Nestle Erp Case Solution
Nestle ERP Case Elevator Pitch:The Nestle USA case is a good case study for ERP implementations as it contains both successes and failures. There were breakdowns during the planning phases of the project yet the overall result can be considered successful due to the amount of money that they are saving due to the ERP rollout. At first glance, ERP seems to be the solution for every company’s problems. An ERP system helps the different parts of the organization share data and knowledge, reduce costs, and improve management of business processes1. Of course, these opportunities come at a high price in terms of financial cost and human issues. Another lesson that can be gleaned from the Nestle USA case is that an ERP implementation is not the project that companies should attempt to force into a specific timeline. Also with the future of the company on the line, it is important to completely define the business goals of the project and then create a timeline that will accomplish those goals. Next, training is one of the key elements of any ERP implementation because without it employees that will be using the system and the new business processes on a day-to-day basis will not be prepared to do so. It is crucial that employees receive training early and often throughout the project. By examining the experiences of Nestle USA other companies can learn valuable lessons that can be applied to their own rollouts.
What does the author (Ben Worthen) of the article mean by “Nestle’s Crunch?” Does this correspond to anything we covered in class or is this “new” information?Nestle’s crunch meant that too many activities and changes were forced to roll out by a specific timeline without proper consideration. This is not new information. We have come across similar challenges in the BAE Automated Systems case, when the Denver International Airport tried to squeeze in a centralized automated baggage system for the entire airport in a very short time. In Nestle none of the groups that were going to be directly affected by the new processes and systems were represented on the key stakeholder’s team. Also, workers did not understand how to use the new system; they didn’t even understand the new processes. A technical problem soon emerged as well. In the rush to beat the Y2K deadline, the Best project team had overlooked the integration points between the modules. All the purchasing departments now used common names and systems, and followed a common process, but their system was not integrated with the financial, planning or sales groups. The offsite group members eventually decided that to finish the project they would need to begin at the beginning, starting with the business requirements then reaching an end date, rather than trying to fit the project into a mold shaped by a predetermined end date.