Brief background information
Harley Davidson Inc. is a world-known American motorcycle manufacturer, which was founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1903 by William Harley and Arthur Davidson. The history of Harley Davidson is “a story no one on earth could have made up”. (Harley Davidson, 2013). According to M.Masker, Harley Davidson had come through lots of hard periods in its history, including Great Depression and later periods of failures to maintain quality control and great competition with Japanese motorcycles manufacturers. The company managed to meet the challenges emphasizing the quality of products and making use of their brand image. By the way, such companies as Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha remain Harley Davidson’s main competitors till today.
Products by Harley Davidson are famous for their high quality and distinctive design. For Harley Davidson itself and its loyal customers the motorcycles they build “are not just motorcycles”, but “living pieces of American history, mystique, on two wheels” and “the vehicle with which riders discover the power, the passion and the people that define the Harley Davidson experience” (Harley Davidson, 2013). Furthermore, Harley Davidson calls its most loyal customers “customers for life”, that, having once got inspired by unforgettable Harley Davidson experience, stay engaged with Harley Davidson products (Harley Davidson, 2013). In its work the company sticks to such important principles as the values of individual participation, teamwork, which is conducted in the form of self0directed teams, which operate at all the levels of the company. According to company’s Presentation materials, its mission is “To fulfill dreams through the experiences of motorcycling, by providing to motorcyclists and to the general public an expanding line of motorcycles and branded products and services in selected market segments”. (3)
Harley Davidson’s organizational structure is considered to be different from the one, typical for other companies. Its organizational structure contains three circles, which can be viewed as interrelated units: Produce product group (PPG), Create demand circle, (CDC) and Provide support (PSC). The first unite mentioned deals with developing, designing and manufacturing products. CDC is responsible for marketing and sales promotion. Activities of the last unit embrace such branches as human resources, corporate financial issues and communication. The main body, which provides guidance to all the circles, is Leadership and Strategy Council. It is worth mentioning that each of the circles has its own IT circle.
Problem Statement
One of crucial issues with regard to implementing an ambitious project of forming the unified supplies regards choosing one of three software vendors, which will ensure further elaboration on the project. The final list of potential suppliers was formed on the basis of companies’ proposals and self-evaluation lists. Such criteria as initial functionality, opportunities of further customization and, what is more important, meeting existing corporate culture, strategies and value were applied. All three options seem to have their own pros and cons. So, which software vendour should Harley Davidson choose to reach its goals and implement successful transfer to the new uniform supplier information system?
Alternatives
Option1 is to sign a contract with Provider 1. The main pro of making this choice lies in the fact that this provide acknowledges Harley Davidson’s most important values and adheres to similar style of running business. This pro is crucial in terms of conducting negotiations and creating a legal framework for cooperation with this vendour. Moreover, as it was stated in company’s self-evaluation sheet, it has already had an experience of running the project of the same scale, which is undoubtedly similar to the one, which is going to be implemented by Harley Davidson. Other benefits, emphasized by Sil’Kteam’s members after vendour’s presentation was diversity of its team and its strong know-how and interest in change management. The main contra with regard to this supplier lies in low ranking of functionality on offer.
The second option is to hire Provider 2. In fact, main feature of this provider is its well-known brand and excellent reputation within the industry. Moreover, as opposed to Supplier 1, this supplier is able to empower the system with necessary web-enablement of the interface. According to company’s self-evaluation sheet, it is able to provide Sil’Kteam with the system of highest functionality rate possible. The company also provided the well-designed set of materials, aimed at designing trainings for managers and staff. Nonetheless, the company failed to provide the evidence of its preparedness to processing the needs of the organization. During company’s presentation it became clear that it has quite a reluctant attitude towards change management and lacks motivation to contribute to the implementation of the mutual project.
Option 3 lies taking provider 3. Firstly, we would like to mention that Harley Davidson had already built strong business bonds with this provider. We already know that this vendour’s organizational culture fits the requirements, set by Harley Davidson. Despite the fact that this supplier reported 96.8 percent of functionality fit, Sil’Kteam’s members expressed the concern that the vendour’s management does not fully understand the requirements, which should be met by software and, therefore, are likely to experience significant difficulties with regard to providing a software system of high quality. Presentation by the supplier was overtime and lacked preciseness. In spite of some significant threats, associated with the level of functionality, expected price advantages are to be considered.
Recommendation
Considering the profiles of all three suppliers, it is worth paying particular attention to issues, connected with:
- Adherence to organizational culture and values (this factors is decisive due to specific values of Harley Davidson and its unique organizational structure)
- Level of functionality
- Proper level of change management (importance of this factor is called forth by the fact that failure to exercise effective change management is likely to result in overall failure of the project)
Evaluating companies’ profiles by these criteria , Sil’Kteam came to the conclusion that it is worth selecting Provider 1, as particularly this supplier adheres to Harley Davidson’s values and the way of running business. Furthermore, this supplier has already successfully conducted similar project and has good expertise with regard to change management. As this supplier shares Harley Davidson’s values and views, it will be easy and comfortable to elaborate on a common project. Moreover, particularly this supplier is the one, which is good at change management.
As it was mentioned before, Harley Davidson’s employees are quite reluctant to perceive the changes, so, it needs strong informational and communicational support from the supplier. Supplier 1 is an excellent option in this regard. Moreover, this company is good at know-how and can provide a unique system of unified supplies. Furthermore such contras as lack of motivation to adhere to company’s values and reluctant attitudes towards change management (Supplier 2) and significant threat of not being able to provide the necessary level of functionality are much more serious and threatening as contras, which were considered with respect to Supplier 1. So, Supplier 1 is the best one two fit two most important managerial criteria (adherence to organizational culture and values and high level of change management), nonetheless, the decision was a complicated one as the company faces difficulties, connected with providing the system with necessary level of functionality and relevant web enablement.
Reflection
Works cited
Harley Davidson Inc. Harley Davidson Official website, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2013
Harley Davidson Motor Company. Presentation materials. n.d.Web. 26 Feb. 2013
Masker, Mark. “American Machine Foundry – Journey into History”.Jan.2007.Web. 26 Feb. 2013
Overby, Michael. “Partner selection criteria in strategic alliances: when to ally with weak partners”. Danish Research Center for Industrial Dynamics.2005.Web. 26 Feb.2013
