Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
ERP engagements form a major part of vendor organisation’s business & revenue
User needs require roll-out of customised versions built on top of vanilla version
Need to demonstrate improvements release-over-release (development process optimisation)
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
No industry functional sizing method (IFPUG FP, UCP) available for SAP ABAP development
Size is critical in computing Productivity & Quality metrics, and driving improvements
SAP ABAP Object size (across FRICE) is estimated as “ABAP - SAP Unit” (SAP-U)
Availability of SAP-U, and past data on Productivity & Quality metrics, provided Capgemini a
strong foundation for applying HM practices
Complex
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)
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
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
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)
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
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)
Client awarded Global Support contract (application support for all countries)
avinash.bharj@capgemini.com
mitta.rout@capgemini.com
Click here