Classification: Internal

SAP Upgrade-
Simplify R3 September
August Release
Release -
Project ID 110241
EMEA
Testing Deck
June ’22
R3 August Testing Kick off call
April’20
Classification: Internal

SAP Upgrade- SEP 22

AGENDA 1 Test Tracking & Status Report

2 Timelines & Milestones

3 Testing Program Structure
4 Assumptions & Dependencies
5 SAP Upgrade SIT(Prep Steps)
6 SAP Upgrade UAT(Prep Steps)
7 Regression Prep Steps
8 Performance Prep Steps
9 Master Data
10 Communication Matrix

2 HP Confidential. For internal use only

Classification: Internal

Status Overview – click on link below

Overall Test Status Update

for SAP upgrade.pptx

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

SIT Preparation Steps

Tasks Owner Min. TAT From – to Comments / Status
Date
Setup test teams QA 1 week 5/9 – 5/20 Tower Leads IT & Biz
COE/Towers
Scope identification Tower 2 weeks 5/23 – 6/10 Incl. scope sign-off /freeze
MD Identification* Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 6/17 projects with MTP in May,
June, Aug
MD Identification Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 7/8 Project MTP scope for
SEPTEMBER RELEASE September only
ONLY
MD Setup * Tower 3 weeks 6/20 – 7/1 * *IFs needed to push PRO-
7/11 – 7/22 >M9->S9

Test scenarios setup Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 7/1

Load test scenarios in Tower 2 week 7/4 – 7/15
ALM
Test Exec Prep Week @ 7/18 – 7/22
Execute tests Tower 7 weeks 7/25 – 9/8 Start with IT Validations +
Interface checks
Track progress Tower, QA Status Reports by QA COE
* MD identification & setup
COEonly for inflight projects
Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

S/4 HANA 2021 Upgrade Overview: 25 Sep 2022 Go-live

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
Week 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31
Starti
ng
Upgrade SDU/MDU
(sandbox) Hard
SPDD/SPAU Sep Release
SDU/MDU(sandbox) Freez
Code Freeze
Copy S5D, e Notes:
Initial Functional/Regression

Integratio
Upgrade S9D

SPAU
M5D,C5D,B5D CCR
, M9D Retrofit Testing For interface support
D
n
P5D,L5D during Aug and Sep

SPDD
4/14 copy Security Hypercare , testing can
E IT
Validation
remediation happen in N+9 landscape
if needed, but transports
V move in N+5 environment.

Ongoing Manual Retrofit

Copy SCP,

Integratio
Upgrade S9Q Current

SPAU
MDP,CCP,BWP

D-
, M9Q state

n
P,LTP Initial Releas

SPDD
5/01 prod
Q

D-
Import Ongoing Import TRs es
copy IT
Validation
Sync up
Security
Basis
A Security
setup
Pre data
setup
Master data prep
Securi
prep ty
Dev
PO SIT/Regression
Switch
UAT/Regression
Non- PO
CS Switc Func
Initial h
switch CS Remaining Test
interfaces

R Upgrade MD

Integratio
Copy SCP,

SPAU
P
SRQ

D-
M5P,CCP,

n
BWP,P,LTP MRQ Regr
E +

SPDD
D-
Perf
PO +
R 8/16 prod copy
RPERF Int
F S/ S/
S/M8Q S/MCP
S/ S/ S/
S/MCP
M5D M5Q M9D M9Q MRQ
CURRENT SUPPORT 1909 1909 FUTURE SUPPORT 2021
2021 2021 2021
Classification: Internal

SAP Upgrade Timeline

Data Preparation, Cut over activities
ABAP Upgrade activities
System Build/Upgrade - Basis activities Path to Production PathPath
to Production
to Production
PO Interface setup activities

Planned Releases – 15 May, 12 S5D S5Q S8Q SCP S5D S5Q

SIT/UAT
Jun, 14Aug, 11 Sep 1909 1909 1909 1909 S8Q SCP
Functional Validation by IT Tower Teams 1909 1909
22-Mar 22-Apr 22-May 22-Jun 22-Jul 22-Aug 22-Sep
4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30
Major planned releases
Upgrade pre-req
strated BODS Sept release code freeze
Upgrade dependency assessment highlevel from Basis from 11 Upgrade
CC Upgrade feasibility
System readiness check CC discussing with SAP
Workshop design Team
Custom code impact analysis
Sandbox upgrade Upgrade
Hard
retrofit from 13 May ...ongoing manual retrofit from SCP + Sept release after UAT signoff Freeze
Custom Code Remediation Cust Code Remediation
Dev
N+9 dev is copy of N+5
Build N+9, Dev, refresh copy, post refresh activities Dev as of 20 April Build Dev
PO Interface S9D, M9D, C9D, B9D, P9D, PO Setup
Functional validation by tower IT teams L9D, Functional Validation

Transpo
Upgrade N+9 Dev Upgrade
SPDD SPAU + Custom code Remediation
Functional adjustments Change Management to provide all Functional adjustments
Functional Validation by IT Tower teams transports from 20th April to 13 May Functional Validation
QA from Prod.
Build N+9 QA, refresh, post refresh basis activities N+9 QA is copy of Prod Build QA
PO Interface as of 30 April S9D, PO Setup
Functional validation by tower IT teams
M9D, C9D, B9D, P9D, Functional Validation
L9D,
Upgrade N+9 QA Upgrade
Delta SPDD Delta SPAU + CCR
Functional Adjustment Functional Adjustments
Data Preparation Master Data Preparation Master Data Preparation
Interface Switch Switch Interface
SIT1 SIT for upgrade
UAT1 UAT for upgrade
Pre-Prod Upgrade
Refresh
Upgrade
Delta SPDD, SPAU
Delta Code remediation
Reg + Perf Testing
S9D S9Q
Refresh Upgrade
Delta SPAU + CCR
Copy of Prod as
of 15 Aug Rreg & Perf
Retrofit Project 1) Breakfix that moves to Prod should be retroffited
SIT
UAT
to to N+9 SRQ
Sept release transports from S5Q
Reg and Perf Testing 2) Parallel testing for Sept release and upgrade 2021
release.

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

Test Program Structure

Overall SAP Upgrade PM Seema Khanapuri , Swati Khandelwal , Naresh Maharaj
Testing PM Frank Sattler, Kimsi Mehrotra
ALM Status Tracking Vinay Kumar
Anamika Banerjee Amareswara Bollimunta Raghavendar
Test Captains(SIT/UAT) Kimsi Mehrotra (50%) TBH
(CW) (CW) Kandukuri (CW)
Master Data Coordination Ejaz Siddiqui, Vinay Kumar, Dusan Hrianka
Regression Test
Fernando Arias
Coordination
Performance Test
Dusan Hrianka, Prachi Dixit (CW)
Coordination
QA COE War Room Vinay Kumar, Ejaz Siddiqui, Dusan Hrianka, TBH
Tower Test leads Business UAT Biz IT Test Captain
BI FI BI: Javier Acosta Naresh Sakhamuri, Rithesh Amareswara Bollimunta/
CS BI : Shanmugam Lakshmanan Vijayakrishnan Anamika Banerjee
SC BI & Security: Harini S
FI Security : Ankur Parekh
BPM BPM Customer: Krishna Devata
V K, Manu manu.v.k@hp.com Chowtipally, Pavani (CW)
G V, Ganesh pavani.chowtipally@hp.com;
ganesh.g.v@hp.com S, NIKKEETHA (CW)
Raghavendar Kandukuri
BPM Vendor: nikkeetha.s@hp.com
Kumar, Rohit (CW) --Primary
Nataraj, Pushpa
T R, Manjukumar
FI/RTR Janine Buchanan Overall PM: Faisal Jafree
Patrik Ogheden Biz Coord: Juan Muniz
Marci Zettlemoyer Test lead: Katia Alejandre Holly Pham/IT Anand Bende Anamika Banerjee
Classification: Internal

Test Program Structure- Contd..

