Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: added stakeholders

Issue

A decision is required whether to develop a new PPM custom app for Item creation & maintenance in-house or whether to purchase a partner solution.

Recommendation

It is recommended that a custom app is built in-house, due to the following factors:

  • Significantly lower project and ongoing cost
  • In-house resources have experience in developing such an app
  • Full influence over design to meet business requirements

The current standard SAP PPM application provides a fragmented and inefficient user experience. Users are required to navigate across multiple applications and screens to create and approve a PPM item, resulting in complexity, reduced usability, and process inefficiencies.

Early in the program, it was agreed that an improved, streamlined user experience would be required to support effective PPM item creation and approval. This Key Design Decision (KDD) therefore aims to evaluate the available technical options to deliver a new UI. Following are the options evaluated as part of the KDD.

  • Develop a custom application in-house – Design and build a tailored solution aligned to business and governance requirements.

  • Purchase and implement a partner solution – Leverage an existing third-party product to provide enhanced PPM UI capabilities.

  • Enhance the standard SAP UI using SAP Screen Personas – Simplify and optimize the current screens with required backend changes.


Recommendation

It is recommended to proceed with Option 3: Custom In-House Development based on the following factors:

  • Stronger user acceptance
  • Full alignment with the Syway development approach for complex builds
  • Complete control over design to ensure business requirements are fully met
  • Easy to Support in BAU compared to other options

While Option 2: SAP Screen Personas presents a slightly lower upfront implementation cost, the difference over a five-year horizon is minimal. This marginal saving would come at the expense of a compromised user experience and would not provide the guided, modern interface expected by the business. In addition, applying Screen Personas to a requirement of this complexity would not align with Syway development standards, which position Personas for simple screen enhancements rather than complex application solutions.

From a support and sustainability perspective, a custom-built Fiori application can be supported by the existing Fiori development team, ensuring consistency in skills, standards, and long-term maintainability. In contrast, Screen Personas requires specialized skills that are not widely used in other developments, introducing unnecessary complexity and long-term dependency on niche expertise.

Accordingly, Screen Personas is not recommended.


Background & Context

The “Portfolio Items” app is the primary transaction used to execute PPM processes in S/4HANA. However, the standard UI presents several significant shortcomings:

  • It is based on legacy WebDynpro technology and is not aligned with modern Fiori design principles.
  • Screens are convoluted, poorly structured, and not user-friendly.
  • Creation of a PPM item requires multiple manual steps, including navigation between S/4HANA and SAC Planning.
  • The standard UI does not guide users through the end-to-end process and provides no visibility on data completeness or required inputs.

Business expectations for the future-state user experience are influenced by the current WeGo/Accolade and Colmar tools, which provide a significantly more intuitive and streamlined interface. In addition, KDD096 – Replacement of Accolade assumes that an improved user interface will be delivered as part of the target solution.

SAP has confirmed that there are no planned UI improvements for Portfolio Items on their product roadmap. As a result, following alternative approaches must be evaluated.

Option 1: Partner Solution – SophisTex Add-OnSAP has suggested a certified partner solution from sophisTex that provides a more flexible

Background & Context

The 'Portfolio Items' app is the main transaction used for executing PPM processes in S4HANA. The standard UI for this app comes with the following shortcomings:

  • Based on old WebDynpro technology; the screens are not user friendly - they are convoluted, poorly laid out and not aligned with Fiori design concepts.
  • Creation of a PPM Item requires multiple steps, navigating back and forth between S4HANA and SAC Planning. The standard UI cannot guide the user through this process and gives no indication of completeness of the required data.
  • Business expectations for the user interface are based on the current WeGo solution which provides a more friendly and intuitive user interface than PPM. The move to standard WebDynpro PPM screens would be considered a backward step.
SAP does not have any improvement for the UI planned on their roadmap and have suggested a partner solution from sophisTex which provides a more flexible, intuitive

and user-friendly interface. The following features are included:

  • S/4HANA certified Add-on by SAP ICC
  • Achieves Clean Core, no impact on S/4HANA EPPM upgradability
  • Delivered with a default set of configuration to reduce implementation time
  • Flexibility to further customize and enhance
  • Stage Gate approval functionality is incorporated.

Option 2: SAP Screen Personas: SAP Screen Personas offers the capability to reformat and simplify existing WebDynpro screens. This approach would improve layout and usability but would not fundamentally redesign the process or have elaborate guided workflow capabilities.

Option 3: Custom In-House Development: An alternative approach would be The alternative is to develop a custom app application in-house which, in conjunction . Combined with the SAP Consulting Solution solution for Stage Gate approvals, would provide the same capabilitiesthis option could deliver equivalent functionality, including guided process steps, improved usability, and integrated approval management, fully tailored to business requirements.


