Skip to Content
I’m not sure if this should be an obituary or a eulogy entitled “Ode to SAP NetWeaver Components”? Anyway it got your attention and I should proceed. If you are involved with any SAP NetWeaver projects, this is essential for you to know.

In the late hours of October 28th 2005, the term ‘SAP NetWeaver components’ passed peacefully away into SAP product terminology history and was put to rest from future SAP NetWeaver use at SAP. They were the fortunate victims of the evolution of the single SAP NetWeaver platform. It was a very somber and poignant moment for the SAP NetWeaver teams as this page in SAP NetWeaver terminology closed and they joined other famous past terms like mySAP.com (remember the enjoy release smiley? sob sob!!), SAP R/3, SAP Basis, SAP R/2, etc. Coincidently the date coincided with the birth of the SAP NetWeaver 2004s release of SAP NetWeaver (i.e. into the Ramp-up program). image Fortunately we opened a new page and SAP NetWeaver has a terminology succession plan! You may have seen a sneak preview of them at the ‘SAP NetWeaver, BW, and Portals’ conference, ASUG conferences, and our SAP TechEds. ‘SAP NetWeaver components’ have been succeeded by the IT-Practice & IT-Scenario concepts. SAP NetWeaver, the platform, will be rolled out based upon these concepts going forward. Therefore we strongly encourage you to become familiar with these new concepts as it will affect everyone who comes in contact with SAP NetWeaver or SAP NetWeaver powered by applications. They are already here! For system administrators I suggest that you also look at the new “usage type” concept too. My colleague, Matt Kangas, has a good introductory Blog on these concepts Building the Bridge – From IT Practices to Usage Types. (Building the Bridge – From IT Practices to Usage Types) To see how IT Practices and IT Scenarios are implemented in the SAP Service Marketplace SAP NetWeaver home page click here (http://service.sap.com/netweaver) For the people without access to the SAP Service Marketplace, for the information on the published IT Practices, click here (http://www.sap.com/solutions/netweaver/itpractices/index.epx) And for information on the published IT Scenarios, click here (http://www.sap.com/solutions/businessmaps/6064CC13D46849EC8491E2308AA43795/index.epx) Update: SDN is now moving to the IT Practice and IT Scenario view too: https://www.sdn.sap.comhttp://www.sdn.sap.comhttp://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/developerareas/itpractices image So you say, “What exactly went the way of the Dodo?” (kind of like a funeral crasher’s question “who was he? – I’m just here for the food and drinks!” 😉 For those of you who don’t know what a funeral crasher is, it’s a wedding crasher who realized that you don’t have to bring a present to a Wake! A Dodo is a casualty of evolution or unintelligent design (not too politically correct I guess.. oops) Well, the SAP NetWeaver components themselves evolved from the new dimension product names and were rolled into SAP NetWeaver in 2003. Unfortunately for historians the actual SAP NetWeaver component names also evolved in the short 3 years too – more times than Prince has changed his name! Did someone get paid per name change? I’ll endeavor to explain the rationale for sending the components to the branding graveyard in the sky later in the post mortem at the end of the blog. So moving on, here are the terms that will no longer be used going forward for describing SAP NetWeaver;

  • SAP NetWeaver Application Server (formerly SAP Web Application Server – SAP Web AS)
  • SAP NetWeaver Business Intelligence (formerly SAP Business Information Warehouse – SAP BW)
  • SAP NetWeaver Exchange Infrastructure (formerly SAP Exchange Infrastructure – SAP XI)
  • SAP NetWeaver Portal (formerly SAP Enterprise Portal – SAP EP)
  • SAP NetWeaver Mobile (formerly SAP Mobile Infrastructure – SAP MI)
  • The astute readers will notice that SAP NetWeaver MDM escaped the axe, but this is only temporary until it is rolled into the SAP NetWeaver synchronized release and that’s a blog of its own on its roadmap!

Note that while the SAP NetWeaver components are no longer used by SAP for all NEW content delivered as of SAP NetWeaver 2004s, the ghost of SAP NetWeaver components past will still haunt the SAP websites and materials until SAP NetWeaver ’04 leaves maintenance (2013!). Now that’s some haunting! As with every loss, some of the readers will have mixed feelings about this progress. We have already had some interactive discussions and we encourage feedback via SDN forums and blog discussions too – we will endeavor to follow up and to provide bereavement counseling ;-). Some of you will move on quickly to the new concepts, but some of you will have some difficulty with the loss and change – in particular the more mature SAP NetWeaver customers/partners who used these components before there was SAP NetWeaver (yes those exciting pioneer New Dimension days). With regard to moving on, you will start to see the components phased out on SAP Service Marketplace, online help, SDN, and other SAP product information repositories – Just remember all new materials will be IT-Practice/IT Scenario based going forward. If you are looking for functionality grouping names to describe SAP NetWeaver, you still have the SAP NetWeaver ‘fridge’ with the ‘key capabilities’ listed. The fridge is not deceased, but it will continue to evolve as more capabilities are added … and there are more coming next year – of course!

The Post-Mortem:
SAP NetWeaver components’ time has simply past, the meaning just gave out and we cannot use them to adequately describe the new integrated capabilities of SAP NetWeaver. The components segregated the technology platform into meaningful point-in-time ‘buckets’ but things have radically changed since their inception. With the new release of SAP NetWeaver (SAP NetWeaver 2004s) these buckets quite frankly do not adequately represent what IT is doing with SAP NetWeaver to deliver business solutions. SAP NetWeaver’s integration really blurs the lines between ‘old components’ and makes most of them irrelevant within the context of the platform. That is, the sum of all of the components into a whole platform means that the underlying technology can be reused and developed upon in any context. Essentially, the whole platform is greater than the sum of the parts (components). It’s a natural progression that occurs with most technology evolution, innovation and progress. The emphasis here is ‘progression’ as customers can easily utilize and expand using the the new IT Practice/IT Scenario concepts with their existing SAP NetWeaver deployments. No point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater! I’ll give a quick example: – In the past the SAP NetWeaver Business Intelligence (aka SAP BW) component represented data warehousing functionality running on the SAP NetWeaver Application Server (aka SAP Web AS) ABAP stack. – The BI capabilities of SAP NetWeaver 2004s are now built on technologies from other ‘old components’ of SAP NetWeaver and some clever new technology too! In short if we use the previous ‘component’ view, you will now need the SAP NetWeaver Portal running on the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Java stack with some special SAP NetWeaver BI Java capabilities in addition to the old SAP NetWeaver BI component to develop/deploy queries and analytical applications and to manage the Data Warehouse – Phew!. So doing the math… image Does the SAP NetWeaver BI component name still fit if you are using most of the technology of the platform? We don’t think so… so it’s time for the old terminology to die and a bigger, better concept to take its place.

R.I.P.
To report this post you need to login first.

150 Comments

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

  1. Bernd Eckenfels
    In the time NetWeaver was used to describe the SAP BASIS Stack of Technologies I notied great confusion out there. Ever since the naming did not get better. One of the major reasons was, that the naming scheme was deviced to make the underlying technology less visible. This is of course good for marketing, but it is bad for Adminsitrators, Developers and Consultants.

    For example the two worlds like ABAP Kernel and J2EE  Egine have been hidden behind the AS part (I asume to make clear that those are thightly integrated and to not put emphasis on one or the other technology). Howver the ongoing renaming shows me, that this experiment failed. I suggest you name a dog a dog.

    BTW: maybe I have missed it, but what are the new names?

    Gruss
    Bernd

    (0) 
    1. Anton Wenzelhuemer
      I fully agree with this comment.
      Sometimes I wonder if product managers (not only those at SAP) completely lost any contact to the world around them.
      Trying to transport the notions of IT-Practices, IT-Scenarios and Usage Types I found out that customers and Consultants get absolutely lost. ‘Nice things those Scenarios and Practices but where do we brake them down to components’ they ask no matter what effort you put in your explanations.

      Living in an (IT) world that is described  by components, applications, modules and, today, services the benefit of this approach is really hard to see.
      Most people, even loyal SAP customers do not live on planet SAP but they live in a quiet complex world with a lot of different systems around them. What all tis systems have in common is some kind of accepted common terminology.

      What sprung to my mind when I read this blog was an example where one could well argue that naming colors after there wavelength values rather than using somewhat arbitrary synonyms like red, green and blue would be much more precise and easier to translate into some technical realisations.
      Even if it made perfect sense to some people sitting in a ‘laboratory’ (do product managers sit in laboratories?) this would surely fail simply because there’s a huge gap between logical reasoning and human perception.

      The funniest thing I noticed is the fact, that if you ask n people at SAP what they think of usage types and whatever practices you get about 7 different interpretations (the other n-7 people do not necessarily share the opininon of one of their colleagues but are completely confused like the ‘outsiders’).

      I’d put a bet on a situation coming, where SAP puts to rest intangible scenarios and ughagha types and invents, components, modules, Add-ons, services.

      Awaiting to be accused of a reactionist attitude. Cheers,
      anton

      NB: To call the Dodo a casualty of evolution or unintelligent design only testifies the author’s ignorance of biology. The Dodo’s fate merely was to live in an isolated (and remote) ecosystem, suddenly invaded by a hostile species slaughtering it mainly for enjoyment. Latter species calls itself intelligent.

      (0) 
      1. Michael Eacrett Post author
        Happy New Year Anton,

        I responded to Bernd discussion thread so I hope this provides some more background for you. I hope you do not believe this is a “reactionist attitude” post but an open dialog.

        I do believe that we have some way to go to complete the rollout of IT Practices and IT Scenarios. I alluded to this in my blog that some people will have difficulty with the change (I think this is not an SAP issue but a human nature one). I think the main difficulty is for people who work heavily in one of the prior SAP NetWeaver components is as you stated. They are trying to interpret the IT Practice/IT Scenarios with their existing knowledge of the SAP NetWeaver component, only to realize that the “component” terminology does not exist in the future releases – it’s a concept and a terminology change. As it’s a major change, the IT Scenarios were introduced with a minor release of SAP NetWeaver.

        The IT Practices and IT Scenarios have been extensively field tested prior to release and the feedback was, in the majority of cases, very positive – new customers particularly loved them as they are focused on the implementation and IT services view. Of course everyone can have their own view on this – this is a benefit SDN provides everyone, you can voice it in public.

        With regard to technical ‘usage types’, I believe these also help system administrators and landscape architects more than components. Again I think we do have a transition process between the two – the installation and upgrade planning guides help with this. The usage types should be viewed with the other two software units we deliver, ‘clients’ and ‘engines’. I believe that the grouping that usage types brings will help system administrators greatly by logically grouping the software and enabling installation and automatic configuration of the underlying technology – particularly when you consider how the capabilities are growing. I would refer you back to the description of the changes in the BI Capabilities and the blackboard diagram as a good example.