Tower Test Business UAT Biz IT Test Captain
leads
Finance RPA Prashanth Kumar Chandrashekaran/Tapesh Ahuja Ejaz Siddiqui*
SC RPA Sobi Wilson / Prakash Srinivasan​, Aditya Sharma, Ivan Ejaz Siddiqui*
Monteiro, Kumar Nagamuthu
ITR Robert Shreed Pant Ezz El Din Rafat, Fabiola Mendoza Raghavendar Kandukuri
Cassey
LTO Uwe Koeber Louis Lu, Jin Huang tbc TBH / Frank *
ML Irene Suzuki Test Lead: Mike Downing Test Lead: Vaclav Skoda; ML IT SPOC: Vijay Varadarajan Raghavendar Kandukuri
AMS: Laura Marroquin
APJ: Avinava Mukherjee
EMEA: Vishwanath R / Peter Naegele
OTC Kees Beets Nancy Azpeitia, Ashita Vyas Venkateswarlu Korimerla Amareswara Bollimunta
PLM Aldo Guerrero See next page for details Ravi VT, Sharon Krenek Sharon Krenek –PLM IT &
Heather Jason Gregg – PLM COE (2
Minuhin in a Box)
P&M Randy Pinder – PM Contact Rahul Bhatt, Helmy Hamzar* Kimsi Mehrotra
Procurement – Neha Sood (James O’donnell Adam Krupowicz (PoC for Nightfall project)
assisting)
Manufacturing – Andreas Langer Buy/Sell: IT contacts from respective Towers to cover
Mass PIR Tool – Melissa Schmidt
Buy/Sell – Andrea Mayerhofer, Vincent Chury
Addtl. Contacts if needed: PWP Procurement Michelle Thompson

Integration N/A N/A Malini Rammohan N/A

Team Automation: Arvind Kumar
Performance: Eric Upshaw / Sanjay Raina
CIA – Jose Velazquez
NBE Sara Iago Losado (Scope) N/A N/A (Amareswara
Bercianos Javier Blanco (MD) Bollimunta*)
(capgemini)?, David Villellas Sanz (Test scenario/upload)
Iago Losada Sergio Salamanca, Peter Stokes
PO Team N/A N/A Baljit Singh, [Kavin Muthuramalingam] N/A (Frank*)
SAP COE N/A N/A Giresh Chikkahalli​, Vereendra Bollipo, Neelam N/A (Frank*)
Shekhawat, Sandeep Are​
Classification: Internal

PLM Contact Names - Overview

PLM Epic IT Owner CoE Owner

PLM - BI Shilpi, Anil Kumar anil.shilpi@hp.com Garate, Kattia kattia.garate@hp.com

PLM - BOM/Doc/ER Perez, Ida ida.perez@hp.com

Beebe, Kelly kelly.beebe@hp.com
Nanduri, Satya Ramagopal satya.ramagopal.nanduri@hp.com Balaguru, Sakthiyappan sakthiyappan.balaguru@hp.com
PLM - Chemical
Compliance Krenek, Sharon sharon.krenek@hp.com Andreetti, Giovanni giovanni.andreetti@hp.com
GOPALAKRISHNAN, SHYAMKUMAR Garate, Kattia kattia.garate@hp.com
PLM - Costing
shyamkumar.gopalakrishnan@hp.com Balaguru, Sakthiyappan sakthiyappan.balaguru@hp.com
PLM - Incident
Management Mantha, Arjun mantha@hp.com Overcash, Walter walter.overcash@hp.com
PLM - Interfaces Gadela, Pydi Reddy pydi@hp.com Wick, Jeffrey jeffrey.wick@hp.com
PLM - Material
Compliance (Spares,
GAIA, Product RoHS) Mantha, Arjun mantha@hp.com Andreetti, Giovanni giovanni.andreetti@hp.com
PLM - Material
Hierarchy Shilpi, Anil Kumar anil.shilpi@hp.com Minuhin, Heather M heather_jensen@hp.com

PLM - MDG Koppel, Lori lori.koppel@hp.com

Rajendran, Shantha Murthy shantha-murthy.rajendran@hp.com Gregg, Jason jason.gregg@hp.com
- MDG - Part
number settings Koppel, Lori <lori.koppel@hp.com>
PLM - Partner
Collaboration Nanduri, Satya Ramagopal satya.ramagopal.nanduri@hp.com Wick, Jeffrey jeffrey.wick@hp.com
PLM - PLC Vadlamudi, Madhu madhulatha.vadlamudi@hp.com Semin, Susan <susan.semin@hp.com>
PLM - RPA Rajendran, Shantha Murthy shantha-murthy.rajendran@hp.com Gopalan, Viswanathan viswanathan.gopalan@hp.com
Neeley, Melinda Rae (Worldwide Technical Regulations)
PLM - Tracer
Khan, Rafath Amina rafath.amina.khan@hp.com melinda.morrison@hp.com
PLM - SKU Automation Rajendran, Shantha Murthy shantha-murthy.rajendran@hp.com Cussigh, Frederick frederick.cussigh@hp.com

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

Overview Test Coordination Coverage

SP for SAP Upgrade: S4 HANA Upgrade 2021

What N+9Q NRQ E2E Discret Comment

e
SIT x x Incl. interface testing
SPDD/SPAU
Custom obj.
Authorization
Impacted Objects

UAT x x

Regression x x x 34 automated E2E scenarios for SC (3-4 days execution) +

Test validation needed
+ ITR scenarios

Performance x x Up to 5000 users

Test

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

Assumptions & Dependencies

Assumptions
• Use ALM for SAP Upgrade project testing, [not TestRail or QTEST etc.]
• All Interfaces needed for testing are available
• Discrete Test data & Plans for partner testing managed by towers
• N+9Q is a full copy of PRODUCTION as of 4/30/2022 (incl. Master Data, transactional
data….)
• Discrete scoping work for SIT vs UAT
• Tower IT and business agree on who does what on their own (we track the execution
progress)
• Based on CIA reports?
• E2E testing is covered by Regression Tests, no other E2E testing required
 For tower owned projects scheduled to deploy from June through September the hosting
tower will provide master data requirements to setup data in N+9 and manage the
Dependencies
discrete tests. they will engage with other towers as needed to execute the test steps.
• Test Master Data Setup can only start after ALL Dev and Config Objects are available in
the environments (This can NOT be done in parallel)
• Master Data Setup to be done before testing can start
• Resources available for Master Data setup (e.g., PIRs, costing….as some of those teams'
don´t have resources allocated to entertain MD setup…
• User Access is granted before testing will start (user master from N+5Q)
• Linkage from M9Q – P9Q – S9Q working and related Redwood jobs scheduled (needed for
MD setup)

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

SAP Upgrade – SIT

Test Coordination Scope

• SIT coordination M9Q, S9Q, (B9Q, P9Q, C9Q, L9Q)
• Tower IT owns
• Interface testing (prep driven by tower IT)
• Tower teams to upload test cases to ALM
• Tower teams to execute and track test cases
• MD identification & setup only for inflight projects

CR handling in ALM

Daily dashboard with % complete, open steps etc.

