CaseStudy/Enterprise Architecture

CaseStudy/Enterprise ArchitectureOrder DescriptionThe attached is document for case study (for Enterprise Architecture course) requirement is to analyze the document to outline THE ISSUES the company are facing and the general direction of the company the analysis should outlines all facts in the documents and provide a personal opinion page and include what suggestion to the company and what septs the company should take to achieve its goals. –will upload a details file9-600-006R E V : J A NUAR Y 2 2 , 2 0 0 3________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Doctoral Candidate Deborah Sole and Postdoctoral Reseach Fellow Mark J. Cotteleer prepared this case under the supervision of P rofessorRobert D. Austin. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsem ents, sources ofprimary data, or illustrations of eective or ineective management.Copyright © 1999 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685,write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechani cal,photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School.ROB E R T D. A US T INDEBORAH SOL EMA R K J . COT T E L E E RHarley Davidson Motor Company: EnterpriseSoftware SelectionWe were in McDonald’s having our initial SiL’K planning meeting when a gunghterupted in the parking lot. Bullets started ying through the restaurant. Someone said,‘Everyone down, lock the doors’. We all hid under the table. I’m lying on the oor looking atDave and Pat—I’m thinking, Holy Smokes, this is unreal. It was just incredible—a realbonding experience!—Garry Berryman, Vice President, Materials ManagementDavid Cotteleer, Information Systems (IS) Manager of the Supplier Information Link (SiL’K)project, smiled as he recalled the terror and subsequent camaraderie that had grown out of thatunusual beginning. It had set the tone for the partnership that developed between Berryman, PatDavidson, Manager of Purchasing, Planning and Control, and himself, as they workedcollaboratively to develop the specications for an integrated procurement system to support thenew Supply Management Strategy (SMS).Now he and the SiL’K project team were gathered in their “war room” on the top oor of theHarley-Davidson Corporate Headquarters to face another critical moment in the project’s history.After three hectic months of meeting potential software suppliers, reviewing documentation, andevaluating software packages, the SiL’K team had to make a decision. Who should they choose astheir supplier and partner in implementing an enterprise-wide procurement and suppliermanagement system? On what criteria should that decision be based? And had they done everythingpossible to enable them to make the right decision?The Harley-Davidson Motor CompanyHarley-Davidson Motor Company was founded in a shed in 1903, when young WilliamHarley and Arthur Davidson began experiments on “taking the work out of bicycling.” 1 By 1920 thecompany had become the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world, with production of over1 Harley-Davidson website at http://www.harley-davidson.com/.600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection228,000 motorcycles per year and dealers in 67 countries. In 1998, Harley-Davidson shipped 150,818motorcycles, a 14 percent increase over 1997, and a step closer to its ambitious Plan 2003 – the visionto dramatically increase production capacity by the company’s 100 th anniversary.Most of the company’s revenues and income were derived from motorcycles and relatedproducts ( Exhibit 1 ). Harley-Davidson employed approximately 6,000 people and supported over600 independently owned US dealerships. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the companyhad manufacturing facilities in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Missouri ( Exhibit 2a ), and whollyowned subsidiaries in Germany, UK, Benelux, France, and Japan.Harley-Davidson competed primarily in the heavyweight (>651cc) motorcycle market againstthe likes of Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kawasaki. Strong Japanese competition, coupled withHarley-Davidson’s rapidly expanding production and accompanying quality problems, had broughtthe company to the brink of bankruptcy in the mid 1980s. The crisis had prompted a managementbuy-out, followed by a renewed focus on quality and, subsequently, Harley-Davidson’s successfulIPO in 1986. Worldwide retail registration data through October/November 1998 showed thatHarley-Davidson’s target market grew by 13.8 percent over prior-year numbers. In that same timeHarley-Davidson had grown 14.3 percent. The company’s renaissance was viewed by some as asymbolic reassertion of American manufacturing prowess, and proof that US industrial companiescould compete against foreign rivals.Over the course of its 95 years, the Harley brand had acquired an almost mystical power.Many customers were willing to wait up to two years for a motorcycle. Harley-Davidson bikers weretraditionally perceived as young, reckless and “born to be wild.” However, much of the recentgrowth trend was fueled by riders in their forties with grown children no longer at home. Thesecustomers were drawn to the dream of adventure and freedom that motorcycling oered—and hadthe wherewithal to fund such recreation. Despite the gentrication of its customer prole, Harley-Davidson continued to revel in its image of being, in the words of CEO Je Bleustein, “a little bitspecial, a little bit mysterious, a little bit bad.” 2Harley-Davidson valued both individual participation and teamwork. The company appliedthe concept of self-directed teams from the factory oor to the executive level. Instead of employing afunctionally separated hierarchy, the organizational structure consisted of three interlocking“circles”: Create Demand (CDC), Produce Products Group (PPG), and Provide Support (PSC). CDCwas responsible for sales and marketing issues. PPG handled development and manufacturing. PSCfullled legal, nancial, human resources, and communications needs. Circles were headed bystanding committees or “Circles of Leadership,” as they were known. A Leadership and StrategyCouncil, comprised of executives from each group, provided oversight of the circles to ensure that anintegrated vision of corporate direction was maintained ( Exhibit 2b ).The Information Systems OrganizationTeamwork also played a role in the structure of the IS function at Harley-Davidson. Insteadof a Chief Information Ocer (CIO), Harley-Davidson had an “Oce of the CIO” in which three“Directors” lled the role of providing IS leadership. Cory Mason, Director of Information Systemsfor PPG, maintained “in the collaborative culture of this organization it is acceptable to shareleadership.” He elaborated on the need to have three people share CIO responsibility:2 Gina Imperato, “Harley shifts gears” FastCompany, no. 9 (June 1997): 104.H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-0063Senior management looks to the CIO to be their internal consultant; to give them guidanceand direction regarding technology’s ability to create business value. The problem is that it’stoo much ground for one person to cover eectively. Instead, each IS Director is tightlyintegrated in the business decisions of a circle and together, with the VP of Strategic Planningand Information Services, they are able to craft well-aligned business and enterprise-wide IScapabilities.To