Cargo Cults have
developed several times throughout history, in various locations around the
world, after the withdrawal of technologically advanced civilisations at the
end of war or military occupation. The indigenous locals, not
understanding the science behind how airplanes full of wonderful cargo were
arriving with their advanced and luxury goods, believed that if they repeated
the same rituals as the Western serviceman then they would please the gods to
deliver the same results. Tribal locals built mocked up runways and stood
at the end waving flags hoping that the planes would arrive with their
wonderful cargo. There are stories of
people building wooden radios, control towers and runways all in hope of once
again attaining the lavish western goods that were in abundance when,
presumably, the foreign servicemen were pleasing their gods. Their lack of appreciation and understanding
of the science and technology resulted in them dealing with the situation in a
mythical manner.
During the early
days of computing, a similar behaviour occurred within business.
Companies looked at their competitors and saw how profitable they had
become after deploying these new things called computers. They believed
that if they also deployed computer systems into their businesses then they
would also become more profitable. Except, they had no idea what
computers were, what they really did or how to use them. They didn't
really understand the technology and their adoption of the new technology
became almost mythical.
In today's world,
this behaviour still exists and in technology you will come across expressions
like Cargo Cult Programming which describes where a programmer writes nonsense
code that does not actually do anything.
Over the last few
years, I have come across similar behaviours whilst working as a ERP programme
manager. Cargo Cult mentality manifests
itself in two ways within organisations implementing ERP systems.
First, some
companies adopt ERP with very vague ideas regarding the benefits they will gain
often based on vague concepts like "consolidated and integrated
system" or "global system".
The basic underlying issue here is that they haven't really understood
the business case for adopting the ERP solution. In fact, I find it shocking
how many projects do not really have a business case or it is just a document
that is collecting dust somewhere but is forgotten about one the implementation
actually starts. To be successful in deploying ERP we have to have clear
benefits that we are trying to realise.
Success needs something to measure against. Moreover, the business case should be a
living document that is checked and updated on every turn of the project. If we don't, are we any better than the cargo
cult mentality adopters of early computers?
Implementation
projects also tend to forget the human factor of what it really takes to
facilitate the organisational change to realise the benefits stated in the
business case. Too many projects just
ram the new system in with a bit of training and then wonder why they struggle
to see the benefits.
In my view, to
counter this, organisations need to work with an implementation partner who can
help them set out their business case from the programme outset and then
provide support for the organisation to transform themselves so that they can
adopt the new ERP solution successfully.
Finally, we need to measure the benefits and track progress against a
plan of how benefits will be realised.
The second form of
Cargo Cult mentality that I have witnessed is during the implementation
itself. Many organisations have never
embarked on a transformation programme that will impact the organisation to the
extent of an ERP implementation. It may
be the largest internal programme they have ever executed. However, they may look at other organisations
who have completed the journey and think that they can easily repeat it by
themselves (or with little help). Or
they will mistakenly think that they can just push some of their existing BAU
staff into project roles and that they will have sufficient skills to complete
the tasks required. Often seasoned
experts are expensive and the organisation will think that they can save money
by doing many of the implementation activities themselves.
BAU staff don't always adjust well to project
roles where they suddenly find themselves moved out of their comfort zone and
working in an environment that contains risk and uncertainty. Programme management teams do not always
consider the human aspect and the stress they are putting on their team. Compare this to specialist consultants who
have often completed several implementations and perfected skills through
experience and who have usually been burned, bear the scars and have learned
from their mistakes. There is often a
sense of naivety as to how easy these skills are to pick up and it is not
recognised early enough that the project team are suffering.
The problem is, they
don't know what they don't know. They
don't know the pitfalls to look out for.
They don't recognise when the wheels are wobbling. They run through the programme with a level
of confidence that is built upon shaky foundations of ignorance.
