...and happiness, by the way, is so possible
At ERP-forums there is a topical discussion about the advisability of involving consulting companies in the implementation of information systems in enterprises, or, for short, outsourcing consulting.
The main argument against the outsourcing of ERP IS configuration is the high cost of consulting services. They suggest that if these funds were spent on the development of internal IT services, the purchase of equipment and increasing the salaries of the enterprise's own ERP specialists, it would give a much greater effect.And to help you do that you can erp software development company in USA.
The other two arguments - reference to the low competence of specialists consulting companies and the fact that when working with consultants on projects to implement the ERP IS a large amount of work is still done by the same internal staff with low wages (eg, a consultant describes the problem of setting up the software, and the setup itself performs customer programmer).
Armed with such arguments, ERP specialists of enterprises often allow themselves a formal approach to the execution of consultants' assignments (at the level of "Italian strike"), resistance to the joint conduct of the project, direct their efforts to solve problems outside the project, where the achieved results will carry their name. In particular, this is approximately what happens in one of the ERP IS implementation projects that our company is leading.
I would like to express my opinion in defense of the implementation of management information systems projects by consulting companies. Below are the arguments against outsourcing consulting services given by internal employees. They are juxtaposed with the opinion of a specialist from a consulting company.
Small, but my experience of life, is dearer to me than my mind as of late
Argument 1: The level of training of employees of information services of the enterprise is enough to carry out the project of ERP IS implementation. The services of a consulting company are not needed.
Opinion: As a rule, the work of the enterprise information service is aimed at supporting the existing IS, which means that specialists have knowledge and skills to work with the IS at a certain level. Creating an in-house team at an enterprise that can lead an ERP IS implementation project cannot be accomplished by a single order to organize such a team and relieve its members from other work.
First, in order to free them, you have to stop doing some current work for a long time, or take on new untrained specialists, train them, etc. - This is a time-consuming matter.
Secondly, to run an implementation project it is necessary to have special knowledge (project management, knowledge of the system being implemented) and implementation methodology. There are very few such specialists and consulting companies have big problems with their search and attraction. The search and training of specialists, developing of your own methodology, training, looking for the right way will take much time and will increase risks. Therefore, organizing your own implementation team is not a simple matter.
He would be a leader - he lacks charisma...
Argument № 2: Consultants do not know our specifics, if the definition and implementation were engaged in internal services who know the needs of the company in detail, the system would have incorporated many features of the ERP system, and the model would be more holistic and promising. The implementation would have been of higher quality.
Opinion: It is true that internal employees know better the current scheme of work and the needs of the enterprise - but the value of this knowledge is not absolute. As a rule, the implementation of the IS is associated with the restructuring of both the managed process (the work of the information system) and the work of the service itself. It almost always turns out that internal services are not able to manage changes of either type. This is not only a characteristic of information services, which is why anti-crisis teams of hired specialists working under contract are created everywhere when restructuring the work of an enterprise.
The reasons for the lack of efficiency of their own information services are very simple, but intertwined in an insoluble knot: the severity of the old system, the relationship between employees of different departments, the established style of work and management, the system of motivation, the lack of a formal description of the work - this is only the beginning of the list of causes. And they cannot be corrected only in the IT department, as long as it all manifests itself at the enterprise as a whole. The initiation of a new task solution by the internal service becomes impossible. Where it is possible, where there are leaders capable of initiating such changes, it happens without the involvement of consulting companies until they are contacted.
In a situation where this is not possible, the most effective scheme is the establishment of the post of Director of Information Services and the recourse to a consulting company that conducts the implementation of ERP IS and is responsible for its quality, resources and timing, if this responsibility is impossible to obtain from your own unit. In this case for the task definition is responsible for the functional specialist, for the quality of the project - the project manager on the part of the customer. Within the information service of the enterprise the service of support of the new IS is formed, in its ranks the administrator of the IS is allocated, who passes to the subordination directly to the director of the information service. Thus, there is a gradual restructuring of the information service for the task, which is absolutely justified: if you can not untangle the ball, you can pull some strings and twist a useful rope.
As for the in-depth knowledge of processes in production - as we know, the excessive load of details prevents to see more effective schemes. As part of the reorganization of the IS at different enterprises of the same scale have to solve the same problems (computerization, user training, regulation of their work, the interface equipment), and all the nuances of business processes for the most part fit into the functionality of the system, not the scheme of the IS. Experience conducting projects in other companies allows consultants to offer a more optimal scheme and argue its workability.
On the face - terrible. Good on the inside
Argument #3: Consulting company specialists think more about payments than about the quality of the project and the implementation of all requirements. Consultants cannot guarantee the quality of the ERP IS setup because they are not interested in it.
Opinion: The work done is the face of the firm, and consultants tend to be passionate about the project and look for the beautiful, right solution. At the same time, they are pressured by deadlines and limited resources, which forces them to simplify the task and methods, often creating temporary, not the most effective solutions. Sometimes the work is of insufficient quality because the decision is made without a complete understanding of the task, and then it becomes difficult to change the model. Nevertheless, if the model is workable and solves the problem - the project was successfully implemented. It should be noted that the introduction of the IS is a project with very high risks, a positive result is achieved only in 20% of all initiated projects. And in the first place in terms of risks are violations of deadlines, budget, lack of resources, therefore, not low quality should be feared in the first place.
Yes, after the departure of consultants, much will need to be finalized by internal staff. The task of consultants - to implement the very 20% of the features that provide 80% of the effectiveness of the system, to avoid critical deficiencies that will make the use of the system impossible. "Speed is God, time is the devil" - failure to meet deadlines due to the implementation of endless user requirements can ruin the project. Running a project is like breaking through a tunnel - it requires very concentrated resources focused on a clear goal. Processing the edges, making the system more usable, faster can be done later.
