Wednesday, October 21, 2009

It’s the Aftermarket Service, Stupid! (Part I)

Regardless of the economic environment (and sentiments), I always think of the opportunity within the aftermarket service and support as a profitable, high-margin and customer-captive business, and yet, still underserved. General Electric (GE) would be the proverbial example of a company that has focused on aftermarket opportunities, going so far as to call itself a “services” company as opposed to a “products” company.

GE indeed, starting with Jack Welch’s long chief executive officer (CEO) tenure, has been widely reported to have significantly increased both its total revenue and profitability by focusing on services opportunities in addition to developing world-class products.

The manufacturing corporate giant has certainly proven the value of serving the product aftermarket, which has recently been purported in a quantifiable manner by many pundits as a high margin business. For instance, AMR Research reported recently that businesses earn 45 percent of gross profits from the aftermarket, yet it is only 24 percent of their revenues, while a recent article in Harvard Business Review claims that we all spend US$1 trillion every year on assets we already own.

A related software category term was mentioned in TEC’s 2003 article titled Service Lifecycle Management - Tapping into the Value of the Product Aftermarket. Namely, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) is a business initiative focused on servicing a company’s products, and the customers that bought them, after the product has been sold. Simply put, SLM focuses on making more money from the product after the initial sale. But it is more than that — it is also a way to become a strategic part of the customer’s business after the sale is completed.

In another Harvard Business Review article titled Winning in the Aftermarket from May 2006, MCA Solutions’ co-founders, Dr. Morris Cohen and Dr. Vipul Agrawal, shared their insights on opportunities to increase corporate profitability through better management of the service business. The “Six Steps for Managing Service Networks” outlined therein explain how all service-oriented companies (not to be confused with “service-oriented architecture [SOA]”!) can take advantage of these opportunities.

Industry leaders like Cisco Systems have reportedly been leveraging MCA’s Service Planning and Optimization (SPO™) suite [evaluate this product] to do just that, and have benefited from reduced service parts inventory, improved service levels and greater profit.

Servigistics, one of the leaders in the nascent SLM software category, refers to it as “strategic service management”, which entails service parts planning & optimization, service labor planning & scheduling and service parts pricing. The focus of today’s blog post is the realm of service parts planning & optimization.

TEC’s 2006 article titled Enterprises May Be Overlooking Profits from After-sales Service concurs with this particular opportunity. Namely, if service parts (including their availability and pricing) and service personnel management are well managed, manufacturers can significantly improve their profits from service operations. This will in turn lead to significant overall profit margins.

This brings us again to MCA Solutions, a privately held company headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the United States (US). Besides Servigistics, MCA Solutions has become a “usual suspect” in most big-ticket service parts planning and optimization evaluations.

The above-mentioned MCA’s award-winning SPO software suite has helped a number of aerospace and defense (A&D), high-tech and capital equipment companies of all sizes transform their service supply chains into bottom-line business drivers, by reducing (excess and obsolete) inventory, lowering support costs and improving service levels to maximize customer satisfaction. These, in turn, often result with higher revenue and increased equipment availability.

Outside the service parts planning & optimization market, the “MCA” name can be confused for a record label, museum of contemporary art, and whatnot, but the company’s brand recognition in its target market needs not much bolstering. Virtually anyone dealing with service parts planning and optimization knows that MCA stands for Morris Cohen & Associates.

Dr. Morris Cohen is the Matsushita (Panasonic) professor of manufacturing and logistics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and co-director of Wharton’s Fishman-Davidson Center for Operations Management. Dr. Cohen has spent three decades researching, planning, and designing advanced value chain systems and working with customers such as IBM, Cisco, Applied Materials, Intel, General Motors, and the United States (US) Navy.

In 1999, he co-founded MCA Solutions to bring the intellectual capital of service value chain optimization from the classroom into the technology marketplace (i.e., the real world). Another MCA co-founder, Dr. Agrawal, was a student of Dr. Cohen’s at Wharton before becoming assistant professor in the operations management department at the Stern School of Business at New York University. Today, Dr. Cohen serves as chairman of MCA’s board, while Dr. Agrawal is MCA’s executive vice president of products.

