its acronym. Forget about planning it doesn't do thatand forget about resource, a throwaway term. But remember the enterprise part. his is ERP's true ambition. !t attempts to integrate all departments and functions across a company onto a single computer system that can serve all those different departments' particular needs. hat is a tall order, building a single software program that serves the needs of people in finance as well as it does the people in human resources and in the warehouse. Each of those departments typically has its own computer system, each optimi"ed for the particular ways that the department does its wor#. But ERP combines them all together into a single, integrated software program that runs off a single database so that the various departments can more easily share information and communicate with each other. hat integrated approach can have a tremendous paybac# if companies install the software correctly. a#e a customer order, for e$ample. ypically, when a customer places an order, that order begins a mostly paper%based &ourney from in%bas#et to in%bas#et around the company, often being #eyed and re%#eyed into different departments' computer Material resource planning he practice of calculating what materials are re'uired to build a product by analy"ing a bill of material data, inventory data and the master production schedule. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is an outgrowth of *RP. Enterprise resource planning he practice of consolidating an enterprise+s planning, manufacturing, sales and mar#eting efforts into one management system. Enterprise relationship management he practice of analy"ing customer data from sales, mar#eting, service, finance and manufacturing databases in order to relate efficiently to customers. Enterprise resource management he practice of providing users with efficient access to an organi"ation+s networ# resources. ER* enables the enterprise to control and trac# the systems and resources that each user has access to and provides consistent standards for creating and changing passwords. Barry Wilderman, vice president of application delivery strategies for the Stamford, CT based Meta Group talks about getting the most from your E! system" Question: ,hat benefits have been reali"ed with the use of Pro&ect *anagement echnologies on the implementation of ERP advertisers systems along the way. -ll that lounging around in in%bas#ets causes delays and lost orders, and all the #eying into different computer systems invites errors. *eanwhile, no one in the company truly #nows what the status of the order is at any given point because there is no way for the finance department, for e$ample, to get into the warehouse's computer system to see whether the item has been shipped. ./ou'll have to call the warehouse,. is the familiar refrain heard by frustrated customers. How can ERP improve a company's business performance? ERP automates the tas#s involved in performing a business process such as order fulfillment, which involves ta#ing an order from a customer, shipping it and billing for it. ,ith ERP, when a customer service representative ta#es an order from a customer, he or she has all the information necessary to complete the order (the customer's credit rating and order history, the company's inventory levels and the shipping doc#'s truc#ing schedule). Everyone else in the company sees the same computer screen and has access to the single database that holds the customer's new order. ,hen one department finishes with the order it is automatically routed via the ERP system to the ne$t department. o find out where the systems0 Reply: he benefits of using pro&ect management techni'ues well on ERP systems can be dramatic, but re'uire real discipline and s#ill in pro&ect management. he discipline of pro&ect management (done well) re'uires clear definitions of tas#s, individuals assigned to tas#s, and real deliverables that mar# the end of a tas#. Emphasis should be placed on wor# brea#down structures, using earned value techni'ues (rather than percent complete), and time sheet data entry with regular reevaluation of .estimates to complete.. Pro&ect teams should include !, line of business and outside contractors, with an empowered leader for each team. 1one correctly, using pro&ect management goes a long way to ensuring that ERP pro&ects and on time, within budget and maintain scope. Question: !mplementing an ERP system re'uires large amounts of time, money, and resources. o provide better access to the data that this system now houses, does it ma#e sense to use a corporate portal0 Reply: ! thin# it is important to be clear about a number of overlapping technologies, all of which can add value to the 2orporation3 2orporate Portals3 4enerally spea#ing, a 2orporate Portal is used to empower individuals in the organi"ation to gain access to #ey information (e.g., current enrollment options in a 5678), as well as to ma#e individual transactions (e.g., indirect procurement). his can be 'uite valuable to the organi"ation, but presumes, of course, that data is readily available, and some business systems (e.g., on line purchasing) are in place. ERP 9ystems3 ERP systems are implemented to provide cross functional business processes (e.g, order to cash, purchase to pay, ma#e to demand) that are crucial to the organi"ation. 