aims of sap

7/31/2019 aims of sap

1/12

Volume 13, Update 4 www.SAPpro.com

2011 SAP Professional Journal Reprinted with permission from the 2011Update 4 issueof SAP Professional Journal Reproduction or distribution in any form is strictly prohibited without the permission of the publisher, Wellesley Information Services.

This article is found in the SAP Professional Journal knowledgebase where

new articles are added every week.

Articles in the SAP Professional Journal knowledgebase help you overcome your

toughest SAP challenges. Theyre packed with detailed instruction, best prac-

tices, and guidance not found anywhere else on ABAP, Java development, master data management, performance optimizing and monitor-

ing, portal design and implementation, upgrade and migration strategies, and many other topics. Your 12-month subscription gives your entire

team access to the most sought-after expertise from the worlds top experts in SAP technology. Its like adding additional experts to your SAP

team who have all the answers without the cost of hiring them. Subscribe at www.sappro.com.

This document is for your personal use only. Reproduction or distribution in any form is strictly prohibited without the permission of the publisher,

Wellesley Information Services. For information about the SAP Professional Journal and other WIS publications, visit www.sappro.com

for breaking down an implementation

into manageable tasks that can be

analyzed and aligned to meet their

organizations business objectives.

More particularly, I have drawn on my

own implementation experiences to

identify several specific types of phased

approaches that you can use to refine

the decision-making process. Ill show

approaches to phased approaches that

vary considerably in scope and scale

how can decision makers ensure that

they have considered all the relevant

factors and made the best choices to

meet their business needs?

To answer that question, Ill use the

analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (a

multicriteria decision-making method-

ology that Michal Szymaczek intro-

duced to SAP Professional Journal

readers in his article, Encourage Effec-

tive Decision Making with the Analytic

Hierarchy Process at www.sappro.

com/article.cfm?id=3650). It provides

readers with a real-world methodology

Experienced SAP project managers

know all too well that the approach and

scope of a project must be carefully

defined if it is going to be successful.

Large, complex, and global SAP proj-

ects present especially tremendous

challenges: Project managers not only

have to identify what, when, and how to

implement the SAP system in a global

environment, but this complex process

then must also be managed in a way

that minimizes the risks while optimiz-

ing the benefits to the business. Given

that there are multiple approaches to

implementation from high-budget,

high-risk, high-reward, big-bang

Understand the complexities of breaking down a complex SAP project implementation

into manageable chunks, reflecting a scope capable of aligning with and meeting an

organizations specific goals. Build an implementation approach and business case by

understanding the advantages and disadvantages of variations of the phased approach.Finally, learn how to use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model to evaluate the alter -

natives in a scientific way, as well as perform sensitivity analysis and a head-to-head

comparison of alternatives.

Use the AHP Methodology to MoreEffectively Define and Evaluate Your

SAP Implementation Approach

by Jeetendra Kumar, IT Director, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

Besides the implementation

approach, the analytic hierarchy

process (AHP) evaluation helpsbuild alignment among business

stakeholders and the project

team. A workshop approach with

the key business stakeholders

and the project leadership team

can help drive the aligned path for

implementation. The AHP evalua-

tion helps define the scope and

draw boundaries to drive a suc-

cessful implementation.

Key Concept>>


2/12


you how to design AHP decision hierar-

chies that can help you choose the

approach or combination of these

approaches most suited to your

objectives.

Previous articles have focused on

implementation methodologies (e.g.,ASAP) that outline the different phases

of a project implementation, project

organization structure, and subsequent

deliverables. This article takes a differ-

ent approach: It aims, instead, at

helping program managers, project

managers, and team leads to define

and design an optimal implementation

approach. Ill begin by distinguishing

different kinds of phased approaches

according to their predominating orien-

tation: function, process, geography,

organization units, or business partners.

Then Ill show you how to use the AHP

methodology to sift through and orga-

nize the relevant data, trace various

value chains, define and rank business

criteria according to the needs and

goals of the business, and then compare

and rank the implementation options

against those business criteria. I also

assume you have a basic understand-

ing of SAP implementation methodol-

ogy, scope definition, and project

management.

