CMMI High Maturity Best Practices HMBP 2010: High Maturity Implementation in ERP Engagements by Avinash Bharj and Mitta Rout

High Maturity Implementation in ERP
Engagements
-Avinash Bharj
Mitta Rout
(Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd.)
High Maturity Implementation in ERP Engagements
1st International Colloquium on High Maturity Best Practices
Bangalore, 21st May 2010
Avinash Bharj (SQA Head) & Mitta Rout (Vice President – QA)
Capgemini India Private Limited
© 2010 Capgemini– All rights reserved

ERP Engagements – Candidate for HM Implementation
ERP engagements form a major part of vendor organisation’s business & revenue
Solutions to be competitive w.r.t cost & schedule without compromising on quality

 Sustain existing accounts
 Higher proposal to win ratio (add new accounts)
User needs require roll-out of customised versions built on top of vanilla version
 Need to demonstrate improvements release-over-release (development process optimisation)
Productivity & Quality improvements expected by Senior Management in line with

Business Objectives (business sustenance & expansion)
Improve Productivity Improve Quality Cost Saving
High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

1st International Colloquium on HMBP (Bangalore, May 21st 2010)
Version 1.0 / Slide # 3
ERP Life Cycle (SAP) @ Capgemini
Project Preparation
ABAP Object BUILD Lifecycle
Business Blueprint Phase
Tech Spec.
Realisation Phase Major part of the Lifecycle ABAP Coding
Unit Testing
Final Preparation Phase
ABAP Code Rework
Go Live & Support Phase
Form
Object
Unified Project Management
Report
Solution Manager
FRICE Objects Interface
Conversion
Enhancement
 ERP customisation (ABAP Dev.) can be considered as a small CSD engagement

 BUILD activities (ABAP Dev.) are repeated for each object
 BUILD activities are mostly done at offshore
 Significant gains can be obtained overall by optimising BUILD related sub-processes

Sizing – A Challenge
 No industry functional sizing method (IFPUG FP, UCP) available for SAP ABAP development
 Size is critical in computing Productivity & Quality metrics, and driving improvements
 Size is also critical from an estimation perspective
 As part of Quality Journey, Capgemini designed a “proprietary” method in year 2007
 SAP ABAP Object size (across FRICE) is estimated as “ABAP - SAP Unit” (SAP-U)
 Is being used for computing:

 BUILD Productivity (expressed as Efforts per SAP-U)
 Defect Density (expressed as Defects per SAP-U)
 Availability of SAP-U, and past data on Productivity & Quality metrics, provided Capgemini a
strong foundation for applying HM practices

Sizing: ABAP - SAP Unit
Input Parameters SAP Units
Complex

HM Practices for SAP ABAP Development – Case Study
 SEI CMMI v1.2 (Dev) HM practices, as per L4 / L5, were designed & Improvement Goals
implemented for SAP ABAP development for FRICE objects > 40 Hrs Identification
estimated efforts (for BUILD)
Critical Sub-process
 For such objects, it was possible to perform “initial predictions” and Identification
apply “in-process controls” at sub-process level (during execution)
 Availability of data points was not a concern, as SAP customisation Process

Composition
engagements involve huge number of FRICE objects
 Hence, understanding current performance & variations for sub- PPM Usage – During
processes, applying improvements & measuring results within same Planning & Execution
engagement was possible
Statistical Sub-
process Management
CAR (Process,
Product), OID
Improvement Results
& Business Impact

Identification of Improvement Goals (for engagement)
Vision – BO – QPPO Objectives (Quality,

mapping Cost, Schedule)
Organisation
Client
Organisation QPPO improvement goals were
identified for Y09 & Y10
Vision Business QPPO (Y) UOM Current Y09 Improvement USL

Objective (BO) Performance (eng. Target (over
past data) current perfrm.)
Increase Expand existing Reduce Defects Mean & Std. Dev. Mean – 11% As per
Revenue (Top accounts by Delivered DD per SAP was calculated Std. Dev. – 50% Org.
Line) building client (post UT) Unit
confidence
Improve Increase Improve Person Mean & Std. Dev. Mean – 50% As per
Gross profitability Productivity Days was calculated Std. Dev. – 50% Org.
Operating (BUILD) per SAP
Profit (GOP) Unit
Engagement’s past data was used to finalise the QPPO(s) improvement goals for the engagement
ANOVA, Dunnet’s, Pareto techniques used