1eveloping a corporate portal doesn't order is at any point, one need only log into the ERP system and trac# it down. ,ith luc#, the order process moves li#e a bolt of lightning through the organi"ation, and customers get their orders faster and with fewer errors than before. ERP can apply that same magic to the other ma&or business processes, such as employee benefits or financial reporting. That at least is the !ream of ERP" The reality is much harsher" :et's go bac# to those inbo$es for a minute. hat process may not have been efficient, but it was simple. Finance did its &ob, the warehouse did its &ob, and if anything went wrong outside of the department's walls, it was somebody else's problem. ;ot anymore. ,ith ERP, the customer service representatives are no longer &ust typists entering someone's name into a computer and hitting the return #ey. he ERP screen ma#es them business people. !t flic#ers with the customer's credit rating from the finance department and the product inventory levels from the warehouse. ,ill the customer pay on time0 ,ill we be able to ship the order on time0 hese are decisions that customer service representatives have never had to ma#e before and which affect the customer and every other department in the company. But it's not &ust the customer service representatives necessarily remove the re'uirement for an ERP system. Mo!ular a!!#ons an! integration will !ominate the ERP mar$et through %&&'" he overall enterprise resource management (ERP) mar#et grew 5 percent in <667, even as traditional ERP investments (financials, human resources, production management) dropped = percent, according to a recent report by Boston%based -*R Research. -*R predicts that ERP vendors will soon derive most of their revenues from adding customer relationship management (2R*), supply chain management (92*) and product lifecycle management (P:*) capabilities. hese e$tensions produced >5 billion of the ><6 billion of total vendor revenue in <667, according to the report. By <66?, they will ma#e up half of vendor revenues. @,here we see the growth opportunity is in the strategic e$tensions, big things li#e 2R* and supply chain capabilities,A says 2olleen ;evis, vice president of research, enterprise applications, at -*R. @he growth is not going to be based on core ERP.A ;evis says companies that made ERP investments during the boom of the mid%B6s are now interested in adding small modules and tying their front%office systems to their bac#%office systems. -lthough -*R estimates that the total ERP mar#et will grow from >7B.C billion to >=7.5 billion in <66? at a compound annual growth rate of 76 percent, most of this will not be the result of core ERP software sales. *ost companies have not budgeted for such upgrades, nor will they for a long time. ;iven says upgrade cycles that formerly ran D to E years are now growing to 76 to 7D years. @People who bought ERP systems in the ERP goldrush of the mid%B6s aren+t going to be replacing those until at least <66?,A ;iven saysF @more li#ely <676.A who have to wa#e up. People in the warehouse who used to #eep inventory in their heads or on scraps of paper now need to put that information online. !f they don't, customer service will see low inventory levels on their screens and tell customers that their re'uested item is not in stoc#. -ccountability, responsibility and communication have never been tested li#e this before. How long will an ERP pro(ect ta$e? 2ompanies that install ERP do not have an easy time of it. 1on't be fooled when ERP vendors tell you about a three or si$ month average implementation time. hose short (that's right, si$ months is short) implementations all have a catch of one #ind or another3 the company was small, or the implementation was limited to a small area of the company, or the company only used the financial pieces of the ERP system (in which case the ERP system is nothing more than a very e$pensive accounting system). o do ERP right, the ways you do business will need to change and the ways people do their &obs will need to change too. -nd that #ind of change doesn't come without pain. Gnless, of course, your ways of doing business are wor#ing e$tremely well (orders all shipped on time, productivity higher than all your 2ompanies that didn+t invest during the boomnamely government organi"ations and service industriesmay be ready to do so now. @!ndustries and trends