Tektronix : Global ERP implementation - Full case PPT

1. Tektronix, Inc.: Global ERP
Implementation
Presented by-
Deven Sudame (131119) Harsh Asthana (131125)
Harshita Singh (131126) Kamesh Joshi (131128)
Manjary Agrawal (131130) MihirThakor (131131)
Mradul Saraswat (131133)

2. History
• Founded in 1946 as electronic test equipment maker in Oregon.
• Expanded into manufacturing electronic tool and devices
• Business split: 1) Measurement Business Divison(MBD)
2) Color Printing and Imaging Division(CPID)
3)Video and Networking Division(VND)
• Presence in 60 countries and a worldwide leader in Oscilloscope,
television test measurement and monitoring equipment.

3. Need for New IT system
1) Lack of integration and presence of incoordination of IT
system.
2) Global competition was increasing
3) Financial performance was suffering
• 460 legacy systems in US alone
• No standardisation
• Redundancy of order entry at multiple places
• Chance of error
• Incomplete and Inaccurate information

4. MovingTowards ERP system
• Neun (CFO) vision’s: “Frankfurt is Orlando”
• Initiated by Roy Barker, President of CPID
• Inability of existing system to support the division
• CPID expansion plans: from niche market of graphics terminals in
mainframes to mass market PC based customers
• Easy justification for ERP implementation

5. ExpandingTheVision
Neun’s vision for the enterprise had 3 components
• Separability of the businesses
• Leveraging shared services
• Staying as “plain vanilla” as possible

6. Planning for ERP
Selecting Software Project Organization &
management
Worldwide business model Project Schedule

7. Selecting Software
•Retain manufacturing package
•Buy v/s Build
•Single vendor ERP strategy to refrain from issues like
• Maintenance
• Integration
• Upgradation
•Choosing Oracle

8. Worldwide business model
•Steering committee
• To develop a “Global business model”
• To develop “Business practice changes and guiding
principles”
•Complex Architecture

9. Business practice changes and guiding principles

10. ERP System Architecture

11. Project Organization and Management
• Key roles like program manager, user leader, global leader,
functional experts, power users, functional sub teams and test
teams.
• Combination of technical and functional strength to resolve
issues.
• Project headed by Carl Neun (CFO) – final arbiter and had
complete authority on implementation. Also established a set
of fundamentals.
• Division presidents and Neun acted to resolve major project
management problems.

13. Project Schedule
• Carl Neun believed scheduling much more important than
budget.
• A single change program consisting of many “waves”.
• Waves were scheduled to deliver a specific functionality
with feedback expected.
• Also some flexibility in scheduling.

14. Implementation
• Split into five major sub-projects
• First led by Gary Allen, IT Director – Finance and HR
Systems, two through four led by divisional IT
Directors consisting of OMAR projects and the final
global rollout led by Gordon
•Financials in parallel with OMAR in CPID division (first
in US)

15. Implementation - Financials
•Goal to have single view of all financial information
worldwide
•Required a number of changes in business processes
•Allow visibility of up-to-date information
about financial status by standardizing charts-
of-accounts and eliminating complexity

16. Implementation – Financials (contd.)
• Europe with larger changes
Profit-center to a straight commission basis
No supervisory duties but only administrative
Change in financial transaction processes with single location i.e.
Marlow, England
• Single language and single measurement basis insideTektronix
• Sales people using local language
• Oracle package not satisfying all requirements

17. Implementation Support
• Small and large consulting firms as well as independent
consultants
• Aris Consulting specialized in Oracle implementations
• Functional expert teamed with user and IT leads fromTektronix
• For less functional and business expertise  lower cost technical
consultants, developing interface between Oracle and
manufacturing package  small firms
• Cost reduction due to resell the interface to other companies

18. Order Management/Accounts Receivables
(OMAR)
• Omar implementation was similar to financials in its approach, but
different in execution. “PlainVanilla” implementation is not fully
possible here because of following reasons :
1.Different business lines have different types of customers.
2.Oracle did not have some of the functionality required for OMAR.
3.Customer facing documents should be in local language.
4.Each country had slightly different legal language for official
documents.

19. Implementing OMAR at CPID
• Natural choice – Favoring Management, build to order stock.
• Initially launched in beta version and instability forced
implementation team to spend months on debugging.
• Initially Poor results by large consulting firm, later hired Aris,
oracle and other consultants.
• Tektronix took responsibility of business change while
consultants worked on the system details.
• For additional ManpowerTektronix hired contractors from otther
small firms.

20. Implementing OMAR at MBD
• More Complex Structure, large number of Products.
• CPID assembled products domestically and relied heavily on
local distribution centers, while MBD’s new business model
demanded direct shipment to end customers.
• Hired Oracle consultants at a very early stage.
• Extensive testing was done which delayed the project but
resulted in zero startup problems.

21. Implementing OMAR atVND
•Advantage:
• VND was the smallest of the three divisions atTektronix.
• The implementation team was in a position to benefit from all
the prior work that had been done in the other two divisions.
•Issues:
• The most complex products.
• Division was in the process of absorbing a recent acquisition.

22. Implementing OMAR atVND
•VND went for a rapid implementation.
•They were helped by their small size, since few people
needed training and few people could mount aggressive
resistance.
•In the end, the fast, high risk approach worked forVND.
•They were able to implement ERP quickly.

23. Global Rollout
• Taking the “wave“ approach to the international sites, starting
from Europe.
• Because implementation in Europe would address majority of
international implementation issues.
• Started with distribution center in Holland because everybody
used that.
• Implementation was successful.They were able to ship even more
quickly than before.

24. Global Rollout
• After Holland DC implementation, theTektronix team opted to
implement Oracle in pilot set of countries representing both EU
and Non-EU nations.
• This followed by big bang for the rest of the European countries
• Big bang implemented all three divisional systems together.
• After Europe, the American implementation adopted similar big
bang approach.
• For implementing in Asia/Pacific regionTektronix team first went
after English-speaking countries Singapore and India.

25. Global Rollout
• After this two countries they tackled the language difficulties in
Korea,Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
• The final country to be implemented was Australia, which had
older, mature business processes, and complex legacy systems
needing simplifications.
• The rollout covered 23 countries in less than 500 days.

26. Results
• Same day shipments in some divisions rose from 15% to 75%.
• Tektronix had visibility into business goods inventory regardless
of where the inventory was located
• Improved inventory turnover ratio.
• Employees satisfaction level increased.

27. Results cont…
• Improvement in data integration lead to drilling down of detail to
single account
• Better position to expand business.
• Company become more flexible to acquire new businesses.
• Time spend on data collection reduced from 90% to 10% and time
for analyzing