Introduction: The Varieties ofImplementation Approach

Organizations that have implemented

SAP systems over time have differed

widely in their needs and objectives, so

a variety of approaches has naturally

developed. A particular implementation

approach is defined according to its

own characteristic ways of grouping,

timing, and sequencing all the elements

necessary for developing and deploy-

ing SAP-enabled business processes.

Because of this, two different compa-

nies that are both implementing, say,

SAP ERP Financials may well take very

different approaches: ABC Manufactur-

ing Co. might roll out this solution in its

UK regional offices before expanding

into other regions; XYZ Medical Tech-

nologies might roll out the solution in

its medical supplies division before

extending it into its medical equipment

and pharmaceuticals divisions. Bothimplementation approaches the

former regional, the latter organizational

share a number of common objec-

tives, although their criteria for meeting

those objectives differ. Among the key

objectives that every implementation

must take into account are:

Effective timing and sequencing for

implementation of SAP and business-

related applications and technologies

Allowing early realization of business

benefits and opportunities

Minimizing business disruptions

Improving the projects risk manage-

ment profile by recognizing the proj-

ects impact on business units, end

users, and customers

Presenting inputs for developing

high-level estimates for the project

timeline

Identifying the requirements for proj-

ect resources and for technical infra-

structure

Presenting a proposed roll-out sched-

ule and its links to a firms legacy

systems and any other relevant busi-

ness or technology initiatives

Accounting for the complexities of

various business processes and the

impact of varied geographic scope,

legacy systems, and data require-

ments across the firm

Reducing the total cost of ownership

(TCO) of both SAP and any remain-

ing legacy solutions or bolt-on busi-

ness applications necessary for the

SAP system

In my example, both ABC Manufactur-

ing and XYZ Medical Technologies, if

they have done their implementation

homework, undertake their respective

implementation strategies because they

are the most effective for timing andsequencing, realizing benefits and

opportunities, minimizing business dis-

ruptions, and so on. Of course and

this is the kicker they may find

midway through their implementation

that their analyses were incomplete, that

they had failed to recognize certain

risks or opportunities, and that another

approach might have lead to better

results. They might have even averted

some costly mistakes.

Adequately understanding what charac-

terizes the various approaches to

implementation, then, can have vital

consequences for the business. Before

you see how AHP can help you analyze

these approaches according to your own

business requirements, lets try to under-

stand these various approaches in a little

more detail.

There are a handful of other good

sources you should read in con-

junction with this article. One is

Michals article that I mentioned

earlier. Another, for more founda-

tional information, is Michals

2005 SAP Professional Journal

article Reduce Project Risk by

Integration Project Management

Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Tools

and Techniques with ASAP," which

you can read at www.sappro.com/

article.cfm?id=3405. You should

also check out the book SAP Plan-

ning: Best Practices in Implemen-

tation, written by SAP Professional

Journal technical advisor George

Anderson.

Note>>


3/12



Big Bang vs. Phased

Approach to Implementation

The big-bang SAP implementation

approach, as the name implies, means

the deployment of all future-state busi-

ness processes with SAP and related

technologies across the entire enterprise

in a single phase. A typical example

of a big-bang implementation might

include implementing financial account-

ing (FI), sales and distribution (SD),

materials management (MM), SAP ERP

Human Capital Management (SAP ERP

HCM), and production planning (PP)

modules in a single phase across the

entire enterprise all of which go live

at the same time, on the same date, for

the enterprises entire user community.

A phased approach, on the other hand,

means implementing future-state busi-

ness processes with SAP and related

technologies in multiple phases. The

phases might be based on geography,

business processes, business units or

functional areas, and so on. An example

of a phased implementation might

include implementing FI followed laterby MM, SD, PP, and SAP ERP HCM in

subsequent phases or waves.

The big bang approach leads to im-

mediate standardization of business

processes across the enterprise, maxi-

mizing the benefits. The approach

eliminates any bridging strategy

between legacy and SAP related sol-

utions (as all legacy systems are

migrated into SAP systems in this

approach). Hence, there is no require-

ment for complex interfaces or interim

business processes. The complexity of

master data maintenance is drastically

reduced because of the reduced number

of non-SAP systems. In this approach,

the project timeline to get to newer SAP

business solutions could be long but the

overall timeline in comparison with a

phased approach to migrate to a future

state may still be shorter. This approach

provides an opportunity to synergize the

resources across multiple and diverse

teams.

