Design Review Of SAP Solutions With Responses
Design Review of SAP Solutions with ResponsesMunicipality of Anchorage: Synergy ProjectJanuary 2015
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATIONEffective Date:February 23, 2014For Municipality of AnchoragePage 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS1. DEFINITIONS1.1. BUSINESS PROCESS SCORECARD DEFINITIONS1.2. RISK INDICATOR DEFINITIONS9992. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY2.1. OVERALL SCORECARD10123. FINANCE AND BILLING3.1. FINANCE AND BILLING – SCORECARD3.2. General Ledger (GL)3.3. GL Data3.4. FI Transaction Processing3.5. FI Month- and Year-End3.6. Accounts Receivable (AR)3.7. Customer Master3.8. Sales Order3.9. Agreement Billing3.10. Sales Order Billing3.11. AR–FI Billing3.12. AR Adjustments – Billing3.13. AR – Cash Processing with Clearing3.14. AR – Month- and Fiscal Year-End3.15. Accounts Payable – (AP)14141619212325283031323334353638For Municipality of AnchoragePage 3
3.36.3.37.3.38.3.39.3.40.AP DataAP Transaction ProcessingAP Month- and Fiscal Year-EndAP Calendar Year-EndControlling Master DataControlling Allocations and DistributionControlling Month- and Year-EndCapitalized Projects (Including Value-Added Projects)Construction and NonconstructionMaintenance ProjectsReimbursable Projects and BillingAsset CapitalizationAsset RetirementsAsset TransfersAsset Period- and Year-End TasksAsset ReportingPeriod EndFunds Management (FM) – Maintain FM Master DataBudget Execution – Annual Approved Budget, Budget Transfers, and SupplementsFM Derivation RulesEarmarked FundsCarry-Forward ProcessP-Card ProcessElectronic Bank StatementCash 75767880824. LOGISTICS AND INVENTORY4.1. LOGISTICS AND INVENTORY – SCORECARD4.2. SAP Suppler Relationship Management (SAP SRM) – Landscape and Architecture4.3. Organizational Structure4.4. Master Data4.5. SAP SRM – Shopping Cart and Workflow4.6. SAP SRM – Purchase Order and Workflow4.7. SAP SRM – RFx and Workflow4.8. SAP SRM – Contract and Workflow4.9. Materials Management (MM) – Process Goods Receipt4.10. MM – Process Goods Issue4.11. MM – Cycle-Count Process4.12. MM – Maintain Material Master4.13. SAP SRM – Account Assignment4.14. SAP SRM – Supplier Registration84848585878889919294959697991005. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (HCM)5.1. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (HCM) – SCORECARD5.2. Payroll – Manage Overpayments5.3. Payroll – Tax Processing5.4. Payroll – Reconciliation5.5. Process Payroll102102105108111114For Municipality of AnchoragePage 4
.5.27.5.28.5.29.5.30.5.31.5.32.5.33.Process Off-Cycle PayrollTime ManagementEnter or Correct TimeEvaluate TimePayroll – Modify Employee DataTime – Manage QuotaTime – Create or Change Work SchedulesOM – Enterprise Structure DefinitionGeneral Process Design for Organizational Management and Personnel AdministrationOM – Create and Maintain Organizational UnitOM – Create and Maintain JobOM – Create and Maintain PositionOM – Create and Maintain RelationshipsOM – Delimit Organizational UnitOrganizational Management (OM) – Delimit JobOM – Delimit PositionPA – Hire EmployeePA – Hire UnpaidMaintain Employee InformationPersonnel Administration (PA) – Manage Employee – No ShowPA – Manage Employee Transfer or Leave of AbsencePA – Separate EmployeePA - Changes Due to CBA, Compensation Changes, or CPIModify Benefits PlanBenefits Billing – Reconciliation and RemittanceBenefits EnrollmentBenefits – Life ChangesBenefits 1601621651681721741761781801821831841851861866. SAP BUSINESS WAREHOUSE (SAP BW) AND SAP BUSINESSOBJECTS SOLUTIONS1896.1. SAP BUSINESS WAREHOUSE (SAP BW) AND SAP BUSINESSOBJECTS SOLUTIONS – SCORECARD1896.2. General Design Concept for SAP BW1916.3. Use of Standard Content for SAP BW1926.4. SAP BW – System Landscape1926.5. Overall Solution Landscape – Transition from SAP BEx to SAP BusinessObjects Solutions1936.6. SAP BW – Transport Concept1946.7. SAP BW – Authorizations1946.8. Logical Interfaces1956.9. Functional Specifications1956.10. Data Modeling – LSA1966.11. Data Sourcing1976.12. Data Storage1986.13. Data Transformation1996.14. SAP BW – Business Content Extractors1996.15. Content Enhancements2006.16. Non-SAP Data Sources2006.17. Master Data Process Chain201For Municipality of AnchoragePage 5