        One (almost) final comment on the IT Practices/IT Scenarios, their fundamental design is based on the need to focus on what IT is doing (in support of business processes) and less on the rigid boundaries that segregated technology boxes provide. In addition the IT Scenarios are modifiable so the customer can tailor them to their technology environment and processes.

        I hope this gives you some food for thought and more insights in the new concepts.
        All the best,
        Mike.

        P.S. I have to add one final comment on the Dodo 😉
        Concerning the Dodo analogy, I mentioned the Dodo because it was a very good example of something that successfully evolved to a point but ultimately failed. The parameters for success that it used to outline its “world” were ultimately inadequate and limiting, and it could not adapt to changes in its world. Its evolution process failed to account for parameters outside out what it perceived to be its world (Man, dogs, pigs, rats and monkeys, etc) and when presented with the new parameters, could not change to account for them.

        (0) 
        1. Andy Heldt
          Michael, how realistic do you think the one install is?  I understand that the software may get packaged that way (already is in some instances) but is the vision; one big installation that has all the capabilities of the NW platform? 

          I don’t see how any company of any size could put the workloads of NW BW, NW XI, NW Portals, and NW AS into a single installation.  The diversity and priority of the workload itself would be interesting to administer.  There is already a huge challenge in evolving the individual NW capabilities because the driver to upgrade isn’t NW but the business solution (CRM, SCM, R/3, etc.) scenarios that need the capability of the latest NW.  An upgrade to any business solution will most like force the upgrade of the underlying NW platform.  With a single instance, that really means upgrading the entire underlying technology platform running all the SAP business solutions.  How often are companies going to be willing to do this?

          Maybe I’m missing another point.  I’m expecting there to be a shared NW platform that provides the IT Practices and IT Scenarios for all the business solutions.   Another option would be a bunch of NW platforms (one per business solution like R/3, CRM, SCM, etc.).   I don’t believe this is the direction because it takes us back toward the days of un-integrated business processes and systems.

          I’m not sure that the aspects around how to evolve the netweaver platform within a company have been thought through or discussed much.  Any comments or thoughts?

          -Andy

          (0) 
          1. Michael Eacrett Post author
            Hi Andy,
            You make some good points here and I would like to address them in a reply and in a forthcoming weblog on the new software installation/deployment options for the ¡¥single platform¡¦. For large implementations we would not expect to see all of SAP NetWeaver installed and used in one instance (although it is possible, if not always practical to do). I guess some people may consider what we have done as just a change in semantics but I feel it is more than that. So in short, a single platform does not preclude to one single installation¡K
            In the past we had the components which originated as separate developments and unfortunately this resulted in the walls going up between the components and little of the technology was shared between the components (except the Application Server and the coding environments). With the synchronized SAP NetWeaver release a plan was implemented to not just to bundle the components together but to lay a technology foundation that we could build upon for any new developments (the example in the blog was the new BI capabilities which now extensively uses the Portal and J2EE capabilities ¡V capabilities that were separated in the previous component model).
            But I digress, I think your question is ¡§How do you install and distribute SAP NetWeaver if it is a single platform?¡¨ The answer is that we now have split SAP NetWeaver into software units that can be planned and deployed in a single instance or across multiple instances. The software units are ¡¥clients¡¦, ¡¥engines¡¦, and ¡¥usage types¡¦. You can choose where to install and deploy each software unit. Technical ¡¥usage types¡¦ are the most interesting as they are the closest to components from an installation point of view. Usage Types are pre-configured building blocks that are used as a base for implementing SAP NetWeaver solutions (like those based on IT Scenarios). Usage types have one big benefit ¡V they can be reusable and you can install usage types on top of existing usage types. The usage types delivered with SAP NetWeaver 2004s are BI, EP, BI JAVA, PI, AS ABAP, AS JAVA, and MI [unfortunately they have some of the same acronyms as the old componentsƒ¼]. So an example of usage types being built on top of others is that BI JAVA requires EP which in turn requires AS JAVA. You would have the option of installing BI JAVA on a previously installed EP usage type or installing a BI JAVA with a new and separate EP and AS JAVA usage type. It is very flexible for scaling.
            Sorry for all the text, I¡¦ll have examples in the weblog. If you can¡¦t wait for the blog, there is good information in the SAP NetWeaver 2004s master planning guide (http://service.sap.com/instguides).
            With regard to the upgrade options for the mySAP business suite applications, we would expect that a large implementation would have some sort of a hybrid implementation of SAP NetWeaver. This is where some of the usage types are embedded in and dedicated to the mySAP application (example: AS ABAP and AS JAVA) and some are installed as standalone on separate instances (e.g. for the BI/BI JAVA and EP usage types). The big changes with the latest releases of the mySAP Business suite applications are that they use more and more SAP NetWeaver functionality so ¡¥nice to have¡¦ technical functionality is now ¡¥must have¡¦ functionality. This means that the ¡¥must have¡¦ technical functionality is usually release dependent in the first releases as there is a direct dependency between the technology and the application release. I believe that going forward we will have tightly and loosely coupled dependencies for support of differing releases of the underlying SAP NetWeaver technology (probably more for standalone installation options and less so for embedded SAP NetWeaver installation). I guess a potential stumbling block will be how the mySAP business suite content will be delivered. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. Another interesting point is that there are a number of new admin options in SAP NetWeaver 2004s to manage multiple usages types as single logical units (example: Federated Portal Network). It would be so much easier without those pesky applications.. Right!!
            I like your idea of a discussion/case study of how large implementations change and move to the new software units and how they¡¦re impacted by more technology being used by the mySAP business suite applications. I¡¦ll talk to a few colleagues and see how we could approach this.
            I hope this response helps with some of your comments. Please continue to post any follow up threads.
            Cheers,
            Mike.
            (0) 
    2. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Happy new year Bernd,

      I would like to respond to your comments and add some additional comments to my original blog.

      SAP Basis evolved into the SAP Web Application server (SAP Web AS) as of the 6.10 release. 4.6D was the last release of SAP Basis. In 2005 SAP Web AS was renamed along with all of the SAP NetWeaver component terms and became SAP NetWeaver application Server (SAP NetWeaver AS).  The last change was simply a marketing naming change as opposed to a technology changes which I will outline.

      The naming was not devised to hide the underlying technology but quite the contrary, the requirement for the name change from SAP Basis to SAP Web AS was to show that the new AS had web technology and standards built in – this includes web services, HTTP/HTTPs web server functionality, BSP functionality, and J2EE to name a few. It was a radical shift from the mainly ABAP based SAP Basis [yes we had web technology prior to SAP Web AS such as ITS]. SAP Basis was the original technology platform at SAP!

      The next evolution for the Application server after adding all the web features and open standards, is to expand from an Application server to a full technology “platform” – one that includes data warehousing technology, portal technology, Knowledge management, messaging, master data management. This platform is SAP NetWeaver and is superseding the application server.
      In my personal opinion, I would predict that a single install of SAP NetWeaver will be the future direction – all of the capabilities in one install (you can already see that the ABAP parts of BI are delivered with the ABAP stack of the SAP NetWeaver AS!).

      I’m not sure about your reference to the two worlds being a failed experiment, the application server has two main coding environments (ABAP and Java) – sometime called the two personalities (but I didn’t say it was schizophrenic though 😉  ). I think you are seeing that you have one application server running under the “platform” and a choice of coding environments.

      With regard to the names, you should find this information via the links on the original blog. Let me know if this helps.

      I hope this helps clarify what is happening. If you have any other comments please feel free to post more discussion threads. I hope you are enjoying SDN, its a great medium for sharing discussions and information.

      All the best,
      Mike.

      (0) 
      1. Bernd Eckenfels
        It failed to hide the personalities behind one Application Server. Because Administrators and Developers wont talk about “the thing which ispart of the scenario handling Java Beans”. They will most likely call it “J2EE Engine” (or ABAP Kernel) like they did before.

        Gruss
        Bernd

        (0) 
  2. Bernd Eckenfels
    In the time NetWeaver was used to describe the SAP BASIS Stack of Technologies I notied great confusion out there. Ever since the naming did not get better. One of the major reasons was, that the naming scheme was deviced to make the underlying technology less visible. This is of course good for marketing, but it is bad for Adminsitrators, Developers and Consultants.

    For example the two worlds like ABAP Kernel and J2EE  Egine have been hidden behind the AS part (I asume to make clear that those are thightly integrated and to not put emphasis on one or the other technology). Howver the ongoing renaming shows me, that this experiment failed. I suggest you name a dog a dog.

    BTW: maybe I have missed it, but what are the new names?

    Gruss
    Bernd

    (0) 
    1. Anton Wenzelhuemer
      I fully agree with this comment.
      Sometimes I wonder if product managers (not only those at SAP) completely lost any contact to the world around them.
      Trying to transport the notions of IT-Practices, IT-Scenarios and Usage Types I found out that customers and Consultants get absolutely lost. ‘Nice things those Scenarios and Practices but where do we brake them down to components’ they ask no matter what effort you put in your explanations.

      Living in an (IT) world that is described  by components, applications, modules and, today, services the benefit of this approach is really hard to see.
      Most people, even loyal SAP customers do not live on planet SAP but they live in a quiet complex world with a lot of different systems around them. What all tis systems have in common is some kind of accepted common terminology.

      What sprung to my mind when I read this blog was an example where one could well argue that naming colors after there wavelength values rather than using somewhat arbitrary synonyms like red, green and blue would be much more precise and easier to translate into some technical realisations.
      Even if it made perfect sense to some people sitting in a ‘laboratory’ (do product managers sit in laboratories?) this would surely fail simply because there’s a huge gap between logical reasoning and human perception.

      The funniest thing I noticed is the fact, that if you ask n people at SAP what they think of usage types and whatever practices you get about 7 different interpretations (the other n-7 people do not necessarily share the opininon of one of their colleagues but are completely confused like the ‘outsiders’).

      I’d put a bet on a situation coming, where SAP puts to rest intangible scenarios and ughagha types and invents, components, modules, Add-ons, services.

      Awaiting to be accused of a reactionist attitude. Cheers,
      anton

      NB: To call the Dodo a casualty of evolution or unintelligent design only testifies the author’s ignorance of biology. The Dodo’s fate merely was to live in an isolated (and remote) ecosystem, suddenly invaded by a hostile species slaughtering it mainly for enjoyment. Latter species calls itself intelligent.

      (0) 
      1. Michael Eacrett Post author
        Happy New Year Anton,

        I responded to Bernd discussion thread so I hope this provides some more background for you. I hope you do not believe this is a “reactionist attitude” post but an open dialog.

