Supply Chain Execution Research Report - Eyefreight · Evaluating the Business Case and Approval...

5/19/2016 1

Reproduction Prohibited without Prior Authorization from the Author

Evaluating the Business Case and Approval Process for Supply Chain Execution Systems Acquisition

The Ohio State University

Primary Research in Evaluating the Business Case and Approval Process for Supply Chain Execution Systems Acquisition

Research Review and Findings

Supply Chain Execution Research Report

Jim Hendrickson, Professor, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University

5/19/2016 2




About the Author

Jim Hendrickson

Jim Hendrickson has over 30 years’ experience in leadership, business, and technology in the defense and aerospace, retail, supply chain, banking and finance, and software industries. He has worked in turn-around situations as well as high growth businesses and has been involved in a number of early and mid-stage companies as a consultant, advisor, and strategist to help them achieve growth objectives.

Over the last 20 years, in roles such as Vice President of Product Management and Senior Vice President of Corporate Development at Sterling Commerce he helped develop and launch one of the first B2B Integration Platforms, the first Omni-Channel Commerce platform, and helped re-invent EDI networks from traditional transaction networks to integrated cloud-based B2Bi capabilities. More recently, he developed one of the first integrated solutions for Multi-Carrier Parcel and “Ship-from-Store” as the General Manager of Logistics Software Solutions at Pitney Bowes Corporation.

Currently, he is a Senior Lecturer / Professor in the Marketing and Logistics Department of the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University focusing on logistics, sustainability, and supply chain. He is also is a founding Partners of Nexus Partners, a boutique consulting firm providing a mix of strategy and tactical business and technology support and solutions to clients. He regularly speaks and writes on global supply chain management, technology, and global strategy to a wide range of audiences.

Hendrickson began his career as a commissioned officer in the United States Army where he served as a medical services officer attaining the rank of Captain. He holds a BBA in Business / Computer Science from Belmont University in Nashville, TN, completed his Army ROTC at Vanderbilt University and Masters of Science in Management from National Louis University of Evanston, IL

5/19/2016 3




Table of Contents

• Introduction 1

• Research Respondents and Demographics 4

• Part I: Evaluation Criteria 5

• Part II: Supply Chain Execution Value 10

• Part III: Business Case and Approval Process 16

• Conclusion: Evaluating the Study Hypothesis 25

• List of Figures 32

• References 33

Contents Page

5/19/2016 4




Introduction

The use of technology as a catalyst for business, while not new, is relatively young compared to business itself. In fact, the supply chain concept itself is a new innovation of business. The term Supply Chain Management dates back to the early 1980’s as businesses began to see the need to integrate key business processes between the company and the supplier. Technology as a key enabler of this notion evolved in a slightly lagging but parallel path. EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) as a standard rose in the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s as businesses sought to share order files and similar “documents” between them electronically. As the complexity of supply chains have increased over time initially in a more national / regional sense and now as a global environment, technology has continued to evolve to help businesses work to manage this complexity. In tracing this evolution since around 1990, technology, along with supply chain complexity, have gone through several transformation and eras as depicted in Figure 1.

It started in 1990’s with changes in consumer buying and the ERP driving an evolution in business. Most recognize three factors in this evolution. The first was the recognition by businesses that their existing supply chains were becoming too complex to handle using traditional approaches. Interestingly, it was likely the rise of the consumer choice through micro-marketing, product selection growth, mass advertising techniques, etc. that appears to have driven this complexity. The second was the evolution of technology enabling broader computing resources to decentralized “users”. The creation of client-server technology, for instance, when combined with the proliferation of desktop computers in business created a new opportunity to leverage system technology. And finally, there was a focused development on expertise in these systems, primarily through the “Big 5” consulting firms that created armies of implementation experts to help business plan and installthese systems.

1

Supply Chain Management “Eras”

Technology / System “Eras”

1990’s 2000’s 2010’s

• Make to Stock Production• Increased Consumer Selection• Large increase in Finished Goods

Inventories• Increase in Global Manufacturing• Heavy use of Warehousing and

traditional distribution• Traditional Store Retail Model

The Rise of Consumer ChoiceConsumer Specialization The New Global Consumer

Client / Server Computing Services Computing Platform App/Cloud Services Platform

ERP ERA B2B Integration ERA Supply Chain Execution ERA• ERP as a core business technology• Large and Mega Enterprises• Focused on Inside the Four Walls• Metrics Driven by Internal

Performance Numbers• Desktop as User Interface• Mainframe or “Big Iron” Servers

• Make to Stock / Just In Time• Increased Consumer Demands• Transportation Reduces Inventory

Requirements• Expanded Global Manufacturing• Movement away from

Warehousing to Distribution• Hybrid of Retail / eCommerce

• ERP as corporate technology• ERP moves to the middle market• Focus shifts to outside four walls

(B2B Integration / Multi-enterprise)• Metrics Driven by Channels• SCE = (WMS, TMS, Order)• Desktop, Laptop, Virtualized Servers

• Just In Time / Make to Stock• Increased Consumer Specialization• Global Transportation Enables

Markets and Inventory Timing• Integrated Global Manufacturing• Heavy use of Intermodal and

Cross-Dock distribution• Omni-Channel Commerce

• ERP for internal core processes• ERP moves to the Cloud and Small• Focus Shifts to Globally Integrated• Metrics Driven by Omni-Channel• Rise of SCV and Real-time Mgmt.• SCE = Integrated Best of Breed• SCE delivered in SaaS / Cloud

Figure 1: Eras of Supply Chain Management

5/19/2016 5




Introduction - ContinuedIn the early 1990’s most companies were inventing the approaches that were used to plan and install

these systems as they gained experience from actual implementation work. It was an expensive proposition of trial and error punctuated by one of the first major lawsuits of the era in 1998 involving FoxMeyer Drug, the fifth largest drug wholesaler in the country, suing SAP and Anderson Consulting after going into bankruptcy in 1996 suggesting, in part, that the bankruptcy came as a result of poor planning and implementation of the ERP system1. At the same time, studies like the Chaos Report (1995) by the Standish Group2 in the US and The OASIG Study (1995) by OASIG2 in the UK found that, in their view, the majority of all IT projects often resulted in consistent levels of failure.

From this, new techniques were developed including an approach referred to as “Packaged Enabled Re-engineering” (PER). PER was an improvement over previous approaches as it sought to adapt the end user to the system and its existing capabilities with some configuration for preferences rather than require the system to be adapted to the end user through expensive and time consuming custom development. A discipline of design referred to as business process reengineering, or BPR, would drive these engagements. Studies in 1995 and 1997 by Grover, Jeong, Kettinger, and Teng (1995)3 and Gunasekaran and Ichimura (1997)4 found that using the techniques of BPR as part of a PER approach improve the ultimate success of enterprise systems projects. This approach has become more common over the last decade as companies seek to get the advantage of enterprise systems while reducing the potential risk of failure.

In the early 2000’s, supply chains became more complex given a new era of consumers driving choice rather than simply being given choices. The value of increasing the use of “just-in-time” manufacturing styles to reduce inventory carrying costs drove new requirements to engage with suppliers and buyers on a more direct level. The creation of Business to Business Integration (B2Bi) became a key driver in enabling the cross-industry, or multi-enterprise infrastructure needed to enable advanced manufacturing and advanced distribution techniques like cross-docking deliveries to avoid holding stock.

