Revue O ^^f^l V

O

Revue ^^f^lV e

SAP Project Management ReviewQueensland Health

Paper No.:

Date: /

Member : /71-'- /vt C

dT Ibea Tabled, by leave

Incorporated , Remainder incorporated,by leave h'. l e

Customer CorD TechLevel 3, Santos House60, Edward StreetBrisbane QLD 4000.

Project QHiC HR Pmplelnentatioln

SAP Organization AustraliaAddress 52 Merivale Street, South Brisbane, QLDTelephone 07-32599500Fax 07-32597141

Date of Review 313Àugust to 1 1T' Customer No.September 2009

Date of Report 1n September 2009Review Team Lee Trail, Jacek Klatt, Ramanathan Ramadas , Marcus Kendall

MY Copyright © 2006 SAP AG . All rights reserved

Project Management Review Report

1 Executive SummaryThis report preseii4s the besuîtsi'o1 the Protect Manage eof3 5` August, or they FllG 1Pi Irnplem nta t onl Pte'o ec`

I

l he findi ngs and recommendations of,the report ter' limiteprovided^to SAP-in th pro! cr nformati o n haettduring

projec^stakeholder and Froêct,docunicntsubmission

goals;''.[ a"ring:this'manag ment proce,

To d66e 'S thesC finaings arpropnatfly, play tirriiplerient our recommendations in the. action; P

The Project Management and Functional/Technical Review Service provides corsistent quality assurancethroughout the SAP project implementation lifecycle to manage project risk and protect software investment. Thegoal of the review is to:

0 Assess actual project status,

Identify and evaluate risks and issues that endanger the project goals,

Present clear actionable recommendations for project improvement.

The risk exposure for each review topic assessed is summarised in the Project Review Dashboard:

TepkL A-i

Project Management

'Integration Management

Scope Management

Time Management

Cost Management

Communications Management

Human Resource Management

Quality Management

Risk Management

Procurement Management J

Functianal"and Ta6hntca1 Topicsr Te _

Business Organization and Process

Organizational Change Management

End User Training and Documentation

Technical - Systems Management

Technical - Systems Development

Production Support

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 2© SAP AG 2006

Project Management Review. Report

1.1 Summary of Recommendations

The results of the review are listed in the following table that highlights the recommendations to manage theproject risks and issues . The detailed description of findings and recommendations are found in Section 4 of thereport.

The recommendations are prioritized by:qx Critical, high risk findings

Serious, medium risk findings

Minor, low risk findings are reported in the detailed findings and recommendations section.

R ri Le, ! Rer+ m jdet a Lla==, n^lin i

1 © High Realise and agree that a successful November 20th Go-Live is not feasible given theRisk complexity of the solution, the large nun ber of outstanding issues and lack of quality

project and support documentation.

2 7 High Re-visit functional and technical specifications to ensure there are clear guidelines aroundRisk defects and scope changes.

3 © High Re-assess exit and entry points for phases and milestones and ensure all future milestonesRisk and phases have agreed exit and entry points which do not change.

4 0 High Update the documentation on Interfaces between SAP and WorkBrain as the current levelRisk of detail is insufficient.

5 High The knowledge transfer sessions to CorpTech (SAA and Payroll Bureau ) should be backedRisk up with fully documented support process ( including Reconciliation and Error Handling

between SAP and WorkBrain).

6 fx High Incorporate at least 1 to 2 weeks of regression testing into the schedule.Risk

7 ® High Build the necessary process to monitor and correct er-ors during the Payroll Run andRisk generate appropriate documentation on the same.

8 High Ensure that leave balances (lnfotype 2013) are not uplo_ded multiple times.

Risk

9 High Due to the nature of the integration between SAP and WorkBrain certain manual processesRisk for Work Cover Claim, Terminations etc. have baen introduced. Investigate and implement

work arcgunds in the system to reduce reliance on these manual processes.

10 High Include a full pay cycle ( 15 days ) with ad-hoc and interim runs as part of the AcceptanceRisk Test in a 'Businesses Usual'Scenario using with an up to date data set including all

employees . Ensure that post payroll run related manual processes (e.g. reconciliation ofoverpayments , correspondence on overtime etc.) are included in the Test.

11 x] High The Project has made several modifications to core SAP code which is likely to impact the

Risk solution when SAP changes the functionality in new releases. When support packs or SAPnotes are loaded adjust the code based on transaction SE-".U.

12 High Plan and implement a parallel pay run on go live.

Risk

13 Medium Communicate the detailed schedule throughout the project with detailed explanations aboutRisk the requirements to meet key milestones and critical project points.

14 _ Medium Ensure that there is enough emphasis and an allocated period for technical cutover andRisk executive business cutover.