The mere concept of inventory optimization sounds quite simple: one has to balance the risk of stockouts (i.e., missed sales opportunities translated into poor customer service) with the (often hefty) investment (and tied up capital and cash) in inventory (safety stocks). This becomes sort of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.

But the situation becomes much more complicated when one has to take into consideration multi-echelon distribution channels that entail hundreds or thousands of possible part locations worldwide, and even hundred thousand parts/stock-keeping units (SKU’s). The multi-echelon term refers to the supply chain hierarchy that spreads from the top upstream inventory point (e.g., a central distribution center [DC]) downstream several layers to the farthest node in the service chain (e.g., a regional warehouse or even a field service van).

It is thus a small wonder that MCA (and virtually every other optimization peer vendor) stems from the academia and its software’s concept is based on rocket science-like planning & optimization algorithms. In 2001, MCA released the first commercially available software for multi-echelon inventory planning for service parts.

As I have learned thus far from talking to the likes of MCA and Servigistics, these vendors remain quite cautious (if not outright secretive) about mentioning client’s names (especially if the client is involved in the product co-development) and about discussing their planning algorithms at a deeper level (not that many ordinary folks would understand these either, but, hey, the competition might listen in!).

Indeed, the planning and optimization models that these vendors tout can really be too overwhelming and hard to comprehend for ordinary mortals. For instance, in a single location with typical service parts, there can be deployed a few different methods of inventory planning, such as:

* Each part location is planned separately;
* With a so-called demand accommodation approach (mastered by Servigistics), which determines what parts to stock, then calculates demand satisfaction levels, to finally segment parts and locations into these different fulfillment (customer service) levels; and
* Overall optimization (arguably mastered by both MCA and Servigistics), as to achieve an overall desired service level across selected parts and locations.

Reportedly, the optimization approach can result in inventory about 30-40 percent lower than individual part location and 20 to 30 percent lower than the demand accommodation approach with much less planning and labor.

Warning: each prospective customer should check well which of these models would be the most appropriate for their business and ask the vendors to simulate real-life scenarios to them with germane data. Another warning: even then the recommended results from these packages might initially seem counterintuitive, with the rationale being difficult to explain. Nonetheless, MCA’s very first customer (I suspect it is Cisco) still successfully uses MCA SPO to manage a multi-billion dollar service parts inventory base, with 250,000 active parts across over a thousand service parts locations over several echelons.

Moreover, in some industries like aerospace & defense (A&D), stockouts are often prohibitively costly (i.e., planes are grounded due to missing critical parts), while, on the other hand, a mission-critical spare part can cost an arm-and-a-leg. There, the whopping investment in safety stocks has to be balanced rather against the risk of the part failure.

To that end, in 2003, MCA partnered with a well-known aerospace company to develop the first commercial software for planning based on service parts availability. Availability-based planning means that the system looks at the availability of all of the critical parts to support a piece of a complex equipment (installation), as opposed to independently planning for fulfillment rates of individual parts and locations.

With the same customer, MCA introduced software that managed multi-indentured and multi-echelon spare parts forecasting and planning, which was needed to support stringent “performance-based logistics (PBL)” programs that have been mandated by the US Department of Defense (DoD).

In 2004, MCA introduced risk-based tactical planning which takes a probabilistic approach to forecasting and applies it to the management and prioritization of service (work) orders. By prioritizing based on the risk of stockouts (i.e., the part’s criticality vs. its cost and the lead time to replenish it), the system ensures that supply is used optimally to meet spare parts service objectives, thus increasing service performance while making the planner more productive, too.

For more details on these principles see TEC’s earlier article titled Lucrative but ‘Risky’ Aftermarket Business—Service and Replacement Parts SCM. Also, TEC, with a courtesy of ChainLink Research, has featured Dr. Cohen’s article along similar lines entitled Service Supply Chain Strategies to Increase Corporate Profitability.

It’s the Aftermarket Service, Stupid! (Part II)

A related 2007 milestone at MCA included a significant expansion with both new and existing customers in core markets, including aviation and defense (A&D), high-tech, and semiconductor manufacturing. Specific wins included the first joint effort with SAP for a large commercial aircraft manufacturer, expanded work with the US Navy to include planning for the entire naval aviation fleet, and successful deployments at new medical and capital equipment customers.