With the advent of the Internet and its use in eCommerce, new models of the supply chain began to emerge. The need for specialization outside of the traditional ERP became apparent as businesses struggled to manage and deliver across multiple channels of commerce straining the traditional linear delivery models. New specialized automation was needed at multiple levels of the supply chain leading to the creation and launch of Warehouse Management Systems (WMS), Transportation Management Systems (TMS), and new commerce based order management systems. These new systems were generally categorized as Supply Chain Execution Systems. Since around 2010, globalization has increased with the need for a greater focus on global relationships, the management of real-time global events that drive supply chain disruption and the criticality of new dimensions like sustainable sourcing and supplier diversity. Throughout these eras, new systems and techniques have been developed to help justify, deploy, and manage the IT acquisition of systems. Along with them were improved techniques to plan, execute, and manage projects.

We have seen incremental improvement from the 1990’s in terms of project success but projects are still complex initiatives with the purpose of driving business value and high return on investment. The 2013 Chaos Manifesto by the Standish Group5 found that while in 1995 about 16.2% of projects were successful, in 2013, that number was 39% with another 43% being completed but “challenged”. Challenged projects suffered from late projects 74% of the time and budget overruns occurred 59% of the time. A Gartner survey in 2012, found that somewhere between 72% and 80% were considered successful over a two year period with the key factor being the size of the project.

We are at a cross roads. The need for technology to drive cost savings, new business models and global management continues unabated while we still struggle to achieve the full value of these initiatives. In this research, we will seek to understand the impact of the processes used to create, justify, and approve these kinds of project on the potential success or challenge with projects after approval. To do this, we will develop a framework that describes the practices required to define a successful solution and then test that framework against today’s project initiation and approval processes.

2

5/19/2016 6




Research On Business Cases and Approval Processes

Given the criticality of business to be able to quickly and effectively adopt Supply Chain Execution (SEC) technology, understanding the approach business takes to define, evaluate, and acquire SCE systems is a practical matter for research. This research study was conducted in three phases:

Phase 1: Research Review / Criteria

In Phase 1 of the research, we reviewed previous work on the development of the business case, the approval process and the dynamics involved in justifying an enterprise technology solution. In evaluating previous scholarly research, we were able to develop a current state model of practices used in companies along with an understanding of the basic approaches used in developing and justifying technology.

Phase 2: Primary Research

In Phase 2 of the research, we developed primary research instruments that were used as both as an interviewing tool and as a primary research survey tool. The instruments were comprehensive enough to evaluate the current state of the practices learned in Phase 1 and to interpret them quantitatively and qualitatively against supply chain execution system acquisitions. As part of this stage, we were able to reach a strong cross section of industries, positions, and levels of experience. We evaluated the results and found a strong correlation of p < 0.05 (n=42) throughout the responses across industries, levels, and years of experience. In evaluating the total cycle time of interviews and surveys, we gathered responses over about 47 hours across 42 respondents.

Phase 3: Interpretation of Results

In Phase three we have interpreted the results into this study document where we evaluate the data against a basic framework of Supply Chain Execution System of five criteria that, when taken together, create sufficient odds of success that a system will be well described, contain value to the business, have high odds of success of completing on time and at budget, and have the appropriate support to achieve the long term goals. At the end of the study, we interpret the findings against a series of practices that were also gleaned from research and interviews. These practices represent approaches to overcome the weaknesses we found in the process and approaches in industry today.

Research Deliverable Layout

The research and findings in this document are laid out in three sections:

Part I: Evaluation Criteria - the first part of this document we will discuss the basic criteria for a Supply Chain Execution system and discuss the framework by which we evaluate the business case and approval processes

Part II: Supply Chain Execution Value - In Part two of the document we will evaluate criteria from the framework to determine the value of Supply Chain Execution in today’s business environment.

Part III: Business Case / Approval Process - In Part three, we evaluate the development of the business case and the approval process today based on the survey findings and evaluate that against the practices identified in the framework

3

5/19/2016 7





Research Respondents and Demographics

Evaluation of the Respondent Pool

By Industry, Company Size, Position Level and Years of Experience

4

5/19/2016 8




To evaluate the business case development and approval processes for Supply Chain Execution, we sought to develop a respondent pool that provided a cross section of experiences across industries. We also sought a diversity of levels within organizations. Experience base was also critical opting to try and build a base of longer experienced professionals to be able to capture more response depth and diversity. Below are the core demographics. We were able to achieve reasonable diversity to provide a range of responses. We have not specifically correlated any responses directly to industry criteria given the sample size but would expect to be able to do this in future research. The findings are below (Figures 2-5)

Research Respondents and Demographics

Evaluation of Respondent Pool

5

26%

24%

17%17%

15%

Primary Industries

Retail

Manufacturing

Transportation

Supply Chain Services

Supply ChainConsulting

25%

19%

22%22%

13%

Position Level

CxO

SVP/EVP

VP

Director

Associate

23%

23%

23%

31%

Annual Revenue

< $100M

$100M - $499M

$500M - $999M

$ > 1B

9%

32%

59%

Experience Level

< Ten Years

Ten to 20Years

> 20 Years

Figure 2 Primary Industries Figure 3 Position Level

Figure 4: Annual Revenue Figure 5: Experience Level

5/19/2016 9





Part I: Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation of Previous Research

Development of a Framework for System Selection for Supply Chain Execution Systems

6

5/19/2016 10




Part I: Evaluation Criteria

Companies purchase automated systems for specific purposes with high expectations of returns. Since the beginning of the ERP Era, successful completion of complex systems implementation have been challenging. While there is significant research on how to execute and implement projects to make them more successful, there is limited research today in understanding the process and business case development in a way that allows companies to evaluate their corporate processes and behaviors to improve the situation. In this section, we will review literature appropriate to the development of the business and the approval process. From this research, we discuss the framework that was used in developing and evaluating the survey results.

Introduction

7

In evaluating previous studies, we focused on understanding the issues related to how and why companies decide they need technology to help them solve a business problem as well as how they described the approval processes as either formal or informal. We also looked at how IT systems, especially applications, are generally justified in terms of utility and value. In addition, we looked for research that discussed investment based decision making that would be consistent with making a strategic decision for the acquisition of Supply Chain Execution technology. Below are three highlights that underscore the foundation of the findings:

In “A Model for Investment Justification in Information Technology Projects”, Gunesekaran, Love, Rahimi, and Miele identified a model for investment justification that includes Strategic Considerations like support of top management and alignment to strategy, Tactical and Operational Considerations which are more technical and business functional requirements, Tangible Considerations such as budget, ROI, and investment priorities, and Intangibles that include “soft factors” which are value drivers that are not easily quantified.

In “Maximizing ROI from Technology, Quinn and Aschenbrand, focus on three key drivers of ROI benefit as Asset Utilization, Efficiency, and Customer Response. They discuss specific obstacles in the process as well as time to break even. They also listed the systems with highest level of return as being 1st, the TMS system, 2nd Inventory Management solutions, 3rd Demand Forecasting, 4th, Warehouse Management, and 5th Procurement solutions.

In “How Company’s Make Good Decisions: Mckinsey Global Survey Results”, Garbuio, Lavallo, and Viguerieidentified that many decisions regarding new infrastructure and systems are made outside of the traditional planning cycle. They found that good decisions require good discussion, i.e. one person making the decision is usually a poor approach. They also found that a formal decision process lead to good decisions and outcomes. They found that financial accountability, including the use of an ROI mechanism as critical to driving that accountability. They linked good decisions to discussions where the participants had a stake in the process, had the skills to evaluate the decision and that decisions should be made transparently and aligned to the corporate strategy. Finally, they found that while politics may get a bad name, it depends on the situation. Particularly bad decisions are made when the executives are more concerned about their individual outcomes rather than the organization.