6.18. Text and Hierarchy Process Chain6.19. Transaction Data Process Chain6.20. Query Definition2012022027. PROJECT SYSTEM2057.1. PROJECT SYSTEM – SCORECARD2057.2. Investment Management2077.3. Project Initiation – Capitalized Projects2087.4. Project Initiation – Expense Projects – Construction2087.5. Project Initiation – Expense Projects – Nonconstruction2087.6. Maintenance and Operations Projects2097.7. Project Creation – Project Structures2097.8. Project Creation – Project Numbers2107.9. Project Definition and WBS Element Data Fields2117.10. Custom Data Fields2117.11. Project Planning and Budgeting – Cost Estimating and Planning2127.12. Project Planning and Budgeting – Scheduling2137.13. Project Planning and Budgeting – Billing and Reimbursement Planning2137.14. Project Execution – Project Statuses2147.15. Project Execution – Billing (Reimbursements), Down Payments, Procurement (Purchase Requisitions andPurchase Orders), Invoicing, and P-Card Processes2157.16. Project Execution – Payroll and Labor Process2177.17. Project Execution – Cost Collection and Overhead Allocations2187.18. Project Execution – Change Orders2197.19. Project Execution – Period-End Tasks2207.20. Project-Close Checklist2217.21. Status Updates – TECO, CLSD, and Lessons Learned2228. FERC8.1. FERC – SCORECARD8.2. FERC – Master Data8.3. FERC Parameters8.4. CO Variance Allocation8.5. Trace Posting Accounts8.6. Direct Posting Accounts8.7. Trace Accuracy8.8. FERC – Drill-Down8.9. Secondary Costs to Be Excluded8.10. Embedding FERC into Numbering Scheme8.11. Maintain FERC Data8.12. FERC Month-End2242242252262262272272282292292302302319. SECURITY9.1. SECURITY – SCORECARD9.2. Security Plan9.3. HCM Roles and Authorization – Design Review9.4. Finance and Billing Roles and Authorization – Design Review9.5. Logistics and Inventory Roles and Authorization – Design Review9.6. SAP BW – Roles and Authorization – Design Review233233235236237238238For Municipality of AnchoragePage 6
7.9.18.Production Support RolesQuality Assurance of Roles and AuthorizationsMaintenance of Check Indicators and Proposal ValuesPortal SecurityUser Access ManagementAuthentication and Single-SignMonitoring and AuditingSecurity PatchesRole MappingSecuring Standard UsersAccess Risk AnalysisEmergency Access Management23924024124224324524524624624824924910. DATA25210.1. DATA – SCORECARD25210.2. Process of Data Migration25310.3. Data Organization – Roles and Responsibilities25610.4. Data Collection, Construction, and Extraction25910.5. Data Transformation, Cleansing, and Validation26010.6. Data Requirements – Development and Change Management26410.7. Review of Project Data-Mapping Documentation for Material Master, Vendor Master, and Others and TheirFunctional Specifications26510.8. Test Data Preparation26710.9. Preparation for and Transition to Data Governance27010.10. Data – Data Migration Planning, Status, Timelines, Problem Identification, and Reporting27110.11. Data-Conversion Objects27411. TESTING11.1. TESTING – SCORECARD11.2. Testing Strategy and Management11.3. Testing Requirements11.4. Test-Case Design and Execution11.5. Defect Management11.6. Test-Tool Utilization11.7. Test Data11.8. Environmental Readiness11.9. Nonfunctional Testing – Performance11.10. Nonfunctional Testing – Stress11.11. Nonfunctional Testing – Security11.12. Testing from Functional Perspective Test Cases and Test Plans28528528629029129329429529629729829929912. GRANTS12.1. GRANTS – SCORECARD12.2. Master Data in SAP Grants Management12.3. Grant Setup12.4. Grant Budgeting12.5. Grant Indirect Cost12.6. Grant Billing12.7. Grant Close-Out311311312314315318318320For Municipality of AnchoragePage 7
