1C corporate implementation technology in ERP-system deployment projects in Russian and localized foreign companies

Abstract: the paper contains analysis of 1C corporate implementation technology to deploy ERP-systems in Russian and localized foreign companies. The stages, activities and documents of the 1C methodology are described. Comparing spiral 1C methodology with cascade ADM model, issues of 1C CIT are identified: variability of stages, requirements collecting, user acceptance testing, data migration and cutover, which is important to be resolved for ERP-system implementation projects at Russian enterprises. Using the experience of deploying foreign software, it is proposed to adapt 1C CIT to ADM model, thereby making it relevant for use in localized foreign organizations with their own specifics.
Key words: erp system, implementation model, system implementation methods, software implementation, iterative model, 1C methodology, Agile Scrum, Agile Kanban, Agile Feature Driven Development, RAD, extreme programming XP, V model, change control, user acceptance test, software lifecycle.

1. Introduction

Leaving most foreign vendors from Russia in 2022 shifted the focus to local software solutions. The early dominance of foreign software products represented by SAP, Oracle, Microsoft and others is gradually coming to naught: many Russian companies, following import substitution and digital transformation strategies, are quickly transitioning to local software products [1]. In this regard, ERP-systems deserve special attention. This class of program systems, which belongs to the most representative automation standard, is introduced by various Russian solutions from 1C, Galaktika, Monolith and other software vendors [2-3].

The ERP-systems from 1C company are the most popular nowadays [4]. Abandoning foreign programs and transitioning to 1C ERP solution is equivalent to the implementation project from scratch. 1C company has developed three methods of software deployment: standard implementation technology (1C SIT), fast result technology (1C FRT) and corporate implementation technology (1C CIT) [5]. However, for the middle and large enterprises and corresponding ERP-projects in which there is a high business uncertainty and employee resistance to change, the only one 1C CIT strategy is applicable.

2. Problem description

The feature of the 1C CIT methodology is that it is aimed for implementing ERP-products for Russian enterprises, characterized by a low automation and, as a result, inexperienced end users. On the contrary, business processes of foreign companies are mostly automated, so their localization and transition from SAP, Oracle or Microsoft to 1C products have other difficulties. The purpose of this paper is to consider 1C corporate implementation technology for its application in ERP-projects in localized foreign organizations.

3. Waterfall, iterative and spiral implementation models

There are several classical software deployment models that are also suitable for the implementation of ERP-systems. The model defines basic principles of project work, ensures the reduction of typical project risks and delivery of software product in time. All existing implementation methodologies detail, expand and inherit activities from the three models:

• cascade;
• iterative;
• spiral,

as well as all possible hybrids of them [6]. ASAP, MDSS, OUP and ADM [7-10] are the examples of cascade-based implementation methodologies, iterative models are representable by Agile Scrum, Kanban and Feature Driven Development [11], while spiral schemes are demonstrated in Rapid Application Development, eXtreme Programming and 1C CIT [12]. Deployment of foreign ERP-systems is mainly performed under the cascade ADM methodology, for the implementation of 1C products of a similar software complexity the spiral 1C CIT approach is recommended. Let's focus on these two implementation methodologies.

3.1. ADM as an example of cascade implementation model

For a long time, the ADM methodology based on the cascade implementation model has been used in both Russian and international ERP-projects, having virtually no alternative from domestic vendors [10]. The latter is due to ERP-systems are one of the most extensive automation class of software, the implementation of which is quite expensive and imposes special requirements on the organization and execution of the project. The ADM methodology has been used all over the world, which allowed it to be adapted to any specifics of customer or country. This methodology is well documented and contains a set of accelerators, that is, document templates to fill in during the project, as well as a description of activities and tasks to deliver the project content. The ADM model includes the following steps (fig. 1):

• preparation, where project team is mobilized;
• analysis, here requirements are collected and their Fit/Gap-analysis is performed;
• design, where project documents are prepared and confirmed;
• built, software programs are developed and configured, as well as unit testing is carried out;
• test, integration and user acceptance tests are conducted;
• cutover, where productive system is prepared, master and transactional data are migrated into it, taking into account business constraints;
• hypercare support of productive operation and completing the project.