In addition to working with the largest corporate customers, MCA also cited growing revenue in the mid-market. With its SPO OnDemand Software as a Service (SaaS) offering, MCA hopes to bring to smaller service organizations the same capability that service leaders in the Fortune 500 are seeing value from, but with a much lower upfront software and information technology (IT) infrastructure investment.

These benefits are attributed to lower monthly costs and faster implementations. The vendor will be expanding this offering in 2008 to make it even more appetizing and faster to deploy. The most recent win with the OnDemand SPO solution at Unisys Corporation might be a sign of succeeding with on-demand model at larger corporations as well as appealing to the mid-market.

Quintessential SAP Partnership

SAP now officially recognizes MCA’s Service Inventory Optimization (SIO) packaged composite application (PCA or “xApp” in SAP’s lingo) as an exclusive SAP-endorsed business solution (EBS) in the service parts planning space. In general, an SAP xApp is open to any third-party application that that qualifies technically, and hundreds of those are planned for certification and launch in 2008.

This compliance should make implementation in SAP environments fairly seamless, and, in MCA’s case, offer the market one of the most sophisticated integrated service parts planning and optimization solutions available.

In mid 2007, MCA completed solution qualification for SAP EBS and now the two companies boast several joint customers. I should point out here the importance of achieving the coveted EBS denomination, since there are currently only about a dozen or so such solutions. In other words, MCA SIO is an SAP xApp certified solution, with seamless process and data integration between the involved applications supported by both companies.

For those that are more technically inclined, SIO leverages many of the SAP NetWeaver platform’s components, such as Web Application Server (WAS) and Exchange Integration (XI)/Process Integration (PI). The product utilizes SAP’s enterprise services (or web services, again in SAP’s lingo) for integration between the SIO results (e.g., safety stock recommendations) and SAP’s Service Parts Planning (SPP) module part of the SAP SCM suite [evaluate this product]).

Moreover, SIO runs in SAP Enterprise Portal and leverages the MCA Strategy functionality (soon to be explained), with forecasting and multi-echelon optimization capabilities.

After having completed a stringent solution qualification process in SAP’s test facilities, SIO is nowadays tested and supported by both MCA and SAP. To illustrate the depth of an EBS-like partnership, let us see the evolutionary path that MCA has gone through over the years regarding its alliance with SAP (in the hope that a close relationship with SAP will prove to be very lucrative).

MCA indeed has a long history with SAP, and it has achieved certification at every level and for every major SAP platform. Namely, in 2005, MCA achieved “SAP Certified R/3 Integration” and “Certified for NetWeaver” open enrolment statuses. In 2006, MCA added “Powered by NetWeaver” to its sales collateral, although a few hundred other independent software vendors (ISV’s) can tout the same.

Still, 2007 might have been crucial for the SAP and MCA alliance. For one, due to the above-mentioned EBS status, which denotes the deepest partnership level, MCA also received the SAP Pinnacle Award for “Outstanding Software Solution Innovator”. Prospective customers should benefit from the tight integration of the broad planning process, and guaranteed support of the interfaces from both vendors through product upgrades. With the SAP EBS program, SAP’s existing and prospective customers can access support for partner solutions through the SAP Solution Manager repository.

Catering to All SAP’s Walks of Life

As a result, MCA has a spare parts planning solution configuration devised to return value and preserve information technology (IT) investment no matter where the client is in the SAP technology lifecycle. MCA’s SAP integration framework (coming from all the above-mentioned certifications) supports SAP’s proprietary IDoc’s and Business Applications Programming Interfaces (BAPI’s), and NetWeaver XI/PI enterprise services, which provide integration configuration flexibility and technology choices.

To that end, customers who don’t have the infrastructure to implement the entire joint NetWeaver-based SIO-SPP footprint may have other options, such as to integrate with SAP R/3 and other legacy enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems leveraging MCA SPO open API-based integration.

