The implementation of an information system and its consequences for the success of the companies

Résumé du document

Today, we are led to think that every company which wants to stay “on the run” has to implement an information system. Success stories of online businesses led companies, even those which exist from the 20th century, to develop an e-business approach. By information system we mean an organized system of different resources (soft wares, procedures, data…) which allow to get, process and stock information within and between organizations. What could explain the implementation of an information system for a company? Does it mean necessarily positive fallout? To answer this question, we will analyze one of the older economic sectors: car industry. We will compare 2 companies, General Motors and Land Rover, which have both developed an e-business approach. After a brief description of their background, we will focus on their e-business plan, to try to emphasize the critical key factors of an effective information system.

Extraits

[...] GM and Land Rover understood the importance of e-commerce, which was becoming a new trade trend. E-commerce concerns as much companies as consumers (B2B and B2C configuration). Both groups perfectly understood this and created specific portals for B2B (GMAC Smart Auction, DealerWorld portal and Autocentric for GM, online professional cars catalogues for Land Rover) and for B2C (GMAC BuyPower Website for GM, internet interfaces for both). For buyers, this system means convenience: they can check online availability, prices, nearest dealers, and catalogues of vehicles. [...]

[...] Both groups got involved in training period for the staff and in strong research in the vestments to get the information system flexible and cost effective through the years. Conclusion So the information system is over present in GM and Land Rover value chain. As I try to introduce you, the change has been made step by step thought the supply chain process, in a logical order. Thanks to those efforts, the groups could make a continuous and coherent progress of the review of the supply chain, regarding primary and support functions. [...]

[...] A High degree of personalisation may lead to complexity, an increasing of costs and stocks. However, one of the prerogatives of both groups was to limit stocks; for GM, it was even substantial because it was in a configuration of overproduction due to the structure of its costs lot of fixed costs encourages the group going on producing without taking into account real sales). Both companies developed specific relationships with its suppliers to achieve rationalized production system. Information processing also meant a virtual reality system in internal logistics. [...]

[...] For sure, this had consequences on the efficiency of both plans. Expected results had been largely reduced for GM due to the economic environment context Information leadership Land Rover is also a good example of information leadership. ICT are cost effective only if they allow easier flow of information, for each stakeholder. Consequently, to be efficient, ICT need a leadership to share information in a collective network. We can define it as participative leadership. And this was in my point of view what GM did wrong. [...]

[...] - Rapidity of delivery. - A zero stock production system. As an answer, GM and Land Rover developed a supply chain based on the principle of the funnel: all options and personalisation of the products were realizes in the 7 last days of the production process. The role of the information system is obvious in the collect and process of information from the customers, via a Website for Land Rover and a specific portal for GM, which meant rapidity and efficiency. [...]