Fig. 1. Implementation stages according to the ADM methodology

The cascade ADM model distinguishes separate stages for analyzing requirements and conducting software testing, an unbroken sequence of stages, as well as no variability in the passing of stages.

3.2. Spiral deployment model presented by 1C corporate implementation technology

1C company recommends to implement complex software products using the 1C CIT methodology. This technology is based on a spiral deployment model with some elements from waterfall and iterative models [5]:

• project is divided into several implementation waves;
• within each wave a part of software product is realized using waterfall approach;
• built stage is conducted in iterations, in which the result is demonstrated to the customer according to the best practices of Agile.

The stages of 1C CIT includes:

• initialization;
• collecting requirements and their allocation over the waves of implementation,

then, for each wave of implementation, the following stages are repeated:

• design,
• built,
• preparation to pilot operation and/or pilot industrial operation;
• pilot operation and/or pilot industrial operation,
• preparation to productive operation;
• productive operation,

project closing is the final step (fig. 2). The stages demonstrate a distinctive feature of this methodology: the variability of preparation to and execution of pilot operation and pilot industrial operation phases.

Fig. 2. Deployment stages according to the 1C corporate implementation technology

The 1C CIT methodology contains a detailed description of the stages and their activities, a list of documents, as well as examples and templates for some of them. 1C technology details questions related to project and change management, as well as content (processes, applications, data and tech) [13]. This methodology is based on ISO 9000:2015 and ISO 9001:2015, as well as PMBoK [14]. There are key elements of this methodology given in tab. 1.

Table 1. Stages, key activites and documents of 1C CIT

4. ADM methodology versus 1С corporate implementation technology

The deployment stages of the ADM and 1C CIT methodologies can be visually represented by linearly, since both are based on the waterfall implementation model. This will allow them to be compared by the following parameters:

• stages;
• collecting requirements;
• user acceptance test;
• data migration;
• cutover and continuity plans.

4.1. Stages

The 1C CIT methodology introduces the stages of preparation to and execution of pilot operation and pilot industrial operation, which are absent in ADM. These stages are an emulation of the company's work for one of the past reporting periods in the 1C software system, which involves customer’s key and end users. The difference between pilot industrial operation and pilot operation stages is that the results of emulation of the first one are further used in the industrial operation of software system. Both groups of stages are very different in meaning, content and goals from the test stage of ADM: the simulation results indicate the willingness of end users to work with the software system, but not readiness of the software product. The pilot industrial operation phase is similar to dual maintenance mode, when users repeat business operations both in an existing and is being implemented software systems. In the ADM methodology, such case is applicable only in pilot projects. The 1C implementation technology assumes the variability of pilot operation and pilot industrial operation stages, but there are no recommendations for their use (fig. 3). Thus, the CIT method implies that each project team decides the presence and sequence of the stages by themselves.

Fig. 3. Variability of stages in the 1C methodology:
a) pilot operation stages; b) pilot industrial operation stages; c) both group of stages

The sequence of stages in the 1C CIT methodology, containing the phases of preparation to and execution of pilot operation (fig. 3A), seems to be more balanced. We will limit considering this variation of the 1C approach for the purpose of comparison with ADM. As you can be seen on fig. 4, both methodologies are similar in terms of stages and their activities, with the exception of testing the software product. The testing stage from ADM is comparable with four phases from 1C CIT.

Fig. 4. Mapping ADM and 1С CIT stages

4.2. Collecting requirements

The requirements collection strategy allows you to regulate how business needs will be identified, analyzed and prioritized [15]. According to ADM, the most effective way to collect business requirements in ERP-projects is to use a list of typical enterprise business processes from the relevant industry. The prepared business process map makes it possible to clarify specific needs of the client at the time of discussing operations of 4th level of detail contained in it (fig. 5). The latter reduces losing business requirements, due to all processes and operations from the prepared map are discussed. The 1C methodology does not contain a strategy of collecting requirements. It is assumed that 1C demo database will be prepared in advance and used for further discussion of the requirements during its presentation to the customer. Although there is a register of business processes in the list of 1C CIT accelerators, most often it is prepared after identification of requirements.