• Assume can get a report out of ALM

Out of scope:
• Development layer testing
• Project scope testing (not yet in production by September) – this should be driven by the
project teams

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

SIT Preparation Steps

Tasks Owner Min. TAT From – to Comments / Status
Date
Setup test teams QA 1 week 5/9 – 5/20 Tower Leads IT & Biz
COE/Towers
Scope identification Tower 2 weeks 5/23 – 6/10 Incl. scope sign-off /freeze
MD Identification* Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 6/17 projects with MTP in May,
June, Aug
MD Identification Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 7/8 Project MTP scope for
SEPTEMBER RELEASE September only
ONLY
MD Setup * Tower 3 weeks 6/20 – 7/1 * *IFs needed to push PRO-
7/11 – 7/22 >M9->S9

Test scenarios setup Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 7/1

Load test scenarios in Tower 2 week 7/4 – 7/15
ALM
Test Exec Prep Week @ 7/18 – 7/22
Execute tests Tower 7 weeks 7/25 – 9/8 Start with IT Validations +
Interface checks
Track progress Tower
* MD identification & setup only for inflight projects
Tuesday, March 1
CR handling Tower 8, 2025
Classification: Internal

SAP Upgrade – UAT

Daily dashboard with % complete, open steps etc.
• Get a report out of ALM
Test Coordination Scope
• UAT coordination M9Q, S9Q, (B9Q, P9Q, C9Q, L9Q)
• Tower owns
• Interface testing in alignment with SIT scope
• Tower teams to upload test cases to ALM
• Tower teams to execute and track test cases
• MD identification & setup only for inflight projects

CR handling in ALM
Master Data
• Copy of Production as of 4/30/2022
• In-flight projects may need to request setup of Master Data
• Project List? (ITR, Nightfall, Secure Home Delivery,…)
Out of scope:
• Development layer testing
• Project scope testing (not in production by September) – to be driven by the project
teams

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

UAT Preparation Steps

Tasks Owner Min. TAT From – to Comments / Status
Date
Setup test teams QA COE/Towers 1 week 5/9 – 5/20 Tower Leads IT & Biz
Scope identification Tower 2 weeks 5/23 – 6/10 Incl. scope sign-off /
freeze
MD Identification* 2 weeks 5/30 – 6/17
MD Identification Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 7/8 Project MTP scope for
SEPTEMBER RELEASE September only
ONLY
MD Setup * 3 weeks 6/20 – 7/1
7/11 – 7/22
Test scenarios setup Tower 2 weeks 5/30 – 7/1

Load test scenarios in Tower 2 week 7/4 – 7/15

ALM
Test Exec Prep Week 7/18 – 7/22
Execute tests Tower 7 weeks 8/1 – 9/15
*Track progress
MD identification Tower
& setup only for inflight projects
CR handling Tower Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

X-Tower UAT Test alignment/dependencies

• Purpose: Share from each tower their need for collaboration/dependencies from other tower
teams

• Proposed Approach:
• Test captain will check with each tower UAT team if they have any need to have test
help/dependencies from any other tower.
• UAT tower team to prepare the overview on what they need from whom, when

 Once we have the feedback ready QA COE team will setup a walkthrough call with the
impacted towers
• Each tower to present their needs
• Discussion to clarify questions, concerns,
• Agree on next steps

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

Regression Test Preparation Steps

Tasks Owner Min. TAT S9Q From SRQ From – to

– to Date Date
Prep Autom. Scripts Integration 2 weeks 7/11 – 7/22 9/5 – 9/9
Team
MD Identification Vineetha? 2 weeks Now- 7/1 Now – 8/15
MD Setup Towers & us 2 weeks 7/11 – 7/22 9/5 – 9/9
Execution cycles Integration 3-4 days per cycle 7/25 - 9/14 9/12 – 9/21
Team
Test validation Tower 1-2 days extra per 7/28 – 9/16 9/15 – 9/23
 What automated E2E Regression tests do we have: Regression Testing Document 20220313
cycle
 QA COE to discuss how many test cycles we can run ( goal is at least 2 cycles in S9Q, and 1-2 cycles in SRQ)
 Timeline for Phase 2 – FI and ITR Regression E2Es which is Oct 31st
 SC E2Es 34 plus whatever we complete by June /July for FI and ITR will be executed in the upgrade environment.
 September Release Scope potentially won´t be able to be tested in SRQ prior to the SAP Upgrade. That scope maybe need to be
tested in S9Q only (Reason: Risk of non-existing MD of September Release scope in copy from PRO as of August 15) - TBC

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal Signed Off Validation Conditional Not Failed Not started
from In Progress Sign off Applicable
Business Received
E2E Regression Scenarios - APJ
Region HP Biz POC Scenario
702(EOP): Customer Direct ship from In-house Japan Factory – BTO
702(D+): Customer Direct ship from In-house Japan Factory – CTO

JP Kit Mien 007i(D+): Sales Office to Customer from sales office stock (FGCTO)
063a(EOP): Factory Direct Ship to Customer via Physical X-Dock
E2E-007f : Sales Office to Customer (Ship from HP Owned stock)
E2E-002: Factory to DC (Ship to stock / Replenishment) – PS
SEA-K Kit Mien E2E-007: Sales Office to Customer (Ship from HP Owned stock) –B2Bi
E2E-001: IDS / Factory Direct Ship to Customer
E2E-006e: DC to Customer-LSP (Delivery Based 940 Flow) –EOP
E2E-024g: Inv Rebalancing (Intercompany) – DC (loosely coupled) to Sales Office / CDO (loosely
coupled)
AUNZ Kit MIen
E2E-001: IDS / Factory Direct Ship to Customer
E2E-001 AU11
E2E-062: Ship from DC (CTP) to Customer
Region HP Biz POC Scenario

E2E-007f - China

CN Kit Mien E2E-063a - China

E2E-001 - China
E2E-702a – China

E2E-001 (MIT) - India

IN Kit Mien
E2E001 E2E-63e - India
E2E63d - India
18
Classification: Internal Signed Off Validation Conditional Not Failed Not arted
from In Progress Sign off Applicable
E2E Regression Scenarios – AMS, EMEA Business Received

Region HP Biz POC Scenario

E2E-013 - DC to Customer for Hard Bundles (Product/ Care pack / Monitor)

LATAM RICARDO RAMIREZ
E2E-007b - Brazil Domestic Ship from stock to Customer from Sales Office (loosely coupled)

