EP to TM1 Migration:A Case Study in Best Practices

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

Speakers

David Shaw - Director Financial Planning & AnalysisRyerson Corporation

Stephen Nelson - Performance Management Practice LeadPerficient

Earl Drake - Finance Performance Management Practice DirectorPerficient

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.

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

Perficient Positioning

Pro

ject

siz

e, B

read

th o

f E

xp

ert

ise

Depth of Expertise, Efficiency & Value, Client Importance

Key Differentiators

As compared to local boutiques:

– 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

– Collaborative, not take-over

– Better value

Conducting a Planning Process Assessment

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

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

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)

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

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

Similarities and Differences in EP and TM1

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

EP Screenshots

TM1 Screenshots

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

EP Tool Screenshot

TM1 Tool Screenshot

Integration with BI

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

Concepts in EP to TM1 Migration Practices

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

Ryerson Migration Case Study

25

Shanghai

Dongguan

Tianjin

KunshanSuzhou

Wuhan

Guangzhou

CHINACHINANORTH AMERICANORTH AMERICA

Corporate Headquarters

Regional Offices; China Corporate Office

Service Center / Processing Center

Ryerson Inc. is a Metal Distribution company located in 4 countriesFull 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

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

27

Questions

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING

LEARN MORE ABOUT PERFICIENT @WWW.PERFICIENT.COM

CONTACT US AT:T: 314-529-3600Emailsales@perficient.com

Next Steps – Q&A