dmh items for blueprint 20050310

SAP Improvements for Procurement (DMH Issues)

DMH Open Items Management

Functional AreaTopicDescription of IssueAssessment

398HIGH

Priority

Management ReportingReportingDMH Pilot reveals significant issues related to management reporting from within the implementation.Root Cause Reporting has been identified as one of the Lessons Learned by the State for the implementation. A lack of focus on management reporting and reliance on SAP standard reports was placed on the project.

Potential Fixes

1. Identify the specific information required for the management reports and develop the reports needed using ABAP, SAP Query, or Crystal Reports

2. Identify the reporting needs to ensure the reports are included in the Statewide finance blueprint

Recommendation It is unclear as to the specific needs for reporting based on the description. The adoption of the New G/L in mySAP ERP 2004 will alleviate some of the needs however additional details are necessary to determine a level of effort.

Level of Effort One week for a Functional Specification for each report. Additional assessment required to determine level of effort to create Technical Specification and to baseline the QA Path to Production.

415Low Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutManagement Reporting (see also Procurement)ReportingFV60 REPORT: Director of Procurement has requested a detailed FV60 Report. Need a report that shows what was paid as direct invoice.Root Cause FV60 is a direct payment transaction. In order to validate transactions are being properly obligated and procured in accordance with State Procurement Code, a report listing the details available for those transactions has been requested.

Potential Fixes

1. Develop an ABAP report with the specific information requested for evaluating the direct payment activity

2. Create a SAP Query with the information required

Recommendation In order to create the report, specifications are required. The information may be readily available or through various document types. An assessment of time and effort is required to write the report based on the specifications.


420Low Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutManagement ReportingReportingDMH SAP Report: In ability to highlight line itemsRoot Cause Specific SAP reports are constructed with drill-down functionality enabled and developed. Other reports rely on a separate detail report for execution. Not all reports provide the same flexibility for highlighting and drill-down.

Potential Fixes

1. If available for the specific report, activate Office Integration for spreadsheet-like functions

2. Identify specific report where drill-down functionality is required. Copy the report into a custom report and add (or develop) a drill-down report to be executed.

Recommendation It is unclear as to the specific report that is being identified. Not all reports provide the same functions. Identify the report and determine if Office Integration is available, otherwise a specification and details on what is required should be developed.

Level of Effort Downloading into Excel exists with current functionality. No level of effort required. If a custom report was desired the level of effort would be one week for a Functional Specification for each report. Additional assessment required to determine level of effort to create Technical Specification and to baseline the QA Path to Production.

421HIGH PriorityManagement ReportingReportingCredit memos posted with a FV60 or a FV65 create SAP numbers with 17xxx sequence which distinguishes credits from invoice payments with 19xxx sequence ; however, credit memos posted with a MIR7 or a MIRO create SAP numbers with 51xxx sequence which offers no distinction from invoice payments with 51xxx sequence. SAP creates two document numbers for each Goods Receipt. It creates an MM doc number of the sequence 5XXXXXXXXX and an FI doc number of the sequence 5XXXXXX. This is confusing to the user and makes research difficultRoot Cause Number ranges were established based on their necessity to interface transactions to STARS. The number ranges in FI were configured to represent a 7 digit value where the standard SAP defaults were used for MM.

Potential Fixes

1. At the beginning of the fiscal year, adjust the configuration for the number ranges to allow for the values in MM to be represented by 7 digits instead of 10.

2. Do not adjust the ranges, but consider the consistency of ranges and length of document numbers for statewide rollout.

Recommendation The impact of number ranges should be fully explored as they may impact current interfaces. Although a document number range may be established to be consistent from FI to MM, other factors may cause the relationship to no longer be the same number value (i.e. parked documents, deleted documents, other transactions in the same range). The numbers should be viewed as just a number. While a consistent length should be reviewed, the mirrored relationship may not be achievable.

Level of Effort Two weeks to validate and capture all business processes. One week to put together number range recommendation. One week to configure. One week to test.

424HIGH Priority

**First**Transaction ProcessingJournal EntriesDMH Out of Balance Journal Entries. SAP will post a journal entry that is out of balance by fund. It is then necessary to post another entry to the clearing account to make the correction. SAP should not allow out of balance entries to post, eliminating the need for the clearing account. SAP should edit an entry for balance by fund before the entry is posted. Since out of balance entries can be posted, each must be reviewed carefully. This is hampered by the fact that only several lines can be seen at one time on-line. Reviews of large entries are completed on the paper copy. Every effort should be made to eliminate the use of the 3999999999 clearing account as SAP is moved to other agencies. Clearing this account has been very problematic for DMH and will be difficult for small agencies with little professional accounting experience. Each entry that is posted out of balance by fund creates an entry into this account. By definition, fund accounting is supposed to be a "self balancing" set of accounts. This does not exist in SAP as the user is required to manually "balance" by fund.Root Cause Documents are being posted into SAP and are not balanced upon entry of the document. SAP provides functionality to balance and split the document based on parameters established in the configuration. These document types were established to balance by fund. The impact of an un-balanced document is the creation of additional lines to a clearing account/due to-from account.

Potential Fixes

1. Do not adjust system configuration. Place a procedure in the department to ensure each document is simulated and verified for balancing prior to posting.

2. Create a custom document type. Do not assign a splitting or balance method to the document. Un-balanced documents will generate an error and not be allowed to post. Restrict user security to balancing/splitting document types.

Recommendation The creation of a new document type will provide the ability for the department to control unbalanced entries. Security would require adaption to the new document type so as to restrict users in using the standard balanced/splitting documents. This will assist in prevention of a small portion of the clearing account entries. The new document type would then need to be included in any interface requirements as well as custom reports developed. A separate training class on how the split processor operates should be considered as well.

Level of Effort Three weeks to validate and capture all business processes. One week to put together document type recommendation. Two weeks to configure. Two weeks to test. Training classes start at an average of $4000 per week.

425Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingPayment RunIt is important that a process to automatically reverse clearing documents (Vouchers) be defined. Currently, clearing documents (Vouchers) created incorrectly must be reversed manually requiring a full days work for one batch of vouchers. This will be unacceptable if the system moves statewide. An incorrect payment proposal of 5,000 vouchers would have to be cleared one at a time.Root Cause An inadvertent entry in executing an accounts payable run has required the department to reverse the created transactions for the payment run on a one-by-one basis. No current transaction capability exists to automate this function.

Potential Fixes

1. Utilize the Test Run feature of the transaction and validate the information prior to final execution.

2. Investigate the creation of a CATT (used primarily for testing and loading data) to automate the reversal.

3. Develop a custom transaction to reverse the accounting entries and place the documents in an open for payment status.

Recommendation Request from SAP, an enhancement to the standard payment reversal transaction to include a range or batch of documents. If SAP decides not to develop the transaction as part of the baseline product, research the feasibility of a CATT or ABAP developed transaction to support mass reversal of payment transactions.

Level of Effort No level of effort required to request an enhancement from SAP. CATT or ABAP solution would require One weeks to validate and capture business processes. One week to create Functional Specification. Additional assessment required to determine level of effort to create Technical Specification and to baseline the QA Path to Production.

426HIGH Priority

**First**Transaction ProcessingCashDMH Cash Control by Fund/Subfund Not Available. Cash control by fund/subfund is not available. SAP provides no warning or override options in the event cash moves into a credit balance by fund/subfund.Root Cause SAP operates under a pooled cash concept and uses the bank account to support the disallowance of negative cash balances. Current functionality in STARS (and other agency legacy systems) provide for hard cash controls at the STARS Fund and Subfund level.

Potential Fixes

1. As previously communicated, the ability to support Fund level cash controls was a customized user exit developed by SAP for a previous client but is not a baseline solution. The custom code, as communicated by SAP can be made available to the State. Under this option, the State should request, implement, and test the custom code.

2. SAP has under development a cash ledger. The timeframe for release is not known at this time but is not expected within the next year. This option awaits for the release of the cash ledger and requires custom reporting in the interim if not available by Go Live.

3. Review the existing basis for cash controls and propose authoritative changes to existing code if necessary. SAPs models for best practice of cash, includes the use of pooled cash and managing cash at a bank account level, not a fund level.

Recommendation Review the basis for required cash controls. If still necessary, determine the development timeframe of the cash ledger and participate in testing for the functionality. As a last option, consider the usage of the custom code.

Level of Effort No level of effort required to request an enhancement from SAP. Custom code request would require six weeks to test and validate. Changing business process would require additional Agency training on new process.

427High Priority

**Second**Management ReportingReportingDMH Report: Trial Balance by Fund not available. A trial balance by fund is not available. A trial balance can be produced but it includes all funds. A government agency lives and dies by the use of a fund. Since SAP is a manufacturing system, fund is of secondary importance. Numerous reports can be produced that does not include info by fund. A group of standard reports should be created before SAP is used by other agencies. At a minimum, revenues and expenditures by fund with the applicable budgets should be included on a single report. Our current reports are totally inadequate. We do not have a single reliable budget report that can be used to manage our budget. The closest thing we have is the 12620 but it has flaws and no one seems to know exactly how it works.Root Cause As indicated in a previous item, management reporting was not a focus of the implementation. Trial balance activity from the general ledger does not include Fund as an element. The special ledger does provide Fund level information but does not have any standard reports.

Potential Fixes

1. Utilize the SAP Query tools or develop a custom ABAP report for trial balance activity.

2. Allow for the new GL in mySAP ERP 2004 to assist in any custom trial balance reporting (note: the new GL replaces the existing GL and appears more like the information contained in the special ledger)

3. As the new statewide system is implemented, utilize Business Warehouse to support the trial balance reporting needs. New infocubes have been created to support additional fund level reporting in mySAP ERP 2004.

Recommendation Prior to implementing mySAP EPR 2004, the department should develop custom reports in either SAP Query or ABAP to support trial balance reporting. This will require the use of account groups/ranges as well fund groups/ranges for consolidated reporting.


428Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingYear EndDMH Settling of capital projects to an asset at year-end (i.e. clearing account). The process of settling capital projects to an asset at year end records the asset but places the fund balance of the entry into the 3999999999 clearing account. It is then necessary to manually analyze each Internal Order and prepare a journal entry to post the settlement to the correct fund balance account. This is an unnecessary manual process.Root Cause The capital project is recording in one fund and then settled into the GFAAG, a separate fund. The transaction for settling the asset records a reduction in specific accounts for the costs incurred to date and reclassifies the balances as an asset. This reclassification entry generates the clearing account transactions since the asset is moving funds.

Potential Fixes

1. The SAP process does not involve the reclassification of the costs from one fund to another but leaves the asset in the fund in which it was constructed. This would remove the clearing account entry from being created.

2. Isolate the specific transactions that are being created from these capitalization entries on a custom report and manually record an entry to an Asset Transfer Offset account and an Investment in GFA. The clearing entries created will offset the initial lines and zero the fund and clearing account. Reports will need to accumulate the asset transfer offset with the capitalized transaction for reporting purposes.

Recommendation Follow the SAP best practice and leave the asset in the Fund which constructed or purchased the item. Use report groups from including and excluding the specific asset accounts for Fund level reporting.

Level of Effort No level of effort to follow best practice. One week for a Functional Specification for each report. Additional assessment required to determine level of effort to create Technical Specification and to baseline the QA Path to Production.

429Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutManagement ReportingReportingDMH GD13 Report totals include deleted entries. Entries actually deleted are included in GD 13 totals. This has been noticed on several occasions. Drilling down revealed deleted entries that were still included in the totals.Root Cause GD13 represents a summary view of the data stored in the special ledger. It is unclear what transactions have been deleted but still remain in the ledger. Specific details would be required to isolate the true cause. It was also mentioned that differences exist between a custom report ZSIP and GD13 values. ZSIP is a custom report developed from the Controlling values where GD13 is special ledger. The timing of certain transactions may impact the data presented on the two reports.

