Today we are faced with the decision of which enterprise systems provider should Harley Davidson (HD) select. We understand from the case that HD is at the pinnacle of launching a major supply chain restructuring initiative. Over the course of two years, a cross-functional team has been involved in mapping existing processes and clearly outlining a go-forward strategy. Two points we cannot argue are: one, the team has established a clear supply chain vision based on fact and logic and two, the system implementation is absolutely critical if SMS is going to be a success. It is therefore extremely important HD select a partner that will spend the appropriate time on training, has the right functionality and will integrate with HD employees. The provider that best fits this description is Provider 1.
The case author spends a great deal of time talking about HD’s culture yet the decision criteria presented in Exhibit 10 focuses product functionality. It is important to note that the self-rated quantitative section is built from the functional project scope presented in Exhibit 6. Out of 1222 points possible, 24 points (2% of the weight) was given to training, the other 98% focused on functionality. I like the questions presented in the internal qualitative assessment but I struggle because I can’t tell how much weight each criteria is assigned or how HD will balance the qualitative and quantitative studies. For me, the most important factors in this decision are integration with HD processes, the provider’s ability the train HD staff and similarities between the provider and HD culture.
If I were to have designed the selection criteria process, I would have started with the same self-rated quantitative measure to narrow the field to 5 providers. With a short list of providers I would have scheduled face-to-face demonstrations – just as they did – but have