IBM Review of Simple Finance 3.

0 Process:
Accounts Receivable

Version number 0.2

Version Status DRAFT

Last Updated 3rd June 2015

Author Cristina Popescu

Template / Local Template

Process Accounts Receivable

Peer review Cristina Popescu / Ifty Bashir/ Antony Kandathil / Karim

Benmessaoud/ Andrew Worsley

Page 1 of 9 26 June 2015

Revision History

Author Version Rev. date Summary of Changes Page

Antony Kandathil 0.1 30th June 2015 Initial draft

Cristina Popescu 0.2 3rd July 2015 Updated all sections

Table of contents

Key Process Steps Page number

Complete Customer Master Data
Invoice Reporting

Collections Management
Dispute Case Opening
Dispute Case Management
Bank Statements

Contents
Revision History .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of contents ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Pre- or Post- System Review .......................................................................................................................................... 3
3. General Comments ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Documents aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................... 3
5. Document completeness ............................................................................................................................................... 5
6. Document readability..................................................................................................................................................... 5
7. Document correctness/ consistency.............................................................................................................................. 5
8. Roles & tcodes & workflow............................................................................................................................................ 7
9. Comparison to pre- SFIN ................................................................................................................................................ 8
10. Testing support ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
11. Areas of improvement ............................................................................................................................................... 8
12. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Page 2 of 9 26 June 2015

1. Introduction
This document represents the IBM review on the following SAP process document(s):
J59_S4HANAX_OP_Process_Overview_EN_DE.pptx
J59_S4HANAX_OP_Spec_EN_DE.docx
J59_SEPA Mandate Customizing.docx

These documents are attached here:

J59_S4HANAX_OP_P J59_S4HANAX_OP_S J59_SEPA Mandate

rocess_Overview_EN_DE.pptx
pec_EN_DE.docx Customizing.docx

2. Pre- or Post- System Review

These SAP documents were reviewed pre-system (without the benefit of looking into SFIN3 system).

3. General Comments
PowerPoint document:
- overall this is well structured and covers the AR process appropriately;
- slide 2 lists key process steps that are not associated with the AR process and should be revised;
- the changes and related benefits compared to the old AR process are not detailed in this document and would be
a good addition in terms of quality..

Test script document: is incomplete and missing most of the sections/steps.

SEPA Mandate Customizing: it is not clear where this document fits with the other 2 documents.

4. Documents aesthetics
4.1. Formatting / is formatting consistent throughout document?

PowerPoint document:
- On the title slide, the blue writing on the orange background does not render well. Other colour for the
writing may be more readable (e.g. white).
- Slides 2-3, 10-11 and 13 have “Public” written on the bottom banner. Slides 4-9 do not have this
written.

Page 3 of 9 26 June 2015

- Slide 6 – Dispute Case Opening is written without first letters in capital. Similar for Bank Statements on
slide 9.

- Slide 6 – lane for Accounts Receivable Manager is empty; if no process steps are associated with this
role, lane should be removed from this slide.
- Slide 4 – the icons table extends beyond the slide margin.
- The icons tables do not have the right border and the icons (see “Icon” column) are not fully aligned
(throughout the document).
- Slide 8 – alignment to the left of the page differs from the other slides.
Test script document: is not complete and lacks most of the details. The different tables in section
“Overview Table” are not matching. Otherwise, the formatting of the placeholders in the test scrip is
consistent throughout the document.
4.2. Grammar / checking spelling mistakes, grammar, typos, syntax error etc

PowerPoint document:

- Slide 6:

- Slide 9 -

SEPA Mandate Customizing:

- Title is written “SAPA” instead of “SEPA”
Test script document:

- Page 10 – last item, on business condition column

- Page 11 – first item, business condition column (plural) vs. expected results column (singular)

4.3. Headings / All headings correctly numbered in test scripts

Test script document: in the Table of Contents, section “Overview Table” is numbered with 3, while on
page 7 it is numbered with 2.5. This offsets the numbering by one unit for all further sections.
Page 4 of 9 26 June 2015
 4.4. Process Steps / Are all process steps sequentially numbered?

Test script document: the steps from section “Overview Table” are not numbered.

5. Document completeness
5.1. Sections / Are all sections/headings completed

PowerPoint document:
- Slide 2: the benefits of the process are not listed.
- Slide 5: the lane from the left does not have a user role associated.
- Slide 10: gives a generic statement about integration. An improvement could be to list the actual
processes/scope items that are related to the AR process.
Test script document: is not complete and lacks most of the sections/steps.
5.2. Process Steps / Are all process steps (as you would expect from your experience) included. If not, is there
adequate explanation given (e.g. step is redundant)

- No process steps included for down payments and for AR reporting. No explanations given in this
sense.
- Dunning only included via a “Print Dunning Letter” process step, without any further details or
explanations.
5.3. Process Steps / Are all process diagram legends explained?

All generally clear.

6. Document readability
6.1. Readability / Is document easy to follow and descriptions are clear?

PowerPoint document:
- Slide 2: The following sentence is difficult to follow; particularly the highlighted section seems not to be
related:
“General ledger (Profit and Loss) accounts and customer accounts are then updated according to the
transaction concerned (such as receivable, credit memo) customer payment activities.”

7. Document correctness/ consistency

7.1. Correctness / Is documented process correct, say, according to your knowledge or SAP Help?

PowerPoint document: general steps sequence is as expected.

