Implementation Methodology for EP

Hi Experts,
Is there a standard Implementation methodology / document templates for EP Implementation?
Is there some Solution Manager Guidelines for a SAP EP Implementation?
Regards,
Shobhit

Hi,
Refer this blog
Enterprise Portal Implementation Forum
Enterprise Portal Implementation Forum
Beginning EP Development
Installing and configuring the preview edition of EP
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/db1dad90-0201-0010-3f88-8f10270639b5
http://www.i-barile.it/SDN/DevelopingPortalContentUsingTheSAPEnterprisePortal6.pdf
Regards,
Senthil K.

Similar Messages

Implementation methodology for medium sized clients

Hi Friends
I know there is ASAP methodology for Implementations(BW) which takes lot of time to go thru each and every step for which the medium sized clients cant afford(money).
Can anyone comeout with a new customized implemetation methodology for medium sized clients which will be of great helpful....
Points will surely be awarded

Hi Hari,
Here is the start. If you're asking for a customized implementation, specifically BW, you could probably draw some conclusions from the implementations that you have been through. For something that is not a "cookie-cutter" implementation from company to company, one thing to think about is:
Use people close to the business that can help you clarify their needs.
Instead of only using a system development lifecycle (SDLC) approach to getting the requirements, meet with the business users once a month and demo what you have built. In the beginning it might just be demo of standard content, but after a while you can solicit feedback on layout and design that will assure a system that is more aligned with the users needs. It also provides the users with a great way to interact with your team. BW projects should not be dark horses where requirements goes in one end and a solution emerges a few months later they may, or may not, meet the requirements. We do not build data warehouses; we are doing data warehousing (an active and interactive process).
Best of Luck

Implementation methodology and time frame for EHS implementation

Hi Gurus
Can you please share what implementation methodology we follow in EHS implementation?
Is it the same ASAP methodology or any new?
What is the average time frame for EHS implementation if we do it in one phase & time requirement for each component like product safety or waste mgt?
Thanks in advance

Hi Bhupesh,
i can suggest you to try with following links, found useful several times ....
[http://help.sap.com/saphelp_47x200/helpdata/en/a7/2879200a6c11d28a220000e829fbbd/frameset.htm]
[http://help.sap.com/saphelp_ehs27b/helpdata/en/A5/3ADD4643BE11D188FE0000E8322F96/frameset.htm]
[https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/articles-90days?prtmode=print&startindex=181]
regards,
mahesh

Implementation Methodology adopted for R12

Dear all,
For those that i have upgraded there Oracle application to R12, I want to know the implementation methodologies that Oracle adopted in upgrading to R12. Is it still the known Application Implementation Methodology?

Hi,
Refer this blog
Enterprise Portal Implementation Forum
Enterprise Portal Implementation Forum
Beginning EP Development
Installing and configuring the preview edition of EP
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/db1dad90-0201-0010-3f88-8f10270639b5
http://www.i-barile.it/SDN/DevelopingPortalContentUsingTheSAPEnterprisePortal6.pdf
Regards,
Senthil K.

XI Implementation Methodology

Could some one guide me with XI Implementation Methodology Worksheet
Please note I have visited the following two areas, so please avoid them
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/86bdc490-0201-0010-b9a2-b98373ea4dc4
/people/michal.krawczyk2/blog/2005/04/09/xi--saps-document-templates

Hi Jenni,
Implementation ..
1.Project Preparation and 2. Business Blueprint are the key responsible for Architect and Team Leads.Here they prepares the complete technical documentationsfor all the interfaces depending upon the requirements of the client.
In realizaiton he will develop all the interfaces. Once you develop you will move all the objects to QA and then in prod.
If there are any changes you will make in dev and move once again in QA and prod in Final preparation.
During Go live and support you will monitor all theinterfaces. If they have any issues you will resolve them.
For documentation about XI interfaces see the below link
/people/krishna.moorthyp/blog/2006/07/29/documentation-html-editor-in-xi
Check this link given below...
http://service.sap.com/asap -> ASAP Implementation Roadmap for SAP Exchange Infrastructure
Hope it helps..
Kumar.S

Development Methodology for MI

Hi,
Can anyone have Implementation Methodology document for Mobile Infrastructure or any informaion where I will get the document?
Thanks & Regards
Nileshwar.

hello nileshwar,
there are steps and recommendations regarding MI application
development on <a href="http://media.sdn.sap.com/public/html/submitted_docs/MI/MDK_2.5/index.htm">Mobile Development Kit</a>.
for MI implemenation you can refer to <a href="http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/bb/b670bbaa991845924982155b7c3726/content.htm">Configuration of SAP Mobile Infrastructure</a>
in the NW04 help document.
regards
jo

SAP Banking Implementation methodology

Hi guys
I am looking for some information in details on SAP banking implementation methodology. haven't succedded as yet.
Please let me know the the website or the link from where i can get these information.

Hi Rajesh !
Also have a look on these Presentations
Shift to Real-time Bank Deposit Processing with Accenture and SAP
http://www.sap.com/industries/banking/pdf/BWP_Real_Time_Dep_Proc.pdf
GRC Access Control Access Risk Management Guide
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/0043a8ab-bdae-2910-d8bc-cf4abd4d6bed
B2B Integration with SAP Exchange Infrastructure
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/4f58802d-0a01-0010-e58b-d135f1b01dc5
Business Process Management
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/cdbaaf90-0201-0010-ffa6-aa29ceb9151e
SAPS RELEASE STRATEGY
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/790e690c-0901-0010-7894-de8b3d91d78e
Thanks !!
Regards
Abhishek Agrahari

SAP R/3 implementation methodologies

Hi,
Can any one send me SAP R/3 implementation methodologies Documents and links.
Thanks & Regards,
Ram