E2E-317- US31 AMS Ariba (DIRECT AND/OR INDIRECT)

E2E-006 US stock selling to US(US to US) - Delivery based model with standalone intangible
AMS RICARDO RAMIREZ
E2E-002 - Factory to DC (Ship to stock /Replenishment)

E2E-013a – Instant Ink product flowing to Ryder US35

E2E-006e DC to Customer-LSP (Delivery Based 940 Flow) Non-EU customer

E2E -026f Customer Returns – with Reference (EMEA/APJ) – 1 Leg

E2E-001 – Top Config business model

EMEA Martin
E2E-001 – BOM3 invoice split

E2E-001 – UK Brexit
E2E-001- ODM End state
E2E-063a – Russia RLB
E2E-063e - RLB from RU22 print DIO

19
Classification: Internal

Performance Test Preparation Steps - TBC

Tasks Owner Min. TAT S9Q - Date SRQ - Date

Prep Test setups Integration 2 weeks 6/20 – 7/1 9/5 – 9/9
Team
Run Baseline PT Before Integration 3 hours 6/27 – 7/1
Upgrade Team
Execution cycles – tbd Integration 3 hours per 7/22 onwards 9/12 onwards
Team round
Test validation Tower Approx. 1 day 7/25 - 9/14 9/12 – 9/21

Holiday season performance After go-live

testing (HHO instant Ink)

Note: S9Q is a 12 TB environment which may limit the ability to run a full performance test up to 5,00

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

Master Data for SIT / UAT – SAP Upgrade

N+9 will be a copy of Production as of 4/30/2022

SIT/UAT to be covered with existing Master Data

Additional Master Data should only be needed (if at all) for inflight projects (MTP: May,
Jun, Aug, Sep), e.g.
• Nightfall
• ITR
• Home Delivery
• …(need to get a more complete project list)

Deadline for MD Identification: 6/17

• Only September Release Scope to be Identified by latest 7/8

Requests made after the deadline will be on a best effort basis

SP Link to Request: Master Data

Contacts for Coordination & Follow-ups: Vinay Kumar (APJ), Ejaz Siddiqui (AMS) and
Dusan Hrianka (EMEA)

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

MD Setup Contacts

I
MD Area / QA COE PoC BIZ PoC for
Elements setup
Material Master Ejaz

W
PLM
Products Costing Ejaz Lizbeth….
Trader Vendors Vinay Kumar Pushpa
Nataraj/Prashant
h/T R Manju
Kumar

P
IC Customers Vinay Kumar Alan Milone/Raji
IC Vendors Vinay Kumar S, Rajesh/Raji
Finance MD Vinay Kumar Monika Jain
Trade Customers Vinay Kumar R, Roopa, Manu
V K,
Logistics Vinay Kumar Alina, Amrin,
Pradeep, Kumar,
Rajesh4
Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

SIT / UAT SAP Upgrade Master Data Readiness

Executive Summary
Materials Ready for WIP Not
MD Ready For Testing
requested testing started
Risk
OTC 100 50 30 20
4 scenario(s)

APJ Global, other

ML
MD identification… [34 E2E regions
scenarios] [15 E2E
P&M scenarios]
6

I
30
FI 3

1
…. 2
3
1 3

W
Scenarios ready - 1 Scenarios ready -
3
Identification Identification
2 1
WIP WIP
Setup WIP 30 Setup WIP 6
+0 scenario(s) +0 scenario(s)
ready since ready since
yesterday yesterday
Impact Wave 1
[15 E2E
Wave 2 , TBD
[34 E2E
 Delay in MD setup completion for test start 7/25 scenarios] scenarios]
 Delay in handover to test team 25

3
11
1
1
5
3
Classification: Internal

Overview Test Master Data Preparation Cycle

Identify MD Requirements Identify Data/ Create Data Complete Data setup
Requirements Setup (3 -4 weeks) Handover to Project Test Team
(2 weeks during project
planning)
• Identify test master data • Creation and setup of • Master Data Issues handled
needs for project scope: thru ALM CRs during testing
• Materials master data for Critical and High CR’s
• Customers / Vendors • Prerequisite: all
• Prices, Costs needed
• Logistics Route configurations are
available in test
MD Element Setup TAT
system
Additional Considerations
(working days)

standard material extension on ~7 Material request template:

Microsoft Excel
existing plant Worksheet

BOM 3 / BOM 5 ~ 13 - 15
CTO incl. lower level BOM materials ~ 20 - 25 all BOM requirements need to be submitted within the template and structured
as CTO AV BOMs
CTO only requires extension ~ 13 - 15 PDM will assume extension only if not submitted with lower level BOM
requirements
Trade / IC PIR ~3-5 Can only be requested AFTER material extension & costing is complete
Trade List Price ~ 7 - 10 needs Price Descriptor and needed LP in needed currency
Assumptions
Vendor / Customer & Dependencies
~ 13 - 15
•Logistics
QA COERoute ~ to
involved from project planning 5 -understand
10 relevant scope and required master data
• QA will help to provide overview on existing master data so project team can leverage existing setups instead of creating master
data from scratch where possible
• MD requirements are completely defined and documented using the required templates: Material request template
• New Enterprise Trade Structure requirements (New Sales Orgs, New Plants, New Business Supply Chain flow, etc.) can add another
Classification: Internal

Test Tracking and Status Report

Approach (ALM, test cycles etc.)

• Process on ALM folder structure, test case creation and ALM

upload
Tracking

• Process to track execution (completed steps, pending steps,

open CRs, burndown chart/dashboard)
• Status Reporting

CR Mgmt

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal Overall Status

SAP Upgrade SIT Readiness Status –

SIT Start Test Scope Master Data Test Scripts Training
Environment Confirmation
 Discrete ALM Readiness  ALM Training ?
 Discrete Test Scenarios yet • S9Q will be used for  Discrete Test Scenarios  Master Data
to be published SIT / UAT testing. identification is wip wip.
to be Published
 MD Setup can only start
7/4

Highlights / Actions Completed

I Upcoming / WIP Actions

W
Original
Actions Owner Date Actions Owner New ETA
ETA

Off Track, within Off track, support

Completed On Track
tolerance needed
Classification: Internal

Communication Matrix

Communication Purpose Medium Frequency Sender Audience

Test Status Report Status Power point, • Weekly during Frank, Anamika, @ stakeholders,
information on email prep / Vinay OSC
test progress, Thursday
pending steps
and critical open • Daily during
issues/ CRs execution
TBD / if
needed in OSC
Test Team Weekly status & Call Monday / Anamika Test PoC from all
Session(s) - tbd alignment to Wednesday- towers (IT and
ensure Timings- TBD Business) & Test
completion in Captains
time
QA COE Team Alignment within Call Daily Anamika QA COE
catch up team, lessons Timings- TBD
learned, etc.
QA COE War Forum for CR Call Daily –Timings- Ejaz, Vinay CR owners,
Room submitter to seek TBD submitters
help in case
needed
Tower working Daily checkpoint Call Daily Test Captains Tower Teams
sessions and working
session Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
 Classification: Internal