        I do believe that we have some way to go to complete the rollout of IT Practices and IT Scenarios. I alluded to this in my blog that some people will have difficulty with the change (I think this is not an SAP issue but a human nature one). I think the main difficulty is for people who work heavily in one of the prior SAP NetWeaver components is as you stated. They are trying to interpret the IT Practice/IT Scenarios with their existing knowledge of the SAP NetWeaver component, only to realize that the “component” terminology does not exist in the future releases – it’s a concept and a terminology change. As it’s a major change, the IT Scenarios were introduced with a minor release of SAP NetWeaver.

        The IT Practices and IT Scenarios have been extensively field tested prior to release and the feedback was, in the majority of cases, very positive – new customers particularly loved them as they are focused on the implementation and IT services view. Of course everyone can have their own view on this – this is a benefit SDN provides everyone, you can voice it in public.

        With regard to technical ‘usage types’, I believe these also help system administrators and landscape architects more than components. Again I think we do have a transition process between the two – the installation and upgrade planning guides help with this. The usage types should be viewed with the other two software units we deliver, ‘clients’ and ‘engines’. I believe that the grouping that usage types brings will help system administrators greatly by logically grouping the software and enabling installation and automatic configuration of the underlying technology – particularly when you consider how the capabilities are growing. I would refer you back to the description of the changes in the BI Capabilities and the blackboard diagram as a good example.

        One (almost) final comment on the IT Practices/IT Scenarios, their fundamental design is based on the need to focus on what IT is doing (in support of business processes) and less on the rigid boundaries that segregated technology boxes provide. In addition the IT Scenarios are modifiable so the customer can tailor them to their technology environment and processes.

        I hope this gives you some food for thought and more insights in the new concepts.
        All the best,
        Mike.

        P.S. I have to add one final comment on the Dodo 😉
        Concerning the Dodo analogy, I mentioned the Dodo because it was a very good example of something that successfully evolved to a point but ultimately failed. The parameters for success that it used to outline its “world” were ultimately inadequate and limiting, and it could not adapt to changes in its world. Its evolution process failed to account for parameters outside out what it perceived to be its world (Man, dogs, pigs, rats and monkeys, etc) and when presented with the new parameters, could not change to account for them.

        (0) 
        1. Andy Heldt
          Michael, how realistic do you think the one install is?  I understand that the software may get packaged that way (already is in some instances) but is the vision; one big installation that has all the capabilities of the NW platform? 

          I don’t see how any company of any size could put the workloads of NW BW, NW XI, NW Portals, and NW AS into a single installation.  The diversity and priority of the workload itself would be interesting to administer.  There is already a huge challenge in evolving the individual NW capabilities because the driver to upgrade isn’t NW but the business solution (CRM, SCM, R/3, etc.) scenarios that need the capability of the latest NW.  An upgrade to any business solution will most like force the upgrade of the underlying NW platform.  With a single instance, that really means upgrading the entire underlying technology platform running all the SAP business solutions.  How often are companies going to be willing to do this?

          Maybe I’m missing another point.  I’m expecting there to be a shared NW platform that provides the IT Practices and IT Scenarios for all the business solutions.   Another option would be a bunch of NW platforms (one per business solution like R/3, CRM, SCM, etc.).   I don’t believe this is the direction because it takes us back toward the days of un-integrated business processes and systems.

          I’m not sure that the aspects around how to evolve the netweaver platform within a company have been thought through or discussed much.  Any comments or thoughts?

          -Andy

          (0) 
          1. Michael Eacrett Post author
            Hi Andy,
            You make some good points here and I would like to address them in a reply and in a forthcoming weblog on the new software installation/deployment options for the ¡¥single platform¡¦. For large implementations we would not expect to see all of SAP NetWeaver installed and used in one instance (although it is possible, if not always practical to do). I guess some people may consider what we have done as just a change in semantics but I feel it is more than that. So in short, a single platform does not preclude to one single installation¡K
            In the past we had the components which originated as separate developments and unfortunately this resulted in the walls going up between the components and little of the technology was shared between the components (except the Application Server and the coding environments). With the synchronized SAP NetWeaver release a plan was implemented to not just to bundle the components together but to lay a technology foundation that we could build upon for any new developments (the example in the blog was the new BI capabilities which now extensively uses the Portal and J2EE capabilities ¡V capabilities that were separated in the previous component model).
            But I digress, I think your question is ¡§How do you install and distribute SAP NetWeaver if it is a single platform?¡¨ The answer is that we now have split SAP NetWeaver into software units that can be planned and deployed in a single instance or across multiple instances. The software units are ¡¥clients¡¦, ¡¥engines¡¦, and ¡¥usage types¡¦. You can choose where to install and deploy each software unit. Technical ¡¥usage types¡¦ are the most interesting as they are the closest to components from an installation point of view. Usage Types are pre-configured building blocks that are used as a base for implementing SAP NetWeaver solutions (like those based on IT Scenarios). Usage types have one big benefit ¡V they can be reusable and you can install usage types on top of existing usage types. The usage types delivered with SAP NetWeaver 2004s are BI, EP, BI JAVA, PI, AS ABAP, AS JAVA, and MI [unfortunately they have some of the same acronyms as the old componentsƒ¼]. So an example of usage types being built on top of others is that BI JAVA requires EP which in turn requires AS JAVA. You would have the option of installing BI JAVA on a previously installed EP usage type or installing a BI JAVA with a new and separate EP and AS JAVA usage type. It is very flexible for scaling.
            Sorry for all the text, I¡¦ll have examples in the weblog. If you can¡¦t wait for the blog, there is good information in the SAP NetWeaver 2004s master planning guide (http://service.sap.com/instguides).
            With regard to the upgrade options for the mySAP business suite applications, we would expect that a large implementation would have some sort of a hybrid implementation of SAP NetWeaver. This is where some of the usage types are embedded in and dedicated to the mySAP application (example: AS ABAP and AS JAVA) and some are installed as standalone on separate instances (e.g. for the BI/BI JAVA and EP usage types). The big changes with the latest releases of the mySAP Business suite applications are that they use more and more SAP NetWeaver functionality so ¡¥nice to have¡¦ technical functionality is now ¡¥must have¡¦ functionality. This means that the ¡¥must have¡¦ technical functionality is usually release dependent in the first releases as there is a direct dependency between the technology and the application release. I believe that going forward we will have tightly and loosely coupled dependencies for support of differing releases of the underlying SAP NetWeaver technology (probably more for standalone installation options and less so for embedded SAP NetWeaver installation). I guess a potential stumbling block will be how the mySAP business suite content will be delivered. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. Another interesting point is that there are a number of new admin options in SAP NetWeaver 2004s to manage multiple usages types as single logical units (example: Federated Portal Network). It would be so much easier without those pesky applications.. Right!!
            I like your idea of a discussion/case study of how large implementations change and move to the new software units and how they¡¦re impacted by more technology being used by the mySAP business suite applications. I¡¦ll talk to a few colleagues and see how we could approach this.
            I hope this response helps with some of your comments. Please continue to post any follow up threads.
            Cheers,
            Mike.
            (0) 
    2. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Happy new year Bernd,

      I would like to respond to your comments and add some additional comments to my original blog.

      SAP Basis evolved into the SAP Web Application server (SAP Web AS) as of the 6.10 release. 4.6D was the last release of SAP Basis. In 2005 SAP Web AS was renamed along with all of the SAP NetWeaver component terms and became SAP NetWeaver application Server (SAP NetWeaver AS).  The last change was simply a marketing naming change as opposed to a technology changes which I will outline.

      The naming was not devised to hide the underlying technology but quite the contrary, the requirement for the name change from SAP Basis to SAP Web AS was to show that the new AS had web technology and standards built in – this includes web services, HTTP/HTTPs web server functionality, BSP functionality, and J2EE to name a few. It was a radical shift from the mainly ABAP based SAP Basis [yes we had web technology prior to SAP Web AS such as ITS]. SAP Basis was the original technology platform at SAP!

      The next evolution for the Application server after adding all the web features and open standards, is to expand from an Application server to a full technology “platform” – one that includes data warehousing technology, portal technology, Knowledge management, messaging, master data management. This platform is SAP NetWeaver and is superseding the application server.
      In my personal opinion, I would predict that a single install of SAP NetWeaver will be the future direction – all of the capabilities in one install (you can already see that the ABAP parts of BI are delivered with the ABAP stack of the SAP NetWeaver AS!).

      I’m not sure about your reference to the two worlds being a failed experiment, the application server has two main coding environments (ABAP and Java) – sometime called the two personalities (but I didn’t say it was schizophrenic though 😉  ). I think you are seeing that you have one application server running under the “platform” and a choice of coding environments.

      With regard to the names, you should find this information via the links on the original blog. Let me know if this helps.

      I hope this helps clarify what is happening. If you have any other comments please feel free to post more discussion threads. I hope you are enjoying SDN, its a great medium for sharing discussions and information.

      All the best,
      Mike.

      (0) 
      1. Bernd Eckenfels
        It failed to hide the personalities behind one Application Server. Because Administrators and Developers wont talk about “the thing which ispart of the scenario handling Java Beans”. They will most likely call it “J2EE Engine” (or ABAP Kernel) like they did before.

        Gruss
        Bernd

        (0) 
  3. Bernd Eckenfels
    In the time NetWeaver was used to describe the SAP BASIS Stack of Technologies I notied great confusion out there. Ever since the naming did not get better. One of the major reasons was, that the naming scheme was deviced to make the underlying technology less visible. This is of course good for marketing, but it is bad for Adminsitrators, Developers and Consultants.

    For example the two worlds like ABAP Kernel and J2EE  Egine have been hidden behind the AS part (I asume to make clear that those are thightly integrated and to not put emphasis on one or the other technology). Howver the ongoing renaming shows me, that this experiment failed. I suggest you name a dog a dog.

    BTW: maybe I have missed it, but what are the new names?

    Gruss
    Bernd

    (0) 
    1. Anton Wenzelhuemer
      I fully agree with this comment.
      Sometimes I wonder if product managers (not only those at SAP) completely lost any contact to the world around them.
      Trying to transport the notions of IT-Practices, IT-Scenarios and Usage Types I found out that customers and Consultants get absolutely lost. ‘Nice things those Scenarios and Practices but where do we brake them down to components’ they ask no matter what effort you put in your explanations.

      Living in an (IT) world that is described  by components, applications, modules and, today, services the benefit of this approach is really hard to see.
      Most people, even loyal SAP customers do not live on planet SAP but they live in a quiet complex world with a lot of different systems around them. What all tis systems have in common is some kind of accepted common terminology.

      What sprung to my mind when I read this blog was an example where one could well argue that naming colors after there wavelength values rather than using somewhat arbitrary synonyms like red, green and blue would be much more precise and easier to translate into some technical realisations.
      Even if it made perfect sense to some people sitting in a ‘laboratory’ (do product managers sit in laboratories?) this would surely fail simply because there’s a huge gap between logical reasoning and human perception.

