METALCO: THE SAP PROPOSAL

* Ambiguity in the project scoring synopsis
On the proposal, A.D Murrary weighted the degree of importance of each factors without providing any statement or evidence to support his selection. For example, he weighted the importance of “Economic Impact” to be “10”. What if the risk of uncertainty far out weighted the economic benefit, the final project score will be far below 80 as stated on the proposal. * Significant amount of money was not include in the budget
The initial budget leaves a significant amount of money out of considerations, which include up-front investment in staff, software, hardware, and management. More importantly, for the economic impact, the manager just focused on the installation cost in the initial year. For a system like SAP, it will definitely occur a material amount of maintaining and updating fee down the road after implementing the system. The total benefit, NPV and ROI will drive down to a certain amount when you consider about those costs in the future five years. * Other critical uncertainties need to be considered
The proposal shows limited risks of installing the new system, such as organizational risk, definitional uncertainty, technical uncertainty, IS infrastructure risk. Still, there are a number of critical uncertainties that need be considered by the company. Those uncertainties include delivery delayed, installment and implement failure, overrun the budget and so on. All these risks that are not taken into account may be caused to a failure of the whole project.

In Conclusion:
The weighted Score of the initial project-scoring synopsis made by A.D Murray was 80. If I take all elements into account for preparing the weighted score, the final project score will be dropped down at large extent. I deem that Metalco Inc. should not accept the proposal of the IMI