Scm and Erp Software Implementation at Nike – from Failure to Success

1. Discussion: What factors drive Nike’s decision to stick with some form of network organizational structure rather than own its manufacturing operations?

Connor, T. (2001, May). Still Waiting For Nike To Do It | Global Exchange. Retrieved February 12, 2014, from http://www.globalexchange.org/sweatfree/nike/stillwaiting

Technology convergence and smart sportswear are the latest trend in sporting goods innovation. The growth prospects for sport high tech are such that many non-sports brands are eager to capture a slice of the market. Leading manufacturers of consumer electronics, including Apple, Nokia and Samsung, are working closely with top sports brands to develop new sports-related technologies (and new revenue streams). Apple Inc., made the initial entry into the sector with its Nike + iPhone sports kit. High technology is the new name of the game, the key formula driving the development of sophisticated new products. These, in turn, result in the inspiring record-breaking performances that the media and sports enthusiasts all over the world love to

However, suppliers were not so eager to make these changes because the suppliers wanted to see their direct benefits. Nike had to become first partaker in the changes by first leading by example and secondly through education.

For that reason, Nike decided to shift the brand in two different ways, the “Silo” and “Digital” shit. The Silo shift consisted of research that found the most important aspects to an athlete’s game were, accuracy and control. These were the type of skills players wanted

28.  All of the following reasons why the demand and supply chain management system that i2 installed for Nike failed except:

Nike stands as the World’s leading producer of Athletic Footwear, Apparel and Equipment. As of 2013 they held complete ownership or joint venture in the following companies:

Nike understood their mistakes and improved the preparation and change management activities. As a result, the overall business plan for all the systems and explanations for taking on such an extremely complex implementation were well understood throughout the company. Thus, Nike had an exceptional buy-in for the project and was capable to make change in its demand planning system and continue with the

If so what? Should Nike make changes even if they hinder the ability of the company to compete?

The case provides a complete account of the failing of Supply and Demand Planning software program implementation at Nike , a leading Footwear and Apparel company . The case follows the background of supply chain and ERP software execution at Nike and exposes the theory behind their implementation . It analysis the situations that resulted in the SCM software implementation failure as well as discusses the measures undertaken by Nike to resolve the obstacle . Ultimately , the case explores the way Nike was able to utilize the learning from the failure to its usefulness and also show up triumphant with the SAP implementation , an integral part of the Nike Supply Chain Project .

Nike also had a problem. They had gotten so big that customer relations became a low priority. Nike controlled the market and dictated supply and demand to even their biggest customers. Consumer input was ignored and requests for special orders of customer demand products were met with indifference. Nike gave and Nike took away, at their discretion, to reward or punish retailers for Nike’s benefit.

Nike, founded by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight in 1964, was formerly “Blue Ribbon Sports and initially operated as a distributor for the Japanese shoemaker Onitsuka Tiger (now known as Asics). It officially became Nike Inc. in 1971” (O’Reilly 2014). Both Bowerman and Knight had a driving passion to experiment with shoe designs to improve the feel and usability of them. Bowerman, who coached track and field, and Knight who ran, worked with numerous runners to get their input for innovative shoe designs and through these efforts, the company continued to expand and succeed in the business. By the 1970’s the two eventually broke off their relations

For over a year, Nike reeled as a result of this inability. i2 along with Nike blamed the other in open, for the actual failure which led to your further downslide from the share value of the companies. Analysts pointed to lapses inside project management, too very much customization along with an around reliance upon demand foretelling of software. Nike insiders lifted doubts regarding the 'Single Instance Strategy '4 being and then Nike.

Although the product is already exceedingly advanced in technology, it still has room for advancement. To illustrate, the Nike+ is paving the way for exercise criteria devices. The product can not only advance with its developments but it can advance with its use. In addition to being used for running, it can advance into other sports and uses as well. Because the brand is extremely popular among our targeted segments, there are also opportunities to expand the brand to newer models, clothing apparel lines, and other accessories such as

In 1993, the company decided to improve its distribution system, by creating a more exclusive and updated solution, aiming to gain a competitive advantage in the market. In order to achieve this, Adidas hired an IT company to create a new software. Unfortunately, the new software was not compatible with the one that the company’s vendors were using. At the same time, the IT Company ceased its operation.