Switch framework and EhP license trap

My wife will reprimand me again and think that self-praise stinks - but I can't hide the joy of having already pointed out the danger of a hidden license obligation with the introduction of the SAP Enhancement Packages.

At that time my dear DSAG colleagues did not really take the matter seriously. In the meantime, one or the other has stepped on the EhP treadmine and the explosion was huge: The collateral damage is the problem, because there is still no functioning license measurement that looks into the modules.

Resetting is associated with enormous costs. "Speak plainly" is my wife's comment when proofreading my manuscript for the first time.

Switch Framework: Already many years ago I warned in the DSAG and at our SAP regulars' table against the one-way street of the switch framework. Switch on yes - but there is no off switch!

Understandable from SAP's point of view, because a switch to turn off function is extremely difficult to program. In the worst case it can become impossible, then the ERP must be reset.

A theoretical case: If specific functions are activated for master data management (MDM/MDG), this not only affects components that require a license, but also makes elimination almost impossible.

I will not discuss the impossibility of resetting a productive system here. The fact is sufficient that the problem has not been adequately solved to this day.

Neither are there sufficient warnings for EhP functions that require a license, nor are there procedural instructions for resetting accidentally activated modules. The SAP note with the number 1524246 points this out, but is naturally not a solution:

You have investigated new functionality provided in an Enhancement Package for SAP ERP and need further guidance about which licenses are required when activating the related business function and using the new functionality.

Our DSAG is of course aware of the problem and the very committed Austrian Manfred Ofner has presented interesting interim results regarding a transparent licensing model at our CIO circle.

Specifically, we need to work through the following issues: Investment protection and product lifecycle for SAP licenses, partial decommissioning without additional payment in the event of later reactivation, free choice of license model (for example, a maximum of 50 percent limited professional users - compared to a maximum of 15 percent in the past), transparent metrics and consolidation of multiple licensing, etc.

From the point of view of our SAP regulars, however, the option to choose with regard to the license model and maintenance prices appears to be the most important criterion. Of course, EhP transparency is very important to us.

I see the abolition of the 15% rule for limited professional users as a good start. I think a comparison with other software providers is counterproductive. Of course, people always refer to SAP's competitors and argue that things are even more "chaotic" there.

Thus, I can fully support the DSAG service marketplace initiative: We need more transparency in SAP licensing issues including EhP and Switch Framework! On sap-ag.de/usergroups you can read under the keyword "SAP Licensing - Process Guide":

"Relationship of Licenses and Business Functions: guidance to determine, for the new functions provided in an SAP Enterprise Resource Planning (SAP ERP) enhancement package, which licenses are required to activate the associated business functions and use the new functions."

The work goes on: When it comes to partial decommissioning and reconfiguration, a lot of colleagues are suffering - not to mention the vexed topic of transfer and used licenses. I know that this is a very complex legal area, but the current requirements from Walldorf and some judgments by the courts as well as requirements by the legislator do not correspond in any way to operational business life.

Here, people are selling, buying, merging, shutting down - but in SAP's opinion, there should only be growth and thus a steady increase in licenses. As long as the SAP maintenance constraint exists and Walldorf does not grant us any flexibility in the case of changed structures, the problem of used software remains unsolved.

On the other hand, I consider the issue of the general 22 percent maintenance fee for subsequent purchases to be a purely economic problem that the respective controllers will have to negotiate with SAP. This also includes the issue of investment protection in the event of a change in SAP product strategy and multiple licensing for user plus Engine plus Engine prices. Have fun doing the math!