Product CAR Goals  Defect Type
 10% mean reduction on “Functional” & “Standard” DD
Proactive steps to reduce defect injection  50% reduction on Std. Dev.
 Defect Cause Code

 10% reduction on current distribution for “Improper
Coding / Implementation” & “Inadequate Design”

Identification of Critical Sub-processes for Statistical Mgmt.
PPM (multiple linear regression
technique); Y = f(X1, X2, X3)
Organisation PPB (for the Xs & Ys)
QPPO PPM Name PPM Applicable Y Sub-process Sub-process Measures

Level Segment (sample list only) (X)
Improve BUILD Main SAP FRICE BUILD Effort  Code Creation  Coding Effort per SAP
Productivity Productivity Objects per SAP Unit  Requirements Unit (interim Y)
Review  Requirement Ambiguity
Index
Coding Interim SAP FRICE Coding Effort  Technical Spec.  Designer Skill Index
Productivity Objects per SAP Unit Creation  Design Reviewer Skill
 Technical Spec. Index
Review
Critical sub-processes were identified for the

engagement using Sensitivity Analysis
Some of the sub-process selection criteria:

X  Significant Impact on Y (Sensitivity Analysis)
 “Controllable” by engagement team
 Data collection (X) possible; no MS-Error
“Crystal Ball” used for Simulation / Sensitivity Analysis

Process Composition
 To select most optimum option for executing a sub-process in order to meet QPPO SL at max certainty level
 “Quality” objective was given higher priority than “Productivity” objective – considering client needs
 Crystal Ball was fed with org. & engagement data (FRICE), and engagement’s QPPO SL to generate options
 Rank # 3 option was found to be most suitable

 Some of the sub-process options selected for FRICE objects:
 Tech. Spec. creation post requirements intake check using
“intake checklist”
 Peer as-well-as SME review for Tech. Spec.
 Peer as-well-as SME review for ABAP code
 Unit testing also to include Functional test cases
Requirements Decision Variables

75% Probability or more < 1.17 70% Probability or more < 3.40
Rank Solution # Delivered Defect Density Build Productivity Code creation _FT code_creation_wo_FUT
1 39 96.39% 89.54% 0.00 1.00
2 60 96.39% 89.44% 0.00 1.00
3 47 96.39% 89.39% 0.00 1.00
4 19 96.39% 84.28% 1.00 0.00

PPM Usage – During Planning
What-If Analysis Initial Prediction
What-If Analysis
 To identify the target value for each sub-process measures (X) in order to achieve QPPO (Y) target value
 These X(s) were a part of the PPM associated with QPPO(s)
 “What-If Analysis” was performed using “Crystal Ball” during overall engagement planning / re-planning
 Best possible solution was obtained by running 10000 trails of simulation
 Mean value for X(s) was obtained from engagement’s past data & same used to select the best solution
 “Controllability” of sub-processes by engagement team was also critical factor in the selection

PPM Usage – During Planning………..
Initial Prediction
 Values obtained from “What-If Analysis” were fed in PPMs (main PPM  Interim PPM)
 Check was done to see if “Prediction Intervals” (PI) were within SL of the QPPO
 Trade-off done for X(s) overlapping between “Productivity” & “Quality” PPM(s), and risks were identified
 Action plans were put in place to achieve the selected target value of X(s) (i.e., KT from designer to tester)

PPM Usage (object Level) – During Execution
 Predict Y based on known X(s) at start of the object (done for each object)
 If PI > USL, perform “What-If-Analysis” and determine & apply “mid-course corrections”
 Compare “actual Y” with “predicted Y” and determine reason for variations

Statistical Sub-process Management
 Understand critical sub-process variations and possible causes

 For “special” cause of variation, action taken (to achieve sub-process stability)
 I-MR Control Chart for time series data, Box Plots for non time series data (e.g., Skill Index)

