This assessment is worth 45% of the total available marks for this
course. The aim of this assessment item is for you to prepare a report relating
to Central Queensland University’s latest Enterprise System implementation. If
you have any queries in regards to this assessment you should post them to the
Q&A forum in the first instance. Alternatively if you are an on campus
student you can discuss these issues with your lead lecturer or tutor.
You can also ask questions via email to the course coordinator.
Background to the Case Study
The case study provided below is based on a real organisation, Central
Queensland University. Be aware that the case outline below is relatively
brief. This has been done on purpose as links have been provided that give you
some history to begin your research from. You need to research and investigate
the case as thoroughly as possible in order to mount and justify your arguments
and choices in your report. You should find the web useful in this regard
however you are also encouraged to investigate other sources. As any good
writer of a report will do – do your homework and be sure of the facts.
Central Queensland University has a complex history when it comes to
Enterprise Systems implementation. CQU originally maintained a mix of legacy
“in-house” systems combined with commercial products. After the failure
of a syndicate approach to the development of specialised Student, Finance and
HR systems, the university came to a decision to seek an external solution.
Follow initial planning and the completion of the RFP process, a successful
tender was announced:
The university took the decision to implement the Student, Human
Resource and Finance modules of the PeopleSoft ERP (now Oracle
PeopleSoft). After $20 million dollars and two years, the Finance and
Student systems were delivered – over budget and over schedule. A number
of scholarly works have been based on studies relating to the implementation,
however a useful summary for this assignment is provided by Oliver and Van Dyke
Note (New – 11 August): This resource is available from
within the CQU network as part of the library collection. If the link
above prompts you to pay for the article, please try downloading the
Since the implementation project, the support and maintenance of the
Oracle PeopleSoft systems have led to significant ongoing costs including
regular hardware and software updates. Major upgrades have needed to
occur approximately every 5 years and have often cost in excess of ten million
dollars per occurrence: the majority of this cost is from human resources
such as programmers and functional analysts. One key issue driving
these costs is the substantial level of customisation to the ERP to meet the
organisation’s unique needs. While efforts have been made to rationalise
these customisations, their presence complicates ongoing maintenance and
The announcement of the merger with CQTAFE has led to an examination of
the university’s current and future Enterprise System needs. This has
resulted in an announcement to shift to a new Student Management system from
Australia-based vendor TechnologyOne:
While this will initially be restricted to VET (ex-TAFE) operations, the
plan is to roll the StudentOne product out over the wider university, replacing
the existing Oracle PeopleSoft student system. No announcement has been
made in relation to the future of the Finance (currently Oracle PeopleSoft) and
Human Resource (currently Talent2’s Alesco product) systems.
It should be noted that the new system implementation is not without
risk or controversy as the recent Victoria TAFE implementation has
It should be noted that the links provided for this case are only a
sample of the information available to you regarding the CQU Oracle PeopleSoft
and the history of TechnologyOne implementations: you will benefit from
undertaking broader research and Reading.
Study the past if you would define the
future – Confucius
The purpose of this assignment is to identify and report on the risks
facing the new StudentOne Enterprise System implementation by reflecting on the
history of Enterprise Systems at CQU. You need to think about what
happened in the past, why it happened and ask yourself is it likely to be an
issue in the current StudentOne implementation context. You need to
examine what is known about the StudentOne product and look at recent
implementations in order to identify any issues or risks pertinent to the CQU
context. From this, you are to identify, explain and justify risks.
Following this you need to identify, explain and justify recommendations that
will avoid or mitigate some or all of the risks you have previously identified.
You are required to use academic literature to support and illustrate
your report. It is important that you look at how issues and potential
problems inter-relate and explain the linkages in order to present the
risks. DO NOT just create a “shopping list” of risks
based simply on problems identified in the Oliver and Van Dyke paper (if you
do, you will not pass the assignment). The problems that occurred then
may not be relevant now, and many of them can be linked together to form
meta-themes (or root-cause problems). It is up to you to explain and
justify why the risks you identify may be a problem in the new implementation.
It is also important to situate them in terms of the literature on causes of
Enterprise Systems failure. Use this literature to develop your
recommendations for strategies or actions that can avoid or mitigate the
risks. Be aware that it may not be possible to avoid or mitigate all
Your audience are non-technical (think university executives) however
you can assume your readers are intelligent people who understand business
Remember that there is no single right answer that will address all
risks and recommendations. It is your task to present a persuasive piece
of writing that clearly identifies risks that are evidently real and directly
related to the current StudentOne implementation. It is your choice to
nominate which of the risks you believe are the most critical and up to you to
select the most appropriate mitigation strategies for your
recommendations. You will be assessed on your ability to persuade the
reader, so it is essential you develop factual and logical arguments in your
risk and recommendation justifications.
Your report should follow the following structure:
This is a concise summary of the purpose of the report. It
includes a brief summary of the findings of this report.
