🧮ERP: Implementations (Part XVIII: The Price of Partnership)

ERP Implementations Series

When one proceeds on a journey, it’s important to have a precise destination, a good map to show the road, the obstacles ahead, and help to plan the journey, good gear, enough resources to make it through the journey, but probably more important, good companions and ideally guides who can show the way ahead and offer advice when needed. This is in theory the role of a partner, and on such coordinates should be a partnership based upon. However, unless the partners pay for the journey as well, the partnership can come with important costs and occasionally more overhead than needed. 

The traveler’s metaphor is well suited to ERP implementations and probably many other projects in which the customer doesn’t have the knowledge about the various aspects of the project. The role of a partner is thus multifold, and it takes time for all the areas to be addressed. Typically, it takes years for such a relationship to mature to the degree that it all develops naturally, at least in theory. Conversely, few relationships can resist in time given the complex challenges resulting from different goals and objectives, business models, lack of successes or benefits.

Usually, a partnership means sharing the risks and successes, but more importantly, building a beneficial bidirectional relationship from which all parties can profit. This usually means that the partner provides a range of services not available in-house, allowing customers to pull resources and knowledge on a need-by basis, providing direction and other advice whenever is needed. A partner can help if it has the needed insight into the business, and this implies a minimum of communication in respect to business decisions, strategies, goals, objectives, requirements, implications, etc. 

During sales pitches and other meetings, many service providers assume themselves the role of partners, however between their behavior and the partner role is usually a considerable gap that often may seem impossible if not difficult to bridge. It’s helpful to define as part of the various contracts the role of partnership, respectively the further implications. It’s helpful to have a structure of bidirectional bonuses and other benefits that would help to strengthen the bond between organizations. A framework for supporting the partnership must be built, and this takes time to be implemented adequately. 

Even if some consultants are available from the early stages of the partnership, that’s typically the exception and not the norm. It’s typical for resources to be involved only for the whole duration of a project or less. Independently of their performance, the replacement of resources in projects is unavoidable and must be addressed adequately, with knowledge transfer and all that belongs to such situations. Moreover, it needs to be managed adequately by the serve provider, however resources can’t be replaced as the parts of an engine. The planning and other activities must consider and accommodate such changes.

Also the replacement of partners in mid of the project is possible and this option should be considered as exception in projects and planned accordingly. The costs of working with partners can be high and therefore organizations should consider the alternatives. Bringing individual resources in projects and even building long-term relationships with them can prove to be a cost-effective alternative. Even if such partnerships are more challenging to manage, the model can offer other advantages that compensate for the overhead of managing them.

Outsourcing resources across geographies or mixing models can work as well. Even if implementations usually don’t allow for experiments, they can still be a feasible alternative. The past successes and failures are usually a good measure of what works and doesn't for organizations. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post 

🔦Process Management: Business Process Outsourcing (Definitions)

"A form of outsourcing that involves transferring responsibilities for entire specific business functions or processes to a third party provider." (DAMA International, "The DAMA Dictionary of Data Management", 2011)

"The process of hiring another company to handle business activities." (Linda Volonino & Efraim Turban, "Information Technology for Management 8th Ed", 2011)

"Contracting with a third party to perform specific business processes. One example could be using a customer service center taking inbound telephone calls from U.S. customers and handling customer requests and complaints from a service center located offshore, in locations such as India, where labor costs are lower." (Robert F Smallwood, "Information Governance: Concepts, Strategies, and Best Practices", 2014)

"A process of delegating the back-office processes or noncore business functions to a third party service provider." (John H Higgins & Bryan L Smith, "10 Steps to a Digital Practice in the Cloud" 2nd Ed., 2017)

🧭Business Intelligence: Enterprise Reporting (Part VII: A Reporting Guy’s Issues)

Business Intelligence Series

Introduction

For more than 6 years, between many other tasks (software development, data migrations, support), I was also the "reporting guy", taking care of ad-hoc reporting requirements, building a data warehouse and a reporting solution for the customer I worked for. 99% of the reports were based on the two ERP systems (Oracle e-Business Suite & IFS-iV) the customer had in place during this time, fact that helped me learn a lot about the data architecture of such systems, about processes, data, data quality and many other issues related to data, how to do and how not do things. In this post I just want to highlight some of the issues I was confronted with, and I don’t intend to point the finger at anybody, so I apologize if anybody is offended!

The Lack of Knowledge about the Business

Even if it’s hard to believe, the main issue was revolving around the lack of relevant documentation on applications, especially on database models and processes, or, even if there were such documents, they were not updated and the value of true of the information contained were supposed to be always checked against the data. Of course, there are always knowledge workers from whom valuable information could be elicited though they were not always available and many of them are highly specialized in their field. Therefore, one needs to interview multiple users to build a close to complete picture, and even then, one must check the newly acquired information against the data! From time to time, one may even find out that the newly acquired information doesn’t entirely match the reality, that there are always exceptions and (business) rules forgotten or not known. 