where people didn+t invest are where the opportunities are now,A ;iven says. @9ervice industries made ERP investments in the late C6s and early B6s. hey didn+t participate in the boom of the mid%B6s.A -*R predicts that core ERP will ma#e gains in the mid% mar#ets, however. *ost activity to date has come from the high mid%mar#et segment (><D6 million to >7 billion in revenue), says ;iven, but the lower segment (>76 million to >D6 million in revenue) is now showing significant growth. Hverall, the mid%mar#et ERP segment will show 76 percent to7D percent growth over the ne$t four years. Iune D, <66< % C#$ Media ,hen 2FHs loo# at enterprise resource planning (ERP) spending pro&ections, their eyes often get as big as silver dollars. o reassure themselves that their math isn't completely out of whac#, most companies want to compare notes with someone who has already lived through an ERP pro&ect. .otal installed cost is probably the hottest issue in the mar#et right nowF users want to gut%chec# with someone else,. says 2hris Iones, research director of business applications at 4artner 4roup !nc. Gnfortunately, a total cost number%even if you can find a company willing to share its figures%won't necessarily mean much. Iones notes that everyone delves into ERP from a uni'ue situation, depending on hundreds of variables, including the e$isting hardware and networ# infrastructure, the number of corporate divisions and users, the specific functions targeted for the ERP system and the amount of process redesign. he cost of the software itself is universally #nown to be a small slice of competitors, customers completely satisfied), in which case there is no reason to even consider ERP. he important thing is not to focus on how long it will ta#ereal transformational ERP efforts usually run between one to three years, on averagebut rather to understand why you need it and how you will use it to improve your business. )hat will ERP fi* in my business? here are three ma&or reasons why companies underta#e ERP3 o integrate financial data. -s the 2EH tries to understand the company's overall performance, he or she may find many different versions of the truth. Finance has its own set of revenue numbers, sales has another version, and the different business units may each have their own versions of how much they contributed to revenues. ERP creates a single version of the truth that cannot be 'uestioned because everyone is using the same system. o standardi"e manufacturing processes. *anufacturing companiesespecially those with an appetite for mergers and ac'uisitions often find that multiple business units across the company ma#e the same widget using different methods and computer systems. 9tandardi"ing those processes and using a single, integrated computer system can save time, increase the total pro&ect outlay. Hne attempt at a useful comparison is to loo# at the total cost as a multiple of the software cost. here's no consensus, however, on what that multiple should be. *eta 4roup !nc.'s Barry ,ilderman, a vice president of application delivery strategies, for e$ample, says ERP implementation costs should fall in the range of >= to >76 per dollar spent on the software itself. 9uch a wide range offers little predictive value, other than serving as a red flag for users who anticipate spending >7D per software dollar. -nd even the use of such broad numeric ranges has s#eptics. .;ever use a rule of thumb. his nonsense about one%to%one, two%to%one%that's e$actly what it is3 nonsense. here is no such thing as a standard cost to implement ERP,. says 4artner's Iones. - different benchmar# compares the cost per user. *onsanto 2o.'s 4ary Ban#s, ! lead for the company's 9-P implementation, says the overall price tag for ERP can be intimidating. Jowever, his unscientific survey indicates that while other software pro&ects typically have a lower overall price, the cost per user is higher than with ERP because fewer employees benefit from other #inds of software. -gain, remember that many variables affect the cost%per%user number. .!'m sure it could be done for less with a more aggressive implementation,. says Ban#s, noting that *onsanto has invested a lot of time in choosing the processes and business models best suited for the company. The Hi!!en +osts of ERP -lthough different companies will find different land mines in the budgeting process, those who have implemented ERP pac#ages agree that certain costs are more commonly overloo#ed or underestimated than others. -rmed with insights from across the business, ERP productivity and reduce headcount. o standardi"e JR information. Especially in companies with multiple business units, JR may not have a unified, simple method for trac#ing employee time and communicating with them about benefits and services. ERP can fi$ that. !n the race to fi$ these problems, companies often lose sight