      The funniest thing I noticed is the fact, that if you ask n people at SAP what they think of usage types and whatever practices you get about 7 different interpretations (the other n-7 people do not necessarily share the opininon of one of their colleagues but are completely confused like the ‘outsiders’).

      I’d put a bet on a situation coming, where SAP puts to rest intangible scenarios and ughagha types and invents, components, modules, Add-ons, services.

      Awaiting to be accused of a reactionist attitude. Cheers,
      anton

      NB: To call the Dodo a casualty of evolution or unintelligent design only testifies the author’s ignorance of biology. The Dodo’s fate merely was to live in an isolated (and remote) ecosystem, suddenly invaded by a hostile species slaughtering it mainly for enjoyment. Latter species calls itself intelligent.

      (0) 
      1. Michael Eacrett Post author
        Happy New Year Anton,

        I responded to Bernd discussion thread so I hope this provides some more background for you. I hope you do not believe this is a “reactionist attitude” post but an open dialog.

        I do believe that we have some way to go to complete the rollout of IT Practices and IT Scenarios. I alluded to this in my blog that some people will have difficulty with the change (I think this is not an SAP issue but a human nature one). I think the main difficulty is for people who work heavily in one of the prior SAP NetWeaver components is as you stated. They are trying to interpret the IT Practice/IT Scenarios with their existing knowledge of the SAP NetWeaver component, only to realize that the “component” terminology does not exist in the future releases – it’s a concept and a terminology change. As it’s a major change, the IT Scenarios were introduced with a minor release of SAP NetWeaver.

        The IT Practices and IT Scenarios have been extensively field tested prior to release and the feedback was, in the majority of cases, very positive – new customers particularly loved them as they are focused on the implementation and IT services view. Of course everyone can have their own view on this – this is a benefit SDN provides everyone, you can voice it in public.

        With regard to technical ‘usage types’, I believe these also help system administrators and landscape architects more than components. Again I think we do have a transition process between the two – the installation and upgrade planning guides help with this. The usage types should be viewed with the other two software units we deliver, ‘clients’ and ‘engines’. I believe that the grouping that usage types brings will help system administrators greatly by logically grouping the software and enabling installation and automatic configuration of the underlying technology – particularly when you consider how the capabilities are growing. I would refer you back to the description of the changes in the BI Capabilities and the blackboard diagram as a good example.

        One (almost) final comment on the IT Practices/IT Scenarios, their fundamental design is based on the need to focus on what IT is doing (in support of business processes) and less on the rigid boundaries that segregated technology boxes provide. In addition the IT Scenarios are modifiable so the customer can tailor them to their technology environment and processes.

        I hope this gives you some food for thought and more insights in the new concepts.
        All the best,
        Mike.

        P.S. I have to add one final comment on the Dodo 😉
        Concerning the Dodo analogy, I mentioned the Dodo because it was a very good example of something that successfully evolved to a point but ultimately failed. The parameters for success that it used to outline its “world” were ultimately inadequate and limiting, and it could not adapt to changes in its world. Its evolution process failed to account for parameters outside out what it perceived to be its world (Man, dogs, pigs, rats and monkeys, etc) and when presented with the new parameters, could not change to account for them.

        (0) 
        1. Andy Heldt
          Michael, how realistic do you think the one install is?  I understand that the software may get packaged that way (already is in some instances) but is the vision; one big installation that has all the capabilities of the NW platform? 

          I don’t see how any company of any size could put the workloads of NW BW, NW XI, NW Portals, and NW AS into a single installation.  The diversity and priority of the workload itself would be interesting to administer.  There is already a huge challenge in evolving the individual NW capabilities because the driver to upgrade isn’t NW but the business solution (CRM, SCM, R/3, etc.) scenarios that need the capability of the latest NW.  An upgrade to any business solution will most like force the upgrade of the underlying NW platform.  With a single instance, that really means upgrading the entire underlying technology platform running all the SAP business solutions.  How often are companies going to be willing to do this?

          Maybe I’m missing another point.  I’m expecting there to be a shared NW platform that provides the IT Practices and IT Scenarios for all the business solutions.   Another option would be a bunch of NW platforms (one per business solution like R/3, CRM, SCM, etc.).   I don’t believe this is the direction because it takes us back toward the days of un-integrated business processes and systems.

          I’m not sure that the aspects around how to evolve the netweaver platform within a company have been thought through or discussed much.  Any comments or thoughts?

          -Andy

          (0) 
          1. Michael Eacrett Post author
            Hi Andy,
            You make some good points here and I would like to address them in a reply and in a forthcoming weblog on the new software installation/deployment options for the ¡¥single platform¡¦. For large implementations we would not expect to see all of SAP NetWeaver installed and used in one instance (although it is possible, if not always practical to do). I guess some people may consider what we have done as just a change in semantics but I feel it is more than that. So in short, a single platform does not preclude to one single installation¡K
            In the past we had the components which originated as separate developments and unfortunately this resulted in the walls going up between the components and little of the technology was shared between the components (except the Application Server and the coding environments). With the synchronized SAP NetWeaver release a plan was implemented to not just to bundle the components together but to lay a technology foundation that we could build upon for any new developments (the example in the blog was the new BI capabilities which now extensively uses the Portal and J2EE capabilities ¡V capabilities that were separated in the previous component model).
            But I digress, I think your question is ¡§How do you install and distribute SAP NetWeaver if it is a single platform?¡¨ The answer is that we now have split SAP NetWeaver into software units that can be planned and deployed in a single instance or across multiple instances. The software units are ¡¥clients¡¦, ¡¥engines¡¦, and ¡¥usage types¡¦. You can choose where to install and deploy each software unit. Technical ¡¥usage types¡¦ are the most interesting as they are the closest to components from an installation point of view. Usage Types are pre-configured building blocks that are used as a base for implementing SAP NetWeaver solutions (like those based on IT Scenarios). Usage types have one big benefit ¡V they can be reusable and you can install usage types on top of existing usage types. The usage types delivered with SAP NetWeaver 2004s are BI, EP, BI JAVA, PI, AS ABAP, AS JAVA, and MI [unfortunately they have some of the same acronyms as the old componentsƒ¼]. So an example of usage types being built on top of others is that BI JAVA requires EP which in turn requires AS JAVA. You would have the option of installing BI JAVA on a previously installed EP usage type or installing a BI JAVA with a new and separate EP and AS JAVA usage type. It is very flexible for scaling.
            Sorry for all the text, I¡¦ll have examples in the weblog. If you can¡¦t wait for the blog, there is good information in the SAP NetWeaver 2004s master planning guide (http://service.sap.com/instguides).
            With regard to the upgrade options for the mySAP business suite applications, we would expect that a large implementation would have some sort of a hybrid implementation of SAP NetWeaver. This is where some of the usage types are embedded in and dedicated to the mySAP application (example: AS ABAP and AS JAVA) and some are installed as standalone on separate instances (e.g. for the BI/BI JAVA and EP usage types). The big changes with the latest releases of the mySAP Business suite applications are that they use more and more SAP NetWeaver functionality so ¡¥nice to have¡¦ technical functionality is now ¡¥must have¡¦ functionality. This means that the ¡¥must have¡¦ technical functionality is usually release dependent in the first releases as there is a direct dependency between the technology and the application release. I believe that going forward we will have tightly and loosely coupled dependencies for support of differing releases of the underlying SAP NetWeaver technology (probably more for standalone installation options and less so for embedded SAP NetWeaver installation). I guess a potential stumbling block will be how the mySAP business suite content will be delivered. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. Another interesting point is that there are a number of new admin options in SAP NetWeaver 2004s to manage multiple usages types as single logical units (example: Federated Portal Network). It would be so much easier without those pesky applications.. Right!!
            I like your idea of a discussion/case study of how large implementations change and move to the new software units and how they¡¦re impacted by more technology being used by the mySAP business suite applications. I¡¦ll talk to a few colleagues and see how we could approach this.
            I hope this response helps with some of your comments. Please continue to post any follow up threads.
            Cheers,
            Mike.
            (0) 
    2. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Happy new year Bernd,

      I would like to respond to your comments and add some additional comments to my original blog.

      SAP Basis evolved into the SAP Web Application server (SAP Web AS) as of the 6.10 release. 4.6D was the last release of SAP Basis. In 2005 SAP Web AS was renamed along with all of the SAP NetWeaver component terms and became SAP NetWeaver application Server (SAP NetWeaver AS).  The last change was simply a marketing naming change as opposed to a technology changes which I will outline.

      The naming was not devised to hide the underlying technology but quite the contrary, the requirement for the name change from SAP Basis to SAP Web AS was to show that the new AS had web technology and standards built in – this includes web services, HTTP/HTTPs web server functionality, BSP functionality, and J2EE to name a few. It was a radical shift from the mainly ABAP based SAP Basis [yes we had web technology prior to SAP Web AS such as ITS]. SAP Basis was the original technology platform at SAP!

      The next evolution for the Application server after adding all the web features and open standards, is to expand from an Application server to a full technology “platform” – one that includes data warehousing technology, portal technology, Knowledge management, messaging, master data management. This platform is SAP NetWeaver and is superseding the application server.
      In my personal opinion, I would predict that a single install of SAP NetWeaver will be the future direction – all of the capabilities in one install (you can already see that the ABAP parts of BI are delivered with the ABAP stack of the SAP NetWeaver AS!).

      I’m not sure about your reference to the two worlds being a failed experiment, the application server has two main coding environments (ABAP and Java) – sometime called the two personalities (but I didn’t say it was schizophrenic though 😉  ). I think you are seeing that you have one application server running under the “platform” and a choice of coding environments.

      With regard to the names, you should find this information via the links on the original blog. Let me know if this helps.

      I hope this helps clarify what is happening. If you have any other comments please feel free to post more discussion threads. I hope you are enjoying SDN, its a great medium for sharing discussions and information.

      All the best,
      Mike.

      (0) 
      1. Bernd Eckenfels
        It failed to hide the personalities behind one Application Server. Because Administrators and Developers wont talk about “the thing which ispart of the scenario handling Java Beans”. They will most likely call it “J2EE Engine” (or ABAP Kernel) like they did before.

        Gruss
        Bernd

        (0) 
      1. Christopher Solomon
        hahaha….yeh, I have been around a minute or so (since 3.0d…around 1995 or 96 I think). I could give a list of names I have seen come and go all thanks to SAP Marketing. =) “City of e” has always been my favorite though. haha
        (0) 
        1. Michael Eacrett Post author
          Yes indeed SAP has burnt through a number marketing campaigns, product names and acronyms! We would easily start a blog on “remember when?”

          “City of E” always struck me as a name for an offbeat indie film..

          All the best,
          Mike.
          SAPing since SAP R/2 4.3E…. arggh, green screen flashback!!!