Armed with this information, we are able to develop a simple model to evaluate the business case and approval process along with the criteria required to make good decisions about Supply Chain Execution systems.

Previous Research / Studies

5/19/2016 11




8

We used the following criteria to understand the relative and perceptive value of Supply Chain Execution related systems and capabilities in industry today and the process to approve them.

The five criteria that must be met to gain approval and acceptance of a new system:

• The System must have a perceived and justifiable need

• The System must have specific and definable utility

• The System must be able to be described in terms of quantifiable value

• There must be a recognition of the potential of the system to succeed both in implementation and in providing the business case value

• The system must be able to be evaluated impartially based upon its utility and value to the business

Further, as we developed the survey instrument specifically around the use of the business case and the approval process, we took into account past research to evaluate the current state of the following. We developed a hypothesis of a high value business case to test and developed methods to understand the approval process in terms of its ability to be a catalyst or a barrier to decision making.

The Business Case Hypothesis

• The Business case should be understandable by the decision making authority in terms of the description of the need, the value it will provide, and the context of its use

• The business case should describe the system technology but not to the point of being overly technical. A highly technical description of the system will likely have a tendency to create confusion or irritation with the process.

• The business case should have business drivers that describe the ultimate business value of the system. This should include quantifiable and non-quantifiable aspects to provide a full picture of value.

• The business case value should be well defined in terms of some kind of return calculation and should have an understandable time to “break even”, i.e. an easily understood point where the investment and value are at zero. We hypothesize that a perceived faster break even will likely yield a higher approval rate for a project

• A business case must have some formal return on investment. Our hypothesis is that most companies would likely use the Return on Investment (ROI) calculation. We tested for a three and five year ROI to determine preference. While we did not make a specific hypothesis, one area of future testing could be to determine if a project that details a five year ROI has a higher approval rate or has a higher level of success than a three year ROI.

• The business case should have a formal implementation plan that uses a phased approach to track its success as well as manage and mitigate risk. The hypothesis suggests that single phase, long time horizon approaches would be approved much less often than multiple short time phased approaches.

• The business case should describe budgetary changes that will take place to support the ROI. Our hypothesis is many respondents may agree with this but that it will not be a common practice.

Part I: Evaluation Criteria (Cont.)

5/19/2016 12




9

The Approval Process – In order to develop an understanding of the business approval process, we define

five hypothetical “climates” that are exhibited in a company with a formal or informal process. We asked

respondents the degree to which they have encountered any or all of these climates and have them rank

them. By doing this, we believe we will begin to baseline these behavioral climates within business. We

refer to the five “climates” as “Approval Styles” defined as follows:

• Bureaucratic – “Turn the process into a marathon; approval goes to those who are relentless”.

This style is characterized by many different gates of approval and a bias by senior leadership to

be the core decision makers. The typical outcome is that approval happens only at very senior

levels with very long cycle times.

• Authoritarian – “What the approver wants the approver gets”. This style is characterized by a

strong approval authority that has specific authority within their domain, often involving profit /

loss accountability. While there are likely approvals required to get to this person, once there,

this person decides on their own to allow the project to move forward or not.

• Intimidating – “What part of ‘NO’ didn’t you understand?”. This style is characterized by a hostile

approval culture. The culture is usually centered on an individual or an organizational culture of

intimidation. This style typically has a low number of projects that are brought forward by those

outside of the approvers “circle”.

• Political – “What’s in it for me and mine?”. This style is characterized by an acute focus on the

individual department or division of the executive. Most of the motivation in the organization is

centered around the performance at the group level rather than the greater organization. As

such, the environment relies on extensive relationships and “allies” to be able to effectively gain

approval for systems and projects.

• Collaborative – “What’s the right thing to do?”. This style is characterized by a culture of cross

functional cooperation and transparency where the approval process is considered a necessary

vetting process to understand the needs and impacts of a given need across a broader, well

understood strategy and portfolio. Often, these environment provide transparency of the

process, the approval expectations and have a regular set of times for submission, discussion,

approval, etc.

• Encouraging – “We play small ball but we come to win; singles and doubles turn into runs”. This

style is characterized by a culture that tends to focus on incremental movement at a faster pace

to achieve broader strategic goals. This is not to say that strategic investments are not made.

Typically strategic investments come from many smaller successful investments. It is also

characterized by one of the following; Continuous Improvement, “Plan, Do, Check Act”

approaches, or rapid cycle time trial and error approaches. These environments may not have a

well documented process opting instead for delegated decision on all but the largest investments.

Part I: Evaluation Criteria (Cont.)

5/19/2016 13





Part II: Supply Chain Execution Value

Evaluating System Value

Understanding the Value of Supply Chain Execution Systems in Today’s Global Environment

10

5/19/2016 14




11

Many companies engaged in businesses that drive the physical supply chain have made significant

investments over time in core business technology. The largest investment has typically been in the ERP

system. While a key part of the framework we evaluated involves the basic criteria that research suggests

shows system value, our primary research probed further. In addition to the perception of value of a

specific Supply Chain Execution system, we wanted to understand that value in context of the ERP. It could

be that respondents found the systems valuable, but did not find them desirable if the company already

had a well implemented ERP system. Beyond that, we wanted to understand how respondents gauged the

potential value of these systems in two categories: Business Value / Cost Savings. Business Value, in this

case, is defined as direct value from the system that enables the business to better manage the complexity

of customers and suppliers in the supply chain. Cost Savings is defined as capabilities that can specifically

reduce the cost of the function the system is developed to manage. For our purposes, Business Value was

ranked higher primarily because it dealt with reducing the complexity of the supply chain which also

resulted in cost savings whereas cost savings was specific to one kind of value. Through this section, we

were able to evaluate four of the five criteria:

• The System must have a perceived and justifiable need

• The System must have specific and definable utility

• The System must be able to be described in terms of quantifiable value

• There must be a recognition of the potential of the system to succeed both in

implementation and providing the business case value

To baseline the general concept of value, we first asked respondents to rate the value of a given

system in terms of its importance allowing for answers ranging from Critical to Not Needed on a

five point scale. We then looked at the responses of Critical or Important, i.e. a rank of 1 or 2 on

the five scale. From our findings, the ERP, WMS, and TMS were all identified as very significant

with Omni-Channel and Cross-Channel (Core eCommerce) along with Supply Chain Visibility /

Control Towers being identified as important (Figure 6)


0%

50%

100% 89%

72%67%

53%46%

40%

25%

8%6%

Percentage Indicating System was Critical / Very Important

Figure 6: General System Criticality

5/19/2016 15




12

Next, we asked respondents to determine their level of agreement with the following statement: “Does the ERP system have enough features and capabilities to be the only system required to manage today’s complex supply chains?”. A high level of agreement would suggest the ERP stands alone as the system needed and other systems would not be required and a low level of agreement would suggest the ERP needs other systems that provide more specialized value in addition to the ERP itself. Our research found a very high level of disagreement with the statement with 86% of respondents either completely disagreeing or disagreeing with the statement. (Figure 7)


Figure 7: ERP as the only required system

6% 3% 6%

46%40%

Percentage of Agreement / Disagreement

Completely Agree

Agree

Neither Agree / Disagree

Disagree

Completely Disagree

We also asked which functions needed increased specialization which translated into specific system needs. The respondents could choose from five responses ranging from Critical (1) through Not Needed (5). When asked this way, Transportation Management, Warehouse Management and Supply Chain Visibility (SCV throughout includes Real-Time Event Management and Control Tower capabilities) were identified as the top 3 with Omni-Channel, Cross-Channel (identified with core eCommerce) and Retail Store Operations being above 50%. (Figure 8)

