Saturday, September 7, 2019

Power IT's Acquisition Strategy - the 3rd-Party Modified Off-The-Shelf Assignment

Power IT's Acquisition Strategy - the 3rd-Party Modified Off-The-Shelf Solution - Assignment Example As per the Power IT’s acquisition strategy of purchasing an enterprise resource planning solution from a third-party vendor, the company’s finance director and chief executive officer were of the view that the software development expertise of the third-party modified off-the-shelf solution would be â€Å"high†, being off-the-shelf and having the capability of modification as per local requirements, as PowerIT wanted such a software solution that could be adjusted to local company needs. Only 3rd party modified off-the-shelf solution acquisition strategy was fitting the bill because the ERP solution could be modified according to the emerging needs of the end-users. If the company wanted to internally develop the software, it was not sure of its internal IT team’s expertise in the application domain, as shown in figure 2, â€Å"variable†. Domain knowledge should be very strong for developing software in-house on such a large scale, which was not in the capacity of PowerIT’s internal team. According to the case writers, local company knowledge of 3rd party modified off-the-shelf solution is relatively low because it is not internally developed; only an internally developed solution by PowerIT can have high knowledge of it. That’s why a 3rd party developed solution is ranked â€Å"low† on local company knowledge by the case writers in the area of its relative strength. The selection process was faulty. When the three short-listed vendors were asked to give their presentations on their systems’ support to the company’s IT needs, one vendor did not turn up to give a presentation, and the other gave a generic presentation while the third vendor discussed the PowerIT environment and the suitability of their product. Although not the least satisfied with any of the vendors for their presentations, the contract was given to the third vendor. The acquisition process should have been given a review or stopped due to not meeting the right vendor. Such an alarming drawback was not even shared by the BDM with the CEO and senior managers. Instead of inviting new tenders or asking the short-listed vendors to provide a detailed demonstration or not awarding the contract, the contract was awarded to the third vendor. The project was selected both by the chief operating officer and finance director.     

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.