hi,
1
SAP R/3 Implementation
at Geneva Pharmaceuticals1
Company Background
Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., one of the worlds largest generic drug manufacturers, is the North
American hub for the Generics division of Swiss pharmaceutical and life sciences company Novartis
International AG. Originally founded by Detroit pharmacist Stanley Tutag in 1946, Geneva moved
its headquarters to Broomfield, Colorado in 1974. The company was subsequently acquired by Ciba
Corporation in 1979, which in 1996, merged with Sandoz Ltd. in the largest ever healthcare merger to
form Novartis. Alex Krauer, Chairman of Novartis and former Chairman and CEO of Ciba,
commented on the strengths of the merger:
Strategically, the new company moves into a worldwide leadership position in life
sciences. Novartis holds the number two position in pharmaceuticals,
number one in crop protection, and has tremendous development potential in
nutrition.
The name Novartis comes from the Latin term novae artes or new arts, which eloquently captures
the companys corporate vision: to develop new skills in the science of life. Novartis inherited,
from its parent companies, a 200-year heritage of serving consumers in three core business segments:
healthcare, agribusiness, and nutrition. Business units organized under these divisions are listed in
Exhibit 1. Today, the Basel (Switzerland) based life sciences company employs 82,500 employees
worldwide, runs 275 affiliate operations in 142 countries, and generates annual revenues of 32 billion
Swiss Francs. Novartis key financial data for the last five years (1994-98) are presented in Exhibit 2.
The companys American Depository Receipts trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol NVTSY.
Novartis global leadership in branded pharmaceuticals is complemented by its generic drugs
division, Novartis Generics. This division is headquartered in Kundl (Austria), and its U.S.
operations are managed by Geneva Pharmaceuticals. In 1998, Geneva had revenues of $300 million,
employed nearly 1000 employees, and manufactured over 4.6 billion dosage units of generic drugs.
1 This freeware case was written by Dr. Anol Bhattacherjee to serve as a basis for class discussion rather than
to demonstrate the effective or ineffective handling of an administrative or business situation. The author is
grateful to Randy Weldon, CIO of Geneva Pharmaceuticals, and his coworkers for their unfailing help
throughout the course of this project. This case can be downloaded and distributed free of charge for non-profit
or academic use, provided the contents are unchanged and this copyright notice is clearly displayed. No part of
this case can be used by for-profit organizations without the express written consent of the author. This case
also cannot be archived on any web site that requires payment for access. Copyright © 1999 by Anol
Bhattacherjee. All rights reserved.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 2
Geneva portfolio currently includes over 200 products in over 500 package sizes, covering a wide
range of therapeutic categories, such as nervous system disorders, cardio-vascular therapies, and
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Its major products include ranitidine, atenolol, diclofenac
sodium, ercaf, metoprolol tartrate, triamterene with hydrochlorothiazide, and trifluoperazine.
Genevas business and product information can be obtained from the company web site at
www.genevaRx.com.
Generic drugs are pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent versions of brand name drugs with
established safety and efficacy. For instance, acetaminophen is the equivalent of the registered brand
name drug Tylenolâ, aspirin is equivalent of Ecotrinâ, and ranitidine HCl is equivalent of Zantacâ.
This equivalence is tested and certified within the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
following successful completion of a bioequivalence study, in which the blood plasma levels of the
active generic drug in healthy people are compared with that of the corresponding branded drug.
Genevas business strategy has emphasized growth in two ways: (1) focused growth over a select
range of product types, and (2) growth via acquisitions. Internal growth was 14 percent in 1998,
primarily due to vigorous growth in the penicillin and cephalosporin businesses. In pursuit of further
growth, Geneva spend $52 million in 1997 to upgrade its annual manufacturing capacity to its current
capacity of 6 billion units, and another $23 million in 1998 in clinical trials and new product
development.
Industry and Competitive Position
The generic drug manufacturing industry is fragmented and highly competitive. In 1998, Geneva was
the fifth largest player in this industry, up from its eighth rank in 1997 but still below its second rank
in 1996. The companys prime competitors fall into three broad categories: (1) generic drugs
divisions of major branded drug companies (e.g., Warrick a division of Schering-Plough and
Apothecon a division of Bristol Myers Squibb), (2) independent generic drug manufacturers (e.g.,
Mylan, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Barr Laboratories, and Watson Pharmaceuticals), and (3) drug
distributors vertically integrating into generics manufacturing (e.g., AndRx). The industry also has
about 200 smaller players specializing in the manufacture of niche generic products. While Geneva
benefited from the financial strength of Novartis, independent companies typically used public stock
markets for funding their growth strategies.
In 1998, about 45 percent of prescriptions for medications in the U.S. were filled with generics. The
trend toward generics can be attributed to the growth of managed care providers such as health
maintenance organizations (HMO), who generally prefer lower cost generic drugs to more expensive
brand name alternatives (generic drugs typically cost 30-50 less than equivalent brands). However,
no single generics manufacturer has benefited from this trend, because distributors and pharmacies
view generic products from different manufacturers as identical substitutes and tend to
autosubstitute or freely replace generics from one company with those from another based on
product availability and pricing at that time. Once substituted, it is very difficult to regain that
customer account because pharmacies are disinclined to change product brand, color, and packaging,
to avoid confusion among consumers. In addition, consumer trust toward generics has remained
lower, following a generic drug scandal in the early 1990s (of which Geneva was not a part).
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 3
Margins in the generics sector has therefore remained extremely low, and there is a continuous
pressure on Geneva and its competitors to reduce costs of operations.
Opportunities for international growth are limited because of two reasons. First, consumers in some
countries such as Mexico are generally skeptical about the lack of branding because of their cultural
background. Second, U.S. generics manufacturers are often undercut by competitors from India and
China, where abundance of low-cost labor and less restrictive regulatory requirements (e.g., FDA
approval) makes drug manufacturing even less expensive.
Continuous price pressures has resulted in a number of recent industry mergers and acquisitions in the
generic drugs sector in recent years, as the acquirers seek economies of scale as a means of reducing
costs. The search for higher margins has also led some generics companies to venture into the
branded drugs sector, providing clinical trials, research and development, and additional
manufacturing capacity for branded drugs on an outsourced basis.
Major Business Processes
Genevas primary business processes are manufacturing and distribution. The companys
manufacturing operations are performed at a 600,000 square foot facility in Broomfield (Colorado),
while its two large distribution centers are located in Broomfield and Knoxville (Tennessee).
Genevas manufacturing process is scientific, controlled, and highly precise. A long and rigorous
FDA approval process is required prior to commercial production of any drug, whereby the exact
formulation of the drug or its recipe is documented. Raw materials are sourced from suppliers
(sometimes from foreign countries such as China), tested for quality (per FDA requirements),
weighed (based on dosage requirements), granulated (i.e., mixed, wetted, dried, milled to specific
particle sizes, and blended to assure content uniformity), and compressed into a tablet or poured into a
gelatinous capsule. Some products require additional coatings to help in digestion, stabilizing,
regulating the release of active ingredients in the human body, or simply to improve taste. Tablets or
capsules are then imprinted with the Geneva logo and a product identification number. Following a
final inspection, the medications are packaged in childproof bottles with a distinctive Geneva label, or
inserted into unit-dose blister packs for shipment.
Manufacturing is done in batches, however, the same batch can be split into multiple product types
such as tablets and capsules, or tablets of different dosages (e.g., 50 mg and 100 mg). Likewise,
finished goods from a batch can be packaged in different types of bottles, based on customer needs.
These variations add several layers of complexity to the standard manufacturing process and requires
tracking of three types of inventory: raw materials, bulk materials, and finished goods, where bulk
materials represent the intermediate stage prior to packaging. In some cases, additional intermediates
such as coating solution is also tracked. Master production scheduling is focused on the manufacture
of bulk materials, based on forecasted demand and replenishment of safety stocks at the two
distribution centers. Finished goods production depends on the schedule-to-performance, plus