15 Medium Build necessary email alerts when Interface files are not available or if there has been aRisk failure , otherwise additional manual processes will be required which will impact support

costs.

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 3© SAPAG 2006


16 medium Accommodate the import of support packs based on the project schedule or apply theRisk necessary SAP Notes.

17 tedium Ensure modification history documents are created for all SAP code modifications.

Risk

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report, - 14/09/2009 4w SAP AG 2006


2 Table of Contents

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... .. ....

1.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................3

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................. ......... .................. ................... ............. ................................. ..e.................

3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT REVIEW PROCESS ............................................................................................. 6

3.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT REVIEW CATEGORIES ................................................................................6

3.2. RISK REPORTING LEVELS ............................................................................................................ 6

3.3 KEY INTERVIEWS ..........................................................................................................................6

3.4 KEY PROJECT DOCUMENTS ..........................................................................................................7

4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... ............ 8

4.1 GENERAL PROJECT STATUS ......................................................................................................... 8

4.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOPICS ...... ..................... ........................ _...... ....................................... 10

4.3 FUNCTIONALAND TECHNICAL Topics ........................................................................................... 11

4.4 DETAIL OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 12

4.4.1 Project Management & Risk.. ........... .............................................. .............................. ................ 124.4.2 Integration between SAP & Work Brain ........................................ ................................... ...............12

4.4.3 Payroll Process Run ........................................................................................................................14

4.4.4 Future updates/upgrades (standard software ) .................................................................................14

4.4.5 Customization ................................................................................................................................15Modification of SAP Functionality .............................................................................................................15

4.4.6 Testing ............................................................................................................................................ 15

4.5 DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 16

4.5.1 Integration between SAP HR & Work Brain ...............................................................................17

4.5.2 Integration within the solution- use of SAP NetWeaver Process Integration ................................ 18

4.5.3 Payroll Process Run ................................................................................................................. 19

4.5.4 Support Packages ....................................................................................................................20

4.5.5 Customization.. ........ ......................................... ................ ................................................ 21

4.5.6 Modifications e.g. Leave Provisions, Leave Advance, FI/CO ........................................................22

Posting, Terminations .............................................................................................................................22

4.5.7 Configuration, Functional & Technical specification documents_ ..................................................23

4.5.8 Error handling / Operational specification documents .................................................................24

4.5.9 Business Continuity Plan. ................... .................................. ........ - ........ - ............ ................. 25

4.5.10 Data Migration and Data Conversion ................................. ...................................................26

4.5,11 Security Roles ..........................................................................................................................27

4.5.12 Support process ....................................................................................................................28

4.5.13 Testing .................................................................................................29

4.5.14 User Acceptance Testing ............................ ................ ....................................................30

4.5.15 Software Iifiecycle management .............................................................................................31

CorpTech, CHIC HR Implementaion Project , Project Management Review F,eport- 14/09/2009 5© SAP AG 2006


3 Project Management Review Process

3 . 1 Project Management Review Categories

The findings presented in this report are based on three primary sources of information; the project informationsheet, on site interviews with various key project stakeholders and project document study. The analysis andrecommendation reporting is structured by:

Project Management Review Topics:The Project Management Review process structure is based upon the Projec Management Institute's NineKnowledge Areas as described in the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide (D).The review framework is further subdivided into sub-topics that are contained in each knowledge area.

Functional and Technical Topics:The review also looks at a higher level at the functional and technical project areas to assess goodimplementation practices.

3 .2. Risk Reporting Levels

The.following definitions apply to the risk levels used in this report:

High Risk - Topic with Critical finding:Unaoceptar}l- risk. lJcjoor o,s r otieri, _ likely P logy m.enegement etenti, 1 required to orng theftuetion .;nder oontroi

Medium Risk -Topic with Serious Finding:Some disruption may occur. Immediate management action is required, continuous risk monitoringhas to be initiated and future action may be needed if the situation persists.

Low Risk - Topic with Minor FindingMinimum impact. Normal management action required.