This section describes the purpose and structure of the report: it
sets out how the report is to be presented. You may use the introduction
to set the context for the report and briefly discuss any relevant history or
extant information pertaining to the StudentOne implementation. DO NOT
repeat the text of the assignment (i.e. do not use the outline in “The Case”
This section should detail the major risks facing Central Queensland
University’s StudentOne implementation in the context of previous CQU
Enterprise Systems implementations, the history of TechnologyOne product
implementations (not just in Victoria) and the extant literature on ES success
and failure factors. Each risk must include:
1. A description of the
2. A justification for
the inclusion of the risk in this report. This should link historical or
contemporary factors with the current organisational context and
literature. In other words, the reader must come away from reading this
believing the risk you have detailed is worth the inclusion in the report and
does pose a real threat to CQU.
3. The implications or
outcomes if the risk was realised (if not already covered).
There should be at least three (3) risks identified but no more than
seven (7). Bear in mind that many risks will be inter-related and have
common root-causes. Try to look for meta-themes and focus on identifying
root-cause risks. DO NOT repeat or summarise just the
issues discussed in the Oliver and Van Dyke paper.
This section should detail recommendations for strategies or actions
that will mitigate all or some of the previously described risks. Each
recommendation should include:
1. A detailed
description of the recommendation.
2. A justification for
the inclusion of the recommendation in this report. This should link a
risk or risks to extant ERP/ES literature on how to mitigate the risk (i.e what
doe the literature say about dealing with this issue). You can express your
personal opinion as long as you can justify it.
3. The implications of
carrying out the recommendation (if relevant). Would this recommendation
have consequences (schedule, budget, quality, political, user etc.)?
There should be at least three (3) risks identified but no more than
seven (7). Note that there may not be a 1:1 relationship with
risks. One recommendation may address multiple risks; alternately, one
risk may require a number of recommendations to mitigate or address it.
Again, look for root-causes and recommendations that address root-cause issues.
This section should briefly summarise the key themes from the Risks and
Recommendations sections. You should identify the key risk and the
resulting recommendation(s) that address it and explain why you think they are
the most critical. You should not introduce any new material in this
List all references used in alphabetical order (Harvard format).
The following link provides some good general information on how to get
started on a
There is no minimum or maximum word count for this assessment, however
it is suggested you keep your report between 3000 and 5000 words.
The aim is to develop and deliver a report that contains persuasive arguments
for the risks and recommendations you identify: this is not a function of
length. In other words, a longer report is not necessarily a better
Use your knowledge of CQU to inform the way you respond. Any
extant trade or academic literature regarding CQU may be used to inform your
You must use trade and academic literature to inform
and support your report. A minimum of 10 references are required, at
least 5 of which must be from academic sources (journal, conference or edited
book chapter papers). Failure to include these will result in a deduction of
marks. A high achieving student will probably have between 15 and 20
references. You may (and should) use the resources that are linked to on
this page. Bear in mind that you will need to find some more recent
academic literature than just the references cited in Oliver and Van Dyke.
ASK QUESTIONS! Use the course forums to pose questions and seek
Finally, here are some questions or points that you might like to think
about in order to begin to formulate your risks and recommendations. This
is not an exhaustive list and you are not required to answer
these in your assignment. To repeat – these questions are just to get you
started on your way:
1. Do you think the
first ES implementation at CQU was a success? Why/Why not?
2. What is different
between the two implementations? What is the same?
3. Is the CQU of now the
same organisation as it was in 1999? What is different? What is the
4. What mistakes did CQU
make when it implemented PeopleSoft?
5. Why did CQU implement
6. What advantages does
StudentOne have over the PeopleSoft Student solution? What are the
7. If CQU only
implements the Student system from TechnologyOne, what implications are there
for the technology and the organisation?
8. Are there any
political or social factors that are different between the two
implementations? Do these make a difference?
What you need to submit
You are required to submit a Microsoft Word document based on.cqu.edu.au/pluginfile.php/658068/mod_assignment/intro/COIT20230-A2-SUB.docx”>this template. Please enter
your student details in the section at the top of the template and add to the
sections (you may change formatting and add sub-sections). Please DO NOT
delete the marking criteria page.
OLIVER, D. & VAN DYKE, M. 2005. Looking Back, Looking In and Looking
On: Treading Over the ERP Battleground. Qualitative Case Studies on
Implementation of Enterprise Wide Systems. IGI Global.
Note that submission is a three-stage process of (i) uploading the
file(s) (ii) saving the file(s) and then (iii) submitting the saved file(s) for
marking. Please use the ‘Upload files’ button below to select and upload your
file(s) for this assessment. You must then click the ‘Save changes’ button
after you’ve uploaded the file(s) to ensure they are added to your draft
Note that, once uploaded and saved, all compatible files will be sent to
Turnitin.com for originality checking. If you wait for half an hour or so after
uploading your draft submission, you can return and check the Turnitin
similarity report for your uploaded file(s) to see whether you want to submit
them for marking, or whether you want to delete the file(s), revise and
resubmit. For further details, please click.cqu.edu.au/mod/page/view.php?id=102573″>here.
Please note, when viewing any feedback files for your submission, it is
strongly recommended you use appropriate/compatible software applications which
correctly open the type of file provided. This will ensure feedback content is
displayed as intended.