13. REPORTING13.1. REPORTING – SCORECARD13.2. Finance and Billing13.3. Logistics and Inventory13.4. HCM13.5. FERC13.6. Project System13.7. SAP BW13.8. Security32232232332833033133233333414. INTEGRATION AND MASTER DATA14.1. INTEGRATION AND MASTER DATA – SCORECARD14.2. System Upgrade14.3. Split Go-Live14.4. Integration Test14.5. Design Documents14.6. Enterprise Structure and Organizational Management Processes14.7. Solution Architecture (Supplier Portal)14.8. Year-End Close Process14.9. Reporting Strategy14.10. Workflow14.11. Project Team Communication14.12. Knowledge Transfer33633633733733934034134234334434534634715. SOLUTION MATCH TO ORIGINAL OBJECTIVES15.1. SCORECARD348348FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS350INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS351DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED376COMMON ABBREVIATIONS430APPENDIX A - SYNERGY PROJECT RESPONSES FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSFor Municipality of AnchoragePage 8
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE1. DEFINITIONS1.1. BUSINESS PROCESS SCORECARD DEFINITIONSRisk indicator: The overall status of the Business Process area. The indicator represents the current Overallrisk level based on the detailed analysis performed during the Design Review of SAP Solutions.Design build completeness risk: The status indicator that represents the design or build configurationcompleteness and accuracy to meet business requirements and expected business outcomes. The indicatorrepresents the current risk level in this analysis area based on the detailed review performed during the DesignReview of SAP Solutions.Future fit or impact on scalability risk: The status indicator that represents the current design or configurationto meet as-is and to-be product development direction in any given Business process area. The indicatorrepresents the current risk level in this analysis area based on the detailed review performed during the DesignReview of SAP Solutions.Remaining effort: A rough order of magnitude for the hours required to complete the design, build it, and unittest it based upon capabilities of a person with reasonable or average knowledge of SAP software. Low/Greenindicates approximately 0–120 hours of remaining work, Medium/Yellow indicates 120–500 hours of remainingwork, and High/Red indicates over 500 hours of remaining work.1.2. RISK INDICATOR DEFINITIONSLow: Minor impact to program success and will not likely adversely affect the implementation or businessoperations.Medium: May produce or contribute to a negative outcome during the implementation, including extendedRealization lifecycles.High: A significant likelihood of causing or contributing to a negative impact during the implementation or at golive. A critical topic to be addressed and requires investigation, follow-up, and response.Topic not reviewed: This topic was either not appropriate for review at this stage of the project or there wasinsufficient information to be able to review the topic to the appropriate level of detail.For Municipality of AnchoragePage 9
