To begin with, it has to be underlined that there is almost countless number of different theoretical frameworks under the topic “system implementation” in literature. Some of these frameworks are focusing on the implementation phenomenon and its characteristics in general, while others are presenting
implementation as a systematical process that includes certain steps. The variety in different ways to illustrate implementation processes originates probably from the fact that these practices are always case-specific as well as system-specific.
Since lots of companies are implementing computed-based systems nowadays, there are also lots of distinctive styles to carry out these projects. In this context however, it is not worthwhile to discuss either about the various customs of an organizational system implementation or speculate on the concept to a great extent. Although, it has to be noted that conceptually an implementation process is understood here rather widely from the initial preparations to the normal operation stage, where further system improving and upgrading might also take place.
Despite of the fact that numerous process-oriented implementation frameworks do exist, recognized steps are usually fairly similar in them. Figure 13 on the next page presents one very good illustration that has been presented in literature. This particular framework, which was named as “enterprise system experience cycle”
by its developers Markus and Tanis (2000), was originally designed especially to portray the implementation process of an ERP system, otherwise put enterprise resource planning. As can be seen, the enterprise system experience cycle is not really in the form of a cycle as the name would indicate. Explanation is that system implementation is a never-ending, constantly on-going, process, which starts all over again from the beginning when the preceding system is finally operationally stable. Nevertheless, the fundamental implementation process and its different steps are similar for other systems, such as computer-based cost accounting models and tools, as well. Therefore, the enterprise system experience cycle will be applied for the value-based life-cycle model and used in the next sub-section to support the construction of open-books implementation framework.
The framework of Markus and Tanis (2000, pp. 189), which has later been mildly modified by Nah et al. (2001, pp. 290), consists of four cognate process stages;
chartering phase, project phase, shakedown phase as well as onward and upward as the last one of them. The chartering phase features all the initial and necessary actions, such as preparation, analysis and design, prior to the actual “hands-on implementation” of a new system into an organization. General project planning,
budgeting and scheduling takes place in the chartering phase. As Markus and Tanis (2000, pp. 190) have stated, the outcome of this phase can either be a decision to proceed or alternatively abort the project for good. The soundness of made decisions and taken actions in the chartering phase will be field tested on following stages, and ultimately having an enormous effect on the overall success of the system implementation project as well.
Figure 13. The basic form of the process-oriented enterprise system experience cycle (adapted from Markus & Tanis 2000, pp. 189 and Nah et al. 2001, pp. 290).
Moreover, the actual implementation starts finally in the project phase. Some of the key activities in this phase are software configuration, system integration testing, data conversion, rollout and training (Markus & Tanis 2000, pp. 190). In the project phase, it is crucial, like Nah et al. (2001, pp. 287) have highlighted, that each one of the project partners is not only acknowledging its main focusing areas crystal clear, but also working very closely and well together with others to achieve the ultimate goal. At last in the shakedown phase, the company is able to start utilizing the system for a first time. Nah et al. (2001, pp. 287) refer to this stage as the “the period of time from going live until normal operation or routine use has been achieved.” Markus and Tanis (2000, pp. 195) have recognized bug fixing and system performance tuning for example as the key activities of the shakedown phase. In addition, accumulated system knowledge should be passed on from the project team to the operational personnel at this point.
Lastly in the onward and upward, the system has been successfully implemented and normal operation achieved. This phase will extend from the start of the
routine use all the way to the eventual system replacement in future. Therefore, onward and upward is characterized by on-going maintenance operations and system enhancements (Nah et al. 2001, pp. 289). Also, additional skill building of personnel usually takes place at this stage. Markus and Tanis (2000, pp. 195) have stated that it is during this phase when the organization is finally able to benefit from its investment. However, there are certain downsides as well. The most common problem related to the onward and upward is the loss of knowledgeable personnel who understand the system. Their know-how and competences will probably be sorely needed when minor improvements and even more when major upgrades are made to the system. All in all, the above-mentioned way to structure a model implementation process is only one of many possibilities as noted earlier.
The enterprise system experience cycle will be brought back into discussion in the next sub-section as a part of open-books implementation framework construction.