cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

One maintenance cycle?

Former Member
0 Kudos

Some consultants are stating that it's better to have 1 maintenance cycle per system in solution manager and keep moving the phases back and forward (thus: after go-live the phase is being moved back to "development without release" and from there a new normal correction can start). But can somebody explain to me <b>why</b> this is better than closing a maintenance cycle at the end of a normal correction?

Thanks in advance!

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi!

I personally wouldn't recommend that but it sounds like an alternative method of handling parallel development for multiple release. At least in the project I'm in, there is a need to handle two or more simultaneous business releases with different go live dates.

Idealistically there should be only one maintenance project and subsequently one maintenance cycle per system. A release (=maintenance cycle) is planned, executed and delivered. End of story. But in reality this is not the case. Planning and executing next cycle is usually started while the previous has not yet gone live and this is something that is hard to handle when you can have only one maintenance cycle at the time.

I'm guessing that the idea of going back and forth with cycle phases is to use certain functionality of one phase but still keep the previous phase functionalities and enable parallel development.

Having two or more maintenance projects and subsequently many maintenance cycles in order to enable parallel development is risky and it doesn't work well. Trust me I've tried. With more project than one in the same system you easily end up with inconsistencies etc.

Hope this helps even a bit!

BR

Auli