ASUG Utilities Presentation

1. Americas' SAP Users' Group Key Findings when Upgrading CRM within Utilities

2. Co-Presenting Richard Uytdewilligen Gwinnett County - Project Manager Alisha Voutas Gwinnett County – Business Owner Michael Robinson Gwinnett County – Business Analyst Gwinnett County – Business Owner wCner

3. 30 miles NE of Atlanta – 800K Residents within 15 municipalities – regulated Implemented SAP CRM / R/3 in 2006 Using SAP’s Move In / Move Out functionality Call center 50 users handling 25K calls per month – AVG 3.36 C.H.&T.T. OK Implementation but had left a bad taste in their mouths Highly customized solutions – minimal use of SAP Standard Since then we have rolled out Online Bill Pay ($3M p/m– approx. 10%) Mobile Website (1K users p/m) HL of System Automation  Days outstanding reduced from 44 to 27 Integration to POS & Mobile Work Orders Went back to Standardization as much as possible Background

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

5. Impact to Processes ? ? 3 ways to Create Utilities Contracts

6. Contract Management – Benefits + Risks 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 Risks & Benefits of Contract Management

7. Our Decision Contract Management Overview of Considerations

8. Deep dive (3 Weeks) on our existing AS_IS processes Development of RFP with reference to previous RFPs 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

9. Usual Price – Fixed – based on Milestones Balance between Contractors & Permanent Staff Had built in Quality Gates into their plan Interview Resources during Vendor Selection G.C. Specific Control BASIS & Security Able to clearly explain why or why not to implement contract management and their methodology to implement that solution Understood our training ( Uperform ) & testing (Worksoft) solutions Thoroughness of thought process Vendor Selection – What we looked for

10. Resource constraint – multiple sites going live at same time; particularly those with Contract management Lack of clarity in understanding our issues Reporting Needs 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

11. SAP Solution Manager Going Beyond BASIS Solution Documentation Assistant SAP Ramp Up Client –EhP2 Manage expectations- late adopter SAP Development Team Develop custom filtering – due to separate implementations Custom Code Maintainability Check (C.C.M.C.) Reduced from 170 to 21 Continuous Quality Check during Going Live Support (C.Q.C.) Leveraging SAP Tools & Resources

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 Testing Tools - Worksoft

13. Slide 13 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 – SAP Note 1763180 - CRM-IU: no IS-U specific checks in contract management Curve Balls

14. Replication: Middleware vs. “Middle-scare” Detailed middleware testing (2 Mock Runs) Custom reconciliation reports (summary + details) Super User team involvement in resolving replication issues (ECRMREPL) Lessons Learned – Build Team Iterative Show & Tell Workshops Early User-adoption to CRM 7.0 Web Client environment Lower QA issues Knowledgeable user-community

15. Change Management is critical! Negativity is contagious Establish a Super User program and engage them through the entire process. 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. Address their concerns Ask them how you did Lessons Learned – Business Side “We were able to focus on the system because there were no customer calls to deal with; soft launch was good” “Dunning run delayed by 2 weeks till after go live, so we had a chance to get this right before dealing with customers” “ We were the first ones to interact with customers and there were no meltdowns like last time”

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 17 th 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. wner Questions? Alisha Voutas Gwinnett County – Business Owner [email protected] Michael Robinson Gwinnett County – Utilities consultant [email protected] Richard Uytdewilligen Gwinnett County – Project Manager [email protected]

19. Stay in Touch Join ASUG or Learn About Your Membership Benefits [email protected] Stay in the Know, Subscribe to ASUG Newsletters Visit asug.com /newsletters Visit ASUGNews.com for independent, unbiased, and customer-focused coverage of SAP. TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ASUG365 FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/ASUG365 LINKEDIN: http://www.linkedIn.com/groups/Americas-SAP-Users-Group-ASUG-112172/about