3 .3 Key Interviews

The interviews were performed with the following key project stakeholders:

Interview Partners

Name Company, Project Role_

Bill Doak IBM Project DirectorJohn Gower IBM Pro j ect Manag erTony Price Queensland Health Project Manag erTerry Burns Queensland Health Project ManagerPine Pienaar Queensland Health Integration ManagerNick Kwiatkowski IBM Technical Develo pment LeadMark D ock IBM Testing LeadMartih Brown IBM Integration ManagerNick Darby IBM Data Conversion Lead

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project , Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 6

© SAP AG 2006


Name Company

L

Prc;^zctFole

yMariza Richards IBM . Functional Team LeadNelson Hancock IBM Technical Team LeadBrian Cox CorpTech Project TeamBrian Frederick CorpTech Project TeamTom Gordon CorpTech Project TeamRyan IBM Project Team - WorkBrainRod Taylor Queensland Health Business Stream LeadCraig Hanrahan Queensland Health Business Stream LeadJo Boland Queensland Health Business Stream LeadPennie Schrock Queensland HealthAnthony Middleborrow Queensland HealthWayne McCarthy Queensland Health

Jane Stewart Support/Integration/Business stream Support/Integration/Businessstream

Nicola Stubbings CorpTech Technical ArchitectLeanne Davidson CorpTech Support/Integration/Business

streamJuanita Hagstrom CorpTech Support/Integration/Business

streamJanette Jones QH SSP QH SSPMike McMahon Queensland Health Payroll Bureau ManagerGary Palmer Queensland Health Technical ArchitectShane Morrish Queensland Health Data Conversion Lead

Brett Cowan Queensland Health UAT Manager

3 .4 Key Project Documents

The following documents (held in Solution Manager) were reviewed during the project review:

o Project Management Plano Process Documents

Functional Specificationso Technical Specifications

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 7O SAP AG 2006


4 Findings and Recommendations

4i General Project StatusAfter a week of reviewing the current status of the Queensland Government - QHIC Project and a further h .1'^ daysof follow up research and interviews it is evident to QHIC Project is in a high risk environment and therefore muste of swfied e a HIGH t t^ . `P01EG T shouli the cur ent 'Go Live' date of November 2r0' 2000 continue to be

et sd.

t .... e ^comr srmdario i ?i SAP to Consider deiayi igg the Go Live' date of 20ee ' JcV_mbeI until all :rhical

atio ion 1 ' are either completed or confirmed,

The key areas of concern are:

Lack of clarity and results around a working 'Proof of Concept ' and overall solution including the complexintegration of SAP and WorkBrain.Lack of detail in, the functional and technical specifications which have been approved.

o Laci; of detailed functional and technical specifications leading to disagreements over whetherùnctionality tested and deemed deficient refers to a Defect or a Scope Change. This has resulted in de-scoping of business functionality and a lack of confidence from both CoroTech and Queensland Healthregarding the integrated solution: Furthermore the lack of detailed functional l technical specificationscould result in a lack of detailed support and operational manuals required for hand-over.Lack of detailed information and documentation regarding the enterprise architecture and solutioninteg ration.Lack of Q-Gate exit and entry points for test phases and milestones. This has created major issuesregarding UAT entry criteria, it appears that the entyl exit criteria ;has been ignored and/or amended tosuit the project's aggressive criteria and 'Go Live' date.

a fb0 svdcnce of full integration testing incl uding processes scenarios and results.

o Lack of QHIC involvement in the Integration Test.o There has bean multiple User Acceptance Tests't1A.T 1 'without a priorerid to end integration t t vith fui?

connectivily between SAP and WorkBrain.o High nun- dden of Sever tty 1 and 2 defects from UAT 3 being downgrades to Priority 3 to allow entry into

JAT' 'there is agreement to complete these before UAT 4 ends).Level of Severity 1 and 2 Defects remain high and have been throughout the multiple attempts at UAT.Currently the numbers of defects are considered extremely high for the solution and are continuing toincrease as on 14 "' September.UAT4 defects currently increasing at a rate quicker than are being closed.A regression test with a suitable time window does not seem to be factored into the current planHighly complex business process due to functionality residing in two systems (SAP and WorkBrain) withdata cycling multiple times in a non real time manner (batch file upload ! download ) between systems in a

rival Payroll Cycle (15 days). One of the major concerns is the synchronization of data between the twosystems. It appears that no error handling and iêconciliation process has been identified.Lack of con;prehensive.stress and volume testing taking into account the complex nature of the solutionand irragration aspects between SAP and WorkBrain. Scenarios tested to date focus on individualaspects of the solution (WorkBrain only or SAP only) and do not take into account several timingdependencies that exist in the solution and their impact on timeline of pay runs ffor example. There areover 70,000 employees in the payroll process and concerns have been raised on the ability of thesolution to handle the number of transactions and WorkBrain users. The review did not find anyevidence of plans to address this aspect.Several 'End -to-End Payroll' Tests which include ad hoc and in pay runs have been performed butthese have never been executed as a real life simulation (ie a 'business as usual 'scenario) using thecomplete data set.Due to time pressures there appears to be a willingness to accept the criterion of whatever the issue is

e'iI create a wvorfiarounJ; however there is a Pack of understanding as to the overall impacts of manualor'kerounds on the business process including effort and available processing time windows,

date: The processing window is deemed too short by the Payroll Bureau to include muitipia manualprocesses.Lack of 'Solution Management Manuals': there are significant concerts from the business regarding thelack of operational manuals , especially as the solution has been heavily customised.As stated in the Gantt Chart / Schedule a shortened 'Cut Over' period and associated tasks is currentlyviewed as inadequate for such a complex solution and therefore is not recommended.