of the fact that ERP pac#ages are nothing more than generic representations of the ways a typical company does business. ,hile most pac#ages are e$haustively comprehensive, each industry has its 'uir#s that ma#e it uni'ue. *ost ERP systems were designed to be used by discreet manufacturing companies (who ma#e physical things that can be counted), which immediately left all the process manufacturers (oil, chemical and utility companies that measure their products by flow rather than individual units) out in the cold. Each of these industries has struggled with the different ERP vendors to modify core ERP programs to their needs. )ill ERP fit the ways , !o business? !t's critical for companies to figure out if their ways of doing business will fit within a standard ERP pac#age before the chec#s are signed and the implementation begins. he pros vote the following areas as most li#ely to result in budget overrun. -" Training raining is the near%unanimous choice of e$perienced ERP implementers as the most elusive budget item. !t's not so much that this cost is completely overloo#ed as it is consistently underestimated. raining e$penses are high because wor#ers almost invariably have to learn a new set of processes, not &ust a new software interface. %" ,ntegration an! Testing esting the lin#s between ERP pac#ages and other corporate software lin#s that have to be built on a case%by% case basis is another often underestimated cost. - typical manufacturing company may have add%on applications for logistics, ta$, production planning and bar coding. !f this laundry list also includes customi"ation of the core ERP pac#age, e$pect the cost of integrating, testing and maintaining the system to s#yroc#et. -s with training, testing ERP integration has to be done from a process%oriented perspective. !nstead of plugging in dummy data and moving it from one application to the ne$t, veterans recommend running a real purchase order through the system, from order entry through shipping and receipt of payment%the whole order%to%cash banana% preferably with the participation of the employees who will eventually do those &obs. ." /ata conversion !t costs money to move corporate information, such as customer and supplier records, product design data and the li#e, from old systems to new ERP homes. -lthough few 2!Hs will admit it, most data in most legacy systems is of little use. 2ompanies often deny their data is dirty until they actually have to move it to the new clientKserver setups that popular ERP pac#ages re'uire. 2onse'uently, those companies are more li#ely to underestimate the cost most common reason that companies wal# away from multimillion dollar ERP pro&ects is that they discover that the software does not support one of their important business processes. -t that point there are two things they can do3 hey can change the business process to accommodate the software, which will mean deep changes in long% established ways of doing business (that often provide competitive advantage) and sha#e up important peoples' roles and responsibilities (something that few companies have the stomach for). Hr they can modify the software to fit the process, which will slow down the pro&ect, introduce dangerous bugs into the system and ma#e upgrading the software to the ERP vendor's ne$t release e$cruciatingly difficult, because the customi"ations will need to be torn apart and rewritten to fit with the new version. ;eedless to say, the move to ERP is a pro&ect of breathta#ing scope, and the price tags on the front end are enough to ma#e the most placid 2FH a little twitchy. !n addition to budgeting for software costs, financial e$ecutives should plan to write chec#s to cover consulting, process rewor#, integration testing and a long laundry list of other e$penses before the benefits of ERP start to manifest themselves. Gnderestimate the price of teaching of the move. But even clean data may demand some overhaul to match process modifications necessitatedor inspiredby the ERP implementation. 0" /ata analysis Hften, the data from the ERP system must be combined with data from e$ternal systems for analysis purposes. Gsers with heavy analysis needs should include the cost of a data warehouse in the ERP budgetand they should e$pect to do 'uite a bit of wor# to ma#e it run smoothly. Gsers are in a pic#le here3 Refreshing all the ERP data in a big corporate data warehouse daily is difficult, and ERP systems do a poor &ob of indicating which information has changed from day to day, ma#ing selective warehouse updates tough. Hne e$pensive solution is custom programming. he upshot is that the wise will chec# all their data analysis needs before signing off on the budget. 