However, there are high risks associated

with implementing the solution across

the enterprise. This significantly in-

creases the requirements for train-

ing, change management, and post-

implementation support. Due to a large

scope and team, this approach requires

a solid project and program manage-

ment structure. Finally, the approach

requires business readiness for absorb-

ing and sustaining the changes that

accompany such a project, along with

having a concrete business continuityplan.

In contrast, the phased approach means

a more manageable scope, project struc-

ture, and team structure, leading to

a sustainable implementation. This

approach can focus effort on training

and change management with overall

reduced risk. In particular, this approach

affords the opportunity to leverage the

learning from initial phases to the sub-

sequent phases of the project. This ap-

proach also simplifies business sustain-

ability and business continuity plans.

On the other hand, the phased approach

needs a bridging strategy, which adds to

the cost of the project from designing

and maintaining throwaway interfaces.

This approach also requires support

structure for both legacy environment

and SAP-related technologies, thereby

adding to the TCO of diverse systems

to support the business. The phased

approach also drives interim business

processes and complex master data

maintenance across multiple systems.

Drivers of a Phased-

Approach Implementation

Many factors, both external and inter-

nal, drive an organizations ability to

implement complex SAP solutions

toward a phased approach to implemen-

tation. Budget and resources represent

the most obvious constraints, but there

are many others. For example, one com-

panys executives may be leading the

charge for implementation, recognizing

the vital need for better business

intelligence than its multiple non-

communicating legacy systems can

provide, yet the long process of getting

end users up to speed and developing

adequate reporting may dictate a tightly

controlled process and phased approach.

At another company, end users may be

clamoring for more effective systems,

while the companys precarious market

position leads to executive risk aver-

sion. Nor is it uncommon to find that

the eagerness of executives, IT staff,

and end users for implementation is

confronted by a scarcity of qualified

project managers. All these factors

amount to constraints and tend to drive

organizations to implement SAP

systems in a phased manner since

anything else proves unsustainable.

Given the need, then, to carefullymanage and execute a phased approach

and it is quite a balancing act to

manage all the likely constraints lets

examine the various kinds of phased

approaches in more detail. By under-

standing their differing emphases, their

pros and cons, and the tensions among

them, you can have a stronger basis for

your decisions.

Variations of a Phased-Approach Implementation

In the following sections, Ill analyze

in detail different types of phased-

approach implementations. The analysis

highlights the benefits and implications

of a functional approach, business

process approach, organizational

approach, and business partner phase

implementation approach.


4/12


Functional Approach

As its name implies, the functional

approach focuses on implementing a

business function or functions across an

enterprise. An example of this approach

might involve deploying accountspayable (AP) and accounts receivable

(AR) company wide. Another example

might be implementing Payroll across

an enterprise, or introducing a particular

component of SAP ERP HCM to the

entire companys employee base.

The functional approach has a very

defined and limited scope, business user

group, and business benefits, thereby

making it less risky in comparison to the

big-bang approach. The risk is limited to

the target business group for the func-

tional implementation. The functional

approach has fewer dependencies in

cross-functional areas and a relatively

easy buy-in. The overall project manage-

ment, training, and execution are simpler

in this approach. The approach can lead

to early realization of benefits and set up

an environment for project success for

the implementation and business team.

However, the functional approach defers

the benefits for the functional areas not

part of the implementation and thus has

reduced benefits from an overall enter-

prise standpoint. The benefits from the

new processes could be suboptimized due

to piecemeal implementation. The

approach calls for the additional effort and

maintenance of bridging interfaces and

the solutions can lead to a lack of integra-

tion across business functions for asubstantial period of time. The interim

business solutions can lead to adverse

employee performance due to the length

of the trans-itional period before integra-

tion in other functional areas.

