KEDA CASE

REPORT

Executive Summary
Keda’s Success
After only five months, Dr. Fan Zhu had Keda’s success in implementing an ERP system was due
successfully led Keda through an ERP
implementation; a project that fails 80% to an approach that focused on the actions made before,
of the time in China. Key to their success during, and after the implementation process of the new
was Keda’s ability to strategically select
the appropriate vendor, build a compre- system. This was due to primarily these five factors:
hensive project team, consistently involve
top management, strategically deploy the 1. The selection of the ERP vendor was predicated on
system, and closely monitor employee’s
levels of satisfaction with the system.
the system’s alignment with the firm’s goals
These actions have been found to be con-
gruent with best practices and serve as 2. The project team was comprised of key individuals
critical success factors for ERP imple- intimately familiar with the business processes
mentations.
3. Top management was involved throughout the pro-
ject and provided active support

4. Timing and method of the implementation efforts

was strategically planned

5. Change management was closely monitored and

country-specific cultural norms were leveraged to
gain organizational commitment

Team 5 Choosing a vendor

Kevin Hagler Before ERP implementation efforts began, Keda estab-
Adam Guediri lished a set of selection criteria by which all possible so-

Mohamad Hadi lutions would be judged. This was significant because

Johnathan Jenkins the criteria highlighted the needs and goals of the com-
pany including managing their current infrastructure as
Jonathan Grim
well as enabling them to grow in the future. That criteria
guided the vendor selection and ensured that any solu-
tion chosen would address the needs of the company.
To ensure that Keda was considering all appro-
priate solutions, Zhu invited twenty vendors to
tour the facilities and present their products. Of
these, Zhu solicited a request for proposal from
nine vendors and eventually went with SAP as
its offering aligned most closely with the firm’s
strategic goals. Zhu felt that SAP met Keda’s
requirements for a sophisticated, feature-rich
product which supported complex operational
processes across multiple production facilities.
SAP also had a proven track record of successful
implementations and could guarantee long-term
support for the product. SAP was also previously
adopted by Keda’s major competitor, SACMI, which further ager. This layer would provide the overall direction for the
highlighted their competency in Keda’s industry. project. Beneath this, the project manager and assistant pro-
ject manager would give strategic and tactical direction along
Choosing a team with the consultants. Finally, at the bottom layer, key users
Zhu made public his belief in people over technology. Due to and IT specialists would provide process and system design.
this belief, Keda assembled a project team with indispensable
All members had a clear picture of what their roles would be
personnel such as departmental managers and essential opera-
and the full scope of their responsibilities throughout the ERP
tional staff. Zhu made sure that members of the project team
implementation. Furthermore, key users of the technology
were vital to the overall organization and possessed a clear
were responsible for specifying the data models associated
and comprehensive understanding of the operational process-
with the ERP system as well as its accuracy. Each module of
es.
the ERP system was assigned to a key user within the associ-
The team was then structured into three layers. The first layer ated department. This user became the owner and was re-
consisted of the project steering committee and general man- sponsible for the workflows and operational details of that
module. This level of involvement and accountability ensure
that the final product suited the needs of each department.

Management involvement
Top management support was a critical aspect in the success
of the ERP implementation for Keda. From the beginning,
Zhu ensured that top management were involved in the pro-
ject by ensuring involvement from senior managers, including
the director, during the vendor presentations, negotiations,
and selection. Zhang spoke on the criticality of top manage-
ment involvement by saying “If senior managers would not
even attend these meetings, then we knew their so-called sup-
port for the project would remain superficial and that project
implementation would be difficult.”
Throughout the implementation, top management support
remained important. The chairman of the board was present
at five meetings -- four of them crucially important to the pro-
ject -- as Zhu believed that executive-level management must
be “involved in the major events, milestones, and decision-
making.” Keda executives were not only made aware of all
challenges and difficulties of the project, but also responded
to them promptly to resolve any issues as quickly as possible.
Strategic deployment
When choosing a method for deployment, a “Big Bang” ap-
proach was utilized to expedite the system implementation.
This approach was favored over a longer, phased approach
due to the potential for more immediate results. A critical
success factor in this deployment method was that Keda was
able to foresee problems that would arise from the aggressive
cutover, and prepared itself to address these issues. Expected-
ly, there were immediate issues that developed after deploy-
ment, but because Keda had prepared itself, these issues were
addressed quickly and production delays were minimized.
Timing considerations factored heavily into the implementa-
tion process as well. In order to mitigate risk and minimize
business disruptions, Keda focused their efforts during the
season of least production. The months of August, Septem-
ber, and October demanded less attention to Keda’s ordinary
business processes and therefore the team was able to mini-
mize opportunity costs associated with the ERP effort.
work shifts in the canteen which would be a cause of great
embarrassment.
Keda also took advantage of the unique country-specific cul-
ture that pervaded business in China. The business environ-
ment in China allows executives to have a command-and-
control presence within their respective institutions. When
top management issues directives, these commands are to be
strictly followed. In one case, a manager’s refusal to use the
new system resulted in his dismissal. When another was
raised to take his place there was no conflict of interest with
the new system. This environment allowed Keda to avoid the
common pitfalls of employees who were hesitant to adopt
changes in their work process.
Key Takeaways
The importance of planning
An ACM Computing Survey, identifies that initial project plan-
ning is often disregarded in less successful ERP implementations
(Shaul & Tauber, 2013). A lesson from Keda can be taken in the
extensiveness of their pre-project planning. Keda understood
that a lack of integration inhibited their ability to make informed
decisions across business units. In response, the organization
underwent a six-month process of documenting existing prob-
lems, gathering departmental business requirements, and creat-
ing a set of shared business objectives.

