Sap r/3 testing [1]

Title: Lessons Learned from testing sap r/3

Sap r/3 is the market leader in ERP installations and ERP sales. sap has thousands of tables, multiple IndustrySpecific solutions, thousands of transactions, and connectivity to an unlimited number of legacy systems. furthermore sap can be configured differently from one company to another which creates a myriad of permutations for executing an SAP transaction. installing and customizing sap is a daunting challenge. testing sap r/3 is in and of itself another intractable challenge.

Export projects fail to test sap correctly and consequently suffer staggering financial loses After deploying sap into a live environment. the key to maximizing the value and ROI of SAP is to install and customize sap correctly based on the specified ented requirements and to test it extensively based on the specified ented test cases and end-to-end business scenarios. below some lessons learned are offered and identified to help organizations test sap.

1. Not following methodology or no methodology at all

Some companies implementing sap adhere to the ASAP methodology. Other companies have ad-hoc or ASAP-like methodologies for implementing sap.

even companies that are supposedly implementing SAP based on the ASAP methodology are not very strict and stringent in adhering to all the activities, deliverables, and tasks associated with ASAP. consequently, but not surprisingly these companies have much confusion, obfuscation, befuddlement when they attempt to implement SAP. compounding this problem is the fact that extends large companies implementing sap hire two or more implementation partners and multiple subcontractors that have incompatible dependencies, methodologies, and lessons learned for implementing sap.

The project manager and the Steering Committee shoshould specify within the project charter how sap will be implemented and what deliverables will be produced based on either ASAP or some other proprietary methodology. the objective is to have defined, proven, and repeatable processes for implementing sap and that the project members have the knowledge or know-how for adhering to the methodology. the creation of an audit team or standards team wocould be helpful in enforcing compliance with the chosen methodology.

2. Inadequate test tools

Sap r/3 comes with an internal recording tool known as catt (ecatt ). one of the advantages of catt (ecatt) is that since it is part of the standard SAP system it's free of charge. however catt does have some limitations which impel extends companies to procure other test tools.

There are supported vendors offering specified cial automatic test tools and test management tools for testing sap. companies purchasing automated test tools into CT and erroneously believe that the test tools will be the panacea to their entire sap recording and testing needs. unfortunately, this is not the case, since no two sap implementations are exactly the same authentication SS two or more companies or at times even within different divisions of the same company. consequently, a company implementing sap might need to procure test tools from more than one vendor in addition to the catt (ecatt) tool.

An SAP implementation cocould be implementing sap add-ons such as BW (Business Warehouse), Apo (advanced planning optimization), SEM (strategic enterprise management) or even modules such as PS (Project systems) that generate graphs and charts that a recording tool does not recognize. furthermore, a company may move its sap gui from the desktop (fat client) to running sap as web-based (thin client) or through an emulated Citrix session which cocould render the existing test tools useless.

Companies that wish to move to an automatic testing strategy showould articulate and document what SAP modules and SAP add-ons they are installing in addition to any legacy applications integrating with sap. this information shoshould be provided to the vendors of automatic test tools in order to determine what can be actually be recorded and tested with the test tools. the company shoshould further investigate with the vendor what additional benefits over catt (ecatt) the automated test tools provide. the objective is to get the test tools that will maximize sap recording.

3. Decentralized test teams

Some projects that I have consulted for, have a decentralized testing approach where each individual business process team, Technical Team (ABAP/4), and basis (Security) team conduct their own testing in the absence of a QA/testing team.

The decentralized method suffers from various zookeeper redundancy, inconsistency, lack of standards, missing testing metrics, interval test results, limited managerial visibility, limited test coverage, chaotic defect resolution, no independent verification of test results, etc.

Projects with a decentralized test approach perceive control as a significant advantage of decentralized testing. with decentralized testing each team has the independence and control as to how their participant area will be tested based on their own defined test procedures.

The perceived benefits from decentralized testing do not offset its drawbacks. A more robust approach for testing an ERP system is centralized testing where there is a QA Team for defining the standards and procedures for the varous testing cycles and documenting the test plan, lessons learned, UAT plan and the test strategy. the test procedures and test strategy include what test case templates will be used, how and what metrics will be reported, how peer reviews will be conducting CTED, ensuring that all test requirements have been met, etc. in addition to the QA Team under the centralized model the testing team provides expertise for executing test cases whether manually or with automated test tools. the testing team also provides independent verification for the test results since the testers were not associated with the configuration of the transactions, workflow development, creation of user roles, or the development of the rice (reports, interfaces, conversions, and enhancements) objects, etc.

4. Working in silos: limited or no access to SMEs, configuration team

Since sap is integrated and a change in one of its components can have a cascading effect on other aspects of the software it is often the case where the varous sap teams need to collaborate with one another.

This concept seems mundane and at first hand easy to grasp. but due to internal politics, deadlines, budget constraints, etc this concept is ignored and overlooked. when collaboration falls through the cracks the various sap teams (configuration, rice, basis, testing, infrastructure, data, etc) Start working independently in isolation or in a silo.

I have been in projects where the testing team members who arrived during the middle of the realization phase have been unable to get support from the sap configuration team members and SMEs for drafting test cases, peer reviews, and sign offs .. in other projects the QA and testing team are almost considered a "bother", "Nuisance" to the other SAP teams.

The test Manager and PM need to foster an environment of cooperation among the testing team and the varous other SAP teams for the successful completion of testing artifacts and testing cycles.

5. Missing Test Bed

Within the sap client landscape a dedicated QA environment shoshould be allocated to the testing team for the varous testing phases. the environment shoshould be production sized, and contain production like data, have a stable baseline, and frozen configuration by the time the testing cycles commence.

What I have seen at least projects is a so-called "dedicated testing environment" that uses sap teams have access to for training, last minute configuration, etc during the middle of a testing cycle. this creates conflict among the teams and causes confusion over the ultimate ownership of the testing environment.

The test Manager shocould insist on a test environment where the testing team has complete control (for instance control over the accounting periods, running payroll, etc) and where the environment is not shared with other entities in particle during the test execution phase