English | EN 
When companies embark on SAP projects, particularly with the transition to S/4HANA through greenfield or brownfield approaches, they often face a crucial decision: should they engage Quality Business Assurance (QBA) teams with deep experience in specific SAP modules, or should they lean towards those with broader SAP implementation knowledge, even if it lacks specific business context? This is a nuanced debate that I believe requires a deeper dive, especially in light of today’s evolving SAP landscapes.
Many clients prioritize business assurance teams that have specific module experience experts who have worked within a particular business context, such as SAP Finance (FI) or Sales and Distribution (SD), for several years. This approach has clear benefits: these teams bring a wealth of practical, hands-on knowledge of how processes should run within those modules. They understand the common pitfalls, the nuances of user interactions, and the typical business demands. In theory, this leads to quicker on-boarding specialized module experience:
Pros and Cons
Pros:
- Targeted Knowledge: QA teams with specific module experience can easily recognize business flows and are able to quickly adapt test cases based on industry-specific practices.
- Faster Start-Up: Less time is needed to understand core processes, meaning quicker initial engagement with the project and often, more immediate value delivered.
- Reduced Business Friction: These experts may already speak the language of the business users they’re working with, improving communication and understanding, and ultimately building trust more easily.
Cons:
- Risk of Tunnel Vision: Focusing heavily on one specific SAP module may limit a team’s ability to think holistically, leading to issues when integration points across modules (e.g., how FI connects with MM or PP) come into play. SAP projects are about end-to-end processes, not isolated pieces.
- Customization Challenges: The reality is that almost no company sticks to SAP standard processes entirely. Specialization in a module might make it difficult for the team to adapt to the customization and unique processes designed during greenfield or brownfield migrations. These teams may also resist new ways of doing things, potentially hindering innovation, more targeted test case coverage, and a reduction in the learning curve.
However, I don’t fully subscribe to the notion that deep, module-specific experience always leads to better outcomes. In fact, there is a compelling argument for a broader SAP system understanding, especially when considering the disruptive and transformative nature of modern SAP implementations, like S/4HANA migrations. Let’s break down the pros and cons.
Broad SAP Expertise: Pros and Cons
Pros:
- Holistic View: Teams with broader SAP experience may be more effective in ensuring integration across different modules and understanding how various components interlink. They can help in maintaining process continuity, which is critical during a migration to S/4HANA.
- Adaptability and Flexibility: A broad understanding of SAP equips teams to adapt to any configuration or custom solution. In a greenfield project, where entirely new processes are being defined, having a broad understanding of how SAP can be leveraged rather than how it has been traditionally used in a single module could be incredibly valuable.
- Focus on Business Needs: These teams often focus on how SAP can best serve the broader business needs rather than just ensuring a specific module is configured and tested as per usual. This helps when businesses are moving away from legacy practices and truly looking to transform how they operate.
Cons:
- Initial Learning Curve: Teams that lack module-specific experience might need more time upfront to understand the specific requirements and common practices of a given industry or module. However, this often turns out to be a short-term disadvantage.
- Less Business-Specific Understanding: Without the in-depth experience of working in particular modules, these teams may take longer to understand the day-to-day operational challenges business users face, which can delay the identification of process-specific edge cases.
Customization vs. Standard Test Cases: Navigating Reality
Most companies dream of sticking to SAP standard processes—after all, this would significantly speed up implementation and testing efforts. If a company has well-developed standard test cases available, a specialized team might be able to execute them quickly, leading to rapid quality assurance cycles. However, in reality, almost all businesses have some level of customization to fit their unique needs.
For example, during a greenfield S/4HANA project, new processes are designed from scratch. A broader perspective—one that understands how SAP works, rather than how a specific module worked in the past—is crucial here. In a brownfield project, where legacy processes are adapted, a detailed reevaluation of each process is required regardless of whether standard test cases exist. QA or business assurance teams must work closely with business users to ensure that these custom processes are fully vetted, requiring a depth of understanding beyond pre-existing knowledge.
Finding Balance: An Ideal Approach
Perhaps the ideal approach is not to choose between these two types of teams, but to create a balanced, hybrid team. Combining members with specific module expertise and others with broader SAP experience might be the key to achieving a high level of efficiency while ensuring flexibility, adaptability, and a holistic view.
Furthermore, having design specialists and including business assurance teams in the design phase can significantly bridge any knowledge gaps. By involving business assurance teams early in the design phase, they can gain a comprehensive understanding of the processes being built. The business consultants bring the necessary business knowledge, while the business assurance teams ensure that the designed aspects meet the implemented solutions. This collaboration forces a close working relationship with customer business teams, ensuring that end-to-end (E2E) integration is optimal.
Accelerators: AI, Automation, and Data in Business Assurance
In addition to the balance between specialized and broad expertise, another important aspect of modern SAP quality assurance is the use of accelerators such as AI, automation, and data analytics. These accelerators are key tools that business assurance teams bring to the table, enabling them to help customers speed up testing processes and improve overall quality.
- AI and Machine Learning are increasingly being leveraged to predict potential problem areas, identify high-risk processes, and optimize test coverage. AI-driven testing can help prioritize the most critical scenarios and make the testing process more intelligent, thereby reducing the overall time and effort required.
- Automation plays a crucial role in repetitive and regression testing, ensuring that previously validated functionalities remain intact despite new changes. By automating these repetitive tasks, business assurance teams can focus more on complex scenarios and exploratory testing, ultimately adding more value to the project. The ability to automate not only expedites testing but also ensures consistency and reliability in the quality assurance process.
- Data Analytics allows QA teams to make more informed decisions based on real user data and system performance metrics. By leveraging data from past implementations, best practices can be established and reused, which accelerates the testing process and aligns with industry standards. Moreover, data-driven insights help identify usage patterns and highlight potential areas of concern that might require more focused testing.
These accelerators are pivotal for achieving efficient and effective testing, particularly in projects that involve extensive customizations or complex integrations. While traditional quality assurance approaches are still relevant, the use of AI, automation, and data analytics helps business assurance teams provide a higher level of service, reduce risk, and ensure that SAP solutions are not only implemented correctly but also optimized for future scalability and performance.
Conclusion
For organizations planning their journey to S/4HANA, it’s important to recognize that both specialized experience and broad understanding have their place in a project. The key lies in assessing your unique needs, level of customization, and project approach—and then designing the team composition that can bring out the best of both worlds.
In the end, while specialized knowledge brings efficiency, it is the broader adaptability and system-level thinking that may prove critical in overcoming the challenges of new designs and complex customization’s. S/4HANA implementations are a journey of transformation, and ensuring quality isn’t just about validating what was—it’s about ensuring the system can support what will be. By integrating accelerators like AI, automation, and data analytics into the quality assurance process, business assurance teams can help organizations navigate this journey more smoothly, ensuring that their SAP systems are ready for both current demands and future growth.