MCA SIO currently uses several SAP enterprise services, while the forthcoming release will incorporate around 20 services (which means even tighter integration with more SAP modules). The joint solution is integrated with SAP SPP, which ensures tight integration between the strategic and tactical plans, as SAP SPP is in turn tightly integrated with SAP ERP [evaluate this product] and transactional processes like collaboration, order fullfilment, purchasing, warehousing, etc.

Furthermore, in each of the potential configuration options (for virtually every SAP environment), MCA Strategy’s forecasting and inventory optimization is a core component. Its output is the target stock levels (min/max), reorder points (ROP) and reorder quantities (ROQ). MCA’s web site has the elaborate descriptions and nuances of all its products, which also include MCA Tactics and MCA Service Business Design (SBD).

MCA Tactics, whose scope is covered by SAP SPP in the joint SIO-SPP solution (confused yet?), is about generation of recommended orders (purchase orders, repair orders, allocation & transship orders, etc.) to ensure the user orders the right things to meet the service levels defined in the startegic plan. MCA SBD does what-if scenarios planning for various network situations - e.g. network design impacts, impacts of different service level agreements (SLA’s), impact of tradeoffs between part reliability and inventory stocking levels, etc.

Finally, MCA Solutions is a member of SAP’s Industry Value Networks (IVN’s) for High-Tech and A&D. All of the above integrations have been undertaken with the idea of facilitating the customer’s entry point flexibility and early “self-funding” return on investment (ROI), while preserving the current IT investment and lower total cost of ownership (TCO).

Certainly, SAP customers can utilize MCA’a knowledge of SAP integration and lower their IT support costs, since in the spare parts planning and optimization space, MCA is currently the only vendor with this range of certifications and this deep a partnership with SAP.

We should not forget here about Bob Salvucci, MCA’s president and chief executive officer (CEO), either. Prior to MCA, Mr. Salvucci had joined SAP America in the early 1990s, with responsibility for building the relationships with large SAP system integrators (SI’s) and technology partners. From there, he moved into various sales management roles, and later became the president of SAP Public Services, prior to joining MCA a few years back. He and some subsequent MCA hires of ex-SAP staffers should have a deep understanding about how to successfully navigate through the complexities of working within SAP.

Is There a Life Outside SAP’s Sanctuary?

However, while piggybacking on SAP remains critical, MCA cannot afford to “keep all its eggs in one basket” (in part given that the joint selling with SAP has yet to straighten some kinks out). Currently, MCA has about 60 employees and an install base of over 20 large discrete manufacturing enterprises, with all of them deploying MCA’s software across multiple sites.

Over half of MCA customers are SAP customers, while the rest have Oracle E-Business Suite [evaluate this product] and some legacy or mid-market ERP products. ERP integration is often cited as very important to prospective customers, while some existing MCA customers have requested that MCA develop a similar relationship with their ERP providers.

In fact, the recent three-party engagement at the US Air Force (USAF), with Oracle, IFS Applications [evaluate this product] and Xelus/Click Commerce (a competitor of MCA and Servigistics) may speak volumes about the co-opetitive nature of the market. While the SAP EBS-like relationship with other ERP vendors may not happen at MCA for various competitive reasons, the non-SAP base will continue to be important to MCA as it represents about one third of the pipeline.

It is thus no wonder that MCA has lately expanded the Oracle Partner Network (OPN) membership (at least to also send a “subtle” warning signal to SAP to get its ducks in a row for joint sale efforts). It remains to be seen how deep the partnership with Oracle can be in light of its capabilities via the recently acquired Demantra product.

Other Key Success Factors

MCA’s growth of late was driven by its focus on its core strengths: to become the solution of choice for aftermarket service parts planning, and to continue to drive innovation and better solutions. This implies working with and integrating with leading ERP vendors, and with other best-of-breed vendors, primarily those in the SAP’ ISV ecosystem. Most important of those would be Vendavo in service parts pricing, Questra in intelligent device management, and ClickSoftware in field service scheduling.

Still, the strength of MCA’s exclusive SAP relationship was a key factor not only in deals that the two vendors conducted together with their joint solution, but in any SAP environment. There were several SAP customers who went with MCA’s stand-alone solution but liked the partnership with SAP and the potential to evolve to the joint solution as they widen their SAP footprint.