guide IS results, each Circle of Leadership had an Information Technology Circle (ITC), madeup of pairs of senior IS people and end users representing each site and function. The role of the ITCwas to understand group processes and interactions, and to decide, from a business perspective,where the group should focus its technology eorts. In PPG, the ITC was fully empowered to maketechnology investment decisions. Management considered the ITC to be in the best position tounderstand the needs of the business, since they were closer to the action.The Purchasing OrganizationAs part of PPG, the purchasing organization was tightly integrated with the engineering andmanufacturing operations. A purchasing development group was collocated with the engineeringcommunity at Harley-Davidson’s Product Development Center (PDC). Purchasing operationsgroups were located with their manufacturing counterparts at plants and facilities. A centralizedpurchasing planning and control group was located at corporate headquarters in Milwaukee.Leadership for the purchasing function was provided by the Purchasing Unity Group (PUG) whichwas comprised of purchasing managers representing the dierent Harley-Davidson sites. The PUGalso included members representing the company’s Maintenance, Repair, and Operations (MRO),Original Equipment (OE), Parts and Accessories (P&A), and General Merchandising (GM)purchasing activities. 3Over the years, site independence had been encouraged, resulting in dierent methods forhandling procurement, including the acquisition and/or development of dierent informationsystems for Purchasing. Not only were there separate systems for MRO and OE but systemsprovided by the same supplier had been modied to meet specic needs at local sites. For example,the OE system at Harley-Davidson’s York, Pennsylvania site was dierent from the OE system inKansas City, and both diered from the OE systems at Powertrain sites. 4Supply Management Strategy: Setting the StageWhen Garry Berryman joined Harley-Davidson in 1995, he became an important force forchange in the purchasing organization. Drawing on prior experiences at John Deere and Honda hesought opportunities to develop purchasing’s role within the corporate vision of Plan 2003.Berryman’s assessment was that the supplier relationship “wasn’t viewed as a strategic opportunityto speed time to market, reduce costs, and improve product quality.” Since purchased partscomprised 55-60 percent of a motorcycle’s value, Berryman was convinced that if the purchasingorganization could initially inuence cost, everything else would follow in terms of the internal3 MRO deals with items to be consumed during manufacturing, e.g. machine tool components; cleaning equipment. OEconcerns components to be included in the product, i.e. bought-in motorcycle parts. P&A deals with after market accessoriesand service parts, and GM concerns H-D clothing, collectibles and other licensed products.4 “Powertrain” refers to the motorcycle engine and transmission components.600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection4support needed to change the way the company interacted with its supplier community. Berrymanenvisaged the purchasing organization becoming a common enterprise-wide point of contact withsuppliers who would be real partners in Harley-Davidson’s business.Under Berryman’s direction, the purchasing organization began development of a corporatewide Supply Management Strategy (SMS) in 1996. The goal of SMS was “to ensure that Harley-Davidson is provided with the right product, at the right time, with the best quality, for the lowestpossible cost.” 5 A key element was articulating the distinction between a “vendor” and a “supplier.”Berryman elaborated on the dierence:A vendor is what you’ll nd on a street corner. You’re simply going to get the product thatyou see, you’re not going to get anything behind that product – in terms of innovation,creativity, and commitment to your business success. A supplier is an extension; is anopportunity to extend our primary business within organizations that can bring a competencyto product development and innovation.Throughout 1996, Berryman and the PUG engaged other functions and Harley-Davidsonsupplier organizations, articulating the SMS vision and enlisting participation in the renement of thestrategy. When it was published at the end of 1996, Berryman was condent that it truly incorporatedthe contributions of all stakeholders.At the heart of SMS was the need to shift the organization from a short-term transactionmentality to a long-term focus on supplier relationships. Collocation of suppliers with productionfacilities and their integration into Harley-Davidson’s development process was an important part oflong-term relationship development, but it could not be achieved by Purchasing alone. Berrymanremarked how platform teams 6 developing new products slowly became aware that Purchasingcould not leverage supplier resources single-handedly, and that they themselves were responsible fordeveloping a work plan to convince suppliers of the value of collocation.Harley-Davidson’s values and willingness to experiment were instrumental in facilitating theshift to the supplier relationship perspective. Berryman acknowledged that being an equal player,with Engineering and Manufacturing, was also key to achieving the vision of a new role for supplymanagement. Finally, the involvement of each functional area was essential in selling the strategy.Berryman commented:It’s simply having a presence in each one of the major segments of the company, so you’vegot a voice there and people don’t forget about the role of supply management. You’ve got tohave a strong voice in every major forum and discussion that goes on around the company tomake certain [the strategy] isn’t forgotten.Berryman argued that a slow and steady approach was necessary to build the necessary trust,enthusiasm and engagement in SMS. He insisted that the new way of thinking becomeinstitutionalized, before process and technology changes were addressed. He emphasized his point,quoting from his pocket copy of The Art of War: 75 SiL’K Newsletter 1998, no.1.6 A Platform team is a multifunctional new model development team, which includes representatives from engineering,manufacturing, purchasing, and marketing.7 Sun Tzu (BC2500) The Art of War, English Translation by Penguin Classics (1974), p. 10.H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-0065“When your strategy is deep and far reaching, what you gain by your calculations is much.So you can win before you ght.” And I think that’s what we are driving home. Too manytimes, we do just the opposite. “When your strategic thinking is shallow and near-sighted,what you gain by your calculations is little. So you lose before you even do battle.” We canaord to take the time to do it right. You’re better o being a little slow, a little deliberate tomake certain you get it right because you don’t have a second chance. For me, the key isbuilding a depth of understanding around the strategy.Time for Transformational Thinking: Let’s Get Wild!After a year of indoctrination and a couple of revisions, we nally said this thing is rock solid. We started tohear across the company people talking about the supply management strategy as their own. We knew then itwas time to begin to create a change in our process and the tool sets that we had to manage that process.