Skip to main content

Nestle SAP Implementation Year 2000


The article on SAP implementation in Nestle is one of the interesting case study. You may also be involved in ERP implementation in your company - as a consultant or an a user - you will hear this murmur,

"SAP implementation is very difficult in our company. The present software is the best."
"Our company has lot of politics. I don't think any other company has it. So will people agree on business process."
"Some division may reckon, SAP does not fulfil all the business processes. We can produce any report from our legacy system"
"Some will say, we don't have time to discuss or participate in the training. They will always say we don't understand or training is inadequate."

What ever the size of the company USD 100 million or multi-billion dollar - you will find two sets of people. One who think they can and other who cannot !!!

Nestle case is very good example, how much time they took to implement the solution and the lessons learned. Read more on www.cio.com

Problems encountered in Nestle. (Jeri Dunn, vice president and CIO of NestlŽ USA head of implementation)

  • Angry employees, costly re-engineering and long periods when it seemed the project would never end?
  • "When you move to SAP, you are changing the way people work," Dunn says. "You are challenging their principles, their beliefs and the way they have done things for many, many years.
  • Power base at the division or company levels across the region. So each one had their own ideas to it their way.
  • We had nine different general ledgers and 28 points of customer entry. We had multiple purchasing systems. We had no clue how much volume we were doing with a particular vendor because every factory set up their own vendor masters and purchased on their own.
  • Even before three of the SAP and the Manugistics modules were rolled out in late 1999, there was rebellion in the ranks. Much of the employee resistance could be traced to a mistake that dated back to the project’s inception: None of the groups that were going to be directly affected by the new processes and systems were represented on the key stakeholders team.
  • Nobody wanted to learn the new way of doing things. Morale tumbled. Turnover among the employees who forecast demand for NestlŽ products reached 77 percent; the planners simply were loath or unable to abandon their familiar spreadsheets for the complex models of Manugistics.




Lessons learned from implementation

If Dunn were to do it over again, she’d focus first on changing business processes and achieving universal buy-in, and then and only then on installing the software. "If you try to do it with a system first, you will have an installation, not an implementation," she says. "And there is a big difference between installing software and implementing a solution."

If you are a SAP or Oracle consultant, share your experiences on the project and how did you overcome resistance to change.

Regards,

Santosh Puthran
AICWA






Do you like to be updated in Accountancy ?

Click here to get updates by Email in your inbox

Or


Subscribe in a reader

or Follow me on Twitter 


You may also like to read
  1. How to overcome resistance to change
  2. Red Monkey Innovation
  3. World's 50 most innovative companies
  4. Books of Mintzberg on Amazon
  5. Books of Philip Kotler
  6. Porter's Diamond
  7. Understanding Three Stages of Change
  8. My Experience in Tata Motors Impl SAP 4.6C
  9. SAP FICO Year End Procedure
  10. SAP Interview Questions
  11. Top SAP Implementers - Forrester Wave Report
  12. Home


Subscribe to RSS Feeds to keep up-to-date
  1. Management Accountant
  2. Accountancy News
  3. My Favorite Blogs that I track
  4. SAP Jobs & Opportunities


Labels:
1 comment

Popular posts from this blog

Learning Curve Theory

Learning Curve Theory is concerned with the idea that when a new job, process or activity commences for the first time it is likely that the workforce involved will not achieve maximum efficiency immediately. Repetition of the task is likely to make the people more confident and knowledgeable and will eventually result in a more efficient and rapid operation. Eventually the learning process will stop after continually repeating the job. As a consequence the time to complete a task will initially decline and then stabilise once efficient working is achieved. The cumulative average time per unit is assumed to decrease by a constant percentage every time that output doubles. Cumulative average time refers to the average time per unit for all units produced so far, from and including the first one made.

Major areas within management accounting where learning curve theory is likely to have consequences and suggest potential limitations of this theory.


Areas of consequence:
A Standard Costing …
Read more

Throughput Accounting

Throughput accounting (TA) is an alternative to cost accounting proposed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. It is not based on Standard Costing or Activity Based Costing (ABC). Throughput Accounting is not costing and it does not allocate costs to products and services. It can be viewed as business intelligence for profit maximization. Conceptually throughput accounting seeks to increase the velocity at which products move through an organization by eliminiating bottlenecks within the organization.


Cost (or Management) accounting is an organization's internal method used to measure efficiency. Since no one outside the organization uses such internal accounts for investment or other decisions, any methods that an organization finds helpful can be used.


Throughput accounting improves profit performance with better management decisions by using measurements that more closely reflect the effect of decisions on three critical monetary variables (throughput, inventory, and operating expense — defin…
Read more

Resistence to Change - Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger

The Six (6) Change Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger is a model to prevent, decrease or minimize resistance to change in organizations.
According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four reasons that certain people are resisting change: Parochial self-interest (some people are concerned with the implication of the change for themselves ad how it may effect their own interests, rather than considering the effects for the success of the business)Misunderstanding(communication problems; inadequate information)Low tolerance to change (certain people are very keen on security and stability in their work)Different assessments of the situation (some employees may disagree on the reasons for the change and on the advantages and disadvantages of the change process) Kotter and Schlesinger set out the following six (6) change approaches to deal with this resistance to change: Education and Communication - Where there is a lack…
Read more