Potential Fixes

1. Isolate the specific areas/cost centers where differences exist or transactions appear to still be recorded after deleted. Review SAP notes for corrective action.

2. Execute a delete and repost of the financial transaction if necessary.

Recommendation It is unclear as to the specific details related to this item. Additional information is necessary to identify the sole root cause and area for concern (deleted transactions or comparison of reports).

Level of Effort No level of effort required to review notes from SAP. One week for a Functional Specification for each report. Additional assessment required to determine level of effort to create Technical Specification and to baseline the QA Path to Production.

430Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingBudgetDMH Budgetary Control is not established at the required level (i.e. detail). It is not possible to load fund balance at the cost center level as was done in FMS. Fund balance is at the fund level only. The only way to manage at the cost center level is to track separately using Excel.Root Cause Cost centers are used for revenue and expenditure reporting to supporting management accounting. Cost centers are not balance sheet driven elements. Fund balance is not available for cost center related elements.

Potential Fixes

1. Review the purpose for accumulating the fund balance data at the cost center level. Review other mechanism for capturing the information based on the purpose and need.

2. The cost center structure mimics, to a large degree, the fund center structure. SAP provides the ability to maintain fund balance amounts on a roll forward basis within FM. If Fund Center is an appropriate level of detail, the FM carry-forward configuration would need to be configured/validated and then executed as part of year-end close.

Recommendation It is important to first understand the purpose for capturing fund balance information at the cost center level. If that is a business requirement and no other means is appropriate, the FM carry-forwards should be review for possible support of this.

Level of Effort Should wait for statewide implementation of the new Budget Control System. This will allow for further distribution of budget in FM down to the level that maps to a cost center.

431Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTrainingTrainingDMH Terminology Not Consistent. Terminology is not consistent throughout the product. For example, the term GL Account is used in all reports and input screens but becomes "Account Number" when running Special Ledger reports (GD13 & GD20). The GL Account changes on the budget reports to the "Cost Element." In addition, SAP uses the term "Document Number" throughout but this becomes "Reference Document" in GD20. This change in terms has caused much confusion among users. Terminology should be changed to reflect American business practices to eliminate confusion. For example, a "Blanket Purchases Order" should be called the same, not a "Framework Order." In addition, Debit and Credit should be abbreviated with a "D" or a "C", not "S" and "H"as the first letter in the German words that represents the same.Root Cause Data elements within specific function are consistent in numerical values to assist the end users but the terms are separate and distinct based on their functional area. Commitment Items may be equivalent to General Ledger Accounts or at a higher level. Each element has its purpose.

Potential Fixes

No fixes are to be employed.

Recommendation The terminology changes require consistent and constant communication to the users. Cross references from previous terminology to current terms should be made available and reinforced through follow-on training. Specific items such as those mentioned should be identified and posted as FAQs for end users to draw upon.

Level of Effort No level of effort required other than internal agency training.

432Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction Processing (see also Technical)BudgetDMH Exclusive Locks on Tables, should be shared. If a budget entry is to be posted, no user can have a transaction open that uses any of the funds involved in the transfer. Current practice requires that entries be made at non-peak times but problems still occur. SAP informs the Budget Section who has the fund tied up but only does this one user at a time. SAP does not provide a list of all users that are using one of the funds to be adjusted. It is necessary for the Budget Section to contact whoever is using a fund and ask them to close their transaction. This could be a big problem if SAP is statewide with thousands of users.Root Cause The budget process under the version which the department implemented prevents the update to specific budget objects while there is a posting in process.

Potential Fixes

1. This has been recognized by SAP and has been corrected in future releases of the product. The current release mySAP ERP 2004 does not utilize the budget hierarchy functionality used in the previous versions and therefore does not encounter the table locks.

Recommendation The change in the tools and the software have corrected this issue from previous releases.

Level of Effort Should wait for statewide implementation of the new Budget Control System.

433Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTraining (see also Technical)TrainingDMH Common Defaults should occur. SAP should be modified so that common codes do not have to be repeatedly entered. For example, there is only one company code for the State of South Carolina (SC01) but the users must enter this code in numerous places. The DMH Business Area (J012) must also be entered in numerous fields.Root Cause Parameter Ids (PIDs) are available for nearly all data elements and can serve as the default for the data entry. The specific PIDs are available for use on most entry screens but may not be available for all.

Potential Fixes

1. Identify the specific transactions where the PIDs are not being defaulted and verify if a corrective note has been identified, otherwise complete a OSS Note for correction.

2. Certain transactions allow for variants to be used for pre-populating values prior to execution (i.e. background jobs, reports, etc). The variants can be established to default and protect these variables so they do not require input.

Recommendation Ensure each user has parameter Ids established. Identify the specific transactions where the default (PIDs) are not being used and investigate if a corrective note is available. If it is a report or background job, investigate the use of variants to support defaults. Complete an OSS note for SAP corrective measures.

Level of Effort No level of effort to log an OSS note for the screens where the data does not default.

434High Priority

**First**Transaction ProcessingJournal EntriesDMH Journal Entries should automatically generate cash entries. SAP should be modified to automatically generate the cash entry by fund. This was available in FMS and is present in numerous accounting systems currently in use by state agencies. Currently, as long as the debits equal the credits, the entry will save and post.Root Cause The clearing account is viewed by many SAP customers to represent a cash posting. The department does not view the clearing account/due to-from/pooled cash account in the same manner and requires the balance to be moved.

Potential Fixes

1. The clearing account/due to-from/pooled cash account should be used to represent cash balances as they are moved amongst funds. This need should be balanced with the item above that discussed the dismissal of the clearing account.

2. Constants can be created in the split processor to create transactions required for specific business requirements. It is not clear if this would support the need being identified here.