—Garry BerrymanMason foresaw two main hurdles to introducing changes into purchasing processes andsystems. The rst was Harley-Davidson’s absolutely overriding concern with unmet demand and aresulting wariness of any change that might impact production. He commented:We have people that are passionate about making sure the lines continue to run. Whenyou’ve got that kind of “I’m not going to bring the line down” attitude, there are some reallyinteresting barriers that you’re going to have to go through when you are trying to convincesomebody to, in some cases, radically, change their processes and procedures.Mason’s second hurdle, a common problem faced by project teams, was the company’s“natural proclivity to continuously improve, rather than to transform business functions.”Davidson explained why change did not come easy to the company:We’re rooted in our heritage. I think part of it is the way our product line has evolved.We’ve got these big long life cycles on our products. 8 They don’t change frequently. We alwayshave continuous improvement, but larger scale, sweeping changes haven’t occurred unlesssignicant events presented reason to change.The combination of huge potential value and the change eort likely to be incurred made ISmanagement wary of this strategic initiative gravitating towards a continuous improvement project.Given Harley-Davidson’s historic functional autonomy, Mason knew that if transformational changewas to take place, it was imperative to get Purchasing leadership excited and committed beforeasking them to provide resources for a major systems project. In an eort to get the organization to“think out of the box,” Mason took the PUG osite for a brainstorming session and encouraged themto “get wild” in thinking about radical changes to their procurement processes. Reecting on theresults of the day, Mason commented “That discussion with the procurement leadership was a goodfoundation to start getting them to really think about procurement dierently.”8 For example, the design of the original V-twin engine, rst produced in 1909, is still used in motorcycles produced today. Itshould be emphasized that Harley-Davidson product evolution is strongly inuenced by enduring customer loyalty andattachment to tradition.600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection6Supplier Information Link (SiL’K)While Berryman and Mason were building commitment to SMS among Harley-Davidson’sleadership, Cotteleer and Davidson started investigating the possibilities for new systems andprocesses. There was a high degree of dissatisfaction with the existing systems, as well as a mismatchwith the SMS, which depended on people having the skills, resources, and time to focus on buildingsupplier relationships. In October 1997 the pair made a presentation to the PUG that laid out a “valueproposition” for instigating signicant changes in terms of people, processes, and technology. 9Elements of the value proposition included estimated purchasing cost reductions over ve years onthe order of $34 million, as well as a number of intangible benets ( Exhibit 3 ).Forming a Project TeamAt the PUG presentation, Cotteleer and Davidson asked for part-time resources from each ofthe procurement organizations to pursue the project. With Berryman’s endorsement, they were ableto handpick inuential players from across the PPG ( Exhibit 4 ). Cotteleer explained their selection:We wanted the best person. Someone who would be thought of as an opinion leader intheir organization, someone who was intimate with the existing processes, and who would bea tough customer during implementation should we get that far. We wanted to know thatwhen we were nished, we had the hard sell done already, that these people would be able toinuence their organizations to say “Hey, you know this is what we need to do.”Using SMS as a starting point, the SiL’K team tried to move from “strategy to action” to dene therequirements and capabilities necessary to realize the strategic vision. The team met three to fourdays a month between November 1997 and April 1998. Chuck Braunschweig, from Harley-Davidson’s Process Innovation group, joined the team in January 1998 and acted as a driver of twoimportant activities: mapping the “as is” procurement processes and conducting a stakeholdersurvey.Mapping “as is” ProcessesWe really started gaining momentum as a team when we started trying to talk about the process ow. Wehad at least three dierent central processes, but we kept driving it home saying that we want to think aboutthis in terms of why are we more similar than we are dierent. And if we can think about it in terms of commonpractices and common processes, then we may be able to get to a common system.—Chuck BraunschweigUsing recently developed maps of the MRO and OE processes from each site, the Sil’K teamcreated an enterprise-wide process map of procurement, sequentially incorporating the procedures ofthe P&A, MRO, and OE purchasing units. Despite the diversity of their processes, the team was ableto identify many commonalities across sites through this exercise.9 All Harley IS projects were framed around these three elements – Processes, People, and Technology—which comprised itsBusiness Integration (BI) model.H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-0067Stakeholder SurveyAlthough many team members felt that they already knew the main problems and that theyshould push forward developing system requirements, Braunschweig persuaded them that astakeholder survey was important to accurately identify the purchasing organization’s requirements.One survey sought to discover exactly what purchasing did on a day-to-day basis and wasdistributed to all purchasing representatives within the company. A second survey targeted keystakeholders such as Accounts Payable, Human Resources, and Logistics, who interacted withPurchasing. Although there were only about 200 individuals in the purchasing organization, morethan 2000 individuals generated purchase order requests.The survey results were sobering ( Exhibit 5 ). In contrast to the SMS goal of having personnelspend at least 70 percent of their time on supplier management activities, 10 results indicated that ahuge proportion (85%) of time was being spent on non-strategic activities such as reviewinginventory, expediting and data entry. As Braunschweig described it: “[the survey] became a battle cryfor the sponsors of the team. The PUG was blown away.”Mapping “to be” ProcessesNear the end of March 1998 the team started developing the “to be” process that representeda future vision for purchasing at Harley-Davidson. Shortly thereafter the team concluded that parttimeinvolvement was inadequate. Team members resolved to request a few full-time resources whowould be empowered by the rest of the team to dene the future processes.In early April, Cotteleer went to the PUG with a recommendation for full-time resourcesfrom OE, MRO, and Product Development. Again, Berryman’s support was indispensable inretaining access to key people. A reduced core team continued to work full-time while original teammembers stayed loosely connected to the project through videoconferences and occasional meetings.For the purposes of the project, “full-time” meant Tuesday to Thursday – on Mondays and Fridays thethree purchasing team members returned to their respective sites or organizations. Cotteleerexplained the importance of keeping these