jd edwards post implementation systems assessment (pisa…hosteddocs.ittoolbox.com/dk072208a.pdf ·...

JD Edwards Post Implementation Systems Assessment (PISA)

®

− A way to ensure you get the most value from your implementation

Author: Dale Kaplan, Vice President - NA Consulting Operations

A S

YSTI

ME

Com

pute

r Cor

pora

tion

Publ

icat

ion


Table of Contents

Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Technical System Assessment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Functional System Assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9

Copyright ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

About SYSTIME -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

Contact Details --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

About the Author ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13


Introduction Scenario You have just completed your implementation of JD Edwards; either performed by external consultants or internally, and although it is touted as a “successful” implementation, you still feel a little uneasy about its true success and value to your company. Problems CIOs and IT Directors are exploring whether they have really achieved the ROI they expected. Six to twelve months after go-live, JD Edwards clients are really unsure if they have truly attained the mostvalue out of their JD Edwards products. JD Edwards users are trying to understand just how well they actually implemented their systems. Some pertinent questions include:

Did each process and related functionality in JD Edwards get utilized to the extent? How does my implementation compare with other JD Edwards implementations? Is our system optimized from a technology perspective, and if not, how can it be improved? What is the user community feeling; do they need more training, how can their processes be

improved, has the system made their job easier? Comfort Zone IT departments across the globe continue to strive to get to the comfort zone (i.e. where they can truly state that their systems are working as anticipated and they are passing the desired benefit to their stakeholders). However, the feeling of uneasiness is not uncommon! Solution How does one get to the level of comfort? Many JD Edwards users are looking towards consulting firms to validate the current status of their systems. The notion of a “fresh set of eyes” required to uncover elements of the implemented system that were either not fully implemented or perhaps implemented incorrectly is becoming extremely popular amongst JD Edwards users. This white paper examines how a typical Post Implementation Systems Assessment (PISA) can alleviate most of the common concerns and questions posed above. We discuss the elements that should be included in a PISA to ensure that the benefits are realized and suggest ways to enable JD Edwards users to fully understand the current status of their JD Edwards enterprise solution.A PISA contains technical and functional assessments. Both are discussed in detail to assist youin evaluating the need for a PISA in your organization.


Technical System Assessment The technical part of the PISA is performed with the goal of identifying system performance weaknesses and areas for improvement. The following elements should be reviewed:

o Network Architecture o Hardware/OS/DB versions catalog with service pack configurations o SAR ESUs with respect to JDE release levels o Installed Servers including installation details o Service Packs/Tools releases and Updates o Environment Details o CNC configurations o Surface Testing to highlight any obvious errors.

A senior infrastructure specialist should review the current architecture and ensure it is configured in the best and most optimized way. JD Edwards users usually (although not always) have internal technical resources. However, the skill levels can vary and even with a highly skilled resource, a “fresh set of eyes” can sometimes highlight elements that have been missed in the past. Recommendations should cover:

o System level recommended improvements o Database level recommended improvements o CNC configurations and procedure recommendations o Backup and recovery procedure recommendations o Security weaknesses and recommendations for improvement.

An example of a system level improvement may be to de-fragment the hard disk for increasing performance, upgrade 3rd party software such as compilers to ensure full compliance with JD Edwards standards or apply additional security to ensure compliance. A database level improvement may be to upgrade middleware to the latest optimized version or to re-index the database to optimize query performance. These reviews and recommendations require experienced and seasoned technical specialists to identify issues or possible future issues.


An example of a Security Review Approach Document is shown below:

The technical assessment should include a review of any custom development work that has been performed. The assessment should validate that the development was really needed. Many companies prefer to keep the system as ‘vanilla’ as possible with a low level of customization. This is to reduce maintenance and ensure smooth upgrades. An assessment should be performed as to whether the customization could be replaced with other system functionalities, or if revised/refined processes would eliminate the need for customization. The technical assessment should also review the software development methodology and associated documentation. Reviews of the latter can help in identifying risk areas and weaknesses, and can pinpoint potential areas to perform further due diligence. The review should focus on whether the development procedures were followed properly and that suitable documentation has been created. Elements that should be reviewed include:

o Sample Functional specifications o Sample Technical specifications o Testing Documentation with focus on completeness and sign offs o The nature of the technical work and its implications, if any.