0%

50%

100%

46%37%

60%46%

40%37%

46%46%

20%

23%20%

20%

Percentage Indicating System was Critical / Very Important

Crtitical

Important

92%83%

80%69%

60%57%

Figure 8 System Criticality (As Extension of ERP)

5/19/2016 16




13

By understanding the independent perception of need and the importance of a system to provide greater specialization outside of the ERP we are able to create a core baseline of importance. We also need to understand relative value. Even with importance, if the value of system is not significant in terms of supporting the management of supply chain complexity to enable business strategy or as a cost savings mechanism to reduce business cost so the savings can be applied elsewhere, there is low odds the system would be approved and adopted. We asked respondents to rate Supply Chain Execution systems on their relative value to Business, i.e. managing supply chain complexity as a primary factor versus cost savings. In addition, respondents could choose neither indicating the system would be of marginal value in both circumstances. Transportation Management, Warehouse Management and Omni-Channel Management all scored well for Business Value while several other categories showed value as cost savers. Only the use of RFID as a replacement for Bar Coding systems in the warehouse showed a trend toward questionable value (Table 1).


In terms of overall importance and value a few system begin to emerge as having a combination of need and potential value. Table 2 below summarizes the findings in terms of the systems that respondents indicate are the most importance, especially when considering the need to support specialization around the ERP system and in terms of their overall value to the organization when ordered by the Business Value.

Respondents Ratings

Type of Project / Business Case Scenario

TMSOmni-

Channel*WMS

SCE Control Towers

Parcel Mgmt

RFID for Tracking

RFID Whse

Level of Value ProvidedBusiness Value = Impacting critical business drivers (complexity, scale, customer experience and Cost

Savings, etc.) Cost Reducing Value = Cost Savings as Primary

Business Value 81% 69% 53% 41% 11% 6% 0%

Cost Reducing Value 19% 31% 47% 53% 80% 75% 58%

Marginal / Little Value 0% 0% 0% 6% 9% 20% 42%

Strong Overall Utility Cost Driven Utility Marginal

Table 1: System Value by Category

SystemsGeneral

ValueValue with

ERPBusiness Value

Transportation Management System 63% 92% 81%

Omni-Channel* 53% 69% 69%

Warehouse Management 72% 80% 53%

SCE Real-Time SCV / Control Towers 40% 83% 41%

Table 2: Summarized Value: General and with ERP

* After initial evaluation, we found Omni-Channel Commerce and eCommerce to be used interchangeably. As a result we used Omni-Channel for evaluation purposes

5/19/2016 17




14

With an understanding of the importance and value of a Supply Chain Execution system, the last core criteria of value is return. Trying to evaluate the average return on investment (ROI) of a given system or category is well beyond the scope of this study and would likely encompass it’s own entire set of work. That said, we used the notion of time to break even as a general character of overall value of a system. The notion is that if a system can meet a break-even in a relatively short time it would be in a position where the core costs and benefits are in zero base point. This is an indicator of both reduced risk and greater value potential on a more traditional ROI level. We used the time to break even as a key measure of gross value. Table 3 summaries the respondents view of time to break even across system categories. All products showed a median time to break even as below two years. Both TMS and Parcel Management were rated as having break even points at or below 1 year suggesting a stronger potential business case than other systems. It is interesting that both of these systems deal foundationally with the shipping costs which have become a larger percentage of the total supply chain spend due to eCommerce, globalization, and the emphasis on reducing inventory by using transportation as “rolling inventory”. As a result, companies without these systems would likely be at a competitive disadvantage compared to those with the systems. Other systems, like WMS, may be more proliferated or require more hard investment to get a greater return. Supply Chain Visibility / Control Towers typically require a broader implementation across many facets of the supply chain to tie together real-time data to evaluate for disruptions etc., which would drive a larger investment and take more time to achieve value. Finally, with RFID, the broader question of general adoption for tracking purposes may be somewhat segregated from the broader tracking that happens in SCV while RFID for warehousing to replace bar code technology likely suffers from a difficult set of value drivers in replacing technology that already meets most standards of efficiency


Table 3: Time to break even by system category

Respondents Ratings WMS TMSOmni-

Channel

SCV / Control Tower

Parcel Mgmt.

RFID for Tracking

RFID for Whse.

Time to Break Even Time until the costs of the solution and implementation equal the benefits

Less Than 6 Months 0% 22% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0%

6 Months to 1 Year 14% 42% 19% 22% 39% 8% 0%

1 Year to 18 Months 31% 25% 17% 22% 53% 42% 47%

18 Months to 2 Years 39% 8% 31% 36% 3% 39% 25%

Greater than 2 Years 17% 3% 33% 19% 0% 11% 28%

Median Point 18 Mo < 1 Yr. <2 Yrs. 18 Mo+ 1 Yr. 18 Mo 18 Mo. +

5/19/2016 18




15

Based on the previous criteria and results, we can form a composite picture of the value of Supply Chain Execution systems today in business. We do this by combining the evaluation factors of Importance as a system to provide additional specialization outside of the ERP, the system value with an emphasis on the combined value of business and cost savings, and the expectation of break even point. We create a three tiered ranking factor based on the cluster analysis based on respondent results and then apply a five to one rating where five is the highest. Table 4 provides the results of this ranking. We can interpret the results based on a risk managed approach where we define the Top Systems being in the top 20% of the ranking, Qualified Systems being at the 60% to 80% of the ranking and Non-Qualified Systems being below the 60% ranking. Applying this risk factor further isolates the systems for the highest level of importance, value, and potential success. Based on this ranking, the Top and Qualified Systems are:

TOP SYSTEMS (Rank 12 or Higher) QUALIFIED SYSTEMS (Rank 9 – 12)

• Transportation Management Systems

• Warehouse Management Systems


Table 4: Overall Supply Chain Execution Value Rankings

Respondents Ratings

Supply Chain Execution System*

TMS WMSParcel Mgmt.

OmniChannel

SCV / SC Control Tower

RFID for

TMS

RFID for

WMS

Importance ( 5 = Max, 1 = Min)

Tier I - (> 70% Critical/Important) 5 5

Tier II - (Tier + Valuable > 70 3 3 3 3

Tier III - All Others 1

System Value ( 5 = Max, 1 = Min)

Tier I - Business > 60 Plus Combined Bus/Cost > 80%

5 5

Tier II - Combined Bus/Cost => 90%

4 3 3

Tier III – Cost Savings < 90 2 1

Break Even Time ( 5 = Best, 1 = Low)

Tier I - < 1 Year is > than 60% 5

Tier II - < 2 Years is > 80% 4 4.5 3 3

Tier II - < 2 Years is > 50% 2 1

Total Value (15 = Highest, 3 = Lowest)

15 13 10.5 10.0 9 8 3

• Omni-Channel Systems

• Parcel Management Systems

• Supply Chain Visibility / SC Control Towers

5/19/2016 19





Part III: Business Case / Approval Process

Evaluating the Business Case and Process of Approval

Understanding the Impact of the Business Case and Approval Process on SCE Systems Acquisition

16

5/19/2016 20




17

In Part II, we evaluated the relative value of Supply Chain Execution solutions across different categories

of systems to better understand elements of business value, cost saving value, and the odds of success of

project being approved and successfully implemented. Understanding the value a system would bring to the

business is a critical factor in understanding the desirability such a system would have to that business. It

does not, however, evaluate the implications of the internal processes used to achieve that approval or the

actual justification document itself.