Business Process Approach

In the business process approach, the

focus of implementation is on deploy-

ing one or more end-to-end business

processes (e.g., plan-to-produce, order-

to-cash, hire-to-retire). Each business

process stands alone but touches multi-

ple functional areas, affects different

user communities, and probably affects

different geographies as well.

The business process approach directs

the enterprise on high-value initiatives

and rapid success. For example, a con-

sumer business can drive maximum

benefits by implementing the order-to-

cash business process. The approach

facilitates the development of the busi-

ness process view for the enterprise.

The business process view offers a

higher degree of integration betweensystem and processes.

It is very difficult to segment highly

integrated business processes. This

approach implements standalone end-

to-end business solutions, thereby

requiring bridging and throwaway inter-

faces. The approach requires major

training, communication, resources, and

effort across the enterprise.

Organizational Approach

The organizational approach to imple-

mentation involves the implementation

of functions and processes in a single

organization before rolling out similar

functionality or business processes to

second, third, and subsequent organiza-

tions. This type of approach lends itself to

businesses made up of independent oper-

ating companies, agencies, or business

units. One of the key assumptions for thisapproach is that the legacy system must

be able to be phased out by each organi-

zation as it adopts SAP systems.

The organizational approach is some-

times called the geographic approach.

In the geographic approach, the focus

of the implementation is a single geo-

graphic area (which may comprise a

number of organizational or business

units as well as business processes). For

a global implementation, the geographic

approach might be country specific.

The organizational or geographic

approach leverages the physical bound-

aries between the organization and the

geography for a phased implementation.

The advantage in this approach is the

migration of an organization or geogra-

phy in the future business solution,

thereby paving the way for a rapid

implementation across multiple organi-

zations or geographies. This approach

also gives an opportunity to formulate

and sustain support structures in a

phased manner and drive the scalability

of future needs.

Invariably though, the global design

decisions lengthen the overall imple-

mentation time and difficulty in coming

to a global consensus on the major

design decisions. In addition, this

approach requires good master data

strategy and BI strategy to drive the

consolidated reporting requirements

across the organization or geography.

The dynamism of business can also lead

to functionality changes in the organiza-

tion already live with the SAP system,

making managing the business changes

tricky. A strong scope management

approach is needed until all the organi-

zation units or geographies have moved

to the new solutions.

Business Partners Approach

The business partners approach involves

the implementation of functions orprocesses for a group of customers or

vendors before rolling out the function-

ality to a subsequent group of customers

or vendors.

An example of this approach is imple-

menting order-to-cash for Electronic

Data Interchange (EDI) customers fol-

lowed by implementing order-to-cash

for other customer groups. One of the


5/12



key assumptions is that the customer

group should be separate from a busi-

ness perspective.

The approach offers an alternative to

reduce potential effects on wider busi-ness partners and reduction in risks by

cash flow effects because of the

change. However, it also creates some

challenges in segregating the business

partners suitable for the implementa-

tion. Additionally, the approach can

lead to partners dealing with multiple

systems and require design and config-

uration for the entire partners base.

The approach may also require bridg-

ing interfaces and a solid master data

strategy encompassing multiple

systems.

An SAP implementation might actually

include any number of combined ap-

proaches as discussed previously.

For example, a firm might initiate an

organizational roll-out (e.g., requisition-

to-check for a division or a business unit)

followed by a roll-out predicated on

specific organizational, geographic, or

business partner needs and goals.

Phased Approach

Implementation Evaluation

The following section discusses the

AHP to evaluate alternatives for

optimal implementation. The AHP is a

structured technique to help make

complex decisions. The AHP model

breaks the goal into a hierarchy of

quantitative or qualitative criteria and

subcriteria that you can analyze sepa-

rately. Once the hierarchy is built,

pairwise comparison is performed for

each combination of criteria and sub-

criteria by a cross-functional team of

IT and business users drafting the

overall implementation plan. The

model converts the comparisons to

numerical values and a num-

erical weight or priority is derived for

each node in the hierarchy. In the final

steps, numerical priorities are derived

for each of the alternatives.