Both SAP and MCA tout that the pairing has already resulted in shorter sales cycles and some early wins. The two vendors have done two deals together lately, whereby the first one, Varian, is not using the joint SIO solution, but may in the future. But they very recently closed their first joint deal at Bombardier Aerospace, which will be implementing the joint solution (MCA’s SIO and SAP’s SPP) later this year.

Another success factor has been MCA’s dominance in the A&D sector in the upper-end of the market. This included both expanding their footprint within existing accounts and adding new ones. In addition, there has been an increasing prevalence of performance-based logistics (PBL) know-how requirements by customers, and MCA’s capability there was demonstrated with some of the largest players like Boeing, Lockheed, and Rockwell Collins.

MCA expects to win in the complex A&D SPO contest almost all the time (it only lost one prospect to Servigistics last year), and will compete well in the high-tech and industrial equipment sectors (especially within SAP accounts). The comany has had several recent wins including replacing two different competitors’ solutions.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Keep Your IT Projects Focused with TEC’s Evaluation Centers

But putting your requirements first isn’t always easy. Software selection is a juggling act, and your requirements aren’t the only ball you need to keep in the air. You’ve also got to analyze reams of data from vendors (some of it fact, some of it marketing hype) to find out if their products actually meet your requirements. And you need to make sure that you’re analyzing those data the right way—using the right tools and a proven methodology.

That’s where TEC’s Evaluation Centers come in—helping you stay focused on your requirements without dropping anything else.

So What Is an Evaluation Center?

Our Evaluation Centers are dedicated, online environments for software selection. Each Center contains everything you need to compare a particular type of enterprise software solution, and include:

A structured method for defining and prioritizing your requirements: The Evaluation Center interface lets you work from a model of industry standard features and functions where you can identify the features and functions you need and set priorities to define their relative importance. Structuring your requirements this way makes it easy to see how well vendors support them. But more on that in a moment.

Detailed vendor information: We ask vendors in dozens of industries to respond to detailed requests for information (RFIs) so we know how well their solutions support thousands of industry-standard features and functions. Once it is vetted by our analysts, this information ends up in our knowledge bases (KBs), along with articles, white papers, and other relevant data.

Every Evaluation Center gives you access to one or more KBs, so you have up-to-date information about hundreds of vendor solutions at your disposal—information that would be, at best, difficult and time-consuming to gather on your own.

A built-in decision support engine: Powering TEC’s Evaluation Centers is ebestmatch™, our online decision support engine. ebestmatch compares your requirements to the capabilities of vendor solutions in order to first identify a short list of solutions and, later, to identify the “best-fit” solution.

ebestmatch has a number of unique characteristics that make it ideal for software selection. For example, ebestmatch can supplement traditional weighted-average-based analysis with the BestMatch Factor—a patented computation that analyzes not only how well a solution matches your requirements, but also how closely it hews to your priorities.

With ebestmatch, it is also possible to do a “value analysis” that tells you which solution offers the closest match to your requirements for the price, and shows you how other vendors would have to adjust their pricing to stay competitive.
How Does This Help Keep Your Selection Projects Focused?

I said at the beginning that properly defining your functional and technical requirements is a critical part of your software selection project. After all, the goal is to find the best software for your business, and your needs have to come first.

Using a TEC Evaluation Center removes much of the overhead of a traditional selection project, leaving you with more time to pay attention to what you need—and whether the vendors can deliver it.

For one thing, in an Evaluation Center, you model and prioritize your requirements using the exact structure found in TEC’s RFIs—the same RFIs that vendors respond to. So you can see exactly where a vendor does and doesn’t support your requirements, and make apples-to-apples comparisons of competing vendors. That makes the comparison process a whole lot faster.

For another thing, because the Evaluation Centers already contain vendor RFI responses, you don’t need to spend time collecting and validating RFIs to develop your initial short list of vendors. And while you will eventually need to send RFIs to the vendors who make the short list, you can load their responses into the Evaluation Center and do the same kind of quick, unbiased evaluation and comparison you did to arrive at a short list in the first place.

