This Data Flow Specification (DFS) defines the end-to-end data flow required to meet the following requirements:
| Sub Area | Process | Description | Story FS | Model FS | Migration | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bucket | Bucket Planning | Top-down and Bottom-up planning | 672 | 9036 | 4 views, year, category | |
Item | Item Planning | Plan Project Cost(FEC) & FY Budget Request | 669 | 2665 | 9035 / 1022 | 2 views, month, category |
| Business Case | Calculate Return on Investment Only Financial relevant projects Commentary | 263 |
| 9105 |
| |
| Scoring | Make comparable | 2875 | n/a | Probably just a view in the DDFS rather than an AM Separate model (persist data for snapshots) | ||
| Prioritisation | Priority | n/a | n/a | |||
| Item Retraction | Export to S/4 | 671 | n/a | n/a | System interface document | |
| Item Snapshots | Change of Gate or variation | 2964 | n/a | Quarterly, Variation, Gates, Adhoc | ||
| Item Automation | Quarterly or adhoc snapshot accuracy calc | n/a | Overwrite plan with actuals (business need, not reporting solution). Mass update of scoring, update accuracy | |||
| Project | WBS Planning | Plan costs | 2664 | 1026 | Extracting WBS from RPSCO | |
| Portfolio Reporting | Bucket and Item | Reporting on the Plan data against the Actuals | n/a | Analytic Model design TBC | ||
| Project Reporting | WBS | Reporting on the Plan data against the Actuals | n/a | Analytic Model design TBC |
SyWay have decided to perform planning for PPM in SAC rather than in S/4. The requirements above reflect the planning models and related stories for planning. The flows for each process are described with the separate functional specifications linked above.
The Item planning is retracted back into S/4 to enable availability control. The master data is created in S/4 which forms the backbone for the planning models.
There is no business content in Datasphere for this area, however, all of the CDS views are extraction enabled.
The business content in SAC has been recently been re-created. The modelling will reflect the concepts in this latest version, eg using the UUID's.
| Item | Detail | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Bucket snapshot | No request? Potentially just a version copy? | Open |
| Retraction | Issues regarding a dynamic filter (or delta) and locking the Item MD in S/4 | Open |

| System | Code | Extractor Name | Purpose | Delta | Build Jira Ref For Extension Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S4HR | Auths | /SYQ/I_PPM_AUTHORIZATIONBYUSER | Maps users to Items | no | TBC |
| S4HR | T_Scoring | /SYQ/I_SCORING | Global parameters to be used for scoring | no | ERP-2388 PPM Item Custom Application |
| S4HR | T_RiskM | /SYQ/I_RISK_MAG | Starting Risk Magnitude, Residual Risk Magnitude (code to value mapping) | no | ERP-2388 PPM Item Custom Application |
| S4HR | T_RiskL | /SYQ/I_RISK_LKD | Starting Risk Likelihood, Residual Risk Likelihood (code to value mapping) | no | ERP-2388 PPM Item Custom Application |
| S4HR | T_RegM | /SYQ/I_REG_MAG | Regulatory Risk Magnitude (code to value mapping) | no | ERP-2388 PPM Item Custom Application |
| S4HR | T_RegL | /SYQ/I_REG_LKD | Regulatory Risk Likelihood (code to value mapping) | no | ERP-2388 PPM Item Custom Application |
| S4HR | T_RegT | /SYQ/I_REGTIMEHZ | Regulatory Mandated Time Horizon (code to value mapping) | no | ERP-2388 PPM Item Custom Application |
| S4HR | T_Strat | /SYQ/I_STRATEGIC | Strategic Weighting (code to value mapping) | no | ERP-2388 PPM Item Custom Application |
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.
No inbound field adjustments are applied. Standard technical fields (load date/time, source system) are retained as delivered.
/SYQ/ replaced by SYQ
Assigns Item UUID to authorised users where there is sensitive project. Will be read and added to ProjectPortfolioItem Read/Write fields
Global Parameter table used in scoring
Parameter table used in scoring. Detail by GBU
Master data table to map the key to a value
Master data table to map the key to a value
Master data table to map the key to a value
Master data table to map the key to a value
Master data table to map the key to a value
Join with long texts (excluding Z07)

Create Odata connection to fill the master data required by SAC planning
Restrict to PPM relevant data
where project <> ''
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.
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:
This is a separate model
Read data from planning model to be used further in DSP
Project Score is calculated according to 3 methodologies, determined by ; Financial, Risk or Regulatory.
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
Planning model made available for reporting
Read data from planning model to be used further in DSP
Scoring:
I_ProjectPortfolioItem
4MP_item
2VR_TScore
2VR_TStra
2VR_TRiskL
2VR_TRiskM
2VR_TRegL
2VR_TRegM
2VR_TRegT
Using the attributes, read the master data scoring tables and update the value (attribute vs measure v matrix view)

Risk Matrix score = (Starting Risk = RISK_MAGNITUDE_VALUE * RISK_LKLHD_VALUE) - (Residual Risk = RISK_MAGNITUDE_VALUE * RISK_LKLHD_VALUE)
Reg Matrix Score = REG_MAGNITUDE_VALUE REG_LKLHD_VALUE * REG_TIME_HORIZON_FACTOR
Perform a snapshot of the data at a particular point in time.
To cater for attributes that can change over time, these attributes will be moved to dimensions.
3VR_Item
Graphical flow
Add a timestamp and derive the SnapShot ID
Adhoc - scheduled via a task chain triggered by an API step in a SAC multi-action
Quarterly - scheduled via a task chain based on time
Stage gate - scheduled via a task chain based on a table extracted from S/4 - TBC
Project Score is calculated according to 3 methodologies, determined by ; Financial, Risk or Regulatory.
How is this score used (attribute or measure) - prioritisation as a number to be sorted
Include value in snapshot - read score when snapping (better to persist)
Item
Business case
Scoring
Strategy
Restricted to Items in the Item Planning form
Suggest using SQL as easy to perform complex calculations
Read above views and
Case itemtype when
Read 2VR_Score where Project Score calculating Unweighted Project Score = 1 / (1 + EXP (-((Intensity Index + Index Offset) - Location Parameter) / Scale Parameter)) * PES Range + PES Minimum
Read 2VR_Strat where GBU = Item GBU, Buss Driver = Item Buss Driver calculating Score = Unweighted Project Score * WGHTG_FACTOR
3TL_Score with only ItemUUID and score
Can be initiated from the planning form for Item
However, if an ad-hoc request is required for all projects, then a identical Transformation Flow will be required without parameters
This is for planning
ERP-2665 Data Model - PPM Items
Include live data 3VF_PrjAct (must be exposed for consumption)
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