The AHP modeling Ill describe is an

illustration of how it can help you

make a decision about an optimal

implementation approach. Depending

on the situation, the evaluated alterna-

tives vary and could be a combination

of approaches discussed in the previ-

ous section. Along the same lines, the

pair-wise comparison of the criteria

and subcriteria vary and in some cases

it can be based on pure values rather

than qualitative comparison (e.g.,

cost).

Step 1. Model the Goal as a

Hierarchy

An AHP hierarchy is a structured

way of defining the goal. The differ-

ent elements of the AHP hierarchy

are the overall goal, a group of alter-

natives, and criteria that relate thealternative to the goal. You can break

down the criteria into subcriteria

depending on the complexity of the

problem. In this illus tration, the

optimal implementation approach is

the defined goal. The alternatives are

a big-bang approach, functional

approach, business partner approach,

business process approach, and orga-

nizational approach.

In this example, the main criteria that

relate the alternatives to the goal are

organizational readiness, risks, cost,

benefits realization, and technology

solution. Each of these criteria is

further broken down into subcriteria:

For example, change management,

post-implementation, training, skills

availability, and business disruption

are subcriteria for the main criterion

organizational readiness. Each of the

boxes in the hierarchy is called a

node. See Figure 1 for the goal, crite-

ria, and subcriteria in the hierarchy. In

this illustration, the AHP software

model available at www.ahpproject.

com is used to perform the selection

of the optimal implementation. The

hierarchy elements are defined in this

step for the goal in the software

application.

Goal, main criteria, and subcriteria as defined in the AHP software

model (www.ahpproject.com)

Figure 1


6/12


parisons, you can perform direct rating if

the values for the criteria can be mathe-

matically evaluated. See Figure 2 for the

pairwise comparison between risk and

organizational readiness as an example.

The pairwise comparison is performed

for all the combinations defined above

and the values are directly entered in the

AHP software. The AHP software uses

mathematical calculations (eigenvector

values) to convert these judgments into

priorities for each criterion. The software

also calculates a consistency ratio (CR)

that expresses the internal consistency of

the judgments that have been entered.

When you compare elements in pairs you

may be inconsistent. The rule of thumb is

to keep the CR at less than 0.1. If the CR

is greater than 0.1, you should improve

the consistency of comparisons by reas-

sessing the pairwise comparison. The

software returns the priorities of the crite-

ria for all the nodes within the group. The

result from the software is shown graphi-

cally in Figure 3.

Once the priorities have been established

for the main criteria, the pairwise com-parison is performed for all the sub-

criteria within the main criteria. For

example, the pairwise comparison is

performed for the subcriterion change

Pairwise comparison of

organizational readiness

vs. risk

Figure 2

Priorities of the criteria from the AHP softwareFigure 3

Step 2. Establish Priorities

for the Criteria and

Subcriteria by Pairwise

Comparison

Once the hierarchy is defined, the AHPmodel is used to establish the priorities

for the nodes defined above. The priori-

ties indicate the relative weight given to

the criteria in a given group of nodes. The

weight refers to the relative importance,

preference, or likelihood being considered

by the evaluation team. In the initializa-

tion process, the AHP software, which is

free to download at www.ahpproject.com,

by default gives equal priority to all the

criteria with the group of nodes. As theAHP process continues, the priorities

change from the default values to reflect

the judgment of the evaluation team

about the various criteria within a group.

Pairwise Comparison

The pairwise comparison of the criteria

with respect to the goal is scored by the

model for the following combinations:

Organizational readiness vs. risk

Organizational readiness vs. cost

Organizational readiness vs. benefits

realization

Organizational readiness vs. technology

solution

Risk vs. cost

Risk vs. benefits realization

Risk vs. technology solution

Cost vs. benefits realization

Cost vs. technology solution

Benefits realization vs. technology

solution

The comparison is performed by select-

ing the dominant element and the value

on a scale from 1 to 9. In certain com-


7/12



management, post-implementation, train-

ing, skills availability, and business

disruption within the criterion organiza-

tional readiness. The pairwise comparison

is repeated for all the other subcriteria.

