AFM Compliant Project –

Kick-Off meeting
June 23, 2009
FOCUS

• Approach on how to make HPS SAP Platform

compliant with AFM
− Business engagement
− Planning
− Business Requirements Document
− Analysis
− Application Design Document (ADD)
OBJECTIVE
• Create/ Change:
− Organizational elements
− Master data
in alignment with AFM standard

• This also calls for change in:

− Configuration, and
− Custom objects e.g. Programs, Tables in iGSO
− BW reports and extracts.
Global Parts Supply Chain End-State System Architecture
SAP PMG
(pan HP )

PRS

GTS
HPPS EDW

CRS
WFM
SAP APO
Easitool / PRT GATP
(Region 1) BPDO
Systems
CSN
GPSC SRS
Internal/Web
https Tools HPS SAP
Eiffel
(Region 1)
XI TSquare

Corp OM iReturns
Systems
GSOHub VCP
Xelus Parts BW
HPS SAP
QSpeak
(Region 2) PGS
Global Parts Supply Chain systems
XI
HPS SAP
(Region 2) Corp OM
Systems
Sockeye
/B2B
B2B
iCost / CCS
3PL Systems

Other
DF Vendors
Vendors
STRATEGY
• It is a two-pronged strategy to roll-out AFM

− Changes planned by engaging SAP’s resources

• System Landscape Optimization (SLO)

− Changes planned by HP’s resources

FI objects need to be Changed
1. Company code (SLO)
2. GL accounts (SLO)
3. Business Area
4. Functional Area
5. Profit Centers
6. Cost Centers
7. Internal Orders
8. Tax Codes
9. Trading Partners
10. Inter-company Customers
11. Inter-company Vendors
Other non FI objects which are out of scope
• In specific following elements are not in scope
− Controlling Area
− Sales Org
− Purchase Org
− Plants
− Transfer of master data from Polaris to iGSO
BW

• Need to load the new master data from SAP

• Need to identify the hardcoded logic in the Programs,

variants, ABAP Routines & Customer Exits, BADI’s
and add the new values.

• Assess the impact on Partner systems e.g. CSN, B2B,

iReturn, WFM, HP Part store and so on.
What this project is about?

• De-couple the tight integration of all these elements

(Bus. Area, Fun. Area, Profit & Cost Center, IOs,
WBS, Tax codes, Inter-co Cust/Vendors) in SAP and
re-couple with new elements that are AFM compliant.
Is AFM all about data conversion?

• This is not merely about master data conversion

• We need to thrash out:
− Reconfigure SAP, wherever required
− Tweak several custom objects
− Beef-up authorization profiles
− Assess the impact on orders in pipeline
− Ensure the settlement of WBS elements and so on.
Changes to multiple master records

• Involves changes to several dependant master records.

− E.g. Material Master records contain Profit Centers, which
needs to be replaced with New Profit Centers.

There are close to 9MM

records in PN1 alone!!
(Material/Plant combo)

(PN1 is Production
server for Americas)
Multiple inter-dependencies
• Several dependencies between master records
− E.g. Cost Center Master data, WBS elements

Cost Center master

records has Fields:
−Business Area
−Functional Area
−Profit Center
apart from Comp code.

There are 500,000 Cost

Centers in PN1 alone!
System Integrity
• It is difficult, if at all possible, to change some data
elements in configuration.
− E.g. Dummy Profit Center, Std. Hierarchy in PCA
• It is not possible to
tweak certain master
data that is locked in
Configuration.

• These elements can not

be made AFM
compliant.
What about transaction data?

• No changes are envisaged to historical transaction

data (existing line-items)

• However, SLO changes (i.e. Comp code, CoA & GL

account) do reflect in transaction data, with
retrospective effect.
What are the other touch-points?
• Authorization profiles/SOX compliance
− Several Master data and organizational elements (e.g. Comp
code, Cost Center) are Authorization objects from SAP
Security stand-point.
− This aspect needs to be examined further:
• In case of phased go-live, how would it impact the profiles/access to
data by users, in countries that are live with AFM and those that are
not.
Old Vs. New data

• Need to assess the impact on Reporting/ Consolidation

− Users at higher level need to juggle with old and new data
elements until the old data sun-set.
− Users need to look at new objects for some comp-codes that
are already live and old objects for other comp-codes that are
not live yet.
• Where ‘Planning’ and ‘Budget’ are involved (Cost
Centers) balance budget needs to be transferred.
Migration path in the system landscape
• New master data is going to be used in the
configuration.
− This should not interfere with the current projects,
enhancements and above all, the production support.
• E.g. New Business Areas
need to be assigned to
Plant/Division
• These changes should not
appear in the regular SAP
transport path
(DVLNTQP)
Challenges on AFM data conversion:
1. Terabytes 50TB of transaction data need to be changed
both in SAP and BW
2. Millions of master data need to be changed.
3. Hundreds of Custom Objects in custom programs, Variants
need to be reviewed for all the portfolios where we have
any of the 13 changing objects are coded.
4. Hundreds of Custom tables need to be reviewed where
SLO tool can not change them.
5. Hundreds of security objects need to be reviewed and
realigned.
6. Evaluating all interfaces to ensure mapping or reverse
mapping.
Challenges on AFM data conversion:
8. Whole process will take 9 to 12 months since the date we start
construction.
9. During the full time of development we need Dual environment for all
the three regions replicating one DVL, Three NTx and Qxx
environment. Keeping Dual environment in synch during the 12
months will be a huge task.
10. Testing for three regions for all 7 portfolios will be a huge task.
Next steps
• Assess the impact on SAP bolt-ons e.g. Tax engines in
different countries (Taxware in US)
• Other impacted elements:
− Custom Tables, Programs, Function modules, User-exits,
Substitutions
− Issues with Hard-coding in ABAP code
− Background jobs
− Interfaces
− User created variants to run the reports
− ALE/I doc
− Down-stream systems
Next steps Cntd…
• Study the impact/changes required
− Derivation of iGSO Business Areas
− Derivation of Profit centers for O&C
− The impact on Revenue recognition on change of GL
accounts
These are only examples.
• The count of Custom objects:
− Z* Tables = 2035
− Z&Y programs = 4452
− Job Variants = 134, 594
Dependency
− Dependency:
• Company codes move from FI1/US1 to gERP
− Otherwise we will end up remapping from AFM
compliant master data to SCS master data till FI1/US1
move.
− Availability of fund for SLO services from SAP for Company
code and General Ledger accounts;
• For Chart of Accounts conversion and company conversion we need to
have SLO in place. Budget is available only in FY11. (This plan is not
agreed by FINTRANS project management team, escalated to our
managers)
• SLO conversion will take 9 months from the day we engage SAP.
 Backup slides

