When ERP Solutions Go Bad . . . ?

Why are Nike blaming i2? They chose to implement the system in the first place didn`t they? I worked as a programmer of ERP software for some years and I now implement systems. One of the most difficult issues is communication between the customer and the company which implements the solution the customer chose. Blaming i2 may be taken to show that Nike has lost control of the implementation process, which is not a good sign. Blaming i2 is the easy (and stupid) way out. Ofcourse the implementors made mistakes, but Nike must have made mistakes too.

Why are they blaming i2, didn't Nike test it's functionality prior to implementation? No acceptance testing - no system testing - no trail run - no parrall testing? Who to blame - NIKE IT Staff -

Here, any new product, modification of rewrite Enterprise critical application goes through a battery of tests from TPOC - Technical Proof of Concept to Parrall test (call it A-alpha to D-detla testing, before PR (production release).

I believe i2 accepted the blame, and they are going to get some major buc's from Nike for accepting the blame. Otherwise, you would think the law suites would be filed for financial restution to i2.

How do corporations avoid Nike's problem - but having established and publishede life cycle, testing and migration procedures/standards. Starting with, a proof of concept - "prove to me that what you say your product does, it will do in our environment." Contracts written with proformance points, and testing points. A strong corporate team that is well trained in project management and life cycle methodologies. To avoid NIKE's failure - a corporation has to be involved heavly in the project - business knowledge support, infrastructure support, project management. i2 only knows their product, if the information from NIKE on the way they do business wasn't communicated or wasn't communicated correctly then i2 built what they had knowledge of. Communication - Commuincation - Design Sessions - Knowledge transfer from Nike to i2 - it sounds like NIKE failed in all those area's.

I have a hard time with Nike's excuse.
Blame is easy- fix the problems. Are the the software or people's capacity to evaluate and recommend, both people and coded-solutions at fault here I suspect the real situation is more complex and diffused throughout several layers of managment.

Yes, managment. Nike needs to remember that its in the shoe business, and deal with the CPA's and MBA 90 day wonders that created the mess.

Nike's problem is the high cost of there sneakers. Stop whinning - do a better job of evaluating technology - LOL

I am presently working for a company that is in the process of implementing Oracle. We are finding it is a perfect match for the distribution business we are in. We are experts at supply chains and understand the value that Oracle will bring to our operation right from ordering to storage to distribution to our dealer base of approximately 8000 retailers. The retailers will also benefit because of their ability to keep stock updated real time. This then feeds our ordering dept. etc.....

It is not so much the vendor. It is the implemmentation that is the key.

Regards

A. Page
Xplore Networks Support Manager

Typical upper management doesn't see the whole picture. It is tough being in IT when something goes wrong it is always our fault. I wonder if it has dawned on the shoe giant that their shoes are ugly! I don't play basketball. I don't want wild looking shoes to work out in or to walk to the store in. Not everyone has aspiratons to match every pair of shoes with ugly outfits. I like the way Nike shoes last and fit but I have switched to KSwiss and Addidas for the look of the shoes. I want people to focus on me not what I wear and when the last thing I put on in the morning gets the most attention...enough said.

Jim Gleason; MCPx5

If you would pay your 'spokespeople' less and not exploit 3rd World Children for workers and focus on sound IT principles, you just may make it work.

Nike is 100% responsible for the success of their project. Outsourcing does not mean out-of-sight...out-of-mind. "Consultants are only as good as the client is at managing them!"

So Nike needs to stand up and be accountable!

So far, I'm reading conflicting viewpoints. Some believe that i2 carries the burden of making it fly. Others believe it's Nike's responsibility to see that they recieve a successful implementation.

Where's the fine line (if there is one) that demarcates where a consultant's role stops and the client's responsibility begins?

Nike will never understand how to use a supply-chain management system. If it doesn't work 16 hours a day for $1 a week then how do you fit it into a sweatshop budget?

The key to the success of any project is depends on communication, collaboration and consensus.

Without these "3 Cs" failure looms for any endeavor. In this case, both vendor/consultant and client must be involved at all levels. This is easier said than done as per experience has taught me but it helps managing expections from both sides.

With regards to this Nike/I2 issue, none is to blame but they both are responsible for each other. They have to forge ahead.

A client who does not allocate resources with a commitment to insure that personnel are trained is also asking for trouble. Implementations are bound to succeed when your client is partnering with the ERP implementation team. All to often companies purchase then limit resources to complete the project.

Previous discussion lay the blame on Nike, a typical IT reaction across the divide that prevents good implementations, or I2, a typical business reaction to a project that delivered less than promised.

The two organisations came together to provide a solution, a complex one at that, SCM is not easy, intellectually challenging with very difficult integration issues. A team was formed and that team is responsible, it has members from both oprganisations and probably some others. Looking in we can't tell which aspects of the solution failed. Neither side should stand back and blame the other, the results are the results of both of them.

I have implemented SCM solutions before and have found that key to a sucessful solution is to break down the boundaries and get the commitment and involvement of all parties, that clearly didn't happen here and for that you look to the leadership of the project.

It's not only an issue of whether a potential enterprise applications is a "good fit" for the company...it is also a matter of whether the companies people, processes and culture are a "good fit" for ERP. Getting these right is 80% of getting ERP right, and failure to address these is (in my opinion) the major reason for ERP failure. Moving companies with little experience in the "drop dead" process disciplines required for ERP is not easy, and many companies dont have the stomach for the hard (and often political) decisions it requires.

Quite so often, a vendor or consulting group promises the ERP moon to a client company. And the client company falls for it. The expectations raised by the vendor, percolate down the organisation from the beginning. Then the reality hits hard. Implementing the ERP begins to feel like a "corporate root canal job".

The vision of an highly automated and intelligent enterprise lies in tatters. Disillusionment starts creeping in. The client company users react negatively. And the first ones to take this flak are the implementing consultants or the ERP vendors, if there sales guys are still around.

A decision to evaluate and implement an ERP system should be taken carefully by the business teams, not only the IT. And the subsequent implementation and its success lies squarely, if not completely, in the hands of the business which stands to benefit from it.

Ya but I2 is famous for making loose promises.

Ex. we can configure the software to never schedule all orders for ontime shipments.

We can create a schedule to never overload capacity or resource/shipping constraints.

Then when client gets the software inhouse, the I2 implementors tell them, well yes you can do these but not both at the same time.

So there is frequently a disjoint between what was sold by I2 marketing and what can be implemented effectively.

I think there mightbe an article topic here for insuring that the folks to make the buy decision for ERP are in communication with the folks who have to implement.

Regards,
Gordon Bowley
I2 Implementation Consultant

Nevermind what the Services contract between NIKE and i2 promised (if there was one) the problem of inventory shortages and excesses hasn't been described sufficiently by the article to place the blame. Because NIKE incurred losses, reported them, then discovered a problem indicates NIKE has a Data Management problem. A good Inventory Management process should have uncovered problems long before posting the substantial losses NIKE reported. Nothing against Techies, but most don't have operation's process background. NIKE apparently doesn't either. Most implementations fail because the Client attempts to execute new software with old broken processes. Blame the user, not the tool. Go fix the Inventory Management process. Just Do It!