172 (a) A critical evaluation of using the software package approach at Flexipipe could be structured around three factors. The first
concerns the wisdom of using a package solution for a process where the company enjoys a competitive edge over its
competitors. The second factor focuses on the difficulties of selecting an appropriate package in an environment where
requirements are difficult to define and are still subject to change. The final factor revolves around the problem of successfully
procuring a software package in an organisation which lacks both experience and a process for selecting and procuring a nonstandard software application. Each of these factors is now considered in turn. Other appropriate factors and relevant
approaches will be given credit.
Competitive edge
It is generally accepted that software package solutions cannot provide organisations with a competitive edge. By definition
such packages are available to all companies in a sector or market and so any commercial advantages offered by the package
are available to all organisations competing in that market.
It is recognised that the control of the production process at Flexipipe was very innovative. It provided the company with
significant competitive edge over their competitors. For this reason, it seemed unlikely from the start that Flexipipe would find
a package that fulfilled its exact requirements and that any selected package would constrain the production process. Indeed,
this is what happened, with the new system unable to replicate the flexibility and efficiency of the existing one.
Initially, the company would have been advised to consider the location of the process on the Harmon process/strategy grid.
The process is strategically important and relatively complex. Software package solutions should primarily be considered for
reasonably straightforward commodity processes which have low strategic importance to the company, such as payroll and
accounts. Thus, in the context of Flexipipe, a bespoke software solution would, from the outset, appear to have been more
appropriate.
Complexity and nature of requirements
It was recognised from the start that it was relatively difficult to specify all the requirements of the production process in
advance because many decisions were intuitively taken by experienced managers and supervisors on the factory floor. It was
often difficult for them to explain why they had taken certain effective decisions. It is very risky to select a software package
against incomplete or unarticulated requirements. If significant requirements are missed or misunderstood then it is difficult
to address the problems this might cause.
There are at least three potential approaches to addressing the problem of the software failing to fulfil requirements, but each
of these has disadvantages. The first approach is to ask the software vendor to integrate these requirements into the next
release of the package. However, even if the software vendor agrees, it may be a costly solution as well as allowing such
innovations to become available to all users of the package. The second approach is to ask the software vendor to build a
tailored version of the application to fulfil specific requirements. This is likely to be expensive (so reducing the cost advantages
of buying a package) and cause long-term maintenance problems and costs as the tailored version has to be integrated with
new releases of the standard software package. The final approach is to seek a manual work-around for the missing
requirements. However, this may also be costly as well as reducing the business benefits which should have been obtained.
Whichever approach is taken, it is likely to either reduce the benefits or increase the costs of adopting a software package
solution.