k

I

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementation Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009© SAP AG.2006


a

^ .,-di ^ k _. ar7 , tints S ouid ti'?e Goo be 1n one of maior ssLP S K '' _p it g

s ommun o2,od that tare w q a 2 to 4 weak Mom .0 o/ b . to to legacy system

AN not be successful.e 70w a no pl- ns for parallel ca J u_s I Thp:n le acy aM ow _ , Jtion r_ athp he beta,

K _ air! - s Continuity Than boos not exit.

CorpTech, CHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 9

© SAP AG 2006


43 Functio nal and Technical Topics

SummaryHigh

Risk

High

Risk

HR & Payroll - Overall Assessment

The HR and Payroll configuration was complete which includes all the primary business processes.Standard SAP was utilised where tequired. However major concerns are raised in the HR and Work brainintegration area.

One of the major concerns is the synchronization of data between the two systems. It appears that no errorhandling and reconciliation process has been identified,

SAP Standard code has been modified in many areas of HR 8 Payroll to cater for the businessrequirements. This leads to risks during the upgrade to the hither releases

Configuration, Functional and Technical documentation was not up to date. This resulted in a lack oftransparency between the business process and the configuration documentation. This also impacts thesupport processes. The blue print documentation is currently being re-reviewed to cater for the businessrequirement changes arising from the earlier UAT.

Testing of several key processes has not been tested end to end. During the review the retro-on-retrotesting was part of the UATTesting. This needs to be confirmed.

QH IC is currently at Support pack (CRT 20). Import of support, pack is frozen due to the Integration andUAT Testing. Currently there is no plan to include legislative changes like Super in the near future.

Major ooncer ,s -very raised wn the pay run processes. The massing 3rirtdcv3 too short to coro ele t-standard payroll processes as !,,ell as manual processes.

Good data accuracy and verification process has been built or the Data migration team as well as in theData conversion (QHEST) team.

Technical Architecture - Overall Assessment

Given focus of the review on readiness to go-live, there was no scope to perform complete validation oftechnical architecture or design. Therefore the only area where technical design was analysed in greaterdetu l was integration between solution components. In this area, decision was made to utilize SAPNetWeaver Process Integration (NW PI) component as middleware for all interfaces within the solution(SAP <> SAP and SAP <> WorkBrain).Specifically, two areas in the integration space have been idertified as concerning:

a) The use of SAP NW PI component for the integration, which has been designed not to take anyadvantage of the features this integration application offers. Effectively, the way SAP NW PI iscurrently used is as a very expensive "copy" tool, whch moves files from one location to the other.Since these files are of significant size, they have impact on performance of the NW PI applicationand thus may adversely impact other integration scenarios utilizing same application (for exampleDepartment of Housing solution). Refer to 4.5.2.

b) Integration scenarios are tightly coupling SAP and \A'crkbrain:Data transformation occurs in sender system - any change in recipient (affecting receiveddata) requires adjustment in sending application.Automation of pay run processes (within 15-day cycle) is highly dependent on batch transferof data between SAP and Workbrain. However here is no automated recovery method fromissues related to integration.

._ a a ui, r` `he above, our i.gh-level assessment of the integration solution bell; ten SAP and WOrl,bratnbard/expensive -,-maintain and of v it protected from octential'ailures.

Another area discussed during the review was solution scalabiiffy - particularly for end user activities onthe Workbrain component. Since Workbrain is not in SAP' s expertise domain , we cannot comment on theapplication . However, some discrepancies exist in relation to assessment of sea lability of the Workbraincomponent following Stress & Volume testing. While current expected usage level (QH only) of the

err:brasn . _etwee 300 and 500'd:rfering views from iBM and Cot Tech), use of the solution asemplace Òr other agencies oredicts usage levels of about 3000 Currently, testing has only been

done successf+ ly for 300 400 users.

CorpT ch, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 11a SAP AG 2006


4A Deta 0 of RecommendaatoonsThis section describes in detail the identified findings and recommendations. The recommendations are classified according to their risk level and topic/sub-topic area.