          (0) 
      1. Christopher Solomon
        hahaha….yeh, I have been around a minute or so (since 3.0d…around 1995 or 96 I think). I could give a list of names I have seen come and go all thanks to SAP Marketing. =) “City of e” has always been my favorite though. haha
        (0) 
        1. Michael Eacrett Post author
          Yes indeed SAP has burnt through a number marketing campaigns, product names and acronyms! We would easily start a blog on “remember when?”

          “City of E” always struck me as a name for an offbeat indie film..

          All the best,
          Mike.
          SAPing since SAP R/2 4.3E…. arggh, green screen flashback!!!

          (0) 
      1. Christopher Solomon
        hahaha….yeh, I have been around a minute or so (since 3.0d…around 1995 or 96 I think). I could give a list of names I have seen come and go all thanks to SAP Marketing. =) “City of e” has always been my favorite though. haha
        (0) 
        1. Michael Eacrett Post author
          Yes indeed SAP has burnt through a number marketing campaigns, product names and acronyms! We would easily start a blog on “remember when?”

          “City of E” always struck me as a name for an offbeat indie film..

          All the best,
          Mike.
          SAPing since SAP R/2 4.3E…. arggh, green screen flashback!!!

          (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      For sure Mal! We are having a few months of mourning for them, I will raise a few drinks in their honour and maybe we’ll have a few wakes too!
      (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      For sure Mal! We are having a few months of mourning for them, I will raise a few drinks in their honour and maybe we’ll have a few wakes too!
      (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      For sure Mal! We are having a few months of mourning for them, I will raise a few drinks in their honour and maybe we’ll have a few wakes too!
      (0) 
  4. I don’t get it: is XI not XI anymore? What should we call it from now on?

    This smells a bit of “marketing department needs more work, so they’re creating new brochures by inventing a range of new terms and acronyms”…

    Or a bit like the toothpaste manufacturers: every 3 months, there’s a new variety, which is basically the same ingredients with a new color thrown in and new wrapping… sorry, I’m getting cynical here… must be the Nescafé…

    (0) 
  5. I don’t get it: is XI not XI anymore? What should we call it from now on?

    This smells a bit of “marketing department needs more work, so they’re creating new brochures by inventing a range of new terms and acronyms”…

    Or a bit like the toothpaste manufacturers: every 3 months, there’s a new variety, which is basically the same ingredients with a new color thrown in and new wrapping… sorry, I’m getting cynical here… must be the Nescafé…

    (0) 
  6. I don’t get it: is XI not XI anymore? What should we call it from now on?

    This smells a bit of “marketing department needs more work, so they’re creating new brochures by inventing a range of new terms and acronyms”…

    Or a bit like the toothpaste manufacturers: every 3 months, there’s a new variety, which is basically the same ingredients with a new color thrown in and new wrapping… sorry, I’m getting cynical here… must be the Nescafé…

    (0) 
  7. Ulrich Schmidt
    Hi all,
    in Walldorf there is a joke going round about the term “NetWeaver”: in the southern German slang that is spoken in the Walldorf area, “NetWeaver” sounds like “net wie wa”, and this portion of a sentence can nicely be put into a “story” about how the name “NetWeaver” has been invented:

    Shai: “Du Henning, wie sollen wir das neue Produkt nennen?”
    Henning: “Hmm, ich weiß auch net wie wa das nennen sollen…”

    Which roughly translates into English (of course loosing the punch line in translation…) as

    Shai: “Hey Henning, how should we brand that new product?”
    Henning: “Hmm, actually I don’t know either how we should call it…”

    (0) 
    1. Ulrich Schmidt
      Sorry, my bold markups got screwed up… Here it is again with the correct parts marked in bold:

      Shai: “Du Henning, wie sollen wir das neue Produkt nennen?”
      Henning: “Hmm, ich weiß auch net wie wa das nennen sollen…”

      Shai: “Hey Henning, how should we brand that new product?”
      Henning: “Hmm, actually I don’t know either how we should call it…”

      (0) 
      1. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      2. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      3. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      4. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      5. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      6. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      7. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      8. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
    2. Dirk Knauer
      Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

      Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

      I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

      Best regards
      Dirk

      (0) 
      1. Michael Eacrett Post author
        Hi Dirk,

        SEM is part of the mySAP ERP business suite application and is continued to be delivered with the latest release – mySAP ERP 2005. As of SAP NetWeaver 2004s, SEM requires the following usage types (AS-ABAP, BI, and potentially BI JAVA, EP, and AS JAVA for the frontend) whereas in prior releases it required.

        Your SEM license will be included in your mySAP ERP license if you have upgraded your SAP R/3 license to mySAP ERP.

        The SAP NetWeaver license includes use of the BPS engine (and the new integrated planning functionality with 2004s) but it does not cover the specific financial planning functions that are delivered by SEM so you may still need SEM depending on the functions you need. The best advice is: Have the customer check Integrated Planning (if on 2004s) to see if it meets their needs, if not then native SAP NetWeaver BPS functionality, and then the SEM BPS functionality.

        I hope this helps,
        Mike.

        I hope this helps,
        Mike.

        (0) 
    3. Dirk Knauer
      Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

      Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

      I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

      Best regards
      Dirk

      (0) 
  8. Ulrich Schmidt
    Hi all,
    in Walldorf there is a joke going round about the term “NetWeaver”: in the southern German slang that is spoken in the Walldorf area, “NetWeaver” sounds like “net wie wa”, and this portion of a sentence can nicely be put into a “story” about how the name “NetWeaver” has been invented:

    Shai: “Du Henning, wie sollen wir das neue Produkt nennen?”
    Henning: “Hmm, ich weiß auch net wie wa das nennen sollen…”

    Which roughly translates into English (of course loosing the punch line in translation…) as

    Shai: “Hey Henning, how should we brand that new product?”
    Henning: “Hmm, actually I don’t know either how we should call it…”

    (0) 
    1. Ulrich Schmidt
      Sorry, my bold markups got screwed up… Here it is again with the correct parts marked in bold:

      Shai: “Du Henning, wie sollen wir das neue Produkt nennen?”
      Henning: “Hmm, ich weiß auch net wie wa das nennen sollen…”

      Shai: “Hey Henning, how should we brand that new product?”
      Henning: “Hmm, actually I don’t know either how we should call it…”

      (0) 
      1. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      2. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      3. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      4. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      5. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      6. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      7. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      8. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
    2. Dirk Knauer
      Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

      Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

      I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

      Best regards
      Dirk

      (0) 
      1. Michael Eacrett Post author
        Hi Dirk,

        SEM is part of the mySAP ERP business suite application and is continued to be delivered with the latest release – mySAP ERP 2005. As of SAP NetWeaver 2004s, SEM requires the following usage types (AS-ABAP, BI, and potentially BI JAVA, EP, and AS JAVA for the frontend) whereas in prior releases it required.

        Your SEM license will be included in your mySAP ERP license if you have upgraded your SAP R/3 license to mySAP ERP.

        The SAP NetWeaver license includes use of the BPS engine (and the new integrated planning functionality with 2004s) but it does not cover the specific financial planning functions that are delivered by SEM so you may still need SEM depending on the functions you need. The best advice is: Have the customer check Integrated Planning (if on 2004s) to see if it meets their needs, if not then native SAP NetWeaver BPS functionality, and then the SEM BPS functionality.

        I hope this helps,
        Mike.

        I hope this helps,
        Mike.

        (0) 
    3. Dirk Knauer
      Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

      Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

      I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

      Best regards
      Dirk

      (0) 
  9. Ulrich Schmidt
    Hi all,
    in Walldorf there is a joke going round about the term “NetWeaver”: in the southern German slang that is spoken in the Walldorf area, “NetWeaver” sounds like “net wie wa”, and this portion of a sentence can nicely be put into a “story” about how the name “NetWeaver” has been invented:

    Shai: “Du Henning, wie sollen wir das neue Produkt nennen?”
    Henning: “Hmm, ich weiß auch net wie wa das nennen sollen…”

    Which roughly translates into English (of course loosing the punch line in translation…) as

    Shai: “Hey Henning, how should we brand that new product?”
    Henning: “Hmm, actually I don’t know either how we should call it…”

    (0) 
    1. Ulrich Schmidt
      Sorry, my bold markups got screwed up… Here it is again with the correct parts marked in bold:

      Shai: “Du Henning, wie sollen wir das neue Produkt nennen?”
      Henning: “Hmm, ich weiß auch net wie wa das nennen sollen…”

      Shai: “Hey Henning, how should we brand that new product?”
      Henning: “Hmm, actually I don’t know either how we should call it…”

      (0) 
      1. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      2. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      3. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      4. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      5. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      6. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      7. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
      8. Dirk Knauer
        Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

        Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

        I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

        Best regards
        Dirk

        (0) 
    2. Dirk Knauer
      Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

      Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

      I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

      Best regards
      Dirk

      (0) 
      1. Michael Eacrett Post author
        Hi Dirk,

        SEM is part of the mySAP ERP business suite application and is continued to be delivered with the latest release – mySAP ERP 2005. As of SAP NetWeaver 2004s, SEM requires the following usage types (AS-ABAP, BI, and potentially BI JAVA, EP, and AS JAVA for the frontend) whereas in prior releases it required.

        Your SEM license will be included in your mySAP ERP license if you have upgraded your SAP R/3 license to mySAP ERP.

        The SAP NetWeaver license includes use of the BPS engine (and the new integrated planning functionality with 2004s) but it does not cover the specific financial planning functions that are delivered by SEM so you may still need SEM depending on the functions you need. The best advice is: Have the customer check Integrated Planning (if on 2004s) to see if it meets their needs, if not then native SAP NetWeaver BPS functionality, and then the SEM BPS functionality.

        I hope this helps,
        Mike.

        I hope this helps,
        Mike.

        (0) 
    3. Dirk Knauer
      Hi there, the original Walldorfian expression would rather be “net wie mer” and not “net wie wa” – the other one sounds more like Berlin slang.

      Anyway I am trying to find related documentation on “what shall we do with the old SEM application”  that we are still carrying along – if we only use BPS but no BCS and no BSC… Is there a way to get rid of the SEM license or do I have to keep it in order to keep my BPS applications?

      I do expect our customers to ask questions like this, can anybody give me a hint on this upcoming issue?

      Best regards
      Dirk

      (0) 
  10. I have been with one of the now called IT Scenarios – Business Planning – now called BI-Integrated Planning since 2000.  I sat in on Marc Bernard’s session at the Americas FKOM last week.  I came away very confused.  While I read your explanation for the new marketing of ESA and IT Scenarios and I feel that I have a better understanding I must tell you that as some one who supports sales for the Americas – I build roughly 55 custom BPS demos a year – I do not have a clue how to help my solution engineers sell this new “vision”. 

    For example, we rely on sales leads from our install base.  I believe that I would be correct in saying that now if an existing SAP customer decided to automate their planning process further if they were currently still on the old Web application server or below, they could not implement BI-IP without first upgrading to Netweaver 2004s IT-Scenario Integrated planning. 