And for yet another thing, TEC’s Evaluation Centers have analysis tools built right in, so you don’t need to spend time building and troubleshooting complicated spreadsheets (if you’ve been through a selection project before, you’ll immediately recognize what a time-saver this is). ebestmatch handles the underlying computations and displays the results in the Evaluation Center interface, using clear, easy-to-understand graphs, charts, and reports. You can see how the vendors perform at any level—from broad functional areas to individual features and functions.

Oh, and just so you know: every Evaluation Center is set up to guide you through the selection process according to TEC’s proven selection methodology, so you can be sure you’re going about things the right way.

Audit Considerations for Enterprise Software Implementations Part 1: Project Planning and Management

Recent scandals in the corporate world have created a refreshed awareness of the audit function. A direct by-product of these scandals is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which gives legal and financial muscle to the assurance of the integrity, reliability, and accuracy of financial reporting and corporate disclosures. In fact, based on a recent survey of CFO's and IT executives, 71 percent of the respondents believe that Section 404 of the Act, which requires business process audits and documentation to support internal controls certification, is the most critical part of SOX. While some may argue that the Act does not go far enough, it is surely a positive, aggressive start.

While this reemphasis may be good news for current and ongoing systems, the process of developing an audit awareness and the need for substantial controls can and should be established as software is being implemented. If you are the project manager or the project sponsor, possibly the company's CEO or CFO, it is in your best interest to create a financially healthy environment from the start of the implementation project. The expectation is that this good inbreeding will continue with the software into production and throughout its entire lifecycle. Considering the extensive scope of enterprise software such as enterprise resource planning (ERP), supply chain management (SCM), and warehouse management systems (WMS) software, the need for adequate and substantial controls is even more apparent.

This two-part article looks at four key segments of an enterprise software implementation, with timely emphasis on SOX, and suggests audit procedures, controls, and processes that should be typified, observed, tested, and reported upon. These segments include:

* Project Planning and Management
* Documentation and Reporting
* Software Piloting
* Data Conversion

Clearly, there may be others and, hopefully, this discussion can encourage or scare you into identifying these other areas that may be pertinent and cost-effective to your organization.

Before the full impact of SOX can be absorbed into an organization as a basic component or guiding principle of a project's life cycle, considerable prep work is needed. Getting everyone acquainted with the requirements of the Act and making sure that projects are in compliance is no simple task. Be advised, it will not happen overnight. Consequently, an education and training process must be completed so that everyone is in agreement and on the same sheet of music. This mission should be undertaken as you would for any project but with special emphasis placed on securing a high profile executive to serve as the sponsor. Given the fact that they are most affected by SOX, a CEO or CFO are natural choices and should be easy to convince to participate.

The key elements of project planning and management that come under intense scrutiny include:

* Project charter and overall workplan
* Project plan
* Regular and documented status reporting format
* Issue resolution protocol
* Deliverable monitoring against plan
* Continual communications plan

You are probably saying this is not new stuff; we're doing it today. While the sections of SOX are still in a state of flux, particularly Section 404, the specifications for these elements will not be open to discussion but rather will be rigidly dictated and compliance strictly enforced. Consequently, more than casual attention must be given to these matters and must be available for future review.

Projects will be evaluated based on their impact on a company's bottom line. Specifically, large projects, particularly those associated with enterprise-wide systems, are responsible for consuming materially significant funds that can affect financial statements. Accordingly, the internal and external costs associated with a project can represent a significant expenditure and corresponding expense. The level of expenditure can determine whether software acquisition and implementation projects are capitalized between the balance sheet and income statement. Furthermore, the allocation method must be defensible. Typically, a company will rely on the project manager and the corresponding procedures and controls to support the position taken.

With the arrival of SOX, as project manager, you should be taking certain actions in preparation. Become familiar with the Act itself and see if your industry has additional requirements. An education process for the organization has been addressed above. The AICPA provides a nice and concise overview of the Act. Start looking at Sarbanes-Oxley tool sets. Typically, these are not intended to replace project management tools but rather act as repositories, providing a means to capture required data. Typically, your external auditors can help in this regard. As will be discussed below, start involving the audit function in the project management process as a way to install a control discipline and mindset at the start of a system's life cycle.

