With the improved software development platforms of major software vendors promising more rapid development of customer applications, and an increasing pool of skilled resources available, it is no longer necessarily practical or feasible for manufacturing companies to build their own business applications to achieve specific unique advantages.
Conventional wisdom has always advocated caution when embarking on in-house developments, particularly for companies whose competitive advantages are rarely IT-based. The substantial improvement in new technologies, such as Microsoft`s .Net and SAP`s NetWeaver platforms, make it more important than ever before to challenge the rationale behind in-house development.
There is no doubt that these technologies offer great promise and make certain things simpler, but at the same time life in business is getting a lot more complicated. Increased flexibility and connectivity implies increased responsibility. No matter how smart the technology, if the underlying business complexity remains, highly experienced and skilled people are required to build applications that will manage that degree of complexity.
It may have been feasible to build and maintain a simple "ring-fenced" application before, and this may still hold true. However, with the power of the underlying platform continuously increasing, for how long can a simple application remain isolated? If the application is indeed strategic, then eventually integration will be required.
Conventional wisdom has always advocated caution when embarking on in-house developments.
Gavin Halse, MD, ApplyIT
This, as any CIO will know from experience, is when the fun truly starts. On what platform or architecture will the integration be built? Who will do this? Does the development team take account of emerging industry standards such as S95 (which specifies standard interfaces between the plant floor and enterprise-wide business software)? Does the company concerned truly have the skills and experience with this type of project to ensure it succeeds?
When presented with a proposal to start an in-house development, some probing questions should be asked: is there a formal development methodology in place; is there a proper version management, deployment and support model for the application; is the fundamental architecture of the system and its exposed interface sound; is the unique in-house development dependent on a particular individual who must enhance and maintain the application? In the same light, is there someone sufficiently capable to take over the project should the need arise, and can they continue with the project using the existing documentation? Are there political agendas at work that are likely to make roll-out to the rest of the organisation difficult?
The fact that in-house projects tend to seem much cheaper at inception is a warning sign that the proposal simply ignores or forgets the broader implications of enterprise software development. Software vendors and systems integrators have to understand and track new technologies as part of their core business. To succeed they must have well developed design, development, deployment and support systems in place. They have to maintain critical mass of skills and invest on an ongoing basis in their products.
The new technology platforms are demanding even higher levels of investment in skills, simply because of the inherent connectivity and associated business complexity that these platforms unlock.
So if manufacturing companies should avoid developing unique business software in-house, where then is the competitive advantage in using IT systems? The answer is that in-house business software should only be developed if a suitable pre-built solution is not available from the market, or if the project is short-term (less than six months), delivers measurable competitive benefits and can be treated as tactical in nature.
When the project is truly strategic, some tough questions need to be asked. If still in any doubt, a trusted IT partner with a proven solution already in place, or whose business it is to develop, maintain, enhance and support the necessary business applications, should be approached.
Of course, if the organisation is large enough to justify it, the necessary skills can be built in-house. It may be advisable, however, to structure and manage this in-house department on a proper commercial basis to ensure it is sustainable and therefore can truly meet future requirements.
Share