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYGENERAL COMMENTSThis report represents the results of the Quality Assurance Design Review of SAP Solutions conducted January7–23, 2015 for the Realization phase of the Municipality of Anchorage implementation of SAP ERP CentralComponent (SAP ECC), the SAP Supplier Relationship Management (SAP SRM) application, the SAP BusinessWarehouse (SAP BW) application, and the SAP Enterprise Portal component.This report reflects a point-in-time analysis on current state and future deliverable readiness.The findings and recommendations are a result of information provided to SAP during onsite Q&A sessions withnumerous Municipality of Anchorage, Peloton Group, and SAP resources.At the request of the Municipality of Anchorage, designated numbering was added to both the findings andrecommendations throughout this document. Although an identical number may appear in both the finding andrecommendation sections of a given topic, the two items are not, in fact, correlated to each other. Thenumbering simply serves to identify the findings and recommendations.The Design Review centered on SAP ECC with a focus on: Finance and billing Logistics and Inventory Human capital management Project system FERC Security Data Testing Reporting Integration and master dataThis report is forward-looking in that it focuses on the actions necessary for future operational success andreserves commentary on project history only for contextual understanding.For Municipality of AnchoragePage 10
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGEAs part of this Review, the assessment team was made aware of pain points and concern areas. It wasimportant to understand both in terms of the requirements and functional needs of Synergy. This understandingprovided additional information and awareness of the Municipality of Anchorage’s situation. But because thiswas a Design Review of SAP Solutions, it was not the intent of this exercise to try to solve all identified painpoints and concerns.For Municipality of AnchoragePage 11
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE2.1. OVERALL SCORECARDFor Municipality of AnchoragePage 12
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGEDocument GuidanceRegarding MoA Responses The MOA responded to “Findings” with one of the following designations and providedcommentary where applicable:o Agreeo Agree with Commento Disagreeo Disagree with Commento Need More Information The MOA responded to “Recommendations” with one of the following designationsand provided commentary where applicable:o Accepto Accept with Commento Rejecto Reject with Commento Need More InformationResponses are inserted immediately following the relevant paragraph and shaded in lightgray for emphasis.If there is no response after a finding or recommendation, the response from the MoAis Agree or Accept.For Municipality of AnchoragePage 13
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE3. FINANCE AND BILLING3.1. FINANCE AND BILLING – SCORECARDRiskIndicatorDesign BuildCompletenessRiskFuture Fit orImpact onScalabilityRiskGeneral Ledger (GL)LOWMEDIUMMEDIUMLOWGL DataLOWLOWLOWLOWFI Transaction unts Receivable (AR)LOWLOWLOWLOWCustomer MasterLOWLOWMEDIUMLOWSales OrderLOWMEDIUMLOWLOWAgreement BillingLOWLOWLOWLOWSales Order BillingLOWMEDIUMLOWLOWAR–FI BillingLOWLOWLOWLOWAR Adjustments – BillingLOWLOWLOWLOWAR – Cash Processing with GHHIGHHIGHDesign Review of SAPSolutions – BusinessProcessesFI Month- and Year-EndAR – Month- and Fiscal Year-EndAccounts Payable (AP)RemainingEffortFor Municipality of AnchoragePage 14