"Ignorance
more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin
I am not saying not
to use people for the business, in fact they are vital. Use them for what they are good at which is
bringing their knowledge and experience of your business to the table to ensure
the solution fits the requirements, the culture and the capabilities of your
organisation. In fact, many
organisations will not want to use too many staff as it requires backfilling
that can hit operating costs. Instead,
the business may believe it is better to use contractors where they can
capitalise on the cost. The danger is
that they take on an army of self-serving contractors who do not really
understand the business, cannot leverage output from peers in the organisation
with whom they don't have a working relationship, may not even have the
required expertise but who are good at self-preservation. The result is often a dysfunctional team and
an unhealthy blame culture. However,
this is seen as a cheaper option rather than working with a single partner who
will take a more holistic view of the delivery through a team of experts that
are used to working together across different programme functions. The other problem with contractors is that
the organisation is not building lasting knowledge and expertise within their
own people. It is not in the best
interest of the contractor to pass on knowledge as it may threaten their own
worth.
Problems in the ERP
implementation quite often surface when the programme starts testing the new
solution. This is when the programme
team find requirements have not been met, migrated data is of poor quality,
they have not completed their testing scope and the business are resistant to
transform themselves to adopt the solution.
Late projects that are restricted by budget often have to cut back on
scope which in reality dilutes the final benefits. This further dampens the spirits of the team
and the enthusiasm of the end users.
It can be
frustrating for implementation experts in such a situation as they can often
see that the wheels are wobbling but are not empowered to do anything about
it. I recently worked on a programme
where as a consultant team we could see loads of issues with the organisation's
preparation for UAT but the organisation didn't see any impending
disaster. The programme management
didn't listen to our advice and as they didn't know what good should look like,
they didn't recognise the signs that things weren't going well. By refusing to listen to our advice they
carried on for a long time marching the path towards failure. It is not productive to come back and say,
"we told you so!" So how can
we influence the situation when the organisation are clearly operating with a
Cargo Cult mentality? That is, they are
going through the motions of executing the necessary implementation activities
without doing justice to those activities because of their lack of
experience. The stage gates become a
box-ticking exercise but then they are surprised when the wheels finally fall
off.
If you are noticing
Cargo Cult mentality on your implementation project then I would advise to
follow the following procedure:
- Listen to the arguments that
the organisation bring as to why they think they can do it easily
themselves or as to why they think their approach will bring success. Be sure you understand their arguments
and be certain that you are not the one who is over complicating the
situation. Once you understand
their point of view then you can decide the best way to respond.
- Stake out the
stakeholders. You need to
understand which stakeholders are more willing to listen, what their
background, influence and experience is, so that you can build a plan for
influencing them.
- Once you understand the
different stakeholders then you need to build rapport with them and
position your viewpoint with those who have the influence and who are more
inclined to listen.
- Sow seeds - this has to be
done without being seen as being overly negative. We need to provide solutions to
perceived problems rather than just moan.
- Perseverance.
Finally, for
organisations that are embarking on an ERP implementation, to avoid Cargo Cult
behaviours developing, then I have the following advice:
- Understand your business
case, plan how you will transform your business and adopt the solution to
realise the benefits stated in your business case.
- Have a critical look at your
internal capabilities and understand if your team have really worked on
large transformation projects and have the functional and technical
knowledge to enable success.
Relying heavily on contractors may seem cheap but too many will
pile up the risk. Cutting corners
on budget early can often mean paying a lot more in the long run.
- Be prepared to invest in
bolstering your skills where you see the shortfall. Develop a knowledge transfer plan to
bolster your project team's knowledge early on.
- It may not be wise to partner
with a ERP system integrator who do not have wider business consultancy
skills but rather use a partner who judges success as delivering an
outcome that is in-line with the business case.
Abdul-Wahid Paterson is a director in Hitachi Solutions and works as a programme manager on Microsoft Dynamic implementations. He has a passion for helping develop the next generation of leaders and empowering everyone to achieve the most out of life. To find out more about Microsoft Dynamics and how it could help your organisation then please visit the Hitachi Solutions page.