Fig. 5. An example of business process map for collecting user requirements according to the ADM methodology

4.3. User acceptance test

The cascade methodology ADM includes several types of software testing based on the V-model [16], in particular:

• unit test, which is carried out immediately after the completion of configuration and development of software product by technical specialists and developers;
• integration testing, which is conducted by technical specialists with subsequent demonstration of critical results to the customer;
• and finally, user acceptance test, in the form of end-to-end testing of business processes in all interconnected software systems. User acceptance testing is conducted based on pre-prepared test scenarios by key and end users of the client (fig. 6A).

The first two types of testing from ADM have analogues in the 1C CIT method: a unit test and preliminary tests conducted during the built stage. The user acceptance test in the 1C methodology is mentioned only at the stage of preparation to productive operation, where the corresponding project document containing the results of all previously performed tests and emulations is signed-off. It also contains the results of additional verification of functional and non-functional requirements (fig. 6B).

Fig. 6. Types of software testing in the methodology: a) ADM; b) 1С CIT

4.4. Data migration

The data migration strategy implies a sequence of steps to migrate different kinds of data from legacy system to a new software solution [17]. According to ADM, following questions to be described in the concept:

• matrix or functional organization of migration team;
• maintaining a register of migration objects containing a list of all data objects, their migration methods, responsible for migration steps, the expected number of records for migration, etc.;
• the number of test waves of migration, allowing a rehearsal of data migration on a limited volume of test records;
• responsibility for conducting test waves of data migration between the contractor and customer;
• parameters to be controlled during test migrations, in particular, the execution time of all migration steps for each data object;
• preparation of data migration plan based on the register of migration objects, which contains deadlines and responsible for test waves and productive migration;
• early productive migration of master data and their double maintenance in software systems.

In the ADM methodology, test migration precedes any kinds of a software testing, it allows you to start checking migration tools and quality of migrated data in advance. Therefore, three test waves of data migration are introduced: one for the built stage and unit test, the other two for the test stage and integration, user acceptance testing (fig. 7A). The 1C methodology has similar content, but it does not mention test waves of data migration. Moreover, in 1C CIT migration activities begin only with the stage of preparation to pilot operation and/or pilot industrial operation, while skipping built stage and testing carried out on it (fig. 7B).|.

Fig. 7. Test waves of data migration preceding software testing in the methodology: a) ADM; b) 1С CIT

4.5. Cutover

Cutover activities are the most critical at the time of go-live in ADM. The tasks of transition period are detailed in cutover plan. The cutover plan combines and binds together the terms and duration of activities that are important for go-live of a software solution: business processes, data, applications and tech. Preparation of cutover plan for each operation of each business process requires:

• understanding what needs to be done to complete the operation in legacy system;
• analysis of business and technical prerequisites to be performed, as well as master and transactional data to be migrated in order to resume the execution of business operation in a new software system;
• comprehension if there is blackout period in the execution of operation when activity in legacy system is no longer conducted on it, but due to some limitations, it is not yet possible to start performing it in a new software solution (fig. 8).

Usually, business continuity plan designed to ensure the smooth operation of organization in case of software crash is an integral part of business cutover plan. In general cutover plan combines both business and technical tasks, requires allocation of a separate team. Artifacts of the cutover and business continuity plans are mentioned once in the 1C CIT methodology but without any details or explanations.

Fig. 8. Key activities of cutover

5. Points of improvement and extension of 1С corporate implementation technology

Detailed analysis of the ADM and 1C CIT methods allowed us to identify their differences, which are given in tab. 2. The table also contains recommendations to improve the 1C methodology, which are applicable for software implementation projects both in Russian companies and localized foreign organizations. The proposed recommendations are aimed to improve the existing 1C CIT approach by correcting the identified drawbacks, as well as to expand the scope of 1C methodology usage by aligning some stages and content of their work with the cascade ADM model.