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGERiskIndicatorDesign BuildCompletenessRiskFuture Fit orImpact onScalabilityRiskAP DataLOWLOWLOWLOWAP Transaction ProcessingHIGHHIGHHIGHHIGHAP Month- and Fiscal Year-EndMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMAP Calendar Year-EndMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMControlling Master DataLOWLOWLOWLOWControlling Allocations andDistributionMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMControlling Month- and Year-EndMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMCapitalized Projects (Including ValueAdded Projects)LOWLOWLOWMEDIUMConstruction and NonconstructionLOWLOWLOWMEDIUMMaintenance ProjectsLOWLOWLOWLOWReimbursable Projects and BillingLOWLOWLOWMEDIUMAsset CapitalizationLOWMEDIUMLOWMEDIUMAsset RetirementsLOWLOWLOWLOWAsset TransfersLOWLOWLOWLOWAsset Period- and Year-End TasksMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMAsset ReportingMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMDesign Review of SAPSolutions – BusinessProcessesRemainingEffortFor Municipality of AnchoragePage 15
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGERiskIndicatorDesign BuildCompletenessRiskFuture Fit orImpact onScalabilityRiskMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMFunds Management (FM) – MaintainFM Master DataLOWLOWLOWLOWBudget Execution – Annual ApprovedBudget, Budget Transfers, andSupplementsMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMFM Derivation RulesMEDIUMLOWMEDIUMMEDIUMEarmarked FundsMEDIUMMEDIUMLOWLOWCarry-Forward ProcessMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMP-Card ProcessMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMMEDIUMElectronic Bank esign Review of SAPSolutions – BusinessProcessesPeriod EndCash ManagementRemainingEffort3.2. General Ledger (GL)Overall Risk: LOWDesign Build Completeness Risk: MEDIUMFuture Fit or Impact on Scalability Risk: MEDIUMRemaining Effort: LOWFinding 3.2.1 All document types used for financial posting have been configured. 3.2.2 The chart of accounts has been completed. Configuration for the chart-of-accounts mappinghas been completed and documented.For Municipality of AnchoragePage 16
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE 3.2.3 The recommendation for the new SAP General Ledger application made in the 2012 SAP QADesign Review was implemented. 3.2.4 Configuration of SAP General Ledger has been completed to include the following key items:o3.2.4.a Document-type mapping to transaction type and varianto3.2.4.b General ledger–account mapping to item-category mappingo3.2.4.c Splitting rules combined for the SAP Grants Management application and SAPGeneral Ledger o3.2.4.d Table in SAP General Ledger: PSGLFLEXToScenarios:o3.2.4.e.1 PSM BUDPER – Budget Periodo3.2.4.e.2 PSM FAC – Fund Accountingo3.2.4.e.3 PSM CL – Cash Ledgero3.2.4.e.4 FIN CONS – Preparations for Consolidationo3.2.4.e.5 .FIN GSBER – Business Areao3.2.4.e.6 PSM GM – Grants Managemento3.2.4.f Leading ledger and nonleading ledgero3.2.4.g Average daily cash balanceo3.2.4.h Extending the coding block for custom fields was determined not to be applicable.3.2.5 Posting keys for all business processes that generate financial transactions have beencompleted. 3.2.6 Open item–clearing configuration has been completed for banking, accounts payable (AP),and accounts receivable. 3.2.7 Substitution rules have been developed for key processes that have been tested.o3.2.7 Response: Agree with CommentoIt should be noted that there will be more substitute rules going forward.For Municipality of AnchoragePage 17
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE 3.2.8 All identified RICEFW items have been developed and tested. The core configuration for SAP General Ledger is completed and has been tested. Testing scripts reflect the design described in the general ledger Design Review workshop. AllImpactdocuments generated from a financial document have been reviewed. Configuration of the new general ledger, which includes unrequired content, does not follow leadingpractice. When split rules are not unique for funds management and SAP Grants Management, futurescalability is negatively affected.Recommendation 3.2.1 Correct the following items in the configuration of SAP General Ledger:o3.2.1.a Remove scenario PSM