Major findings Recom nendations Status

4.4.1 Project Management & RiskLack of Q-Gate exit and entry points for both phases and milestones. Thishas created major issues regarding UAT entry criteria. It appears that thecriteria has been ignored and/or amended to suit this projects aggressivecriteria and'Go Live' date.Entry into UAT dirt not technically satisfy UAT entry criteria - concessionswere made (such as downgrading Severity.2 issues to Severity 3 - PO &P1) to facilitate progression into UAT 4.It appears that a detailed schedule is not communicated stringentlythroughout the project. Therefore raising uncertainty around therequirements for key milestones and critical project points.

Acceptance by the customer of inadequate detailed functional andtechnical specifications has lead to disagreements regarding what aredefects and numerous scope changes as testing enters UAT4.

There appears to be a lack of planned regression testing at appropriatetimes, i.e. as new changes are implemented across the solution duringUAT and retesting of completed defects.

There is not enough emphasis and an allocated period for technicalcutovcr and executive business cutover.

4.4 . 2 Integration between SAP & Work BrainOverall solution - combination of SAP and Workbrain for QH - isconsidered unique on the global scale. There is a concern that CorpTechEnterprise Architecture function was not sufficiently engaged in the designprocess and has limited ability to own the solution going forward.

Re-assess exit and entry points for phases and milestones and ensureall future milestones and phases have agreed exit and entry points. Thisshould be agreed to at an operational level as well as management level.

Ensure all Severity 3 - PO & P1's are completed before the midway pointof UAT4 to ensure robust testing is carried out including regressiontesting as required.Communicate the detailed schedule throughout the project with detailedexplanations about the requirements to meet key milestones and criticalproject points. Maintain a stringent control on all requirements needed tomeet key milestones.Re-assess and complete detailed functional and technical specificationsto ensure there are clear guidelines around defects and scope changes.An additional advantage will be these will form the basis of detailedoperational manuals required for hand-over.As entry and exit points make regression testing with adequate times akey component of the projects milestones and phases. Ensure at least 1- 2 weeks of regression testing is incorporated into the schedule. Thecomplexity of the integrated solution requires this.It'should be noted that a complex solution of this nature should beallocated at least 3 -4 weeks to ensure adequate preparations andtesting requirements are covered.'[ horcloie euswing an informedknowledge base for the'Go / No Go' decision.

CorpTech, as future operator of the solution, must take full responsibilitygoing forward for the solution and its operations. As such it is imperativethat handover process must fulfil all requirements of the future operator.This .generic statement is broken down into detailed recommendationareas below.

High Risk

Ox High Risk

; Medium Risk

p High Risk

Q High. Risk

Medium Risk

Q High Risk

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 12

©SAPAG 2006


Major findings Recomniendati'ons. Status,

Integration between SAP & Work brain are based on the Flat files. All files Ensure that Reconciliation processes have been built. ,g High Riskare transferred via Batch processing. No Reconciliation process has beenidentified at the time of review In the future, reconsider use of NW PI in this integration scenario.'

No Error handling procedure has been identified at the time of review Ensure that Error handling processes have been built Medium Risk

No process has been identified to correct the data in source or destination To mitigate the risk, build the utility prograrn to check the data is in Sync Z High Risksystems when the data is transferred from work brain to SAP (Lack of between two systemsprocess / documentation to align systems when out of sync)Lack of functional documentation for interface and utility programs Update the Interface documentation jx High Risk'Email alerts are not generated when Interface files are not available or no Build necessary E-mail alerts ;,; Medium Riskprocess has been identified when there is a failureLeave Balance data can be uploaded into the Infotype 2013 multiple times Ensure that Infotype 2013 is not updated multiple times g High Risk

CorpTech, QHIC I-IR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 13

SAP AG 2006


44.3 Payroll Process Run

Lack of process or documentation on how to correct the errors when an Build the necessary process to correct errors and generate appropriate x High Riskemployee failed during the pay run documentation.No process has been identified when the Payroll process job failed during "insure that necessary process has been build when the payroll job Medium Riskthe schedule failedNo monitoring process has been identified when the Job failed Ensure that monitoring process has been in place Medium Risk

Processing Time window is too short to include payroll manual process Ensure that manual processes are included in the UAT testing. If the Ox High Riskwindow is too short then necessary alternative arrangements should bemade to the Pay roll window c cle

Leave balances are loaded on a day before the Final pay run. No time to Ensure that leave balances are not uploaded multiple times and there is N High Riskcorrect errors. ade uate time to correct errors.Humercus manual processes have been identih - d due to the work brain Cut down manual processes and provide the necessary work around. qx High Riskintegration (e.g. Work cover)

No evidence or plan to run parallel p ayroll runs with the existing legacy ensue that shrngent mon toi ing techniques are used to ensure payroll []x High Risksystem once live ion are :o-ordinated and reconciled.