team members plugged into their organizations:If we were to take those three out of their jobs full-time, they’d start becoming disconnectedfrom what’s happening day to day. We didn’t want that to happen because we knew that itwas going to be a long-term project. We knew that we needed to keep in contact with the sitesso that we wouldn’t wind up designing something that met requirements that didn’t existanymore.Despite external pressure for visible activity by the team, Cotteleer was determined to besystematic about identifying processes so as to ensure appropriate software selection and a smoothimplementation. By May 1998, having mapped the existing enterprise-wide process, and completedthe stakeholder surveys, the core team started rening the “to be” process into requirements forHarley-Davidson’s new purchasing information systems.10 Strategic Supplier Management Activities at Harley were seen to include Supplier Relationship Development, SupplierPerformance Management, and Improvement of Quality, Cost and Timing measures.600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection8People, Processes, and TechnologySimilar to other systems projects, the SiL’K team used Harley-Davidson’s BusinessIntegration model, which highlighted People, Process, and Technology when considering changeinitiatives. Under SMS the “People” element had been restructured from a decentralized to a hybridorganization, 11 and a group of purchasing managers had been assigned to redene roles andresponsibilities. “Technology” decisions had been deferred to Harley’s Architecture Integrationgroup (AI). 12 AI was made responsible for ensuring that the technical solutions dened by the Sil’Kteam would be compatible with the existing IS architecture in place at Harley-Davidson. The Sil’Kteam then turned its focus to the “Process” element of the project.A critical step in early process development was dening project scope. The “as is” processow developed by the Sil’K team had identied a number of interfaces with other functions. Byviewing product development as a progression from idea to obsolescence, the team was able toidentify a series of broad activities in which Purchasing was involved. Each of these activitiesdisaggregated into sub-activities, with associated stakeholder groups (e.g. purchasing, engineering,manufacturing, nance, suppliers). Once stakeholders were identied, the team was able to decidewhether Purchasing should be owner and driver, or merely a participant in an activity ( Exhibit 6a ).The team then clustered project activities into three implementation phases ( Exhibit 6b ).Throughout this process the team focused on managing expectations. There was frequentcommunication between the team and the target internal audience of approximately 800 people – 200within procurement and 600 in related functions. Team-led communication updates regarding theproject status were held at each site on a quarterly basis. Cotteleer gave monthly updates to the PUGand quarterly updates to Harley-Davidson’s Supplier Advisory Council. 13 Julie Anding, the team’sChange Management representative, was responsible for regular project newsletters thatcommunicated objectives, activities and progress to the community at large.The team’s shared vision of new processes and activities simplied the task of completing ajointly written functional specication or Request for Quote (RFQ). On September 30 th, 1998 a draftcopy of the RFQ was circulated through the Purchasing organization to give internal stakeholders achance to review it and oer feedback. Internal acceptance and validation of the RFQ was promptand positive. The supplier selection process began to pick up speed (see Exhibit 7 ).Supplier SelectionOn October 16, 1998 the RFQ for new systems to support SMS was submitted to a short list ofpotential suppliers. Identication of candidates had begun months earlier when Cotteleer sent adocument that described Harley-Davidson’s SMS goals to a well-recognized industry researchorganization, requesting recommendations for potential software suppliers. To the six names theresearch organization oered, Harley-Davidson added several more based on incumbency issues11 Harley-Davidson’s organization is neither fully centralized nor fully decentralized. Some activity and decision makingoccurs at a corporate or central level (e.g. all product development activity), and some happens at the operational or site lev el(e.g. on-going operations support).12 AI is responsible for dening the strategic direction of IT at Harley-Davidson. This group sets standards for hardware andsoftware conguration.13 The Supplier Advisory Council comprises 16 of Harley’s strategic suppliers who meet on a quarterly basis to discuss supplymanagement issues.H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-0069(i.e., the presence of the potential suppliers’ products within Harley-Davidson) and other informationto which the team had access. Potential suppliers were requested to notify Harley-Davidson of theirintent to bid by October 25 th.The Provider ConferenceI think we shocked a lot of people in that room. Here we were, a bunch of purchasing people, a projectmanager, a change management person, and a process reengineering person, really no executives in the room,no high level decision makers. Here’s this team of worker bees who is ultimately going to make a decision aboutthe software. I don’t think they were ready to deal with that.—Julie AndingThe provider conference was the suppliers’ rst exposure to the team who would make theselection decision. Davidson started the session by providing background to Harley-Davidson’spurchasing organization. Chuck Carter, a Senior MRO buyer, took the stage next with a strongstatement of the Harley-Davidson values and the team’s expectations of the process. Carteremphasized that Harley-Davidson considered its values sacred (see Exhibit 8 ). One supplierrepresentative described his impressions:What Carter said struck me as fascinating—he said: “We sell an image and we sell fun. Ourproducts are cool! The stu you guys sell is boring. OK, it’s bits and bytes and it’s like thenecessary evil. We’re really sorry but that’s the way it is.” In terms of them telling us what theirvalues were, it was very clear that this was their culture, their company and they were lookingfor partners who had the functionality and could adapt to their culture.Next, Cotteleer explained the link between the supply management strategy, operationalrequirements, and capabilities (see Exhibit 9 ), and emphasized Harley-Davidson’s “ground rules” forthe process. The SiL’K team was explicit about not seeking a full ERP solution, 14 that the scope waswell dened, and that suppliers shouldn’t waste time pitching additional functionality. Cotteleerstressed two-way accountability, adding “we expected them to hold us accountable, so if theythought at any time that we are not dealing fairly then we expected them to check us as well.”The supplier representative commented afterwards: “We walked out of there very condent thatthis was a company that knew what they were doing and had a process in place. We knew that theteam was the decision-maker.”Proposals and PresentationsEight suppliers submitted both a response to the RFQ and a completed self-evaluationchecklist. The team used the checklist as a quantitative measure of the initial functionality t (seeExhibit 10 ). From this functionality checklist, two