Project Charter Example2 Erp 63302d

PROJECT CHARTER 2 - ERP Rollout – EXAMPLE ONLY – CAN BE IMPROVED Project and Approval Information Project Name/Number General Plant ERP Rollout Sponsoring Organization General Plant Fulfillment Project Sponsor Name: David Tracy 5555

Phone: 555-

Office Address: 123 Mail Stop Email: .com Project Leader

Name: Sam Peters 4444

Phone: 555-

Office Address: 123 Mail Stop Email: .com Team (Name) Cheryl J Willard T Kevin K Ray A Vern R Will L Tami S

Title/Role Phone Fulfillment Specialist 1234 Product Line Scheduler 0123 Product Line Engineer 2345 Data Setup Analyst 3456 ERP Analyst/Programmer 4567 Shopfloor Control Analyst/Prog 5678 Integration Specialist 6789

Email .com .com .com .com .co .com .com

Principal Stakeholders David T Vincent A Ione C Jan K

Title/Role Fulfillment Manager Plant Manager Legacy IT Manager Materials Mgmt Manager

Email .com .com .com .com

Date Chartered: 10/3/2016

Phone 5555 0987 8765 7654

Project Start Date: 11/15/2016

Revision: 1.0

Date: 10/3/2016

Sponsor Approval Signature:

Date:

Updates & Approval Log Revision Date

Target Completion Date: 4/1/2017

Sponsor Approval Signature

Page 1 of 7

1.0 1.1

BUSINESS ANALYSIS Business Problem/Opportunity What is the problem: Legacy mainframe system for scheduling and managing the shop floor is inadequate. Extra overhead is required in the production facility to manage the system. Customer service in legacy-plants lags that of plants which have been rolled out on the new ERP solution. The legacy system does not provide timely of production status (i.e. where the line is on the schedule) or quality issues. What is the real problem: The legacy mainframe solution could be tweaked to better serve the shop floor’s needs, but the cost to do so is prohibitive and the technology is outdated and largely uned. Few of the original system architects remain with the company; therefore, the ability to change the system is severely limited. The legacy coders that remain are very underutilized, since there is less and less volume flowing through this IT channel. Whose problem is it: The shop floor is heavily affected – negatively – by the legacy system. The customer is also impacted due to sub-standard quality and service due to missing information to operate the plant. IT also shares the burden of ing multiple platforms, making the mainframe a liability for resource planning. Where does the problem come from: The problem originates from IT’s inability to the old mainframe system. The mainframe technology is 25+ years old – it has completed its life cycle. Why do we want to solve the problem: The problem needs a solution to improve first- quality yield, customer service, and ultimately better serve our customers at a lower manufacturing and overhead cost.

1.2

Project Scope/Objective The goal of this initiative is to cut manufacturing overhead and provide better information to run the business by implementing an ERP solution using “cut and paste” solutions containing the following modules:  Assembly  Procurement  Fabrication  Shop floor control system (SFCS)  Training and documentation The plant will drive the requirements; IT will create the solution. Project to be completed by 4/1/2017.

In Scope:  Hands-on training  Training documentation  Component sequencing solution  Stabilization for 90 days

Out of Scope:  Code modifications to existing solution already developed for other plants  OEE machine-to-SFCS linkage  Hardware modifications to existing solution already developed for other plants  Query-based report package 1.3

Benefits & Potential Value(s)

Page 2 of 7

 

 

Marketing  Faster NPI  Enables direct sync with ordering software IT  More stable integration into interface software (less time required)  Ability to decommission legacy systems  Development of common IT platform across enterprise to concentrate IT resources Finance  More reliable data  Data/information is easier to control and/or disseminate Manufacturing  Scheduling for only one IT system (versus current state = four)  Single, central repository for all data  Elimination of three FTE’s due to ease of software use  Reduction in inventory cost due to higher data integrity  Improved customer service due to higher data integrity

1.4

Impacts of Doing Nothing – Internal to the Business 1. High overhead cost of maintaining legacy system maintained 2. Inaccurate financial data/estimates due to inaccurate information – difficult to make decisions with bad information 3. Cost of poor quality will not improve since no efficient way to collect information 4. Increased risk of large-scale customer service issues due to mainframe failure or “incurable” bug

1.5

Impacts of Doing Nothing – External to the Business 1. Cannot match competitor price point due to increased internal costs 2. Quality of product is not as high due to lagging/inaccurate quality from shop floor 3. Increased risk of large-scale customer service issues due to mainframe failure or “incurable” bug

2.0 2.1

PHASES & MAJOR DELIVERABLES Deliverables Kanban-based procurement/fabrication system, MRP-based finished goods system, and shopfloor control with the following in place: 1. Standard work updated on manufacturing floor to for new responsibilities 2. Work instructions provided for scheduling and procurement staff 3. Training sessions for all impacted parties 4. “Scrubbed” BOM data 5. Quality system tied into shop-floor control 6. Memo to sales-channel on new product/package appearance 7. Basic report package (shortage reports, error reports, etc.)

2.2

Activities (list in sequence order if known) 1. Build team with from IT, manufacturing, finance, and materials management 2. Complete the following for each phase (procurement, fabrication, assembly): a) Define discrete objectives b) Measure and quantify current state performance and cost of legacy system

Page 3 of 7

c) Map current state process and identify gaps between current and future state of both IT capability and business readiness d) Close gaps e) Train, document, and present for launch approval f) Launch g) Stabilize and measure for anticipated results

3.0 3.1

3.2

PROJECT VITAL SIGNS Overview of Schedule 

Requested Start: 11/15/2016



Required Delivery: 4/1/2017



Timing Concerns: DH rollout team is slightly behind schedule. Need team to close project by 10/31 in order to roll to this project.

