Discussing a Literary Piece of Fowler and Gilfillan

Sometimes the complexities of an information system can pose difficulties for those who are using them. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) based integration systems, while having the ability to be very useful, especially in an environment as complex as higher education can be, can also create challenging obstacles that interfere with productivity among other things, if not utilized correctly. Since colleges and universities are so very dependent on their information systems, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) conducted a study to better understand how ERP systems were being used in their institutions. As a result of their study, an IS project management framework was created to help bridge the gaps that existed between the various users of the complex software program.

The goal of the framework created was to provide an accessible document base that would allow for comprehensible and quality communication between senior university management who may not fully understand ERP systems and IS experts, who may not fully understand how the software need be used practically within institutional departments for high quality results.

Fowler & Gilfillan (2003, December) begin this piece of literature by giving an overview of what ERP systems are, how long they have been in existence, and how their function has fairly recently spread from four decades of use in the manufacturing world into the arena of higher education. These off-the-shelf software packages are designed to take all of the information stored within various departments in an institution and make it accessible to everyone via a real-time integrated data base. ERP systems rationalize and streamline information, help members to avoid information duplication, increase, improve accessibility, and aid greatly in inter-departmental sharing and communication; thus they are used to increase overall efficiency and effectiveness within an institution.

The many potential advantages of integrating ERP systems within universities was discussed and so to, the potential areas of pitfall, and both gave valid reasons for consideration. Among the advantages listed were:

Software is already developed

Compatability between departments is assured

Data input is instant and all-encompassing

Transparency is exponentially increased

Benchmarking, both internally and externally, becomes more utilized

There is one provider only for all IT requirements

The vendor provides the updates and back up services

Potential disadvantages were listed as well, including:

Cost can be a lot higher than anticipated

Costs are ongoing

Immediately following implementation, performance may temporarily decrease

Testing and training time and complexity

Difficulty in changing suppliers once committed

Adjustment to the culture change

Rearranging business processes to accommodate the new system may be imperative to success

Flexibility may be hindered within individual departments

The comparison of ERP systems to Business Process Reengineering (BPR) was made, noting that while not the same, elements of the BPR remain present in ERP systems. It was also noted that both systems require radical adjustment as the business process perspective is focused on. What it means for institutions is that not only are there going to be software and hardware changes going on, but there must also be organizational management changes going on to ensure the highly costly and complex ERP system is used to its greatest potential. ERP systems are also credited as a possible and plausible reason that university systems have been switching over to a more bureaucratic or corporatist culture than ever has been acceptable before.

To conduct this survey, twenty persons highly involved in the adaptation of ERP systems across and within five institutions, respectively, within the UK, were extensively interviewed. The major findings were as follows:

Those using the new system did not generally appreciate surrendering flexibility in their particular department for the less restrictive controls needed to implement ERP systems effectively

Universities many times do not know what their core processes are, which makes effective application a challenge

Issues of policy and process in regards to the new ERP systems are rarely agreed upon due in part to a lack of general knowledge and understanding of the business process perspective and of the system being implemented. Time delays are a common result.

Management of project personnel was generally too flexible to achieve positive results

Preparation for the extent to which everyday workings would need to change, including deeply imbedded mindsets, was insufficient

Crossover boundaries were hard to create as personnel resisted involvement in the planning process but vehemently opposed change that directly affected them

Lack of formal project management awareness had a negative impact on the selection process

Measuring benefits achieved by a completed project proved difficult

A collective university support for the project is hard to achieve

Project Overlap is considered too timely, yet without it optimum effectiveness cannot take place

All stakeholders do not feel properly considered or informed

Power and politics in project management played a bigger role than anticipated

There is a definitive lack of linkage between organizational strategy and IS project objectives

Fowler and Gilfillan (2003, December) then went on to describe three dimensions that need be in place to create a framework of optimum effectiveness. They were comprised of the following:

1). The '7-S's' of project management: Structure, Systems, Strategy, Stakeholders,

Style, Skills, and Staff. These seven factors were deemed of absolute necessity for

constant and interacting consideration if project management is to have a chance at

success.

2). The '3-D's' of project management: 'Design it,' 'Do it,' 'Develop it.'

3). The '3-M's' of dimension: Macro, Meso, and Micro; all levels within the framework

that need be addressed and distinguished between for effective production, design and

Implementation

Structural Considerations

When discussing structural consideration, Fowler and Gilliland (2003, December) noted that it was imperative to not only consider the harder technical elements that go into a process of this type, but also to consider the softer, people-oriented elements as well. It was noted that the nominally standardized modules in ERP systems require that functions in the institution must be rearranged to meet software needs instead of the reverse. This requires active consideration to the people who are required to make the changes necessary to make the project a success. They must be included in the planning process and kept abreast of what changes are being made, how they will affect various departments, and conceptually what benefits they will bring to the university as a whole in the long-term.