Change management When it came time to select a vendor for the ERP system, Keda
was able to draw on this work and craft a selection criteria to
Keda closely monitored user support and use of the system
guide the process. This is in line with the ERP implementation
throughout the entire implementation process. This process
critical success factors identified by Shaul and Tauber. They
was critical to success as it ensured that the organization
state that, “Selecting an ERP system is not only about choosing
would be able to fully benefit from the new technology. In
an ERP system but also about choosing a consultation partner
early stages, many departmental management were upset that
and vendor.” (Shaul & Tauber, 2013). Keda understood this and
the project made it only possible for them to work with their
made it a top priority that the vendor they chose would be able to
departments after 5:00 PM. To manage this, senior manage-
provide long-term support and consultation services.
ment devised a reward system that awarded those who
worked extra hours with bonuses. Conversely, if a manager
decided to skip project meetings, they would be forced to
Building a winning team
The project team is of vital importance to the success of an
ERP implementation. Indeed, ensuring project team compe-
tence was the most critical HR requirement for successful ERP
implementation identified in a field study conducted in Shang- Elmeziane, K., & Elmeziane, M. (2012, February). Enterprise
hai (Elmeziane & Elmeziane, 2012). It is imperative that the
team members have a proven record of success, possess a core
competency of their area, and be free to work on the project
on a full-time basis. It has also been demonstrated that suc-
cessful ERP project teams are comprised of individuals repre-
senting all areas of the business (Finney & Corbett, 2007).
Keda’s project team embodied these requirements. By pushing
for the critical employees of each area, including departmental
managers, Zhu was able to build a project team that offered as
much depth of knowledge as it did breadth of experience.
Top management support
Successful ERP implementations require top management
support. Leadership must be committed and participate
throughout the project as they will provide the resources and
authorization to make the project a success. One study found
that top management involvement can have up to a 58% role
in determining the success of an ERP implementation
(Hasibuan & Dantes, 2012).
resistance, management took strong steps to ensure organiza-
tional support.
References
Resources Planning Systems Implementation Success
In China. Business Management Review, pp. 1-9.
Fang, Y., Fung, T., Neufeld, D., & Wang, H. (2011). Keda's
SAP Implementation.
Finney, S., & Corbett, M. (2007). ERP implementation: a
compilation and analysis of critical success factors.
Business Process Management Journal, pp. 329-347.
Hasibuan, Z. A., & Dantes, G. R. (2012). Priority of Key
Success Factors (KSFS) on Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) System Implementation Life Cycle.
Journal of Enterprise Resource Planning Studies, 1-15.
Reimers, K. (2003). Implementing ERP Systems in China.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
pp. 335-356.
Shaul, L., & Tauber, D. (2013, August). Critical Success
Factors in Enterprise Resource Planning Systems:
Review of the Last Decade. ACM Computing Surveys,
pp. 55-55:39.

It has also been shown that more extensive management in-

volvement can directly impact end user acceptance and satis-
faction of the system through various factors. Firstly, more
management involvement often dictates the importance of the
system and the support management has for it. Additionally,
users may feel more motivated to make a larger effort in help-
ing with the project if they know that top management is di-
rectly involved. Lastly, a strong management presence can
help discourage any resistance to the system (Reimers, 2003).

Keda can be shown to have exhibited a strong management

involvement throughout the project life cycle. Senior manag-
ers and the director were present throughout the vendor selec-
tion process, and the chairman of the board was present at
several meetings for key decisions. And in the case of open