1" +onsultants 2! ,nfinitum ,hen users fail to plan for disengagement, consulting fees run wild. o avoid this, companies should identify ob&ectives for which its consulting partners must aim when training internal staff. !nclude metrics in the consultants' contractF for e$ample, a specific number of the user company's staff should be able to pass a pro&ect% management leadership testsimilar to what Big Five consultants have to pass to lead an ERP engagement. '" Replacing 3our 4est an! 4rightest !t is accepted wisdom that ERP success depends on staffing the pro&ect with the best and brightest from the business and !9. he software is too comple$ and the business changes too dramatic to trust the pro&ect to &ust anyone. he bad news is, a company must be prepared to replace many of those people when the pro&ect is over. hough the ERP mar#et is not as hot as it once was, consulting firms and other companies that have lost their best people will be hounding yours with higher salaries and bonus offers than you can affordor that your JR users their new &ob processes can lead to a rude shoc# down the line, 9o can failure to consider data warehouse integration re'uirements and the cost of e$tra software to duplicate the old report formats. - few oversights in the budgeting and planning stage can send ERP costs spiraling out of control faster than oversights in planning almost any other information system underta#ing. )hat !oes ERP really cost? *eta 4roup recently did a study loo#ing at the otal 2ost of Hwnership (2H) of ERP, including hardware, software, professional services, and internal staff costs. he 2H numbers include getting the software installed and the two years afterward, which is when the real costs of maintaining, upgrading and optimi"ing the system for your business are felt. -mong the ?= companies surveyedincluding small, medium and large companies in a range of industriesthe average 2H was >7D million (the highest was >=66 million and lowest was >566,666). ,hile it+s hard to draw a solid number from that #ind of a range of companies and ERP efforts, *eta came up with one statistic that proves that ERP is e$pensive no matter what #ind of company is using it. he 2H for a @heads% downA user over that period was a staggering >D=,=<6. policies permit. Juddle with JR early on to develop a retention bonus program and to create new salary strata for ERP veterans. !f you let them go, you'll wind up hiring themor someone li#e thembac# as consultants for twice what you paid them in salaries. 5" ,mplementation Teams +an 6ever 7top *ost companies intend to treat their ERP implementations as they would any other software pro&ect. Hnce the software is installed, they figure, the team will be scuttled and everyone will go bac# to his or her day &ob. But after ERP, you can't go home again. /ou're too valuable. Because they have wor#ed intimately with ERP, they #now more about the sales process than the salespeople do and more about the manufacturing process than the manufacturing people do. 2ompanies can't afford to send their pro&ect people bac# into the business because there's so much to do after the ERP software is installed. Iust writing reports to pull information out of the new ERP system will #eep the pro&ect team busy for a year at least. -nd it is in analysisand, one hopes, insightthat companies ma#e their money bac# on an ERP implementation. Gnfortunately, few !9 departments plan for the fren"y of post%ERP installation activity, and fewer still build it into their budgets when they start their ERP pro&ects. *any are forced to beg for more money and staff immediately after the go%live date, long before the ERP pro&ect has demonstrated any benefit. 8" )aiting for R9, Hne of the most misleading legacies of traditional software pro&ect management is that the company e$pects to gain value from the application as soon as it is installedF the pro&ect team e$pects a brea#, and maybe a pat on the bac#. ;either e$pectation applies to ERP. *ost don't reveal their value until after companies have had them running for some time and can concentrate on ma#ing improvements in the business processes that are affected by the system. -nd the pro&ect team is not going to be )hen will , get paybac$ from ERP:an! how much will it be? 1on+t e$pect to revolutioni"e your business with ERP. !t is a navel ga"ing e$ercise that focuses on optimi"ing the way things are done internally rather than with customers, suppliers or partners. /et the navel ga"ing has a pretty good paybac# if you+re willing to wait for ita *eta group study of ?= companies found that it too# eight months after the new system was in (=7 months total) to see any benefits. But the median annual savings from the new ERP system was >7.? million per year. Iames *22ullough remembers bac# when he had a >D66 million ! budget and teams of ! professionals. By last year, though, all of that was a distant memory. *c2ullough, the former 2!H of 1elta -ir :ines, found himself reshaping his new company's ! infrastructure without the benefit of a large budget or staff. -s 2!H of e2ompany9tore, an -lpharetta, 4a.