September
2003
Build, Buy, Port or Stay?
What an IT
organization committed to the 3000 should do
Second of
three parts
By John
Burke
Last month I
summarized my HP World presentation and laid out a basic formula for
determining a strategy for addressing HP 3000 transition issues. This
month, I will examine each alternative in detail.
Choices,
Choices, Choices
Even HP now
admits that most HP 3000 users have yet to commit to a transition
strategy. Despite what some consultants, vendors, and even HP are
saying, there is no obvious choice. In fact, a portfolio solution
that combines several of the alternatives may be the best bet for
many. Ill detail that in next months installment, since
it borrows from the other four options.
Remember, you
really do have multiple choices. You can build every module, or just
parts, of a new system essentially from scratch, but utilize the
knowledge gained from your existing systems of what works well and
what does not. You also have in-depth knowledge of the business
processes for your organization that make a build less
risky. You can buy (replace) some or all of your systems with
best-in-industry software. You can port or migrate your code from the
HP 3000 to some other platform. (This is where most of the activity
from consultants, vendors and HP is focused.) You can choose to
stay where you are indefinitely.
There is no one
size fits all solution. Every organization is different. Your
challenge is to determine what is the best combination for your
organization.
In examining your
choices, keep in mind a couple of things. The line between
build and port is blurred somewhat,
especially if you plan to port completely to native mode. A marginal
application ported natively to another system is still going to be a
marginal application. Do not overlook the challenges involved in
moving your data to another platform.
Your data is
critical. Unless you plan to homestead indefinitely or use Eloquence
on your target platform, you will have to convert your data. You need
to intimately understand both the physical and logical structure of
your data. In a typical HP 3000 application, the logical
structure is usually buried in the code. Take advantage of any
free help offered by HP, its partners or other software
and hardware vendors. Just remember that free does come
with a price: those offering free advice usually have an agenda,
which is to steer you in a direction where they can make money off
your transition project.
Your transition
is going to cost a lot of money whichever path you choose, so
consider hiring a firm or consultancy to do an independent transition
study for you. You could even try to stipulate they would have no
participation in any future transition project you enter into as a
result of their recommendations as a way to ensure their
independent evaluation.
Build: Pros
and Cons
When you
build you have total control over the transition and the
final product. Building leverages your companys resources and
existing business logic while allowing you to take advantage of new
technology. Studies indicate that at most 33 percent and as little as
10 percent of your code is business logic. The rest is presentation,
database, reporting, glue, etc. Your costs are most easily managed in
a build scenario and are potentially smallest among all the options.
You have the opportunity to do it right this
time.
Build
might be part of a portfolio solution. For example, you might decide
to buy software for the back office functions and then build value
added organization and industry specific surround code. If you have
marginal code, it may be preferable to rebuild than to port. This was
a situation I faced some years ago. I was brought in to save a
floundering consolidation project. It was apparent to me early on
that the code they had designed and programmed was marginal at best.
Immediately upon getting everything up and functioning, I started in
on a rebuild effort. It took almost four years (and did not involve a
platform change) but it was done with existing personnel and without
any increase in budget because we had complete control of the
effort.
Build
will almost certainly take the longest time to complete. A lot of
people discount this option for that very reason. However, if your
current systems are serving you reasonably well, then you have the
time. In the situation HP 3000 users currently face, a build or
rebuild project means a new platform and the learning curve which
that implies. If your resources are limited, you may have to impose a
lengthy code freeze on your existing systems so you can make progress
on your build project. Your project will have to include significant
end-user documentation and training, something programmers are
notoriously bad at doing.
Buy: Pros and
Cons
If an ISV
currently provides your primary application and your ISV is porting
to another platform then you are essentially in a buy situation. Your
ISV is asking you to buy its new package, a package that
certainly has no history and may not be as stable as what you are
used to. You need also to consider whether your vendor has the
resources and stability to pull off its migration. At this point, you
owe it to your organization to evaluate the offerings of other
vendors.
Buy
is your opportunity to get best-in-industry software to run your
organization or a part of your organization. Buy can be
part of a portfolio solution where you buy the back office
applications since there is no point in reinventing the wheel and
then leverage you staffs talent and business knowledge to build
or port value-added surround code. If you are buying, choose the
application first, not the platform. Since you will be changing
platforms anyway, you should concentrate on getting the best possible
software fit for your organizations needs. Many applications
run on multiple platforms so you may still be able to choose the
platform you are most comfortable with. In buying software, you may
either gain or lose functionality. It depends.
Buy
will be your most expensive option short-term, particularly if you
purchase a complete ERP system. Maintaining control over costs,
schedules and people is a significant challenge. Studies suggest that
as few as 10 percent of ERP implementations actually finish on time
and on budget and, as many as 35 percent are cancelled outright.
Extensive end-user training will be required and there is a high risk
of business disruption.
You will
undoubtedly have to make the decision whether to make the business
fit the software by changing your business practices, or make the
software fit your business through extensive customizing. If you
customize too much, you run the risk of not being able to upgrade
when the vendor rolls out a major new version. Understand that you
may lose functionality and that packaged applications do not
necessarily take fewer resources to maintain, in fact, you may need
to add headcount plus bring in consultants during the implementation.
The buy decision, particularly of a complete ERP system,
puts you and your staff at the most career risk.
But perhaps not,
in spite of the evidence. I was involved, though not as the primary
decision maker, in an SAP implementation moving from homegrown HP
3000 systems that took almost six years (the original schedule was 30
months), and cost over $30 million in direct costs (compared with an
original budget of under $10 million). We saw a doubling in total
IS/IT personnel (as opposed to a budgeted constant), saw an increase
in central clerical personnel (the budget called for a decrease), and
ended up with a near 100 percent turnover in IS/IT. Believe it or
not, this project is being trumpeted by the company as a major
success story.
|