erp - Blog - Global Risk Community2024-03-28T20:08:46Zhttps://globalriskcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/feed/tag/erp50 practical security tips for ERP, CRM, & HCM systemshttps://globalriskcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/50-practical-security-tips-for-erp-crm-hcm-systems2022-10-25T06:56:38.000Z2022-10-25T06:56:38.000ZGlobalRiskCommunityhttps://globalriskcommunity.com/members/GlobalRiskCommunity<div><p><span style="font-size:12pt;">Hello Global Risk Community member,</span><br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:12pt;"> Maintaining your ERP, CRM and HCM system security is an ongoing process.</span><br /> <span style="font-size:12pt;"> Join Fastpath on Thursday November 3<sup>rd</sup> at 11 AM ET for a webinar where we will share 50 practical security tips delivered rapid-fire and designed for organizations to start improving their security immediately. We will also review principles for good security moving forward. </span><br /> <span style="font-size:12pt;"> In this webinar we will review tips such as:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size:12pt;">Specific security settings</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size:12pt;">Improving security via setup</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size:12pt;">Process change options</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size:12pt;">Mitigation tools</span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><a href="https://www.gofastpath.com/50-security-tips-tricks-business-applications">Register Now </a></span><br /> <span style="font-size:12pt;"> </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></div>Is “Profit Leaks” a Consistent Issue in Your Organization? Use Cost-to-Serve (CTS) Analysis to Prevent Ithttps://globalriskcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/is-profit-leaks-a-consistent-issue-in-your-organization-use-cost2020-12-09T12:16:43.000Z2020-12-09T12:16:43.000ZMark Bridgeshttps://globalriskcommunity.com/members/MarkBridges<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}8272621083,original{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank"><img class="align-right" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8272621083,original{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="8272621083?profile=original" width="330" /></a><a href="https://flevy.com/browse/stream/supply-chain">Supply chain management</a> across industries is being revolutionized at a rapid pace by technology. By implementing technology systems, supply chain organizations aspire to eliminate waste, meet customers’ needs at reasonable costs, and ensure profitability. Enterprise Resource Planning systems facilitate in processing unstructured data at an aggregated level. However, at workflow or micro level the data produced through ERPs needs to be further refined to understand costs.</p><p>Supply chain experts need to look at their unstructured data and understand the cost of offering a product; know which product mix they should promote; and gauge the impact of service levels on transportation costs, profits, and pricing strategy.</p><p>Supply Chain Executives can use the <a href="https://flevy.com/browse/flevypro/cost-to-serve-cts-analysis-5395">Cost-to-Serve (CTS) Analysis</a> approach to control distribution costs, identify negative-margin products, and prevent profit leakages. CTS Analysis affords the organizations the means to identify the total cost of serving customers—including all the costs in a product’s value chain (from raw material to delivery)—at the product as well as customer levels. The approach helps leaders split and evaluate individual customers, geographies, products, product families, or combinations of products / customers.</p><p>The Cost-to-Serve Analysis can be undertaken to identify costs related to Supply Chains, Logistics, Distribution, Warehousing, or Transportation. CTSA allocates indirect cost to products—overhead or fixed costs that are not easily and directly attributable to a single order, shipment, or activity.</p><p>The CTS model for costing entails detailed modeling of all the value and non-value added activities in the process. The approach is more precise than other methods in determining “what-if” budgets, as it accounts for all the activities and link them with their relevant cost pools. CTS employs an activity-based modelling algorithm—which segregates the entire supply chain into multiple tasks while calculating the costs at every task—to help the supply chain practitioners calculate costs at various levels.</p><p>The CTS Framework entails 5 fundamental steps:</p><ol><li><strong>Obtain Buy-in from Key Stakeholders</strong></li><li><strong>Conduct Cost Categorization</strong></li><li><strong>Determine per Unit Cost Breakdown</strong></li><li><strong>Develop Classification Matrices</strong></li><li><strong>Make Joint Decisions</strong></li></ol><p><a href="https://flevy.com/browse/flevypro/cost-to-serve-cts-analysis-5395"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-7671" src="https://flevy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CTS-Framework.png" alt="" width="1002" height="752" /></a></p><p>Let’s delve deeper into the first 2 steps of the CTS Framework.