availability of packaging materials (bottles and blister packs), which are sourced from outside
vendors.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 4
Bulk materials and finished goods are warehoused in Broomfield and Knoxville distribution centers
(DC) prior to shipping. Since all manufacturing is done was done at Broomfield, inventory
replenishment of manufactured products is done first at Broomfield and then at Knoxville. To meet
additional customer demand, Geneva also purchases finished goods from smaller manufacturers, who
manufacture and package generic drugs under Genevas level. Since most of these outsourcers are
located along the east coast, and hence, they are distributed first to the Knoxville and then to
Broomfield. Purchasing is simpler than manufacturing because it requires no bill of materials, no
bulk materials management, and no master scheduling; Geneva simply converts planned orders to
purchase requisitions, and then to purchase orders, that are invoiced upon delivery. However, the
dual role of manufacturing and purchasing is a difficult balancing task, as explained by Joe Camargo,
Director of Purchasing and Procurement:
Often times, we are dealing with more than a few decision variables. We have to
look at our forecasts, safety stocks, inventory on hand, and generate a replenishment
plan. Now we dont want to stock too much of a finished good inventory because that
will drive up our inventory holding costs. We tend to be a little more generous on the
raw materials side, since they are less costly than finished goods and have longer
shop lives. We also have to factor in packaging considerations, since we have a
pretty short lead time on packaging materials, and capacity planning, to make sure
that we are making efficient use of our available capacity. The entire process is
partly automated and partly manual, and often times we are using our own
experience and intuition as much as hard data to make a good business decision.
Geneva supplies to a total of about 250 customers, including distributors (e.g., McKesson, Cardinal,
Bergen), drugstore chains (e.g., Walgreen, Rite-Aid), grocery chains with in-store pharmacies (e.g.,
Safeway, Kroger), mail order pharmacies (e.g., Medco, Walgreen), HMOs (e.g., Pacificare, Cigna),
hospitals (e.g., Columbia, St. Lukes), independent retail pharmacies, and governmental agencies
(e.g., U.S. Army, Veterans Administration, Federal prisons). About 70 percent of Genevas sales
goes to distributors, another 20 percent goes to drugstore chains, while HMOs, government, retail
pharmacies, and others account for the remaining 10 percent. Distributors purchase generic drugs
wholesale from Geneva, and then resell them to retail and mail order pharmacies, who are sometimes
direct customers of Geneva. The volume and dollar amount of transaction vary greatly from one
customer to another, and while distributors are sometimes allow Geneva some lead time to fulfill in a
large order, retail pharmacies typically are unwilling to make that concession.
One emerging potential customer segment is Internet-based drug retailers such as Drugstore.com and
PlanetRx.com. These online drugstores do not maintain any inventory of their own, but instead
accept customer orders and pass on those orders to any wholesaler or manufacturer that can fill those
orders in short notice. These small, customized, and unpredictable orders do not fit well with
Genevas wholesale, high-volume production strategy, and hence, the company has decided against
direct retailing to consumers via mail order or the Internet, at least for the near future.
As is standard in the generics industry, Geneva uses a complex incentive system consisting of
rebates and chargebacks to entice distributors and pharmacies to buy its products. Each drug is
assigned a published industry price by industry associations, but Geneva rebates that price to
distributors on their sales contracts. For instance, if the published price is $10, and the rebates
assigned to a distributor is $3, then the contract price on that drug is $7. Rebate amounts are
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 5
determined by the sales management based on negotiations with customers. Often times, customers
get proposals to buy the product cheaper from a different manufacturer and ask Geneva for a
corresponding discount. Depending on how badly Geneva wants that particular customer or push that
product, it may offer a rebate or increase an existing rebate. Rebates can vary from one product to
another (for the same customer) and/or from one order volume to another (for the same product).
Likewise, pharmacies ordering Genevas products are paid back a fraction of the sales proceeds as
chargebacks.
The majority of Genevas orders come through EDI. These orders are passed though multiple filters
in an automated order processing system to check if the customer has an active customer number and
sufficient credit, if the item ordered is correct and available in inventory. Customers are then
assigned to either the Broomfield or Knoxville DC based on quantity ordered, delivery expiration
dates, and whether the customer would accept split lots. If the quantity ordered is not available at the
primary DC (say, Knoxville), a second allocation is made to the secondary DC (Broomfield, in this
case). If the order cannot be filled immediately, a backorder will be generated and the Broomfield
manufacturing unit informed of the same. Once filled, the distribution unit will print the order and
ship it to the customer, and send order information to accounts receivable for invoicing. The overall
effectiveness of the fulfillment process is measured by two customer service metrics: (1) the ratio
between the number of lines on the order that can be filled immediately (partial fills allowed) to the
total number of lines ordered by the customer (called firstfill), and (2) the percentage of items send
from the primary DC. Fill patterns are important because customers typically prefer to get all items
ordered in one shipment.
Matching customer demand to production schedules is often difficult because of speculative buying
on the part of customers. Prices of drugs are typically reassessed at the start of every fiscal year, and
a distributor may place a very large order at the end of the previous year to escape a potential price
increase at the start of the next year (these products would then be stockpiled for reselling at higher
prices next year). Likewise, a distributor may place a large order at the end of its financial year to
transfer cash-on-hand to cost-of-goods-sold, for tax purposes or to ward off a potential acquisition
threat. Unfortunately, most generics companies do not have the built-in capacity to deliver such
orders within short time frames, yet inability to fulfill orders may lead to the loss of an important
customer. Safety stocks help meet some of these unforeseen demands, however maintaining such
inventory consumes operating resources and reduce margins further.
SAP R/3 Implementation
Up until 1996, Genevas information systems (IS) consisted of a wide array of software programs for
running procurement, manufacturing, accounting, sales, and other mission-critical processes. The
primary hardware platform was IBM AS/400, running multiple operational databases (mostly DB/2)
and connected to desktop microcomputers via a token-ring local area network (LAN). Each business
unit had deployed applications in an ad hoc manner to meet its immediate needs, which were
incompatible across business units. For instance, the manufacturing unit (e.g., materials requirements
planning) utilized a manufacturing application called MacPac, financial accounting used
Software/2000, and planning/budgeting used FYI-Planner. These systems were not interoperable,
and data that were shared across systems (e.g., accounts receivable data was used by order
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 6
management and financial accounting packages, customer demand was used in both sales and
manufacturing systems) had to be double-booked and rekeyed manually. This led to higher incidence
of data entry errors, higher costs of error processing, and greater data inconsistency. Further, data
was locked within functional silos and were unable to support processes that cut across multiple
business units (e.g., end-to-end supply chain management). It was apparent that a common,
integrated company-wide solution would not only improve data consistency and accuracy, but also
reduce system maintenance costs (e.g., data reentry and error correction) and enable implementation
of new value-added processes across business units.
In view of these limitations, in 1996, corporate management at Geneva initiated a search for
technology solutions that could streamline its internal processes, lower costs of operations, and
strategically position the company to take advantage of new value-added processes. More
specifically, it wanted an enterprise resource planning (ERP) software that could: (1) implement best
practices in business processes, (2) provide operational efficiency by integrating data across business
units, (3) reduce errors due to incorrect keying or rekeying of data, (4) reduce system maintenance
costs by standardizing business data, (5) be flexible enough to integrate with new systems (as more
companies are acquired), (6) support growth in product and customer categories, and (7) is Y2K (year
2000) compliant. The worldwide divisions of Novartis were considering two ERP packages at that
time: BPCS from Software Systems Associates and R/3 system from SAP. Eventually, branded drug
divisions decided to standardize their data processing environment using BPCS, and generics agreed
on deploying R/3.2 A brief description of the R/3 software is provided in the appendix.
R/3 implementation at Geneva was planned in three phases (see Exhibit 3). Phase I focused on the