CL Cash Ledger from ledger 0L. This scenario is assignedonly to the nonleading ledger for cash reporting or cash ledger. No requirements exist forthese scenarios.o3.2.1.b Remove scenario FIN CONS Preparations for Consolidation from the ledger 0L.This scenario is assigned only to the nonleading ledger. No requirements exist for thesescenarios.o3.2.1.c Separate splitting rules for SAP General Ledger and SAP Grants Management.Leading business practice for public sector recommends a unique split rule for SAP GeneralLedger and SAP Grants Management. This approach allows unique controls for tablePSGLFLEXT (Ledger 0L) and GMIT (Ledger 90).For Municipality of AnchoragePage 18
DESIGN REVIEW OF SAP SOLUTIONS: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE3.3. GL DataOverall Risk: LOWDesign Build Completeness Risk: LOWFuture Fit or Impact on Scalability Risk: LOWRemaining Effort: LOWFinding 3.3.1 Three legacy charts of accounts have been merged into one common chart of accounts for theSynergy project. 3.3.2 Master-data flags for the chart of
SAP BUSINESS WAREHOUSE (SAP BW) AND SAP BUSINESSOBJECTS SOLUTIONS 189 6.1. SAP BUSINESS WAREHOUSE (SAP BW) AND SAP BUSINESSOBJECTS SOLUTIONS – SCORECARD . Testing Strategy and Management 286 11.3. Testing Requirements 290 11.4. Test-Case Design and Execution 291 11.5. Defect Management 293 11.6. Test-Tool Utilization 294
SAP ERP SAP HANA SAP CRM SAP HANA SAP BW SAP HANA SAP Runs SAP Internal HANA adoption roadmap SAP HANA as side-by-side scenario SAP BW powered by SAP HANA SAP Business Suite powered by SAP HANA Simple Finance 1.0 2011 2013 2014 2015 Simple Finance 2.0 S/4 HANA SAP ERP sFin Add-On 2.0
SAP Certification Material www.SAPmaterials4u.com SAP Certification Material for SAP Aspirants at Low cost Home Home SAP Business Objects SAP BPC CPM SAP BPC 7.0 SAP EWM SAP GTS SAP Public Sector SAP Real Estate SAP FSCM SAP FI/CO SAP AC - FI/CO SAP BI 7.0 SAP CRM 5.0
SAP Master Data Governance SAP Information Steward SAP HANA smart data integration SAP Data Hub SAP Cloud Platform Big Data Services SAP HANA, platform edition SAP Vora Customer Experience IoT Workforce Engagement SAP Cloud for Customer SAP Commerce SAP Marketing SAP Asset Intelligence Network SAP Predictive Maintenance and Service SAP .
SAP HANA Appliance SAP HANA DB In-Memory A io BI Client non-ABAP (SAP supported DBs) SAP Business Suite SAP Business Suite SAP Business Suite SAP Business Suite SAP Business Suite SAP Business Suite SAP Business Warehouse SAP HANA DB r In-Memory Source Systems SAP LT Replication Ser
ALE/RFC Setup 88 SAP System Type 88 SAP IDoc Version 88 Program ID (SAP to e*Gate) 88 SAP Load Balancing Usage (e*Gate to SAP) 89 SAP Application Server (e*Gate to SAP) 89 SAP Router String (e*Gate to SAP) 90 SAP System Number (e*Gate to SAP) 90 SAP Gateway Ho
Customer Roadmap to SAP Simple Finance - Example " Adopting SAP Simple Finance is a journey - start early" Side-by-side SAP HANA Acceleration SAP HANA accelerators, BW, BPC, GRC SAP Business Suite on SAP HANA SAP ERP on SAP HANA SAP ERP in SAP HANA Enterprise Cloud SAP Accounting Powered By SAP HANA Simple Finance add-on/
SAP Business Suite SAP BW SAP Apps Partner Apps SAP HANA PLATFORM Planning and Calculation Engine Real-Time Replication Services Information Composer & Modeling Studio SAP UI HTML5 Mobile SAP BI 4 SAP ERP SAP CRM SAP SCM SAP PLM SAP SRM SAP Netweaver Predictive Analytics & Business Function Libraries In-Memory
Sep 28, 2021 · SAP LLC “SAP Labs“ MEE Russian Federation SAP SAP CIS, LLC MEE Serbia SAP SAP West Balkans d.o.o. MEE Slovakia SAP SAP Slovensko s.r.o. MEE Slovakia SAP Ariba Ariba Slovak Republic, s.r.o. MEE Slovenia SAP SAP sistemi, aplikacije in produkti za obdelavo podatkov d.o.o. MEE Switzerland Emarsys Emarsys Schweiz GmbHFile Size: 598KB
