In place of the IT department, the management thought it more appropriate to buy the needed software. According to the management, the IT department did not keep the necessary expertise required for the development of software and application domain (Edwards and Humphries 2005). A third party off-the-shelf solution was opted by the company for the development and implementation of new software.PowerIT faced many problems from the start of the project to its aftereffects after implementation. The problems dealt with technical and organizational needs of the company. The business development manager of the company was a strong technical person but he was weak socially (Edwards and Humphries 2005). There was no impact analysis and risk evaluation related to the implementation of the ERP software. The business development manager was less communicative and did not manage change efficiently. There were three shortlisted vendors out of which one was selected without full satisfaction to its recommendations.The vendor was not aware of the full recommendations and all the managers of the company were not involved in the implementation procedure. There was also resistance from the users, which was ignored. After implementation, there was the identification of many problems. Also, an investigative team was appointed to identify the problematic areas of the newly implemented software. The investigators suggested organizational as well as technical changes for the usability of ERP system.PowerIT had a strong IT department but they lacked the expertise that was required for the software developed so the company did not allow to take any risk by allowing the IT department to develop a software (Edwards and Humphries 2005). In place of developing the software themselves, the company felt suitable that the software should be bought. The software that the company was willing to buy was Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software.