Getting to the “HEART” of Reporting Session Code 3203 Mary Harrington University of Mississippi

Getting to the …

About Ole Miss 12,000 Students 3,000 Employees Live with FI-CO, FM, MM, PM in 1999 Live with HR in 2000 U.S. Pilot Site for Campus Management (CM)

UM Sigma Financial Aid –April 2002 Admissions –March 2003 Registration and Grades –April 2003

Reporting Lessons Learned Reporting is critical No single (or silver) bullet Avoid “square peg/round hole” syndrome Develop reusable function modules –Avoid reconciliation of reports –Increases productivity

CM Reporting Challenges New product, so few standard reports New terminology Course = “Module” Section = “Event” Registration = “Booking” Broader audience –All students and faculty –Unique communication challenges

Big Picture Long-term solution is Business Warehouse Needed to develop interim strategy Analyzed types of reporting and options available

Reporting Requirements 1.Historical Data –Point-in-time “frozen” files –Required by state and federal agencies 2.Easy Ad Hoc Reporting –From nightly extracts –Reuse of existing web-based queries 3.Real-time Reporting –Ad hoc –Production

Historical Data Solution: Develop Custom Tables in SAP Reuse of SAP functionality –Drop-down boxes for org units –Code tables –Academic structure Ability to access other SAP data Download for additional analysis

Easy Ad-Hoc Reporting Solution: Keep current web-based reporting tool and populate files from CM Advantages: –Existing catalog of queries still worked –“Transparent” to the user community Disadvantages: –Back mapping data was challenging –Operating in mixed mode

Real-time CM Reporting Solution: Combined approach of: Logical database/selection methods/queries for ad hoc reporting and Custom ABAP programs for production reporting

CM “Cookbook” Three “Ingredients” of Reporting: 1.Selection and retrieval of objects 2.Retrieval of object attributes 3.Presentation of data

CM “SAP-anese” OBJECT ATTRIBUTE RELATIONSHIP Student, Course, Room Date of birth, course title, room size Relationship 506 (completes) links student and course

Related Tables T7780 defines object types T778V defines relationships HRP1001 contains relationships between objects

CM Reporting Components Build Logical Databases –To contain attribute data –Example: class size, room, instructor Develop Selection Methods –To narrow down object IDs –Example: Select classes taught by an instructor Write ABAP Queries –To present data –ALV format provides flexibility –Example: What instructors teach in the Math Department?

Logical Database Separates data retrieval from data processing Connects several logically-related tables Created and maintained through SE36 Eliminates –Redundant Code –The need to know data structures Three components –Structure description –Selection options –Read program

Selection Methods Use parameters to restrict the set of objects to be selected select by instructor, course, or room Create selection variants to provide relevant values select classes taught in Room 1 of Building A Selection methods created through IMG

Behind the Scenes: BAPIs and RFCs Business Application Program Interfaces and Remote Function Calls Many delivered standard with CM Used extensively to reduce programming complexity Similar to called subroutines

BAPI and RFC Examples To select Law Students, use RFC: HRIQ_GET_STUDENTS_PER_PROGRAM To get student’s test results, use BAPI: BAPI_STUDENTTESTRESULTS_GET

Excellent Strategy But … One size does not fit all Can be very slow Issues: –Training –Management –Authorizations

Custom ABAP Reports When all else fails, program. You write it, you own it. According to “Cookbook,” ABAP reports: –Should be reserved for “very special and unique reporting requirements” –Require “large” amount of effort

Conclusion Still … No silver (or single) bullet Challenges –Technical –Cultural Not for the faint of “HEART”

Thank you for attending! Please remember to complete and return your evaluation form following this session. Session Code: 3203