Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0 Process:
Accounts Receivable
Table of contents
Collections Management
Dispute Case Opening
Dispute Case Management
Bank Statements
Contents
Revision History .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of contents ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Pre- or Post- System Review .......................................................................................................................................... 3
3. General Comments ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Documents aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................... 3
5. Document completeness ............................................................................................................................................... 5
6. Document readability..................................................................................................................................................... 5
7. Document correctness/ consistency.............................................................................................................................. 5
8. Roles & tcodes & workflow............................................................................................................................................ 7
9. Comparison to pre- SFIN ................................................................................................................................................ 8
10. Testing support ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
11. Areas of improvement ............................................................................................................................................... 8
12. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
3. General Comments
PowerPoint document:
- overall this is well structured and covers the AR process appropriately;
- slide 2 lists key process steps that are not associated with the AR process and should be revised;
- the changes and related benefits compared to the old AR process are not detailed in this document and would be
a good addition in terms of quality..
SEPA Mandate Customizing: it is not clear where this document fits with the other 2 documents.
4. Documents aesthetics
4.1. Formatting / is formatting consistent throughout document?
PowerPoint document:
- On the title slide, the blue writing on the orange background does not render well. Other colour for the
writing may be more readable (e.g. white).
- Slides 2-3, 10-11 and 13 have “Public” written on the bottom banner. Slides 4-9 do not have this
written.
- Slide 6 – lane for Accounts Receivable Manager is empty; if no process steps are associated with this
role, lane should be removed from this slide.
- Slide 4 – the icons table extends beyond the slide margin.
- The icons tables do not have the right border and the icons (see “Icon” column) are not fully aligned
(throughout the document).
- Slide 8 – alignment to the left of the page differs from the other slides.
Test script document: is not complete and lacks most of the details. The different tables in section
“Overview Table” are not matching. Otherwise, the formatting of the placeholders in the test scrip is
consistent throughout the document.
4.2. Grammar / checking spelling mistakes, grammar, typos, syntax error etc
PowerPoint document:
- Slide 6:
- Slide 9 -
Test script document: in the Table of Contents, section “Overview Table” is numbered with 3, while on
page 7 it is numbered with 2.5. This offsets the numbering by one unit for all further sections.
Page 4 of 9 26 June 2015
4.4. Process Steps / Are all process steps sequentially numbered?
Test script document: the steps from section “Overview Table” are not numbered.
5. Document completeness
5.1. Sections / Are all sections/headings completed
PowerPoint document:
- Slide 2: the benefits of the process are not listed.
- Slide 5: the lane from the left does not have a user role associated.
- Slide 10: gives a generic statement about integration. An improvement could be to list the actual
processes/scope items that are related to the AR process.
Test script document: is not complete and lacks most of the sections/steps.
5.2. Process Steps / Are all process steps (as you would expect from your experience) included. If not, is there
adequate explanation given (e.g. step is redundant)
- No process steps included for down payments and for AR reporting. No explanations given in this
sense.
- Dunning only included via a “Print Dunning Letter” process step, without any further details or
explanations.
5.3. Process Steps / Are all process diagram legends explained?
6. Document readability
6.1. Readability / Is document easy to follow and descriptions are clear?
PowerPoint document:
- Slide 2: The following sentence is difficult to follow; particularly the highlighted section seems not to be
related:
“General ledger (Profit and Loss) accounts and customer accounts are then updated according to the
transaction concerned (such as receivable, credit memo) customer payment activities.”
Test script document: is not complete and therefore consistency cannot be assessed.
7.3. Consistency 2 / Are all sections of PowerPoint consistent throughout document?
PowerPoint document:
- Slide 2: the “Key Process Steps” listed are not the ones described in the rest of the document and seem
not to be part of the AR process.
- Slide 8: in the icons table, app type is listed as “Trans”, while on the other slides it is listed as
“Transactional”.
- Slide 8: No details regarding the batch scripts; if the current table does not allow for details to be
listed, an improvement could be choosing a more appropriate table format for detailing this element.
- Slide 9 – process step is called “Bank Statements”, however it also includes steps not related to bank
statements (e.g. Reset clearing for invoices and payments). An improvement could be renaming the
step to make it more clear (e.g Clearing of open items).
7.4. Consistency 3 / Are PowerPoint & test script consistent with each other?
- “Invoice Reporting” from PowerPoint document (slide 5) is listed as “Invoice Creation” in the Test script
document (page 8).
- Batch script steps from PowerPoint document (slide 8) are not listed in the Test script document
“Overview Table” section
None identified.
8.3. Tcodes / Are all tcodes included in test script, and are they consistent with the PowerPoint?
The transaction codes are not mentioned in any sections of the PowerPoint document and Test script
document. An improvement would be to list all relevant sFIN tcodes for all process steps, mapping them to
the corresponding Fiori apps.
8.4. Tcodes / Are Fiori apps replacing existing tcodes, and is it clear which tcodes are replaced?
This is not evident from the provided documents. An improvement would be to list all relevant legacy
tcodes, mapping them to the corresponding Fiori apps and sFIN tcodes.
8.5. Workflows / Are all workflows included in both documents, and are they consistent with each other and clearly
defined? Any expected workflows missing?
None identified.
Several differences, for example the process steps for Lockbox, Reporting, Down payment, and Dunning
have been removed. Previous Clearing process step is now replaced by the Bank Statements process step.
No explanations given in this sense.
The differences are not evident from reading the provided documents. A great improvement would be to
include a section detailing the process changes compared to the old AR best practice, and the benefits
given by these changes. i.e. How do I benefit as a business from the new AR process?
9.2. Differences 2 / Are there key differences missing, say, compared to what you've seen documented for SFIN?
None identified.
None identified.
11.2. Business Process / Is there an opportunity to improve business process in any process step or process area?
11.3. Controls / Is there an opportunity to improve business controls in any process step or process area?
None identified
11.4. Reporting / Is there an opportunity to improve reporting in any process step or process area?
None identified.
11.5. Workflow / Is there an opportunity to improve workflow in any process step or process area?
None identified.
12. Conclusion
The new Fiori Apps should make for a better user experience. This is the key change. The basic process
steps remains generally similar to what we would expect in classic ERP. For the process steps that have
been changed compared to classic ERP, these changes and their benefits are not explained. Detailing these
changes would improve the quality of the documents.