Recommendation Additional information on where and why cash is being posted to as referenced in the description should be gathered and reviewed. This need should be included within the cash management component of the blueprint to determine if there is a statewide application of the concept and how SAP fits. As mentioned above, a training class on how the split processor is configured and used may be beneficial for the departments power users.

Level of Effort Three weeks to validate and capture all business processes. One week to put together split processor recommendation. Two weeks to configure. Two weeks to test. Training classes start at an average of $4000 per week.

436Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTrainingTrainingDMH Reports need page numbers/number of pages. The most common used reports for a central accounting staff will be GD13 and GD20. The printing options on both reports does not provide a page count on how large the report will be. We have the option to print page ranges but no page number data is available. This has lead to much wasted paper since it is difficult to tell how large a report will be.Root Cause Information on the number of pages is not viewable on the spreadsheet view of the special ledger summary.

Potential Fixes

1. The print job should be submitted to a spool without the Print Immediately checkbox active. This would allow the user to view spool and see the number of pages in the report and the specific page breaks. The user could then print with changed parameters to select only a range for printing.

2. Save the datasheet to a local spreadsheet file to use other spreadsheet functionality.

Recommendation The information is retained on SAP until the State determines to archive the data. Printing by using the print spool should be reviewed and employed.

Level of Effort No level of effort required. Functionality already exists in current system.

437Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTraining (see Technical)TrainingDMH SAP Input Screens should utilize optimal space available. The SAP input screens should be changed to optimize screen space. At best, the user can only see 10 lines of a journal entry and all fields are not visible at once. Numerous resolutions have been attempted but 10 seems to be the max on viewable lines. This makes the review of large entries difficult and results in reliance on the paper entry for a complete review. Even with a 19 LCD monitor, the input area takes up a small portion of the screen with much unused blue space.Root Cause The department desires more lines to be available on a standard transaction entry screen. The number of lines are not determined by screen size or resolution. Also, not all elements can be viewed across the width of the monitor.

Potential Fixes

1. Many of the required elements for entry can be viewed based on the screen variant created and used. New screen variants may be necessary to incorporate specific data desired for the user.

2. The GL Fast Entry (F-02) may also allow for better use of the screen information.

3. A final resort would be to custom develop an entry screen for user input. This would not be a recommended option.

Recommendation Review the screen variants and determine if additional fields can be supported. The number of lines on the entry screen is a function of the application.

Level of Effort Two weeks to validate and capture all business processes. One week to put together field status recommendation. Two weeks to configure. Two weeks to test.

438Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingCapital ProjectsDMH Need better way to manage capital projects. A new methodology should be designed to manage capital projects. Our current process utilizes an Internal Order and a cost center. This is very inefficient, time consuming and takes much more work than was needed in FMS.Root Cause The previous system used information elements that crossed over fiscal years and allowed for capitalizing and closing. This was the intention of the use of internal orders since project systems was not a part of the project scope.

Potential Fixes

1. A combination of Internal Orders and Project Systems is being reviewed for usage by the state.

Recommendation Additional information would be necessary to understand where the inefficiency was encountered in the internal order process.

Level of Effort Should wait for statewide implementation of the new Project System functionality.

439Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingGoods ReceiptDMH Concern over expenditures @ goods receipt. If another agency interfaces SAP with STARS, SAP should be configured to post expenditures at the posting point, not at the point of Goods Receipt. This one issue has caused many problems in DMH reconciling with STARS.Root Cause The items are being recorded on an accrual basis in SAP and only on a cash basis within STARS. One area where timing differences between the systems are impacted is within the posting of the Goods Receipt. The Goods Receipt transaction was configured to record the expenditure at the time of receipt along with the liability to the vendor. The expenditure does not appear in STARS until the payment voucher is posted, therefore a timing difference is encountered.

Potential Fixes

1. Since the issue is accrual versus cash within STARS, the replacement of STARS removes this reconciliation issue.

Recommendation Since the proper accounting treatment is to record the liability and cost at the time of receipt, it will be recommended that the Goods Receipt be used to generate an expenditure posting. Since STARS will be replaced in the first Wave, the timing difference should no longer be an issue.

Level of Effort Should wait for statewide implementation.

440Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingInvoicesDMH MIR7 (Changes allowed when entering invoices). The ability of a field user to change elements on an MIR7 invoice should be examined carefully. If the user can change cost elements on the invoice that does not agree with the PO, several negative things occur. (1) SAP seems to lose track of the dollar value of a PO if the invoice is charged to another fund. This will allow users to exceed the dollar value of the PO. (2) Changing the fund on the invoice does not release the original encumbrance. (3) Internal controls over Grant purchases can be circumvented. Currently, this issue seems to be an all or nothing proposition with no way to give central staff change access.Root Cause Multiple items are included herein. The first relates to the value of the PO and the liquidation of the original encumbrance at the Fund level. The second relates to providing the ability to change a document without a corresponding change to the originating document.

Potential Fixes

1. The initial item should fully liquidate the original document even on changes to the invoice posting. If this continues to occur the department should review the SAP notes for corrective action and issue an OSS note as applicable.

2. The changing of values on the invoice has advantages and disadvantages. The ability to change a document will be reviewed during configuration and further evaluated with security roles/objects during realization.

Recommendation Certain components of this item should not be an issue and may require notification to SAP or application of a support patch. The changing of documents will require additional review by the functional team to determine where the line should be drawn.

Level of Effort Security should be used to limit changes on a document after it has gone through the procurement process. Two weeks to validate and capture all business processes. One week to put together security recommendation. One week to configure. Two weeks to test.

441Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingFormsDMH SAP doesn't produce all STARs forms. SAP cannot produce all STARS forms. It cannot produce forms for an Interfund Loan, cash transfers to other agencies, and indirect cost submissions, and corrections required only to the CGs system. SAP can produce cash travel advance documentation but the process is very cumbersome with numerous steps.Root Cause Specific transactions that occur infrequently were not included within the scope of the interface to STARS. In addition, certain business processes in SAP require additional steps to perform in order to accurately track the information. A lack of integration to human resources has also caused the implementation to custom develop a travel tracking transaction for state requirements.