Test script document: is not complete and therefore correctness cannot be assessed.
* Attention point - Section 3.2 “Creating an Opportunity Manually” is not relevant for this document as
this process step is not part of the AR process.
- Page 9 – Close Dispute Case vs. Start Receivables Collection - Dispute case is vs. is not justified:
Page 5 of 9 26 June 2015
7.2. Consistency 1 / Are all sections of test script consistent throughout document?

Test script document: is not complete and therefore consistency cannot be assessed.
7.3. Consistency 2 / Are all sections of PowerPoint consistent throughout document?

PowerPoint document:
- Slide 2: the “Key Process Steps” listed are not the ones described in the rest of the document and seem
not to be part of the AR process.
- Slide 8: in the icons table, app type is listed as “Trans”, while on the other slides it is listed as
“Transactional”.
- Slide 8: No details regarding the batch scripts; if the current table does not allow for details to be
listed, an improvement could be choosing a more appropriate table format for detailing this element.

- Slide 9 – process step is called “Bank Statements”, however it also includes steps not related to bank
statements (e.g. Reset clearing for invoices and payments). An improvement could be renaming the
step to make it more clear (e.g Clearing of open items).
7.4. Consistency 3 / Are PowerPoint & test script consistent with each other?

- “Invoice Reporting” from PowerPoint document (slide 5) is listed as “Invoice Creation” in the Test script
document (page 8).
- Batch script steps from PowerPoint document (slide 8) are not listed in the Test script document
“Overview Table” section

Page 6 of 9 26 June 2015

 - “Monitor Receivables Collection” step from Test script document (page 9) is not listed on the
PowerPoint document.
- “Print Dunning letter” step from PowerPoint document (slide 8) is not listed in the Test script
document.

8. Roles & tcodes & workflow

8.1. Roles / Are all roles included in both documents, and are they consistent with each other?

Test script document:

- Page 6 – Accounts Receivable Accountant has listed 2 process steps that are not under this role’s
responsibility according to the process diagram:
o Define Accounting Clerk – done by Accounts Receivable Manager (see slide 4 of PowerPoint
document);
o Process dispute case via central dispute case transaction – done by Sales Representative (see
slide 7 of PowerPoint document).
- Page 6 - Accounts Receivable Accountant does not have the following process steps listed that should
be under this role’s responsibility according to the process diagram:
o Print Dunning Letter (see slide 8 of PowerPoint document)
o Update status of direct debit manadate (see slide 4 of PowerPoint document)
o Create and print direct debit mandate (see slide 4 of PowerPoint document)
- Page 6 – Accounts Receivable Manager does not have the following process steps listed that should be
under this role’s responsibility according to the process diagram:
o Run Distribution of Data (see slide 8 of PowerPoint document)
o Create Worklist (see slide 8 of PowerPoint document)
8.2. Segregation of duties / Are there any control conflicts between roles and tasks, for example, the same role is
the initiator and approver?

None identified.
8.3. Tcodes / Are all tcodes included in test script, and are they consistent with the PowerPoint?

The transaction codes are not mentioned in any sections of the PowerPoint document and Test script
document. An improvement would be to list all relevant sFIN tcodes for all process steps, mapping them to
the corresponding Fiori apps.
8.4. Tcodes / Are Fiori apps replacing existing tcodes, and is it clear which tcodes are replaced?

This is not evident from the provided documents. An improvement would be to list all relevant legacy
tcodes, mapping them to the corresponding Fiori apps and sFIN tcodes.
8.5. Workflows / Are all workflows included in both documents, and are they consistent with each other and clearly
defined? Any expected workflows missing?

None identified.

Page 7 of 9 26 June 2015

9. Comparison to pre- SFIN
9.1. Differences 1 / Are there any key differences in process compared to 4.7/ECC - from your own experience?
Mention both changes to steps or steps no longer required

Several differences, for example the process steps for Lockbox, Reporting, Down payment, and Dunning
have been removed. Previous Clearing process step is now replaced by the Bank Statements process step.
No explanations given in this sense.
The differences are not evident from reading the provided documents. A great improvement would be to
include a section detailing the process changes compared to the old AR best practice, and the benefits
given by these changes. i.e. How do I benefit as a business from the new AR process?
9.2. Differences 2 / Are there key differences missing, say, compared to what you've seen documented for SFIN?

None identified.

10. Testing support

10.1. Reviewability / Are there any parts of document difficult to constructively review without requiring system
access?

Since the testing script document is incomplete this cannot be assessed.

11. Areas of improvement

11.1. Functionality / Is there an opportunity to improve functionality in any process step or process area?

None identified.

11.2. Business Process / Is there an opportunity to improve business process in any process step or process area?

Period end allocation is worth considering here.

11.3. Controls / Is there an opportunity to improve business controls in any process step or process area?

None identified

11.4. Reporting / Is there an opportunity to improve reporting in any process step or process area?

None identified.

11.5. Workflow / Is there an opportunity to improve workflow in any process step or process area?

None identified.

12. Conclusion
The new Fiori Apps should make for a better user experience. This is the key change. The basic process
steps remains generally similar to what we would expect in classic ERP. For the process steps that have
been changed compared to classic ERP, these changes and their benefits are not explained. Detailing these
changes would improve the quality of the documents.

Page 8 of 9 26 June 2015

Page 9 of 9 26 June 2015