In Part III, we evaluate the business case document and the approval processes that are evident

in business today. From previous research we have identified a standard set of criteria required for

business to identify value in a system. Several of these criteria go beyond just understanding the

business value of a solution. They include the justification of that value in terms of perceived value,

quantifiable value, and definable utility. In addition, the criteria strongly suggests the need to

evaluate the potential of success in terms of the implementation of the system to achieve the value.

It is through the development of the business case and the associated process of achieving approval

that the value of system is put to the test.

We will evaluate this environment by first understanding the likelihood of a consistent process

being evident in the company. Next, we’ll look at the approval process style to understand which

styles are the most prevalent in business today. Finally, we will look at the business case itself in

terms of information that is consistently provided to approval authorities and how that criteria

hinders or helps in the process.

We will conclude with a scenario based view of the business case, approval process and climate

along with some basic analysis of the impacts and outcomes from these scenarios.

To begin, we asked respondents if a formal approval process exists in the company based on the

company size. As identified in figure 9, most companies above $500m in revenue have some kind of

formal process and about half of companies $100 - $499 have a formal process.

Part III: Business Case and Approval Process

Figure 9: Presence of an approval process by company size

0%

50%

100%

< Than $99 M$100M to $499M

$500M to $999M$1B and above

6% 43% 60%

23%

9%20%

66%

Percentage Indicating A Formal Process Existed for Business Case and Project Approval

51%

80% 89%

6%

5/19/2016 21




18

In our study, we identified the most common styles used in organizations as part of their

approval processes. There is research, Berry (2002)8, and Leidner and Kaywork (2006)9 that shows

the approval process has dependencies on corporate values and culture. This is an area with very

little research to date and an area that will be expanded upon in future work. In this study, we

show this perspective by applying the decision making styles based on three factors:

1. The size of the “Bubble” – The prevalence of an individual approval style is represented by the

relative size of the shaded circle which it represents

2. Level of Consensus Required – The goal of consensus is typically to ensure all key stakeholders

are engaged in the decision process to ensure the project is effectively vetted and the best

decision is made. We evaluate consensus by evaluating the collaborative nature of the

engagement versus the isolation or exclusion factors that inhibit collaborations.

3. Level of Organizational Trust / Empowerment – Trust and empowerment are another key factor

of culture and corporate values. Low levels of trust tend to isolate decision making to

predominately senior authorities where higher levels of trust tend to enable delegation of

authority in making decisions.

Figure 10 shows the Bureaucratic, Authoritarian, and Political styles as the most prevalent in

decision making bodies.


Figure 10: Distribution of Approval Styles

Intimidating

Bureaucratic

AuthoritarianPolitical

Organizational Trust / Empowerment

Individual / Dept.“Us vs. Them”

Cross FunctionalEmpowerment

Cross DepartmentAlliances

Collaborative

Encouraging

Isolated

Collaborative

Selective

Co

nse

nsu

s

5/19/2016 22




19

The presence of the Bureaucratic, Authoritarian, and Political styles as the more dominant

styles suggests that project approval is more of a selling activity than simply a discussion or

explanation of a project on its own merits. Factors like competing projects, decision bias,

individual personal agendas and corporate pressure all become factors to consider when

approaching the approval process.

While not a specific scope of the study, there are practices and approaches gleaned from the

interviews that will apply to selling the project. These will be discussed in Part IV: Toward Better

Practices. In addition, research related to solutions selling is appropriate as we align the content

and use of the business case, the content that is used to show the solution value, with the actual

approach needed to successfully navigate the approval process. Sharma, Iyer, and Evanschitzy,10

provide a solution selling model that applies to the process of gaining approval for high technology

Supply Chain Execution systems. There are parallels to the concept of a high technology firm and

the approval of high technology Supply Chain Execution systems:

• High technology firms face (factors relevant to this research):

• Rapid pace of technological change

• Rapid technological obsolescence

• Disruptive Competition

• Competing industry standards

• Product Complexity

• Complex Buying Decisions

• In a similar way, organizations faced with approving a Supply Chain Execution system also have

these issues with a different context to their decisions. This context will most commonly come

in the form of an objection to the acquisition based on the following:

• Rapid pace of technological change – “Will this system meet my needs today and will it

evolve to meet my needs in the future”? Similarly, “Is this the ‘best’ system or is there a

better one coming soon”?

• Rapid technological obsolescence – “How long will this system really last? How new and

proven is it”? “Will I get caught in a “dead end” solution”?

• Disruptive Competition – “Will this system help me compete or could it be a detractor to

my ability to compete”?

• Competing Industry Standards – “Will this system work and integrate with all my other

systems and partner’s systems”?


5/19/2016 23




20

• Product Complexity – “How difficult will this system be to use and integrate? Is the

training extensive”? “How quickly will it began to work well within the enterprise”?

• Complex Buying Decisions – “The investment in this solution is large and there are only so

many dollars that can go around. Making a mistake on this will have serious implications

to our business”.

Evaluating the business case document as a selling document involves three things. First, we

understand from previous research which sections tend to drive the approval decision making.

Second, we must evaluate the respondents view of the individual sections of the business case

document and their value. Third, we need to understand how often those sections are present in

the business case. In evaluating the business case, we asked respondents to evaluate the value of

an individual item in the business case along with it’s criticality in being present for approval. We

then asked how often the respondent found that item was present enabling us to evaluate the

business case efficiency based on the makeup of the business case itself. Table 5 reflects the

respondents view of the items and their need along with the practice and presence of these items

in reality. From the respondents we confirm a number of things including the importance of the

Project Description (a description of the general purpose and need of the solution along with how

it will be used), Solution Description (a description of the system solution including its basic

components and usage, and Key Value Drivers (a set of value descriptors that define a) why the

system matters and b) the categories and benefits that will be derived from the system) are all

critical to the success of the business case. Similarly, a project plan (implementation plan) and

some kind of ROI (either 3 or 5 year) are viewed as required.


Table 5: Business Case Content Requirements with Evaluation of its Presence in Actual Documentation

Perspective

Business Case Items for Inclusion or Exclusion in a Business Case

Project Description

Solution Description

Key Value Drivers

Technical Spec

Project Plan (Detailed)

3 Year ROI

Review

5 Year ROI

Review

Budget Impact / Budgets Set

Required 100% 80% 71% 9% 69% 54% 46% 54%

Value Added 0% 20% 29% 14% 31% 31% 26% 20%

Nice to Have 0% 0% 0% 31% 0% 14% 23% 26%

Creates Confusion

0% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Should Not Be In Document

0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0%

% of Time It is In Document

(Always / Almost Always)

86% 77% 14% 71% 54% 54% 0% 12%

5/19/2016 24




21

Most also found that the submission of budget that showed the impact to the business and the

future changes would be either required or valuable as a tool of accountability. The main area of

disagreement in the respondents view was the inclusion of a technical specification. 45% of the

respondents found that this level of detail would create confusion or should not be put into the

document in general. At the same time, almost one third (31%) found it could be a nice to have

addition. Only 23% felt it should be required. This disparity, we believe, underscores the cross

purposes of the business case as a communication and information mechanism versus a selling

tool that requires the business case be tailored more to the audience which is usually not oriented

to understanding the technology but the value.

