After you have obtained an SAP hardware or software
partner’s Sizing Questionnaire, the real work of completing the
questionnaire begins. Do not be tempted to shortcut this process! The
questions in each questionnaire are important, and need to be answered.
These answers will in turn feed a vendor’s specific custom SAP sizing
tools, methodologies, and models. Combined with each vendor’s judgment
and experience, they will then be able to determine the specific
configuration needed for your system should you choose to run it on
their platform.
I like to have the
project’s SAP solution architect take ownership of completing all
questionnaires. The SA is also well-equipped to actually answer most of
the questions, so this approach makes sense, with the following
exceptions:
Disk sizing
questions that derive their questions from functional or
transaction-based requirements can actually be better addressed by
experienced end users (super users), especially when they are paired
with experienced SAP basis or sizing experts. The SAP project manager should provide an SAP resource trained and experienced in sizing. SAP often refers to this skillset as capacity planning. Regardless of the label, this role is critical from a quality assurance point of view. A
member of each hardware and software vendor’s technical sales staff
should also be involved, responsible in a liaison-like manner for
ensuring that the customer-vendor SAP sizing process does not stall.
Because of the iterative nature of good sizing, the process is
especially susceptible to being derailed over time; direct involvement
of each vendor helps avoid this.
After the questionnaire,
RFI, and/or output data from the SAP Quick Sizer is internally reviewed,
refined, and shared with your prospective vendors, it’s a good idea to
host a one- or two-hour conference call with everyone. I have seen calls
hosted by a customer where all potential vendors were on the call, and
at the other extreme I have played a part in one-on-one calls, too.
Either way is effective, but for the sake of apples-to-apples
comparisons, I prefer that a single conference call be used to host
everyone—this way, everyone hears the same things. I also suggest that
the senior solution architect as well as both the client and SAP project
managers host the call, as then most any question can be answered
“real-time.”
The Pre-Sizing Conference Call in the Real World
Through this
initial pre-sizing conference call, before any real hardware sizing
begins, you can accomplish a lot. First of all, you can help set the
stage for your particular mySAP project by sharing your vision, your
business drivers, and your timelines. You also have an opportunity to
outline your priorities, discuss your biases, identify the skillsets and
experience you already have in-house that will prove relevant to
managing and supporting SAP, and so on. All of this will serve to
greatly improve your chances of obtaining SAP solution sizings that are
done as close to “right” as possible, the first time.
Remember, of course,
that the sizing process is still iterative even in the best of worlds.
However, the conference call approach just discussed will minimize the
number of unnecessary and time-consuming SAP solution resizings that you
would otherwise be forced to review.
Given all of the sizing
conference calls and onsite meetings that I have attended personally, I
thought it would make sense and be in your best interests to share the
kinds of questions and data that I most often appreciated—my solution
sizing colleagues with whom you will work will certainly appreciate much
of the same:
As I mentioned
previously, take this time to set the stage for your particular mySAP
project in terms of Solution Vision, SAP components to be implemented,
business drivers, project timelines, key milestones, and other
project-specific data. Determine
whether this new SAP component to be sized is being integrated with an
existing SAP landscape, replacing a current system, or simply refreshing
a current system. If vendors have little direction in this regard, then
the resulting sizings will probably be so different as to be
incomparable. Review
the numbers you have shared through your RFI, Sizing Questionnaires, or
Quick Sizer output, and make sure that everyone understands your
definition of what the term “user” means to you. Clearly
identify your priorities in regard to the following—total cost of
ownership, performance, availability, scalability, and manageability.
Giving your hardware vendors this kind of insight helps to avoid huge
surprises when you finally receive their version of what you need in
terms of an SAP solution sizing. Discuss
your system architecture and other technology biases, including whether
you prefer a central system approach to a more distributed
architecture, whether you are biased for or against a particular
operating system or database product, and so on. You should also share
what hardware, OS, and database platforms your current enterprise
software solutions depend upon. Along
these same lines, be sure to share the skillsets and experience you
already have in-house with regard to various hardware, OS, and database
platforms, and how likely you are to change or accept something new. Discuss
your views and thoughts with regard to risk: Are you willing to try
something brand new, or reasonably new, if the potential rewards are
great? Do you tend to favor a conservative approach to solution sizing,
or something perhaps more innovative or leading-edge? Identify
which SAP system landscape components must absolutely be sized (like
development, test, and production), and which might be “in the air”
(like a business sandbox, technical sandbox, training system, and so
on). Include whether you prefer the same platforms and components across
these systems (a high level of standardization), or whether initial
budget constraints require a different approach. The more details the
better. Similarly, address the sizing of each database for each system landscape component. If
scalability was not previously covered in detail, indicate something as
to the scalability that the system must provide. For example, does your
company intend to grow or shrink significantly through acquisitions,
mergers, or divestitures over the next 12–36 months? In
terms of accessibility and front-end desktop or laptop requirements,
will Internet access be required? What about new desktops or other
client devices? If
certain vendors have already been selected, I think it makes sense to
share this information as well. For example, as a hardware vendor with
excellent relationships with a number of the “Big 4,” I like to hear
about whether an SAP consulting organization has already been selected
to do the functional work of implementation. Similarly, it’s helpful to
understand which systems integrators, if any, have already been
selected, or whether a certain database or operating system vendor has
already been given the nod. You
also need to discuss any plans for stress-testing, and any thoughts you
might have on proof-of-concept exercises. Every now and then, at little
to no cost, you can leverage an SAP technology partner to actually
“prove” that his solution operates as advertised. This is more often the
case with new SAP Solution Stack alternatives that a particular
technology partner is anxious to “get into production” for the sake of
selling more of the same solutions down the road. In example, I’ve been
involved with POCs related to proving the scalability of new hardware
platforms and different database products. Open
up the call at this point for questions. Usually, questions involve
clarifying why or how you completed the questions in various SAP sizing
questionnaires, or clarification of data provided in your RFI. I
believe that it makes sense to end the call with a synopsis of
everything that has been discussed, and a specific date by which you
expect all solution sizings in
your inbox, along with reiterating what you perceive to be the greatest
risk in your SAP project plan. This latter point serves to remind all
of the participants on the call how important your SAP project is to
your business, and therefore should underscore the importance that each
vendor places in his solution sizing efforts. Follow up these words with
a written one to two page document shared via email.