Potential Fixes

1. The basis for the interfund loans and cash transfers is based on the current need for cash controls. The outcome of the cash management discussions will aid in identifying the requirements for interfund loans and cash transfers.

2. Indirect cost transactions are available within the new grants management functionality that was not available under the version in which the department has implemented.

Recommendation The needs for cash controls will aid in guiding the required transactions for interfund loans and cash transfers to other agencies. If these items become necessary, the specifications would need to be developed and a form could be printed.


442Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingPaymentsDMH Process to record and manage checks is cumbersome. SAP has a process to record and manage checks but we do not use this process due to its complexity. To record a check, three transaction codes and 12 screens are usedRoot Cause The process to record a manual check requires an additional set of screens be accessed. The department has determined the benefit of having the information does not outweigh the effort needed to track the information. The automated payment process for issuing checks through STARS requires no additional input once the payment run has been executed. The outbound and inbound interface files extract and input the payment and check information, respectively.

Potential Fixes

1. If the effort is not worth the benefit, then the department should continue its current process.

2. Establish the account on SAP and allow for automated processing of the checks and subsequent recording of payment information. Manual checks can be cut through SAP and therefore the effort minimized somewhat.

Recommendation It is plausible to record the checks within SAP and have the check issued directly through SAP. These checks relate mainly to funds not managed by the State Treasurers Office and therefore do not go through STARS. The department should look to issuing the checks through SAP as part of the statewide design. At a minimum the checks should be recorded within SAP for tracking and managing.


444Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutMaster Data (see also Procurement)VendorDMH Vendor File has duplication. The vendor file should use only one vendor number to eliminate confusion. We currently have two numbers representing the same vendor. The FEIN/SSN should be adopted as the standard vendor number.Root Cause The DMH vendor file has duplicates of the vendors. The vendor file should be receiving an interface from the State vendor file and only adding entries that relate to business partner address differences. These may appear as separate vendor records but are related. Other duplicate vendors may exists from the implementation timeframe when the direction on vendor structures was changed by the department after go live.

Potential Fixes

1. Review the vendor file and inactivate those duplicate vendors.

2. Await the implementation of the statewide system to which a central organization will need to aid in managing the vendor file, much as is the case in STARS today.

Recommendation Review the file for duplicates as had been done previously. Understand what the duplicates are and how they were created. The adoption of a single system with a single vendor file will assist at a later stage.

Level of Effort Should wait for statewide implementation of a single Vendor file. Three weeks to scub current Vendor file.

445Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutMaster DataGeneral LedgerDMH Chart of Accounts Design. The chart of accounts for the next group of agencies should be designed by someone who understands and uses SAP and has an in-depth understanding of how state government finance works. An effort should be made to design a chart that best serves the needs of the agency and just doesnt recreate the old chart in another form. The chart should not be designed by consultants.Root Cause The original chart was designed by the department with assistance from members from central agencies. The implementation team participated in the discussion and provided direction but did not develop the accounts. The account structure was developed for all agencies and only one agency has utilized the system, therefore unused structures were created.

Potential Fixes

1. Inactivate the structures not needed in the current system by the department.

2. Allow for a central statewide team to develop the chart with input from the agency Subject Matter Experts.

Recommendation Both fixes should be reviewed and implemented. The SCEIS team is currently in charge of the development of the statewide chart of accounts.

Level of Effort None required as State is designing its COA.

446Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingAssetsDMH Asset module not integrated. The Fixed Asset module appears to be an add-on product that seems very disjointed from other system modules. Asset movement is through a maze of GLs and cost centers that leave much room for error. This module has been most difficult to deal with.Root Cause The version which the department has implemented is integrated between asset accounting and financial accounting. More configuration and integration was required over previous systems in order to allow for asset records and types to be recorded differently and allow for depreciation to occur. The asset expert for the agency (who attended the training and assisted in configuration) retired shortly after go live and it has impacted the knowledge transfer.

Potential Fixes

1. Review configuration steps with the department

2. Identify the pain points within the configuration and transaction that have caused the department problems

Recommendation The SCEIS team should ensure a team member is training on asset accounting as integration points cross over multiple functions and modules. Additional research is necessary to understand where the confusion is at within the module.

Level of Effort Training classes start at an average of $4000 per week.

447Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingPaymentsDMH No mechanism to account for replacement checks. No mechanism exists to account for checks issued as replacement checks for lost or damaged items. The original voucher must be cancelled and reprocessed to receive a replacement check. There is no process to link the replacement voucher with the original voucher.Root Cause A process exists in SAP to cancel an reissue a check based on a replacement. Additional information is needed to understand why the process cannot be utilized (i.e. interfaces to other systems, off books checking, etc)

Potential Fixes

Recommendation

Level of Effort

448Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingJournal EntriesDMH Journal Entries need to link to documents. SAP needs to have a way to link journal entries that correct vouchers. We currently do a %0 to post a CG correction but we must manually pull the original voucher and note a change.Root Cause Documents after being posted are not updated or linked when a corrective document is manually posted.

Potential Fixes

1. Reverse the original document and post the subsequent document so as to allow for the documents to be tracked at the header level of the document

2. Attach a word document or notepad document to the new document and/or old document referencing the changed information.

3. Designate a free form text field to be used for cross document reporting when a reversal or attachment may not be used.

Recommendation When possible reverse the original and correct the document. This provides for the cleanest audit trail. If necessary attach a document explaining the corrective measures taken. Attachments of work documents are additional objects that can be attached to most transactions.

Level of Effort No additional effort required to follow best practice.

449Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutManagement ReportingReportingDMH Mechanism needed to capture building square footage. There is no mechanism in SAP to account for recording building square footage. This information is needed to prepare Medicaid and Medicare cost reports. This info was available in FMS.Root Cause Detail information on square footage of the buildings was not captured in SAP. This information was available in a subcomponent of the previous system.

