1.. What was the model for IT Management in Cisco prior to January, 1994?

What were the weaknesses of that model? 2.. Why did Pete Solvik initially want to avoid an ERP solution? What was done to address the concerns of Solvik and Redfield regarding ERP projects? 3.. Why do many general / functional managers resist Information Systems such as ERP? Why wasn't anyone willing to volunteer to lead the ERP project? 4.. What are the advantages and disadvantages of 'big-bang' ERP implementation approach? 5.. Was Cisco smart or lucky with the ERP implementation project? Why was there a performance dip after cutting over to the ERP system? Case questions 1. What was the model for IT Management in Cisco prior to January, 1994? What were the weaknesses of that model? UNIX based Handled core transactions - fin,mfg,order entry Standardized systems Didnt provide scalability - package was more suitable for smaller companies and couldn't cope with Cisco's growth (80% growth rate) Didn't provide redundancy,reliability,maintanability Not possible to make changes to suit business Provider of software was being bought out by another company - no clarity on future support Routine system outages, difficult to return from those outages Product shortcomings required Cisco to create patches which eventually corrupted the central database and forced Cisco to shutdown for 2 days - company systems were on the brink of total failure ERP was a new technology and a promising solution 1. Why did Pete Solvik initially want to avoid an ERP solution? What was done to address the concerns of Solvik and Redfield regarding ERP projects? ERP solutions often became "mega projects" - IT projects could become monolithic projects,which could shift the focus of the business.They also tended to run for very long timesbecause departments wanted a lot of customization to mirror their operations Solvik felt that individual departments should take the call of switching to a new system. 1. Why do many general / functional managers resist Information Systems such as ERP? Why wasn't anyone willing to volunteer to lead the ERP project? Resist because : It encompasses all functions in the organization - lot of change required - implementation challeneges; project times are very large,high capital expenditure,not an IT-only initiative hence require employees from different departments Unwilling to lead because: .1 Large capital investment ($15 million in case of Cisco) "careers are lost over much smaller amounts", unsure returns 2. Probability of sub standard results which leaders don't want to be associated with 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of 'big-bang' ERP implementation approach? Advantages :

1. less time - Cisco implemented the project in 12 months including troubleshooting 2. Department wise implementation in phased manner would not be feasible as they would be unwilling to invest $5-$6 million 3. There might be standardization issues if it was done in a phased department by department manner 4. Phase by phase would be costlier since each department would purchase the ERP individually - economies of scale 5. Better integration between departments 6. Redundancy of carrying out similar implementation procedures in each department Disadvantages : 1. Was Cisco smart or lucky with the ERP implementation project? Why was there a performance dip after cutting over to the ERP systems? Undesirable shift of business focus to implementing ERP for one entire year Troubleshooting would have been much easier if it was done in a phased manner Risky since if the implementation failed, it would fail for the entire company and not just for one department Smart because : 1. They associated with the right consultants - KPMG,Oracle, did not compromise on costs ($15 million) 2. They come to a quick decision to implement (2 days from date of shutdown) 3. Implementing at at one go instead of phased manner, while also working on a tight schedule 4. Implemented it quickly - 9 months for implementation, 3 months for troubleshooting (not like typical long drawn ERP projects) 5. Made it future proof by data warehousing (they were growing at 80%) 6. Implementing it ensured standardization across departments 7. They bought capability instead of hardware. 8. they pulled in the best employees from each department to ensure good results and project ends on time Performance dip : 1. Hardware was unable to cope - larger hardware needed 2. Transaction volumes were high - hence software could not handle it smoothly 3. they had not tried with a big enough database - leading to outages regularly 4. they implemented sequentially