Introduction
This Data Flow Specification (DFS) defines the end-to-end data flow required to meet the following requirements:
| Level | Process | Description | Jira Sty | Jira Mod | Migration | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bucket | Bucket Planning | Top-down and Bottom-up planning | 124 | 672 | 9036 | 4 views, year, category |
Snapshot? | No request? Potentially just a version copy? | |||||
Item | Item Planning | Plan Project Cost(FEC) | 669 | 2665 | 9035 / 1022 | month, category, initiative? |
| Business Case | Calculate Return on Investment Only Financial relevant projects Commentary | 263 |
| 9105 |
| |
| Scoring | Make comparable | need | Separate model (persist data for snapshots) | |||
| Prioritisation | Priority | Req 519 | ||||
| Item Retraction | Export to S/4 | 671 | Issues regarding the filter and locking | |||
| Item Snapshots | Change of Gate or variation | Req 879 | Quarterly, Variation, Gates, Adhoc | |||
| Item Automation | Quarterly or adhoc snapshot accuracy calc | Req 759 | Overwrite plan with actuals (business need, not reporting solution) mass update of scoring, update accuracy | |||
| Project | WBS Planning | Plan costs | 670 | 2664 | 1026 | Adding WBS and account |
| Reporting | Req 152 Req 760 |
All of the above is delivered by master data covered in the MDM DDFS.
We do not extract any transaction data from S/4, hence the Harmonisation layer is blank
The diagram below only shows the data that is planned in SAC
Source System Extractors
| System | Code | Extractor Name | Purpose | Delta | Build Jira Ref For Extension Information | Extended fields | Texts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The hierarchy will not be extracted but rather built in DSP via the Parent UUID. This will work perfectly for the SAC planning component but the DSP reporting component will need to be tested.
Inbound Layer
No inbound field adjustments are applied. Standard technical fields (load date/time, source system) are retained as delivered.
Harmonisation Layer
Propagation Layer
2VR_LeadLed → 3VR_PrjAct
Purpose:
Restrict to PPM relevant data
Filter:
where project <> ''
Comments:
Ensure we have commitments in this view
Data Migration approach:
Normally stored in a separate model, however, as this is seamless planning and the data will need to be amended along with new data, it will have to be loaded as normal data in the same model.
- Subject to change in planning process
- Needs to be displayed in the same version when planning
- potentially could identify using an audit trail
Comments:
Long texts are required from STXL
Types of projects:
Expenditure on capital (Capex), which always is managed via a project using PPM
Capital maintenance is assigned to a project
Operation expenditure (Opex) can be managed via PPM but does not have to be - eg finance only projects
Master data:
When attributes need to be planned, we will try and plan as measures rather than attributes
Scoring:
I feel this needs to be a separate model
- Financial driven projects read from the Business Case
3VR_Bucket - 2VR_HARM_I_ProjectPortfolioBucket
3VR_Item - 3VR_xxxxx_I_ProjectPortfolioItem
Join with long texts (excluding Z07)
Create Odata connection to fill the master data required by SAC planning
Reporting Layer
4MP_Item
Purpose:
This is for planning
Comments:
Include live data 3VF_PrjAct (must be exposed for consumption)
Outbound Layer
When retracting, you cannot filter on the company code, even if in the model, as restricted to the fields in the API.
Options: play with having 2 fin view types which can be corrected on the API mapping.
Maybe the guids have a number range sequence