Prework needed / Next Steps

QA COE AI Tracker SAP Upgrade.xlsx
Create Date Need by Date Requestor Owner What Done so far Next Steps Status
Need to get confirmation from Vineetha if
all MD needed for Regression Testing is
13-May 20-May Frank available in PRO (as of 4/30) New
5/9: As per Seema the interlock requests to
Interlock on MD Setup resources for SAP business have been sent but no
8-May 31-May Frank Frank Upgrade Project responses/estimates received yet Follow up Open
Prep for a QA war room starting once QA box
is available for MD setup until Testing sign-
12-May 11-Jul Frank Ejaz, Vinay off has happened New
Setup call with all Tower leads / PoCs to get
started, provide overview, share draft plans,
12-May 16-May Frank get scope clarity etc. New
Assign owners to topics and have them their
13-May 15-May Frank all area / slides prepared New
Need to get a Test Readiness Tracker to have
an overview on all dependencies e.g.
interface switch dates, Config TRs, Master
13-May 18-May Frank Anamika Data Setup, test scenarios…. New
Where is testing to be done for projects with
13-May 16-May Frank Atif MTP in September? S5Q and/or S9Q? New
13-May 18-May Frank Review & Complete Communication Matrix New

Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
N+9 QA Landscape
Intranet (SAP Fiori URL) Internet (SAP Fiori URL)

HTTPS HTTPS

IDP (PING HTTPS HTTPS IDP (PING

SAP Web dispatcher SAP Web dispatcher
ID) Saml2.0 Saml2.0 ID)
HTTPS
HTTPS
L9Q(DMIS 2018
SP07)

SLT
replication
M9Q (S/4HANA
B9Q (BW/4HANA
2021 FP01)
2021 FP01)

P9Q (NW 7.50

BIQ(4.2) Legacy systems
S9Q S/4HANA 2021 FP01 SP17)
(OTC,RTR,PTP,PLM, PMS,
ITR)
WBQ GRQ
(PaPM 3.0 SP9) (PC1200 SP03,
NFE 10 SP31)
SAP GTS 10,
CHARM Velocity
DSQ SAP GTQ (GTS
(IPS 4.2 SP8) CHARM 11.0 SP18)

EBQ
(1909 FP02)
SPA 7.2 SP10
CHARM Color Legend
C9D (core server N+9 New QA system
Redwood (Scheduler 9.1.3) 2021 FPS01)
Existing system, integrated with N+9

Existing system, no integration with N+9

Classification: Internal

THANK
Simplify R3 August Release -
EMEA YOU
R3 August Testing Kick off call
April’20
ALM Training

© Copyright 2012 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

The information contained herein is subject to change without notice.
Agenda

• Introduction to ALM
• ALM Overview
• ALM Access

• ALM Key Features for Testers

• Test Execution
• Field Level Requirements
• Defect Management Process
• Logging New Defects & Attaching to Test Steps

• FAQ

• Common Errors

© Copyright 2016 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Overview
HP Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) is a test management tool which empowers
organizations to manage the core application lifecycle, from requirements through
deployment.

© Copyright 2016 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice.
Classification: Internal

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Access

Click https://alm-3.external.hp.com/qcbin

34 © Copyright 2012 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Click

The information contained herein is subject to change without notice.
Connect
 ALM - Test Execution

35
Classification: Internal

Test Execution: Basics

Testers should have 4 apps open when testing:
1. Logged into ALM – this should be updated in real time
2. Logged into S4/HANA (Test system)
3. Master data file on share point. File location will vary based
on test phase
4. E2E flow Chart
Execution Guidelines:
• Please update ALM real-time, Do not postpone or wait until after you send email,
update first
• Provide actual results information in the ‘Actual Results’ section based off the outcome
of the test step, See Pass/Fail slides (slide 20) step 3
• All runs have been already been created by ALM Administrator so ALWAYS continue the
current run (click ‘Continue Manual Run’)
• All defects should be linked to test steps, No exceptions
• Within a TEST SET, do not pass/fail at the TEST CASE level as this will cause a new run to
be created, Only set status and pass/fail at the TEST STEP level
• All new defects attached to TEST STEPS must have screen shots attached
• All new documents #s and defects that stop progress should be added to the MEMO field
of the test case at the test set screen. Blank MEMO fields will prevent Finance from
36
considering the step as ready for validation
Classification: Internal

Typical Test Execution Process

1. Open all applications (S4, ALM, Master Data, E2E flow Chart)
2. Find test case to execution in ALM, Select that row
3. Choose “Continue Manual Run”, then “Begin” (slide 19)
4. Find the test step to be executed and examine the description and expected
outcome
5. Conduct the test as directed. Use master data file as needed
6. Log the results in ALM. Put any new documents in the memo field
7. Update the ACTUALS section for ALL steps regardless how simple or complex
8. Pass/Fail the test step
9. If failed, create a new defect and attached to the test step
10.In either pass or fail, create screen shot and attach as needed (not all test
steps will require a screen shot attach)
11.Continue next test step in the test case if you are the next owner
12.Repeat 5-9 until all your steps are done
13.Note who the next test step owner is and copy the email address
14.Choose STOP icon to stop the run (square icon)

16. Email the next tester and include the test scenario (e.g. E2E-XXX) and the test
case name and the Test Phase in the SUBJECT of the email. You can also right
37 click any TEST CASE and choose SEND BY EMAIL/SEND BY EMAIL but make
Classification: Internal
• Test Scenarios can be found here in Test Lab

Test Execution: Finding Test • Test Lead will communicate the correct folder you are testing in
(1911 SIT1, 1909 SIT1, 1911 UAT, etc), please make sure you are in
the right folder
Scenarios • Right Click “E2E” and choose EXPAND ALL to see all scenarios

38
Classification: Internal

Test Execution: Terminology 2. All of these combined represent a “TEST SET”

Test Case Screen Each individual link is a “TEST CASE”
These drill down to “TEST STEPS”

3. Test Steps within a TEST CA

are the lowest level of granula

1. Test Sets drill down to a list of TEST CASES

39
Classification: Internal

Test execution
Test Case Screen

1. You should NEVER update the Status column on the screen. This will create unnecessary
runs that will need to be deleted by ALM Administrator.
2. Status at this level is determined by the pass/fail steps at the STEP LEVEL. Example: If you
have 10 test steps within a test case and all pass, then the status at the TEST CASE level will
show “Passed”. If you have 10 test steps and 9 pass but 1 fails, the TEST CASE level will
show “Failed”. The key is to drill down to the test steps and pass/fail at that level. There are
some inconsistences in ALM regarding how this is reflected.
3. If you really need to change the Status of a test case, get approval from your test tower lead.
It can be done without creating an extra run by opening the test case, choosing RUNS on the
left menu and then updating status on the associated RUN. Test Tower Lead approval is
 Classification: Internal

Executing a Test Run the Right Way

There are two different ways in ALM to run a test case.
You should use one of these two methods EVERY TIME.
Method #1 – Executing from the TEST CASE screen
1. Select the Test Case (turns blue)
2. From RUN drop down, choose 3. Before you click BEGIN RUN,
DO NOT double click “CONTINUE MANUAL RUN” verify that the tester name is
“HANS G JOHANNSON”
If not, please exit and use method
#2. If yes, then go ahead and run
test.
Classification: Internal

Executing a Test Run the Right Way

Method #2 – Executing from the RUNS dialog box
1. Double Click the Test Case
2. Select “Runs” on left 3. Scan for the one with Hans’ name in the
side. tester column. Select it (it turns blue). Then
This will show all the choose “Continue Manual Run” above.
runs.
There should be just
one but sometimes an
extra one is created
accidently.

