Migrating from Enterprise Planning to TM1 - A Best Practices Case Study, Featuring Ryerson

4,603 views
4,395 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
3 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • #Cognos IBM Cognos 10 Tutorial Videos and Books Just $25.95 http://www.dbmanagement.info/Tutorials/Cognos.htm
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • IBM and Perficient have developed Planning to TM1 migration methods that do pull over existing modelling cubes and data mapping tables. Years ago it was more of a rewrite, but now it's more of a migration. The major difference in TM1 and Maxiplan/Jedox is that those applications are better suited to smaller organizations with far less complex planning models and data volume. TM1 is built for growth and will easily handle the planning and forecasting needs of a company from 50m-1B+ in rev.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • So is this really a migration or a complete, ground-up rebuild using TM1? My understanding was that because of the two completely different architectures, it is a rebuild.

    In that case, why bother with TM1 when there are far more cost-effective alternatives out there like Maxiplan and Jedox?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,603
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
136
Comments
3
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Migrating from Enterprise Planning to TM1 - A Best Practices Case Study, Featuring Ryerson

  1. 1. EP to TM1 Migration:A Case Study in Best Practices
  2. 2. AgendaConducting a Planning Process AssessmentSimilarities and Differences in Enterprise Planning (EP) and TM1Integration with IBM Cognos Business Intelligence (BI)Concepts in EP to TM1 Migration PracticesRyerson Migration Case Study
  3. 3. SpeakersDavid Shaw - Director Financial Planning & Analysis Ryerson CorporationStephen Nelson - Performance Management Practice Lead PerficientEarl Drake - Finance Performance Management Practice Director Perficient
  4. 4. About PerficientPerficient is a leading information technology consulting firm servingclients throughout North America.We help clients implement business-driven technology solutions thatintegrate business processes, improve worker productivity, increasecustomer loyalty and create a more agile enterprise to better respondto new business opportunities.
  5. 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. 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. 7. Conducting a Planning Process Assessment
  8. 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. 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. 10. HousekeepingMost 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. 11. Planning for PlanningBudget 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. 12. Some Final TipsGeneral 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. 13. Similarities and Differences in EP and TM1
  14. 14. Tool SimilaritiesBasic Tool Purpose • Planning and Forecasting Capabilities • Targeting Office of Finance • Replace Spreadsheets • Provide Consistency in Modeling and DataTool Structure • Multidimensional Cubes • Allow for answers to multiple Business Questions • Provide Consistent Structure for Planning and Basic AnalysisUser Interfaces (following slides) • Direct Input to Cubes • Excel Interface • Web-based Interface – allows for Workflow functionality
  15. 15. EP Screenshots
  16. 16. TM1 Screenshots
  17. 17. Tool DifferencesBack-End Structure • EP – File and Server based • TM1 – Memory basedCalculation Flexibility • EP – Calculations included in Dimension structure • TM1 – Calculations built as independent Rules filesModel Size Limitations • EP – 25 million cells in cube upper limit; 7 dimensions typical limit • TM1 – “Unlimited” size; 256 dimensions possibleModel Build/Implementation • EP – Built-In Functions provide standard calculations; GUI-based interfaces • TM1 – More technical during build; more flexibility for unique business rules
  18. 18. EP Tool Screenshot
  19. 19. TM1 Tool Screenshot
  20. 20. Integration with BI
  21. 21. Integration with BISimilarities • Both can be used as Data Sources within BI • Build Framework Model Packages off Output • Move Output to Data WarehouseDifferences • 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. 22. Concepts in EP to TM1 Migration Practices
  23. 23. Migration ConceptsQuick Fix • Straight “Migration” • Rebuild EP model in TM1 cube for cube • Helps from sizing perspective • May help from speed perspective • Same model; new toolBest 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. 24. Ryerson Migration Case Study
  25. 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 fittings4000+ 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. 26. Administration Improvements • One Location Hierarchy • Location name changes no longer an issue • No Publish process - time savingsData Improvements • More detailed reports • BI Reports fasterPlanning Model Improvements • Calculations do not have to exist in cube • Simplified inputting screens 26
  27. 27. Next Steps – Q&A Questions THANK YOU FOR ATTENDINGLEARN MORE ABOUT PERFICIENT @WWW.PERFICIENT.COMCONTACT US AT:T: 314-529-3600Emailsales@perficient.com 27

×