groups immediately emerged – those that ratedthemselves 90-plus percent t and those that were less than 90 percent t.Although the team had planned to allocate review responsibility to pairs of team members, inthe end there was sucient time for each member to view all proposals. Questions were submitted to14 ERP or “Enterprise Resource Planning” refers to a class of software packages that seeks to integrate nearly all of the interna lfunctions of the organization. See HBS Technology Note No. 699-020 “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)” for moreinformation on these types of packages.600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection10the company teams in advance of a three-hour presentation scheduled for each. To assist in theevaluation, the team developed a booklet in which they could document the supplier’s proposal foreach section of the specication, record weaknesses and strengths, and check o criticalrequirements.In addition to the SiL’K team, IT specialists including Tom Cullen, Systems Manager for PPG,and Karen Kaminski, Manager of Architecture Integration, attended the provider presentations. Theirrole was to review each package’s architectural requirements and to identify likely interface issueswith existing Harley-Davidson systems and IT initiatives in progress. In all, seven presentations werecompleted within a week. 15 The team then settled down to seriously evaluate what they’d seen andread, and to eliminate unsuitable candidate proposals.Narrowing the eldWe didn’t just say: “hey, everybody, vote for your top three and we will go.” Even though some peoplewanted to do that. I wanted to make sure that we were focusing on the process and the functionality and thepluses and minuses. So we went through each company and we did a pro and con list.—David CotteleerIn attempting to narrow the eld of potential suppliers, the team evaluated a combination ofwritten proposal, presentation, and notes from each member. Suppliers who had self-rated theirability to meet the specication at less than 90% (three were in the 70% range) were unlikelycandidates. However, the presentations did create some surprises for the team. One supplier with“great functionality” was eliminated on the basis of architectural incompatibility with Harley-Davidson’s current and planned infrastructure standards. Another supplier, specializing inpurchasing systems, charmed the team with their “sweet package.” However, the company wasultimately eliminated after an objective consideration of its small size and potential ability to meetfuture support needs. The team consciously chose to focus on functionality and to avoidconsideration of economic (cost) factors at this stage. After intensive discussions, the team reachedconsensus on three nalists.The next step involved setting up visits to these three suppliers’ sites where an extendeddemonstration of their software package was to be conducted. In this next round, the SiL’K teamcreated ten scenarios, based on process and technology requirements from the functionalspecication, that providers used to demonstrate their products. During January 1999, two full dayswere spent with each nalist in an eort to develop a deeper understanding of both the package andthe organization. Again, the entire SiL’K team was involved in these visits, and both qualitative andquantitative methods were used to evaluate the nalists’ proposed solutions. See Exhibit 10 fordecision criteria and evaluations, and Exhibit 11 for a selection of team member impressions.Three Final ContendersProvider1Right from the start, Provider1 distinguished itself. Its representatives asked appropriatequestions, they clearly acknowledged Harley-Davidson’s values, and seemed comfortable with the15After the conference, two suppliers had declined to bid, and an additional contender dropped out after submitting aproposal.H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-00611casual but competent Harley-Davidson style. The written proposal from the Provider1 team wasprecisely tailored to the requirements documented in the RFQ, and clearly addressed each of theSiL’K team’s issues. On the self-evaluation checklist, Provider1 scored 93.4 percent. During the initialpresentation the SiL’K team felt a natural anity to its representatives who seemed to have a similarcompany culture. At the provider conference they had stood out in the SiL’K team’s eyes, by buyingHarley-Davidson gear for their whole team. During the company visits in January, the SiL’K team feltextremely comfortable with the broader Provider1 team who might become potential teammates.In terms of functionality, Provider1 was not the leader, although none of the three nalists oereda perfect t to the specications. Its package did not provide “web-enablement” directly but its teamproposed integrating a partner solution to achieve this. On the organizational side, however,Provider1 was very aware of change management issues, and change management and trainingprocesses were an integral part of its implementation methodology.Provider2Provider2 was also one of the early leaders in the selection process. It was a major ERP supplierand was widely admired in the industry, although its products tended to be more expensive thanthose of its competitors. The proposal documents submitted to the SiL’K team were comprehensiveand it achieved the highest scoring on the quantitative functionality checklist (98.7%). Provider2’srepresentatives were extremely professional although perhaps somewhat more formal than Harley-Davidson was used to. Their presentation was equally immaculate and comprehensive.The company visit and demonstrations conrmed the superior functionality of Provider2,including a seamless web-enabled interface. Although the supplier team provided a package forwriting training documentation, they didn’t emphasize methods or processes for assessingorganizational needs and preparing people for change. A few SiL’K members were also wary of theheavy “consultant” attitude which prevailed.Provider3Provider3 was a major ERP player and had recently been engaged by Harley-Davidson to providesystems in a dierent functional area. The company had not initially distinguished itself. Thesoftware proposal was considered “boilerplate stu” and some questioned whether the supplier hadeven read the RFQ. The initial presentation was a disaster. The supplier representatives were late;they hadn’t even met a representative from the company with whom they would be partnering; theyoverran their time; and didn’t demonstrate much functionality. The Harley-Davidson team also feltantagonized by the condescension of the supplier representatives. However, Provider3’s score on theself-evaluation functionality checklist was very high (96.8%), and the team felt they could not dismissthis company out of hand. After much discussion, the team had agreed to give Provider3 two morehours to make its case. A subsequent presentation did indeed conrm the functional possibilities ofProvider3’s software.Consistent with earlier signals, the company visit in January revealed solid functionality but aweaker focus on social dimensions. The team was skeptical but could not overlook potential politicaland economic advantages associated with Provider3.600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection12Making the DecisionThe SiL’K team had sought to include in their decision all factors that