Integrating Data Asset Resources

¶ … ERP There are a number of specific reasons that NIBCO made a dedicated effort to implement an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. Firstly, the company ascertained from a number of different sources that its information technology systems prior to the implementation of ERP were insufficient. The company had not invested in any of these resources for several years, and determined from various consulting companies and upper level management appraisals that it "could not prosper" with its plethora of "legacy systems" (Brown and Vessey, 2001, p. 468).

Additionally, one of the particular problems that NIBCO was experiencing was the fact that its legacy systems were all functioning as silos, and effectively "could not talk to each other" (Brown and Vessey, 2001, p. 468). ERP directly addresses these issues in a couple of different ways. Firstly, it functions as an integration hub between a number of various modules for respective business units in an organization, and has a centralized database which helps to facilitate the integration process (Harper, 2011).

Additionally, implementing ERP assisted the company in its future goals of globalizing and becoming an organization that had a presence over several different countries and continents. Most importantly, an ERP system was a means of modernizing the information management system employed by this company in such a way that it would be able to incorporate newer technologies in the future and still have a basis for sharing those resources throughout the enterprise.

There were both pros and cons to the particular method that NIBCO deployed in order to expedite the implementation of its SAP system which helped to update its information technology capabilities. That method, of course, was known as the Big Bang and pertained to the fact that in a relatively short amount of time (approximately 15 months) the company would attempt to "convert to SAP R/3 at all ten plants and the four North American distribution centers at the same time" (Brown and Vessey, 2001, p. 468).

One of the primary benefits of such an approach was the fact that it would attempt to accomplish its goal in a relatively brief amount of time, which would certainly behoove the organization if it was successful in its attempt. Additionally, the organization would dedicate a substantial amount of resources and attention to getting this objective done, which is another benefit of this approach. Conversely, however, each of these pros can also be considered cons.

For instance, by setting the date for completing this task in such a relatively short amount of time, it is possible that the company did not allow itself enough time to complete this task. Furthermore, another con with this approach is the fact that by dedicating so much attention and resources to completing this project, the company diverted resources from accomplishing its business objectives and seizing new opportunities that could assist in reaching those objectives.

In terms of analysis and recommendations for how the project was managed, it is quite obvious that the big bang approach was certainly ambitious in terms of scope and implementation. I believe that a more gradual implementation (involving the three-to five years process of gradually adding different components to the system over time as initially.