AFM Compliant Project –

Kick-Off meeting
June 23, 2009
Impact on other projects

• Need to assess the potential conflicts with other on-

going projects

• Need to check if there any Archiving project in the

pipeline
SLO Changes to SAP Application
• Changes planned to be made by SLO
−Chart of Accounts
−GL accounts (Rider: SLO can not handle 1 to many)
−Company Codes
Scheduled for FY 2011 (issue escalated to schedule for FY
2010)
SLO conversion will take 9 months from the day we engage
SAP.

Changes to BW data are not handled by SLO

SLO Changes to SAP Application
• Changes planned to be made by SLO
−Chart of Accounts
−GL accounts (Rider: SLO can not handle 1 to many)
−Company Codes
Scheduled for FY 2011 (issue escalated to schedule for FY
2010)
SLO conversion will take 9 months from the day we engage
SAP.

Changes to BW data are not handled by SLO

Changes without using SLO
• Changes to Organizational elements:

− Business Areas
− Functional Areas
FI objects need to be changed:Changes
without using SLO, Cntd.
• Create or Change Master Data:
− Profit Centers
− Cost Centers
− Internal Orders
− WBS elements
− Secondary Cost-elements
− Tax Codes
− Trading Partners
− Inter-company Customers
− Inter-company Vendors
• Thank you

33 December 8, 2021
Importance of having BRD 1
• Master data is maintained (create/change) by Business
and they have correct information
• AFM process may involve dispensing with the
redundant data and IT will have no clue on it
• In case of GL accounts, (remember we have only one
chart of accounts for all comp codes/ countries) there
may be several 1:N or N:1 mappings and business
alone can take a call. (1:1 is no issue)
Importance of having BRD 2
• Where GL matching is not 1:1, especially in the case
of accounts managed on Open Item basis, all open
items are to be split and the reposted to new accounts.
Only Business knows about it.
• Now is the time to exercise tight control on the
creation of new accounts. (For the sake of record there
are 64000 GL accounts at the CoA level in PN1 which
extends to 485,000 – close to half a million – at comp
code level. About 85,000 of these are blocked from
posting)
Importance of having BRD 3
• There are 500,000 Cost centers and the issues that are
relevant with GL accounts will be relevant here too.
• There are 9MM material masters and the impact of
changing the Profit centers needs thorough analysis.
• Only Business is in a position to give the data and the
ownership on that rests with them
• This holds good even with transaction data where
Inter-co customer/vendor Open items needs to be
transferred
Importance of having BRD 4
• There will be several configuration changes. For e.g.
tying the Business Areas to Sales Area
• Changes to the derivations of Profit Centers and Cost
Centers
• All the above should be viewed in the light of the
‘Phased go-live’. If few countries go-live how to
handle authorizations and reports. In the interim
reports which are not country-specific needs to be split
for countries that went live and those that are not.
Importance of having BRD 5
• What is not an ideal date for go-live. E.g. Quarter-ends
(due to SEC reporting).
• Country specific tax-engines.
AFM Design Project Revised Time line

May'09 June'09 July'09 Aug'09 Sep'09 Oct'09

Scoping  

Requirement  

Analysis  

Design  

46 December 8, 2021
Staffing profile planned for -Design
Q4
Q2 '09 Q3 '09 '09
Position May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
BW analyst 3.5 3.5 3 3 3 3
DBA - ORA 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Developer/Programmer/Designer - CFIT 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0

Quality test 1 1 1 1 1 1
SAP Business Analyst 0.5 1.5 3 3 3 2
SAP Business Analyst GADSC 0 0 1 0.5 1 1
SAP Developer GADC 0.5 0 1 1 2 3
Total 6.1 6.6 9.7 9.2 10.7 10.2
49 December 8, 2021
FI objects –not in scope

1. WBS elements (see next slide)

WBS elements are not in AFM. If it does not get in to AFM it
would be mapped to Internal orders as it is deployed by EDS.

2. Secondary Cost-elements ;
No controlling documents are planed to be sent to gERP. So not in
scope.
Approach/ Strategy

• Create new master data while the existing master data

sun-set.
− Existing master data remain in the system but dormant.
− Reason:
• To facilitate the open Sales Orders that already locks in Profit Centers
• To ensure the validity of the account assigned POs
• To enable the settlement of IOs and WBS elements
These are only some examples.