might substantiallyinuence the ultimate implementation success of the procurement software project. Some of themhad very clear thoughts on the relative importance of dierent dimensions:Braunschweig: “Functionality, I think, is the key thing that we were looking for. Even if thereare personality conicts we can work with those. All three of the providers have thearchitecture. Cost is going to be added in there. I certainly hope that functionality is going to be#1 in terms of what we get out of it. Because that’s what people are going to see, that’s whatthey’re going to use day to day. And that’s what’s going to cause them pain or discomfort.”Jarosz: “If all I had to do is say: ‘End user, here’s your functionality’, I’d be a fool not to selectProvider2. But I am very concerned that the change people are going to go through is going tobe ten times more dicult than software implementation. You can take a terrible product and,if you get the people behind, you’ll succeed, and you can take a wonderful product and, ifeverybody ghts it, you’ll fail. So we need to put some serious thought into the whole issue ofchange management and the implementation.”Anding: “We need to do the right thing, we need to pick the software that’s truly going toprovide the most functionality to the purchasing community and to the strategy and directionthat we want to move into for the future. I think the team is very conscious of that.”Pues: “People like to do business with people they like. So a big part of this is looking at theorganizations that we see—Provider1, Provider2 and Provider 3. We need to understand thepersonality of their organizations, and try to get a better understanding of the support thatthey have behind it. Because implementation is when the real work starts and we have to becomfortable with who we go with.”Cotteleer: “Harley-Davidson is a very relational company. We are looking for partners. But wereally want to pick the best product for our process. If we need to, we can deal with[personality conicts] for the implementation. . . . That is not as insurmountable asimplementation risk based on functionality that doesn’t exist.”As the SiL’K team took their places at the table everyone looked around the war room at thevolumes of information they had gathered. The process had been long and the choice of a supplierand partner still loomed. Cotteleer wondered whether Harley-Davidson’s approach linking thesoftware selection process to the overall Supplier Management Strategy had been appropriate?Would all the steps they had taken during the selection process add value to their decision? Howshould the team balance the various strengths and weaknesses of each supplier candidate in makinga nal selection? With these questions and others circulating in his mind, he turned his attention tothe team and opened the discussion.H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-00613Exhibit 1 Harley-Davidson Financial Highlights 161998 1997 1996 1995 1994R evenues $2,063,956 $1,762,569 $1,531,227 $1,350,466 $1,158,887H-D Motorcycles $1,595,415 $1,382,809 $1,199,163 $1,038,335 $890,578Parts & Accessories $297,140 $241,940 $210,229 $192,093 $161,928General Merchandise $114,484 $95,055 $90,713 $100,248 $94,383Buell Motorcycles $53,527 $40,305 $24,380 $14,154 $5,791Defense & Other $3,390 $2,460 $6,742 $5,636 $6,207Domestic sales as a percent of% 4 . 1 7 % 3 . 0 7 % 5 . 2 7 % 0 . 4 7 % 9 . 5 7 e u n e v e rInternational sales as a percent ofrevenue 24.1% 26.0% 27.5% 29.7% 28.6%Gross margin $690,670 $586,217 $490,094 $411,399 $358,339Operating Expense—Motorcycles $366,222 $320,731 $262,001 $226,923 $194,829Operating Expense—Corporate $11,043 $7,838 $7,448 $7,300 $9,948Eaglemark income 17 $20,211 $12,355 $7,801 $3,620 —Pretax Income $336,229 $276,302 $227,622 $175,989 $156,440N et income $213,500 $174,070 $166,028 $112,480 $104,272Earnings per common shareBasic $1.40 $1.15 $1,10 $0.75 $0.69Diluted $1.38 $1.13 $1.09 $0.74 $0.68Weighted-avg. common sharesBasic 152,227 151,650 150,683 149,972 150,440Diluted 154,703 153,948 152,925 151,900 153,365Dividends per share $0.155 $0.135 $0.11 $0.09 $0.07Closing share price $47.38 $27.25 $23.50 $14.38 $14.00Cash & cash equivalents $165,170 $147,462 $142,479 $31,462 $57,884Total current assets $844,963 $704,021 $613,129 $331,983 $334,127Total assets $1,920,209 $1,598,901 $1,299,985 $1,000,670 $676,663Total current liabilities $468,515 $361,688 $251,098 $233,210 $154,769Finance debt $280,000 $280,000 $250,000 $164,330 —Other Liabilities $141,783 $130,545 $136,167 $108,561 $88,662Total Liabilities $890,298 $772,233 $637,265 $506,101 $243,431Total shareholders’ equity $1,029,911 $826,668 $662,720 $494,569 $433,23216 Amounts are in thousands, except per share amounts and share price.17 Eaglemark Financial Services, Inc., is a Harley-Davidson subsidiary that provides wholesale and retail nancing, insurance,and credit card programs to Harley dealers and customers.600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection14Exhibit 2a Company Sites and FunctionsSITES FUNCTIONSWisconsinMilwaukee Corporate Headquarters;Parts and Accessories;General Merchandise;Sales;Research and DevelopmentWauwatosa Product Development Center;XL Engine & Transmission productionMenomonee Falls FL Engine & Transmission productionFranklin Parts and Accessories Distribution CenterTomahawk Fiberglass parts production and paintingPennsylvaniaYork Parts production;Painting;Motorcycle nal assembly (custom & touring motorcycles)MissouriKansas City Parts production;Painting;Motorcycle nal assembly (“Sportster” motorcycles)Exhibit 2b Circles of LeadershipITCITCITCProvideSupport(PSC)CreateDemand(CDC)ProduceProduct(PPG)Leadershipand StrategyCouncilH arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-00615Exhibit 3 Envisaged Benets of SiL’KPeople—Changes in behaviors that eect the way work is done.Reduced non-strategic sta time and tasksError correction/resolutionElimination of duplicate data entryIncrease in strategic procurement activitiesSupplier developmentStrategic sourcingProcess—Changes in methods used to get work done.Reduced complexity through uniform procurement process across all sitesEnabling of the MRO strategyReduced procurement cycle timeReduced manual activityReduced confusion in supply base caused by site specic processesIncreased supplier integration in procurement processAchieve Quality, Cost & Timing (QCT) target for procurement related to new product launchTechnology—Changes in tools used to get work done.Reduced complexity through common tools and systemsReduced system maintenance and obsolescence costsData consolidation for decision makingEnterprise view of supply base activity and performanceEnterprise aggregation of demand to leverage suppliers and contracts (across sites andfunctions)Increased supplier access to quality, cost, timing and demand dataAll of the benets listed above have direct impacts on the Harley-Davidson/Supplier relationship.Best practice data from similar implementations demonstrate that these benets manifest themselvesas follows:1) Lower material costs due to decreased labor and supply chain costs;2) Decreased inventory costs due to more predictable demand and better visibility in the supplychain;3) Lower carrying costs due to less inventory in Harley-Davidson plants.Source: Harley-Davidson internal document600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection16Exhibit 4 SiL’K Team