Scribd
Upload
202 views2 pages

Case Study 4

1. Surety bonds are ineffective for establishing accountability in IT implementations like Jackson Lab's. Surety bonds usually result in litigation as the surety disputes claims and the goals of complex IT projects are difficult to clearly define. A phased implementation approach allowed Jackson Lab to focus training and address issues before full deployment. 2. A phased implementation was a good choice for Jackson Lab's first ERP solution. It allowed them to focus on key areas and users, resolve issues, and gain employee acceptance before broader rollout. 3. Customizing the ERP module to handle Jackson Lab's unique mouse breeding and distribution processes was challenging since the module was designed for mixing ingredients, not lab environments. Future upgrades may also be

Uploaded by

Mythes Jica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
202 views2 pages

Case Study 4

1. Surety bonds are ineffective for establishing accountability in IT implementations like Jackson Lab's. Surety bonds usually result in litigation as the surety disputes claims and the goals of complex IT projects are difficult to clearly define. A phased implementation approach allowed Jackson Lab to focus training and address issues before full deployment. 2. A phased implementation was a good choice for Jackson Lab's first ERP solution. It allowed them to focus on key areas and users, resolve issues, and gain employee acceptance before broader rollout. 3. Customizing the ERP module to handle Jackson Lab's unique mouse breeding and distribution processes was challenging since the module was designed for mixing ingredients, not lab environments. Future upgrades may also be

Uploaded by

Mythes Jica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE STUDY 4

SECTION C (1:00 - 2:00 PM MWF)


Members:
Ablir, Roselle
Amorin, Clint Joy
Esturas, Erica
Navaja, Marjorie

1. Is a surety bond an effective means to establish true accountability for IT implementation, as


presented in the Jackson Lab case?
Surety bonds are only great for contract lawyers because they always end up entrenched with
hundreds of thousands of dollars of litigation. The surety (the party who ensures the Jackson Lab
will get what it bargained for) always disputes a claim filed by the principle (the principle in the
case is Jackson Lab) for the full penal sum. Disputes come because the principle always feels it
did not get what it bargained for and sees surety bond claims as a way to either make an extra
profit, or never lose. However, in Jackson Lab’s case (as with all IT industry bonds) insufficient
commonality and standardization in IT projects and bonds result in even more than normal
litigation. Also, unless the project has simple, clear, easily identified, and understood
benchmarks, those who contract for a surety bonds will never truly understand what they
contracted for (the result in the complex litigation docket). Surety bonds only work with clear
identifiable project goals, and in the IT industry unlike other industries (e.g. fiduciary duty type
pension plan management / investment), goals may be difficult to quantify and articulate before a
contract is written. As far as pure accountability for IT implementation is concerned, surety
bonds hurt, because the party building the system knows that a surety bond is between them and
a lawsuit. In other words the party that needs to be accountable to Jackson Lab for its IT
implementation will have much less worry about doing a good job because if they are sued a
surety bond will step in. It also provides disincentive to employees of Jackson Lab to fully
immerse and commit themselves to making the ERP project successful.

2. Was the phased implementation a good approach for an organization like Jackson Lab that
deploys an ERP solution for the first time? Would it allow focus on a key/critical area,
stabilization of the system usage and quicker visible benefits?
With all of the strategies taken by Jackson Lab to reduce risk they went with a phased approach.
Phasing out the new ERP system allowed the core team to focus their training on certain
employees and specific functionally areas of the company. It also allowed "kinks" in the system
to be realized and resolved before the entire company was up and running.
There is also less resistance from employees when the live is phased because the core team is
able to offer more support and focus attention on the areas going live. This allows for the new
system to get a good "reputation" among other employees who know they will need to go up in
the future with the product.
A phased implementation was the correct approach. This was a good decision because this was
the first time Jackson Lab had been through an ERP implementation process. A big-bang
approach could have severely disrupted the flow of every day work even more than the phased
did when the brightest employees were taken. The phased approach allowed for a focus on
training and the installation of the ERP system, as barely anyone had experience dealing with
this sort of process.
3. What do you think about the modifications in a unique business process at the Jackson Lab
(e.g.,raising and distributing the mice)?
The biggest challenge for Jackson Lab was the modification of Oracle Process Manufacturing
(OPM) module to accommodate the lab's unique business processes of raising and distributing
mice. However, the OPM module was designed for companies that mix ingredients together to
produce products like bread or beer; not for a lab environment.
Indeed the biggest challenge is yet to come. In the event an update is needed, installing a newer
version of the system will not go smoothly—in fact it will be a problem. That is why the
chocolate approach is not recommended. Usually a phased implementation approach and
continuous improvement efforts will require ongoing time commitments. Employee turnover and
job rotation will also require ongoing training efforts. The nature of the ERP software package
(and associated system software and hardware) typically mandates the number and expertise of
MIS personnel needed for ongoing support. The short timeframe involved in the Jackson Lab
implementation prevented much of this concern, otherwise it could have been a nightmare.

You might also like