Probably those of you working in an overseas company and not subject to the Act may heave a sigh of relief. Good control practices, however, are not restricted by national boundaries or languages. These practices just make good sense and do not need legislation or the attachment of criminal penalties to be implemented. Steal the concepts from the SOX and start your own program to improve internal control practices.

As a project manager, you should encourage the involvement of the audit function from the outset. While specific and typical areas of involvement will be addressed in Part II of this article, as part of the planning and management process, coordination with the audit function can ensure that control objectives and guidelines are understood. In this way, team members will be able to assist in the identification of control weaknesses or gaps. Bear in mind, however, that the ultimate decision as to the materiality of a control weakness rests on the shoulders of the audit function.

Finally, a key aspect of project management is keeping management informed. Ensure that the steering committee, including the executive sponsor, is aware of the project's progress against plan, decision points, and significant changes in scope. Their approval will help keep you in SOX compliance. This is also an opportune time to discuss control objectives and their positive affect on and through the enterprise software. Companies are also starting to look more closely at the project management office (PMO) in an effort to provide more efficiencies but, more importantly, tighter control and monitoring of IT projects. But don't expect a quick fix, easy metrics, or an immediate payback.

The documentation required for compliance with SOX is rigorous. Consequently, a critical aspect of SOX compliance and an internal controls framework is developing a repository of documented controls. As indicated above, there are tool sets available to facilitate this activity. However, the implementation team, with the software's functionality fresh in mind, can start the compilation process and fill the repository. As the project team becomes familiar with the software, control aspects will come to light. For this reason, it is important the audit function defines internal controls, both hard and soft, so that the team knows what to be on the watch for. Confirmation of the controls can be completed in the testing and piloting phases.

Samples of documentation that could be used to satisfy the SOX requirements and, more importantly, can be accumulated during the acquisition and implementation of software are:

* Policy and procedure manual
* Job descriptions and desk procedures
* Systems documentation and workflows
* Report layouts and samples
* Edit criteria and error resolution procedures
* Ongoing reconciliation procedures

Many of these samples can be easily obtained from the vendor or vendor special interest groups where other companies may have already paved the way.

Some might argue that compliance with SOX will only add to the length of the overall project. First, to counter that argument, companies bound by SOX may have little choice. Secondly, it is easier to gather the information gradually as a work-in-progress rather than afterwards when interests have been transferred to other projects. Finally, below is the tradition timeline of an implementation project with the interjection of an audit presence. It would not appear that the extension of the overall project length is minor and could be considerably offset if the audit function serves an active member of the team.





Process Manufacturing: Industry Specific Requirements Part Two: Chemical

Traditionally, manufacturing is categorized by two methods: process and discrete. Many differences exist, but most can be grouped into two areas: those derived from material issues and those derived from production issues.

Process materials are different than discrete materials. Process materials are powder, liquids or gases; they must be confined, and they are more difficult to accurately measure. Process materials are close to their natural sources (farms, mines, etc.) and, therefore, are of inconsistent quality. Inconsistent quality means extensive quality procedures, segregation (lot control), restriction of use (for example, this lot is okay for one customer but not another), and usually the inclusion of quality attributes as part of their inventory definition. Process materials vary with time. They get better, they get worse, and they change their identity.

Production issues give us the simplest definition of process manufacturing. Specifically, once you produce your finished product, you cannot distill it back to its basic ingredients. Have you ever attempted to return orange juice back to its original water, sugar, sodium, and, of course, oranges or extract the pigments out of paint? However, you can disassemble a car back to its tires, spark plugs, carburetor, and engine block. There are similar components in process and discrete manufacturing: ingredients versus parts; formulas versus bill of materials; several units of measure (i.e., pounds, ounces, and liters) versus EA (each).

There are, however, subtle differences. Process manufacturing is scalable. For example, if the formula calls for a 1,000 pounds of oranges but you only have 500 pounds, you can still make orange juice, just not as much. If you only have three tires, you are going to have wait for the fourth tire before the car can start rolling off the production line. In process, you tend make product in bulk or batches as in a vat of coke or a 500-gallon tanks of solvent and then pack it off to fulfill customer orders. On the other hand, in discrete manufacturing you would expect to see one computer at a time coming down the production line.