Potential Fixes

1. If required, implement Real Estate Management as a means for managing the buildings and square footage

2. Create statistical key figures and accounts for tracking the square footage for the buildings. Additional reports would need to be written to use the information or extract the information for reporting purposes.

Recommendation Statistical key figures would likely solve the need. It is not clear however, whether reporting the information would satisfy the entire need or whether additional reports are required to use and manipulate the information. The last option would be to implement Real Estate Management unless a large effort is required for the buildings and facilities. The component is not fully integrated yet with Public Services and therefore some gaps may need to be filled or work around enabled.

Level of Effort One week to create SKF. Two weeks to test SKF.

450Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTransaction ProcessingPaymentsDMH Cancelled Checks from PY. SAP should be modified to record cancelled vendor checks received in another fiscal year in accordance with CG policy. We are required to record these as a Reimbursement of Prior Years Expenditures which requires a revenue object code. If we cancel the voucher, SAP will reduce the expenditure in the FY the voucher was created.Root Cause Multiple items exist here. The first item relates to the policy for recording a prior year check cancellation as a Refund of Prior Years Expenditures instead of a credit to the original expenditure account. The cancellation conducts a reversal of the original transaction and therefore is not viewed as a revenue but as an expenditure credit. The second item relates to the posting/timing of the cancellation. Transactions cancelled should be reflected in the year or post date of the transaction.

Potential Fixes

1. Ensure the proper period is closed when the transactions are cancelled.

2. Generate reports to identify those items cancelled and reclassify the expenditure credit to a revenue account.

3. Review the requirement within the statewide design to verify if functionality requirement can be met.

Recommendation A part of the corrective measure can be made in the new implementation with the adoption of Period Based Encumbrance Tracking. The remaining items needs to be verified to determine if a change to the reversal transaction can be made.


451Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutManagement Reporting (see also Procurement)ReportingDMH Tracking Receipts. SAP needs to include a system for tracking receipts by number and location. This was available in FMS. This may be available in a module we dont use.Root Cause DMH tracks receipts from the local hospitals and centers for funds received at the institution and center. The previous system included a subcomponent for tracking receipt books/ranges issued and receipts received. DMH reviewed the functionality within the Cash Journal and determined the functionality did not fit their needs.

Potential Fixes

1. Additional options may be necessary for exploration. SAP uses certified 3rd party interfaces to support major cash system interfaces/integration.

Recommendation Recommendation unknown without further research.

Level of Effort Six weeks to work with SAPs certified 3rd parties to set and validate requirements. Unsure of scope or timing required to implement 3rd party solution.

452Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutMaster DataMaterialDMH GL Account Mapping w/ MM, Can't change. The MM module of SAP uses Material Numbers (MN) as the starting point to creating a PO. Each MN is mapped to a specific GL through the use of a Valuation Class. Once a MN has been used, its mapping to a GL cannot be changed unless there has been no goods movement or full invoice receipt has occurred. This makes it very difficult to change the GL mapping once a MN has been used. The MN mapping should be completed correctly with all possible scenarios before going live.Root Cause GL Account mapping from material number was not accurate in some circumstances. The impact of the mismatch requires the transactions to complete their lifecycle prior to changing.

Potential Fixes

1. Mapping from GL Account to Material Number should be reviewed for accuracy by the department in conjunction with Central AP Audit team.

2. Charges for specific materials should be consistent charged to GL Accounts. Charges for specific materials should not be based on how the materials are utilized. This will mitigate the need for changing the mapping structures.

Recommendation Review GL Account mapping with materials for consistent application. Review policies for utilization of materials and GL accounts for possible adjustment at Central Audit.

Level of Effort Four weeks to review material master and make updates. Additional time required if updates were to occur during a fiscal year.

Technical Items:

Issue IDFunctional AreaTopicDescription of IssueAssessment

417

HIGH

Priority

But defer to Statewide

Rollout

Technical/SecuritySecurity/RoleThere appears to be no method by which one group of users (one role) and another group of users (a different role) can have different change capabilities within a specific transaction (i.e., account assignment field is either locked or open for all users of the MIR7 even if users are in different roles). Root Cause - Two issues are involved. One has to do with field level security and the second is screen control which is how the the GUI is presented to the user. The 2 are not related. Screen Control will determine by transaction if a field is display, change, invisible, mandatory. Security determines whether or not the data entered by the user is valid per their security profile.

Recommendation - To achieve what DMH wants, a second custom z transaction would need to be cloned from MIR7 and the screen control parameters changed to only allow the fields they request to be in change mode. The new transaction would be need to be included in the users security profile.

Estimate After review of the programs involved, the CG ABAP programming staff has determined that the project would require 1-2 weeks of further research and design and then 5-6 weeks of additional time for programming and testing. A total of 6-8 weeks.

418

Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutTechnicalSAP System MessagesThe information included for a message indicator is often missing or without sufficient detail to understand problemRoot Cause - Not enough information to do any analysis. Screenshots of the exact transactions are needed to be able to pinpoint the problem. There are too many variables to take a guess as to what may be causing the problem.

Recommendation - All the Standard SAP delivered messages can be seen by going to transaction SE91. All the messages are stored in table T100. It is recommended that someone spend time with DMH personnel to determine the exact transactions with incorrect messages.

Estimate At least one week of research time spent with DMH to find examples and further understand the problem.

419

HIGH Priority but defer to Statewide

RolloutTechnical/SecuritySecurity/RolesThe MIGO transaction includes no security by Purchasing Group, Cost Center, etc. (i.e., one center can receipt and reverse goods for another center).Root Cause The MIGO transaction does not appear to include authorization objects for Purchasing Group or Cost Center.

Recommendation - A trace on transaction MIGO utilizing the DMH QAT system was run and the results analyzed. The authorization objects listed below were used by the transaction; however, none of those include purchasing group or cost center.