Assumptions

It is assumed that:

  • Both All options will require internal custom development for:
    • Integration with OpenText
    • Integration with SAC
    • Automation of follow-on actions on Stage Gate approval
  • The sophisTex solution will be fully tested and relatively bug-free, while an in-house development will inherently require more effort in testing and resolution of bugs.
  • A dedicated UI developer would be required for a fully custom UI build.
  • There will be approximately 2000 users of PPM
  • SAP PPM licenses will be required regardless of the UI


Constraints

N/aA


Impacts

The decision on UI does impact up-stream or down-stream processes or data. 

The main impacts of the decision are:

  • Financial (both to the project and ongoing BAU costs)
  • In-house development team capacity
  • Time to deliver
  • Testing effort


Financial Impact

The

recommended option to develop an in-house solution has a lower cost, both for the project and ongoing.
  • The sophisTex solution has a subscription-based pricing model with ongoing costs based on user numbers.
  • Option A: In-house Development

    Approx. Cost (one-off)Project Cost=20 days design for very complex WRICEF€ 20,000=80 days * 1000 EUR for in-house UI build€ 80,000

    following section outlines the financial impact of each option evaluated as part of this KDD. The analysis reflects the total cost of ownership over a five-year period, including implementation costs, licensing (where applicable), enhancements, and ongoing support and maintenance.


    Option 1: sophisTex

    =20 days SAP build for approval workflow solution€ 40,000=30 days in-house build for approval workflow solution€ 30,000€ 170,000

    Option B: sophiTex Partner Solution

    Approx. Cost (5 years)Project CostOngoing CostTotal 5 years

    =€ 450 *20 users *2 years during build & test

    €18,000

    =€140k *1 year for go-live (2000 users)

    €140,000

    =€140k *2 years post go-live (2000 users)


    € 280,000
    =40 days * €1500 for sophisTex consulting during build (OT integration, SAC integration, workflow, other enhancements)€ 60,000

    =20 days * €1500 for sophisTex support during SIT/UAT/cutover€ 30,000

    =15 days * €1000 for in-house design for complex WRICEF€ 15,000

    =20 days * €1000 in-house build - custom PPP configuration€ 20,000

    =30 days in-house build * €1000 for approval workflow solution30,000


    € 313,000€ 280,000€ 593,000


    Option 2: Screen Personas

    Approx. Cost (5 years)Project CostOngoing CostTotal 5 years
    =20 days design for very complex WRICEF€ 20,000

    =25 days build for custom fields and validations€ 25,000

    =15 days * 1000 EUR for in-house UI build€ 15,000

    =10 days* 1000 EUR for in-house OT integration/enhancement€ 10,000

    =20 days SAP build for approval workflow solution€ 40,000

    =30 days in-house build for approval workflow solution€ 30,000

    =ongoing cost 10% of the build cost per year €14,000 

    € 140,000€ 14,000€ 220,000


    Option 3: In-house Development

    Approx. Cost (5 years)Project CostOngoing CostTotal 5 years
    =20 days design for very complex WRICEF€ 20,000

    =80 days * 1000 EUR for in-house UI build€ 80,000

    =20 days SAP build for approval workflow solution€ 40,000

    =30 days in-house build for approval workflow solution€ 30,000

    =ongoing cost 10% of the build cost per year € 15,000 

    € 170,000€ 15000€ 245,000


    Option 4: Do Nothing - Keep the existing Standard Webdynpro screen

    Approx. Cost (5 years)Project CostOngoing CostTotal 5 years
    =20 days design for very complex WRICEF€ 20,000

    =20 days* 1000 EUR for in-house OT integration/enhancement€ 20,000

    =25 days design for custom fields and validations€ 25,000

    =20 days SAP build for approval workflow solution€ 40,000

    =30 days in-house build for approval workflow solution€ 30,000

    =ongoing cost 10% of the build cost per year €11,500 

    € 135,000€ 11,500€ 192,500


    Business Rules

    N/aA


    Options considered

    Option

    A: In-house Development

    A new custom app is developed with the following features:

    1: sophisTex Partner Solution

    The sophisTex PPP solution provides a customizable user interface for PPM Item creation and maintenance. It is offered as a subscription-based model, with costs scaled according to the number of users.

    The solution delivers an enhanced, flexible UI and includes embedded Stage Gate approval functionality. However, additional custom development would be required to address the following requirements:

    • Ability to navigate directly

  • Fiori design features
  • Ability to jump
    • into SAC Planning for maintaining project financials

    Integrated
    • Integration with OpenText workspace

  • Integrated with SAP Consulting Solution for Stage Gate Approvals (needs to be purchased)
  • Option B: sophisTex Partner Solution
    • Automation of follow-on actions triggered by Stage Gate approval

    The vendor has confirmed that these enhancements are feasible within the solution framework.

    Refer to the linked solution pack for

    details of the sophisTex solution:

    detailed functional and technical specifications.

