Given that the IOIS is heavily reliant on integrating with suppliers’ systems to function, the supplier on-boarding process becomes a crucial phase in the IOIS implementation project. The purpose of the research in Task 4 was to provide a retrospective analysis of the ten supplier integration projects undertaken in order to inter-connect suppliers and contractor firm’s back- end ERP systems through the sponsoring company’s platform (referred to as the Hub Provider in the current context). The portfolio of the suppliers, the details of the procure-to-pay process and the project development methodology adopted is provided in detail in Paper 4. Of the ten integration projects, four commenced almost simultaneously towards the end of 2011, whilst the other six projects were kick-started in the following six months (see Figure 4:5). Although each project was initially planned to follow a pre-determined schedule, most phases in the project run concurrently to speed-up the setup and project go-live. It is important to note that, Paper 4 uses the term eCIX (electronic exchange of commercial information) which refers to the intermediation of back-end ERP systems (and procurement processes) between the main contractor and its suppliers for seamless exchange of transactional information (including, but not limited to, product and pricing information, order, delivery and invoice data).
4.3.1.1 Method
Utilising multiple sources of data as evidence, the RE gathered information in relation to the technical and project related issues during the supplier on-boarding process. For each integration project information extracted from emails, project development logs, technical documents and case study notes were compiled in a master spreadsheet. An example of the data collection instrument can be found in Appendix A. The master spreadsheet contained key
information such as the start and end date of each project phase; the number of emails exchanged (including average response times) and; the duration of the technical development tasks. The reasons behind lack of progress were also recorded together with all the relevant information including the details of the delay, the source organization and the impact of the delay on the project timeline. The activities that resulted in unnecessary hold-ups include: non- communication, unavailability of the systems, setting up joint meetings, late change requests, and so on. The compilation of evidence from multiple sources produced detailed, reliable and accurate information over the lifetime of each project. In terms of data analysis, the major issues that resulted in project hold-up were codified for thematic analysis. In addition, the interaction patterns between project participants was extracted from the email data and visualised using an online data visualisation tool called ‘Circos’9 for descriptive analysis (Krzywinski et al. 2009).
4.3.1.2 Findings
The findings from the research revealed that supplier integration can be a very lengthy process, lasting anywhere between 6.5 months to over 3 years. Much of the delay is attributed to the prolonged periods of inactivity in the commercial agreement, project specification, connection and mapping, and phase 2 testing stages. Figure 4:6 provides a visual comparison of the mean duration of each stage where implementation, phase 1 testing and deployment stages are significantly lower than the grand mean, indicating the minimal impact of these stages in the overall duration of supplier on-boarding programme.
The case study analysis revealed four types of challenges and barriers (technical, coordination, integration and organizational) which surfaced during the supplier on-boarding process. Table 4:3 provides a summary of the key findings and lessons learned from the case study. It is important to note that these challenges and barriers are neither a purely technical development nor an entirely project management related issues. For example, although the findings point to significant amount of projects’ duration (87% on average) being consumed by coordination related issues, the root cause of most delays stem from the complexity behind the technical setup. In particular, the business rules and validation logic applied (which is setup to enable highly accurate information exchange between the parties) increased the development efforts, which subsequently led to the complications arising in some integration projects. Paper 4 provides a detailed analysis of the rest of the issues that cropped up during the supplier on- boarding process.
Overcoming the challenges and barriers reported in Table 4:3 require significant effort from all parties involved in the integration process; including the main contractor, the suppliers and technology solutions providers (that is, the hub provider, and the third-party service providers to suppliers). Several critical success factors deduced from the case study findings. Accordingly, the implications of the findings for the supplier on-boarding stage of the IOIS implementation include the following.
• Develop an implementation strategy which provides a clear guidance and vision for the implementation teams.
• Ensure that the supplier integration strategy is coherent with the supply chain management strategy. For example, contractors should consider undertaking a long- term strategic evaluation of their relationship with suppliers to ensure that only the right selection of suppliers are incorporated into the IOIS project portfolio.
• Involve senior-level management for direction, guidance and support on decisions concerning business/supply chain process re-design.
• Allow room for flexibility in business rule/validation logic in order to reduce interfacing issues and to avoid unnecessary complexity with the integration.
• Ensure that there is mutual commitment from the suppliers in terms of allocation of adequate time and resources for the project.
• Ensure effective coordination, communication and documentation of the project activities.
• Devise a risk management plan specific for each integration project.
• Adopt collaborative working principles and practices with the project participants. • Appoint people with the right skills, knowledge and experience on EDI and
procurement.
Although the case study contractor firm embarked on a journey to implement IOIS with ten of its suppliers, two integration projects were dropped due to relationship discontinuity whilst the decision to go-live for another project was significantly impacted by the changes in the supplier’s business. Thus, only seven integration projects were operational and ready to go- live by around mid-2013. The next research task focusses on the post-implementation stage to investigate the extent of IOIS adoption and acceptance throughout the case study organisation.