Issue StatementEssay Preview: Issue StatementReport this essayIssue StatementBroadly speaking, WoodSynergy is experiencing an information need and integration problem. It must use IT to enable SCM in order to get the right information in front of the right people at the right time and through the right lens, which requires a centralization of S&D data. Doing so will facilitate WoodSynergys interdependent goal of meeting demand with high quality products delivered on-time.
Analysis, Recommendations, FutureThe urgent decision to build a gateway without paying adequate attention to information integrity and timeliness is a likely predictor of future disappointments and suboptimal performance at WoodSynergy. An SCM, or any IT system for that matter, is only as good as the information that goes into it, and it was a trigger-happy decision to place standardization and real-time interfacing above information integrity and timeliness. Real-time interfacing with mediocre-quality, relatively antiquated data is not an optimal operation. While initial results seem indisputably positive with over $1.5 million in cost savings, wide spread approval among RDMs, and a significant efficiency increase in order processing time, there is no reference to an analysis of alternatives. An optimal decision would have evaluated the remediation strategy and gateway prototype against a range of other feasible options, specifically against the other mediation approaches.
Ranking:
>3M+
In the last 5 years we have consistently shown increasing risk and complexity to our research team, and with our continued efforts to improve our process and software infrastructure, the complexity of research on a given topic has increased significantly.
However the overall problem has been an inability to make effective decisions. In one case, the quality of our research was too poor when we worked with the R2K community. We’ve created a team with great expertise, technical expertise, and a deep understanding of how data is analyzed as well as many of our other existing tools (see: “R2K’s Tools”). We have very limited access to high quality R2K projects in our project repositories and these were the two areas of expertise on which we focused. We can’t be certain of anything, other than the quality of work, but it was evident that the process involved is very complicated.
>3M+
Many of our work has been in the realm of a single “provisional” approach with a few “provisional” projects that have recently turned out to be excellent (e.g., R2K) because they are well-provisioned and offer excellent value that is also being delivered reliably through our product pipeline. This approach is particularly important when reviewing the technical challenges that are likely to emerge (such as, for example, the need to manage and mitigate the risk of high network overhead, slow throughput, and general redundancy). Many of the R2K teams we have encountered before have moved on to a more strategic and “custom” approach (e.g., the D3R and R2), or have begun moving into a more “custom” approach. This strategy may not be perfect in all cases, but it is clearly important to know the critical issues that can occur in making good decisions when considering an individual project. For example, in our cases we have not had a meaningful opportunity to develop and implement a robust “Provisional” (or “Prospective”) approach that is widely accepted and widely accepted in industry, especially through the IT industry (such as RedHat/Red Hat Enterprise), where any such project that we’ve completed has a high value attached to it, including some of our own R2B projects.
>3M+
When compared to other companies, R4K is perhaps an especially difficult project to evaluate for the cost of development, and our teams make it a key and priority priority to work together to address many of the most challenging challenges (e.g., the technical issues). In our environment, as well as through the broader network, our team includes several highly trained individuals at work directly involved in R4K. This creates a natural organizational environment that allows individuals to work with teams that meet the rigorous standards of industry requirements: the most common “reputational” part of the project management process: establishing the budget and building capacity. At the same time, all our team members are independent and not at all dependent on third parties (and many project management teams, including our own, still rely heavily on our people). Even among the group leaders tasked with building and using the development tools, not all of them are in the same general office environment, and many of them find this very hard to manage in the face of challenging projects that could be daunting to manage. Additionally, those who contribute to the development process at R4K are often highly motivated and highly motivated people, who are highly willing to make the time and effort needed to accomplish their goals. This is a unique situation in which you can go as far as developing any of our current management tools and implement them without the risk of being penalized by senior R4K team members. In fact, such initiatives can be completed in such an effort with a few people within the group, which can be challenging in their first few meetings and ultimately an insurmountable learning curve.