1. EP to TM1 Migration:
A Case Study in Best Practices

2. Agenda
Conducting a Planning Process Assessment
Similarities and Differences in Enterprise Planning (EP) and TM1
Integration with IBM Cognos Business Intelligence (BI)
Concepts in EP to TM1 Migration Practices
Ryerson Migration Case Study

3. Speakers
David Shaw - Director Financial Planning & Analysis
Ryerson Corporation
Stephen Nelson - Performance Management Practice Lead
Perficient
Earl Drake - Finance Performance Management Practice Director
Perficient

4. About Perficient
Perficient is a leading information technology consulting firm serving
clients throughout North America.
We help clients implement business-driven technology solutions that
integrate business processes, improve worker productivity, increase
customer loyalty and create a more agile enterprise to better respond
to new business opportunities.

5. Perficient Profile
 Founded in 1997
 Public, NASDAQ: PRFT
 2010 Revenue of $215 million
 22 major market locations throughout North America
— Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland,
Columbus, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Fairfax, Houston,
Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New Orleans,
Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Jose, Southern California,
St. Louis and Toronto
 1,500+ colleagues
 Dedicated solution practices
 More than 500 enterprise clients (2010) and 85% repeat
business rate
 Alliance partnerships with major technology vendors
 Multiple vendor/industry technology and growth awards

6. Perficient Positioning
Key Differentiators
As compared to local boutiques:
Project size, Breadth of Expertise
– Bring solutions expertise & capital
– Deep technology expertise
– Disciplined project execution
– Scale to handle large projects
As compared to large integrators:
– Highly experienced consultants
– Local and national delivery model
Depth of Expertise, Efficiency & Value, – Collaborative, not take-over
Client Importance
– Better value

7. Conducting a Planning Process Assessment

8. This is a New Implementation
– treat it like one!
Assessment should be based on Business Requirements,
NOT the Current Tool – whatever it is
• GLs, ERPs, Excel, Other EPM Applications, EP – none of these
should be a blueprint for design
• These tools all have limitations – models are built “around”
these limitations
• Your consultant will not necessarily know what structures,
processes, reports, and other design objects were built
only because of the limitations of the technology
• Even if current model was “perfect” requirements change

9. What Do You want to Examine and Manage?
Best Assessment Technique is to Examine the Reports
and Planning Templates that the Business Actually
Uses
• Might be reports in the current system
• Will include off-line spreadsheets that Business Users created
• Must also discuss reports that Business Users would like to
have, but may not think are even possible
• Consultant should have access to these Reports and
Templates, and have examined them before coming on-site

10. Housekeeping
Most Companies take the Opportunity to Clean Up
Structure
• Revise and Streamline Chart of Accounts
• Common Chart
• Migrate data from obsolete accounts
• Revise Organizational Structure
• Sometimes hand in hand with COA Revision
• The GL or ERP may have Cost Centers that are not really
part of the Organizational Structure, but rather, part of the
Account Structure
• “Cleaning Up” other dimensions like Customer or Product is
more than just Housekeeping
• (Cleaning Up the Organization and Accounts Dimensions
can also be far more than Housekeeping)

11. Planning for Planning
Budget More than Enough Time for Scoping,
Requirements Gathering, White-boarding, and
Prototyping
• Most Companies budget far too little time for this Phase
• This is a Strategic Implementation – thus this Phase is the
most important
• Misconception and Worry is the Amount of Time – Reality is
White-boarding:
• Cuts down on the overall time
• Increases Quality, and End-user-ability
• Incorporates QA Upfront
• Transfers Knowledge to the Client about the Application
• However, this does require Senior Business Users (SMEs)
involvement up front

12. Some Final Tips
General Observations
• Executive Sponsorship Involvement
• Process, Cultural, Incentive Changes are taking place
• Time will not be saved up front by using Client Resources
• Clients need to learn – they will own and maintain the
system
• But client resources are no substitute for experienced
consultants
• End User Training should be a marketing event
• A well designed system requires very little End User
Training
• End Users should want to use the system

13. Similarities and Differences in EP and TM1

14. Tool Similarities
Basic Tool Purpose
• Planning and Forecasting Capabilities
• Targeting Office of Finance
• Replace Spreadsheets
• Provide Consistency in Modeling and Data
Tool Structure
• Multidimensional Cubes
• Allow for answers to multiple Business Questions
• Provide Consistent Structure for Planning and Basic Analysis
User Interfaces (following slides)
• Direct Input to Cubes
• Excel Interface
• Web-based Interface – allows for Workflow functionality

15. EP Screenshots

16. TM1 Screenshots

17. Tool Differences
Back-End Structure
• EP – File and Server based
• TM1 – Memory based
Calculation Flexibility
• EP – Calculations included in Dimension structure
• TM1 – Calculations built as independent Rules files
Model Size Limitations
• EP – 25 million cells in cube upper limit; 7 dimensions typical limit
• TM1 – “Unlimited” size; 256 dimensions possible
Model Build/Implementation
• EP – Built-In Functions provide standard calculations; GUI-based
interfaces
• TM1 – More technical during build; more flexibility for unique business
rules

18. EP Tool Screenshot

19. TM1 Tool Screenshot

20. Integration with BI

21. Integration with BI
Similarities
• Both can be used as Data Sources within BI
• Build Framework Model Packages off Output
• Move Output to Data Warehouse
Differences
• Processes – EP data must be “published” into proper format; TM1 data
is live data source
• Speed - EP publish process can often take significant time and will lock
up servers (incremental publish can be used to mitigate); TM1 data is
live
• Security – EP is published without security; TM1 and BI security can
be integrated to provide immediate security

22. Concepts in EP to TM1 Migration Practices

23. Migration Concepts
Quick Fix
• Straight “Migration”
• Rebuild EP model in TM1 cube for cube
• Helps from sizing perspective
• May help from speed perspective
• Same model; new tool
Best Practices
• Implementation
• Analyze EP model and processes
• Recognize where Business Rules drive model
• Recognize where tool limitations drive model
• Analyze Reporting Requirements
• Validate and Design new environment
• Involve Client Team Fully
• Rapid Prototyping
• Client Administrator Training
• Improved model; new tool

24. Ryerson Migration Case Study

25. Ryerson Inc. is a Metal Distribution company located in 4 countries
Full range of 75,000+ products
Stainless steel, aluminum, carbon steel, copper, brass nickel pipe, valves and fittings
4000+ employees 5 ERP systems 160 people involved in planning process
NORTH AMERICA CHINA
Tianjin
Suzhou Kunshan
Wuhan
Shanghai
Corporate Headquarters
Regional Offices; China Corporate Office Guangzhou
Dongguan
Service Center / Processing Center
25

26. Administration Improvements
• One Location Hierarchy
• Location name changes no longer an issue
• No Publish process - time savings
Data Improvements
• More detailed reports
• BI Reports faster
Planning Model Improvements
• Calculations do not have to exist in cube
• Simplified inputting screens
26

27. Next Steps – Q&A
Questions
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING
LEARN MORE ABOUT PERFICIENT @
WWW.PERFICIENT.COM
CONTACT US AT:
T: 314-529-3600
Email
sales@perficient.com
27