supply side processes (e.g., manufacturing requirements planning, procurement planning), Phase II
was concerned with demand side processes (e.g., order management, customer service), and the final
phase was aimed at integrating supply side and demand side processes (e.g., supply chain
management). Randy Weldon, Genevas Chief Information Officer, outlined the goals of each phase
as:
In Phase I, we were trying to get better performance-to-master production schedule
and maybe reduce our cost of operations. Our Phase II goals are to improve sales
and operations planning, and as a result, reduce back orders and improve customer
service. In Phase III, we hope to provide end-to-end supply chain integration, so that
we can dynamically alter our production schedules to fluctuating demands from our
customers.
For each phase, specific R/3 modules were identified for implementation. These modules along with
implementation timelines are listed in Exhibit 3. The three phases are described in detail next.
2 However, each generics subsidiary had its own SAP R/3 implementation, and therefore data sharing across
these divisions remained problematic.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 7
Phase I: Supply Side Processes
The first phase of R/3 implementation started on November 1, 1997 with the goal of migrating all
supply-side processes, such as purchasing management, capacity planning, master scheduling,
inventory management, quality control, and accounts payable from diverse hardware/software
platforms to a unified R/3 environment. These supply processes were previously very manual and
labor intensive. A Macpac package running on an IBM AS/400 machine was used to control shop
floor operations, prepare master schedules, and perform maintenance management. However, the
system did not have simulation capability to run alternate production plans against the master
schedule, and was therefore not used for estimation. The system also did not support a formal process
for distribution resource planning (DRP), instead generated a simple replenishment schedule based on
predefined economic order quantities. Materials requirements planning (MRP) was only partially
supported in that the system generated production requirements and master schedule but did not
support planned orders (e.g., generating planned orders, checking items in planned orders against the
inventory or production plan, converting planned orders to purchase orders or manufacturing orders).
Consequently, entering planned orders, checking for errors, and performing order conversion were all
entered manually, item by item, by different sales personnel (which left room for rekeying error).
Macpac did have a capacity resource planning (CRP) functionality, but this feature was not used since
it required heavy custom programming and major enhancements to master data. The system had
already been so heavily customized over the years, that even a routine system upgrade was considered
too unwieldy and expensive. Most importantly, the existing system did not position Geneva well for
the future, since it failed to accommodate consigned inventory, vendor-managed inventory, paperless
purchasing, and other innovations in purchasing and procurement that Geneva wanted to implement.
The objectives of Phase I were therefore to migrate existing processes from Macpac to R/3, automate
supply side process not supported by MacPac, and integrate all supply-side data in a single, real-time
database so that the synergies could be exploited across manufacturing and purchasing processes.
System integration was also expected to reduce inventory and production costs, improve
performance-to-master scheduling, and help managers make more optimal manufacturing and
purchase decisions. Since R/3 would force all data to be entered only once (at source by the
appropriate shop floor personnel), the need of data reentry would be eliminated, and hence costs of
data reconciliation would be reduced. The processes to be migrated from MacPac (e.g., MRP,
procurement) were fairly standardized and efficient, and were hence not targeted for redesign or
enhancement. Three SAP modules were scheduled for deployment: materials management (MM),
production planning (PP), and accounts payable component of financial accounting (FI). Exhibit A-1
in Appendix provides brief descriptions of these and other commonly referenced R/3 modules.
Phase I of R/3 implementation employed about ten IS personnel, ten full-time users, and ten part-time
users from business units within Geneva. Whitman-Hart, a consulting company with prior experience
in R/3 implementation, was contracted to assist with the migration effort. These external consultants
consisted of one R/3 basis person (for implementing the technical core of the R/3 engine), three R/3
configurators (for mapping R/3 configuration tables in MM, PP, and FI modules to Genevas needs),
and two ABAP programmers (for custom coding unique requirements not supported by SAP). These
consultants brought in valuable implementation experience, which was absolutely vital, given that
Geneva had no in-house expertise in R/3 at that time. Verne Evans, Director of Supply Chain
Management and a super user of MacPac, was assigned the project manager for this phase. SAPs
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 8
rapid implementation methodology called Accelerated SAP (ASAP) was selected for deployment,
because it promised a short implementation cycle of only six months.3
Four months later, Geneva found that little progress had been made in the implementation process
despite substantial investments on hardware, software, and consultants. System requirements were
not defined correctly or in adequate detail, there was little communication or coordination of activities
among consultants, IS personnel, and user groups, and the project manager was unable to identify or
resolve problems because he had no prior R/3 experience. In the words of a senior manager, The
implementation was clearly spinning out of control. Consultants employed by Whitman-Hart were
technical specialists, and had little knowledge of the business domain. The ASAP methodology
seemed to be failing, because although it allowed a quick canned implementation, it was not flexible
enough to meet Genevas extensive customization needs, did not support process improvements, and
alienated functional user groups from system implementation. To get the project back into track and
give it leadership and direction, in February 1998, Geneva hired Randy Weldon as its new CIO.
Weldon brought in valuable project management experience in R/3 from his previous employer,
StorageTek.4
From his prior R/3 experience, Weldon knew that ERP was fundamentally about people and process
change, rather than about installing and configuring systems, and that successful implementation
would require the commitment and collaboration of all three stakeholder groups: functional users, IS
staff, and consultants. He instituted a new project management team, consisting of one IS manager,
one functional manager, and one senior R/3 consultant. Because Genevas internal IS department had
no R/3 implementation experience, a new team of R/3 professionals (including R/3 basis personnel
and Oracle database administrators) was recruited. Anna Bourgeois, with over three years of R/3
experience at Compaq Computers, was brought in to lead Genevas internal IS team. Weldon was not
particularly in favor of Whitman-Hart or the ASAP methodology. However, for project expediency,
he decided to continue with Whitman-Hart and ASAP for Phase 1, and explore other options for
subsequent phases.
By February 1999, the raw materials and manufacturing component of R/3s MM module was up
and running. But this module was not yet integrated with distribution (Phase II) and therefore did
not have the capability to readjust production runs based on current sales data. However, several
business metrics such as yield losses and key performance indicators showed performance
improvement following R/3 implementation. For instance, the number of planning activities
performed by a single individual was doubled. Job roles were streamlined, standardized, and
consolidated, so that the same person could perform more value-added activities. Since R/3
eliminated the need for data rekeying and validating, the portion of the inventory control unit that
dealt with data entry and error checking was disbanded and these employees were taught new skills
for reassignment to other purchasing and procurement processes. But R/3 also had its share of
disappointments, as explained by Camargo:
3 ASAP is SAPs rapid implementation methodology that provides implementers a detailed roadmap of the
implementation life cycle, grouped into five phases: project preparation, business blueprint, realization, final
preparation, and go live. ASAP provides a detailed listing of activities to be performed in each phase,
checklists, predefined templates (e.g., business processes, cutover plans), project management tools,
questionnaires (e.g., to define business process requirements), and a Question & Answer Database
4 StorageTek is a leading manufacturer of magnetic tape and disk components also based in Colorado.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 9
Ironically, one of the problems we have with SAP, that we did not have with
Macpac, is for the job to carry the original due date and the current due date, and
measure production completion against the original due date. SAP only allows us to
capture one due date, and if we change the date to reflect our current due date, that
throws our entire planning process into disarray. To measure how we are filling
orders, we have to do that manually, offline, on a spreadsheet. And we cant record
that data either in SAP to measure performance improvements over time.
Bourgeois summed up the implementation process as:
Phase I, in my opinion, was not done in the most effective way. It was done as
quickly as possible, but we did not modify the software, did not change the process,
or did not write any custom report. Looking back, we should have done things
differently. But we had some problems with the consultants, and by the time I came
in, it was a little too late to really make a change. But we learned from these
mistakes, and we hope to do a better job with Phases II and III.
Phase II: Demand Side Processes
Beginning around October 1998, the goals of the second phase were to redesign demand-side
processes such as marketing, order fulfillment, customer sales and service, and accounts receivable,
and then implement the reengineered processes using R/3. Geneva was undergoing major business
transformations especially in the areas of customer sales and service, and previous systems (Macpac,
FYI Planner, etc.) were unable to accommodate these changes. For instance, in 1998, Geneva started
a customer-based forecasting process for key customer accounts. It was expected that a better
prediction of order patterns from major customers would help the company improve its master
scheduling, while reducing safety stock and missed orders. The prior forecasting software, FYI
Planner, did not allow forecasting on a customer-by-customer basis. Besides, demand-side processes
suffered from similar lack of data integration and real-time access as supply side processes, and R/3
implementation, by virtue of its real-time integration of all operational data would help manage crossfunctional
processes better. Mark Mecca, Director of Customer Partnering, observed:
Before SAP, much of our customer sales and service were managed in batch mode
using MacPac. EDI orders came in once a night, chargebacks came in once a day,
invoicing is done overnight, shipments got posted once a day; so you dont know
what you shipped for the day until that data was entered the following day. SAP will
allow us to have access to real-time data across the enterprise. There will be
complete integration with accounting, so we will get accurate accounts receivable
data at the time a customer initiates a sales transaction. Sometime in the future,
hopefully, we will have enough integration with our manufacturing processes so that
we can look at our manufacturing schedule and promise a customer exactly when we
can fill his order.
However, the second phase was much more challenging than the first phase, given the non-standard
and inherently complex nature of Genevas sales and service processes. For instance, customer rebate
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 10
percentages varied across customers, customer-product combinations, and customer-product-order
volume combinations. Additionally, the same customer sometimes had multiple accounts with
Geneva and had a different rebate percentage negotiated for each account.
Bourgeois was assigned overall responsibility of the project, by virtue of her extensive knowledge of
EDI, R/3 interface conversion, and sales and distribution processes, and ability to serve as a technical
liaison between application and basis personnel. Whitman-Hart was replaced with a new consulting
firm, Arthur Andersen Business Consulting, to assist Geneva with the second and third phases of R/3
implementation. Oliver White, a consulting firm specializing in operational processes for
manufacturing firms, was also hired to help redesign existing sales and distribution processes using
best practices, prior to R/3 implementation. Weldon explained the reason for hiring two consulting
groups:
Arthur Anderson was very knowledgeable in the technical and configurational
aspects of SAP implementation, but Oliver White was the process guru. Unlike
Phase I, we were clearly targeting process redesign and enhancement in Phases II
and III, and Oliver White brought in best practices by virtue of their extensive
experience with process changes in manufacturing organizations. Since Phase I was
somewhat of a disaster, we wanted to make sure that we did everything right in
Phases II and III and not skimp on resources.
Technical implementation in Phase II proceeded in three stages: conceptual design, conference room
pilot, and change management. In the conceptual design stage, key users most knowledgeable with
the existing process were identified, assembled in a room, and interviewed, with assistance from
Oliver White consultants. Process diagrams were constructed on post-it notes and stuck to the
walls of a conference room for others to view, critique, and suggest modifications. The scope and
boundaries of existing processes, inputs and deliverables of each process, system interfaces, extent of
process customization, and required level of system flexibility were analyzed. An iterative process
was employed to identify and eliminate activities that did not add value, and generate alternative
process flows. The goal was to map the baseline or existing (AS-IS) processes, identify bottlenecks
and problem areas, and thereby, to create reengineered (TO-BE) processes. This information
became the basis for subsequent configuration of the R/3 system in the conference room pilot stage.
A core team of 20 IS personnel, users, and consultants worked full-time on conceptual design for 2.5
months (this team later expanded to 35 members in the conference room pilot stage). Another 30
users were involved part-time in this effort; these individuals were brought in for focused periods of
time (between 4 and 14 hours) to discuss, clarify, and agree on complex distribution-related issues.
The core team was divided into five groups to examine different aspects of the distribution process:
(1) product and business planning, (2) preorder (pricing, chargebacks, rebates, contracts, etc.), (3)
order processing, (4) fulfillment (shipping, delivery confirmation, etc.), and (5) post-order (accounts
receivable, credit management, customer service, etc.). Thirteen different improvement areas were
identified, of which four key areas emerged repeatedly from cross-functional analysis by the five
groups and were targeted for improvement: product destruction, customer dispute resolution, pricing
strategy, and service level. Elaborate models were constructed (via fish bone approach) for each of
these four areas to identify what factors drove these areas, what was the source of problems in these
areas, and how could they be improved using policy initiatives.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 11
The conceptual design results were used to configure and test prototype R/3 systems for each of the
four key improvement areas in the conference room pilot stage. The purpose of the prototypes was to
test and refine different aspects of the redesigned processes such as forecast planning, contract
pricing, chargeback strategy determination, receivables creation, pre-transaction credit checking,
basic reporting, and so forth in a simulated environment. The prototypes were modified several times
based on user feedback, and the final versions were targeted for rollout using the ASAP methodology.
In the change management stage, five training rooms were equipped with computers running the
client version of the R/3 software to train users on the redesigned processes and the new R/3
environment. An advisory committee was formed to oversee and coordinate the change management
process. Reporting directly to the senior vice president level, this committee was given the mandate
and resources to plan and implement any change strategies that they would consider beneficial. A
change management professional and several trainers were brought in to assist with this effort.
Multiple brown bag luncheons were organized to plan out the course of change and discuss what
change strategies would be least disruptive. Super users and functional managers, who had the
organizational position to influence the behaviors of colleagues or subordinates in their respective
units, were identified and targeted as potential change agents. The idea was to seed individual
business units with change agents they could trust and relate to, in an effort to drive a grassroots
program for change.
To stimulate employee awareness, prior to actual training, signs were put up throughout the company
that said, Do you know that your job is changing? Company newsletters were used to enhance
project visibility and to address employee questions or concerns about the impending change. A
separate telephone line was created for employees to call anytime and inquire about the project and
how their jobs would be affected. The human resources unit conducted an employee survey to
understand how employees viewed the R/3 implementation and gauge their receptivity to changes in
job roles as a result of this implementation.
Training proceeded full-time for three weeks. Each user received an average of 3-5 days of training
on process and system aspects. Training was hands-on, team-oriented, and continuously mentored,
and was oriented around employees job roles such as how to process customer orders, how to move
inventory around, and how to make general ledger entries, rather than how to use the R/3 system.
Weldon described the rationale for this unique, non-traditional mode of training:
Traditional system training does not work very well for SAP implementation
because this is not only a technology change but also a change in work process,
culture, and habits, and these are very difficult things to change. You are talking
about changing attitudes and job roles that have been ingrained in employees minds
for years and in some cases, decades. System training will overwhelm less
sophisticated users and they will think, O my God, I have no clue what this computer
thing is all about, I dont know what to do if the screen freezes, I dont know how to
handle exceptions, Im sure to fail. Training should not focus on how they should
