1.

What should companies do if none of the “configuration options” perfectly fits with their needs
should they attempt to customize, or select the least-worst alternative? When would they do each?

Options:

Modify – when the requirement is critical and no suitable replacement exists

Influence the next release – when the requirement is critical but time is not and the vendor expresses
interest in making accommodations.

Select the least substitute – when the affected business processes are more flexible than the software
or its vendor.

Change vendors -There is a high risk for the project to get bogged down if the company focuses too
much on complex customizations; being that the case, it is highly recommendable switching to SaaS.

2. What factors should companies take into consideration when making the decision between
developing their own applications, purchasing them from a vendor, or taking the SaaS route, as
discussed here? Make a list of factors and discuss their importance to this decision.

Factors:

 Security

 Flexibility

 Stability

 Migration path

 Integration difficulty

 User training

 Maintenance costs

IT challenges in businesses usually represent complex decisions that may involve resistance to change
between their employees, changing processes or very costly risks if the solution does not meet the
needs of the company. If an organization needs a unique application which provides a strategic
competitive advantage, then the purchase and the SaaS options will probably not meet their flexibility
requirements.

3. What risks did GE take on when they contracted with a small and less experienced vendor? What
contingencies could have been put in place to prevent any problems from arising? Provide several
examples

Normally, possible customers would worry about whether or not the small company would stay in
business or be able to scale up operations as its client base grows.
As an overall practice, a business can protect itself by working closely with the small vendor. A customer
could also protect itself by executing the new technology in similar with its existing system. In this way, a
new technology failure would have little impact on operations. Lastly, a customer should ensure that
they have an "escape plan" so they can recover their data and use it to implement a different system
should the current implementation fail.

In GE's case, the traditional problems associated with trusting critical technology to small vendors
evaporated. GE essentially wanted Aravo's technical expertise, and there was little chance GE would not
get it. By working closely with Avaro, GE could provide them with the necessary expertise to help them
scale up. Likewise, GE would provide this small vendor with sufficient revenue to keep them from failing
financially and disappearing. Lastly, GE had more than enough clout to ensure that Aravo's future
development efforts took all of GE's needs into consideration. True, this approach would require more
capital and resources from GE than a typical client/vendor relationship, but due to Aravo's supply chain
expertise, GE invested less than it would have had it tried to develop this technology on its own.