HR/Finance Testing Approach IRIS Guiding Panel April 26, 2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

hr payroll testing approach iris steering committee april 26 2005 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
HR/Finance Testing Approach IRIS Guiding Panel April 26, 2005 PowerPoint Presentation
HR/Finance Testing Approach IRIS Guiding Panel April 26, 2005

play fullscreen
1 / 17
Download
Download Presentation

HR/Finance Testing Approach IRIS Guiding Panel April 26, 2005

Presentation Transcript

  1. HR/Payroll Testing ApproachIRIS Steering CommitteeApril 26, 2005

  2. Agenda • Types of Testing done during HR • Unit Testing • Integration Testing • Comparison Testing • Production Simulation • Production Simulation Options • Pros and Cons • Recommended • Discussion

  3. HR Testing Cycles: 4 Types – 7 Rounds Unit Testing (Baseline Testing) – 1 Round Integration Testing (Scenario Testing) – 2 Rounds Comparison Testing ( Parallel) - 2 Rounds then … • Production Simulation Testing – 2 (4 Bi-Weekly, 2 Monthly) Rounds

  4. Unit Testing Unit Testing (aka Baseline Testing) • Completed at the end of Baseline Configuration • Modular Focus • Testing completed by Project Team Purpose • Quantify completion of Baseline Configuration • Are we where we say we are? Started on 4/1 and scheduled to be completed by 5/15.

  5. Integration Testing: Scenario Testing Integration Testing (aka Scenario Testing; aka User Acceptance Testing). Develop “real-life” scenarios of and test each HR Payroll business process and process variant focusing on the integration of the process across modules. • Two Rounds – Round 1 Project Team; Round 2 SMEs. • Scheduled to begin June 20 for a duration of 6 weeks. • Round 1: June 20 – July 8: 2 Weeks Testing + 1 Week Reconciliation • Round 2: July 11 – July 29: 1 Week SME Prep + 2 Weeks Testing • Testing will be conducted in IRIS HR Team room. Purpose • Verify completion of configuration and its integration across the system. • Validate that Business Scenarios are covered. • Involve SMEs and obtain acceptance “buy-in” • Identify and Resolve “Gotchas” During Scenario Testing 30 SMEs will be needed for 3 weeks for approximately 20 hours per week.

  6. Comparison Testing Comparison Testing (August – September ) • Focus on comparing Payroll results of entire employee population between HRS and SAP • Completed by Project Team and Subject Matter Experts (Payroll Office) • Two rounds to be completed. Purpose: • Validate Payroll results of entire population at fixed point in time. • Validate Conversion Programs and Data Migration • Reconciliation of System issues (not User issues).

  7. Comparison Testing (How, Why) • Comparison Testing parallels the results from the current HRS Payroll System ▪Frozen flat file upload from HRS in June ▪ Full payroll conversion from frozen date file into SAP validates conversion loads ▪Allows for testing of all payroll results – full population ▪Allows for repeated test cycles to resolve all system errors prior to production simulation

  8. Production Simulation Testing Production Simulation Testing is a parallel test of Live data prior to Go Live. • The goal is to mimic a production environment. • New hires, terminations, changes in positions, time entry and other actions that take place in the current environment will be replicated in SAP. • Completed by IRIS Team, SMEs and End-users (approx. 100 users). • Permits testing of retro-active payroll. • To begin September and run through October. Purpose: • To validate against the current environment that all processes of HR/ Payroll are working as expected prior to Go Live. • To establish and familiarize Super Users with system prior to Go Live.

  9. Production Simulation Testing: Population DECISION: What size of the population will be tested during the Production Simulation? • 100% Population vs. Comprehensive but Representative Sample.

  10. Production Simulation Testing: Population Considerations • Training • Beta Testing vs. Full Delivery by end of August • FI and MM simultaneous training • Time to Deliver Logistics • Coordination of 100 testers vs. 1,000 Data Conversion • Partial Population vs. Full Conversion Reconciliation • System Issues vs. “Fat Finger” Issues

  11. Production Simulation Testing: Population Recommendation • It is recommended that a production simulation be executed using a representative sample of the University population. • HRS Test list + • University and Hospital • Not all “All-Stars” • Proven Approach: University of Tennessee, Texas State University, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

  12. Discussion

  13. Training HR/Payroll Entry Personnel • Assumptions: • 100% entry training of 1,000 entry personnel, 25 people per session for 40 sessions • Control group training of 100 entry people, 25 people per session for 4 sessions

  14. 100% Campus-wide Production Simulation • Process Description -all HR/Payroll re-entered in the new payroll system by all campus-wide entry personnel • Benefits/Advantages– • All entry people from across the campus will have exposure to system • Full population • Development of end users • Costs/Disadvantages of Approach – • requires training before integration scenario testing is complete • require the acceleration of the training materials while stabilizing system • degree of logistics to support entry personnel • error correction focus is on entry errors vs. system errors

  15. Control Group Representative Testing • Process Description – HR/ Payroll entries entered by a Control Group representing cross-campus users selected by each of the five “security officers” representing the five business areas for a 10 to 15% sampling from a cross-section of campus. • Benefits/Advantages– • allows for a manageable size of testers for training while providing comprehensive • testing of all payroll requirements • allows for the early piloting of the training materials and approach to be used during • “just in time” end-user training. • establishes a core group of SMEs and Super Users to support end user training and • post Go-Live users • conserves HR Team resources for other concurrent tasks during testing • Costs/Disadvantages of Approach – • members of the control group will need to represent all HR/Payroll entry requirements. • Lack of participation by the control group members in testing may reduce the • representation of the user community.

  16. IRIS Team Recommended Approach • Given the thoroughness of the testing methodology, the quality of the parallel test results with the Control Group is adequate. • Control Group test group will allow concurrent project tasks to occur without constraining HR team resources. • Provide more time to develop and deliver end-user training

  17. Payroll Test Cycles