For a quick refresher on process manufacturing, peruse the articles, Process Manufacturing: A Primer or What Makes Process Process.

The remainder of this article focuses on process manufacturing. However, to say process manufacturing functions are the same in all industries is tantamount to saying that a Ferrari and a Ford truck are simply means of getting from point A to point B. Just as you would not use a Ferrari to haul lumber, aspects of process manufacturing cannot be applied equally and with the same importance to all industries. This article looks at the unique requirements of process manufacturing in three industries: food and beverage, chemical, and a hybrid industry, textiles. One way or another, these requirements must be satisfied. If a software vendor can provide this satisfaction, your organization's anxiety level concerning the implementation of enterprise-wide systems can be significantly reduced.

If you are not in these industries, you can stop reading � No, wait! Perhaps understanding how a particular requirement or aspect of process manufacturing relates to one of these industries may give you better understanding or insight on how it can be applied in your company. Whew! Thought that I had lost you! Glad you're back.

Editor's Note: For the purpose of this article, process and continuous-flow manufacturing are treated as synonymous. Continuous-flow manufacturing is the eradication of product stagnation in and between processes. Once a product has entered the manufacturing process, it moves on without having to be stored. Special considerations, such as one-piece-at-a-time production and multi-process handling for establishing a continuous-flow operation, will not be addressed in this article.

A new wrinkle that has been added to process manufacturing by the chemical industry is the introduction of hazardous material. As you would expect, the use of hazardous materials is closely regulated and must be reported. This creates two conditions that can be greatly simplified by software. First, when creating a new formula or modifying an existing one, the formula must be analyzed for the presence of hazardous materials. This check requires a continuously updated and current list of regulated materials that are considered hazardous. Also required is the percentage of these materials relative to the other ingredients.

Secondly, the reporting of hazardous materials must comply with a specific format, namely material safety data sheets (MSDS). These sheets will usually accompany the customer's bill of lading (BOL) and, therefore, must be integrated with the billing process. While copies of MSDS can be kept on file and manually matched with the BOL, most companies will not want to risk non-compliance and would rather seek an automated remedy. Likewise, companies who like to "live on the edge" will rely on manual procedures to determine when a formula and product requires an updated MSDS. More prudent companies, however, will seek to have update notification incorporated in their enterprise-wide software and automatically generated new MSDS when needed.

The programming of hazardous material compliance is not trivial when you consider that it involves list processing and matching, percent of total analysis, scheduling, and formatting. While there are bolt-on solutions because of the required tight integration, it is hard to argue against an enterprise-wide software solution that includes this functionality straight out of the box. Depending on how important formula analysis and MSDS reporting are to your organization, the inclusion of this functionality in a vendor's software offering could be a deal breaker or, at the very least, a tie breaker.

In many chemical companies, but particularly in specialty chemical companies, every order represents a new product. For example, tweak an existing formula or replace this chemical ingredient with that chemical ingredient. This places three demands on the functioning of the software. First, since the resulting chemical is being produced for the first time, a quote would normally be required. As a consequent, the software needs to have the ability to easily convert prospective quotes into firm orders and trigger an event in the production schedule.

Secondly, since new formulas will be needed, the maintenance and management of formulas need to be streamlined and responsive to customer inquiries, possibly while the customer is still on the phone. Templating would be a useful tool in this regard. You start with an existing formula as a template for the new formula and make ingredient changes as warranted. Finally, to compliment the templating concept, and because many chemical properties are interchangeable, a suggested ingredient substitution would facilitate the production process. Automated or suggestive ingredient substitution could allow your company to fulfill customer orders that otherwise have to be abandoned or, at best, delayed.

Producing chemicals typically involves all of the three common states of ingredients, namely solids, liquids, and gases. From a formula and mixing perspective, this necessitates a very robust unit of measure (UOM) conversion engine. Whether the formula requires conversion of US measurements to metric or imperial measurements, liquids to solids, or gases to liquids, such conversions should be transparent to the production of the finished goods. Furthermore, depending on the unique requirements of your company, software that allows the entry of free form conversion tables can be extremely useful.