beverage company case studyv02

7/30/2019 Beverage Company Case StudyV02

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beverage-company-case-studyv02 1/26

PwC

PwC India BI PracticeSelect Case Study*June 2006

*Leading Beverage Company in India



Agenda

PwC Engagement SummaryPwC ApproachProject Key FindingsPwC Recommendations



Section one




Slide 4PricewaterhouseCoopersFebruary 2006

CPM Development Cycle

R e s o u r c

e s

Time

CPM Prototype

Subject AreaCPM

Enterprise CPM

Enhancements andMaintenance

CPM Feasibility &Planning

The PricewaterhouseCoopers methodology is built on an Iterative approach, which

stresses rapid development and successive modification of pilot applications using

teams of End Users and Information Technology specialists.

Iterative Methodology for Corporate Performance ManagementSection one



Slide 5Select Case StudyPricewaterhouseCoopers

February 2006

PwC Engagement SummarySection one

Yes

• Which functions to start with?• The best-fit technical architecture

• The phased implementation roadmap

• The TCO

• Why not now?• What are the enabling steps?

• When will be the right time?

Not Now

Should companyimplement theCPM Now ?

• Organizationinformation needs

• Systematicavailability of structured data



Section one





February 2006

Approach Used for the CPM Strategy

Benchmarked

MIS against PwC

maturity model.

Identified user

needs.

Defined draft KPIs

and evaluated source

system readiness.

Evaluated

technology options.

14 options.

Recommended top 2

technology

architecture options.

Concluded on

readiness for the

CPM

Evaluated TCOs

14 options.

Section two



Section one





February 2006


Benchmarked

MIS against PwC

maturity model.

Identified user

needs.

Defined draft KPIs


system readiness.

Evaluated

technology options.

14 options.

Recommended top 2

technology


Concluded on

readiness for CPM

Evaluated TCOs

14 options.

Section two




February 2006

Level ISpreadsheet

reporting , no RDBMS

DisciplinedProcess

Level IIPartial spreadsheet

remedy & control

Standard, consistent processautomated and fully supported by IT

Level IIIComplete spreadsheet

remedy & control

Predictable process centredaround a Data Warehouse

Level IVEnterprise BusinessIntelligence reporting

Process extended beyondthe corporate boundaries

Level VInternal/ ExternalInformation Integration

Source: Study of reports and interviews across Unitsand Functions. Scores from PwC template.

Benchmark against PwC Maturity Model

Overall score of Company isclose to III

Section three




February 2006

The Function-wise view

Section three

S c o r e

0

P r i m a r y S a l e s

S e c o n d a r y

S a l e s

M a r k e t i n g

P r o d u c t i o n

F i n a n c e

H R

1

2

3

4

5

Source: Study of reports and interviews across units and Functions.Scores from PwC template.

Good practice score

Company organizationalscore

X

3.75




February 2006


Benchmarked

MIS against PwC

maturity model.

Identified user

needs.

Defined draft KPIs


system readiness.

Evaluated

technology options.

14 options.

Recommended top 2

technology


Concluded on

readiness for CPM

Evaluated TCOs

14 options.

Section two




February 2006

Data & ProcessDefinition

Operational Usage

Business Usage

Central RepositoryData Feed fromMultiple Systems

End User Interface

Business DataDictionary

StandardizationStandardization

Linking Financial and NonLinking Financial and Non --Financial PerspectivesFinancial Perspectives

Faster and Easier Access to InformationFaster and Easier Access to Information

Alerts & Exception ReportsAlerts & Exception Reports

Trends / What if Analysis

Key Requirements : Business Users




February 2006

A DW-based Performance Management solution as an Answer

END-USER FACEBACK-END FACE

SAP

ScndrySales

MRData

HRData

Others

SourceSystems

D a

t a Q u a

l i t y

F i r e w a

l l

D a

t a I n t e g r a t i o n

P r o c e s s

D a

t a I n t e g r a t i o n

P r o c e s s

ETL Process (Extraction,Transformation, Loading)

DimensionalData Store

DW Engine

E n

t e r p r i s e

D a s

h b o a r d

A d - h o c

A n a l y s

i s

C a n n e

d

R e p o r t s

OLAP (OnlineAnalytical Processing)




February 2006

Function-wise expression of need for improvement

S c o r e

0

3.82

S a l e s

M a r k e t i n g

F i n a n c e

P r o d u c t i o n

H R

1

2

3

4

5

4.08 4.013.67

4.00

Cut-off score for CPM need

3.5

Section three

Source: Interviews across Units and Functions.Scores from PwC template.




