ERP a delay reducer and task efficiency increaser

Before implementing major modules, the production manager sent out an internal memo that read: ‘[T]his is our main objective of [ERP] implementation: to make..the dates we give to customers more reliable…Then, we should be able to stick with them.

Now, whenever there is a change, there is re-scheduling..and that creates delay’. Many interviewees interpreted ERP as a solution to the pervasive delay problem. See an excerpt from a store staff member’s interview: “Delay is the main issue.. that is due to material shortage and lagging in production…we have unsystematic and unreliable material planning and production planning ..we don’t stick with them [the planned dates]..ERP solves these issues.”

In addition to posing ERP as a delay reducer, the memo and the quote together suggest: a) that the lack of time boundedness might be resting on unreliable estimations, b) the positive expectation that by improving the reliability of the estimation ERP technology may improve time boundedness, and c) that the existing system/practices have negative attributes, like unsystematism. These three points were repeated many times. For example, below is a part of an interview with one of the managers that shows the belittling of the existing time orientations, and the manager’s

expectation of “improving” some aspects of these orientations through ERP implementation:

“ I told you earlier; ERP makes us perform better, and forces us to record data timely and properly. This increases predictability. This makes customer delivery dates more accurate and feasible, as it should be. This is very important in the case of WestIndia.

Many customers see us as a traditional company that never does things in time and never keeps its promise. Always there will be delays. This is because we don’t have proper records, time sensitivity, and that we are unable to trace. ERP improves these aspects. Now everyone is coming to realize this.”

See an excerpt from assistant manager’s (APM) interview:

“ The main problem is delay. That is a frequent here. The main reason (for delay) is materials (shortage). Sitting in Production (department) you can say materials. Main issue is lagging. The approach to Indian customer is to say, “go and come tomorrow”.

In many places it is so. When it occurs many times, saying that it has been happening many times, they (Indian customers) put pressure on the Design and Sales (Design &

Sales dept). Design comes and tells the AE (Assistant Engineers). The AE stops other orders and diverts the materials to the pressing order. Thus there is lag, lag of 3-4 days. In that way when there is lag in say 4 lines (production lines) suddenly there comes a requirement from 50-60 orders…that needs just one week. That (order) also gets lagged. This carries forward from one month to the following. Thus it goes on and on. We hope that ERP will take care of such delays.”

This sensegiving discourse that employed a technology frame of ERP as a delay reducer had some effect. Other WestIndian employees (than managers) also interpreted ERP as a delay reducer that would increase efficiency. Below are some representative quotes that indicate this sensemaking of WestIndian employees (from my interviews):

Accountant: So the benefit is time saving and efficiency..by reducing delays and reduction in some workload. That is mainly automation of existing work.

Production engineer: In TIS (existing IS) info is limited to a section. To make it available to another department we have to manually copy it to that department. This also causes delays. In ERP, it’s automatic. It connects all sections and departments.

Thus it saves time and increases efficiency also.

Store supervisor: It reduces the time to fish out a piece of information. Thus increases the (task) efficiency. Fishing for information causes a lot of delays here.

Quality staff: ERP is for the reduction of production delays..through automation of tasks

Store staff member: ERP will reduce our cost and delay in processing, and saves time in processing and increase (task) efficiency.

Note the repeated point of delay reduction and resultant increase in task efficiency.

Appropriating this ongoing delay reducer discourse, the consultants framed time saving, and in turn task efficiency--two ERP benefits that they had projected--in terms of reduction in various delays. Below is an example:

“The main benefit is time saving..and increase in efficiency...reduces all delays..when you replace..traditional elements..with the ERP practices..industry accepted and so professional..to reduce delays..ERP helps with its built-in professional practices..that you cannot modify at your will..” (An ERP consultant in the first implementation meeting called project education).

From such sense giving discourse the employees directly involved in the

implementation reinforced their sensemaking using the frame of ERP a delay reducer and task efficiency increaser. Further, they furthered their sensemaking by expanding this frame, taking ERP as a less modifiable delay reducer that has objective

universally applicable standard professional practices. The adoption of the ERP standards was expected to result in delay reduction. See an excerpt from a manager’s interview:

“That time I thought that our (meaning employees’) input was insignificant, a bit of modification and nothing beyond that. It’s like SAP [a reputed ERP] comes to the company and the company has to fall into the SAP line..That time when we came out from the meeting we thought that is the only way..[ERP] has universal standard practices..we have to just adopt it…and that leads to delay reduction”

But there were a few other managerial employees (directly involved in the

implementation) who contested such an image of the technology or the technological frame. A functional manager became the informal lead of that group. For example, see an excerpt from his interview:

“ERP..by itself cannot reduce delays..that is the consultants’ fake claim..to dump their practices on us..need to accommodate our practices..they have to modify the software ..fine-tuning our procedures..will reduce delays”.

The functional manager (PM) strongly expressed his opposition in the next meeting (3 hours long), which was the first meeting to discuss implementation of inventory module, accounts module, and purchase module. WestIndian employees labeled this meeting as ‘PK (the functional manager’s name) sir’s fight with the consultants’. See a typical comment about this meeting:

APM (during an interview): It was actually a fight. PK sir suggested a lot of modifications including having four PO formats, which are different from their standards. He also told that Purchase division was not ready to change the existing practices just to match the standard practices. The consultants sternly told then it wouldn’t work since changing the software significantly is impossible and that WestIndia itself would be in great trouble. For example, PK sir suggested…..Then N and S (the consultants) rejected it outright saying that it was unnecessary and was difficult to make in the ERP…they asked us to justify if we make any suggestion for change..and they repeated many times that they can do nothing that touches the core..the system won’t allow it..all of us then thought we have to just yield to the system procedures… After a heated debate of about an hour, finally they (the consultants) agreed to change the standard code. Still, they did not change it

fully..perhaps there are some serious system constraints too..this is what many of us got from that meeting..

The sentence in bold indicates that in this meeting, as we have seen in the previous case study (GovIndia), the consultants were trying to create a perceived technology non-affordance. Below are some representative quotes from my interview that show the consultant’s (C) attempt to create technology non-affordance perception and its effect on the users.