Estimating, scheduling, monitoring, control and documentation during the structure stage were also noted as vital areas of consideration as they must be used to create a necessary project plan, both early on in the process, and in a more detailed format later. These are used to detail the amount of time needed for the work that was done, in actuality, as usually it will be considerably higher than first anticipated.

Fowler & Gilliland (2003, December, p.13) then introduced seven questions to the reader that they must reflect on if in consideration of an ERP based integration system. The reason offered for their inclusion was that ERP systems are archetypally process- oriented by nature, which means implementation will significantly require change to existing structures. Higher education managers must be aware of how broad reaching these changes could be prior to being able to make an informed decision regarding the acceptance (or denial) of incorporating the process.

Systems Thinking

The importance of systems thinking was then discussed and a map tool was given to reiterate the points visually. Interactions in the terms of input, output, and transformation that occur within the transactions was noted to be a need of vital consideration.

Systematic thinking was also noted to be of importance when considering various forms of system failure, including those from the interface and interconnection of parts levels. Again, seven questions were presented to the reader, from a systems thinking perspective to help them better assess how an ERP could affect their institution.

The relationship between organizational strategy, the information systems strategy, and the project management was addressed. It was stated that in order for the core objectives of a higher institution to be met, interrelatedness between these three vital areas must be free-flowing and well-balanced. To favor any one of the three areas more than another at any given time can have the consequent effect of throwing the balance off and negatively impacting the entire project.

Seven more questions were presented to the reader that offered insight on various issues that are prone to occurrence that relate to the strategy element. They were offered to once again allow the reader to assess an in-depth evaluation of their institution in relation to the ERP system and to disseminate the facts in consideration of it being a solid fit.

Stakeholders

The varying interests of stakeholders was then discussed, and proposal of stakeholder mapping was introduced to ensure that this portion of the process was not overlooked. Stakeholder criteria should be mapped, according to Fowler & Gilfillan (2003, December, p. 16) by things such as if the one being evaluated is internal or external, and what their level of interest, degree of power, and the like is at the moment. It was also noted that stakeholder information is constantly changing over time and the need as such, for flexibility regarding the mapping process is a must. Five questions were presented to help the reader assess the role stakeholder considerations play.

The report then went on to note that style of management is a critical consideration for IS project management success. Notoriously higher education institutions operate in a culture that affords decision making via lengthy consideration and committee activity. IS decisions are oppositely made very quickly and have a much shorter timeline within which to work. Understanding these differences and preparing the personnel for the culture change is vital to its success. Managing the change, therefore, becomes an integral need to be focused on by institutional department heads and leaders. Faculty and staff must be properly prepared for the vast changes of style that will come about or they will be hindered in adequately embracing it. The differences in culture between various departments, such as between academic and administrative, must also be addressed and worked to conciliate positive movement on the forward path as well. Five questions were offered to help the reader understand the vital role style and cultural considerations play and how they can positively or negatively affect the project management, depending on how they are addressed.

Roles of Project Managers

The three roles that project managers must perform in IS/ERP projects was given, and they are as follows:

1). The administrative role: Being able to simultaneously manage and balance the demands of time, cost, and quality. This means having the ability to manage people effectively, combined with technical knowledge and skill.

2). The leadership role: Being able to embrace the ERP as being a new business venture, large in scope and change factor, versus simply being an IS project, and then being able to communicate that concept in a manner that is well accepted (best case scenario) to all involved.

3). The role of project manager as a politician. Universities are notorious for internal politics. Knowing how to manage the project effectively within this system is vital to its success.

Consultants

The need to hire consultants was also addressed. Six questions were given to aid the reader in finding the proper fit in a consultant for the institution.

Lifestyle and scale considerations were the last things discussed. It was noted that over the lifetime of a project, many changes will occur, such as stakeholder interest, staff, and skills, and that project management must take these things into consideration though each of the stages involved, from designing, to implementing, to developing, in order for the project to be a success. It was also noted that being able to follow the framework created through any level of scale, whether it be micro, meso, or macro, must be in the ability of the management teams. Four questions were included to help management better understand lifestyle and scale considerations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the frameworks created from the initial study conducted by the HEFCE to better understand how ERP systems are used in higher education systems are very detailed and intended to help bridge the gaps that exist amongst the various users.

Fowler & Gilfillan (2003, December) do a very detailed job at presenting in this review, the various elements that go into such a project, as well as the relationships that exist within, and all variables attached to each of the aforementioned. They provide questions to help the reader probe each of the areas embedded in the success factors of the project being undertaken, and encourage that a mindset of embracing change and willingness to adapt internal business practices be adapted. The magnitude of the project is discussed and affirmations and cautions regarding the processes are given as well. The reader, upon completion of the report, is left with a better understanding of both ERP systems and the roles they play in higher academe. With higher education institutions adapting this type of system more and more, it is a report well worth reading.

Fowler, A., & Gilfillan, M. (2003, December). A Framework for Stakeholder Integration in Higher Education Information Systems Projects.

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(4), 467-489. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.