    Google Drive Live Link
    urlhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hanygf3OX1_MqsGaIZZyK0T5igXXFLlY/view?usp=drive_link


    Option 2: Screen Personas

    SAP Screen Personas would be used to simplify and reformat the existing WebDynpro-based screens to improve usability.

    This approach would deliver:

    • Simplified screens for Item creation and changes

    • Direct navigation to SAC Planning for project financial maintenance

    However, further custom development would be required to enable:

    • “Save as Draft” or “Copy from Existing Item” functionality

    • Integration with OpenText workspace

    • Integration with the SAP Consulting Solution for Stage Gate approvals (cost included in the estimate)

    • Automation of follow-on actions after Stage Gate approval

    While this option improves layout and usability, it remains dependent on the underlying WebDynpro framework and the custom development to support all the required functionalities.


    Option 3: Custom In-house Development

    Under this option, a new custom application would be developed to replace the standard Portfolio Items UI.

    The application would be designed using modern Fiori principles and would provide a guided, end-to-end user experience aligned with business expectations and the replacement of Accolade (KDD096).

    The solution would include:

    • Fiori-based user interface aligned with SAP design standards

    • Guided item creation process with validation and completeness checks

    • Direct navigation to SAC Planning for maintaining project financials

    • Integration with OpenText workspace

    • Integration with the SAP Consulting Solution for Stage Gate approvals (cost included in the estimate)

    • Automation of follow-on actions triggered by Stage Gate approval

    This approach enables full alignment to business requirements and provides maximum flexibility for future enhancements.


    Option 4: Standard Webdynpro

    This option retains the standard WebDynpro application but introduces targeted enhancements.

    The following capabilities would be implemented:

    • Custom fields and validations within the existing WebDynpro framework

    • Integration with OpenText workspace

    • Integration with the SAP Consulting Solution for Stage Gate approvals (cost included in the estimate)

    • Automation of follow-on actions triggered by Stage Gate approval

    While this approach minimizes architectural change, it does not fundamentally modernize the user experience and continues to rely on legacy WebDynpro technology.


    Evaluation

    All four options were assessed against defined evaluation criteria, including functional fit, implementation cost and effort, UI flexibility, business acceptance, and alignment with the Syway development approach.

    Evaluation Criteria
    Option 1 - sophisTex Partner Solution
    Option 2 - Screen Personas

    Option 3

    Evaluation

    Both options are essentially custom solutions. The most significant difference is in implementation & ongoing cost, which out-weighed the other criteria in making the recommendation.

    Evaluation CriteriaOption A

    - In-house Development (recommended)

    Option
    B - sophisTex Partner Solution
    4 - Standard WebDynpro
    Fit to Standard

    (plus) Basic UI configuration delivered as standard

    (minus) Custom build for OT Integration, WF Customization & SAC Integration

    (plus) Intermediate custom layer on standard App 

    (minus) Custom build for OT Integration, WF Customization 

    (minus) (minus) 100% custom build

    (plus) Basic UI configuration delivered as standard

    (minus) Custom build for Custom fields, OT Integration, WF

    Customization & SAC Integration

    Customization 

    Implementation Cost

    (minus) (minus) High implementation cost, high ongoing cost 

    (plus) Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost

    (plus) Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost
    (minus) (minus) High
    (plus) Medium implementation cost,
    high
    minimal ongoing
    cost 
    cost
    Implementation Effort

    (plus) Basic functionality delivered with solution

    (minus)

    (minus) Large

    Medium in-house build effort 

    (minus)  Medium in-house build effort

    (110 days)

    ,

    (minus)  Personas for Web Dynpro may have limitations than Personas for Web GUI

    (minus) (minus) Large in-house build effort 

    (plus) Basic functionality delivered with solution

    (minus) Medium in-house build

    effort (50 days)

    effort 

    Design & UI Flexibility
    (plus) Full flexibility to incorporate business requirements

    (plus) Ability to influence UI through configuration

    (minus) Limited option to customize as we need to work within framework

    Quality Risk(minus) High dependency on developer(plus) 3rd product has coverage from partner, base build is ready to use

    (plus) Ability to influence UI through configuration


    (plus)(plus) Full flexibility to incorporate business requirements(minus) (minus) No option to customize 
    Business Acceptance

    (plus) Meets most business expectations/requirements

    (plus) Meets most business expectations/requirements(plus)(plus) Meets all business expectations/requirements(minus) (minus) Does not meet business expectations/requirements
    Alignment with Syway Development Approach

    (plus) Meets Syway approach for complex requirement build

    (minus) Syway development approach limit Personas to simple screen enhancements / simplifications / automations with limited scripting

    (plus) Meets Syway approach for complex requirement build(minus) Not aligned with Syway development approach


    See also


    Attachments
    previewfalse
    patterns^(?!.*\.(png|jpg|jpeg|svg)$).*
    sortOrderdescending

    Change log

    Change History
    limit10