Table 2. Recommendations to improve the 1C CIT methodology

6. Conclusions

We discussed two popular models for the implementation of corporate information systems within the paper: the cascade ADM methodology, used in large foreign deployment projects, and the spiral 1C CIT approach, used for the implementation of software in Russian companies. The differences between these methodologies are revealed. The analysis identified 1C CIT areas that require special attention: variability of stages, requirements collecting, user acceptance testing, data migration, as well as cutover. Recommendations are given to make the 1C methodology better, allowing to improve its use in the implementation projects at Russian companies, as well as to expand using it for ERP-projects in localized foreign organizations, having a high level of automation.

References

1. Katasonova N.S. The big bang method and franchise strategy for implementation and import substitution of ERP-systems // Corporate information systems. – 2023. – vol. 23, №3 – p. 1-11. – URL: https://corpinfosys.ru/archive/2023/issue-23/227-2023-23-implementationstrategy (in Russian).
2. Petrov S.V. Overview of Russian software for import substitution of MES, ERP2 and BI corporate information systems (part 1) // Corporate information systems. – 2022. – vol. 20, №4 – p. 31-41. – URL: https://corpinfosys.ru/archive/issue-20/208-2022-20-applicationsoverview (in Russian).
3. Petrov S.V. Overview of Russian software for import substitution of MES, ERP2 and BI corporate information systems (part 2) // Corporate information systems. – 2023. – vol. 21, №1 – p. 38-48. – URL: https://corpinfosys.ru/archive/issue-21/218-2023-21-applicationsoverview (in Russian).
4. Bobrovnikov A.E. Introduction to ERP-system implementation project management. М.: 1С-Publishing, 2021 – 320 p. (in Russian).
5. Zimin K. Corporate implementation technology // Information management. – 2013. – №3 – p. 77-84 (in Russian).
6. Habadi A. An Introduction to ERP-systems: architecture, implementation and impacts // International journal of computer applications, 2017, vol. 167, issue 9, p. 1-4.
7. Sullivan G. SAP: Project management and implementation guide. SAP Press, 2014 – 573 p.
8. Blokdyk G. Oracle unified method. 5STARCooks, 2018 – 313 p.
9. Shankar C., Bellefroid V. Microsoft Dynamics Sure Step 2010. Packt Publishing, 2011 – 362 p.
10. Stepanovd D.Yu. The lifecycle of ERP-system implementation projects by the example of SAP and 1C package solutions and custom developments [Electronic resource] // Habr, Axenix official page – URL: https://habr.com/ru/companies/axenix/articles/799333/ (in Russian).
11. Cohn M. Agile estimating and planning. Pearson publisher, 2005 – 368 p.
12. Stellman A., Greene J., Learning Agile: understanding Scrum, XP, Lean and Kanban. O'Reilly media, 2013 – 420 p.
13. Stepanov D.Yu. Analysis, design and development of corporate information systems: theory and practices // Russian technological journal. – 2015 – vol.8, №3 – p. 227-238 (in Russian).
14. Shirenbek H., Lister M., Kirmse Sh. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Sixth Edition. PMI Publisher, 2017 – 762 p.
15. Terentiev I.M. Requirement analysis in ERP-system implementation projects // Corporate information systems. – 2018. – №2 – p. 23-29. – URL: https://corpinfosys.ru/archive/issue-2/139-2018-2-analysisstrategy (in Russian).
16. Terentiev I.M. Testing strategy in ERP-system implementation projects // Corporate information systems. – 2018. – №3 – p. 39-45. – URL: https://corpinfosys.ru/archive/issue-3/141-2018-3-testingstrategy (in Russian).
17. Eremenko Y.O. Features of data migration in SAP ERP // Corporate information systems. – 2019. – vol. 7, №3 – p. 22-28. – URL: https://corpinfosys.ru/archive/2019/issue-7/67-2019-7-migration (in Russian).

Cite the paper

Stepanov D.Yu. 1C corporate implementation technology in ERP-system deployment projects in Russian and localized foreign companies // Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 2919, pp. 137-150. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-20325-0_11. – URL: https://stepanovd.com/science/article/212-2026-4-1ccit.