% based company that builds online stores to fill promotional product needs for its clientele, he had to figure out how to deploy big% company technologyspecifically, ERP applicationswithout spending big%company money. rewarded until their efforts pay off. ;" Post#ERP /epression ERP systems often wrea# cause havoc in the companies that install them. !n a recent 1eloitte 2onsulting survey of ?5 Fortune D66 companies, one in four admitted that they suffered a drop in performance when their ERP systems went live. he true percentage is undoubtedly much higher. he most common reason for the performance problems is that everything loo#s and wor#s differently from the way it did before. ,hen people can't do their &obs in the familiar way and haven't yet mastered the new way, they panic, and the business goes into spasms. +,9 # Enterprise Resource Planning Research +enter http3KKwww.cio.comKresearchKerpK he front page of 2!H.com's ERP Research 2enter not only supplies the standard articles and resources. /ou will also find ERP related metrics, LM-'s and a feature #nown as 2!H Radio, which consist of online interviews with industry e$perts. ERP+entral http3KKwww.erpcentral.comK his portal to ERP issues lin#s to trade publication articles as well as B<B, 2R*, ,ireless and e%Business information. ERP <an +lub http3KKwww.erpfans.com /es, ERP does have its own fan%club site on the ,eb, with lin#s to news, vendor information and the li#e. The ,T ,n!ustry Portal # ERP http3KKwww.erphub.com Even though this site is a subsection of Earth,eb, another ! industry portal, non%! e$ecutives will still find useful .,e #new we were going to have to go Nthe ERPO route if we were going to become scalable,. *c2ullough says. .,e didn't want to come bac# in 7C months or two years and say we can't handle NtransactionO volume.. *c2ullough decided to e$plore a relatively new option in enterprise applications3 fast%trac# ERP. Fast% trac# ERP gives smaller businesses (with revenues between ><66 million and >D66 million) access to functionality similar to what their Fortune D66 counterparts have had for years. ,hen all goes well, fast% trac# ERP implementations are measured in thousands of dollars instead of millions, and months instead of years. he vendors promise up%front, guaranteed agreements on schedule and price, fully functioning applications and a lot fewer headaches than traditional ERP. he fast trac# isn't without its speed bumps, however. First, there is a greater need to stic# to the plain vanilla version of the pac#age, with as little customi"ation as possible. here are also une$pected costs that pop up outside the scope of the fi$ed%price contract. -lthough they are simpler than their bigger brethren, the systems are still at the mercy of peopleit's essential to feature articles and case studies on topics li#e ERP implementation strategies, infrastructure and system performance. ,T Toolbo* # ERP http3KKwww.erpassist.com -t this /ahoo%style portal, e$tensive lin#s to ERP boo#s, white papers, articles and other resources are organi"ed by vendor and by broad topic themes. 2 Three#7tep 2ssessment http3KKwww.darwinmag.comKreadK6B676=Kvalue.html wo crucial elements are often missing from a solid foundation for your investment analysis. ,e fill in the gaps. <in!ing the 7trategy =aps http3KKwww.darwinmag.comKreadK6?676=Kstrategygap.html o get from where your business is to where it wants to go, you have to mind the missing manage e$pectations and resistance to change, and provide thorough training. *c2ullough started down the fast% trac# ERP path with ,alldorf, 4ermany%based 9-P. Je and his team of <6, composed of 9-P consultants and e2ompany9tore employees, installed the RK= system with modules for materials management, function planning and finance, and an online store to replace the Pandesic application. hey started in mid%1ecember <666 and applied the finishing touches in early Ianuary <667. hey did it without spending big%company money or time. .!'m sitting on an engine that's capable of ta#ing our company into the stratosphere with the same suite of applications,. *c2ullough says. -s ERP implementations falter and fail, many people thin# the answer is more training. hey're wrong. Gnless you've been as out%of%touch as the *ars Polar :ander, you're doubtlessly aware that the ERP industry hasn't been performing li#e the marvel it was first made out to be. First came the ERP vendors' pre% /<8 plunging sales revenues and falling stoc# values. 9econd came the reali"ation that all that hard wor# implementing an ERP system didn't actually guarantee business benefits or even a positive paybac#. a#e *eta 4roup's damning finding, for instance3 he average ERP implementation ta#es <= months, has a total cost of ownership of >7D million and rewards (so to spea#) the business with an average negative net present value of >7.D million. -nd the news gets worse. -n alarmingly long list of top% drawer integrators have fallen flat on their faces. 