Sometimes, it’s easier to derive knowledge directly from the data, table structure and other developers’ experience (e.g. blogs, books, forums) rather than hunting down the knowledge workers. Things aren't that bad, despite the reengineering part, in the end one manages to get the job done, though it takes more time. Sometimes it took even 2-3 more time to accomplish a task, time for which one could found better use. However, in time, accumulating more experience, I become proactive by exploring (and mapping) the unknown "territories" in the breaks between tasks, a fact that allowed me to easier fulfill users’ reporting requests.

Oracle e-Business Suite  

During the past 3 years I have been supporting mainly Oracle e-Business Suite (EBS) users with reports and knowledge about the system, and therefore most of the issues were related to it. In addition to its metadata system implemented in system table structure, Oracle tried to build an external metadata system for its ERP system, namely Metalink (I think it was replaced last year), though there were/are still many gaps in documentation. It’s true that many such gaps derive from the customizations performed when implementing the ERP system, though I would estimate that they qualify only for 20% of the gaps and refer mainly to the Flex Fields (customer-defined fields) used for the various purposes. 

A second important issue was related to the Oracle database engine, were several bugs not patched that didn’t allowed me to use SQL ANSI 92 syntax for linking more than 6-7 tables to a parent table, fact that made me abuse of inline views to solve this issue; even if Oracle had for long a patch to address this, it wasn’t deployed by admins, maybe from well supported reasons. A third issue was related to the different naming conventions used for the same attributes from the source system, mainly a result of the fact that solutions brought from other bought vendors were integrated with a minimum of changes. A fourth issue is related to the poor UI and navigation, basic if we consider the advances made in web technologies during the past years. Conversely, given the complexity of an ERP system, it’s challenging to change the UI at this scale.

 Self-Service BI

There's the belief that everybody can write a query and/or of an ad-hoc report. It’s true that writing a query is a simple task and in theory anybody could learn to it without much of effort, though there are other aspects related to Software Engineering and Project Management, respectively related to a data professional's experience than need to be considered. There are aspects like choosing the right data source, right attributes and level of detail, design the query or solution for the best performance (eventually building an index or using database objects that allow better performance) and reuse, use adequate business rules (e.g. ignoring inactive records or special business cases), synchronize the logic with other reports otherwise two people will show the management distinct numbers, mitigate the Data Quality and Deliverables Quality issues, identify the gaps between reports, etc.

In addition, having users create personal solutions instead of using a more standardized approach is quite risky because the result is a web of such siloed solutions over which there's no control from a strategic and/or data security point of view. Conversely, the users need the possibility to analyze the data by themselves (aka self-service BI), to join data coming from multiple sources. Therefore, special focus should be given also to such requirements, though once their reporting needs have been stabilized, they should be moved, if possible, to a more standardized solution.

When multiple developers are approaching reporting requirements they should work as a team and share knowledge not only on the legacy system but also on users’ requirements, techniques used and best practices. Especially when they are dispersed all over the globe, I know it’s difficult to bring cohesion in a team, make people produce deliverables as if they were written by the same person, though not so impossible to achieve with a little effort from all the parties involved. 

Why I’m mentioning this? The problem is that the more variability is introduced in deliverables, greater the risk is to have the quality of deliverables questioned, in time leading to users not adopting a system or preferring to use one resource in the detriment of another. Moreover, must be considered also the effort needed to find the gaps between reports, to modify deliverables to expectations, etc. From this perspective is always a good idea to document at least at minimum all deliverables, detailing the scope and particularities of the respective request. I know that many believe that code is self-explanatory and needs no additional documentation, though when the basic needed documentation is not available, it's occasionally challenging to intuit the context and identify the problem, respectively why a technique or a certain level of detail was preferred, or why some constraints were used. 

Outsourcing  

Outsourcing is a hot topic these days, when in the context of the current economic crisis organizations are forced to reduce the headcount and cut costs, and thus this has inevitably touched also the reporting area. Outsourcing makes sense when the interfaces between service providers and the customers are well designed and implemented. Beyond the many benefits and issues outsourcing approaches come with, people have to consider that for a developer to create a report is needed not only knowledge about the legacy systems and tools used to extract, transform and prepare the data, but also knowledge about the business itself, about users expectations and organization’s culture, the latter two points being difficult to experience in a disconnected and distributed environment. 

Of course, even if delivering the same result and quality is possible as if the developers were onsite, in the end outsourcing implies additional iterations and overwork, the users need to be trained to specify the reporting requirements adequately or a special resource needs to be available to translate the requirements between the parties involved, lot of back-and-forth communication and all the other issues deriving from it. 

Outsourcing makes sense from a reporting perspective, though it might take time to become efficient. Anyway, the decisions for this approach are usually taken at upper management level. From a reporting guy's perspective, if I consider the amount of additional effort and time spent to deliver comparable quality, I will say "No" to an outsourcing model when the time used to build something is just shifted in managing the communication with the outsourcer, writing emails after emails for issues that could have been solved in a 10-minute meeting. Probably the time and money can be invested in other resources that better enable the process. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Written: Mar-2010, Last Reviewed: Apr-2024