Case study - IT
jackr.0035
examplestodoharleydavidsonreply.docxQuestion:
Harley Davidson Assessment of Requirements and Criteria
Prepare a list of HD's requirements and criteria for selecting the vendor for the new system.
|
Requirement a necessary condition that needs to be satisfied |
Criteria an assessment or rule to evaluate something (e.g. how ‘well’ does is a requirement met?) |
|
1. requirement |
criteria to evaluate how the requirement is met |
|
2. requirement |
criteria to evaluate how the requirement is met |
|
3. requirement |
criteria to evaluate how the requirement is met |
Also, you need to provide an analysis of the providers considered by Harley Davidson in their ERP software selection and decide which provider you would choose.
You need to provide both the pros and cons of each vendor and provide support to your selection.
|
Provider 1 |
Provider 2 |
Provider 3 |
|
Strengths (+) - strength 1 - strength 2 - etc.. (up to 5) |
Strengths (+) - strength 1 - strength 2 - etc.. (up to 5) |
Strengths (+) - strength 1 - strength 2 - etc.. (up to 5) |
|
Weaknesses (-) - weakness 1 - weakness 2 - etc.. (up to 5) |
Weaknesses (-) - weakness 1 - weakness 2 - etc.. (up to 5) |
Weaknesses (-) - weakness 1 - weakness 2 - etc.. (up to 5) |
Example 1 from another student:
|
Requirement a necessary condition that needs to be satisfied |
Criteria an assessment or rule to evaluate something (e.g. how ‘well’ does is a requirement met?) |
|
1. Functionality |
Quantitative method (provider self-assessment for technology match, process requirements, tech robustness, and ease of use) |
|
2. End-user experience |
Qualitative method (understanding of HD current and future requirements, implementation ability, ongoing tech support, beneficial long-term relationship) |
|
3. Corporate compatibility |
Team Observation |
|
Provider 1 |
Provider 2 |
Provider 3 |
|
Strengths (+) - Similar/compatible work cultures - Tailored presentation/documentation to the RFQ - Software knowledge - Offered change management training |
Strengths (+) -Highest score on functionality - Major ERP supplier - Well-established in the industry - Seamless web-enabled interface |
Strengths (+) - Scored high on functionality - Established relationship via another project - Cost |
|
Weaknesses (-) - Lacks web-enhancement - Lowest score on overall functionality - 76.25% in supply management |
Weaknesses (-) - Formal atmosphere - Expensive - Preparing employees for change is not included in package |
Weaknesses (-) - Late for presentation - Employee(s) are arrogant and antagonistic - “Boiler-plate” presentation - |
Provider 2 is the easy choice for Harley-Davidson. While their corporate culture is not as laid-back as HD’s, a good rapport can easily be cultivated through additional meetings/face time. As functionality is the main concern, and Provider 2 scored the highest in this area, they are the best choice. Personality wise, Provider 1 would have been the best fit for Harley-Davidson. They also seemed to understand more than the other two providers exactly what HD wanted. Unfortunately, Provider 1 couldn’t deliver on HD’s needs.
Even though HD already has a working relationship with Provider 3 and they scored high on the functionality portion of the assessment, their lack of professionalism cannot be overlooked. The fact that their presentation was considered “boilerplate” demonstrates that Provider 3 really doesn’t care/lacks the initiative/talent to take the proposal/job seriously. This may be due to the fact that they already have a working relationship with HD. They may have assumed this project was “in the bag”.
Example 2 from another student:
|
Requirement a necessary condition that needs to be satisfied |
Criteria an assessment or rule to evaluate something (e.g. how ‘well’ does is a requirement met?) |
|
1. Has to meet the technology requirements |
By using a quantitative method based by percentages |
|
2. Has to meet user's needs set by HD |
By using a rating system, high to low. Qualitative method. |
|
3. Has to have a strong impression |
Has to meet HD's standards regarding the product and culture. |
Also, you need to provide an analysis of the providers considered by Harley Davidson in their ERP software selection and decide which provider you would choose.
You need to provide both the pros and cons of each vendor and provide support to your selection.
|
Provider 1 |
Provider 2 |
Provider 3 |
|
Strengths (+) - Good company culture - Knowledgeable of the software - HD was Impressed by the presentation - written proposal tailored to the RFQ |
Strengths (+) - major ERP supplier - widely admired - highest score functionality wise - very good software, having perfect scores on majority of the functionality |
Strengths (+) - major ERP player - had a very high score on functionality HD had early engagements with them before |
|
Weaknesses (-) - had the lowest functionality score of all - not very functional - didn't provide web-enablement |
Weaknesses (-) - they were more formal than what HD was looking for -didn't provide enough emphasis on methods or processes for organizational needs |
Weaknesses (-) - Presentation was very weak - the representatives were late - the presentation wasn't close to the RFQ |
As I stated in the case study, I think provider 2 is favorite to be chosen. First off, it had the highest cost but provided a strong ERP system. Including with them having the highest functionality score, they have top notch software provided. Provider's 2 weakness is the cost, and the companies culture wasn't really up to HD's standards. Provider 1 was also a great candidate but as far as functionality, it had a low score. Since it wasn't very functional, it was definitely a minus. In contrast, their proposal was tailored to what HD was looking for in the RFQ, and had great knowledge of the software. Provider 3 is a major ERP player, had a high functionality score and HD had previously worked with them but they weren't very professional. The presentations weren't what HD was looking for in the RFQ, and they dropped the ball. Overall, provider 2 made the most sense in terms of functionality because they were perfect in almost all the categories. So in the end, that can result in making the ease of use smoothly and without any issues.
Example 3 from another student:
|
Requirement a necessary condition that needs to be satisfied |
Criteria an assessment or rule to evaluate something (e.g. how ‘well’ does is a requirement met?) |
|
1. Functionality |
Functional criteria total provider score |
|
2. End user experience |
Interfaces pct. fit score |
|
3. Strong presentation (company culture) |
Subjective assessment of company values & product |
Also, you need to provide an analysis of the providers considered by Harley Davidson in their ERP software selection and decide which provider you would choose.
You need to provide both the pros and cons of each vendor and provide support to your selection.
|
Provider 1 |
Provider 2 |
Provider 3 |
|
Strengths (+) - Similar company culture - Strong presentation - Proposal tailored specifically to RFQ |
Strengths (+) - Highest functional criteria score - Widely admired in industry - Superior software product: perfect scores on design & foundation, documentation, supply management, project tracking, interfaces, training, and more. -Seamless web interface |
Strengths (+) - Major ERP player - High score on functionality checklist |
|
Weaknesses (-) - No web enablement - Low score on supply management - Overall lowest functionality score |
Weaknesses (-) - More expensive - Company may have different values than HD: more formal, less focus on change management, etc. |
Weaknesses (-) - "Disaster" presentation - Proposal not tailored to RFQ - Weak focus on social dimensions |
To me, Provider 2 is the clear choice. Provider 2 has the strongest ERP package and with superior software and a seamless web-enabled interface that will make end-users lives a lot easier. Provider 2's weaknesses, which are cost and company culture are minimal and could be worked around with an emphasized focus on the values that HD cares about, such as change management. Provider 1 was also a strong contender, however, they scored the lowest on the functional criteria score and their software did not have a web-enabled interface. Despite meshing well with HD's culture, I believe Provider 1's product would not provide the best experience to end-users. Provider 3's presentation was a disaster, and their conflicting personalities with HD did not bode well for them. Despite being cheaper and scoring high on functionality, they still did not score as high as Provider 2 and I believe their bad impression would not be a healthy starting point for a partnership moving forward.
