Silos turned in on themselves

Classic process control problems such as overtakers, confusing individual processes and manual spontaneous interventions exist in the S/4 world without satisfactory solutions. Software-as-a-Service or Platform-as-a-Service has become indispensable and is now replacing old products and operating concepts across the board at SAP. The advantages such as scalability and the outsourcing of an entire operating level cannot be denied. A subsidiary can quickly be brought into the S/4 Public Cloud and thus dock onto S/4 Core. In some cases, however, there is no alternative to the transition, as new products are no longer offered on-prem by SAP and old products are being phased out, including IBP (Integrated Business Planning) as a replacement for APO (Advanced Planner and Optimizer) as well as SuccessFactors and Concur for SAP HCM.

With open web APIs and communication protocols such as Rest, Soap or A2S/A2A, it is now possible to connect to the SAP ERP and integration into ITSM or service bus products is recognizable. This allows existing SAP customers to integrate alternative products into the ERP. Interfaces are required for the new services to interact with each other. What an interface then allows and whether this is technically sufficient is again left to each product team itself and is reminiscent of the old Bapi days. There are at least a number of products for data integration and SAP has already addressed the issue of controlling data flows with the Application Interface Framework.

This SAP view "inwards" of each service is particularly noticeable at the beginning of the life cycle. As a result, interfaces are regularly expanded. There is usually no uniform standard, e.g. for job control, and updates sometimes come unexpectedly. This sovereignty of the service provider means that the existing customer or integrator runs behind the manufacturers. In the worst-case scenario, there is even a standstill if changes are not communicated. So what is very practical for the flexibility and dynamism of the individual services can be a pain for the integrator.

However, there are also positive developments: SAP is making every effort to create more standardized scenarios at the pre-control level in the area of communication. For example, the SAP_COM_0326 communication scenario already appears in several products. However, these are currently mainly limited to BTP (SAP Business Technology Platform), as this offers a standardized basis - similar to the aging NetWeaver. However, as a monolithic block, SAP BTP is opposed to the concept of (micro) services.

The issue of how the data should flow between the products is therefore largely addressed. When it comes to whether and when, the situation is quite different. Some products already offer control options with complex workflows, while others only react to time control or events. What they all have in common, however, is that the focus here is generally only "inward" in order to get their own processes under control. Even with existing control options, the issue of "by whom" is not always clear from a governance perspective if processes are attached to the product "somewhere". Comprehensive control and end-to-end monitoring of processes, as is necessary for ERP core processes, is difficult.

The need to centrally view the status of the processes, intervene in an emergency or make ad hoc adjustments is still not being met. Issues such as special runs, maintenance windows or re-do scenarios cannot really be mapped with silo control systems anyway. Honico has been dealing with the topic of controlling silo-type installations for over 25 years. Be it from NetWeaver with BatchMan or in BTP and Cloud with the Easy Workload Scheduler. Ultimately, the requirements have not changed much. What has changed when it comes to SaaS is that "hacks" via the DB or coding are no longer possible: The interface is the law. We combine the old world of NetWeaver with new SaaS technologies such as IBP, SAC or BTP to enable cross-ERP control. A process control tool not only serves as a captain on deck and creates transparency, it also serves to set a standard.

The advantages of SaaS are indisputable, but companies should prepare themselves for possible restrictions in the new world of interfaces, especially when orchestrating business processes. Core processes in particular should at least meet the previous standard, and the resilience of the interfaces increases considerably, as more complex recovery scenarios can be run automatically and stopped immediately in the event of a real disaster to prevent business-critical damage.

To the partner entry: