| Status | Approved |
| Owner | |
| 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
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.
The alternative is to develop a custom app in-house which, in conjunction with the SAP Consulting Solution for Stage Gate approvals, would provide the same capabilities.
Assumptions
It is assumed that:
- Both options will require internal custom development for:
- Integration with OpenText
- Integration with SAC
- Automation of follow-on actions on funding 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.
Constraints
N/a
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 |
| =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 Cost | Ongoing Cost | Total 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 solution | 30,000 | ||
| € 313,000 | € 280,000 | € 593,000 |
Business Rules
N/a
Options considered
Option A: In-house Development
A new custom app is developed with the following features:
- Fiori design features
- Ability to jump into SAC Planning for maintaining project financials
- Integrated with OpenText workspace
- Integrated with SAP Consulting Solution for Stage Gate Approvals (needs to be purchased)
Option B: sophisTex Partner Solution
Refer to the linked pack for details of the sophisTex solution:
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 Criteria | Option A - In-house Development (recommended) | Option B - sophisTex Partner Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Fit to Standard |
|
|
| Implementation Cost |  Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost |
|
| Implementation Effort |
|
|
| Design & UI Flexibility | Full flexibility to incorporate business requirements |
|
| Quality Risk |  High dependency on developer |
|