February 2006


Benchmarked

MIS against PwC

maturity model.

Identified user

needs.

Defined draft KPIs


system readiness.

Evaluated

technology options.

14 options.

Recommended top 2

technology


Concluded on

readiness for a Data

Warehouse

Evaluated TCOs

14 options.

Section two




February 2006

Linking Performance Management to Business Processes

ManageCustomer CreditExposure

ProcessOrders

ReleaseOrders for Despatch

Manage &Track Orders

ManageReturns &Exchanges

ManageCollections

Top 5 ObjectivesMaximize toplineMinimize stock-

outsImprovedistributor management

Ensure productavailability as per market demand

Improve servicetime

KPIs linked to Objectives• Gross realization

(Rev per case)

• Net realization(GR – Tax –D&A)

• Forecastaccuracy

• Productionschedulecompliance

• Total freight costper case

• One-way glassreturns(Empties)

• Network days of supply

• Demand at risk

• Order to servicetime

• Invoice time togate-out time

Data SourceData Source• SAP SD

• SAP SD & Excel

• SAP SD

• Excel

• SAP SD

• SAP SD

• SAP SD

• SAP SD

• SAP SD

• SAP SD

Section three




February 2006

Readiness of the source systems

LJLJLMarketing

JKJKLProduction

LLJKJHR

JJJKJFinance

LLLJKSecondarySales

Data

Quality

Data Entry

Time LagStandardizationData Entry

Control

JJJJJPrimary Sales

Usage and

CoverageFunctions

J Ready for DW K Partially ready for DW L Unready for DW

Section three




February 2006


Benchmarked

MIS against PwC

maturity model.

Identified user

needs.

Defined draft KPIs


system readiness.

Evaluated

technology options.

14 options.

Recommended top 2

technology


Concluded on

readiness for CPM

Evaluated TCOs

14 options.

Section two




February 2006

4.1 4.07

3.53.1

2.3

2.8

1

2

3

4

5

P r i m a r y

S a l e s

F i n a n c e

M a r k e t i n g

O p e r a t i o n s

S e c o n d a r y

S a l e s H

R

Function Readiness is based on

• Source System Readiness

• Metrics Needed from CPM

Function-wise Readiness

Need VS. Readiness

3.82 4.01 4.083.67 3.82 4

1

2

3

4

5

P r i m a r y

S a l e s

F i n a n c e

M a r k e t i n g

O p e a t i o n s

S e c o n d a r y

S a l e s H

R

Need expressed through the

interviews with the end-users

Function-wise Need for Improvement

Section three




February 2006

Opportunity Matrix

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Function-wise Readiness for CPM

F u n c

t i o n - w

i s e N e e

d f o r

C P M

Need vs. Readiness Matrix

These functions needimprovements in the source

systems for effectiveimplementation of DW.

Can be ignored for the timebeing.

These functions are the quick-wins to start the DataWarehousing journey

Lower cost of delivery can bethe only justification to makethese functions adapt to the

DW

Section three




February 2006

Need VS. Readiness

3.82 4.01 4.083.67 3.82 4

1

2

3

4

5

P r i m a r y

S a l e s

F i n a n c e

M a r k e t i n g

O p e a t i o n s

S e c o n d a r y

S a l e s H

R

Need expressed through the

interviews with the end-users

Function-wise Need for Improvement

4.1 4.07

3.3

2.8

21.8

1

2

3

4

5

P r i m a r y

S a l e s

F i n a n c e

M a r k e t i n g

O p e r a t i o n s

S e c o n d a r y

S a l e s H

R

Function Readiness is based on

• Source System Readiness

• Metrics Needed from CPM

Function-wise Readiness

Section three




February 2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Function-wise Readiness for CPM

F u n c

t i o n - w

i s e

N e e

d f o r

C P M

The Opportunity Matrix

Function #1 Function #2 Function #4Function #3 Function #5 Function #6

Section three




February 2006


Benchmarked

MIS against PwC

maturity model.

Identified user

needs.

Defined draft KPIs


system readiness.

Evaluated

technology options.

14 options.

Recommended top 2

technology


Concluded on

readiness for CPM

Evaluated TCOs

14 options.

Section two




February 2006

The Evaluation Methodology

Short-listed tools for each layer 1

Arrived at 14 probable combinations2

Evaluated tools in each layer usingPwC template and company weights3

Went through vendor presentations4

Eliminated 8 out of 14 options5

Compared TCO and fitment of top 6options6

Recommended final 2 options7



© 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the networkof member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independentlegal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US). PwC

Thank you

beverage company case studyv02

Documents