Step 3. Compare Alternatives

You then need to compare the alternatives

of the lowest nodes in the hierarchy. Fig-

ure 4 depicts an example of a comparison

of the possible implementation ap-

proaches for the sub-criterion change

management. For comparison between a

big-bang approach and a functional

approach for the change management

subcriterion, it is relatively simple to

perform the change assessment and

deploy the tools to manage the change in

the functional approach as compared to

the big-bang approach. Table 1 shows the

definition of the subcriteria and questions

to evaluate alternatives.

In this example, the dominant element

is the Functional approach and the value

selected is Strong importance plus. Sim-

ilarly, all the other alternative pairs are

compared using the change manage-

ment criteria. The step is repeated for

all the lower-level nodes. As indicated

above, Table 1 defines some of the sub-

criteria and assists the user of the AHP

software program to select the dominant

element and define the value for the

element in the illustration for optimiz-

ing the implementation approach. In

addition, the earlier section of the

article that describes the different

approaches of implementations should

help you determine the value while per-

forming the alternative evaluation.

Figure 5 shows all the evaluated subcri-

teria for each main criterion and the

alternatives comparison evaluation from

the AHP software program. The consis-

tency ratio is also shown in Figure 5.

Note the CR value for all the compari-

son is less than 0.1, which signifies

consistency in the pairwise comparison

in this example.

At this point, all comparisons of the

criteria and subcriteria have been per-

formed and the AHP software has

calculated the local priority for each node

at each level. Also, as you know how

much the priority of each subcriterion

contributes to the priority of the parent

node and the priority of the parents to the

goal, the AHP software calculates the

global priority of each subcriterion.

As an example, the global and local

weight (priority) of the criterion organi-zational readiness is 0.34 (Figure 6).

Figure 7 shows the scores of the al-

ternatives relative to the criterion orga-

nizational readiness.

As a result, the AHP software program

based on the AHP hierarchy, global priori-

Alternative comparison of the change management subcriterionFigure 4


8/12


ties, and alternative comparisons outputs

the summary score (Figure 8). In this

illustration, the business process approach

is the optimal approach with 0.234 fol-

lowed by business partners and the

organizational approach. The closeness of

the business partners approach and orga-

nizational approach may prompt you to

perform the AHP analysis again for these

three alternatives only and derive the

optimal implementation approach.

The following section outlines some of

the tools to perform further analysis of

the alternatives and expands on the cal-

culation of local and global priorities.

Sensitivity Analysis

The AHP program generates the sensi-

tivity charts for each node. It provides

analysis on how the alternatives rank-

ing behaves in response to changes in

priorities. Figure 9 shows an example

in which the current priority value of

the criterion organizational readiness is

0.34, so the optimal implementation is

the business process approach followed

by the business partners approach. Ifthe priority of the criterion organiza-

tional readiness is increased to 0.55,

then the optimal implementation

approach is the business partners

approach followed by the business

process approach. The AHP program

allows you to perform the sensitivity

analysis at any of the nodes and

analyze the criteria and subcriteria.

As indicated earlier in the article, the AHP

software calculates the local and global pri-

ority of all subcriteria. In the following

section, the graphical results of the subcri-

terion change management within the

criterion organization readiness is shown.

Figure 10 indicates the local priority of

change management (0.18) with respect to

other subcriteria (training, skills availabil-

ity, post-implementation, and business

continuity) within the criterion organiza-

tional readiness. The global priority of

the change management criterion is the

product of the parent organizational

readiness global priority (0.34) and

change managements local priority

(0.18), which is 0.06.

Figure 11 shows another illustration of

sensitivity analysis at the change manage-

ment node. If the local priority change

management changes to more than 0.60,

then the optimal implementation changes

to the business partners approach.

Subcriterion Definition and questions for alternatives evaluation

Speed of benefits The criterion is to evaluate the need of early realization of the ben-

efits in the organization. Will the evaluated option help in realizing

quick optimization of the business process, lead to data integrity,

help decommission legacy applications, and standardize the busi-

ness process?

External business

partners impact

The criterion is to evaluate the positive or negative impact on exter-

nal business partners such as vendors and customers. Will the

evaluated option enhance external customer and vendor business

processes? Does the customer or vendor need to interact with mul-

tiple systems?

