Issue

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:

Based
• It is based on
old
• legacy WebDynpro technology
; the screens are not user friendly - they
• and is not aligned with modern Fiori design principles.
• Screens are convoluted, poorly
laid out
• structured, and not
aligned with Fiori design concepts
• user-friendly.
• Creation of a PPM
Item
• item requires multiple manual steps,
navigating back and forth between S4HANA
• including navigation between S/4HANA and SAC Planning.
• The standard UI
cannot
• does not guide
the user through this
• users through the end-to-end process and
gives no indication of completeness of the required data
• 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-On: SAP has suggested a certified partner solution from sophisTex

that provides a more flexible

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 capabilities, this 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

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 Partner Solution

Option 2: Screen Personas

Approx. Cost (5 years)	Project Cost	Ongoing Cost	Total 5 years
=20 days design for very complex WRICEF	€ 20,000
=25 days build for custom fields and validations	€ 25,000
=

80

15 days * 1000 EUR for in-house UI build

€

80

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

€ 8000

€14,000
	€

170

140,000

€

8000

14,000

€

210

220,000

Option

3: In-house Development

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

Business Rules

N/aA

Options considered

Option

A new custom app is developed with the following features:

• Fiori design features
• Ability to jump into SAC Planning for maintaining project financials
• Integration with OpenText workspace
• Integration with SAP Consulting Solution for Stage Gate Approvals (cost included in estimate above)
• Follow-on actions for Stage Gate Approval

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 into SAC Planning for maintaining project financials

• Integration with OpenText workspace

• 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

detailed functional and technical specifications.

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

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	Basic UI configuration delivered as standard Custom build for OT Integration, WF Customization & SAC Integration	Intermediate custom layer on standard App   Custom build for OT Integration, WF Customization	100% custom build	Basic UI configuration delivered as standard  Custom build for Custom fields, OT Integration, WF

Customization & SAC Integration

Customization
Implementation Cost	High implementation cost, high ongoing cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost

High

Medium implementation cost,

high

minimal ongoing

cost 

cost
Implementation Effort	Basic functionality delivered with solution

Large

Medium in-house build effort

Medium in-house build effort

(110 days)

,   Personas for Web Dynpro may have limitations than Personas for Web GUI

Large in-house build effort

Basic functionality delivered with solution

Medium in-house build

effort (50 days)

effort
Design & UI Flexibility

Full flexibility to incorporate business requirements

Ability to influence UI through configuration Limited option to customize as we need to work within framework

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

	Ability to influence UI through configuration	Full flexibility to incorporate business requirements	No option to customize
Business Acceptance	Meets most business expectations/requirements	Meets most business expectations/requirements	Meets all business expectations/requirements	Does not meet business expectations/requirements
Alignment with Syway Development Approach	Meets Syway approach for complex requirement build	Syway development approach limit Personas to simple screen enhancements / simplifications / automations with limited scripting	Meets Syway approach for complex requirement build	Not aligned with Syway development approach

See also

Change log