    Is this correct?  What if they do not want to upgrade to Netweaver, we can no longer offer them a planning solution?  Please reply via the blog or my email at k.kolar@sap.com.
    Thank you.

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Kim,

      Thanks for your post. I would like to add some clarifications that I hope will lead to an answer to your questions:

      IT Scenarios like “Business Planning and Analytical Services” address all the planning features of SAP NetWeaver. The SAP NetWeaver 2004s specific IT Scenario variants are focused on new features and in the planning area this is Integrated planning.
      BW-BPS still existing and will continue to be used and developed on by customer until at least the end of support of SAP NetWeaver 2004s. 🙂 This is by design so customers can move from BPS to Integrated planning at their own leisure (no forced migration) and it also helps when considering the existing mySAP business suite functionality that was built on BPS.

      Ok getting to your questions, What should the customers use. If the customer is on a release of SAP NetWeaver prior to 2004s, they only have the option of using BPS. If the customer wishes to use Integrated Planning, they need to be at the SAP NetWeaver 2004s release or higher. At the SAP NetWeaver 2004s release they have two choices, Integrated Planning or BPS. Most customers would start with Integrated Planning as opposed to BPS as it is the planning feature that will be developed further in the future. If they use mySAP business suite planning, they would use BPS as those apps have not migrated to Integrated Planning yet. This is normal as the technology usually precedes the application functionality… chicken and egg in this case.
      I hope this answers your question.

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  11. I have been with one of the now called IT Scenarios – Business Planning – now called BI-Integrated Planning since 2000.  I sat in on Marc Bernard’s session at the Americas FKOM last week.  I came away very confused.  While I read your explanation for the new marketing of ESA and IT Scenarios and I feel that I have a better understanding I must tell you that as some one who supports sales for the Americas – I build roughly 55 custom BPS demos a year – I do not have a clue how to help my solution engineers sell this new “vision”. 

    For example, we rely on sales leads from our install base.  I believe that I would be correct in saying that now if an existing SAP customer decided to automate their planning process further if they were currently still on the old Web application server or below, they could not implement BI-IP without first upgrading to Netweaver 2004s IT-Scenario Integrated planning. 

    Is this correct?  What if they do not want to upgrade to Netweaver, we can no longer offer them a planning solution?  Please reply via the blog or my email at k.kolar@sap.com.
    Thank you.

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Kim,

      Thanks for your post. I would like to add some clarifications that I hope will lead to an answer to your questions:

      IT Scenarios like “Business Planning and Analytical Services” address all the planning features of SAP NetWeaver. The SAP NetWeaver 2004s specific IT Scenario variants are focused on new features and in the planning area this is Integrated planning.
      BW-BPS still existing and will continue to be used and developed on by customer until at least the end of support of SAP NetWeaver 2004s. 🙂 This is by design so customers can move from BPS to Integrated planning at their own leisure (no forced migration) and it also helps when considering the existing mySAP business suite functionality that was built on BPS.

      Ok getting to your questions, What should the customers use. If the customer is on a release of SAP NetWeaver prior to 2004s, they only have the option of using BPS. If the customer wishes to use Integrated Planning, they need to be at the SAP NetWeaver 2004s release or higher. At the SAP NetWeaver 2004s release they have two choices, Integrated Planning or BPS. Most customers would start with Integrated Planning as opposed to BPS as it is the planning feature that will be developed further in the future. If they use mySAP business suite planning, they would use BPS as those apps have not migrated to Integrated Planning yet. This is normal as the technology usually precedes the application functionality… chicken and egg in this case.
      I hope this answers your question.

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  12. I have been with one of the now called IT Scenarios – Business Planning – now called BI-Integrated Planning since 2000.  I sat in on Marc Bernard’s session at the Americas FKOM last week.  I came away very confused.  While I read your explanation for the new marketing of ESA and IT Scenarios and I feel that I have a better understanding I must tell you that as some one who supports sales for the Americas – I build roughly 55 custom BPS demos a year – I do not have a clue how to help my solution engineers sell this new “vision”. 

    For example, we rely on sales leads from our install base.  I believe that I would be correct in saying that now if an existing SAP customer decided to automate their planning process further if they were currently still on the old Web application server or below, they could not implement BI-IP without first upgrading to Netweaver 2004s IT-Scenario Integrated planning. 

    Is this correct?  What if they do not want to upgrade to Netweaver, we can no longer offer them a planning solution?  Please reply via the blog or my email at k.kolar@sap.com.
    Thank you.

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Kim,

      Thanks for your post. I would like to add some clarifications that I hope will lead to an answer to your questions:

      IT Scenarios like “Business Planning and Analytical Services” address all the planning features of SAP NetWeaver. The SAP NetWeaver 2004s specific IT Scenario variants are focused on new features and in the planning area this is Integrated planning.
      BW-BPS still existing and will continue to be used and developed on by customer until at least the end of support of SAP NetWeaver 2004s. 🙂 This is by design so customers can move from BPS to Integrated planning at their own leisure (no forced migration) and it also helps when considering the existing mySAP business suite functionality that was built on BPS.

      Ok getting to your questions, What should the customers use. If the customer is on a release of SAP NetWeaver prior to 2004s, they only have the option of using BPS. If the customer wishes to use Integrated Planning, they need to be at the SAP NetWeaver 2004s release or higher. At the SAP NetWeaver 2004s release they have two choices, Integrated Planning or BPS. Most customers would start with Integrated Planning as opposed to BPS as it is the planning feature that will be developed further in the future. If they use mySAP business suite planning, they would use BPS as those apps have not migrated to Integrated Planning yet. This is normal as the technology usually precedes the application functionality… chicken and egg in this case.
      I hope this answers your question.

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  13. Anton Wenzelhuemer
    I just stumbled over a forum entry and immediately this weblog sprung to my mind. This is a practical example(an one far from being a singular problem) from which you product managers can see where constant renaming of stuff paired with a lack of communication on the motivation thereof leads…

    Here we go:

    […]It is really embarrassing… In January 2006 I need to tell one of our really large customers something about Netweaver 2004s and especially about BI 7.0 (oh sorry, I forgot, BI 7.0 is not the official term… ;-))

    Anyway, I definitely I could not tell anything about the changes in the new SEM 6.0 release currently. This is especially ashaming since most of our BI customers had installed SEM on top of their SAP BI installation in the past due to the fact, that the former SEM “Business Planning functionality” (SEM-BPS) has been part of the SEM software in the past (and still is existing there in parallel to the same functionality in BW). And even if the customers switch now to the new “Integrated Planning functionality” in SAP BI software, they still need to upgrade not only SAP BI 3.5 to SAP BI 7.0 (oh really, I beg your pardon, guys, I meant the “SAP BI “usage type” in SAP Netweaver 2004s”), but also from SEM Release 4 to SEM release 6.0. Keep in mind, once you installed SEM on top of BW you never ever are able to de install it. As a logical consequence, if you plan to upgrade from BI 3.5 or lower to BI… o.k. Netweaver 2004s with usage type BI, then you also need to upgrade to the corresponding SEM release 6.0. Otherwise you have a problem. Approximately (my personal guess) around 60 percent of all SAP BI customers are concerned from that…

    And if they need to upgrade SEM also, they – not surprisingly – also expect detailed information about the changes in the new SEM release. But there is no information available – at least not for Partners. (The current definition of SAP about what Partnership means is really “wonderful” It seems to be not a bi directional way…).

    The situation is even much worse for those companies using SEM with a focus to SEM BCS (Business consolidation). These companies expect detailed information for obvious reasons. And once again, there is no information! Or at least I cannot find it in the more and more growing numbers of information sources (service Net, SDN… and the numerous different locations there. It is absolute chaotic…)
    […]

    (0) 
  14. Anton Wenzelhuemer
    I just stumbled over a forum entry and immediately this weblog sprung to my mind. This is a practical example(an one far from being a singular problem) from which you product managers can see where constant renaming of stuff paired with a lack of communication on the motivation thereof leads…

    Here we go:

    […]It is really embarrassing… In January 2006 I need to tell one of our really large customers something about Netweaver 2004s and especially about BI 7.0 (oh sorry, I forgot, BI 7.0 is not the official term… ;-))

    Anyway, I definitely I could not tell anything about the changes in the new SEM 6.0 release currently. This is especially ashaming since most of our BI customers had installed SEM on top of their SAP BI installation in the past due to the fact, that the former SEM “Business Planning functionality” (SEM-BPS) has been part of the SEM software in the past (and still is existing there in parallel to the same functionality in BW). And even if the customers switch now to the new “Integrated Planning functionality” in SAP BI software, they still need to upgrade not only SAP BI 3.5 to SAP BI 7.0 (oh really, I beg your pardon, guys, I meant the “SAP BI “usage type” in SAP Netweaver 2004s”), but also from SEM Release 4 to SEM release 6.0. Keep in mind, once you installed SEM on top of BW you never ever are able to de install it. As a logical consequence, if you plan to upgrade from BI 3.5 or lower to BI… o.k. Netweaver 2004s with usage type BI, then you also need to upgrade to the corresponding SEM release 6.0. Otherwise you have a problem. Approximately (my personal guess) around 60 percent of all SAP BI customers are concerned from that…

    And if they need to upgrade SEM also, they – not surprisingly – also expect detailed information about the changes in the new SEM release. But there is no information available – at least not for Partners. (The current definition of SAP about what Partnership means is really “wonderful” It seems to be not a bi directional way…).

    The situation is even much worse for those companies using SEM with a focus to SEM BCS (Business consolidation). These companies expect detailed information for obvious reasons. And once again, there is no information! Or at least I cannot find it in the more and more growing numbers of information sources (service Net, SDN… and the numerous different locations there. It is absolute chaotic…)
    […]

    (0) 
  15. Anton Wenzelhuemer
    I just stumbled over a forum entry and immediately this weblog sprung to my mind. This is a practical example(an one far from being a singular problem) from which you product managers can see where constant renaming of stuff paired with a lack of communication on the motivation thereof leads…

    Here we go:

    […]It is really embarrassing… In January 2006 I need to tell one of our really large customers something about Netweaver 2004s and especially about BI 7.0 (oh sorry, I forgot, BI 7.0 is not the official term… ;-))

    Anyway, I definitely I could not tell anything about the changes in the new SEM 6.0 release currently. This is especially ashaming since most of our BI customers had installed SEM on top of their SAP BI installation in the past due to the fact, that the former SEM “Business Planning functionality” (SEM-BPS) has been part of the SEM software in the past (and still is existing there in parallel to the same functionality in BW). And even if the customers switch now to the new “Integrated Planning functionality” in SAP BI software, they still need to upgrade not only SAP BI 3.5 to SAP BI 7.0 (oh really, I beg your pardon, guys, I meant the “SAP BI “usage type” in SAP Netweaver 2004s”), but also from SEM Release 4 to SEM release 6.0. Keep in mind, once you installed SEM on top of BW you never ever are able to de install it. As a logical consequence, if you plan to upgrade from BI 3.5 or lower to BI… o.k. Netweaver 2004s with usage type BI, then you also need to upgrade to the corresponding SEM release 6.0. Otherwise you have a problem. Approximately (my personal guess) around 60 percent of all SAP BI customers are concerned from that…

    And if they need to upgrade SEM also, they – not surprisingly – also expect detailed information about the changes in the new SEM release. But there is no information available – at least not for Partners. (The current definition of SAP about what Partnership means is really “wonderful” It seems to be not a bi directional way…).

