An important market feature in BATCA was that the
sale of nontobacco products (e.g., matches) was an impor-
tant source of revenue. However, in order to limit the com-
plexity of the new system, the global steering committee
decided not to support nontobacco products in MaxFli.
Since MaxFli would be the only system in use by BATCA
sales reps, the implementation of MaxFli implied an
immediate decrease in revenue from lost match sales.
IT Infrastructure and History in Central America
Prior to 1995 each country in BATCA had developed
independent information systems to monitor and track
sales. Two markets, Guatemala and Costa Rica, had spe-
cific concerns about migrating to MaxFli because both of
these countries had developed custom IT applications
that mapped well to the contours of their existing
business processes. The “best practices” embedded in
MaxFli required the sacrifice of those customized appli-
cations. The business case for MaxFli in Central America
identified eight important risk factors associated with the
MaxFli project. (See Exhibit 6.)
Items 4 and 7 represented highly probable risks that
would have a high impact. From the beginning, the imple-
mentation team was concerned about MaxFli’s ability to
achieve and sustain improvements in the way of doing
business. These concerns would continue to be present
throughout the implementation process.
Item 3 addressed possible “technical constraints”
based on two specific concerns. First, BATCA’s IT infra-
structure relied on complicated relationships with telecom-
munications providers in six countries. It was a challenge
to create an intercountry backbone capable of running
MaxFli, because each country had an independent domes-
tic telecommunications provider (See Exhibit 7.)
Based on previous experiences with its primary
telecommunications vendor, BATCA estimated that a sig-
nificant portion of the ongoing costs for MaxFli would be
devoted to improving the communications infrastructure.# Summary Description of Risk Keyword Probability Impact- Implementation delays due to staffing
problems
Resources M H- Implementation delays due to
readiness not achieved by end markets
Readiness M H- Implementation delays due to technical
constraints
Technical H M- Organization does not achieve
expected level of improvement in the
way of doing business
Achieve H H- Dedicated central team’s performance
not optimal
Team L M- System/network configuration does
not fully support vision of doing
business
System L M- The organization does not sustain
achieved level of performance in the
way of doing business
Sustained H H- External factors delay system
implementation
External L LEXHIBIT 6 Risk Management Table for MaxFli Implementation in Central AmericaCase Study IV-6 • The Challenges of Local System Design for Multinationals 655