M_MSEG_WWE

F_BKPF_BUK

M_MSEG_BWE

F_FICB_FKR

F_BKPF_KOA

A trace needs to be run on the MIGO transaction to validate what authorization objects are being hit in the production client. If the 2 authorization objects are being used, the next step would be then to look at the security profiles assigned to people that contain MIGO to determine what authorization objects are assigned but more importantly what is the value range associated with each authorization object. If DMH (Basis Adm.) could get these as printouts, BE might be able to determine exactly what is happening. If it is determined that the authorization objects are missing, they could possibly be added by customizing the SAP transaction with modified authorization objects.

Estimate 5-6 weeks of research and development based on the current level of CG staff experience.

Issue IDFunctional AreaTopicDescription of IssueAssessment

405

HIGH

Priority

**Second**Purchase OrdersInfo RecordsSince we make our purchases through the bid process, we often buy the same items from different vendors. Info Records are brought forward each time a new purchase is made. When the purchase is made from a different vendor, the Info record data is then incorrect as it includes improper item #s, packaging descriptions etc. We need the ability to turn off the Info Record function.Root Cause DMH is buying items using a 5 digit NIGP code that has detailed vendor part #s embedded in the info record. It is not practical to be buying at one level yet have the data in the system set up a different level.

Potential Fixes

1. Set up material masters at the 11 digit NIGP level and buy at that level. This would allow the Info Record detail to be at the same level as the material master.

2. Delete all info record texts so that they are not copied into Purchase Req/order.

3. Change configuration so that Info record texts are not copied into any purchasing documents.

Recommendation Based on the request from DMH we suggest that option 3 would be the best short term fix to resolve this issue because of the workload and re-education that would be required for the other 2 options. However it has to be clearly noted that option 3 is not a viable long term solution for the Statewide system and that we should ensure that we cover this topic for a better long term solution during our workshops.

Estimate 5 days to validate requirement, configure, test, migrate to prod & educate the process owner (internal agency training not included)

406

Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutPurchase OrdersDelivery AddressAt times when purchase orders are created the delivery address is missing. It may be a one or multiple-line item purchase order with the same delivery address. The delivery address prints in the line item text instead of in the header. Trying to correct this using the delivery address controls on the purchase order is somewhat painstaking and time consuming. Sometimes it is an easy fix and other times it just doesnt work.

We need easier controls for fixing/adjusting the delivery addresses on purchase orders.Root cause users of the system are selecting multiple storage locations within in order and hence causing multiple delivery addresses to appear on order. However the reality is that each PO should have only one delivery address. The system is responding exactly how it is designed to based on the data that the users are inputting.

Potential Fixes

1. Additional education and reinforcement to users that they are not supposed to enter multiple storage locations per order.

2. Change print program so that order will always default to one delivery address even if multiple locations are entered by user. Business Rules would need to be defined to determine what is the delivery to be printed out if a user enters multiple delivery addresses.

Recommendation The preferred recommendation would be to educate the users that only one delivery address is supposed to be entered per Purchase Order as per the original DMH requirements. However if this is not viable then option 2 described above could be implemented. The following estimate reflects what it would take to modify the PO print programs.

Estimate 10 days to validate requirement, write functional spec, modify sapscript, test, migrate to prod & educate users

407

Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutPurchase OrdersShipping TermsAll purchase orders currently default to FOB D.

We need the ability to change shipping terms when FOB D is incorrect. (Example: Prepay & Add; FOB S/P).Root Cause Current print program has been hard coded to default to FOB destination

Potential Fixes

1. Remove hard coding from Print program and have the system default to the incoterms field as the system is set up by default to do. Also any additional terms not in the standard incoterms table would need to be added such as Prepay & Add and FOB S/P.

Recommendation see above

Estimate 5 days to validate requirement, write functional spec, modify sapscript, test, migrate to prod & educate process owner (internal agency training not included)

408

Medium Priority

Defer

To

Statewide

RolloutPurchase OrdersPurchase orders not releasedCurrently, a purchase order is given a PO#

when put on hold. These purchase orders

have not been approved. They are incorrect or incomplete, and have not been released. Some of these PO #s have been given out to vendors at this stage.

When a purchase order has not been released, NO PO# should be issued until the purchase order has been released.Root Cause Standard system set up to display PO number. PO number originates from system message MEPO 013

Potential Fix Change text in message table so that Message # MEPO 013 no longer displays PO number. ie. suppress PO number

Recommendation see above fix but consideration needs to taken for longer term effect of Statewide solution

Estimate 5 days to validate requirement, configure, test, migrate to prod & educate process owner (internal agency training not included)

409

Medium

Priority

**Third**Purchase OrdersAmended POAmended or changed purchase orders in SAP currently only print the text change, not the entire purchase order. Also, no amendment date is shown. EXAMPLE: On a purchase order issued on January 5, 2004, if you make a change on April 16, 2004, the purchase order prints only the change, not the entire purchase order and also prints with the original date of January 5, 2004.

Government often amends a purchase order after date of original issue. Amended Purchase Orders need to clearly show the amendment date and what has been amended. SAP should print the entire purchase order including the amendment not just the amended items/text/dates.Root Cause Current Print Program for Purchase Orders is determining the logic for printing of changes to a PO.

Potential Fix The print program for Purchase Orders needs to be modified so that PO amendments and changes are correctly displayed by print out. Further analysis would also need to take place to determine the exact requirements for modifying the print program.

Recommendation see above fix but consideration needs to taken for longer term effect of Statewide solution

Estimate 10 days to validate requirement, write functional spec, modify sapscript, test, migrate to prod and educate process owner (internal agency training not included)

410

Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutPurchase OrdersService POsCurrently, we are issuing non-stock POs using ($s) as quantity and cost as $1.00 to allow multiple payment. This creates confusion for users.

Root Cause Original DMH implementation was never set up to use the Service Management functionality within SAP.

Recommendation This would be major undertaking and would need to be treated as a mini implementation. The functionality already exists in the DMH system however somebody would need to go through and validate all the configuration and migrate it through to production, all services would need to be created as new service master records and there would be a re-education process because the functionality and process would be slightly different to the way DMH is ordering services to day. We would recommend that we address this functionality as part of the Statewide system solution.

