Cynthia Rettig has hit the nail on the head in her article “The Trouble with Enterprise Software” (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2007/fall/01/)! This is based on my personal experience with multiple SAP implementations. Whenever an organisation commits to the levels of investment required to implement corporate politics will come into play. Executive stakeholders in the project will spin the ERP implementation into a success even when it the monolithic system stifles an organisation's ability to change. And that's the crux of the problem. It's not that ERP systems don't create efficiencies, it's the efficiencies are based on a point in time. ERP systems often cement an organisation into a particular way of doing business. As the business environment changes, the cost of changing business processes within the ERP systems outweighs the potential benefits of market opportunities on a case by case basis. This is particularly true for speculative new products and new market opportunities where the revenue growth is uncertain. The high cost of changing these systems often makes the business case for new opportunities inviable. As a result, line of business managers may be forced to use smaller systems to launch new opportunities thus adding to the complexity of enterprise IT environments. Enterprise SOA will not be realised because the solutions developed by most vendors are too heavyweight and cumbersome. The best examples of SOA in action are web mashups. Organisations striving to achieve agility by implementing heavyweight middle tier stacks are barking up the wrong tree. Why is it that one doesn’t picture an ocean liner, or a 747, or anything that is large and complex when we envisage “agility”. We always picture lean, lightweight, hyper… Companies should look to small, lightweight, simple services to deliver agile business processes. Leave the legacy processes to the ERP systems but build future nimbleness on lightweight web centric architectures.
read more | digg story
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
ERPs Stifle Business Change
Cynthia Rettig has hit the nail on the head in her article “The Trouble with Enterprise Software” (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2007/fall/01/)! This is based on my personal experience with multiple SAP implementations. Whenever an organisation commits to the levels of investment required to implement corporate politics will come into play. Executive stakeholders in the project will spin the ERP implementation into a success even when it the monolithic system stifles an organisation's ability to change. And that's the crux of the problem. It's not that ERP systems don't create efficiencies, it's the efficiencies are based on a point in time. ERP systems often cement an organisation into a particular way of doing business. As the business environment changes, the cost of changing business processes within the ERP systems outweighs the potential benefits of market opportunities on a case by case basis. This is particularly true for speculative new products and new market opportunities where the revenue growth is uncertain. The high cost of changing these systems often makes the business case for new opportunities inviable. As a result, line of business managers may be forced to use smaller systems to launch new opportunities thus adding to the complexity of enterprise IT environments.
Enterprise SOA will not be realised because the solutions developed by most vendors are too heavyweight and cumbersome. The best examples of SOA in action are web mashups. Organisations striving to achieve agility by implementing heavyweight middle tier stacks are barking up the wrong tree.
Why is it that one doesn’t picture an ocean liner, or a 747, or anything that is large and complex when we envisage “agility”. We always picture lean, lightweight, hyper… Companies should look to small, lightweight, simple services to deliver agile business processes. Leave the legacy processes to the ERP systems but build future nimbleness on lightweight web centric architectures. in action are web mashups.
Enterprise SOA will not be realised because the solutions developed by most vendors are too heavyweight and cumbersome. The best examples of SOA in action are web mashups. Organisations striving to achieve agility by implementing heavyweight middle tier stacks are barking up the wrong tree.
Why is it that one doesn’t picture an ocean liner, or a 747, or anything that is large and complex when we envisage “agility”. We always picture lean, lightweight, hyper… Companies should look to small, lightweight, simple services to deliver agile business processes. Leave the legacy processes to the ERP systems but build future nimbleness on lightweight web centric architectures. in action are web mashups.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Spreading corporate FUD
20 August, Herald Sun
Facebook time-wasters could cost $5 billion a year
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22273758-2,00.html
This is a typical negative and cynical corporate perspective of a new social phenomenon from the unbiased perspective by SurfControl Chairman, Richard Cullen. As if there is no vested interested preaching FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to sell more licenses. The article actually ends with a more objective and realistic view from Tammy Tucker of Haystac.
Rather than fear social networking, corporates need to understand why so many people are joining these networks and using them to express themselves and to connect with other like-minded people. Platforms, like facebook, provide people with a new way to communicate to narrow segments of a very wide audience. This is personally empowering. Banning facebook is a similar reaction that many organisations had 10 years ago - banning the Internet and world wide web. Today, no company can survive without Internet/Web connectivity.
If your employees are not engaged, not motivated, not productive, or if you haven't tapped into their real potential and inspired them to contribute to your organisation; don't blame facebook or myspace or other social networking platforms. Blame your board and executive leadership for not creating and inspiring vision and blame your middle managers for being job holding, initiative blocking, f--k wits.
People want to do something worthwhile. Employers need to make the time people spend at work worth being there.
Facebook time-wasters could cost $5 billion a year
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22273758-2,00.html
This is a typical negative and cynical corporate perspective of a new social phenomenon from the unbiased perspective by SurfControl Chairman, Richard Cullen. As if there is no vested interested preaching FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to sell more licenses. The article actually ends with a more objective and realistic view from Tammy Tucker of Haystac.
Rather than fear social networking, corporates need to understand why so many people are joining these networks and using them to express themselves and to connect with other like-minded people. Platforms, like facebook, provide people with a new way to communicate to narrow segments of a very wide audience. This is personally empowering. Banning facebook is a similar reaction that many organisations had 10 years ago - banning the Internet and world wide web. Today, no company can survive without Internet/Web connectivity.
If your employees are not engaged, not motivated, not productive, or if you haven't tapped into their real potential and inspired them to contribute to your organisation; don't blame facebook or myspace or other social networking platforms. Blame your board and executive leadership for not creating and inspiring vision and blame your middle managers for being job holding, initiative blocking, f--k wits.
People want to do something worthwhile. Employers need to make the time people spend at work worth being there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