    The situation is even much worse for those companies using SEM with a focus to SEM BCS (Business consolidation). These companies expect detailed information for obvious reasons. And once again, there is no information! Or at least I cannot find it in the more and more growing numbers of information sources (service Net, SDN… and the numerous different locations there. It is absolute chaotic…)
    […]

    (0) 
  16. Mark Walker
    Michael – A fine blog and fitting eulogy. Thanks to you, I have turned the corner and have started on the long road to recovery from complete confusion!

    One thing remains a mystery to me however. And that is how do SAP applications (for example mySAP ERP with it’s business map), relate to Netweaver IT Scenarios and Practices? Or am I taking a leap too far? Aplogies in advance to all if this is a really dumb question

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Mark,

      Thanks for your kind comments. I’m glad you found the weblog useful.

      As I understand it, there is a link between the mySAP business suite business maps and the SAP NetWeaver solution maps. The link is implicit in that you can use the IT Scenarios to define and implement the underlying technology for a business solution (the reader has to make the association themselves). I think you are looking for an explicit link in that you can navigate from the business solution into the required IT Scenarios and variants. The plan is to enable this but I personally believe it may some time – the technical IT Scenarios need to precede the business maps (it is very difficult to do this at once given the depth and breath of the mySAP Solutions). Again this is just my thoughts, I will update you when I know more 🙂

      In the short term keep your eye on SDN, it will be one outlet we will use to announce what is coming with IT Scenarios.

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  17. Mark Walker
    Michael – A fine blog and fitting eulogy. Thanks to you, I have turned the corner and have started on the long road to recovery from complete confusion!

    One thing remains a mystery to me however. And that is how do SAP applications (for example mySAP ERP with it’s business map), relate to Netweaver IT Scenarios and Practices? Or am I taking a leap too far? Aplogies in advance to all if this is a really dumb question

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Mark,

      Thanks for your kind comments. I’m glad you found the weblog useful.

      As I understand it, there is a link between the mySAP business suite business maps and the SAP NetWeaver solution maps. The link is implicit in that you can use the IT Scenarios to define and implement the underlying technology for a business solution (the reader has to make the association themselves). I think you are looking for an explicit link in that you can navigate from the business solution into the required IT Scenarios and variants. The plan is to enable this but I personally believe it may some time – the technical IT Scenarios need to precede the business maps (it is very difficult to do this at once given the depth and breath of the mySAP Solutions). Again this is just my thoughts, I will update you when I know more 🙂

      In the short term keep your eye on SDN, it will be one outlet we will use to announce what is coming with IT Scenarios.

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  18. Mark Walker
    Michael – A fine blog and fitting eulogy. Thanks to you, I have turned the corner and have started on the long road to recovery from complete confusion!

    One thing remains a mystery to me however. And that is how do SAP applications (for example mySAP ERP with it’s business map), relate to Netweaver IT Scenarios and Practices? Or am I taking a leap too far? Aplogies in advance to all if this is a really dumb question

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Mark,

      Thanks for your kind comments. I’m glad you found the weblog useful.

      As I understand it, there is a link between the mySAP business suite business maps and the SAP NetWeaver solution maps. The link is implicit in that you can use the IT Scenarios to define and implement the underlying technology for a business solution (the reader has to make the association themselves). I think you are looking for an explicit link in that you can navigate from the business solution into the required IT Scenarios and variants. The plan is to enable this but I personally believe it may some time – the technical IT Scenarios need to precede the business maps (it is very difficult to do this at once given the depth and breath of the mySAP Solutions). Again this is just my thoughts, I will update you when I know more 🙂

      In the short term keep your eye on SDN, it will be one outlet we will use to announce what is coming with IT Scenarios.

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  19. Hi Mark,

    I love the way you declared the real news of NW 2004s: it’s “only” a terminology change, but it leads to a whole new approach in the way we think of SAP NetWeaver. Just one tip: the master guide (located at: http://service.sap.com/installNW2004s) includes the mapping of IT scenarios to usage types, which are the installable units of SAP NetWeaver, and SURPRISE! really resemble the late components. The upgrade master guide (located at: http://service.sap.com/upgradenw2004s) includes the mapping of old components to the resulting usage types. Just FYI. 

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Leah,

      Thanks for adding the links. The SAP NetWeaver Master Planning guide is a must read for everyone who comes in contact with SAP netWeaver as it is not just for System admin or landscape planners anymore. On another of your points, you unfortunately the usage type names are similar to the old component names (and acronyms) so it is a challenge not to confuse the reader.

      I keep promising to post my blog on the Software units (inc. Usage types) and hopefully will get round to it to getting it from Draft to Final next week. I guess I could be called the Prime Minister of the Procrastinators on this (although I would probably put off filling in the candidate application form and fail to be on the Ballot!). 🙂

      Thanks again for your comments,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  20. Hi Mark,

    I love the way you declared the real news of NW 2004s: it’s “only” a terminology change, but it leads to a whole new approach in the way we think of SAP NetWeaver. Just one tip: the master guide (located at: http://service.sap.com/installNW2004s) includes the mapping of IT scenarios to usage types, which are the installable units of SAP NetWeaver, and SURPRISE! really resemble the late components. The upgrade master guide (located at: http://service.sap.com/upgradenw2004s) includes the mapping of old components to the resulting usage types. Just FYI. 

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Leah,

      Thanks for adding the links. The SAP NetWeaver Master Planning guide is a must read for everyone who comes in contact with SAP netWeaver as it is not just for System admin or landscape planners anymore. On another of your points, you unfortunately the usage type names are similar to the old component names (and acronyms) so it is a challenge not to confuse the reader.

      I keep promising to post my blog on the Software units (inc. Usage types) and hopefully will get round to it to getting it from Draft to Final next week. I guess I could be called the Prime Minister of the Procrastinators on this (although I would probably put off filling in the candidate application form and fail to be on the Ballot!). 🙂

      Thanks again for your comments,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  21. Hi Mark,

    I love the way you declared the real news of NW 2004s: it’s “only” a terminology change, but it leads to a whole new approach in the way we think of SAP NetWeaver. Just one tip: the master guide (located at: http://service.sap.com/installNW2004s) includes the mapping of IT scenarios to usage types, which are the installable units of SAP NetWeaver, and SURPRISE! really resemble the late components. The upgrade master guide (located at: http://service.sap.com/upgradenw2004s) includes the mapping of old components to the resulting usage types. Just FYI. 

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Leah,

      Thanks for adding the links. The SAP NetWeaver Master Planning guide is a must read for everyone who comes in contact with SAP netWeaver as it is not just for System admin or landscape planners anymore. On another of your points, you unfortunately the usage type names are similar to the old component names (and acronyms) so it is a challenge not to confuse the reader.

      I keep promising to post my blog on the Software units (inc. Usage types) and hopefully will get round to it to getting it from Draft to Final next week. I guess I could be called the Prime Minister of the Procrastinators on this (although I would probably put off filling in the candidate application form and fail to be on the Ballot!). 🙂

      Thanks again for your comments,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  22. Henning Saul
    Thanks Mike, for that piece. Great job. Helped me a lot. Well written.
    What really struck me in the comments: Nobody mentions ESA or SOA.
    Many struggled to understand the changes with NetWeaver and complained about marketing and hiding components etc pp.
    But nobody connected his problems with the changes to the new orientation and concept of ESA and SOA.
    I’m a layman to ESA: but if you change the software from the old way to being service-oriented, then all these changes, rebrandings, regroupings, remodelings … must follow logically.
    Maybe somebody can add to this.
    It really struck me that nobody connected his troubles to the new ESA concept.
    Regards Henning
    (0) 
  23. Henning Saul
    Thanks Mike, for that piece. Great job. Helped me a lot. Well written.
    What really struck me in the comments: Nobody mentions ESA or SOA.
    Many struggled to understand the changes with NetWeaver and complained about marketing and hiding components etc pp.
    But nobody connected his problems with the changes to the new orientation and concept of ESA and SOA.
    I’m a layman to ESA: but if you change the software from the old way to being service-oriented, then all these changes, rebrandings, regroupings, remodelings … must follow logically.
    Maybe somebody can add to this.
    It really struck me that nobody connected his troubles to the new ESA concept.
    Regards Henning
    (0) 
  24. Henning Saul
    Thanks Mike, for that piece. Great job. Helped me a lot. Well written.
    What really struck me in the comments: Nobody mentions ESA or SOA.
    Many struggled to understand the changes with NetWeaver and complained about marketing and hiding components etc pp.
    But nobody connected his problems with the changes to the new orientation and concept of ESA and SOA.
    I’m a layman to ESA: but if you change the software from the old way to being service-oriented, then all these changes, rebrandings, regroupings, remodelings … must follow logically.
    Maybe somebody can add to this.
    It really struck me that nobody connected his troubles to the new ESA concept.
    Regards Henning
    (0) 
  25. Michal Krawczyk
    hi Mike,

    On one page I’ve found:

    “The SAP NetWeaver usage type PI incorporates all functions that were previously a part of SAP Exchange Infrastructure (SAP XI).”

    But does it mean that XI as a software (PI’s subcomponent) still exists ?

    On another page:

    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/0f/80243b4a66ae0ce10000000a11402f/content.htm

    we see everything about the XI with exchange infrastructure’s name

    but the famous “fridge”

    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/0f/80243b4a66ae0ce10000000a11402f/h-00100030000_image002.gif

    shows process integration name where there used to be XI…  

    so can you clarify a little bit if possible 🙂

    will Exchange Infrastructure link on SDN
    be replaced with PI or maybe PI will
    only be a part of “IT Practices and IT Scenarios”
    and  Exchange Infrastructure  will stay as
    a software component?

    Regards,
    michal

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Michal,

      I think you have put your finger on one the challenges that we have in relation to the retiring of the component names; the ghosts of the components live on and will ‘haunt’ us for years to come (probably past the 2013 end of extended maintenance date too!).