CAR (Process, Product) & OID
 Org. level “Delivery Improvement Team” (DIT) – delivery & QA resources

Organisation  Past SAP ABAP Dev. engagements defect data analysed; frequently occurring:
 Defect Type
Product CAR  Defect Cause Code
 Root cause determined to reduce injection of defects
 SAP Solution Manager – “Code Inspector” made mandatory
 OID initiative originated from CAR
 Improvement goals set for Y09 & Y10 for “Defect Type” & “ Defect Cause Code”
 Engagement’s product CAR goals identified – “Defect Type” & “Defect Cause Code”
Engagement
 Proactive steps taken to reduce defect injection
 “Code Inspector”
CAR (Process,  “Binary Logistic” PPM for predicting probability of defect occurrence w.r.t Skill
Product)  CAR done for both process & product defects
 Process CAR examples;
 Sub-process Capability Deficiency
 EV & SV outside SL(s)
 Post improvement results validated thru’ Hypothesis tests, Capability analysis

Improvement Results & Business Impact
Improvement Results (engagement level)
QPPO (Y) UOM Y09 Improvement Y09 Actual Hypothesis

Target (over past Improvement (over Test
perfrm.) past perfrm.) Passed?
Reduce Defects Mean – 11% Mean – 90% Yes
Delivered DD per SAP Std. Dev. – 50% Std. Dev. – 71%
(post UT) Unit
Improve Person Mean – 50% Mean – 55% Yes
Productivity Days Std. Dev. – 50% Std. Dev. – 79%
(BUILD) per SAP
Unit
 Significant reduction in identified “defect-type” & “defect

cause-code” were achieved; these were also statistically
validated
Usage of SAP Solution Manager “Code
Inspector” helped significantly reduce
“Standard” defect-type
 Increase in client’s confidence in Capgemini’s “quantitative” approach towards

managing & executing large engagements
Business Impact
 Client awarded Global Support contract (application support for all countries)

Thanks
avinash.bharj@capgemini.com
mitta.rout@capgemini.com

Click here for more presentations on
CMMI High Maturity

Best Practices
HMBP 2010
organized by QAI
Click here

CMMI High Maturity Best Practices HMBP 2010: High Maturity Implementation in ERP Engagements by Avinash Bharj and Mitta Rout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMMI High Maturity Best Practices HMBP 2010: High Maturity Implementation in ERP Engagements by Avinash Bharj and Mitta Rout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Maturity Implementation in ERP

© 2010 Capgemini– All rights reserved

Solutions to be competitive w.r.t cost & schedule without compromising on quality

Productivity & Quality improvements expected by Senior Management in line with

Improve Productivity Improve Quality Cost Saving

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

 ERP customisation (ABAP Dev.) can be considered as a small CSD engagement

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

 Size is also critical from an estimation perspective

 As part of Quality Journey, Capgemini designed a “proprietary” method in year 2007

 Is being used for computing:

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

Input Parameters SAP Units

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

 Availability of data points was not a concern, as SAP customisation Process

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

Vision – BO – QPPO Objectives (Quality,

Vision Business QPPO (Y) UOM Current Y09 Improvement USL

ANOVA, Dunnet’s, Pareto techniques used

 Defect Cause Code

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

Organisation PPB (for the Xs & Ys)

QPPO PPM Name PPM Applicable Y Sub-process Sub-process Measures

Critical sub-processes were identified for the

Some of the sub-process selection criteria:

“Crystal Ball” used for Simulation / Sensitivity Analysis

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

 Rank # 3 option was found to be most suitable

Requirements Decision Variables

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

 Understand critical sub-process variations and possible causes

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

 Org. level “Delivery Improvement Team” (DIT) – delivery & QA resources

 Post improvement results validated thru’ Hypothesis tests, Capability analysis

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

QPPO (Y) UOM Y09 Improvement Y09 Actual Hypothesis

 Significant reduction in identified “defect-type” & “defect

 Increase in client’s confidence in Capgemini’s “quantitative” approach towards

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

High Maturity Implementation In ERP Engagements

CMMI High Maturity

You might also like