4. Choose “Begin Run”

42
Classification: Internal

Causes for Additional Test Runs to Be Created

We want to avoid the creation of additional
runs for any test case. There should only be
one valid run per test case that gets updated
by all testers. Please don’t be the cause of
confusion and steps that have to be
repeated.
Avoid Doing Any of These:
 Do NOT select a test case and hit the Run, use the
process outlined on the previous slide
 Do NOT select a test case and then select Run with
Manual Runner on the drop down (the option above
Continue Manual Run)
 Do NOT change status on the test case itself (will create
a run with each step in No Run status regardless of what
43
status you put on the test case)
Classification: Internal
Test Execution: Pass /
Fail 1. Select the correct run as shown on the
previous slide. If there are more than one,
Note: Another status
option is ‘N/A’ if the
choose the one with Hans’ name as the tester. step is not relevant for
Choose “Continue Manual Run” the test case or phase
2. Select
“Begin Run”
and complete
test
3. Pass/Fail test case
using drop down.
N/A is also a choice.
Do NOT user
“repair” for status.

Each test case should have one

and only one run (which can be
continued as many times as needed
to complete the test)

Additional runs will skew test 4. Input

reporting (through overlaying results
previous runs results) – and
consequently will be deleted
without any warning IMPORTANT. Please
include summary in
ACTUAL section for ALL
test steps
44 For details go to
Classification: Internal

Note: Another status

Test Execution: Blocked 1. Select the correct run as shown on the
previous slide. If there are more than one,
option is ‘Blocked’ if the
step falls because it has
a dependency blockers -
choose the one with Hans’ name as the tester.
select one from below
Choose “Continue Manual Run”
2. Select Blocked – By Previous
“Begin Run” Step
and complete Blocked – Missing Data
test Blocked – Missing RICEF
3. Blocked test– case
Blocked Missing
using drop down.
Interface

Each test case should have one and

only one run (which can be continued
as many times as needed to complete
the test)

Additional runs will skew test reporting 4. Input

(through overlaying previous runs results
results) – and consequently will be
deleted without any warning.
IMPORTANT: Please
include summary in
ACTUAL section for ALL
45
test steps.
For details go to
Classification: Internal

Test case Execution: Attachments (Screenshots, .doc)

You can add attachments to Test Cases (as shown below) or to Test Steps. The Paper Clip Icon
will always bring you to the attachments screen.
1. Select Test 2. Select
Case Attachment

Snapshot: 1 Single print

screen

Attachments: Multiple
screen shots “Copy-
pasted” in word document
Classification: Internal

Ending A Test Case Run

Click the Stop button to halt the test case run
Note: The window will close when you push the
Stop button

47 HP Confidential
 ALM - Field Level Requirements

48 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Field Level Requirements – Test CASE Level

Test Case Level – provide test results in the following fields:

• MEMO • STATUS
•DATE •PASSED – all steps completed the
automated process successfully
•TESTER’S INITIALS
•FAILED – the results are not as expected, CR
•SO# is created and noted
•PO# •NO RUN – step is not necessary for this
•IC PR# scenario
•N/A – step does not apply to this scenario
•IC PO#
•NOT COMPLETED – tester did not complete
•BILLING DOC# all steps in test case
•INVOICE# •BLOCKED – testing process does not
•FI ACCOUNTING DOC# automatically proceed to the next step
•DATE & Notes •NOT READY – when the Block’s CR identifies
issue preventing the automated process from
continuing to the next step
MEMO - ALWAYS include: date when providing explanation & description of details affecting
the step
49
Classification: Internal

Field Level Requirements – Test CASE Level Memo,

Status, Exec. Date

MEMO: examples of different

results, documents, and date & STATUS: examples of the status EXEC DATE: historic date in
notes of what happened and results ALM
what needs to be done
SIT3 - add action date & tester’s
initials
50
Classification: Internal

Field Level Requirements – Test STEP Level

Test Steps level - provide the following under ACTUAL
• ACTUAL (see slide 5)
– Date
– Key Business Role Test IDs for Test Cycle you are in (e.g. SIT_TST_###) (Fiori app test
environment role-based ID)
– Results of the test in short description that could include:
•Successful completion
•Failed with brief description
•CR created and provide the CR#
•Not Ready - Future release date (if known)
•NA - provide reason

• CR procedure
– Create CR Link: in the test step, create the link between the test step to the CR#
– CR# provided under ACTUAL
51
Classification: Internal

Field Level Requirements – Test STEP Level -ACTUAL

Instead of name use Role

ID
Show actual results
Show subsequent date /
initials
Show results/what
happened ex: “TR PR#”

52
Classification: Internal

Field Level Requirements– Test STEP Level Role ID, CR#

in ACTUAL, Link

Role
ID

Instead of name use Role ID In Actuals

Arrow indicates a link has been created between the Test Step and
53
the CR
 ALM - Defect Management
Process

54 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Defects Tracking & Management

Efficient resolution of defects, enhanced communication and visibility of the sprint quality

• All defects from the Pre-Integration test phase onwards will be logged and tracked in ALM
• User story and test cases must be linked in ALM so that failing test cases would also fail the
user story
• Identified defects can be technical, functional or non-functional
• All fields of the defect module must be filled with detailed information to allow the assigned
team member to quickly understand the defect and expedite a resolution

56 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Defect Severity Levels

The defect severity levels defined for Simplify are based on the nature of the defect and its
impact on testing
Severity Severity Description

A defect that brings all test execution to a halt. All testing has
Level 1 – Critical stopped on the sprint. It defers a significant number of test cases for
the cycle because the user cannot perform core functionality. Must
be resolved immediately.

A defect that testing on a specific functional area and does not

Level 2 – High impede the test execution on other functional areas. A risk
assessment of the workaround must be performed and documented.
Prohibits further tests on the stated functional area.

A defect with minimum impact in nature has a work around and does
Level 3 – Medium not prohibit the execution of the test. Does not prohibit tests on the
stated functional area.

Level 4 – Low A defect that is cosmetic in nature and does not prohibit the
execution.

• Defects severity determined by the tester/Defect lead to assure greatest impact items are resolved first so that the
overall test effort can continue
• Following the defect triage with the Defect Lead, Product Owner and the Tower Test Lead, the severity should be
reevaluated
57 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Guidelines for Defect Severity and Priority

Resolve questions related to Priority during the Defect triage meetings
Defect Severity Description
1 Critical Major functionality not working or blocking defect
2 High Major functionality not working but a work around exists
3 Medium Functionality not working but a work around exists
4 Low Usually cosmetic issue such as spelling or screen display

Defect Priority Description Recommended Guideline

Unless a Priority 1 issue is already being
1 Resolve Immediately and Must be fixed in the next build. worked upon, wrap up what you are doing and
work on this right away
Give High Attention. The defect must be fixed in any of the Unless a Priority 1 issue is already being
2
upcoming builds but should be included in the current drop worked upon, work on this issue next

Normal Queue. The defect may be fixed within the current drop Work on these issues as soon as there are no
3
or in the next drop longer Priority 1 or 2 in the queue
4 Low Priority. May or may not be fixed at all Work on these last

 Priority is a subjective decision while Severity is about the functionality.

