Far too many large corporations and enterprises fail to extract the maximum value from their investments in complex and very costly business systems because they don’t effectively utilise the full benefits that could accrue to them from their maintenance and support contracts.
That’s the view of Nikki Isherwood, Mint Group’s Head of ERP, who says that because maintenance and support from IT companies has traditionally been delivered as a reactive, break-fix service, it’s become a grudge purchase.
This is not surprising when, according to Isherwood, support and maintenance is often an ongoing cycle of unproductive, frustrating effort bound by opaque SLA agreements. So enterprises purchase a certain number of support and maintenance hours from the system supplier on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. When something doesn’t work as it should – for example, the general ledger doesn’t balance, credit notes or invoices go missing, inventory costs are not calculating correctly and so on – a support ‘ticket’ is logged and a support consultant is assigned to resolve the problem. The following month, the same or similar problem occurs, another support ticket is logged, another consultant is dispatched to sort it out, and so the cycle continues, unidentified as a value-draining problem.
However, Isherwood has found that in many instances, the solution to the fault or issue is remarkably simple, often requiring no more than clearing a filter that doesn’t need the expertise of a highly qualified support consultant to resolve.
“The problem is that the individuals using the system have never been properly trained, firstly, to use the system efficiently; secondly, to implement and utilise the latest enhancements that become available regularly with most large, cloud-based systems; and finally, to troubleshoot small errors that may occur,” she says.
She maintains that support and maintenance should be ongoing. When maintenance is neglected and support is only reactive – “only fix what’s broken and nothing more” – systems inevitably suffer degradation until they reach the stage when they are under-utilised and no longer fit for purpose.
An example of this break-fix mindset, which is all too familiar to every South African, has been adopted by Eskom. By failing to maintain its power stations and distribution infrastructure, let alone plan for the future, breakdowns have become increasingly frequent.
However, many enterprises – having implemented a multimillion-rand system – don’t make budgetary provision for ongoing maintenance and training. This usually leads, over time, to a system failing to do what it is supposed to do. As a result, it’s dismissed as a “bad’, “useless” or “obsolete” fit, only to be replaced.
However, the problem seldom lies with the system itself, but with the way it has been implemented and is being used. For example, when new members of staff are onboarded, it is often up to their colleagues to ‘show them the ropes’. But these ropes may be old and inefficient, and not designed to ensure the most productive use of all facets of a sophisticated system.
“Every ERP system has a whole range of modules that can automate the types of tasks every business needs. Think of the management of fixed assets, as an example. While every ERP system has a fixed asset module, many organisations still use Excel for this task. Similarly, many organisations employ individuals to manually produce different types of monthly, quarterly or annual reports – reports that may not be adding any tangible value to the business, or that could be done automatically in a fraction of the time,” Isherwood explains.
One such report, she suggests, could be the annual BEE and equity report, which usually take hours of work to compile but which could be handled in a fraction of the time and at considerably lower cost by a relatively minor customisation of the ERP system.
But all this maintenance and these customisations, tweaks, upgrades and ongoing training would be extremely costly – right?
“Not at all,” Isherwood maintains. “The enterprise is already paying for a certain number of support hours. Suppose staff weren’t logging support tickets for minor issues that – with the proper training – they could potentially fix themselves. In that case, those hours could be used for productivity-enhancing training, as well as for strategic maintenance and implementation of system upgrades.
“In other words, support should not be seen as a break-fix stop-gap, but as a way of getting better value from the system that is already in place,” she adds.
Isherwood also believes a proactive approach to support and maintenance would remove much of the stigma that currently clings to it, not just from the enterprise that begrudges paying for it, but also from users who require support and, more importantly, those employed in a support role.
“If support people, who generally have an excellent understanding of the intricacies of a system, were used more in a consultative role to identify ways in which the system could add real value to the organisation, it would open up a more attractive career path for them. This would assist in overcoming the reluctance of many highly skilled support people to remain in this role.
“Effectively, proactive support and maintenance is a win-win alternative to traditional reactive support – and it need not cost the enterprise a cent more,” Isherwood concludes.
