Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
providing an answer to these requirements, such as
SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, JD Edwards, Priority,
PHC Software, Manufactor Software, Primavera
Software, and others. However, they present
different solutions and framework concepts for
the same functions, and none of them presents a
complete solution.
This work presents an “adaptive” functional
model that could be assumed as the “baseline”
for ERPs systems. This model aims primarily
to provide the necessary conceptual architecture
so that it is possible to build software solutions
that guarantee a complete parameterization and
configuration, as well as an effective response to
organization's needs.
operate more efficiently than it did before. In some
cases, though, the system's assumptions will run
counter to a company's best interests.
Most of the time, software companies are aware
of the companies' major difficulties when regard-
ing their software distribution policies (leaving
the responsibility of consulting and analyzing
the market to smaller companies, named partners,
who sometimes aren't prepared for such a difficult
task). According to Bingi (1999), because the ERP
market has grown so much and so fast, there has
been a shortage of competent consultants. Finding
the right people and keeping them through the
implementation is a major challenge, since ERP
implementation demands multiple skills − func-
tional, technical and interpersonal skills. Although
this strategy (high number of partners) might
increase software house's sales, it keeps them
away from the companies' “real need” analysis.
Mandal (2003) has defended that software
vendors should apply for an “iterative evolution-
ary method” to develop enterprise-wide infor-
mation systems since that would enable system
developers and their customers to communicate
effectively with each other in order to make the
system evolve towards a defined objective. Such
a strategy would help them analyze the impact of
the software implementation on the organization.
Unfortunately, such kinds of strategies (although,
sometimes promised) were never “really” taken
into consideration.
MAjor probLeMs found
Implementing and managing ERP Systems may
be a complex process due to several causes, such
as human inadaptability, for instance. According
to Lin (2002), about half of ERP implementations
fail to meet expectations. Most of them suffered
from over-budget, over-time, user dissatisfaction,
threatened lawsuit, besides having failed to intro-
duce all planned modules; or the big and horizontal
ERP Systems pulling back into beta testing.
The following topics summarize some of the
most common features in this business, according
to the experience of the authors.
Market Awareness
factors preventing decision-Making
Software companies develop ERP Systems, tak-
ing into consideration the roadmap's interests on
time and cost restrictions, somewhat “forgetting”
to study the actual needs of the market. According
to Davenport (1998), software houses try to struc-
ture the systems in order to reflect best practices
(series of assumptions about the way companies
operate in general), but it is the vendor, not the
customer, that is defining what “best” means. In
many cases, the system will enable a company to
According to Holland (1999), a new ERP platform
forms a critical infrastructure in any company for,
at least, the next decade. This sentence enhances
the importance of a consistent decision of an ERP
system for an organization.
However, the implementation of an ERP sys-
tem is often a complex process in the sense that
it requires internal restructuring, both in terms
of work procedures and human resources. The
growth of Project Management, such as science
Search WWH ::
Custom Search