Harley Davidson Motor Company - Understanding Harleys Requirements - Case Study Example

Harley Davidson Motor Company - Understanding Harleys Requirements Question 1   Factor Weight Provider 1  Provider 2 Provider 3 1 Long term Relationship Potential 4 H 20 H 20 MH 16 2 Research and Development 3 MH 12 H 15 MH 12 3 Training Approach 3 H 15 MH 12 ML 6 4 Implementation/Education/ Change 5 H 25 MH 20 M 15 5 Understanding Harleys Requirements 5 H 25 MH 20 M 15 6 Enabling the SMS 3 MH 12 H 15 MH 12 7 Out of the box Fit 3 MH 12 H 15 MH 12 8 Financial Viability 4 MH 16 H 20 MH 16 9 Cost 3 H 15 L 3 M 9 10 Technical Support Offerings 4 H 20 H 20 M 12 11 Overall Functionality 4 H 20 H 20 MH 16 12 Number of Partner Providers included in the Proposal 2 MH 8 H 10 MH 8 13 Architecture Compatibility 5 H 25 MH 20 H 25 14 Platform Portability 4 H 20 MH 16 H 20 15 Web Functionality "to go" 3 M 9 H 15 ML 6 16 Manufacturing Experience 2 H 10 MH 8 ML 4 TOTAL 264 249 204 Question 2 Considering that this analysis used a weighted system to not only give scores to providers based on their objective performance, but also on the relative importance of the issue in question, it appears to be a better decision to award provider A the contract. The provider has the best organizational fit with Harley. Therefore, the prospects of a long-term relationship are promising. The analysis above, developed through a weighted system, gives provider 1 as the best performer overall. While it does not mean that the provider with the highest score automatically wins, it shows that the provider is excellent in the areas where Harley values most. This provider consistently scored maximum points in the factors that had the greatest weight. This shows that they have a better chance of providing Harley with an ERP system that meets Harley’s most important needs in the most effective way. The reasons for choosing provider one are as follows. First, they had the best overall rating for understanding Harley’s requirements. This shows that they took time to study the needs and the requirements of the company. This made them potentially better placed to innovate as they worked on a solution based in their understanding. The case is that if a provider understands your needs, they have the best chance of providing you with an effective solution even if it is not immediately obvious. Just like Harley believes in providing unique products that meets the specific needs and requirements of each owner, it makes total sense for Harley to work with a provider that has a clear understanding of the needs of the Company. Secondly, provider 1 had the best overall fit after looking at all the requirements. The provider scored the highest number of “High” scores in all the categories. This point validates the assumption that someone that understands the company’s needs has the best chance of giving the company the best solution. The bigger point here is the fact that Harley has a better chance of getting close to what it wants by using provider 1 compared to the others. The best overall score means that the provider will make fewer mistakes, will require lesser supervision, and will give a solution that will have the least challenges for the company. Thirdly, provider 1 scored the highest in all the most important aspects of this project. While it is possible to have a situation, where the overall winner does not have the most competitive scores in the most significant aspects, in this situation, provider 1 is also the best one in these factors. It shows that this provider did not just understand the needs of the company, but went a step further and understood the priorities of the company. This shows an important trait that Harley must encourage in all its providers. If all providers meet Harley’s needs and priorities, then the company will have the best chance of going beyond the expectations of its customers. Finally, this suppler also had the best overall score for the less significant issues. This score shows how strong the solution provided by the provider is. While some providers may be very strong in the significant areas and weak in the less significant ones, provider 1 leads the pack in virtually all areas. It demonstrates thoroughness in their approach and a depth of excellence in their execution. This analysis shows that provider 1 is strong in virtually all departments. Question 3 The software selection process is a very well thought out way of arriving at a suitable solution. The use of a cross functional team to do it adds much organizational value since it brings the entire organizational culture into the process. The process is long and elaborate, which is justifiable based on the importance of the matter. In the overall analysis, it seems both comprehensive and thorough. This ensures that only viable solutions get to the company, but the cost of the process is high considering that at some point there was a need to commit full time resources in it. Strengths The strengths of the process are that it is thorough, objective and based on a deep understanding of the organization’s culture. The thoroughness of the process shows in the multiple steps and stages through which the venders pass to qualify as the providers of the systems. At each level, the project committee ensures that only the best placed providers pass on to the next stage. This insures quality and assures the company that the solution they will finally have is the best that they could get. The second strength of the process is its objectivity. The panels chosen use scientific measures to make decisions. The use of matrix diagrams shows that project committee knows the needs of the company well hence they can reduce them to measureable aspects. This is a strong case of using decision support systems to make objective decision on matters that less objective companies can simply use the subjective intuition of a few managers to decide on. Thirdly, the process aims to preserve the company culture as it acquires the software solutions. It is very possible for an organization to decide that software has no effect on the company culture and hence it can hire external consultants to make those decisions for it. Harley on the other hand, believing that it is a collaborative organizations, uses a process that seeks to make new friends and business partners. It matters to the company whether their providers fit into their organizational culture. This process demonstrates Harley’s high regard for its culture. Weaknesses There are some weaknesses inherent in the project. First, the company seem very interested in more than just the solution to their problems. While the basis for this interest includes the fact that they will need to work with whatever company that wins the tender, it makes it more difficult for them to decide on which organization has the best resources to meet its needs. Provider 3 is a case in point. It took the committee some thinking to realize that provider 3 had something valuable. Otherwise, this provider could have slipped through the cracks despite some very attractive economic opportunities their solution had. While on one hand it is important to maintain certain values as a company, on the other hand it can make the company loose some opportunities to get the best out of what it requires. The second weakness shows in the software selection tools they used. The analysis in this paper provided a weighted analysis of the same factors and gave a better result because it prioritized the ratings according to the most important issues for the company. The original analysis in exhibit 10 assumed that all the criteria had the same weight. This is never true, and reduced the potential value of the analysis. A weighted analysis provides a stronger basis for the decision. Proposed Changes The Harley software selection process can benefit from the following suggestions. First, it can improve the quality of the decisions rendered by using weighted matrices to make decisions on issues that do not have the same priority. Secondly, the company needs to step a little bit back from almost imposing its culture on providers. This reduces their objectivity. In addition, simply having a different organizational culture should not be the basis for loosing the opportunity to work with Harley. What the company should stress is organizational values. While culture may be distinct, shared values such as commitment to quality, timeliness and relentless customer support provide a stronger basis for a business relationship. Finally, the software selection process can improve is the company can use external consultants to reduce some aspects of the work. In this sense, it may not be necessary to redeploy staff from their station to work in this project so long as there are appropriate ways of ensuring that the consultant provides the information required. Works Cited Read More