 At a high level, priority is determined by considering the Business need for fixing the defect
 High Severity issues may have a lower priority which may not be needed in the current build/drop
 Low Severity issues may have a very high priority

58 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Defect Resolution Guidelines

The defect severity determines the expected timeframe for defect resolution
Service
Level
Severity Description
Guideline
s
Impacts test teams ability to execute several significant functionality or < 3 hours
workflow elements (i.e. a show stopper)
Level 1 – Critical
Must be resolved immediately.

Major system component unusable due to failure or incorrect functionality. < 1 day
Defects cause serious problems such as a lack of functionality, or insufficient or
unclear error messages that can have a major impact to the user, prevents
other areas or towers from being tested, etc.
Level 2 – High
There is a workaround for this defect.

Prohibits further tests on the stated functional area of the user

story/string.
Incorrect functionality of component or process with minimum impact in nature. 2-3 days
There is a simple work around for the defect.
Level 3 – Medium
Does not prohibit tests on the stated functional area of the user
The defect is expected to be resolved within the defined timeframes; however, if it is not resolved per the service level guideline requirements, the
story/string.
following should be in place at the minimum:
Cosmetic defect, minor irritant or suggestion for next release 4-5 days
 Proposed solution
 Team membersLevel 4identified
- Low and assigned
 Target completion date developed and Doesagreednot prohibit the execution.
upon
59
 Outstanding
HP Confidential defect questions and clarifications resolved
 Logging New Defects & Linking to
TEST STEPs

60 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal
• You should always link a Change Request/Defect to
a test step at the TEST STEP LEVEL (not at the
test case level).
CR Linkage To Failed Test Steps
• You have two choices to do this:
• 1. Create a new Defect/CR when you are already
executing. You can do this by choosing “New
Change Request” from the drop down as shown
below. Then enter the data in the fields as shown in
the following slides.
• 2. Link an existing CR to a test step. First you want
to know the CR/Defect #. Then choose “

Fill in the Defect form.

Highlight the failed test Click OK. See next
step. slides for details
Click “New Change
Request”.

NOTE: Multiple test cases can be tied to 1 defect

61 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal
CR Linkage To Failed Test Steps: Creating a CR/Defect from
the Test Run
You should always link a Change Request/Defect to a test step at the TEST STEP LEVEL (not at the test
case level)
You have two choices to do this:
1. Create a new Defect/CR when you are already executing. You can do this by choosing “New Change
Request” from the drop down as shown below. Then enter the data in the fields as shown in the following
slides.
2. Link an existing CR to a test step. See next slide.

Highlight the failed test step. Fill in the Defect form.

Click “New Change Request” Click OK. See next
slides for details

NOTE: Multiple test cases can be tied to 1 defect

62 HP Confidential
 CR Linkage To Failed Test Steps: Linking TEST STEP to
Classification: Internal

Existing CR
1. Start a run of a test case to 2.This button will give you an 3. Using the number of the
get to TEST STEP level. Select option to “LINK TO EXISTING CR/Defect, search for the defect
the test step (highlighted in CR”. Click Drop Down to see to create the link.
blue). option.

63 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

1
Summarize the defect here.
Example: SO52 Incorrect Shipping Point

64 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Default option is new.

2 Please don’t change it

65 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Severity: Choose the

3 appropriate defect Severity
(slide 33)

66 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Tower:

4
pick the right sub tower

67 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down team:

5
pick the right Team

68 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Product:

6 Click the _ Simplify ERP
Select 209481:SAP S4 Supply Chain

69 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Scenario:

7
Select the E2E this defect is linked to

70 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Environment:

8
Select the ITG

71 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal
Drop Down Owner:
If you know who is the owner search his name
9 and assign
If Not leave it blank

72 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Identified by Team:

10 pick the right Team

73 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Detected in Release: 1 Simplify BI is testing in

Releases > Simplify > Year3 > select SFY 1 SFY 1909, please pick the
2102 correct release

74 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal
Drop Down Detected in Cycle:
1 Simplify BI is testing in
Releases > Simplify > Year3 > SFY 2102 >
2 SFY 1909, please pick the
SIT1 2102 or UAT 2102
correct cycle in the correct
release

75 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Drop Down Engineering Priority:

W1; W2; W3…

76 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Please select the

13 estimated close
date based on
severity

77 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

1 1
5 16
4

Provide the Mention step by

Attach complete step information
screen description of to reproduce the 1
shots 7 Press
the defect defect submit
78 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Defect Attributes - Status

Defect entry with accurate attributes speeds up resolution of the defects

Status Definition

New A new defect has been created by a tester and assigned to the appropriate team member

Returned The defect logged requires additional information to be triaged, reproduced or resolved

Assigned The defect has been assigned to the team member who will be addressing the defect
The fix team or fixer is actively working on correcting the cause of the defect
In Progress
The defect is ready for the fix team to unit test the fixed defect
FUT Ready

Ready for Retest The defect has been tested successfully by the assignee and is back with the identifier to validate in the testing environment
The defect status is pending the results of a change request and is on hold until the change request is processed through the CR process
Change Request in AgM

Fixed The defect has been fixed and tested by the identifier. The defect is ready for closure by the identifier.
The testing participant has retested the fixed defect and indicates that it has been corrected with proper documentation updated.
Closed

The defect has been reviewed during the CR process and resolution has been deferred to a future date outside of the current cycle. Defect
Deferred status is updated to Deferred. (i.e. A Manual process to be performed until functionality developed in Sprint X)
The defect has been reviewed by the “assigned to” and has been deemed invalid. The person or team rejecting must document the
Rejected reason for rejection and update defect status to Rejected.
This status is selected when a previously closed defect reappears. The defect should again be assigned to the individual responsible for
Reopen fixing it

79 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Defect Attributes - Type

Defects will be classified in to different categories to identify the type of defect.