4.4A Future updates/upgrades (standard software)QHIC is currently at Support pack (CRT 20). Import of support pack is Accommodate the import of support packs based on the project Medium Riskfrozen. No plan to include legislative changes like Super in near future. schedule or apply the necessary OSS NotesMajor concerns have been raised on Retro issues when support packs To mitigate the risk, thorough testing of the retro functionality in SAP is 0 High Risk(e.g. Super change) were imported highly recommended

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/0912009 14SAP AG 2006


4.4. 5 CustomizationI'NCurnerous d ustamizations of the SAP product have been identified. (E. g. Ensure SAP Standard functionality is adhered to as much as possible {tcJ Hiall Kiel:Increments, Higher Duties, AI CS, Prior Service etc). This leads to the

.ensuring worlds best practice standards are incorporated in the solution

following;

1 . Upgrade Iss ues

Maintenance is5uss

3. Support Issues

Modification of SAP FunctionalityNumerous of nlodificahons have been done to the standard SAP code- Ensure those necessary modification history documents are created. s.I Medium RiskE,g. Fl/CO posting program, Leave provision, Leave advance end etc- NoI nodification history document was identified at the time of review. T his Ensure that all necessary code is adjusted via SAPU transaction whenleads to major issues when support packs are loaded- support packs are loaded.

Consideration should be given to having the Vendor involved in theupgrade project . For example the next Support Pack - particularly with aview to performing impact assessments on modifications, adjustmentsand com p lete reg ression testing .

4.4 .6 TLstiny

Full pay cycle (15 d LAYS) with several ad-hoc sort ilAerinl Iens has snever We recommended including it as part of Cutover Simi and reviewing it High Riskbeen executed in simulation inode across the complete, data lotad. The again as part of Sim2.locus was on testing individual steps -within UAT4 elements of thecomplete scenario are tested by CT/OH, but not across full data set

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report -14/0912009 15SAP AG 2006


4Z Detailed ti ndk s and RecommendationsA Topic Rating describes the state of the detailed topics reviewed as part of a Key Review Component. It showshow the item described in the detailed findings affects the success of the implementation:

19

Good. Positive aspect, worthy of mention.

Some weaknesses exist that can impact on quality.

Point that raises questions. The reviewer would like to question a given aspect. Or is unsure as to what wasintended.

Concern raised or poor practice. The reviewer does not agree with this point.

Note / Idea

The Action By date indicates the time, by which the findings should be addressed, completed or resolved by thecustom er/Pnplementation partner to assist in obtaining successful Go-Live,

I

CorpTech , CHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 16© SAPAG 2006


N

4.5.1 Integration between SAP HR & Work BrainFinding:

Integration between SAP & Work brain is based on the Flat files, All files are transferred via Batchprocessing.

o No Reconciliation process has been identified at the time cf this review.No Error handling procedures have been identified at the tme of this review,No process has been identified to correct the data in source or destination systems when the data istransferred from work brain to SAP. There is a lack of process / documentation to align systems whenout of sync.Lack of functional documentation for interface and utility programs.

o Email alerts are not generated when Interface files are not available and no process has beenidentified when there is a failure.

o Leave Balance data can be uploaded into the Infotype 20'3 multiple times.o Disjointed approach has been identified in functional integration between SAP and Work brain.

Potential Impact:There are a number of potential prints of failure associated rdith integration points within theQHC Solution. These occur potentially when files are being created from the source system , transferredbetween different application modules and /or systems , and also when information is being used to updatedestination systems. When failure occurs, the staff needs to understand how to diagnose what has happened,2r-,d s in v r ho: d ir, oc^ sial e_c n ./ing -nr.rn1stion ^n the different system and restarting the processes to

Recommendation:Ensure that Reconciliation process has been built.

o Ensure that Error handling process has been built.o To mitigate the risk, build the utility program to check the data is in Sync between two systems.o Update the Interface documentation.o Build necessary E-mail alerts.o Ensure that Infotype 2013 is not updated multiple times.o The impact of changes in Workbrain or SAP needs to be functionally considered and tested in each

system. For example: there needs to be a holistic approach to the complex integration of the systems.o CorpTech, as future operator of the solution, must take full responsibility going forward for the solution

and its operations. As such it is imperative that handover processes fulfil all requirements of the futureoperator. This generic statement is broken down into detailed recommendation areas in the followingsections.

Action by: CHIC Project Team.

CorpTech, OHIO HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 17O SAP AG 2006


4 . 5.2 Integration within the solution m use of SAP 6 etNeaver ProcessIntegration

Finding:o Integration between SAP & Work brain are based on the Fiat files. All files are transferred via Batch

processingSAP NetWeaver Process Integration (NW PI) has been used to move files between sender andreceiver filesystem locations.