With a solid sizing
foundation produced, you can now let your prospective hardware and
software partners get to work crafting solutions that not only meet your
business requirements, but hopefully also reflect each partner’s unique
hardware capabilities and competitive advantages.
Building Your Sizing Evaluation Team
With sizings in process,
it’s time to get started assembling an official Sizing Evaluation Team
(SET). Up to this point, the solution architect and some of his senior
team members have played a role in working to develop, document, and
otherwise publish your system requirements. Your Knowledge Repository
has served its purpose, too, and will continue to grow in value as the
solution sizings start rolling in. Additional SAP Technical Support
Organization (SAP TSO) team members need to be pulled in at this point,
however, to build a virtual team or subteam that includes the following
staff:
The senior
solution architect heads this team. Other solution architects may be
needed to help evaluate solution sizings and work with different
technology partners, however. This is because a large SAP project
covering four or five mySAP components, shared with four or five
different SAP technology partners, can add up to a whole lot of reading
for a single SA to do. Technology
SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) in each solution stack layer must be
represented on the team, including data center, hardware, network, OS,
database, and of course mySAP specialists. This often includes many
preselected technology partners (SAP and perhaps hardware and database
experts). Even so, do your best to avoid obviously biased team members;
an open mind is important at this stage in the project. Together, the
senior solution architect, any other solution architects, and the
combined SMEs make up the core of the SET team. Current
systems administrators, systems management, and computer operations
organizations are represented. This is more for their benefit than the
core SET team, but helps to build excellent relationship bridges as
well. Business
staff (from key functional areas) must be represented, to include them
in the sizing review process and therefore develop critical buy-in. This
avoids “I told you so” or “I didn’t know” later in the project, if
something goes wrong. A
documentation specialist (DS) will update your Knowledge Repository and
play a role in developing or customizing evaluation templates or
similar approaches, if, for example, the number of technology partners
makes this necessary.
The goal of the SET team
is simple: to review each solution sizing, and evaluate the responses in
terms of each vendor’s ability to meet your needs. The team needs to
keep the various project managers up to speed about this review process.
None of this is trivial, though, as you see in the next section.
The Sizing Review Process
With each vendor’s sizing attempts in front of us, it is now time to review each solution document in terms of the following:
Type of
sizing—Is the sizing little more than a parts list, or a full-fledged
solution architecture document, or something in between? Completeness—Does
the sizing take into account the entire mySAP system landscape
discussed in the pre-sizing conference call, or identified in the
questionnaire? Reflection
of the Sizing Questionnaire or RFI data provided—Does the sizing
document clearly restate where it obtained its assumptions, boundary
conditions, system requirements, biases, and so on? Accurate
load factors—Are the correct named, online, or concurrent user counts
reflected in the sizing, or is the proper transaction load noted? What
about reporting and batch loads, or the potential impact due to expected
heavy customizing? HA/DR—Is
there a section in the sizing that addresses high availability and/or
disaster recovery, as requested? Further, is the approach hardware-,
OS-, or database-specific? Core
infrastructure—Is there a section in the sizing that addresses core
infrastructure requirements, including network, rack, special servers,
systems management options, and more? Disk details—Does the sizing go into detail with regard to the disk subsystem configuration? Backup/Restore—Does
the sizing address technology used to actually back up the various
database structures and other file partitions that support your mySAP
solution as architected by the vendor?
The Documentation
Specialist (DS) has some work to do, then. An enterprising DS will not
only insert all sizings and supporting data into the Knowledge
Repository, but at the direction of the SA he will also begin
identifying where and how solutions differ from one another. To do this
effectively, a matrix is useful. For
example, all assumptions, boundary conditions, and other constraints
that are documented by each solution vendor need to be recorded between
the individual sizings. Basic hardware configurations need to be
verified as well, like the number and speed of CPUs, RAM, and disk
drives in each server, the number of servers in each SAP system, the
size and scope of each SAP system landscape, and so on. Further, missing
components need to be noted, like the absence of Requisite BugsEye
servers in mySAP SRM solutions, or overlooking the need for ITS servers.
All of these factors and more influence the configuration, and
therefore impact both the resulting parts lists and the price of each
competing solution.
With the general review
behind us, we can now begin to focus on evaluating each sizing with a
critical eye when it comes to different layers in the SAP Solution
Stack.
|