Type Definition

Basis/Infrastructure The defect appears to be caused by a technical issue with the system

Cleansing The defect appears to data cleaning activities performed prior to testing

Configuration The defect appears to be caused by missing or incorrect system configuration

Data The defect appears to be caused by issues with system data

Design The defect appears to be caused by a flaw in the overall process design

Development - Interface The defect appears to be related to a interface

Development - Other The defect appears to be related to a custom development object (RICEFW but not an interface)

Documentation Error The defect appears to be caused by inaccurate documentation

Security The defect appears to be caused by an issue with security

80 HP Confidential
Classification: Internal

Defect Attributes - Root Cause

Defects will be classified by the cause of the defect (not to be confused with Type of Defect)

Action to be
Root Cause Definition
Taken

True defect as a result of the build of the solution defect type is further
Defect of Build Resolve Defect
elaborated on in the ‘Type of Defect’ field

Missed A requirement that was raised by stakeholders but never formally documented,
Change Request
Requirement designed, or developed during the sprint cycles for a release

New A requirement that was never raised by stakeholders but may be needed for
Change Request
Requirement the final solution

Not a Defect The identified defect is not a true defect Close Defect

81 HP Confidential
 ALM - Common Errors

82
Classification: Internal

TROUBLE SHOOTING
Reboot and make sure Global Protect is enabled after reboot. HP Internal users should use Global
Protect at all times by policy. I want to stress this last point for everyone. If you can read this,
you are HP Internal or non-HP Internal, and you should use Global Protect when working
remotely to make sure you have maximum security in your connection.
 If you see any errors in IE to load ALM 3, please always try the Client tool:
https://alm-files-and-tools.s3.amazonaws.com/ALM+Tools/ALM3client.zip

 Type https://alm-3.external.hp.com/qcbin in the client launcher tool

 Open IE in Private Mode: Ctrl+Shift+P, then access the ALM URL in Private Mode

 Adding a Website to Internet Explorer Trusted Sites

Yammer - ALM Support Group:

https://www.yammer.com/hp.com/#/threads/inGroup?type=in_group&feedId
=6603286

83
Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

Testing - RACI
QA COE Tower IT Tower Biz Integration TCS
Team
Status A, R C, I C, I C, I
Report/Dashboard
SIT Scope A R C, I C, I
SIT Planning A, R R
SIT Prep & Execution A R
SIT Tracking A R
SIT sign-off A, R R I I
UAT Scope A C, I R
UAT Planning A, R R
UAT Prep & Execution A R
UAT Tracking A R
UAT sign-off A, R R
RT Scope A R
RT Planning A, R R
RT Execution A R
RT Tracking A R
RT Sign-off A, R R
PT Scope, Planning A, R R
PT Execution A Tuesday, March 1
R
8, 2025
Classification: Internal

Testing- Phase 1-RACI DRAF

T

Task QA- COE Project Enterprise Architects SAP COE TCS- Support
Out of Scope Teams Integration
• Preparation of test Execute A R I C N/A I
cases Functional Testing
• Project Timelines
Coordinate SIT- A R I, C C N/A I
• ALM Readiness - TBD Phase1
• Boundary Systems
Testing Execute SIT A R I C N/A I

Regression A C I, C C I R
Testing
SIT Matrix A, R C I C N/A I
Test Automation- C C A,R C N/A I
Scripts Updates
Test Automation- C I A, R C N/A N/A
Tools
Plan Performance A C C C C I
Test

Execute A C R C C I
Performance
Testing
Creation of test C A,R I I N/A N/A
cases

Boundary C A,R I C N/A I

Systems testing

ALM Readiness C A, R I I N/A N/A

Load E2E Test A, C R I I N/A I

Cases in ALM

Load discreate C A, R I C N/A I

Test Cases in ALM
86
Infrastructure C C I I A, R C
Classification: Internal

Overview Test Master Data Preparation Cycle

Identify MD Requirements Identify Data/ Create Data Complete Data setup
Requirements Setup (3 -4 weeks) Handover to Project Test Team
(2 weeks during project
planning)
• Identify test master data • Creation and setup of • Master Data Issues handled
needs for project scope: thru ALM CRs during testing
• Materials master data for Critical and High CR’s
• Customers / Vendors • Prerequisite: all
• Prices, Costs needed
• Logistics Route configurations are
available in test
MD Element Setup TAT
system
Additional Considerations
(working days)

standard material extension on ~7 Material request template:

Microsoft Excel
existing plant Worksheet

BOM 3 / BOM 5 ~ 13 - 15
CTO incl. lower level BOM materials ~ 20 - 25 all BOM requirements need to be submitted within the template and structured
as CTO AV BOMs
CTO only requires extension ~ 13 - 15 PDM will assume extension only if not submitted with lower level BOM
requirements
Trade / IC PIR ~3-5 Can only be requested AFTER material extension & costing is complete
Trade List Price ~ 7 - 10 needs Price Descriptor and needed LP in needed currency
Assumptions
Vendor / Customer & Dependencies
~ 13 - 15
•Logistics
QA COERoute ~ to
involved from project planning 5 -understand
10 relevant scope and required master data
• QA will help to provide overview on existing master data so project team can leverage existing setups instead of creating master
data from scratch where possible
• MD requirements are completely defined and documented using the required templates: Material request template
• New Enterprise Trade Structure requirements (New Sales Orgs, New Plants, New Business Supply Chain flow, etc.) can add another
Classification: Internal

Test Data Readiness/ Triage- RACI

In scope: Task QA- COE Project Team Integration Architects MD Owner
• Drive resolution of critical / High
MD CR’s (defects) for SIT &
Regression Testing Master Data CR Triage SIT A R C C R
• Calls to review Critical/High CRs & Regression
• Coordinate E2E Test Master
Data readiness Call to Review CRs A R C C R
• Coordinate discrete test
material readiness Coordinate E2E Test MD A R C C R
• Ensure Test Master Data is Readiness
created and ready for testing
Coordinate Discrete Test A R C C R
Material
Out of Scope Ensure Test MD Is Created A, R I N/A N/A R
• Test MD readiness coordination And Ready For Testing
for discrete testing
• IMG / Configuration readiness
• Data readiness (BRF+, Z-
tables…)

88
 S8Q Validation Post DB Upgrade
Classification: Internal

Tower Lead/Contact S8Q Sign- Comments

Validation Off
(%) (Y/N)
ITR Ezz El Din Rafat / Fabiola
BI Naresh Sakhamuri N/A?
PLM Heidi Daniels, Sharon Krenek
ML Donna Pham
BPM Krishna Devata, Prakash M
P&M Rahul Bhatt
OTC Elizabeth Takacs / Bala P
Finance Holly Pham
Finance RPA Prashanth
Kumar Chandrashekaran
SC RPA Sobi Wilson / Prakash 100% Y We don’t use S8Q. Yet, we went ahead & deployed a
Srinivasan Bot.
It worked as expected. All is well for now.
D&TO COE Aditya Sharma, Ivan
Monteiro
PI/PO Kavin Muthuramalingam N/A?
Security Himanshu Malasi
Redwood Likhita Umesh
Test Auto Malini Rammohan Tuesday, March 1
8, 2025
Classification: Internal
SAP Upgrade: Test Status Dashboard Overall
As of Status
5/12/2022
HP Business Lead: N/A HP IT Lead: Atif Khan Project Manager: Frank Sattler
G
Highlights/Major Accomplishments Upcoming Activities

Regression Testing WIP READY Comments

Test Work Stream Initial Meeting with Tower teams:
• Finalize confirmation of tower resources PoC for testing
34 0 0
preparation
• Finalize agenda and preparation
Performance Testing WIP Done Comments
Up to 5000 users 0 0

Test Preparation:
• Met with Malini to review draft for input on steps and TATs needed
• Sent request to tower teams to confirm PoC for testing phase
• Prepared initial slide deck to address all main topics
• SIT
• UAT
• Regression Testing
• Performance Testing
• Scheduled initial meeting with Tower teams

Dependency/Support from other Teams

Team Dependency/Support from Other Teams Owner Need By

G On Track Y At Risk R Off Track