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/Accolade and Colmar tools which provide more user-friendly and intuitive user interface than PPM. KDD096 - replacement of Accolade assumes that a new improved UI will be provided

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

Clearly describe the underlying assumptions which informed or limited the choices available, or impacted the decision: cost, schedule, regulatory requirements, business drivers, country footprint, technology, etc. Include links as necessary. This section is important because a future change in circumstances might invalidate some key assumptions, which then prompts a decision to be revisited. 

It is assumed that:

• 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

Capture any constraints or limitations inherent to the recommended option. This could be aspects which, if changed or removed in future, could cause the decision to be revisited or invalidated. For example, a constraint might be that a new product has significant gaps in important functionality, which caused an older alternative to be recommended. If those gaps are closed in future, this might cause the decision to be invalidated.

N/a

Impacts

Describe the impact of the decision on other aspects such as other processes, infrastructure, other SAP modules or systems, data cleansing and migration, developments, automations, interfaces, in-flight projects, etc.

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

Explain the financial impact of adopting the recommended option. This must explain both the implementation and operational aspects, i.e. both the effort & cost of implementing and operating longer-term. 

• The recommended option to develop an in-house solution has a lower cost, better user acceptance both for the project and ongoing.
• The sophisTex solution has a subscription-based pricing model with ongoing costs based on user numbers.
• Screen Personas has similar cost as the custom UI development but may have limited flexibility on UI
• Standard app is not an option as it challenges the decision of KDD096

Option A: In-house Development

Option B: sophiTex Partner Solution

Option C: Screen Personas

Option D: Standard Webdynpro screen

Business Rules

The decision may translate into business rules which enforce the decision and will require configuration. List these business rules here. For example, "An Outline Agreement cannot be created via the RFQ process. An awarded RFQ can only result in a Purchase Order". 

N/a

Options considered

List the options (viable options or alternatives) you considered. These often require a longer explanation with diagrams, or references to other documents (links are best, but attachments are also possible). Use enough detail to adequately explain what you considered so that a project or business stakeholder reviewing this decision will not come back and ask "did you think about...?"; this leads to loss of credibility and questioning of other decisions. This section also helps ensure that you considered enough suitable alternatives rather than just copy/pasting SAP's recommendations.

Option A: Custom In-house Development

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

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

Option B: sophisTex Partner Solution

The sophisTex PPP solution delivers a customizable UI for PPM Item creation and maintenance. It is provided on a subscription-basis, scaled by numbers of users.

Further custom development would be required for:

• Ability to jump into SAC Planning for maintaining project financials
• Integration with OpenText workspace
• Follow-on actions for Stage Gate Approval

It has been confirmed in discussions with the vendor that the above customization is feasible.

Refer to the linked pack for details of the sophisTex solution:

Option C: Screen Personas

Screen Personas is developed with following features

• Simplified Screen for Item creation/CHanges
• Ability to Save as draft or copy from another item
• 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

Option D: Standard Webdynpro

 Standard web-dynpro  following features

• Custom Fields and Validations
• 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

Evaluation

Outline why you selected a position. The best format could be a pro/con table (sample below), but is up to you as the author. You must consider complexity, feasibility, cost/effort to implement, but also ongoing operational impact and cost. You must consider the program principles and explain any deviations in detail. This is probably as important as the decision itself.

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	Option C - Screen Personas	Option D - Standard Webdynpro
Fit to Standard	100% custom build	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	Basic UI configuration delivered as standard  Custom build for Custom fields, OT Integration, WF Customization
Implementation Cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost	High implementation cost, high ongoing cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost
Implementation Effort	Large in-house build effort	Basic functionality delivered with solution Medium in-house build effort	Large in-house build effort	Medium in-house build 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	Limited option to customize as we need to work within framework	No option to customize
Business Acceptance	Meets all business expectations/requirements	Meets most business expectations/requirements	Meets most business expectations/requirements	Does not meet business expectations/requirements

See also

Insert links and references to other documents which are relevant when trying to understand this decision and its implications. Other decisions are often impacted, so it's good to list them here with links. Attachments are also possible but dangerous as they are static documents and not updated by their authors.

Change log