Composition and Team Member ProlesSponsors:Garry Berryman (Purchasing)—VP of Materials ManagementDave Storm (IS)—VP of Planning and Information ServicesSteering Committee:Garry Berryman (Purchasing) —VP of Materials ManagementDave Storm (IS)—VP of Planning and Information ServicesTom Cullen (IS)—Systems Manager—Produce Products GroupPat Davidson (Purchasing)—Manager—Purchasing Planning & ControlCory Mason (IS)—CIO Produce Products GroupProject Team:Julie Anding (IS) – Change Management representativeChuck Braunschweig (PI) – Process Innovation representativeChuck Carter (Purchasing/PDC) – Purchasing representative for product development withexperience as a senior MRO buyer in the Powertrain organization, and previously a member ofthe MRO Best Practice CircleGlenn Christianson (Purchasing/THK) – Materials Manager at Tomahawk with over thirty yearsof Harley-Davidson experienceDave Cotteleer (IS) – Project ManagerEric Doman (Purchasing/GM)—Purchasing representative for General MerchandisingEileen Jarosz (Purchasing/PDC)—Purchasing Engineer for product development with severalyears’ experience as an OE buyer at YorkMaxine Peissig (Purchasing/PTO)—Purchasing representative for the Powertrain organizationRick Pues (Purchasing/KC)—Process Manager for Purchasing Planning & Control, alsorepresenting the Kansas City production facilityKerry Sarder (Purchasing/P&A)—Senior Buyer and purchasing representative for Parts &AccessoriesBob Walker (Purchasing/York)—Purchasing representative for York production facility, havingmore than twenty years experience in materials management at Harley-DavidsonBlaine Webster (IS) – Systems AnalystH arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-00617Exhibit 5 Breakdown of Purchasing and Materials Professionals Time by ActivityDeveloping SupplierRelationships5% Supplier Evaluation 3%External Correspondence11%ReviewingExpediting Invoices 10%9%Replenishment Orders 3%Requisition Requests 4%Discrepancies 5%Non-Purchasing Activities7%Other Purchasing Activities 4%Other Activities10% Managing Supplier Performance2%Internal Correspondence 16%* Bolded Activities Goal = 70%Approving Invoices 3%Data Entry 8%Source: Harley-Davidson internal document600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection18Exhibit 6a SiL’K Project ScopeDevelopment Order /Scheduling Requirements MaterialOrderingInboundLogistics ReceivingInternalMaterialMovementMaterial Use /ConsumptionDistributionConcept toProduction PartCustomer Orders &Product PlanMRP / DRP Requirements toSupplier ShipmentSupplier Dockto Harley DockReceiving toPoint of UseComponents toFinished GoodsFinished Goodsto CustomerSiL’K will deliver processor enable process to be definedby another groupNot within SiL’K scopeLegendExhibit 6b SiL’K Implementation PhasesPhase1: Transaction Processes / Systems. These are processes and systems used to support theexecution of fundamental Purchasing activities including:a) Requirements / Requisitions / Timingb) Creating Purchase Documents (Ordering)c) Receipts / Trackingd) Invoice ProcessingPhase 2: Supplier Information Processes / Systems. These are processes and systems used to managerelationships and information exchange within the Supply web including:a) Supplier Performance Reportingb) Supplier Communication and Integrationc) Contact ManagementPhase 3: Project Tracking Processes / Systems: These are processes and systems that supportPurchasing activities related to:a) Concurrent Product & Process Delivery Methodologyb) Product Planningc) Resources Allocationd) Target Costinge) Build and Launch ReadinessSource: Harley-Davidson internal documentH arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-00619Exhibit 7 Summary of SiL’K Project Activities and MilestonesJanuary 1997Supply Management Strategy rollout beginsJuly 1997 Initial SiL’K planning meeting at McDonaldsOctober 1997 Value presentation to Purchasing Leadership GroupFall 1997 “Let’s get wild” brainstorming sessionNovember 1997 Allocation of resources from Purchasing to form the SiL’K project teamNovember 1997–March 1998Mapping “as is” procurement process; identication of commonalitiesacross sitesApril 1998—September 1998Developing “to-be” processes; systems team engagedMay 1998 – ongoing Change management communication to stakeholder communitySeptember 30, 1998 Completion of Functional Specication (RFQ); Distribution to internalstakeholders for review.October 9, 1998 Feedback from internal stakeholdersOctober 16, 1998 Distribution of RFQ and invitation to bid to selected software providersOctober 25, 1998 Software providers conrm intention to bidNovember 5, 1998 Software Provider ConferenceNovember 16, 1998 Proposals due from potential software providersDecember 1-4, 1998 Formal presentation of proposals to Harley-DavidsonDecember 7-11,1998Review of proposals and presentationsDecember 11, 1998 Shortlist selection of three potential providersJanuary 10-22, 1999Two-day presentations and scripted demonstrations at shortlistproviders’ sites, and reference checks with installed customersJanuary 30, 1999 Finalist selection600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection20Exhibit 8 Harley-Davidson Business Values and IssuesBusiness V alues Business I ssuesTell the truth QualityBe fair ParticipationK eep your promises ProductivityRespect the individual FlexibilityEncourage intellectual curiosity. Cash FlowExhibit 9 SiL’K Strategic Roadmap—From Strategy to ActionSupply ManagementStrategy Future StateElementsStrategic Managementof Supply BaseSupplier RelationshipsQuality, Cost, andTiming StrategiesSupply ManagementStrategy OperationalCapabilities Supply ManagementStrategy People, Processand TechnologySupply ManagementStrategy OperationalRequirementsSupply ManagementStrategyPurchasing Activities Supply ManagementStrategyBusiness ValueInternationalOperationsSupply ChainMentalityRole of PurchasingWin/Win RelationshipsOpen CommunicationAccountabilityManaged ChangeOptimization ofHuman CapitalProven BusinessValueInformationManagementStakeholderFocusFlexibilityRelationshipManagementCycle TimeManagement50-75%Driven by People20-40%Driven by Process5-10%Driven by TechnologySupply ManagementActivities 70%(e.g. managing supplierrelationships, supplierperformance, facilitatingQCT improvements)Other Activities 30%(e.g. reviewinginventory, expediting,data entry)$Source: Harley-Davidson SiL’K newsletter, no.3.H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-00621Exhibit 10 Software Provider Selection—Decision Criteria and EvaluationsEach provider was evaluated using a quantitative and qualitative approach. The quantitative methodwas based initially on each provider’s self-rated match to the technology and process requirementsoutlined in the functional specication. Technology robustness and ease-of-use were also considered.Provider1 Provider2 Provider3Functional Criteria Value Pct. Fit Value Pct. Fit Value Pct. Fit1. Design and Foundation 118 98.33% 120 100.00% 115 95.83%2. Request Denition 232 92.06% 244 96.83% 247 98.02%3. Documentation 140 89.74% 156 100.00% 156 100.00%4. Receiving 150 93.75% 156 97.50% 142 88.75%5. Supply Management 48.8 76.25% 64 100.00% 59.2 92.50%6. Project Tracking 22.4 100.00% 22.4 100.00% 22.4 100.00%7. Miscellaneous 236 93.65% 248 98.41% 248 98.41%8. Interfaces 59 98.33% 60 100.00% 58 96.67%9. Training 24 100.00% 24 100.00% 24 100.00%10. Other 112 100.00% 112 100.00% 112 100.00%Total Provider Score 1142.2 93.44% 