IBM Review of Simple Finance 3.

0 Process:
BD6 – Credit Management

Version number 0.1

Version Status DRAFT

Last Updated 01 July 2015

Author Antony Kandathil

Template / Local Template

Process Credit Management

Status Draft

Peer review Karim Ben Messaoud, Ifty Bashir, Andrew Worsley

Page 1 of 6 26 June 2015

Revision History

Author Version Rev. date Summary of Changes Page

Antony Kandathil 0.1 01st July 2015 Initial draft

Table of contents

Key Process steps Page number

Manage and Complete Customer Master & Credit Limit
Block / Release / Delivery Credit Limit
Review Credit Limits

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 ............................................................................................................................................... 4
6. Document readability .................................................................................................................................................... 4
7. Document correctness/ consistency ............................................................................................................................. 4
8. Roles & tcodes & workflow ........................................................................................................................................... 4
9. Comparison to pre- SFIN................................................................................................................................................ 5
10. Testing support.......................................................................................................................................................... 5
11. Areas of improvement .............................................................................................................................................. 5
12. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Page 2 of 6 26 June 2015

1. Introduction
This document represents IBM review on the following SAP process document(s):
- B6_Credit Management.docx
- Credit Management 1509vk.ppt
These documents are attached here:

BD6 Credit
Management.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 – there are few adjustments to be made regarding the contents of the slides such as including
the description about legends used, replacing the words ‘to be clarified’ and ‘???’.

Test Script –The document does not give enough details about the steps to be followed. The steps are
more of screenshots and not explained properly.

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

For the power point presentation: Documents not complete, missing description, transactions and input
processes.
Test script: Incomplete throughout.
4.2. Grammar / checking spelling mistakes, grammar, typos, syntax error etc

No remarks on both documents

4.3. Headings / All headings correctly numbered in test scripts

Headings correctly numbered. Test step headings correctly numbered but not the individual sub-steps in
“Test Procedure” section.
4.4. Process Steps / Are all process steps sequentially numbered?

Test script: steps are in correct sequence, but some sections are empty and does not contain enough
details.

Page 3 of 6 26 June 2015

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

PowerPoint – Not complete as descriptions, transaction codes etc are missing. Also needs to replace with
phrases like ‘to be clarified’.
Test script: Incomplete and needs to be updated with detailed steps rather than some screen shots.
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, test script incomplete

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?

No comments. Descriptions are clear.

7. Document correctness/ consistency

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

PowerPoint: general step sequence is as expected.

Test script: Incomplete

7.2. Consistency 1 / Are all sections of test script consistent throughout document?

NA.
7.3. Consistency 2 / Are all sections of PowerPoint consistent throughout document?

No Remarqs, the powerpoint document is generally consistent.

7.4. Consistency 3 / Are PowerPoint & test script consistent with each other?

No remarks

8. Roles & tcodes & workflow

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

PowerPoint – slide 3 – mentions 3 roles while test document says 2 roles. Both needs to be aligned..

Page 4 of 6 26 June 2015

 8.2. Segregation of duties / Are there any control conflicts between roles and tasks, for example, the same role is
the initiator and approver?

PowerPoint – no remarks. I have not seen any conflict between the different tasks assigned to the Cash
Manager, the Accounts Payables Manager and the Accounts Payables Accountant.
Test script, no remarks. I have not seen any conflict compared to the PowerPoint document.
8.3. Tcodes / Are all tcodes included in test script, and are they consistent with the PowerPoint?

Not all transactions codes are mentioned in Power point and word document.
8.4. Tcodes / Are Fiori apps replacing existing tcodes, and is it clear which tcodes are replaced?

No
8.5. Workflows / Are all workflows included in both documents, and are they consistent with each other and clearly
defined? Any expected workflows missing?

NA.

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

Generally all end to end processes expected of Credit Management are the same.
Differences 2 / Are there key differences missing, say, compared to what you've seen documented for SFIN?

None.

10. Testing support

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

Configuration steps would need to be reviewed in conjunction with configuration guides and access to test system.

11. Areas of improvement

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

Some tests will be needed to identify some area of improvements

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

No remarks.

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

Page 5 of 6 26 June 2015

 No remarks.

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

NA

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

No –

12. Conclusion

The basic process steps are similar to what we would expect in classic ERP.

Page 6 of 6 26 June 2015