use the system, but on how they should do their own job using the system. In our
case, it was a regular on-the-job training rather than a system training, and
employees approached it as something that would help them do their job better.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 12
Several startling revelations were uncovered during the training process. First, there was a
considerable degree of confusion among employees on what their exact job responsibilities were,
even in the pre-R/3 era. Some training resources had to be expended in reconciling these differences,
and to eliminate ambiguity about their post-implementation roles. Second, Genevas departments
were very much functionally oriented and wanted the highest level of efficiency from their
department, sometimes to the detriment of other departments or the overall process. This has been a
sticky cultural problem, and at the time of the case, the advisory committee was working with senior
management to see if any structural changes could be initiated within the company to affect a mindset
change. Third, Geneva realized that change must also be initiated on the customer side, so that
customers are aware of the systems benefits and are able to use it appropriately. In the interest of
project completion, customer education programs were postponed until the completion of Phase III of
R/3 implementation.
The primary business metric tracked for Phase II implementation was customer service level, while
other metrics included days of inventory on hand, dollar amount in disputes, dollar amount destroyed,
and so forth. Customer service was assessed by Genevas customers as: (1) whether the item ordered
was in stock, (2) whether Geneva was able to fill the entire order in one shipment, and (3) if
backordered, whether the backorder delivered on time. With a customer service levels in the 80s,
Geneva has lagged its industry competitors (mostly in the mid 90s), but has set an aggressive goal to
exceed 99.5 percent service level by year-end 1999. Camargo observed that there was some decrease
in customer service, but this decrease was not due to R/3 implementation but because Geneva faced
an impending capacity shortfall and the planners did not foresee the shortfall quickly enough to
implement contingency plans. Camargo expected that such problems would be alleviated as
performance-to-schedule and demand forecasting improved as a result of R/3 implementation. Given
that Phase II implementation is still underway at the time of the case (go live date is February 1,
2000), it is still too early to assess whether these targets are reached.
Phase 3: Integrating Supply and Demand
Genevas quest for integrating supply and demand side processes began in 1994 with its supply chain
management (SCM) initiative. But the program was shelved for several years due to the nonintegrated
nature of systems, immaturity of the discipline, and financial limitations. The initiative
resurfaced on the planning boards in 1998 under the leadership of Verne Evans, Director of SCM, as
R/3 promised to remove the technological bottlenecks that prevented successful SCM
implementation. Though SCM theoretically extends beyond the companys boundaries to include its
suppliers and customers, Geneva targeted the mission-critical the manufacturing resource planning
(MRP-II) component within SCM, and more specifically, the Sales and Operations Planning (SOP)
process as the means of implementing just-in-time production scheduling. SOP dynamically linked
planning activities in Genevas upstream (manufacturing) and downstream (sales) operations,
allowing the company to continuously update its manufacturing capacity and scheduling in response
to continuously changing customer demands (both planned and unanticipated). Genevas MRP-II and
SOP processes are illustrated in Exhibits 5 and 6 respectively.
Until the mid-1990s, Geneva had no formal SOP process, either manual or automated.
Manufacturing planning was isolated from demand data, and was primarily based on historical
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 13
demand patterns. If a customer (distributor) placed an unexpected order or requested a change in an
existing order, the manufacturing unit was unable to adjust their production plan accordingly. This
lack of flexibility led to unfilled orders or excess inventory and dissatisfied (and sometimes lost)
customers. Prior sales and manufacturing systems were incompatible with each other, and did not
allow the integration of supply and demand data, as required by SOP. In case production plans
required modification to accommodate a request from a major customer, such decisions were made on
an ad-hoc basis, based on intuition rather than business rationale, which sometimes had adverse
repercussions on manufacturing operations.
To remedy these problems, Geneva started a manual SOP process in 1997 (see Exhibit 6). In this
approach, after the financial close of each month, sales planning and forecast data were aggregated
from order entry and forecasting systems, validated, and manually keyed into master scheduling and
production planning systems. Likewise, prior period production and inventory data were entered into
order management systems. The supply planning team and demand analysis team arrived at their
own independent analysis of what target production and target sales should be. These estimates
(likely to be different) were subsequently reviewed in a joint meeting of demand analysts and master
schedulers and reconciliated. Once an agreement was reached, senior executives (President of
Geneva and Senior Vice Presidents), convened a business planning meeting, where the final
production plan and demand schedule were analyzed based on business assumptions, key customers,
key performance indicators, financial goals and projections (market share, revenues, profits), and
other strategic initiatives (e.g., introduction of a new product). The purpose of this final meeting was
not only to fine-tune the master schedule, but also to reexamine the corporate assumptions, growth
estimates, and the like in light of the master schedule, and to develop a better understanding of the
corporate business. The entire planning process took 20 business days (one month), of which the first
10 days were spent in data reentry and validation across corporate systems, followed by five days of
demand planning, two days of supply planning, and three days of reconciliation. The final business
planning meeting was scheduled on the last Friday of the month to approve production plans for the
following month. Interestingly, when the planning process was completed one month later, the
planning team had a good idea of the production schedule one month prior. If Geneva decided to
override the targeted production plans to accommodate a customer request, such changes undermined
the utility of the SOP process.
While the redesigned SOP process was a major improvement over the pre-SOP era, the manual
process was itself limited by the time-lag and errors in data reentry and validation across sales,
production, and financial systems. Further, the process took one month, and was not sensitive to
changes in customer orders placed less than a month from their requested delivery dates. Since much
of the planning time was consumed in reentering and validating data from one system to another,
Evans estimated that if an automated system supported real-time integration of all supply and demand
data in a single unified database, the planning cycle could be reduced to ten business days.
Though SAP provided a SOP module with their R/3 package, Genevas R/3 project management team
believed that this module lacked the intelligence required to generate an optimal production plan
from continuously changing supply and demand data, even when all data were available in a common
database. The R/3 system was originally designed as a data repository, not an analysis tool to solve
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 14
complex supply chain problems or provide simulation capabilities5. Subsequently, in 1999, when
SAP added a new Advanced Purchase Optimizer (APO) module to help with data analysis, Geneva
realized that the combination of R/3s SOP and APO modules would be the answer to their unique
SOP needs.
At the time of the case, Geneva was in the initial requirements definition stage of SOP
implementation. To aid in this effort, Oliver White had created a template that could aggregate all
relevant data required for SOP from distribution, operations, purchasing, quality control, and other
functional databases, and tie these data to their source processes. It was expected that the template
would provide a common reference point for all individuals participating in the SOP process and
synchronize their decision processes.
The primary business metric targeted for improvement in Phase III implementation is available to
promise (ATP), i.e., whether Geneva is able to fulfill a customer order by the promised time. ATP is
an integration of customer service level and business performance, the erstwhile key business metrics
in the pre-SOP era. Customers often placed orders too large to be fulfilled immediately, and ATP
was expected to provide customers with reasonably accurate dates on when they should expect which
part of their order to be filled. Generating and meeting these dates would enable Geneva improve its
customer service levels that not providing any fulfillment dates at all. With declining profit margins,
as the generics industry is forced to explore new means of cost reduction, Geneva expects that thin
inventories, just-in-time manufacturing, and top quality customer service will eventually be the
drivers of success, hence the importance of this metric. Evans explains the importance of ATP as a
business metric as:
Most of our customers understand the dynamics of our business, and how difficult it