1206.4 98.69% 1183.6 96.83%The three nalists were also evaluated (L=Low; M=Medium; H=High) on a number of qualitativecriteria. These were chosen to highlight the potential providers’ understanding of Harley-Davidson’scurrent and future requirements, their ability to provide implementation and ongoing technicalsupport, and the overall likelihood of a mutually benecial long-term relationship.Provider1 Provider2 Provider3Qual i tative C ri teria R ating R ating R ating1. Long Term Relationship Potential H H MH2. Research and Development MH H MH3. Training A pproach H MH ML4. Implementation / Education / ChangeManagement MethodologyH MH M5. Understanding Harley’s Requirements H MH M6. Enabling the SMS MH H MH7. Out of the box Fit MH H MH8. Financial V iability MH H MH9. Cost H L M10. Technical Support Offerings H H M11. Overall Functionality H H MH12. Number of Partner Providers included in SolutionProposalMH H MH13. A rchitecture Compatibility H MH H14. Platform Portability H M H15. Web Functionality “ to go” M H ML16. Manufacturing Experience H MH M600-006 H arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection22Exhibit 11 SiL’K Members Impressions of the Three FinalistsProvider1Cotteleer: “They did a dynamite job. They truly distinguished themselves as understanding what itwas we were trying to do. As we understand it our needs are fairly similar to [another Provider1client]. Beyond that, they worked very hard and paid very specic attention to what we wanted.They are a very attentive company and they have been extremely honest…I’m actually prettyimpressed.”Christianson: “Out of the box, they were impressive. The people were the right group of people tosend. They knew the software. They knew what they wanted. When they came in for theirpresentation, the entire team had Harley shirts on. It gives you the impression that they value beinghere. When we went to them for the demos everybody had Provider1 shirts on. It gives you the ideathat there’s a big potential that the culture of that team matches with ours… I think that their goalwas to answer all of our questions and to try to meet with our culture and try to sell us the fact thatthey really wanted to do this job at Harley-Davidson without being obnoxious, condescending, orpushy or anything like that. I think they made a real good case. And the other thing was that their[core] team exhibited the kind of cultural diversity important in today’s world.”Carter: “I think it was very evident that they understood what I had said in the rst part ofNovember. The people involved in the demonstrations were passionate about their product, and theyunderstood what their product could do. They were also quick when there was something in ourdemo script that didn’t match the functionality. They provided us with a work-around—“We can’tdo it this way, but this is how we can do it.” That shows that they read [the RFQ], and theyunderstand what their software can do. And to me that’s impressive.”Anding: “Provider1 probably did the best job of paying attention to the people dynamics—in termsof who had ownership or investment in certain pieces of the process. They were very, very goodabout making sure that they engaged each of us on an individual level relating to where we t in onthe team. They focused their attention toward me when they talked about training and changemanagement issues, they focused attention toward the purchasing people when they were talkingabout specic functionality.”Jarosz: “Provider1 was very impressive. They stood out in all our minds because the enthusiasm ofthose folks was just fabulous. It was also the most diverse group we had which was interesting. Theydid an excellent presentation that addressed all areas. It was strong on the change management sideas well as functionality. From the people side they’ve been very, very strong. That, to me, appears tobe their strength right now.”Provider2Jarosz: “ Provider2 was exactly as I had anticipated. They were on time and very formal. Very ‘shirtand-tie’ approach, but that’s the kind of impression we’re getting of Provider2. They did a very nicejob on the demos—we got this vision of “Oh, this ows through beautifully.” They have a majorstrength in their software product. It comes very close to the line by line detail that we had spelledout in our specications in a lot of areas.”Christianson: “Equally impressive. And they were impressive during the four-hour session. It wouldappear that they had software that really had to be included in the nal round. In the demo visits,they also provided work-arounds where they couldn’t meet what we actually were asking for. WeH arley Davidson Motor Company: Enterprise Software Selection 600-00623walked out of there with what we were looking for.”Pues: “Provider2 was more classic. [The distinction] between the two is Provider1 was more laidback, t the Harley mentality and personality a little bit more. Provider2 gave more of the traditionalsales pitch and you could see the hierarchical situation. You could see where they focused theirattention within the group, and you know they paid more attention to the people ‘higher up’ in thegroup than others. However, the bottom line is they have a very, very nice package there.”Provider3Cotteleer: “When we went through the plus and minus thing, our review, we were really left with adilemma with them, which was: strictly on a personality thing it’s easy for us to dismiss them, but asfar as functionality goes, we didn’t have enough information to dismiss them. They had a very highscore, but we also didn’t see enough of the product in the presentation. There is a third factor here—that Harley-Davidson recently engaged Provider3 on a separate project. “Webster: [explaining the rationale for the extra session] “We can’t discount or discard them becausethey haven’t done anything to get selected. But if you look at all the publications out there, Provider3does have some good press in terms of their overall ERP package, as well as their purchasingpackage.”Carter: “We’ve got to get past the people and the presentation, and see if there is any value to theirsoftware. And we think there is, between the [partner] front end and their software—that’s whythey’re still in it. And we’re aware that Harley’s in the early stages of dealing with Provider3 onanother project. So for us to have the information that we needed in case there was some internalpressure to go to Provider3, we felt that we had to take a little bit harder look at them. There may besome economic benet in going to them.”Jarosz: “I didn’t feel I could give them a grade on functionality, though I could certainly grade themon timeliness and presentation skills. We hadn’t had a chance to see the actual software, which is abig chunk of the functionality we need to understand. [During the extra session] we started torecognize that the software was very competitive to everything else we had seen…. There’re probablyprice advantages. There’re certainly integration advantages to staying with the same company if theycan provide the right solution “


Last Completed Projects

# topic title discipline academic level pages delivered
6
Writer's choice
Business
University
2
1 hour 32 min
7
Wise Approach to
Philosophy
College
2
2 hours 19 min
8
1980's and 1990
History
College
3
2 hours 20 min
9
pick the best topic
Finance
School
2
2 hours 27 min
10
finance for leisure
Finance
University
12
2 hours 36 min