Potential Impact:D Cc 1 h as o^ r of En-1pris- h t Cur was not properly established nor embedded 7vit! n

'ograrr. is esult o in sorre technical design decision being driven ! y ^ ândates, but implemented in a way that-or rlupt the ouroese of the mandate. An example here is use of SAP NW P I for interfacing between SAP andWorkbrain, where use of SAP NVV PI for integration scenarios has been mandated by CorpTech, but it iseffectively used as expensive "copy"tool in the current design. IBM's view was that use of SAP NW PI wasmandated, CorpTech's view is that it is mandated for specific usages (transformation, web serviceprovisioning/consumption), but exceptions are accepted. Batch nature of SAP-WB integration withtransformation embedded in the sending application (note that this comment does not reflect our opinion on thisdesign decision) would suggest exception from the NW PI mandate and CorpTech. In fact, an exception is nowbeing sought to exclude use of SAP NW PI for SAP > DSS (Data Warehouse) and same should have beendone for the other batch-type interfaces where no transformation takes glace in SAP NW P 1.Additionally, putting that load through SAP NW PI (unnecessarily as per above) - which is shared between QHand WoG - affects performance of other integration scenarios.

Recommendation:Given current stage of the project, it is too late to re-architect the solution. However, it should beconsidered during the next opportunity (new project release, solution upgrade, etc.).

Action by: QH IC Project Team / CorpTech.

a

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project , Project Management Review Repo .t - 14/09/2009 18

-0 SAP AG 2006

I

Project Management Review Report'

4.5.3 Payroll Process Run

xFinding:

a Lrc.c of _ bj to „n on io'v,! _- .,,^_t T.i e arro:s ^,h en òe ?r c^lc afed _^rog 'he

No process has been identified when the Payroll process In failed during the schedule.No mor.:_crino nroc,__ beer identified when the Job fared.

o P'cces_i g Ti-e .,inocW sho n nctas oayr tI anCa ^r oo Leave balances are loaded one day before the Final pay rur. There is insufficient time to correct

errors.o Numerous manual process have been identified due to the Work brain integration (e.g. Work cover)

F tential ^, c ,i. a:>' Il i, i t het Orocesses exist to adequatelyf: manage `.i-e n!uhon difar nt ,peS ofarrors That can occur during The r nJ o!f critical nay run arc . If errors are not able to be adequatelydiagnosed and resolved within operating windows then the completion of payroll processing within agreedoperating timeframes is not possible.

Recommendation:o Build the necessary process to correct errors. Generate appropriate documentation.o Ensure that necessary processes have been build when the payroll job fails.o Ensure that monitoring process has been in place.o Ensure that payroll manual processes are included in the UAT testing. If the window is too shortthen

necessary alternative arrangements should be made to the Payroll window cycle.o Ensure that Leave balances are not uploaded multiple times.c Reduce the manual processes and provide the necessary rork grounds.

Action by: QHIC Project Team.

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project , Project Management Review Report- 14/09/2009 19© SAP AG 2006


4-9.4 Support PackagesFinding:o Currently the Support pack level for HR is SAPKES0052 and CRT2D. Import of support pack is frozen due

to the Integration and UAT Testing. No plan to include legislative changes like Super in near future,o Major concerns have been raised on Petro issues when support packs (a g. Super change) were imported.

Potential Impact:Impacts on the various other SAP functionalities like Payment Sumn-ary.

Recommendation:o Accommodate the import of support packs based on the project schedule or apply the necessary OSS

Notes.To mitigate the risk, through testing of the retro functionality in SAP is highly recommended.

Action by: QH IC Project Team and Support Team

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report 7 '4!09/2009 20© SAP AG 2006


4-5.5 CustomizationFinding: Lot of customization of SAP product has been identified. (E.g. Increments, Higher D uties , ALCS, PriorService etc).

Potential Impact:Upgrade issuesMaintenance issuesSupport issues

Recommendation:SAP recommends to follow the development principles and practices (i.e, use of user exits, customername range functions, etc).

Action by: QHIC Project Team and Support Team

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report - 14/09/2009 21© SAP AG 2006


45.6 Modifications e.g. Leave Provisions, Leave Advance, Fl/CO

Posting, Terminations

l°"9

Finding:Function QLVPR is modified to cater for the oncost requirements.Function QADVI is modified to cater for the Business Requirements.

o Fl/CO Posting program has been modified to cater for the distribution of liabilities according to expensesrequirement.Standard Termination program is modified to cater for the business requirements.

Potential Impact:1. Changes in SAP logic will affect the modified functionality.2. Additional maintenance is required.3. Modifications will not be supported by SAP.

