CMP 570: ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMSJuly 19, 2015

Assignment 3 Case Study - OilCO & ExploreCO Gopinath Ramakrishnan10000127352Virginia International University

Dr. Hammad ElbedourEnterprise Information SystemJuly 19, 2015

Case Study - OilCO & ExploreCO

1. Compare and contrast the implementation of OilCO and ExploreCO. What were the similarities and differences between the two implementations?

OilCOExploreCO

OilCO, is a refiner and advertiser of a wide scope of petroleum items in Australia and 11 nations in the Pacific. As one of Australia's major mechanical organizations, OilCO specifically utilizes more than 2,000 individuals and claims resources esteemed at give or take $2 billion.ExploreCO, is an oil and gas investigation and generation organization in southwest Australia. ExploreCO is a partner of OilCO. The organization is included in seaward gas and oil investigation and generation.

Chosen centralized server based ERP arrangement. One of the biggest most complex centralized computer execution on the planet.Driven by OilCO head office

They performed expense examination, set the degree, made suggestions and gave initiative on the directing advisory group.

Real change to the organization's business procedures to coordinate the ERP's handling strategiesFramework objectives were situated through execution pointers.

Best individuals be discharged full time for the life of the undertaking and a 'venture champion' put on the controlling panel.

Boost the mix advantages of the ERP while at the same time streamlining the organization's current procedure.Financial plan and task extension were extensively more unassuming than the OilCO usage

Additionally included the advancement of an oil industry-particular module.They wanted to actualize and Go Live with the framework in 11 months.

Brought about significant business advantages for OilCO. Deals anticipating, completely mechanized requesting and conveyance forms, ongoing money related information, enhanced information and streamlined business process.Documentation on the current framework showed that a comprehension of the necessity was at that point progressed however they took the chance to reestablish and reengineering the framework

2. Why do you think the projects were successful? Was it the articulation of CSFs? Was it their strategy of minimal customization? Or something else? Explain.

Yes it was successful, ExploreCO held fast to the standards of insignificant customization and conveyed dates however amid the testing stage, it was get to be unsuitable to the clients. Accordingly they run two weeks past their end date. OilCO administration backing was just basic in arranging, setup and improvement. ExploreCO administration backing was basic all through the usage. Both organizations have the same CSF yet they contrast in that ExploreCO had a procedure and structure keeping in mind the end goal to encourage its accomplishment a venture champion was essential. This individual was given characterized obligations. OilCO was not formally perceived and the individual in the part changed extra time and there were no procedure and structure was passed on. There were additionally impressive variety in the example of CSFs between the two organization. Both embraced an arrangement of negligible customizations and deliverable dates. OilCO was compelled to commission an oil industry-particular module.

3. What can we learn from this case? Also, provide suggestions for improvement. ExploreCO followed minimal customisation and delivered dates but during the testing phase, it was become unacceptable to the users. OilCO was driven by critical in planning, setup and enhancement. Though the same implementation methodology is used in both the companies the outcome may different which depends on the CSF which is used.

References:

[1]. https://myenterprisesystem.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/week-4/

[2]. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323072141/pages/2203107341