Nike Case Analysis
NIKE CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Q: What characteristics about Nike contributed to their troubles with i2 becoming nothing more than a speed bump?
1. i2’s predictive demand application and its supply chain planner used different business rules and stored data in different formats, making it difficult to integrate the two applications. The i2 software needed to be so heavily customized to operate with Nike’s legacy systems that it took as much as a minute for a single entry to be recorded by the software. And, overwhelmed by the tens of millions of product numbers Nike used, the system frequently crashed..
2. Nike did not hire a third-party integrator although the company was replacing an already troublesome older application with a new supply chain planning application. Since Nike as a company was not a professional in software, they could have hired a third party integrator for efficient and faultless implementation of the software.
3. The implementation of software should have assessed the utility versus desired results. Nike could have done a stage wise deployment of software and with minimized customization.
4. Nike’s impatience also contributed to its troubles. Nike wanted to make sure that it built more shoes that fulfilled customers demand. Nike went ahead with the deployment using its legacy systems rather than implementing it as part of its SAP ERP project.
5. . Nike could not specifically fix the project objective and the desired results. Due to which, poor integration, inadequate training, unstable software and spotty testing derailed Nike’s i2 project
6. Also it is a probability that I2 only knew their product. If the information from Nike on the way they do business wasn’t communicated or wasn’t communicated correctly, then i2 built must have what they had knowledge of.
7. Inadequate training of employees to use the software.
Q: Nike claims their problems with i2 were tactical but others suggest there was
Q: What characteristics about Nike contributed to their troubles with i2 becoming nothing more than a speed bump?
1. i2’s predictive demand application and its supply chain planner used different business rules and stored data in different formats, making it difficult to integrate the two applications. The i2 software needed to be so heavily customized to operate with Nike’s legacy systems that it took as much as a minute for a single entry to be recorded by the software. And, overwhelmed by the tens of millions of product numbers Nike used, the system frequently crashed..
2. Nike did not hire a third-party integrator although the company was replacing an already troublesome older application with a new supply chain planning application. Since Nike as a company was not a professional in software, they could have hired a third party integrator for efficient and faultless implementation of the software.
3. The implementation of software should have assessed the utility versus desired results. Nike could have done a stage wise deployment of software and with minimized customization.
4. Nike’s impatience also contributed to its troubles. Nike wanted to make sure that it built more shoes that fulfilled customers demand. Nike went ahead with the deployment using its legacy systems rather than implementing it as part of its SAP ERP project.
5. . Nike could not specifically fix the project objective and the desired results. Due to which, poor integration, inadequate training, unstable software and spotty testing derailed Nike’s i2 project
6. Also it is a probability that I2 only knew their product. If the information from Nike on the way they do business wasn’t communicated or wasn’t communicated correctly, then i2 built must have what they had knowledge of.
7. Inadequate training of employees to use the software.
Q: Nike claims their problems with i2 were tactical but others suggest there was