Count and save

Part 1 - Stefan Autengruber:

SAP is a centrally organized group. SAP is the only software manufacturer in the world to store all license data from the outset and therefore knows the license situation of every customer.

This is not the case with other software manufacturers such as Oracle and Microsoft. Here, the customer's license situation has to be painstakingly determined using counting methods.

A lot of information is lost in the process and sometimes high additional license payments are incurred. SAM tool providers come from this world of counting. They have discovered SAP licenses as the last bastion and also want to count and manage them.

What for? Licenses can also be counted with SAP's own software (and only this is recognized) such as USMM, LAW1, LAW2 and now also SolMan 7.2. But tool providers go further and offer usage analysis tools that can achieve potential cost savings.

How does that work? It is clear that SAP does not take back software and does not refund money. It is also clear that terminating maintenance contracts is difficult. However, if you negotiate skillfully and know your legal position, you will get what you are entitled to.

SAP has the longest valid license models worldwide to date, i.e. Business Suite, ERP and SAP Applications. These began in 2000 and are expected to end in 2025 with the discontinuation of support.

The functionality of the SAP software has been significantly enhanced since 2000 and has adapted to new requirements. The named user model has remained the same.

This means that a user licensed in the year 2000 can still use SAP software and all updates that SAP has delivered over 18 years - and the fantastic thing is: including all updates, some of which are subject to a charge in new license products.

I wonder how SAM tool providers define the rules in this regard. Do they take into account the entire SAP pricing history? How do you build a set of rules for the past without information that was not publicly available at the time?

Will a set of rules stand up to an SAP compliance audit? Who is liable if a set of rules is not correct? Anyone who wants to save money by moving licenses has invented something that doesn't exist.

The only way to make real savings is to use SAP measurement tools, check what results they produce and work out how to reconcile these results with the historical license situation. This is where the nuggets lie.

Part 2: Peter M. Färbinger:

In the past, there were no problems between SAP and existing customers with regard to licensing and intellectual property. There was a harmonious cooperation between R/3, R/3 Enterprise (4.7) and ERP/ECC 6.0.

Each side knew its rights and obligations - the "transparent" customer was not a problem in the SAP community. This meant that existing customers were not at a disadvantage, as E-3 author Stefan Autengruber reports on the left-hand side of the text: SAP knew and knows almost everything about the ERP infrastructure, usage types and license situation.

Software Asset Management (SAM) in the hands of the licensor has almost only advantages if there is sufficient trust on both sides. SAP's User System Measurement Management (USMM) and License Administration Workbench (LAW) provide a very detailed insight into the IT architecture.

And if Stefan Autengruber thinks that this intimate knowledge combined with historical license and contract knowledge is almost always only used to the advantage of the existing customer - this is where the nuggets lie - then he may well be right at first glance.

"Counting and saving" in a trusting and transparent partnership can work. It would also be counterproductive for any existing SAP customer not to use the SAM tools USMM, LAW and SolMan and to get involved in a dispute over interpretation and competence with tools of a different kind.

If both parties agree on the common goal: Further development, optimization, automation of the ERP infrastructure - then it will be a very successful partnership.

Unfortunately, real life is not what the theory says. SAP has become greedy and has misused the USMM and LAW knowledge! SAP no longer counts services rendered, but defines "indirect use".

Existing customers want a digital transformation. SAP wants to triple its share price and is using the knowledge from USMM and LAW to achieve this. SAP technicians and lawyers have discovered the treasure trove of "indirect use" and are now starting to unearth this treasure.

But existing customers can defend themselves against this, because "indirect use" is a one-sided, arbitrary definition of software. All information on possible defense measures on e-3.de/lkh.