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

• Better user acceptance
• Alignment with Syway development approach for complex build
• Full influence over design to meet business requirements

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-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 to develop a custom application in-house. Combined with the SAP Consulting solution for Stage Gate approvals, this option could deliver equivalent functionality, including guided process steps, improved usability, and integrated approval management, fully tailored to business requirements.

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

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

Option 3: In-house Development

Option 4: Do Nothing - Keep the existing 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 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

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 1 - sophisTex Partner Solution	Option 2 - Screen Personas	Option 3 - In-house Development (recommended)	Option 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
Implementation Cost	High implementation cost, high ongoing cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost	Medium implementation cost, minimal ongoing cost
Implementation Effort	Basic functionality delivered with solution Medium in-house build effort	Medium house build effort,   Personas for WEBDYNPRO may have limitations than Personas for WEBGUI	Large in-house build effort	Medium in-house build effort
Design & UI Flexibility	Ability to influence UI through configuration Limited option to customize as we need to work within framework	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

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