is for us to fulfill a large order instantaneously with limited production capacity. But
most of them are willing to bear with backorders if we can promise them a
reasonable delivery date for their backorder and actually deliver on that date. That
way, we take less of a customer service level hit than defaulting on the order or being
unable to accommodate it. In commodity business such as ours, customer service is
the king. Our customers may be willing to pay a little premium over the market for
assured and reliable service, so that they can meet their obligations to their
customers. Customer service may be a strategic way to build long-term relationships
with our customers, but of course, we are far from proving or disproving that
hypothesis.
Future Plans
Despite some initial setbacks in Phase I, Geneva is now back on the road to a successful R/3
implementation. The senior management, functional units, and IS personnel are all enthusiastic about
the project and looking forward to its deployment in all operational areas of business and beyond.
R/3 implementation has opened up new possibilities to Geneva and more means of competing in the
5 Typically, manufacturing companies requiring SCM analysis used additional analysis tools from I2
Technologies or Manugistics on top of ERP databases from SAP or Oracle for SCM purposes.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 15
intensely competitive generic drugs industry. Weldon provided an overall assessment of the benefits
achieved via R/3 implementation:
In my opinion, we are doing most of the same things, but we are doing them better,
faster, and with fewer resources. We are able to better integrate our operational
data, and are able to access that data in a timely manner for making critical business
decisions. At the same time, SAP implementation has placed us in a position to
leverage future technological improvements and process innovations, and we expect
to grow with the system over time.
Currently, the primary focus of Genevas R/3 implementation is timely completion of Phase II and III
by February 2000 and December 2000 respectively. Once completed, the implementation team can
then turn to some of R/3s additional capabilities that are not being utilized at Geneva. In particular,
the quality control and human resource modules are earmarked for implementation after Phase III.
Additionally, Geneva plans to strengthen relationships with key suppliers and customers by
seamlessly integrating the entire supply chain. The first step in this direction is vendor managed
inventory (VMI), that was initiated by Geneva in April 1998 for a grocery store chain and a major
distributor. In this arrangement, Geneva obtains real-time, updated, electronic information about
customers inventories, and replenish their inventories on a just-in-time basis without a formal
ordering process, based on their demand patterns, sales forecast, and actual sales (effectively
operating as customers purchasing unit).6 Genevas current VMI system, Score, was purchased from
Supply Chain Solutions (SCS) in 1998. Though Mecca is satisfied with this system, he believes that
Geneva can benefit more from R/3s ATP module via a combination of VMI functionality and
seamless company-wide data integration. Currently, some of Genevas customers are hesitant to
adopt VMI because sharing of critical sales data may cause them to lose bargaining power vis-à-vis
their suppliers or prevent them from speculative buying. But over the long-term, the inherent
business need for cost reduction in the generics industry is expected to drive these and other
customers toward VMI. Geneva wants to ensure that the company is ready if and when such
opportunity arises.
6 Real-time customer forecast and sales data is run through a VMI software (a mini-MRP system), which
determines optimum safety stock levels and reorder points for customers, and a corresponding, more optimum
production schedule for Geneva. Initial performance statistics at the grocery store chain indicated that customer
service levels increased from 96 percent to 99.5 percent and on-hand inventory decreased from 8 weeks to six
weeks as a result of VMI implementation. For the distributor, Geneva expects that VMI will reduce on-hand
inventory from seven months to three months.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 16
Exhibit 1. Novartis divisions
Divisions Business Units
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals
Consumer Health
Generics
CIBA Vision
Agribusiness Crop Protection
Seeds
Animal Health
Nutrition Infant and Baby Nutrition
Medical Nutrition
Health Nutrition
Exhibit 2. Novartis five-year financial summary
1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
Annual sales 31,702 31,180 36,233 35,943 37,919
Sales from healthcare 17,535 16,987 14,048 12,906 14,408
Sales from agribusiness 8,379 8,327 7,624 7,047 7,135
Sales from consumer health 5,788 5,866 5,927 5,777 4,258
Sales from industry - - 8,634 10,213 12,118
Operating income 7,356 6,783 5,781 5,714 5,093
Net income 6,064 5,211 2,304 4,216 3,647
Cash flow from operations 5,886 4,679 4,741 5,729 5,048
R&D expenditure 3,725 3,693 3,656 3,527 3,786
Total assets 55,375 53,390 58,027 50,888 51,409
Net operating assets 20,913 19,619 21,820 22,278 22,952
Number of employees at year-end 82,449 87,239 116,178 133,959 144,284
Sales per employee (Swiss Francs) 369,337 350,905 289,705 258,357 266,740
Debt/equity ratio 0.28 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.57
Current ratio 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.2 1.6
Return on sales (%) 19.1 16.7 13.9 - -
Return on equity (%) 21.0 20.7 16.7 - -
Note: All figures in millions of Swiss Francs, except otherwise indicated.
Pre-1996 data is on pro forma basis, based on pooled data from Ciba and Sandoz.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 17
Exhibit 3. Phases in R/3 implementation at Geneva
Phases1 Business processes R/3 modules Implementation timeline
(inception to go-live)
Phase I: Supply side
management
MRP, purchasing, inventory
management
MM2, PP,
FI/CO3
Nov 1997 Feb 1999
Phase II: Demand side
management
Order management, sales,
customer service
SD, MM4,
FI/CO5
Oct 1998 Feb 2000
Phase III: Supply/demand
integration, business
intelligence
Sales & operations planning,
supply chain management,
data warehousing
APO, MES,
BIW
Early 2000 End 2000
Note: 1Vendor selection took place in mid-1997
2MM: Raw materials inventory
4MM: Finished goods inventory
3FI/CO: Accounts payable
5FI/CO: Accounts receivable
Vendor
System
Sales orders ATP
Sales & Distribution
Customer
Inquiry Quotation
Order
Generation
Goods
Issue
Billing
Delivery Document
Update
Financials
Inventory
Management
Update
Demand
Management
Run
MPS/MRP
Production Planning Materials
Management
Finance &
Controlling
Exhibit 4. Genevas order management process
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 18
Business Planning
Sales & Operations
Planning
DRP Master
Scheduling
Detailed Materials/
Capacity Planning
Plant & Supplier
Scheduling
Execution
Demand
Management
Rough-Cut
Capacity Planning
Exhibit 5. Genevas manufacturing resource planning process
Exhibit 6. Genevas sales & operations planning process
Demand
Planning
Supply
Planning
Integration/
Reconciliation
Business Planning
(S&OP)
Key Activities:
Product planning
Forecasting
Sales planning
Performance
management
(prior period)
Master production
scheduling
Capacity planning
Materials requirements
planning
Consolidation of
demand, supply,
inventory, and
financial plans
Feedback to
demand and
supply planning
Performance review
Key assumptions review
Product family review
Key customers review
Financial review
Approval/action items
Current Planning Cycle (Monthly):
Financial
close
(prior month)
0 5 10 15 17 20 (Business
days)
Demand
planning
Supply
planning
Integration
Business
planning
Goal:
To reduce the planning cycle time from one month to 10 business days.
ERP Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals 19
Appendix
SAP (Systems, Applications, and Products in Data Processing) is the worlds fourth largest software
company, and the largest enterprise resource planning (ERP) vendor. As of February 1999, the
company employed 19,300 employees and had annual revenues of $5 billion, annual growth of 44
percent, over 10,000 customers in 107 countries, and 36 percent of the ERP market. SAP AG was
founded in 1972 by Dr. H.C. Hasso Plattner and Dr. Henning Kagermann in Walldorf, Germany with
the goal of producing an integrated application software, that would run all mission-critical operations
in corporations, from purchasing to manufacturing to order fulfillment and accounting. This
integration would help companies optimize their supply chains, manage customer relationships, and
make better management decisions. SAP brings in 26 years of leadership in process innovations and
ERP, and invests 20 percent of its revenues back into research and development.
SAPs first breakthrough product was the R/2 system, which ran on mainframe computers. R/2 and
its competitors were called ERP systems, to reflect the fact that they extended the functions of earlier
materials requirements planning (MRP) systems in manufacturing firms to include other functions
and business processes such as sales and accounting. In 1992, SAP released its R/3 system, the
client/server variant of the earlier R/2 system, which was installed in 20,000 locations worldwide, and
R/2 is installed in over 1,300 locations by mid-1999. Initially targeted at the worlds largest
corporations such as AT&T, BBC, Deutsche Bank, IBM, KPMG, Merck, Microsoft, Nestle, Nike,
and Siemens, R/3 has since been deployed by companies of all sizes, geographical locations, and
industries. SAP solutions are available for 18 comprehensive industry solutions (verticals) for
specific industry sectors such as banking, oil & gas, electronics, health care, and public sector.