</p><h3><strong>1. Obtain Buy-in from Key Stakeholders</strong></h3><p>The first step to implement Cost-to-Serve Framework involves getting across-the-board agreement and stakeholder buy-in. The decision to calculate the impact of cost to serve on revenue entails engagement and collaboration from multiple departments in a company. Multiple cost centers work in partnership across a value chain and thus profit and loss responsibility cannot be attached to a specific unit.</p><p>For instance, a decision to trim down the costs to serve a customer (or various customers) has to be agreed upon by stakeholders from the:</p><ul><li>Sales and marketing department to calculate the impact of service level agreements.</li><li>Logistics function to calculate the cost impact.</li><li>Go-to-market Strategy to ensure alignment with <a href="https://flevy.com/browse/stream/strategy-development">Corporate Strategy</a></li><li>Warehousing unit to ensure resource planning and allocation.</li></ul><h3><strong>2. Conduct Cost Categorization</strong></h3><p>The 2<sup>nd</sup> step of the Cost-to-Serve Framework involves categorization of costs associated with the entire supply chain. Supply chains typically have various cost centers (or functions): e.g., Procurement, Manufacturing, Warehousing, and Logistics. These cost centers further have multiple processes with costs associated with all of them. CTS requires top-down estimation of costs at the process and activity level and then aggregate those back to the cost center level.</p><p>This categorization of costs across the various functions of the supply chain and their associated processes facilitates in accurate calculation and obtaining estimates at the micro level.</p><p>Interested in learning more about the other steps of the Cost-to-Serve Framework? You can download <a href="https://flevy.com/browse/flevypro/cost-to-serve-cts-analysis-5395">an editable PowerPoint presentation on Cost-to-Serve Analysis here</a><u> </u>on the <a href="https://flevy.com/browse">Flevy documents marketplace</a>.</p><h3><strong>Are you a Management Consultant?</strong></h3><p>You can download this and hundreds of other <a href="http://flevy.com/pro/library/frameworks">consulting frameworks</a> and <a href="http://flevy.com/pro/library/consulting">consulting training guides</a> from the <a href="http://flevy.com/pro/library">FlevyPro library</a>.</p></div>Governance, Risk & Compliancehttps://globalriskcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/governance-risk-compliance2012-01-22T19:12:36.000Z2012-01-22T19:12:36.000ZRichard Ellis PMP PRMhttps://globalriskcommunity.com/members/RichardEllisPMPPRM<div><p><img border="0" name="graphics1" align="bottom" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9i-IkCjs3tU/Txwl6TsY5XI/AAAAAAAAAaE/oNRSpg0sw2s/s1600/Image.jpg" width="284" height="295" id="graphics1" alt="Image.jpg" /></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000">“</font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><span style="font-style:normal;"><span style="font-weight:normal;">It's not the things you are afraid of that will kill you” - Mark Twain.</span></span></font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">I have fielded a number of calls this week from recruiters looking for someone to implement a GRC process for some company. Before I can ask about firm's board governance towards risk management and accountability, the questions turn to SQL, Java and, well you get the idea. If a firm does not set its overall risk tolerance, understand its risk profile and empower managers who take risk to manage the risk, software isn't going to improve anything.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Whether one calls it GRC, Governance, Risk and Compliance, ERM, Enterprise Risk Management, ERP, Enterprise Risk Planning, or OR, Operational Risk, understanding and managing the sources of risk created within an enterprise is a human endeavor requiring judgment. This first requires a strong tone from the top and board engagement. Management must be empowered and incentivized to continuously focus on direct and indirect sources of risk. They need to be able to articulate it to the board and proactively mitigate unproductive and unnecessary risk. Risk taken on to further value creation must be evaluated, balanced with other priorities and monitored. This requires motivation, expertise and persistence.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Risk Management systems are useful but limited to its internal algorithms and the the data it can analyze. Computers are great for alerting people to quantitative risk metrics but not so good at identifying or evaluating qualitative risk discussions. It is these unstructured risks that have the greatest likelihood of destroying an enterprise's value. Often events that have never happened before or last occurred before the collective memory of the programmers are the ones we really care about.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Quantitative Metrics are appropriate for managing many types of risk such as credit risk, market risk and weather. Unfortunately, rare events, the identification of bubbles, binary events, and any discussion that follows the words “assuming a normal distribution” can not be properly quantified. It's human nature to tend to ignore that which can not be neatly defined or measured.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Qualitative risk discussions and evaluations are at least an equal partner with quantitative tools. Quantitative methods work well with describable probability distributions such as stock prices, interest rates or hurricane prediction. Companies often embrace quantitative measurements of risk for a number of reasons.