Nike Case Study
Customers have a responsibility to know what they are buying and to have the technical staff on board to be able to answer questions and make critical business decisions that should not be left in the hands of the vendors. Vendors have a responsibility to ensure that the customers understand the technology and the impact on the business process. If the customer is not adequately educated, they should make it a point to request that information from the vendor, forcing their own staff to acquire the expertise so that there is a minimum of finger pointing when there are delays. It's much better for both parties when they are able to make joint decisions about how to approach bottlenecks and delays. Nike's significant blame is for not testing the application in a real world environment. Also, it was Nike's decision to run parallel systems, which was responsible for part of the problem (Wilson 1). The vendor is at fault for not disclosing problems that I'm sure that they saw or knew about to Nike during implementation. It appears the project managers on both sides of this implementation were very weak.
While Nike needed to understand that the software is only as good as people implementing and using it, i2 needed to be able to provide enough support and information to their customer to help them get the implementation right. The software was built to succeed and yet was put into place in a way that caused failure. This was all avoidable …show more content…
It is therefore imperative to have a good system in place that takes care of day-to-day transactions and a clear-cut supply chain vision so that the supply chain concerns are clearly stated. The first and foremost step in SCM initiative is to evaluate the right solution which integrates seamlessly with the execution system, address all the supply chain concerns, and selecting the right SCM expert that understands the company's business. In the Nike/i2 case, none of these steps were taken, which resulted in