It is suggested that the most current listing of open issues be reviewed with specific attention given to performance related issues and custom developed programs. As an example, poorly developed code in


EnterpriseOne can be troublesome in non-FAT client environments such as the web. Technicians will review and document the Software Development Life Cycle to ensure that best practices are followed.

Figure 1: Software Development Life Cycle Documentation Diagram Source: SYSTIME Technical Assessment Figure 1 shows a typical EnterpriseOne software development lifecycle and how objects flow through the process. The technical assessment will validate that a proven Oracle/JD Edwards development process is being followed. The technical assessment reviews the current testing and related sign off procedures to ensure that they are in place and have been followed during the development process. If there is compliance with these procedures, the risk of bad or incorrect code moving to the production (live) environment will be minimized. An incorrect customization (either unstable or not to requirement) reduces buy-in amongst the user community and costs time and money for rectification. The technical assessment can identify many areas for improvement. Once completed, it is suggested that a cost-benefit analysis be performed to prioritize and identify those areas that make the most economic sense to implement. Often the cost of implementing some technical recommendations may outweigh the benefits or not be within the means of the company. As such recommendations need to be cognizant of these constraints.


Functional System Assessment The functional part of the PISA is a defined process that investigates the level of utilization of the system in all process areas; and identifies functional and process improvement recommendations. The main objective of the functional assessment is to provide the JD Edwards user with an assessment of the level of functional utilization and identification of additional areas where increased utilization will result in process improvements, reduction in costs and increased ROI. The secondary goal is to understand areas of the business process that are not within the core JD Edwards system. There may be valid reasons for interfaces and 3rd party solutions. However, a common objective is to integrate all processes into minimum number of systems possible, in line with the primary reason for purchasing an integrated system like JD Edwards. A key criteria to note is that the functional assessment should be performed by “JDE Expert(s)”, i.e. an experienced JD Edwards solutions user, (super-user or experienced consultant) who has implemented the version or suites you are utilizing, and have experience performing such reviews. This individual should also have necessary authority or power, and have senior management buy-in, to execute the review and effect change where needed. The functional assessment should include a review of: o Module and System Constants

o Organization Structure, Cat Codes o Chart of Accounts Structure (COA) o AAI/DMAAIs o Overall integrity of finance o Module specific setups (Line Types, Order Activity rules, GL class, costing/pricing methods,

profiles setup, payment terms, fiscal year UDCs, version setups, etc.) o Menu structures, functional security aspects, naming conventions o Type of customization conducted and its impact o Business processes.

The general areas, such as the COA, AAIs and Constants can be reviewed by following a standard audit template with associated defined recommended improvements. The process areas require the expertise of the JDE Expert (as defined above). The approach to the review can vary, however it is most common to conduct it following your business process flows, highlighting module utilization percentagesas part of that process rather than focusing on a specific module.


Module Utilization Percentages are derived using a model developed by SYSTIME that takes into account a weighting factor based on various elements being used and configured within each module. E.g.: An understanding of the module utilization percentage of Sales Order Management is not all – inclusive to understand the success of the implementation. Comparison to other similar implementations or to a benchmark is important. Assume the system utilization percentage for Sales Order Management is 60% for your company. The reason for that percentage may be because you do not use transfer orders, direct ship orders or back-to-back processing. As such, these elements may not be required as your company may be a single plant make-to-stock manufacturer. As such, a comparison to other single plant make-to-stock manufacturers may reveal that a 60% utilization percentage is the best one can expect to achieve. The following table provides a summary of the Module Utilization Percentage averages that were used on a recent PISA engagement. Example of Module Utilization Percentage Averages

Module Used Module Utilization % Implementation

Average percentageAbove/Below or Average Compared to

Implementation Average

Inventory Management 60% 60% Average

Sales and Distribution 75% 65% Above Average

Manufacturing 45% 60% Below Average

Planning 30% 50% Below Average

Figure 2: Summary utilization percentage figures Source: a recent SYSTIME PISA

Percentages shown above are based on the specific account and should not be used as a benchmark without understanding the surrounding assumptions that supported them. All utilization percentages should be supported by a detailed review that provides information on the shortcomings and recommendations, and/or the reasons for over-achievement. Another key element to understanding the utilization levels of the system is to understand what is missing and what it would take to fill in the gaps. You need to identify what could have been implemented in the system and the extent to which 3rd party systems or work-arounds are being used to compensate.

rd

The table below shows a further drill-down into the Inventory Management module (Utilization of 60% shown in Figure 2 above). It details areas of potential improvement and a guideline to the effort required to implement those areas. The effort to implement can be expanded to be more specific and include estimated hours to implement.


