Introduction

This Data Flow Specification (DFS) defines the end-to-end data flow required to meet the following requirements:

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

The Item and Bucket 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.

All of the above are considered as Tier 1 and only maintained in RoW

Inbound Layer

No inbound field adjustments are applied. Standard technical fields (load date/time, source system) are retained as delivered.

/SYQ/ replaced by SYQ

Harmonisation Layer

2VR_Auths → 2VR_HARM_SYQI_AuthorizationUser

Purpose: 

Assigns Item UUID to authorised users where there is sensitive project. Will be read and added to ProjectPortfolioItem Read/Write fields

2VR_TScore → 2VR_HARM_SYQ_T_Scoring

Purpose: 

Parameter table used in scoring

2VR_TRiskM → 2VR_HARM_SYQ_T_RiskM

Purpose: 

Parameter table used in scoring

2VR_TRiskL → 2VR_HARM_SYQ_T_RiskL

Purpose: 

Parameter table used in scoring

2VR_TRegM → 2VR_HARM_SYQ_T_RegM

Purpose: 

Parameter table used in scoring

2VR_TRegL → 2VR_HARM_SYQ_T_RegL

Purpose: 

Parameter table used in scoring

2VR_TRegT → 2VR_HARM_SYQ_T_RegT

Purpose: 

Parameter table used in scoring

Propagation Layer

Join with long texts (excluding Z07)

Create Odata connection to fill the master data required by SAC planning

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_ProjectPortfolioItem

Purpose:

Read data from planning model to be used further in DSP

Source:

4MP_Item

Project Score is calculated according to 3 methodologies, determined by ; Financial, Risk or Regulatory.

• • Retrieve Item Scoring Methodology from Investment Reason on PPM Item Planning Transaction Data

How is this score used (attribute or measure) - prioritisation as a number to be sorted

Calculation - sac planning action vs DSP persisted vs on the fly

Include value in snapshot - read score when snapping (better to persist)

I have split this into 3 views for simplicity, but they could be combined

Item master data

Purpose:

Scoring:

• • perform lookups from Scoring MD to values
  • read accuracy % from Item MD Planning
  • Derive current Phase, WBS Element Description linked to active Decision Point
  • Derive in-flight, Set to 'X' if Item Status = Z002 Approved or Z003 TECO, else blank
  • Derive current Decision Point, it is when the /RPM/DECISION-ACTIVE = X transitive attributes showing attributes like dates

Source Views:

I_ProjectPortfolioItem

5 * MD scoring tables

Lookup:

Using the attributes, read the master data scoring tables and update the value (attribute vs measure v matrix view)

Formula:

3VR_IntFin - 3VR_xxxxx_IntFin

Purpose:

Calculate the Financial Intensity Index

Source Views:

2VR_Item (Actuals have been updated into Plan)

2VR_ItemSS (if we calculate on the fly)

5 * 2VR_TScore (1 for each parameter)

Filter:

2VR_Item - where Type = Financial and Version = 20

2VR_TScore - where CALCULATION = 'Financial Intensity Index'

Aggregation:

Project cost

Join:

Left outer to 2VR_TScore

Formula:

Intensity Index = Initial Starting Point + NPV / Cost Weighting * (NPV / Project Cost (FEC)) * MIRR Weighting / MIRR Comparison Rate * MIRR^MIRR Exponent

3VR_IntRisk - 3VR_xxxxx_IntRisk

Purpose:

Calculate the Risk Intensity Index

Source:

Filter:

Type = Risk

Views:

Union:

3VR_IntReg - 3VR_xxxxx_IntReg

Purpose:

Calculate the Regulatory Intensity Index

Source:

Filter:

Type = Regulatory

Views:

Union:

3VR_Score - 3VR_xxxxx_Score

Purpose:

Project Score is calculated according to 3 methodologies, determined by ; Financial, Risk or Regulatory.

• • Retrieve Item Scoring Methodology from Investment Reason on PPM Item Planning Transaction Data

How is this score used (attribute or measure) - prioritisation as a number to be sorted

Calculation - sac planning vs DSP (union of 3 different views)

Include value in snapshot - read score when snapping (better to persist)

Source:

Views:

Union:

Reporting Layer

If you want to show the external format and text in SAP Analytic Cloud instead of the internal format the modelling in the Analytic Model needs to be done like this example:

4MP_Item 

Purpose:

This is for planning

Functional Spec:

ERP-2665 Data Model - PPM Items

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