Recommendation : Adjust the code after the support pack import via transaction SPAU.

Action by: QHIC Project & Support Team.

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report- 14/09/2009 22a SAP AG 2006


457 Configuration, Functional & Technical speciffcation documentsFinding: Configuration, Functional & Technical Specification documents are not up to date. Additional handover documentation required for support was not evident nor viewed then requested.

Potential Impact:Documentation missing for future reference.On-going support becomes a major task.Without documentation support critical solution processes may not be rectified in time if theybreakdown.

Recommendation: Urgently Update Support documents.

Action by: QHIC Project team

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report- 14/09/2009 23©SAPAG 2006


4.5. 3 Error han .Oirg / Oparatianal specification documentsFinding it th rea 1AP and `Jfcrk br in int ration, there a V c of -f or r nor n^ do bill `lilt tbn.

I. ntegrat on solut Vii is P.iily cu. torn built and ti e.e is no standard documentation vsi ellle o referen e ci

.uop _a nd ope, ;tions tee ts.

Potential Impact:c S art: C.f docu Tented erro r nand!in=g end i ec0'err/ P ro cess ll reach r -Utu r.: -opera J L c:n ech)

rot a 5n,o e ` 0 I CSOiVC issues , which may lead t0 i nab:tityr to /err Bocce '?ii I,r=8 jOS.

Recommendation : Create the documentation and test the processes through negative testing.


CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Repor,- 14/09/2009 24

© SAP AG 2006


4.5 . 9 Business Continuity Plan

Z a :cFinding: i'as i

Potential Impact:a L a& of a Bua:nee. Con t i pry t, ,ll GY^c -t _bii t1 _i a ^ti:5_ed

. acoverj from any kind of irfe rrr:pfions.o _oility .^ t a d eed _^r'dics lav rt.

Recommendation ' _a:ahi.sh end sai he Eje:ne ^t'^ _ a];Scaler

r_ o:very ST-èOy Dart :ef BGP

Action by: CorpTech with assistance from QHIC Project team

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Teport- 14/09/2009 25

© SAP AG 2006


4,510 Data Migration and Data ConversionFinding:

Data accuracy and data verification process is in placee Data Sign off process is in place

Reconciliation Process is in placePotential Impact N/ARecommendation: SAP recommends that any changes to the requirements should be communicated to thedata conversion and migration team.

Action by: QH IC Project & Support Team,

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review report- 14/09/2009 26

©SAPAG 2006


iR

I

4.5.91 Security RolesFinding:

© No negative testing has been done on the security roles.3 Concerns are raised on the SOX compliance regarding the segregation of duties.

Potential Impact : Possible those users will have more roles or fewer roles.

Recommendation:Ensure that necessary negative testing has been carr dd out.Review split of security roles.


CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report= 14/09/2009© SAP AG 2006

27


4 . 5.12 Support processFinding:

o Lack of documentation for the support process was identified.o Limited number of days for the knowledge transfer is inadequate.o Lack of knowledge in work brain area with on-going support staff is a major concern considering the

impact Work brain has on the

Potential ImpactDocumentation missing for future reference.On-going support is huge task

Recommendation:Complete documentation for support process

o Ensure that proper knowledge transfer has been carried out su :;oessfully

o Provide more training in work brain area.


j

CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Repel - 14/09/2009 28

© SAP AG 2006


4.5,13 TestfngFinding:

ct data i_ used For testy g.End-to-end process of testing is not done (execution of full ! 5 day pay cycle with all integration,reconciliation , error handling and manual processes).No negative testing has been processed,

Potential Impact Possible business scenarios may be missed.

Recommendation:Ensure thst full data is used for testing.

a Incarporate the full end to end toteams.Ensure that negative testing is performed.


CorpTech, QHIC HR Impfementaion Project, Project Management Review Report- 14/09/2009© SAPAG 2006

.,, end T.4e ::L upoort

29


4.514 User Acceptan ce TestingFinding:

a 1 2 5_ feri y & 0 Pi) errors have oxen 6---! uted in the currn it UP,I bras of revier1..21o Tie data used n UAT s reoe_en`.ativ_ !hut 10 months old) sannpl- of productio dat , till da

`;.os Prot bean used in UAT.ibfajor concerns have been ( ed fat no SuCceosful 72.•! .fin h as been ômoietod.

Potential Impact : Possible business scenarios may be missed.

Recommendation:Ensure that all the errors are corrected before go-live,Ensure full data is loaded.

cces'elui^y


CorpTech, QHIC HR Implementaion Project, Project Management Review Report. 14/09/2009 30© SAP AG 2006