CONCLUSION

 SAP R/3 capacity proved to be less than Mainframe system. Moreover the project
(UHC) was taken up later so changing the capacity requirement in a midway.
 Fox-Meyer’s profits depended on the transactions which reduced immensely
leading to lower profits.
 2 different vendors were taken for implementation increasing the complexity.
 Dependency on Consultants was very high.
 SAP used the implementation of DELTA-III as research and Anderson consultants
used it as a training ground for its new unskilled employees.
 The morale of the employees of Fox-Meyer was very low due to :
• Fear of loosing the job
• No knowledge/skill to handle the new software
Thereby, No adequate Change Management Techniques used.
 Over-commitment of Top Management
 Too big a risk to take.
 Recommendations
 Strategies that Fox-Meyer could follow:
• A pre-implementation test could be taken from the vendors.
• Discounts and Incentives could be given to customers in the early phase to
encourage the usage and for promotions.
• The contract with the consultants could specify risk sharing w.r.t. relating
compensation to project results.
 Knowledge transfer and Total Employee -Involvement both in Implementation &
Maintenance would have helped in reducing high dependency on Consultants.
 2 different vendors were not required to be hired. This would reduce complexity
and increase the ease of implementation and understanding.
 Prices should have been good enough so as to reduce dependency on transactions.
 BPR should have been implemented to go along with the present technologies.
 Timely decision of de-escalation of DELTA-III should have been done after
appropriate Audits (Real-Time checks).
• Foregoing UHC control for the time being.
• Timely laying-off the CEO & CIO.