Scale of business risk The criterion is to evaluate the scale of business risk in terms ofbusiness continuity and disruptions to the business cycle. Will the

evaluated option affect the entire customer base and impose risks

on the revenue and shareholders value?

Bridging cost The criterion is to evaluate the building of the transitional interfaces

to support the phased implementation. Will the evaluated option

have fewer throwaway interfaces to be built?

Skills availability The criterion is to evaluate the availability of internal and external

resources for the approach. Will the evaluated option require skills

that have wider availability? Will the evaluated option require build-

ing a knowledgebase or require external resources?

Probability of

completion

The criterion is to evaluate the completion of the in-scope function-

ality for the approach. What is the likelihood of the completion with

the evaluated approach compared to other approaches?

Scalability The criterion is to evaluate the scalability of the solution for future

changes to the business processes. Will the approach support the

opportunities for growth in the business?

Post-implementation

support

The criterion is to evaluate the organizational needs to support

the post-go-live phase. Will the approach require multiple teams to

support transitional functions in the business? Will the approach

require support in future-state solutions and phasing out legacy

solutions?

Change management The criterion is to evaluate the change management impact on the

business. Will the approach facilitate changes to the organization,

processes, and functions in manageable and sustainable pieces?

Will the approach reduce the change management complexity?

Will the approach take into account the business readiness for the

change?

Training The criterion is to evaluate the ease of the execution of train-

ing strategy to the business users. Will the approach facilitate

sustainable learning to the end user? Will the approach optimize

the training delivery to the end user in terms of timeliness and

resources to impart the knowledge?

Master data and data

conversion

The criterion is to evaluate the ease of master data maintenance

and data conversion. Will the approach require master data in mul-

tiple systems and increase the complexity to maintain data in sync?

Will the approach reduce the complexity of transactional data migra-

tion in terms of open items or mid-year conversion?

Definition of subcriteria and questions for alternative comparisonTable 1


9/12



The evaluated subcriteria

and consistency ratio

Figure 5 Weight (priority) of organizational readiness criteria relative to all other

nodes at this level

Figure 6

Alternative results for the organizational readiness criterionFigure 7


10/12


Summary score for all the evaluated alternatives

Sensitivity analysis of organizational readiness criteria

Figure 8

Figure 9


11/12



Head-to-Head Comparison of

Alternatives

The AHP program outputs radar charts

to provide a comparison between two

selected alternatives. The radar chartsfor the head-to-head comparison for

the business process approach and

business partners approach is shown in

Figure 12 for main criteria and Figure

13 for subcriteria. The radar charts are

useful in this example because of the

relative closeness of the summaryscores of these approaches. In Figure

12, the business partners approach out-

weighs the business process approach

for the risk and organization readiness

criteria but falls behind the other crite-

ria technology solution, benefits

realization, and cost. The radar chart inFigure 13 indicates the spread of sub-

Local and global weight (priority) of the subcriterion change management

Sensitivity analysis of the change management criterion

Figure 10

Figure 11


12/12


criteria for the business process

approach and business partner ap-

proaches. The chart highlights the sub-

criteria where the business process

approach outweighs the business

partner approach and vice versa. n

Other good AHP resources include

the book How to Make a Decision:

The Analytic Hierarchy Process by

Thomas L. Saaty, published by

RWS Publications, and An illus-

trated guide to the Analytic

Hierarchy Process, by Rainer

Haas and Oliver Mexiner at www.

fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisher-

ies/sslmc/july-06/ahptutorial.pdf.

Note>>

Head-to-head comparison of the business process approach vs.

business partner approach: subcriteria

Figure 13

Head-to-head comparison of the business process approach vs. the

business partner approach: major criteria

Figure 12

Jeetendra Kumar is the

IT director at Coca-

Cola Enterprises, Inc.

Prior to Coca-Cola

Enterprises, Jeetendra

worked as a consultant

at Deloitte, IBM, Price-

waterhouseCoopers, and HCL

Infosystems in their respective SAP

practices. You may contact Jeetendra

via email at [email protected] or

[email protected].

aims of sap

Documents