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">First they can be seductively simple. Isn't it nice if management can be presented with one or a few numbers that will tell them how much risk they are taking on to produce the performance measurements listed in the same report?</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Second, employing even state of the art quantitative tools can be handed off to a committee, subordinates or a contractor. Meaningful qualitative analysis requires extensive and continuing input from management and the board. Outside contractors sell comprehensive risk management tools that primarily collect and evaluate quantitative risks. If this is what they sell, the reasoning goes, this must be what we need.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Third, the government employs quantitative measurements almost exclusively. This is not because regulators don't understand holistic risk practices and the value of qualitative tools. Rather, compliance is a legal and administrative process. In order to enforce a rule on anyone, it must be written, consistent, testable and audit-able. Unstructured risk discussions and evaluations do not easily fit within the regulatory structure. I think the best efforts to mandate qualitative risk reporting are the requirements for form 10K which includes 3.1.2 Item 1A – Risk Factors and 3.1.8 Item 7 – Management's Discussion and Analysis. While very useful to investors, these reports can be vague, irrelevant or difficult to compare across organizations. There is simply too much leeway in their preparation and a lack of timely updates on what should be included going forward.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Governance, Risk and Compliance begins with Governance. It requires the right tone from the top, engaged (incentivized) management and a cultural shift to risk being understood as a necessary but controllable input to value creation. Without this one is left with being legally compliant but not risk intelligent.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Richard Ellis, PMP PRM</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000080"><span lang="zxx" xml:lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.e-brm.com/"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><span style="font-style:normal;"><span style="font-weight:normal;">www.E-bRM.com</span></span></font></font></a></u></span></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000080"><span lang="zxx" xml:lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardellis86"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"><span style="font-style:normal;"><span style="font-weight:normal;">www.linkedin.com/in/richardellis86</span></span></font></font></a></u></span></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"><font color="#000080"><span lang="zxx" xml:lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.richardellis86.blogspot.com">www.richardellis86.blogspot.com</a></u></span></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in;"></p></div>The Best-of-class Financial Systems Strategy: An Alternative to ERP Platformshttps://globalriskcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/finsystemstrategy2011-08-02T10:29:30.000Z2011-08-02T10:29:30.000ZBoris Agranovichhttps://globalriskcommunity.com/members/BorisAgranovich<div>This white paper features insight from UNIT4 CODA (which includes the Coda Financials software suite) about the issues facing companies that need an adaptable financial system but not necessarily a full-blown enterprise resource planning (ERP) solution.
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">For better or worse, most companies have purchased financial software from large-scale enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform suppliers over the last decade. But as companies search for ways to lower costs and respond to a difficult business climate, the merits of implementing large-scale ERP platforms have come under closer scrutiny. This paper will examine an alternative approach that may be more appropriate and strategically sound for many companies: a best-of-class systems strategy.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">With that notion in mind, this paper will contemplate the following questions:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">• Have ERP platforms grown too unwieldy for some organizations?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">• Does ERP make sense for all types of business, especially in today’s fast-changing and frugal business environment?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">• Are ERP platforms being sold to companies that simply don’t need it?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">• Have technological advances eliminated some of the reasons for ERP platforms in the first place?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">• Is the drive for competitive differentiation causing companies to develop more of their own operational systems, thereby eliminating the value of ERP?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;">• What does a best-of-class strategy entail, and what are the advantages?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;"><a href="http://bit.ly/FinSysStrategy" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/FinSysStrategy</a></p></div>