Case study sub-units of analysis
| Variables . | OCA-Amsterdam . | OCB-Brussels . | OCG-Geneva . | OCBA-Barcelona . | OCP-Paris . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture towards achieving mission | Highly bureaucratic and quality focused culture. Focus on standardized processes that deliver efficient and effective operations throughout organization that missions will leverage | Initially less bureaucratic and quality focused culture. Transformed to have a considerable focus on standardized processes that deliver efficient and effective operations throughout organization | Supportive change culture. Seeks to improve operations' effectiveness and efficiency through standardized processes as a critical part of ERP implementation. Willing to invest heavily in process change towards long-term outcome | Modestly bureaucratic and quality focused culture. Seek to improve operations' effectiveness and efficiency but not willing to heavily invest in process change. Wants to ensure resources for mission. Lower risk strategy | Less bureaucratic and central operations focused. People culture. Focus on dynamism of operations and adaptability to humanitarian context. Non-technology driven. Mission oriented with local autonomy and flexibility |
| Process maturity and structure | Very structured and well-documented supply chain and finance processes. High maturity in terms of standardized and customized processes | Structured and well-documented supply chain and finance processes. High maturity in terms of standardized and customized processes | Moderate/low maturity in terms of standardized and customized existing processes. Looking to set up standard supply chain and finance processes | Structured finance processes and far less structured supply processes. Moderate/Low maturity in terms of standardized and customized processes | Less structured and formalized processes. Seek flexibility and adaptability, largely through people's proximate actions. Low maturity in terms of standardized processes |
| Buy versus make | Make ERP to fit to unique processes. No willingness to review and adapt business processes to standard ERP modules. Sought to customize ERP to their way of operating | Make ERP to fit to unique processes. Little willingness to review and adapt unique processes to standard ERP modules. Open in configuring some standard ERP modules | Willingness to review and adapt business processes to standard ERP modules. Customize system to best practices as observed in other OCs/ Open in configuring standard ERP modules | Buy standard ERP. High willingness to adapt business processes to standard ERP modules. Little interest in customizing software to unique business processes | Make ERP to fit to unique processes. No willingness to review and adapt processes to standard ERP modules. Little interest in building or buying, rather wanted to cobble through with what they have |
| Governance model and top management support | Strong top, middle and field management support providing resources and priority to ERP project | Strong top, middle and field management support providing resources and priority to ERP project | Strong top, middle and field management support providing resources and priority to ERP project | Low top, middle and field management support for UniField. Some support for commercial ERP solutions | Low top, middle and filed management support. Paris has other priorities. ERP has less support in terms of resources and allowed more local –field level autonomy to cobble solutions that fit the context |
| Technological change and risk propensity | Medium openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence as long as they conformed with their existing processes | Moderately high openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence as long as they conformed with their existing processes | High openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence | Low openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence. Low willingness to use the customized ERP that other operational centers use | Low openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence. Their moto is “if something works, for example Excel, why should we change it. Our mission is to save lives and not change IT systems” |
| Variables . | OCA-Amsterdam . | OCB-Brussels . | OCG-Geneva . | OCBA-Barcelona . | OCP-Paris . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture towards achieving mission | Highly bureaucratic and quality focused culture. Focus on standardized processes that deliver efficient and effective operations throughout organization that missions will leverage | Initially less bureaucratic and quality focused culture. Transformed to have a considerable focus on standardized processes that deliver efficient and effective operations throughout organization | Supportive change culture. Seeks to improve operations' effectiveness and efficiency through standardized processes as a critical part of ERP implementation. Willing to invest heavily in process change towards long-term outcome | Modestly bureaucratic and quality focused culture. Seek to improve operations' effectiveness and efficiency but not willing to heavily invest in process change. Wants to ensure resources for mission. Lower risk strategy | Less bureaucratic and central operations focused. People culture. Focus on dynamism of operations and adaptability to humanitarian context. Non-technology driven. Mission oriented with local autonomy and flexibility |
| Process maturity and structure | Very structured and well-documented supply chain and finance processes. High maturity in terms of standardized and customized processes | Structured and well-documented supply chain and finance processes. High maturity in terms of standardized and customized processes | Moderate/low maturity in terms of standardized and customized existing processes. Looking to set up standard supply chain and finance processes | Structured finance processes and far less structured supply processes. Moderate/Low maturity in terms of standardized and customized processes | Less structured and formalized processes. Seek flexibility and adaptability, largely through people's proximate actions. Low maturity in terms of standardized processes |
| Buy versus make | Make ERP to fit to unique processes. No willingness to review and adapt business processes to standard ERP modules. Sought to customize ERP to their way of operating | Make ERP to fit to unique processes. Little willingness to review and adapt unique processes to standard ERP modules. Open in configuring some standard ERP modules | Willingness to review and adapt business processes to standard ERP modules. Customize system to best practices as observed in other OCs/ Open in configuring standard ERP modules | Buy standard ERP. High willingness to adapt business processes to standard ERP modules. Little interest in customizing software to unique business processes | Make ERP to fit to unique processes. No willingness to review and adapt processes to standard ERP modules. Little interest in building or buying, rather wanted to cobble through with what they have |
| Governance model and top management support | Strong top, middle and field management support providing resources and priority to ERP project | Strong top, middle and field management support providing resources and priority to ERP project | Strong top, middle and field management support providing resources and priority to ERP project | Low top, middle and field management support for UniField. Some support for commercial ERP solutions | Low top, middle and filed management support. Paris has other priorities. ERP has less support in terms of resources and allowed more local –field level autonomy to cobble solutions that fit the context |
| Technological change and risk propensity | Medium openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence as long as they conformed with their existing processes | Moderately high openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence as long as they conformed with their existing processes | High openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence | Low openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence. Low willingness to use the customized ERP that other operational centers use | Low openness to take the risk of changing existing IT systems with an integrated ERP to achieve better organizational performance and competence. Their moto is “if something works, for example Excel, why should we change it. Our mission is to save lives and not change IT systems” |