The critical findings were related to the presence of the business elements identified, especially

those identified as being required for approval. Of particular note are the value drivers. While

71% of respondents indicated it as a requirement for approval, only 14% of respondents indicated

it was typically in the document. When confronting the business case as a selling document, this

appears to be a major stumbling block to gaining approval, especially in the Authoritarian,

Bureaucratic, and Political environments where the lack of value would be seen as a simple reason

to deny the project.

Similarly the presence of a technical specification being a regular (71%) part of the business

case introduces another convenient way to slow down or deny the project by enabling debate on

technical specifics, with resulting disagreement on the technical specification, rather than an

emphasis on the value and utility of the solution in meeting the business need. The same styles

(Authoritarian, Political and Bureaucratic) would be environments where this kind of conjecture

could be used to slow down or deny the approval.

Finally, from a financial hurdle perspective, the potential of a lack of effective financial

justification is likely a concern. Although 54% of respondents indicated the presence of a 3 year

ROI, the indication that 46% had no ROI and, further, an ROI of five years was never present

suggests that those seeking approval appear to focus on the minimum required for ROI or financial

justification. Similarly, the lack of a meaningful understanding of budget implications (12%

indicated it was there) further suggests this could be another barrier. In Authoritarian, Political,

and Bureaucratic approval styles, the lack of effective financial rigor and justification could result in

increased scrutiny, business case rework, or outright rejection due to unsubstantiated value. This

will be particularly true of approval processes that are driven by approvers from a financial

function.


5/19/2016 25




22

The final area of evaluation of the business case and approval process the role of the project

sponsor both in the project and in the approval process. As the approval process is really a selling

process, as the research suggests, the role of the project sponsor as both the key defender of the

project and the primary “seller” is critical. We asked respondents the degree to which they

believed the business sponsor should present the solution to the approval authorities and how

often they find the business sponsor to be the actual person that presents. We also asked, if the

business sponsor was not the presenter, who would be the typical present of this kind of a project

for approval. Figure 11 shows the results of these two questions. There appears to be a significant

mismatch between the actual experience versus the expected or desired behavior in this area.

71%, indicated the business sponsor should always be the presenter, which, when combined with

the 21% who said almost always suggests this is a critical activity to support approval. The

respondents, however, found that in practice, the business sponsor as presenter was not a

foregone conclusion and in fact is more rare than expected. Only 29% found that the business

sponsor was the presenter on an Always or Almost Always basis. Instead 54% found this to occur

Sometimes suggesting there is little established practice or standard for the business sponsor to

actually be the driver of the project and the approval. This appears to put the project at a

significant disadvantage given the objections identified in the research. While some objections can

be addressed by technical sponsors or members, the implication of the impact of disruptive

competition on the sponsor’s business along with the sponsor’s view of complexity making the

case to get approval given scare resources all suggest the need for the business sponsor to be the

foundational driver to ensure approval.


Figure 11: Business Sponsor Involvement

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Always Almost Always Sometimes Rarely Never

9%20%

54%

17%0%

71%

21%

0% 0% 0%

Degree to Which the Respondents experienced the Business Sponsor Being the Presenter of the Solution for Approval

Actual

Desired

5/19/2016 26




23

We also asked, in lieu of a business sponsor presenting the business case, who would present

the case for approval. Given that it is likely that over 50% of the time someone beside the business

sponsor is presenting, we find this question to be important to provide more context into potential

barriers in the approval process. Figure 12 shows that this person is the IT Leader or Project

Manager always (51%) and almost always (43%). From an implications perspective, this likely

changes the perspective of the project from one of core business value and need, to one of a

technology solution that is likely about the technology first and business value second. This may

help with the approval authorities understanding and evaluating the impacts of technology

obsolesce or pace of change. These two factors, however, would come as a result of the system

itself having high business value rather being ends among themselves.

In summarizing the key findings of this section, we find the following:

1. Companies above $500M (and often above $250M) will have some kind of formal approval

process for larger systems like Supply Chain Execution Systems

2. In terms of the approval process, the most common Approval Styles that were identified

were the Authoritarian, Political, and Bureaucratic styles. This, along with research suggest

the approval process is more of a selling, rather than communication process

3. There appears to be a mismatch that creates approval barriers based on the typical

contents of the business case with lack of effective development of value drivers, the

presence of a technical specification that can cause unnecessary noise in the process and

the lack of strong financial justification

4. The lack of the Business Sponsor as core defender and presenter of the business case for

approval appears to impact approvability. Instead, an IT Leader or Project Manager tends

to be the presenter reducing the impact of business value in favor of technical merits


Figure 12: Presenter when Business Sponsor does not present

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Always AlmostAlways

Sometimes Rarely Never

51% 43%

6%0% 0%

Degree to Which the Respondent Experiences an IT Leader or Project Manager as Presenter the Solution for Approval versus some other role

5/19/2016 27




24

The Final area of analysis in this section is the overall odds of success of a specific type of

system or project being approved with the subsequent likelihood of success. While not a definitive

indicator of approval, the responses would provide insight into the current state of approval given

all the factors previously identified in this section. Practices that drive better alignment, that

address objections in a more effective way, and that provide a more solid financial justification

would increase these odds above the baseline we hypothesize. By having a baseline, we can

suggest techniques and processes that increases the odds of success for future study as we

approach the implications of the study in Part IV: Better Practices. To do this, we asked

respondents to rate the odds of approval of one of five scenario projects along with their

experience of the odds of success that the solution will meet its business value objectives

(Business Value Drivers). Table 6 provides a view of the approval and odds of success. It is beyond

the scope of this research to specifically correlate a scenario with root cause of success or failure

but the responses are instructive in general. From the respondents we find most respondents

judge medium levels of odds of approval and success of the scenarios with the exception of

“Cutting Edge” technology. There are higher odds of success of approval of a Large System

Upgrade, i.e. ERP upgrade, Supply Chain Execution executed in a Multi-Phased approach, and a

“Me Too” scenario. It is difficult to discern the specific reasons but one would suggest the upgrade

is based on a well known system, the “Me-Too” system is based on late adoption of more proven

technology and the Supply Chain Execution project in multiple phases would reduce odds of failure

by breaking the project into smaller pieces rather than one large phase.


Table 6: Ratings of Odds of Approval and Success

Respondents Ratings

Type of Project / Business Case Scenario

Large System Upgrade

Supply Chain Execution (1 Phase)

Supply Chain Execution

(Multi-Phase)

Cutting Edge Tech (Game Change)

“Me Too” Solution (Late Adoption)

Odds of Approval ERP, EtcWMS, TMS,

etcWMS, TMS,

EtcUntested (Drone, 3D Printing, etc)

ERP, Accounting, Etc

Low 22% 19% 5% 86% 17%

Medium 58% 75% 78% 14% 58%

High 20% 6% 17% 0% 20%

Odds of Solution success On-Time and At Budget Meeting the Business Value Drivers

Low 25% 25% 8% 80% 6%

Medium 75% 75% 81% 20% 78%

High 0% 0% 11% 0% 16%

5/19/2016 28





STUDY CONCLUSION

Testing the Hypotheses

Defining the Key Impacts and Issues in Achieving Success in Acquiring Supply Chain Execution Systems

25

5/19/2016 29




26

In this conclusions section we will re-evaluate the value of SCE systems and test the study hypotheses.

Because our testing of Supply Chain Execution value was not included as a hypothesis, we will begin by

summarizing the findings related to system value. In the study we first determined that the general

category of Supply Chain Execution systems is important and relevant to business today, especially when

used as an extension of the ERP system. Beyond this, we evaluated individual categories of systems.