Assumptions  Recent acquisition does not impact IT resources/priorities  Business readiness can be achieved within five weeks  Finance has resources to rollout  Product lines do not relocate prior to 4/07  Shop floor experts are available to provide expertise

Dependencies  Current IT team needs to execute preceding rollouts on time to free up by 11/15

3.3

Major Quality Assurance Reviews and Roles We will use the stage gate process for this project, with the exception that the first gate is already “ed”. The remaining gates are planning, executing, controlling, closing. Before each stage is closed, a gate review will be held with the stakeholders to review progress and decisions made during that stage. Estimates of the gate closes are: Planning/design: March 1 Executing: April 1 Controlling: May 1 Closing: May 15 See section 5.2 and 5.3 for other informal updates on progress on decisions.

3.4

Risks and Contingency Plans to Cover Them  Team member leaves: if a plant expert/resource, substitute secondary backup for absentee; if an IT expert/resource, take resource from DH Plant stabilization to backfill (DH Plant will be backfilled by contract IT resource) o Impact of not managing this risk is delay in project delivery and/or inferior design

Page 4 of 7









Existing data (BOMs, routings, etc.) found during discovery/investigation is grossly incomplete or inaccurate: three experienced associates from shop floor are available to re-create missing data; they will be backfilled through temp agency o Impact of not managing this risk is delay in project delivery and/or incorrect BOMs that will crash all MRP scheduling and procurement functions due to inaccurate inventories Product line is redesigned: freeze line changes by working with plant engineering after design phase of project o Impact of not managing this risk is having a design that is not compatible with the line layout and/or not having the hardware to new line layouts Integrations between systems fail: build inventory prior to rollout to cover four days of sales; have 24-hour IT available during rollout week o Impact of not managing this risk is customer service fall down and lost productivity Management dictates shop floor personnel cannot participate due to budgetary constraints: secure backup resources from other cost centers who have past experience in impacted areas o Impact of not managing this risk is incorrect data in the ERP system leading to increased potential for inventory stockouts

3.5

Estimated Labor Costs (# Hours)

3.6

Estimated non-Labor Costs  Expense for hardware: $160,000  Network/electrical drops: $30,000  Training center and documentation fees/costs: $10,000

3.7

Interdependencies with Other Projects  DH rollout team is slightly behind schedule. Need team to close project by 10/31 in order to roll to this project.

3.8

Functional Areas Impacted by Request Manufacturing, Marketing, Sales, Quality, Fulfillment, Helpdesk s per area:  Manufacturing – Jill H  Marketing – David N  Sales – Robert K  Quality – Ben A  Fulfillment – David T  Helpdesk – Ione C

4.0 4.1

Project Staffing Project Staffing and Time Commitments Cheryl J - Fulfillment Specialist Willard T - Product Line Scheduler Kevin K - Product Line Engineer Ray A - Data Setup Analyst Vern R - ERP Analyst/Programmer Will L - Shopfloor Control Analyst/Programmer Tami S - Integration Specialist

Page 5 of 7

60% 35% 50% (all prior to 1/1/2017) 100% (all prior to 2/1/2017) 50% 100% 50% (all after 2/1/2017)

4.2

Special Resources Needed All resources have been previously identified

4.3

Project Organization (Roles & Responsibilities)

Champion: David T Project Leader: Sam Peters Cheryl J – shopfloor expert and current legacy process expert. Responsible to represent the needs of the production floor and ensure their needs are delivered. Willard T – shopfloor expert and current legacy process expert. Responsible to represent the needs scheduling team and ensure their needs are delivered. Kevin K – connection to engineering team who is responsible to let team know of any equipment moves and/or product changes occurring prior to 4/1/2017. Ray A – data setup expert responsible for building BOMs. Vern R – ERP application expert responsible for coordinating code efforts and training scheduling team. Will L – shopfloor control application expert responsible for coordinating code efforts and training scheduling and shop floor team. Tami S – integrations IT expert responsible for tying all new IT systems together to information seamlessly.

5.0 5.1

Project Management Approach Approach The team will sit in a war room prior to noon every day for the duration of the project. All decisions will be subject to approval by consensus. Once all information is gathered, a decisionmeeting will be scheduled for 60 minutes. If after 60 minutes a consensus cannot be reached, project leader will make final decision. MS Project will be used to set and measure against the project timelines. A daily action log will record everyone’s progress and decisions made – with accompanying rationale. Initial timeline assumes 5-day weeks; nights/weekends will be used as needed to complete project on time.

5.2

Status or Progress Reporting Plan Team will sit in war room for duration of project prior to noon every day. A daily 15 minute standup meeting will be the internal-communication for the team. Minutes from these meetings

Page 6 of 7

will be compiled and emailed every Friday to all stakeholders. Cheryl J and Willard T will communicate progress to the plant during weekly plant meetings (as a 5-minute agenda item). Ad hoc updates will be given upon request.

5.3

Change Management Approach Formal signoff on revised charter if scope is changed. To initiative a change, “scope revision request” form must be completed and submitted to Sam Peters. Form requires cost/benefit analysis of requested revision. Changes approved by Jan K and David Tracy. Changes will be communicated through email to impacted stakeholders and project team.

Page 7 of 7