ABSTRACT

AcceleratedSAP is a methodology developed for cost-effective SAP R/3 installation. Numerous project managers have adopted AcceleratedSAP for SAP implementation in a range of industries around the world. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is, similarly, a software model that improves software processes in software organizations so that software projects run successfully and deliver quality products. AcceleratedSAP and CMM were developed independently with completely different objectives but share two important characteristics: good engineering and good management practices. Given the high failure rates in software projects, organizations have adopted well-established software models, such as AcceleratedSAP and CMM. This paper describes how AcceleratedSAP and CMM can be aligned in terms of software project management practices. By combining their unique features, ERP managers can easily adopt CMM for ERP installations so that the advantages that can be realized through CMM KPAs (Key Process Areas), and can be exploited for business process re-engineering.

Keywords: AcceleratedSAP; Business Process Re-engineering; Capability Maturity Model (CMM); Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP); SAP R/3; Software Development

INTRODUCTION

Future prospects of many companies will be determined by their ability to overcome the challenges associated with globalization and external market competition. One popular response to these challenges can be found in the concept of business process re-engineering (BPR). BPR involves not only processes of reengineering but also best business practices, process transformation, optimization, downsizing, rightsizing, and continuous improvement. In all these endeavors, an integrated enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is regarded as indispensable. Koch (2001) reports that an ERP installation supports radical BPR, while Chen (2001) reports that continuous improvement with ERP-enabled processes has been described as rewarding and promising.

Among ERP vendors, SAP has established itself globally as the dominant supplier of core business systems. With more than 15,000 installations worldwide, SAP has been adopted by many multinational corporations as their global standard, and an increasing number of smaller enterprises are following suit (Deimel, 1998). An SAP project is typically complex and costly, affecting the whole organization. For example, in order for an SAP system to be aligned (or customized) to the specific requirements of an enterprise, business processes need to be re-engineered and internal resources allocated. This is not merely time-consuming. When an SAP project overruns, or its schedule slips, unexpected project costs can be severe. Unexpected delays in BPR can also lead to lost business opportunities. Thus, the success of an ERP project could be roughly justified in terms of three factors: time, budget control, and functionality implementation.

One study has shown that 40% of all ERP projects are only partially completed and 20% are discarded as total failures (Escalle & Cotteleer, 1999; Grant, 2002); another reported that 60% of ERP projects failed to achieve the expected (or required) return on investment (Ptak & Schragenheim, 1999). Taking this into account, along with the fact that conventionally SAP implementation involves third-party consultants (e.g., an authorized dealer or business partners), SAP must ensure that no matter who the partners are, every implementation of an SAP product (e.g., SAP R/3) satisfies the three...