Table 7 provides a summary of that analysis with the top 5 categories ranked in order of combined

importance, value, and time to break even.

When comparing importance, relative value, and time to break even the Transportation Management

System is the highest ranking system in the group. This ranking makes sense when evaluating the current

state of the of global supply chain which tends to require advanced levels of transportation and

intermodal management and the priority on lowest cost inventory. Similarly, Warehouse Management

Systems also make sense overall given their role in staging goods in global supply chains and the

importance of managing the total cost of inventory.

Study Conclusion: Hypotheses Testing and Practices

Table 7: Top 5 system categories by overall value

Respondents Ratings

Supply Chain Execution System*

TMS WMSParcel Mgmt.

Omni Channel

SCV / SC Control Tower

Importance ( 5 = Max, 1 = Min)

Tier I - (> 70% Critical/Important) 5 5

Tier II - (Tier + Valuable > 70 3 3 3

System Value ( 5 = Max, 1 = Min)

Tier I - Business > 60 Plus Combined Bus/Cost > 80%

5 5

Tier II - Combined Bus/Cost => 90% 4 3 3

Break even (5 = Min, 1 = Max)

Tier I - < 1 Year is > than 60% 5

Tier II - < 2 Years is > 80% 4 4.5 3

Tier II - < 2 Years is > 50% 2

Total Value (15 = Highest, 3 = Lowest)

15 13 10.5 10 9

SYSTEM VALUE

5/19/2016 30




27

Similarly, the relative ranking of Parcel Management and Omni-Channel platforms are valuable given the

overall growth of eCommerce both domestically and globally and their impact on traditional retail hybrid

models, along with the eCommerce and parcel volumes of companies like Amazon and Ali Baba. Their

ranking also may suggest their primary role in B2C versus a mixed role in both B2B and B2C that is apparent

in the Transportation Management and Warehouse Management system.

Finally, the Supply Chain Visibility / Supply Chain Control Tower systems were ranked in a way that

suggests they are of good value but did not particularly rank at a high level in any one category. There may

be several factors at play. First, global supply chains today require advanced levels of visibility, management,

and real-time integration. Systems like TMS, WMS, ERP, Parcel Management, and Omni-Channel all have

elements of real-time tracking and reporting. Supply Chain Visibility as a category is evolving more to a full

real-time monitoring and management of the supply chain and the forces that effect it. Supply Chain Control

Tower functionality also has similar capabilities. Some of the most effective companies in this space,

however, are not well categorized. The author believes this category will gain in value as these newer

generation companies are able to manage real-time monitoring of global suppliers, orders, and

transportation along with external events to evaluate the impact to the supply chain.

In summary, most Supply Chain Execution systems appear to have significant value in the market both as

cost saving platforms and for their utility in solving complex business challenges. Given this, when individuals

are looking at the acquisition of these higher ranked platforms, there are a number of different levels of

value that can that be developed. The most likely, or perhaps the most intuitive levels of value will vary by

the intent and use of the platform. Platforms that were rated highest for business value are likely candidates

to be positioned as a strategic platform. Platforms that ranked lower in business value but high in cost

savings are best positioned for their utility and pure costs savings value. In two instances, we had a mixture

of business and cost savings. We will consider these of “mixed” value. Mixed value systems will likely

require a deeper analysis of the expected use of the system. They may be strategically positioned but more

often may likely have cost savings value over strategic value.

Identifying the category of value and creating a simple approach to classifying and stating that value in

the project or solutions description creates a context that can be used throughout the business case and in

defense of the project during the approval processes. Table 8 provides a set of very general concepts and

themes that can be used as business value and cost saving themes in the Business Case.


SYSTEM VALUE

5/19/2016 31




28


SYSTEM VALUE

SystemPrimary

ValueCategory

Themes Value Driver Starters

TransportationManagement

BusinessEfficient Growth and Expansion

• Creates Efficient Transportation Lanes for Existing and New Market Growth

• Reduced Rate costs due to competitive rate making / supplier scorecard

• Reduced costs using freight audit and pay reconciliation

Warehouse Management

Mixed*Reduced Operational / Inventory Costs

• Reduced inventory carrying costs through better warehouse management

• Reduced costs of obsolescence and wasted inventory

• Costs based on inventory and facility reductions by applying warehouse optimization techniques

Parcel Management

CostReduced costs of eCommerce Shipping

• Reduced impact of “free shipping” by reducing parcel costs returning creating immediate profit improvement

• Cost savings through multi-carrier rating and shipping rate selection management

• Enabling technology for eCommerce “Ship from Store”

Omni-Channel BusinessEnable the efficiency of new Commerce Markets

• Unifies to one single view of the customer and one view of inventory availability to increase overall eCommerce efficiency

• Reduced inventory and distribution costs by effective intelligent eCommerce order routing

• Enables core store capabilities like “click and collect” and “ship from store” which increases store value and utility

SCV / Control Towers

Mixed*Reduced costs due to increased visibility and management

• Reduces expediting costs due to better order visibility and real-time management

• Is a key enabler of Supplier Scorecard and Benchmark management to drive efficiency in the enterprise

• Strategic enables the development of cross-functional efficiency and management of business disruptions through real-time global supply chain monitoring and response

Table 8: Themes and Value Drivers by system category

* Mixed cases suggest that is likely to have direct cost benefit but could be considered strategic depending on how it is used and what it affects the most

5/19/2016 32




29

The final part of the conclusion section is understanding the study findings relative to the initial study

hypotheses to interpret results. The hypotheses were originally created based on an understanding of the

general concept and use of business cases along with their practices in the approval process from previous

research and experience. The notion is that, based on research and experience, if all of the hypotheses

were completely consistent with the findings of the study, then the process in general would have no

significant weaknesses and the question of issues in building business cases and achieving approval would

be unjustified. If the hypotheses, however, showed any specific weakness between it and the practice it

governs, then it would strongly suggest the business case and approval processes were challenged by

factors either outside of the scope of the hypotheses or the actually creation of the business case and

navigation of the approval process. In this section, we will review each hypothesis and provide it a rating of

correctness based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is a hypothesis that is completely reflected in the findings of

the study and a 5 is a hypothesis that is completely contrary to the findings from the study. These will then

be used to provide a general conclusion of the key areas that drive barriers which result in areas that need

additional focus for the Business Case and Approval process to be optimized.

Hypothesis 1: The Business case should be understandable by the decision making authority in terms of

the description of the need, the value it will provide, and the context of its use

• Rating: 3: The business case lacks precision in some areas and has information that may detract from

the overall understanding

• Rationale: Two key findings from the study reinforce the notion that the business case when presented

may not be as understandable as it needs to be by the approving authority:

• The survey found that the presence of Key Value Drivers, while highly desired (71% required, 20%

value Added) was only present in the actual business 14% of the time

• The survey found disparity with the presence and use of a Technical Specification. As mentioned

in the study, the presence of a technical specific of the system may have the impact of moving

the review and discussion away from understanding the business value toward a technical

discussion of a system on technical merits only. This would detract from the understanding of the

approving authority on the value of the system in managing business need and creating value.

Hypothesis 2: The business case should describe the system technology but not to the point of being

overly technical. A highly technical description of the system will likely have a tendency to create

confusion or irritation with the process

• Rating: 2: The business case typically contains a technical specification about 71% of the time

• Rationale: The key findings from the study that drives this rating is related to the expected use of the

technical specification by the respondents compared to its presence in the document:

• As mentioned in Hypothesis 1, the presence of a technical specification versus a simpler approach

to the system, like the solutions description, is potentially misplaced and opens the approval

process to re-evaluating technology aspects that should be solved before that forum.


