As Gartner states, ERP systems must support the “consistent and seamless capture, persistence, transformation and delivery of information throughout the enterprise. To create this infrastructure, enterprises must align their metadata, standards, information formats and technologies for persisting, accessing and delivering data. The demand for tools and approaches that manage data more effectively will grow.”
Transformation software that enables ERP systems to change rapidly can change the value of the ERP spend. Along with the need to manage the complexity of the business and the complexity of the ERP systems, the need to cut costs and realign IT strategies is driving successful companies to invest in changing their existing ERP resources.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Related Articles
Related Pages
Enter your email address to sign up for our Newsletter
January Puzzle
A traveler gets lost on a deserted island and finds himself surrounded by a group of n cannibals.
Each cannibal wants to eat the traveler but, as each knows, there is a risk. A cannibal that attacks and eats the traveler would become tired and defenseless. After he eats, he would become an easy target for another cannibal (who would also become tired and defenseless after eating).
The cannibals are all hungry, but they cannot trust each other to cooperate. The cannibals happen to be well versed in game theory, so they will think before making a move.
Does the nearest cannibal, or any cannibal in the group, devour the lost traveler?
Solution
The short answer is the traveler’s fate depends on the parity of the group. If there is an odd number of canibals, the traveler will be eaten, but if there is an even number, the traveler will survive.
To prove this, we will consider small groups and use mathematical induction to explain the solution for larger groups.
Case n = 1: this is an obvious case. If there is one cannibal, the traveler will be eaten. It doesn’t matter that the cannibal will get tired because there are no other cannibals around as a threat.
Case n = 2: this is a more interesting case. Each cannibal wishes to each the traveler, but each knows he cannot. If either cannibal eats the traveler, then he will become defenseless and the other one will eat him. So each cannibal uses backwards induction to realize that the only strategy is to not eat the traveler. The hapless traveler finds a bit of luck, therefore, and actually survives.
Case n = 3: this is where the problem gets interesting. The best strategy is for the closest cannibal to make a move and eat the traveler. The cannibal will be defenseless after eating, but ultimately he will be safe. Why is that? The reasoning is due to induction: once the cannibal eats the traveler, the resulting situation has 2 unfed cannibals and the 1 defenseless cannibal. But as we just showed above, when there are 2 unfed cannibals, neither will make a move for fear of being eaten by the other! Thus the first cannibal to make a move will be safe as the remaining 2 cannibals block each other.
We can prove the higher cases using mathematical induction. If the number n is odd, then the closest cannibal can safely eat the traveler because the remaining number of unfed cannibals is even (and by induction, with an even number of unfed cannibals no one makes a move). If the number n is even, then no cannibal will eat the traveler, for if he did, the remaining number of cannibals would be odd, meaning he will get eaten by the induction hypothesis.
Success Tips for Oracle Project Management
- Create a standard for documentation at the beginning of your project, and hold team members accountable for completing documentation requirements as well as keeping them at and above the standards required.
- Before promulgating user documentation or training, it’s also a good idea to choose a representative from the among the business users base to review materials first.
- If you are not sure about the resources and budget required, obtain several estimates from people that have experience with the same size and scope of your project.
- Be explicit, before beginning the project, what internal resources are required for execution. This includes people, infrastructure, hardware, and software.
- Help the project champion understand the impact your project will have on the organization and how its successful completion will make him or her an internal hero or heroine for supporting it.
- Break up your project into smaller projects (try for projects that can be completed in 4-6 months, especially early on) to get success and demonstrate momentum.
- Make sure that your testing includes reports, upstream and downstream interfaces, customizations, enhancements, and workflows.
- Ensure that comprehensive transition reports and meetings between departing and incoming personnel are completed.
- Instead of spending time and resources implementing third-party reporting, consider consolidating multiple instances, moving to a global chart of accounts (CoA), and/or standardizing on a consistent calendar.
- Include governance, risk, and compliance management as part of the project plan.
- Finally, celebrate the successes. Too many projects focus on defects, failures, or small cost over-runs without looking at the big picture and what was accomplished.
The Analyst Corner
John Van Decker, Research VP of Gartner, states:
"A single chart of accounts allows consistency in financial reporting across the enterprise by standardizing on common metrics and reporting structures, reduces dependencies on a separate financial consolidation system, and significantly reduces the costs incurred with ongoing, complex conversions and translations."