2ompared to these disasters, merely spending a lot of money on an ERP implementation that achieves very little is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Jershey, Pa.%based Jershey Foods, for e$ample, issued two profit warnings in as many months in the run%up to last 2hristmas. ,hy0 *assive distribution problems following a flawed implementation of 9-P's RK= ERP system, which affected shipments to stores in the pea# Jalloween and pre%2hristmas sales periods. !n a booming stoc# mar#et, Jershey shares ended the year down <E percent from its year's high. -nd Jershey wasn't alone in its misery. !n ;ovember 7BBB, domestic appliance manufacturer ,hirlpool of Benton Jarbor, *ich., also blamed shipping delays on difficulties associated with its 9-P RK= implementation. :i#e Jershey, ,hirlpool's share price dove south on the news, falling from well over >E6 to below >?6. ,hile these two have (so far) been the highest%profile implementation debacles, companies as diverse as 9cottsdale, -ri".%based trash processor -llied ,aste !ndustriesF ;ewar#, 1el.%based high% tech fabric ma#er ,.:. 4ore M -ssociatesF and industrial supplies distributor ,.,. 4rainger of :a#e Forest, !ll., have all reported serious difficulties. -nd if .serious difficulties. sounds bad, rest assured it can get much, much worse. -fter 2arrollton, e$as%based pharmaceutical distributor Fo$*eyer 1rug actually collapsed following an 9-P RK= implementation, its ban#ruptcy trustees filed a >D66 million lawsuit in 7BBC against the 4erman ERP giant, and another >D66 million suit against co%implementer -ndersen 2onsulting. (Both cases were unresolved at the time of writing.) 9o what's going on0 he good news if that's the right wordis that most e$perts agree that such failures are not systemic. .Pery rarely are there instances when it's the ERP system itselfthe actual software that fails,. says Iim 9hepherd, senior vice president of research at Boston% based -*R Research. Public pronouncements by both 9-P and Jershey, he notes, have ac#nowledged that the software does what it is supposed to and that no big fi$es or patches are planned. ,hat's more, he adds, the prudent observer will differentiate between real implementation failures and not% so%real failures. .Blaming the failure on a system implementation has become a convenient e$cuse for companies that have missed their 'uarter%end NearningsO target.. -s for blame, it is evenly spread. 9-P implementations are no more li#ely to go down the tubes than ERP systems from other vendors3 ,.:. 4ore's system, for e$ample, came from Pleasanton, 2alif.%based People9oft. .,hen an ERP pro&ect unravels, or is seen not to perform well, one of the suppliers is usually chosen as the culprit,. says 1avid 1uray, :ondon%based global partner responsible for the 9-P implementation business at Pricewaterhouse2oopers. .!n my e$perience, this is usually more of a political decision than a proper problem%source identification e$erciseand 9-P, over the last few years, has been a popular target.. Furthermore, adds Roger Phillips, an ! analyst at specialist investment ban# 4ranville in :ondon, which trac#s the global ERP mar#et, there is no evidence that geography is a significant differentiator in the success sta#es. 1isasters, he believes, .simply go with the ERP territory.. here are, he says, .no cultural or managerial foibles that ma#e -merican ERP implementations any more predisposed to disasters than any other country's implementations.. 9o what does lie behind ERP disasters0 -nd behind the rather longer list of costly%but% underwhelming implementations typified by that now%infamous *eta 4roup report0 !ncreasingly, e$perts rec#on that they've found the smo#ing gun3 poor training. ;ot the technical training of the core team of people who are installing the software, but the education of the broad user community of managers and employees who are supposed to actually run the business with it. 2 few things to pon!er when planning for ERP ,hich processes are most important now and why0 1oes this system meet our needs or go beyond them0 ,ho will be the change champion(s)0 ,ho are the sta#eholders0 ,hat is the business culture at our company and what are its strengths0 ,hat subcultures do we have and what are their strengths0 Jow can we apply those strengths to business change0 ,hat cultural attributes are wea# or will interfere with the change0 ,hat will be the toughest changes, and how will we address them0 ,ho will be responsible for change management0
7-10-2017 UD- Notification for Compounding Structure- Rules Under Section 158 (1) of the Act to Declare Unauthorized Constructions as a Symmetric Structure as Per Provision of Section 52 (a) of MRP & TP Act, 1966