The quality of the ERP IS implementation project is guaranteed by a correct contract, the work of a competent manager on the customer side and the cooperation of a functional specialist.
The technique will reach such perfection that man will be able to do without himself
Argument #4: This system does not suit us, the consultants are forcing us to use the mechanisms of work inherent in the system, because they can not or do not want to adapt it to the requirements of the organization.
Opinion: Regarding the functional compliance of the system to the task - from the moment the decision to implement this particular system, all actions can only be aimed at achieving the result, rollback can be expensive. At the stage of modeling and test operation it is possible to refuse to implement this system if its model does not meet the task, but this kind of assessment should be given with the utmost accuracy, based only on the fundamental requirements for the system.
If you buy what you don't need, you'll soon be selling what you do need
Argument #5: The services of consulting companies are very expensive. This information system is expensive. The project will never pay for itself; it would be better to invest the money in the main production facility.
Opinion: There is only one thing to say here - the decision is made by managers and investors in a balanced way, taking into account the existing prices on the software market and consulting services. It is necessary to trust your management and not to try to solve their problems for them. The decision to start an implementation project is never taken lightly, nor is it taken from the ceiling, it is supported with a logical and economic rationale. You have to remember that the purpose of investors is not to produce products or services, but to manage the finances of the enterprise in order to obtain a guaranteed profit, from their point of view ERP IS - a management tool.
Refining the fruits of his favorite thoughts, his sad mind squints
Argument #6: For this money, we would have written our own system, which would have solved the problem perfectly.
Opinion: So much has been said on this subject that nothing new can be invented. As the children's song goes, "Everyone has to do what he's good at". Besides, it takes much more money and effort to create and maintain your own industrial-level system than in the case of an off-the-shelf system - this is a proven fact. As a rule, investors have no desire to create new jobs for programmers. They do not want a cheap result, but a guaranteed one.
We know our price very well. It is always higher than our salary
Argument #7: Consultants do the work with the hands of internal employees, and the company pays them a lot of money for this, while paying their own specialists little.
Opinion: The question is very sensitive, let's break it down into its components.
Let's leave aside the personal salaries of consultants. The laws of the labor market are equal for all and the roads are open to all.
Regarding the salaries of internal employees. For some reason, the initiation of an implementation project causes them to expect an immediate salary increase. This is what happens, but for the only reason - specialists receive training (at the expense of the company, mind you), and the company tries to retain them. But how do you explain the demands from the employees?
Before the project they did not work, or worked part-time, and now they have started to "work hard" and demand rewards for it? The work of internal employees does not automatically become better and more efficient as soon as the project starts - it takes time and a restructuring of the scheme of work. If an employee thinks that he should be paid more, he must argue that he started to work better, or he has a need to work after hours, or (best of all) that he got decent results.
But this is the chain: work - results - protection of results. Not like this: training - pay raise - results. If an employee declares that "he wouldn't lift a finger for that kind of money," he's hardly making a correct assessment of the situation. It is not right to expect that he would do a better job if he were paid more.
The next question is who does the work on the project. Some of the tasks fall on internal employees, and that is right and good for everyone. A consultant will do the work faster and better than an in-house employee, and it's often easier to do everything yourself.
For example, a consultant can do overnight what an in-house specialist would do for a week, and still be a distraction.
But consultants often can not afford to do the tasks, because a lot of time and effort is spent on the analysis and elaboration of work issues, on risk reduction and organization of work.
The task of a consultant is not to do the work, but to make sure that it is done with minimal resources and risks.
Optimally - by the internal staff of the company. Because, firstly, the projects are calculated with minimal resources from the consulting company, and secondly, the project requires trained professionals from the customer side, who understand the work of the system, otherwise the project will not live. Implementation of works by the customer does not contradict the interests of the enterprise, which is important to have a trained team, reducing the cost of consultants, and implementation of the project within the specified period.
A good project manager on the customer's side will do everything possible to achieve the set task on time, he will not say "You have signed - do it, your problem, but don't touch my people", because he understands that such can be said only if the task was set absolutely clear at the time of signing the contract.
This state of affairs does not contradict the interests of internal employees who leave their old tasks, undergo training, receive certificates, learn to work in a new scheme, increase their own value in the labor market, enrich their resumes, and become important specialists for the company.
After the consultants leave the project, those who proved themselves at the stage of implementation, take on key roles in the scheme of the information service, their status in the enterprise changes.
The hierarchy of the organizational structure changes - functional specialists in the system leave their previous subordination and begin to work closely with the company management. But still, there are conflicts about this. Three pieces of advice are relevant here - to each of the actors.
Advice to consultants: Advocate for internal employees with whom you work on the project, who have been pulled out of their usual pattern of work and forced to take responsibility for a new task ("why me, and I need this?").
Let them get paid for training, weekend work, pay bonuses for good work. Tell management that the work was done well - no one will say it for you, and the labor will go unappreciated.
Advice to customer employees: stop counting investors' money, get busy increasing your own value, your own career, make the most of the situation, and work - everything will pay off in due time.
Don't try to turn events in a different direction, to prove the importance of yourself and the old system - it's already beyond doubt.
You will simply be left alone, and everything will be done without you, or will be perceived as an annoying hostile nuisance.
Tip to management: Be attentive to your "stars" and to the new results of old employees. Highlight, train, and promote the best.
Pay higher salaries not for new work, but for new work. Don't raise salaries, but define new positions with new levels of responsibility and new salaries.