HYPOTHESES

5/19/2016 33




30

Hypothesis 3: The business case should have business drivers that describe the ultimate business value of

the system. This should include quantifiable and non-quantifiable aspects to provide a full picture of value.

• Rating: 2: While respondents find the important of key value drivers in the document, in reality, these

drivers appear only 14% of the time.

• Rationale: Key Value Drivers do not appear to have the rigor needed to easily navigate the approval

process.

• The survey found that the presence of Key Value Drivers, while highly desired (71% required, 20%

value Added) was only present in the actual business 14% of the time. In terms of describing

business value and drivers, there is no other part of the business case that is effective to do this. The

lack of this as a requirement on a practical level suggests that those seeking approval of Supply Chain

Execution systems not positioning the system as well it needs to be.

Hypothesis 4: The business case value should be well defined in terms of some kind of return calculation and

should have an understandable time to “break even”, i.e. an easily understood point where the investment

and value are at zero. We hypothesize that a perceived faster break even will likely yield a higher approval

rate for a project

• Rating: INCONCLUSIVE: Impacted by presence of the ROI in the Business Case and the correlation of break

even time to business approval odds.

• Rationale: After analysis, we did not test variables significant enough to create a meaningful correlation.

We did test Supply Chain Execution systems in general and evaluated break even points by system category.

If we apply this approach, assuming all SCE systems would have a similar odds of approval, then we do find

that those systems that have a faster break even would appear to meet the higher approval level. We

cannot categorically say this however so we must leave this hypothesis is inconclusive.

Hypothesis 5: A business case must have some formal return on investment. Our hypothesis is that most

companies would likely use the Return on Investment (ROI) calculation.

• Rating: 3: The lack of a consistent presence of an ROI is a significant concern when evaluating the business

case’s efficacy to gain approval.

• Rationale: The ranking of three recognizes that the 3 Year ROI is present over 50% of the time. We did not

probe on the presence of break-even as part of the Business Case although respondents did provide this

information in terms of system value. The broader concern here is the practical sense of the ROI not being

a heavily required and present item when research suggests it is critical to making the approval decision.

Hypothesis 6: The business case should have a formal implementation plan that uses a phased approach to

track its success and manage and mitigate risk.

• Rating: 3: Similar to ROI, the presence of a detailed project plan was evident about 50% of the time.

• Rationale: Research is clear that a detailed plan to implement and gain the value of the system is core to

the approving decision. In fact, Hadley11 goes to significant lengths to describe this in terms of participators

in the process, justifying value based on realistic timelines etc.


HYPOTHESES

5/19/2016 34




31

Hypothesis 7: The business case should describe budgetary changes that will take place to support the ROI.

Our hypothesis is many respondents may agree with this but that it will not be a common practice.

• Rating: 2: Respondents indicated that budgetary documentation was present bout 12% of the time in a

business case.

• Rationale: Over 74% of respondents found that a budgetary impact section of the business should be

required or add significant value. At the same time, and similar to Key Value Drivers, it was identified as

present about 12% of the time. This appears to be a significant mismatch. The causes for this are likely

varied but will typically include concerns about the immediate impact of putting budget change information

in the business, the use of the information by the finance group, and the ultimate accountability that comes

with this. Many cultures are not driven by this level of accountability. Organizational trust, ultimately, is

the likely predictor of the value and appropriate use or misuse of this information.

Table 9 Summarizes the Findings of the hypotheses.

CONCLUSION

From our study, we found clear evidence that Supply Chain Execution systems are valuable in today’s complex

supply chains. Given this value, there is compelling case to leverage this kind of technology to help the

company grow, reduce costs, and increase competitiveness.

At the same time, we find that when looking at the development of the business case and navigating the

approval process, most struggle to effectively present that value of the system in business terms along with

compelling reasons to purchase the system. Some of these issues involve the articulation of the value drivers

and their impact. Other issues involve effectively communicating the execution of the project and calculating

the financial return in a way that aids in the demonstration of strong risk and reward equation making the

system a valuable acquisition decision.

Overcoming these issues requires more direct evaluation of a company’s individual situation. Regardless, in

the conclusion of the study we try to highlight areas where individuals can immediately begin to analyze their

environment for potential opportunities for clarity and improvement.


HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis Rating Primary Rationale

1: Case is Understandable 3 Lack of Key Value Drivers and Presence of Tech Spec

2: Description of System Technology 2 Presence of Tech Spec and it’s ability to bifurcate

3: Business Drivers (Value Drivers) 2 Low Indication of Presence in Document

4: Break Even and Odds of Approval N/A Inconclusive

5: Formal ROI 3 Present 54% of the time; inconsistent

6: Formal Implementation Plan 3 Present 54% of the time; inconsistent

7: Budget Impacts 2 Rarely present; controversial based on potential use

Table 9: Hypotheses Rating Summary

5/19/2016 35




LIST OF FIGURES

Figures.

Figure 1: Eras of Supply Chain Management

Figure 2. Primary Industries

Figure 3. Position Level

Figure 4. Annual Revenue

Figure 5. Experience Level

Figure 6. General System Criticality

Figure 7: ERP as the Only Required System

Figure 8: System Criticality (As Extension of ERP)

Figure 9: Presence of an approval process by company size

Figure 10: Distribution of approval styles

Figure 11: Business Sponsor involvement

Figure 12: Presenter when Business Sponsor does not present

Tables.

Table 1: System value by Category

Table 2: Summarized Value: General and with ERP

Table 3: Time to break even by system category

Table 4: Overall Supply Chain Execution Value Rankings

Table 5: Business Case Content Requirements with Evaluation of its Presence in Actual Documentation

Table 6: Ratings of Odds of Approval and Success

Table 7: Top 5 system categories by overall value

Table 8: Themes and Value Drivers by system category

Table 9: Hypotheses Rating Summary

32

5/19/2016 36




REFERENCES

[1] Financial Times, Surveys, September 2, 1998

[2] The OASIG Study (1995)

[3] Grover, V., Jeong, S., Kettinger, W., & Teng, J. (1995). The implementation of business process reengineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1(12), 109–144.

[4] Gunasekaran, A., and Ichimura, T. (1997). Business process reengineering: modelling and analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 50, 65-68.

[5] Standish Group, Chaos Manifesto, 2013

[6] Gunasekaran, A, Love, P., Rahimi F., and Miele, R. A Model for Investment in Investment Justification for IT Projects, International Journal of Information Management 21 (2001) pages 349-364

[7] Quinn, F. and Aschenbrand, J. Maximizing ROI from Technology. Logistics Management. January 2013.

[8] Strategic Measurement. By: Berry, John, Computerworld, 00104841, 7/22/2002, Vol. 36, Issue 30

[9] Leidner, Dorothy and Kayworth, Timothy. A review of culture in information systems Research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly v30, n2 (June 2006)

[10] Sharma, Arun, Iyer, Gopalkrishnan, and Evanschitzky, Heiner. Personal Selling of High Technology Products: The Solution-Selling Imperative. Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol 7(3). 2008

[11] Hadley, Scott. Making the Supply Chain Business Case. Strategic Finance, April. 2004

33

Supply Chain Execution Research Report - Eyefreight · Evaluating the Business Case and Approval...

Documents

Transcript of Supply Chain Execution Research Report - Eyefreight · Evaluating the Business Case and Approval...