1 / 18

Risk management in ERP projects: reconciling rigor and flexibility

Risk management in ERP projects: reconciling rigor and flexibility. Suzanne Rivard Holder of the Chair in Strategic Management of Information Technology HEC Montréal Nottingham University School of Business April 19 th 2005. Outline. Foreword – the practice of relevance

chase-harrison
Télécharger la présentation

Risk management in ERP projects: reconciling rigor and flexibility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Risk management in ERP projects: reconciling rigor and flexibility Suzanne Rivard Holder of the Chair in Strategic Management of Information Technology HEC Montréal Nottingham University School of Business April 19th 2005

  2. Outline • Foreword – the practice of relevance • The Hydro-Quebec Distribution (HQD) project • Definitions • A two-tier risk management approach • Reconciling rigor and flexibilility

  3. Foreword - the practice of relevance • The topic: enduring or current organizational problems • The implications: have to be implementable1 • The results: have to be implemented2 We shall use the term ‘implementation’ to refer to the manner in which the manager may come to use the results of scientific effort2 1 Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.W., « Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance, » MIS Quarterly, March 1999. 2 Churchman, C.W., Schainblatt, A.H., «The Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation,» Management Science, Vol.11, No.4, February 1965.

  4. The HQD project - objectives • Transforming HQD sales and customer service processes • Replacing 200 legacy applications with an enterprise system

  5. The HQD project - size • 370 M $CDN • Approximately 250 team members • Four years • Sixteen « work packages » • 3600 employes • 3 Million customers

  6. The HQD project - structure • Auditor • Risk mgnt advisor • Capgemini HQD Board of directors Board of directors Auditing committee Reporting twice a year President HQ-Distribution Monthly report Vice-president Sales & customer services Project Steering committee Every 6-8 weeks. Tactical committee Every other week Project director Mgnt committee S&CS Director IT Monthly report Leader IT Leader Change management Leader Development Leader Training Leader Project office

  7. Definitions: Risk Exposure Where: URi: Undesirable results iP(URi): Probability associated with URiL(URi): Loss associated with URi Barki, Rivard, Talbot, 1993, 2001; Bernard, Rivard, Aubert, 2003

  8. Definitions: Risk Management 7 8 1: Budget overrun 2: Not respecting schedule 3: Poor technical quality 4: Poor process/systemquality 5: User dissatisfaction with process or system 6: Unser dissatisfaction with project 7: Not obtaining benefits 8: Inability to institutionalize change 6 1 5 5 6 2 4 Loss due to occurrence of UR 3 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Probability of UR

  9. The issue of estimating probabilities F1 X1 UR 1 F2 F3 X2 UR 2 F4 F5 X3 UR 3 F6

  10. A two-tier method for software project risk management Top tier - project risk exposure1 : «long term horizon»; ultimate and generic UR; generic risk factors Second tier - work package risk exposure : short term horizon (4 months); UR particular to a work package ; risk factors have to be identified 1 Barki, H., Rivard, S., Talbot, J., « An Integrative Contingency Model of Software Project Risk Management», JMIS, vol. 17, no 4, 2001 p. 37 - 70. Barki, H., Rivard, S., Talbot, J., « Toward an Assessment of Software Development Risk», JMIS, vol. 10, no 2, 1993 p. 203 - 225. Bernard, J.G., Rivard, S., Aubert, B.A., « Mesure du risque de ERP, » SIM, vol.9, no.2, pp.25-50, 2004.

  11. Bernard, J.G., Rivard, S., Aubert, B.A., « Mesure du risque de ERP, » Systèmes d’information et management, 2004

  12. Tier 1 - Risk map Likelihood Likelihood May 2004 May 2003 • ~Budget • ~Schedule • ~Technical adequacy • ~Functional adequacy • ~User satisfaction with system • ~User satisfaction with project • ~Tangible benefits • ~Harmonious implementation of change

  13. Tier 1 – risk mitigation ledger

  14. TIER 1 TIER 2

  15. April 2003 January 2003 Tier 2 – Risk map

  16. Reconciling rigor and flexibility • The risk management process « in vivo » • Prior to a new work package (tier 1) • Update risk assessment of global project • Update risk mitigation mechanisms in ledger • Validation by management committee • Report to steering committee • At mid-work package (tier 1) • Update risk mitigation ledger • Every other week (tier 2) • Update risk assessment of work package • Update risk mitigation ledger • Report during management committee meeting • The project management office • Every other week, report on budget, schedule, output

  17. Reconciling rigor and flexibility « Laisser-aller » Project leaders adopting the behavior of the « grizzly man » of Northern Rodhesia ore mines1 Courtenay, B., The Power of One, Mandarin, 1992. « Rigidity » « Absurd decisions »2 Morel, C. Les décisions absurdes. Éditions Gallimard, Paris, 2002. Rigorous method, flexible use

  18. Researching the reconciliation issue • A process analysis of the pendulum movement ? • Ethical issue : the external expert and the researcher

More Related