MDM Implementation Methodology

Hi MDM Experts/gurus,
Please can anyone share SAP MDM Implementation Methodology, i.e. Any Templates to capture the current Process & map it for the To-Be Processes in the SAP MDM.
And Any templates for Data Planning, Data Migrations, Data Modelling etc.
It will be of great help, and Full Marks will be awarded.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards
Rehman

Hi Himanshu
my email id is : [email protected], [email protected]
would you please send me a copy og the MDM implementation methodology.?
I will appreciate very much your help.
Thanks
Best Regards
Joel

ASAP- Implementation Methodology??

Hi experts
I am going to work on a implementation project for the first time. ASAP will be use as an implementation methodology. So, if i can get any document or material explaining how to work on this methodology will be of a great help.
Ur replies will be rewarded with full points
Thanks

Hi
Refer
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_46c/helpdata/EN/fc/5dc13690581b20e10000009b38f839/frameset.htm
Regards

What is the implementation cycle for Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals industry

i am preparing for the interview. could anybody help me by telling the implementation cycle for Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals industry.
i know the cycle of manufacturing company.
thank you.

ASAP Methodology:
Project Preparation:
The first step in ASAP is Project Preparation. In this step the Functional Consultant will analyse the business process and define the system for SAP and will give the time line for the project. The Manpower required and the budgets are also considered in this step.
Blue Print Preparation:
This is second step in ASAP Methodology. In this step the Project Preparation scenarios are finalised. A out line of the Project is given in this step.
Realisation:
In this step actual development is taken place. The ABAPer is responsible for this step.
Testing:
In this step the development done by the abaper is being tested. This is the area where the Unit Test Document is prepared (i.e. Positive Testing and Negative Testing).
GO live and Support:
This is the final stage where the project is running in the live environment. In this step the bugs if any that are found in the go live procedure are fixed and the project will be considered as support project.
Rewards if useful.

How to implement tooltip for the list items for the particular column in sharepoint 2013

Hi,
I had created a list, How to implement tooltip for the list items for the particular column in SharePoint 2013.
Any help will be appreciated

We can use JavaScript or JQuery to show the tooltips. Refer to the following similar thread.
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en/sharepointdevelopmentprevious/thread/1dac3ae0-c9ce-419d-b6dd-08dd48284324
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3366515/small-description-window-on-mouse-hover-on-hyperlink
http://spjsblog.com/2012/02/12/list-view-preview-item-on-hover-sharepoint-2010/

How to implement bapi for transaction code f-02 for multiple line items

Hi All,
I am having one requirement to of implementing bapi for tcode f-02.
I have identified the name of the badi e.i. BAPI_ACC_GL_POSTING_POST.
but i dont have any idea how implement it.
i have multiple line items for one header.
Please help me in this.
Regards,
Shoaib.

HI
In recording once u save, the recording comings out the transaction.
If u want the pop-up to display before save. Then in recording also
after entering all data and before Save press enter or do check.Try
this way after that save the transaction.
Regards,
Raghu.

Interface not found in implements-attribute for MXML component

Hi,
I am trying to use the "implements" attribute for an
MXML-component in order to implement an interface from a library
like below (Flex 3). I get the error "Interface IClonable not
found". The compiler does not complain about " import
com.yworks.support.IClonable;", so the library is installed
correctly. I use the library in many places in my project, it just
does not find it in the "implements" tag. How can I fix this
without reimplementing the component in ActionScript?
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<mx:VBox xmlns:mx="
http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml"
implements="com.yworks.support.IClonable">
<mx:Script>
<![CDATA[
import com.yworks.support.IClonable;
]]>
</mx:Script>
</mx:VBox>

"mavdzee" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:gldjg8$js8$[email protected]..
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to use the "implements" attribute for an
MXML-component in
> order
> to implement an interface from a library like below
(Flex 3). I get the
> error
> "Interface IClonable not found". The compiler does not
complain about "
> import
> com.yworks.support.IClonable;", so the library is
installed correctly. I
> use
> the library in many places in my project, it just does
not find it in the
> "implements" tag. How can I fix this without
reimplementing the component
> in
> ActionScript?
>
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
> <mx:VBox xmlns:mx="
http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml"
> implements="com.yworks.support.IClonable">
>
> <mx:Script>
> <![CDATA[
>
> import com.yworks.support.IClonable;
>
> ]]>
> </mx:Script>
>
> </mx:VBox>
I don't see anything where you're actually _implementing_ the
interface, but
I'd expect to see a different error if that's the problem.
Still, I'd go
ahead and implement the properties and methods in the
interface, just to
make sure.
HTH;
Amy

OC4J 10.1.2 - No XPathFactory implementation found for the object model

Hello,
We are doing some maintenance on an old 10.1.2.3.0 container. The project has to be extended with a library built with xml-apis-1.3.03.jar. I know you will suggest a upgrade, but that is a no-go - sorry, since other projects also are running on this server. So I hope some of you remember or know how to avoid or replace the oracle xml parser.
It seems like it gets the wrong XPathFactory
XPathFactory#newInstance() failed to create an XPathFactory for the default object model: http://java.sun.com/jaxp/xpath/dom
with the XPathFactoryConfigurationException: javax.xml.xpath.XPathFactoryConfigurationException: No XPathFctory implementation found for the object model:
I have searched the documentation for 10.1.2 and everything relevant on the Internet for a solution, but i seems to non-trivial when dealing with oracle xml parser. We tried to put the jar-files (xml-apis-1.3.03.jar, xercesImpl-2.8.0.jar, xalan-2.6.0.jar) in the endorsed library under the jdk, and we have already added <web-app-class-loader search-local-classes-first="true" include-war-manifest-class-path="true"/> to our orion-web.xml.
I also know that the <shared-library> tag got introduced in 10.1.3 where you easily can replace the parser.
Any ideas on how to deal with this exception or comments to the interpretation on the exception are appreciated.
-MK

Hello,
You are correct, in OracleAS 10g (10.1.2), Oracle does not expose JMX MBean server.
OracleAS 10g R3 (10.1.3) is a J2EE 1.4 container will full support for JMX, and all the JSR-77 MBeans exposed. You can also create and register your own MBeans.
Could you give us the different requirements you have around JMX for your application?
Regards
Tugdual Grall

Implementation Methodology for EP

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for