Gwinnett County implemented SAP CRM in 2006 and upgraded to CRM 7.0 EHP2 in 2013. Key findings from the upgrade included:
- Leveraging SAP tools like Solution Manager and custom code checks to improve the upgrade.
- Extensive automated testing was worthwhile to reduce defects during go-live.
- Change management and user training were critical due to past negative experiences.
- Contract management presented risks due to expertise required and potential data impacts.
The project took 11 months and went live with minor replication issues resolved. Lessons included allowing time for testing and training, cleaning data, and engaging users.
3. • 30 miles NE of Atlanta – 800K Residents within 15 municipalities – regulated
• Implemented SAP CRM / R/3 in 2006
o Using SAP’s Move In / Move Out functionality
o Call center 50 users handling 25K calls per month – AVG 3.36 C.H.&T.T.
o OK Implementation but had left a bad taste in their mouths
o Highly customized solutions – minimal use of SAP Standard
• Since then we have rolled out
o Online Bill Pay ($3M p/m– approx. 10%)
o Mobile Website (1K users p/m)
o HL of System Automation
o Days outstanding reduced from 44 to 27
o Integration to POS & Mobile Work Orders
o Went back to Standardization as much as possible
Background
Slide 3
4. • 3 Ways to Upgrade from CRM 5.0 to CRM 7.0 EHP2
• Vendor Selection – what we looked for & found
• Leveraging SAP Tools & Resources
• Automated Testing – Is it really worth it?
• Change Management – more than just training
• Findings from Build Team / Business Owner & Project
Management.
Key Aspects / Findings when Upgrading CRM
6. Contract Management – Benefits + Risks
Slide 6
• Utilization of SAP Enhanced Account Overviews
• Contract Process Simplified (Move-In + Transferred)
• Process Framework + Check Repository
• Limited use of transaction launchers
Benefits
• Lack of expertise in the marketplace with contract management knowledge
• Impact to CRM data model
• Change to other ECC contract-related processes
• User-Acceptance of new processes
Risks
8. • Deep dive (3 Weeks) on our existing AS_IS processes
• Development of RFP with reference to
o previous RFPs
o conference calls with similar sized counties - listened to their pain points/
experiences
• Informing SAP of our intentions via the Max Attention Channel –
looking for recommendations on how they could assist us.
• Attending forums & reaching out to ASUG and SDN
• SAP Questionnaire – most questions answered with business buy-in
Preparation
Slide 8
9. • Usual
o Price – Fixed – based on Milestones
o Balance between Contractors & Permanent Staff
o Had built in Quality Gates into their plan
o Interview Resources during Vendor Selection
• G.C. Specific
o Control BASIS & Security
o Able to clearly explain why or why not to implement contract
management and their methodology to implement that solution
o Understood our training (Uperform) & testing (Worksoft) solutions
o Thoroughness of thought process
Vendor Selection – What we looked for
Slide 9
10. • Resource constraint – multiple sites going live at same time;
particularly those with Contract management
• Lack of clarity in understanding our issues
o Reporting Needs
o Specific Utilities knowledge
Move in / Move Out
Contract Management /MDT
Work Orders
• Shared resources from many vendors
For the Price & Risk – we could attempt this ourselves
Vendor Selection – What we found Conclusion
Slide 10
11. • SAP Solution Manager
o Going Beyond BASIS
o Solution Documentation Assistant
• SAP Ramp Up Client –EhP2
o Manage expectations- late adopter
• SAP Development Team
o Develop custom filtering – due to separate implementations
• Custom Code Maintainability Check (C.C.M.C.)
o Reduced from 170 to 21
• Continuous Quality Check during Going Live Support (C.Q.C.)
Leveraging SAP Tools & Resources
Slide 11
12. • Looked at integrating into solution manager
• Was dependent on when the Build released the Functionality &
Quality in QnA
• Now being used for lights out testing every Wednesday
• High Cost upfront /Limited resources at our price point
• Can recover costs through
• Reuse in support /enhancement packs & Lights out
• Your Worksoft docs can be part of your testing documentation
• 65% Automated testing on 8 end to end processes (collection of
114 individual processes)
Testing Tools- Worksoft
Slide 12
13. Slide 13
Curve Balls
• DB Versioning of Oracle
• Need alignment in terms of Enhancement Packs between CRM &
ECC – upgrade @ same time versus Leader / Follower approach
• Nervousness of the user community – “war wounds” of previous
upgrade
• Number of enhancements within Contract Management to do basic
validation –
o SAP Note 1763180 - CRM-IU: no IS-U specific checks in contract
management
14. • Replication: Middleware vs. “Middle-scare”
o Detailed middleware testing (2 Mock Runs)
o Custom reconciliation reports (summary + details)
o Super User team involvement in resolving replication issues
(ECRMREPL)
Lessons Learned – Build Team
• Iterative Show & Tell Workshops
o Early User-adoption to CRM 7.0 Web Client environment
o Lower QA issues
o Knowledgeable user-community
15. • Change Management is critical!
o Negativity is contagious
• Establish a Super User program and engage them through
the entire process.
o They are your champions to the users
• Identify potential hazards and mitigate them.
• Training, training, training!!
• Learn from previous mistakes and listen to your users.
o Address their concerns
o Ask them how you did
Lessons Learned – Business Side
16. • Revisit the plan weekly – Cost /Time/Deliverables.
• Allow plenty of time for
• Replication testing
• Training particularly if not a green site
• Leverage your internal IT resources as much as possible
• When you goto the External market technically interview all candidates
• Perform as many detailed cut over runs as possible
• Clean up the data as much as possible
• Get rid of as much custom code as feasible
• Contract Management may need more validation to assist in replication.
Lessons Learned – Project Management Side
17. Project
WRICEF
Hours
Defects
Duration
36 plus individual Enhancements
Build 2020 , Training 1044, Testing 856
234
April 2012 till Sunday Feb 17th 2013 – approx. 11mths
Key Metrics
Replication
Business Agreement
Contracts
Contacts
Connection Objects
POD
539,606 (Fix 50 plus accounts manually)
867,895 (100 plus issues with contract)
1,211,574 (no issues)
245,677 (no issues)
425,646 (no issues)
Go-Live
Estimated Replication Time 22 Hours Completed in 19 Hours
Post Go-Live
300 – 500 Move-In/Transfer/Stop Service 2 to 5 errors ECRMREPL Daily
18. A collaboration of:
Questions?
Richard Uytdewilligen
Gwinnett County – Project Manager
Richard.Uytdewilligen@gwinnettcounty.com
Alisha Voutas
Gwinnett County – Business Owner
Alisha.Voutas@gwinnettcounty.com
Michael Robinson
Gwinnett County – Utilities consultant
Michael.Robinson@gwinnettcounty.com