Functionality %

Used %

UnusedEffort to

Implement Potential Improvement / Benefits

Master Generation 80 20 Moderate Workflows to all departments

Batch Control 80 20 Simple Lot Tracing and Tracking

Inventory Price and Cost Updates

50 50 Moderate MIS and Costing through JDE

Inventory Count 50 50 Moderate Physical versus JDE stocks validation

Reanalysis dates 50 50 Simple Re-Analysis reports through JDE

Figure 3: Detail utilization percentage breakdown Source: a recent SYSTIME PISA It is essential to understand the work effort required to implement a recommendation, as it may not be cost effective or logical to do so in every case. For instance if implementing workflows for Master file generation to all departments is estimated to take two months and it only saves two hours a month in administration, one would question the feasibility of pursuing the implementation of that recommendation. Whereas implementing physical counting on the system may reduce the monthlyfinancial close time byone week and increase inventory accuracy by 20%. In this case the two-month implementation timeline may make a lot more sense. Prioritizing and performing the ROI calculation and cost-benefit analysis is critical to ensuring the PISA ROI success.

Summary A Post Implementation Systems Assessment should allow JD Edwards users to target areas of the system, resulting in increase of their user buy-in and system ROI. Technical improvements, such as improving system performance and stability, and functional improvements,such as automating manual processes and improving data capture accuracy, can increase user buy in and return on your investment. The PISA assessment should also highlight areas that are working well as these processes can be used as benchmarks in other areas that are not aswell adopted in the JD Edwards system. The PISA can also be used to merely validate what you already know about your system, but require third party confirmation. Although we are not suggesting that the PISA be part of a SOX compliance audit, it can provide the stimulus for focusing on areas that do need improvement and provide the necessary focus for reaching SOX compliance. Using a JD Edwards business partner, third party consulting firm, agency or person, that has no current emotional connection to the project or company, can provide an unbiased view of your system, that


assists in validating known troublesome area(s), and generates additional level of internal importance. Of key importance to the PISA is that it should be conducted in a similar way as an audit; a structured approach, defined work plan, deliverables, and documented working papers. Recommendations should be practical and feasible to implement, so as to drive the additional value from the implementation and increase your return on your JD Edwards investment. The low cost of a PISA should be more than outweighed by the benefits that can be derived.

Make sure the PISA you conduct is based on a solid foundation and has all the elements built-in that ensure you “straighten out” your implementation, identify improvements, fix any weaknesses, and realize the returns you had initially intended.


COPYRIGHT

Copyright © 2007 SYSTIME Computer Corporation

SYSTIME believes that the information contained in this document is accurate at the time of itspublication. The information herein is subject to change without any prior notice. SYSTIMEacknowledges the proprietary rights of the trademarks and product names of other companies

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purposewithout the express permission of SYSTIME. Further, SYSTIME does not warrant, guarantee,or make any representation regarding the use, or the result of the use, of the written materialin terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, or otherwise.

mentioned in this document.

About SYSTIME

Contact Details For more information please contact, SYSTIME Computer Corporation, at [email protected]

SYSTIME, a 100% subsidiary of the CMS group, is a global business solutions provider delivering high quality reliable services for the past 30 years. Additionally, SYSTIME is thethird largest JD Edwards practice worldwide and is an Oracle® Certified Advantage Partner.SYSTIME has also been named the 'Oracle JD Edwards Partner of the Year, 2006-07' and'2007-08'.

Intelligence, Business Integration, Infrastructure Management, Process and Quality,Testing and Validation, and Retail/Point of Sale. Besides a wide array of in-house solutions, SYSTIME also provides comprehensive solutions through strategic alliances with leading

Comprehensive business and technology expertise and highly experienced personnelallow SYSTIME to deliver innovative business solutions in the areas of ERP, CRM, Business

business and technology organizations in the world.


mailto:[email protected]


About the Author

Dale Kaplan Vice President - NA Consulting Operations

Email: [email protected]



jd edwards post implementation systems assessment (pisa…hosteddocs.ittoolbox.com/dk072208a.pdf ·...

Documents