ASUG Utilities Presentation

Editor's Notes

• #4: MR – to expand on this - Refund / credit collection / ??? Into From Richard to MR – “ So Michael from your viewpoint – how do think things have changed since your first arrived since 2007 ….
• #6: Validated this misalignment with Consumers Energy – who said it was ok – confirmed that it was working Notes: Main process of starting, changing and stop services would be impacted upgrading from WIN to WEB. RU to ex plain that this is the path that we down on originally Into from RU _ So MR – “please explain what after we investigated further what the perceived benefits and risks around option 2 and 3….”
• #7: Utilization of SAP Enhanced Account Overviews: SAP would not longer support UTIL_IC_LEAN role (Accelerated – go big or go home) Stay aligned with SAP roadmap; new functionality in EHP releases (CRM EHP 3 – new premise overview we like) Split business + technical master data (BOL tree) – hyperlink to detail information. Limited use of transactions launchers (13) Contract Process Simplified: CSR would have to enter data for approximately 20 plus fields + number clicks to complete process (now the CSR only enter the customer move-in date – if BP exists) Master Data Template is glorious – we only management 1 MDT for 14 different rate categories) Concern- Impact to CRM data model – CRM 5.0; we only replicated the BP partner and were dealing with replication issues. Business Agreement Contracts Customer contacts Product + Product changes POD Replication issues increase by N User acceptance of new processess (Self-Service processes + Dunning Force MO)
• #8: Work that we did ** TO ADD ** Factors to make going forward Business Needs are critical here and there may be some ads and disads in terms of each optione – e.g collective billing and contract splits Solid Waste Go Live Date and associated risk with Option 2 but discussion to date suggests Unlikely to go live before the drop date of 1st Jan 2013 for option 2 certainly and option 1- we need to people onboard asap Cost – just for the IS-U component factor of 2 and Option1 –450 K Option 2 -900K Duration Option 1 –6-7 months Option 2 – 10 months but more likely 12- 14 months Effort -option 1 – 1200 project days Option 2 – 2000 project days Resources that are required for on boarding for each of the options are very specialised – and Internal vz External resources. Risk – Option 2 is risker than option 2 due to the more variables that can go wrong especially at the moment of cut over More pressure on the internal resources during and after go live SAP Roadmap – sap in various discussions stated the Ramp UP benefits are ( from my experience) It is not guaranteed that we will get it but we appear to fit their profile Access to the developers and configuration Sometime the ability to influence design going forward From one of my projects – eliminated the need for onboarding a particular resource as we received documentation that we used Please note it does note gurantee success but does keep our project on the SAP’s radar which cannot be bad REDUCED IT from 42 fields less than 10 fields No Longer supported after this date ??
• #9: During this phase our aim was to educate ourselves and try to elminiate the View of we don’t know what we don’t know Our Questionaire was quite detailed with over 20 questions and we got the business involved – “ RU to AV “ so Alisha – what was your experience of the SAP Session – I rem that our Busienss Sponsor was happy with the outcome ……..” We knew the pain points straight out of the box – which gave us time to address the issues.
• #10: Hard learned their lessons before – narrowe w The questions we received were 20 of which only 2-3 pertained to contract management We were really looking for thought leaders that could assist us Also we tried to be as clear as possible with respect to our RFP -
• #11: And I know that you , Alisha have some interesting findings from reviewing one of the RFP “We assume that all Trainers will be from Prisons services”   “This approach will enable Ocean Biosciencessciences significant reusability of test components for transactions scripts or scenarios scripts thereby significantly increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of testing” Group of people vested in our We had done enough research teternally to feel that that this was a manageable task Would have delayed the project by our committed to projects
• #12: Have we voiced that to SAP – how we felt about it Use filtering We identified 191 core modified objects in our system: 170 were obsolete, 16 could be eliminated due to functionality available in standard SAP. We anticipate only 5 registered objects in CRM 7.0 system, which reduces our customization by 97% and eliminates the risk of issues during the upgradeto differentiate between solid waste and DWR This system – allow BASIS to run SPAU AND SPDD quicker during the tight cut over weekend.
• #13: Had minimal training – Mixed Results prior to the CRM Upgrade Limited traiing WEB UI specifc Issues – having a lot of issues for testing 0 RU to AV – “ and Alisha from your side how do you think automated testing has improved the Testing process?
• #14: The first two caused us untol stress Oracle on all Systems had to be upgraded from XX to YY – which had to be retested Also we had to make a decision in sept ( half way through our build phase whether to upgrade both systems at the same time in Feb 2013 or move forward to the latest EHP for ECC in Nov and then follow with CRM in Feb – we felt that the latter options was best for GC due to the importance of the replication to out business RU to MR – “And Michael would you like to share any from the Build side “ Number of Enhancement within Contract Management to do basic validations: ECC – Reversing bills via Note Currently there is no validation concerning IS-U specific data implemented within the SAP standard solution. The CRM processes are designed for the case that a customer calls and they have to be processed as fast as possible. There are only a few checks performed if on CRM-side everything is consistent. Resolution All checks have to be implemented by the customer. Within CRM 7.0 as of Service Pack 09 there is a check framework available.  The checks can now be maintained via view cluster CRM_IU_PR_PROF_CHECK.It's "only" the framework, the content of the checks still have to be created by the customer, however the new framework now gives better guidance.
• #15: New processes – new to development team and user community Contract Management = MI/MO Interaction Records = Customer Contacts Business agreement = contract account Work Orders via Web UI FOP replaced with WebUI workcenters We knew our pain points with the various data objects Detailed planned – mitigate risk. - 2 MOK runs (involved business to anlayzed data) - Allowed us to performed the complete replication within 20 hours * few data issues) - Fixed post production - The are delivered report for replications (tools) Show n Tells – SHOW SHOW – so that they know. Issues pertaining to Custom reports to build the recon – the Utility Cockpit.
• #16: 39 employees invited 35 employees participated between Focus group session On line survey Focus group sessions conducted on May 10th 4 one hour sessions Participants divided into small groups to score and document reasoning for score Each group shared rating and reasoning for category Facilitator documented results Survey distributed with opportunity to: Rate each category Contribute reasoning for rating
• #17: How many WRICEF List did you have ? Expected call time to get back into 3. Replication issues 55 People hours Duration of each timeline – 9 months - Avoided Transaction Launcher ( we have TL – limited)
• #18: We were told contracts could not be run parallel; however, we ran in parallel successfully