It’s actually interesting to look back at the amount of uncertainty in the beginning of the project and what has happened at the end of it.
Among a whole host of SAP environment questions : there were issues around what sort of RF gun availability, physical networks on sites, label printer availability, warehouse management solution, specifications, ownership, testing criteria. This is typical for projects really. But for me then, it was really daunting as the uncertainty about who has to use them and what expectations they had was quite a big issue for me. The technical requirements are quite simple, but understanding the conditions that users really face was quite abstract. That brings about a whole host of issues.
The whole thing turned out well in the end thanks to solution management by the implementation team. They did quite well to manage teething issues and address site expectations.
- I learned a couple of things back then.
Simple is better. The smaller screen prohibits some interactivity that’s normally available in the large screen. Plant and Warehouse people just wants simple interfaces ‘something that will scan, job done’. - Some companies prefer third-party products to talk to SAP because the SAP-user licensing costs can become significant. Be prepared for maintenance on third-party products though. When third party products are installed, the solution may be simpler to develop, but there is a maintenance penalty as the components and servers need to be maintained separately.
- Separation of back-end and front-end was implied in the architecture. This means that the ‘separation of concerns’ in a model-view-controller development methodology is inherent in the process. This had some positive effect on the development, testing and support processes.
Looking back at it now there was only one thing I would have preferred - that we installed thermal printing on SAP via Smartforms+Zebra rather than on the third party product.
Oh well, you can’t win it all the time. :)