Estimate 10 12 weeks and would require dedication of a DMH resource

411

HIGH

Priority

**Fourth**InventoryInventory AdjustmentsCurrently, in SAP quantity adjustments to inventory are manipulating price when an item is miscounted and later adjusted. (Example: When correcting count of 100 wrenches at $4.50 each to 90 wrenches, the actual cost of each wrench is changed to $5.00 each in the system. However, we purchased each wrench at $5.00 each.)

We have lost accountability. Inventory Control Manager needs the capability to adjust quantity/price up or down as needed. Root Cause Standard system set up. It is working as designed. DMH chose to use Moving Average prices for the inventory valuations, so the system is always going to readjust the price automatically based on purchase price and stock on hand. There is a standard transaction, MR21 which is for adjusting prices of materials.

Recommendation Work with system as is or change the material pricing strategy to Standard Price. This will allow a common price across the agency but would also require the use of material variance accounts when an item is purchased at a price different to standard.

Estimate 4-6 weeks to do analysis, modify process and all material master data, change configuration, migrate to prod and educate process owner (internal agency training not included)

412 see 411

HIGH

Priority

**Fourth**InventoryObsolete Scrap accountCurrent system requires transfer to P Funds leaving a negative fund amount. No one should incur cost for these items. We need a Fundless location to transfer these items.

Root Cause SAP is functioning as it is designed. The system requires that somebody be financially accountable for all transactions. This means there is no way to have a fundless location.

Recommendation This is a process education that the system is performing as designed. If DMH decides that they would rather have these transactions hit a different fund. Ie. change from revolving fund to a general fund then this would require a configuration change.

Estimate: 5 days to validate requirement, configure, test, migrate to prod & educate process owner (internal agency training not included)

413

Medium

Priority

Defer

To

Statewide

RolloutDocuments and reportsWord DocumentsCurrently unable to insert word documents into Requisitions. Need this ability in order to create Solicitations for Bid and Purchase Orders from Requisitions.

SAP has standard functionality to allow documents to be attached to Purchase Requisitions. To use this functionality requires the loading of the word documents into SAPs Document Management component. After this documents can be attached to the Requisition.

Recommendation Check all standard configuration is active for Document Management and then develop a procedure for loading and attaching of documents.

Estimate 3 weeks to validate functionality, test, migrate to production and educate process owner (internal agency training not included)

414

HIGH

Priority

**First**Documents and reportsContract expiration reportWe have no usable report and are having to manually enter information from POs into separate software package.

This was one of the major items we expected and were promised from the SAP System.Root Cause Standard reporting functionality does not satisfy needs

Recommendation A detailed report Spec would need to be written and then a report developed. Depending on the criticality of this request it needs to be determined if this is required now or if it can wait for the main SCEIS rollout. If so then we can incorporate this as a requirement for the Statewide design. If required now further analysis needs to be done to determine exact requirement. See analysis below for estimate to do analysis and functional report spec.

Estimate 5 days to do analysis and write functional spec. Additional development work, prod migration not included in this estimate.

415

Low

Priority

Defer

To Statewide RolloutDocuments and reportsFV60 ReportDirector of Procurement has requested a detailed FV60 Report.Root Cause Standard reporting functionality does not satisfy needs

Recommendation A detailed report Spec would need to be written and then a report developed. Depending on the criticality of this request it needs to be determined if this is required now or if it can wait for the main SCEIS rollout. If so then we can incorporate this as a requirement for the Statewide design. If required now further analysis needs to be done to determine exact requirement. See analysis below for estimate to do analysis and functional report spec.

Estimate 5 days to do analysis and write functional spec. Additional development work, prod migration not included in this estimate.

416

HIGH

Priority

**Sixth**InventoryInventory IssueThe inventory issue and receipt forms (201 & 202) look identical and don't change back. Therefore, it is often that a user does receipts when they meant to do issues, and vice a versa. Screens either need a different color or warning should exist to remind them about the action they are taking.Root Cause SAP is functioning as designed.

Recommendation Better education of users. However if we want to take additional steps to make the system user proof there is 2 possible ways.

1. Create unique security userids for doing goods issues (mvt type 201) and separate Ids for doing reversals or adjustments. Estimate 5 days to do analysis, modify profiles, create userids and educate process owner (internal agency training not included)

2. Develop customized transaction code to allow some form of notification to user. Estimate 5 days to do analysis and write functional spec

422

Medium

Priority

Defer

To

Statewide

RolloutPurchase OrdersDocument TypesStandard purchase orders (document type NB) and non-stock purchase orders (document type ZNB) are inconsistently created because of a lack of clarification of these types. Standard purchase orders are actually stock (inventory) purchase orders but the description is misleading. Framework orders (document type FO) and non-stock frameworks (document type ZFO) are also inconsistently used due to the lack of understanding of distinctions between these types. Clarification of differences is needed and consistent usage monitored. Reports by document type are inaccurate because of interchangeable use. Also could any type not used be omitted from drop-down menu?Root Cause Lack of Business Rules and education of users.

Recommendation Better education of the end users on what transactions are appropriate. Also could look at changing the descriptive text for Purchase order document types so that the are more meaningful to the user upon selection.

Estimate For education this is a task that DMH can undertake without outside assistance. To modify the Order Types description it would be 5 days to validate requirement, configure, test, migrate to prod & educate Additional development work, prod migration not included in this estimate.

443

HIGH

Priority

**Fifth**Purchase OrdersFramework OrdersA Framework Order does not notify the user that quantity or dollar limits have been exceeded until the invoice attached to an Order is posted by Central Accounts Payable. This allows field personnel to exceed limits placed on the Framework and no one is notified until Central Payables attempts to post the invoice. Configuration has been changed to correct this but have been unable to confirm.Need to validate that the fix is working !!!

4/28/2005

Page 27 of 28