      SAP NetWeaver XI was the component name used up until the release of SAP NetWeaver 2004s. In the weblog I explain why the component names became artificial boundaries and SAP NetWeaver XI is no different to the SAP NetWeaver BI example. So the components (all of them are gone with the exception of SAP NetWeaver MDM).

      Ok, so where does Process Integration (PI) come into this? As you mention the most common visual where you see this term is in the infamous SAP NetWeaver ‘Fridge’ diagram which outlines the ‘key capabilities’ of SAP NetWeaver. In this case it is the ‘Process Integration capabilities of SAP NetWeaver’. The fridge diagram was developed as simple diagrammatically way to explain to ‘upper IT management’ and non-IT types what is in the SAP NetWeaver ’04 release ;-). We tried to use generic industry terms in this diagram so it was meant to be quite intuitive. As it is only meant a top level view of SAP NetWeaver, we don’t see people implementing every feature of Process Integration but using the IT Scenarios as they are more focused on deliver a business solution for IT. Key Capabilities may span several IT Scenarios and IT Practices.
      One side note: By coincidence, some of the generic industry terms were also similar the component names which has been a source of some confusion – but not so in the case of PI 😉 . Also a new version of the Key capability diagram is coming soon! Fridge 2.0?

      I think SAP NetWeaver XI is a great example of how the component technology is being absorbed into the core SAP NetWeaver platform and being used to extend the whole platform – 2 examples:
      – Business Activity Monitoring which is coming in the next release after 2004s is based heavily on new/enhanced technology leveraging the prior SAP NetWeaver XI and SAP NetWeaver BI components
      – The new ESR is based in new/enhanced technology leveraging what was previously SAP NetWeaver XI’s Integration Repository.

      There is one other area of our terminology where PI rears up and I hesitate to mention it as it will probably add to the confusion. On of the installable units, usage types, is called PI. This will be renamed hopefully for the next release if I have any input. If you have never heard of usage types then PLEASE ignore this paragraph! The PI usage type is the installed on the ABAP stack to enable to process integration capabilities among other things (you need the JAVA stack too!).

      Ok, so why do we still see SAP NetWeaver XI all over the place in SDN? This is the ‘haunting’ problem in that we delivered SDN content, weblogs, forums before the release of SAP NetWeaver 2004s when this was the correct terminology (and it is still correct terminology if talking about releases prior to 2004s). Expect to see SDN shift from the old components to a view based on the SAP NetWeaver technology map (link is in the weblog above). So most references to or use of the term SAP NetWeaver XI will morph into being represented by the IT Scenarios under the End to End Process Integration IT Scenario. As soon as we have fixed dates for changes, the ‘SDN comrades’ will surely give everyone advance notice.

      I know some people will say that this is just marketing hype and the components are still there. While this is true that components were absorbed in 2004s and some may say that the old components are still recognizable in 2004s, it will not be the case going forward. Change is often slow and people need their own time to adjust to the change and decide when or will they embrace it. Some people will chose to continue to use the old terms like SAP Basis, SAP R/3, SAP XI, etc in the new releases while other will start adopting the new terminology faster – we have to thank our human nature for this.

      Well I have waffled on a bit on this, so I’ll stop before even the insomniacs complain.
      I glad that this weblog generated such healthy dialogs and hopefully we can make this transition to the platform view in a way that even a true luddite can appreciate.

      All the best,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  26. Michal Krawczyk
    hi Mike,

    On one page I’ve found:

    “The SAP NetWeaver usage type PI incorporates all functions that were previously a part of SAP Exchange Infrastructure (SAP XI).”

    But does it mean that XI as a software (PI’s subcomponent) still exists ?

    On another page:

    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/0f/80243b4a66ae0ce10000000a11402f/content.htm

    we see everything about the XI with exchange infrastructure’s name

    but the famous “fridge”

    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/0f/80243b4a66ae0ce10000000a11402f/h-00100030000_image002.gif

    shows process integration name where there used to be XI…  

    so can you clarify a little bit if possible 🙂

    will Exchange Infrastructure link on SDN
    be replaced with PI or maybe PI will
    only be a part of “IT Practices and IT Scenarios”
    and  Exchange Infrastructure  will stay as
    a software component?

    Regards,
    michal

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Michal,

      I think you have put your finger on one the challenges that we have in relation to the retiring of the component names; the ghosts of the components live on and will ‘haunt’ us for years to come (probably past the 2013 end of extended maintenance date too!).

      SAP NetWeaver XI was the component name used up until the release of SAP NetWeaver 2004s. In the weblog I explain why the component names became artificial boundaries and SAP NetWeaver XI is no different to the SAP NetWeaver BI example. So the components (all of them are gone with the exception of SAP NetWeaver MDM).

      Ok, so where does Process Integration (PI) come into this? As you mention the most common visual where you see this term is in the infamous SAP NetWeaver ‘Fridge’ diagram which outlines the ‘key capabilities’ of SAP NetWeaver. In this case it is the ‘Process Integration capabilities of SAP NetWeaver’. The fridge diagram was developed as simple diagrammatically way to explain to ‘upper IT management’ and non-IT types what is in the SAP NetWeaver ’04 release ;-). We tried to use generic industry terms in this diagram so it was meant to be quite intuitive. As it is only meant a top level view of SAP NetWeaver, we don’t see people implementing every feature of Process Integration but using the IT Scenarios as they are more focused on deliver a business solution for IT. Key Capabilities may span several IT Scenarios and IT Practices.
      One side note: By coincidence, some of the generic industry terms were also similar the component names which has been a source of some confusion – but not so in the case of PI 😉 . Also a new version of the Key capability diagram is coming soon! Fridge 2.0?

      I think SAP NetWeaver XI is a great example of how the component technology is being absorbed into the core SAP NetWeaver platform and being used to extend the whole platform – 2 examples:
      – Business Activity Monitoring which is coming in the next release after 2004s is based heavily on new/enhanced technology leveraging the prior SAP NetWeaver XI and SAP NetWeaver BI components
      – The new ESR is based in new/enhanced technology leveraging what was previously SAP NetWeaver XI’s Integration Repository.

      There is one other area of our terminology where PI rears up and I hesitate to mention it as it will probably add to the confusion. On of the installable units, usage types, is called PI. This will be renamed hopefully for the next release if I have any input. If you have never heard of usage types then PLEASE ignore this paragraph! The PI usage type is the installed on the ABAP stack to enable to process integration capabilities among other things (you need the JAVA stack too!).

      Ok, so why do we still see SAP NetWeaver XI all over the place in SDN? This is the ‘haunting’ problem in that we delivered SDN content, weblogs, forums before the release of SAP NetWeaver 2004s when this was the correct terminology (and it is still correct terminology if talking about releases prior to 2004s). Expect to see SDN shift from the old components to a view based on the SAP NetWeaver technology map (link is in the weblog above). So most references to or use of the term SAP NetWeaver XI will morph into being represented by the IT Scenarios under the End to End Process Integration IT Scenario. As soon as we have fixed dates for changes, the ‘SDN comrades’ will surely give everyone advance notice.

      I know some people will say that this is just marketing hype and the components are still there. While this is true that components were absorbed in 2004s and some may say that the old components are still recognizable in 2004s, it will not be the case going forward. Change is often slow and people need their own time to adjust to the change and decide when or will they embrace it. Some people will chose to continue to use the old terms like SAP Basis, SAP R/3, SAP XI, etc in the new releases while other will start adopting the new terminology faster – we have to thank our human nature for this.

      Well I have waffled on a bit on this, so I’ll stop before even the insomniacs complain.
      I glad that this weblog generated such healthy dialogs and hopefully we can make this transition to the platform view in a way that even a true luddite can appreciate.

      All the best,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  27. Michal Krawczyk
    hi Mike,

    On one page I’ve found:

    “The SAP NetWeaver usage type PI incorporates all functions that were previously a part of SAP Exchange Infrastructure (SAP XI).”

    But does it mean that XI as a software (PI’s subcomponent) still exists ?

    On another page:

    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/0f/80243b4a66ae0ce10000000a11402f/content.htm

    we see everything about the XI with exchange infrastructure’s name

    but the famous “fridge”

    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/0f/80243b4a66ae0ce10000000a11402f/h-00100030000_image002.gif

    shows process integration name where there used to be XI…  

    so can you clarify a little bit if possible 🙂

    will Exchange Infrastructure link on SDN
    be replaced with PI or maybe PI will
    only be a part of “IT Practices and IT Scenarios”
    and  Exchange Infrastructure  will stay as
    a software component?

    Regards,
    michal

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Michal,

      I think you have put your finger on one the challenges that we have in relation to the retiring of the component names; the ghosts of the components live on and will ‘haunt’ us for years to come (probably past the 2013 end of extended maintenance date too!).

      SAP NetWeaver XI was the component name used up until the release of SAP NetWeaver 2004s. In the weblog I explain why the component names became artificial boundaries and SAP NetWeaver XI is no different to the SAP NetWeaver BI example. So the components (all of them are gone with the exception of SAP NetWeaver MDM).

      Ok, so where does Process Integration (PI) come into this? As you mention the most common visual where you see this term is in the infamous SAP NetWeaver ‘Fridge’ diagram which outlines the ‘key capabilities’ of SAP NetWeaver. In this case it is the ‘Process Integration capabilities of SAP NetWeaver’. The fridge diagram was developed as simple diagrammatically way to explain to ‘upper IT management’ and non-IT types what is in the SAP NetWeaver ’04 release ;-). We tried to use generic industry terms in this diagram so it was meant to be quite intuitive. As it is only meant a top level view of SAP NetWeaver, we don’t see people implementing every feature of Process Integration but using the IT Scenarios as they are more focused on deliver a business solution for IT. Key Capabilities may span several IT Scenarios and IT Practices.
      One side note: By coincidence, some of the generic industry terms were also similar the component names which has been a source of some confusion – but not so in the case of PI 😉 . Also a new version of the Key capability diagram is coming soon! Fridge 2.0?

      I think SAP NetWeaver XI is a great example of how the component technology is being absorbed into the core SAP NetWeaver platform and being used to extend the whole platform – 2 examples:
      – Business Activity Monitoring which is coming in the next release after 2004s is based heavily on new/enhanced technology leveraging the prior SAP NetWeaver XI and SAP NetWeaver BI components
      – The new ESR is based in new/enhanced technology leveraging what was previously SAP NetWeaver XI’s Integration Repository.

      There is one other area of our terminology where PI rears up and I hesitate to mention it as it will probably add to the confusion. On of the installable units, usage types, is called PI. This will be renamed hopefully for the next release if I have any input. If you have never heard of usage types then PLEASE ignore this paragraph! The PI usage type is the installed on the ABAP stack to enable to process integration capabilities among other things (you need the JAVA stack too!).

      Ok, so why do we still see SAP NetWeaver XI all over the place in SDN? This is the ‘haunting’ problem in that we delivered SDN content, weblogs, forums before the release of SAP NetWeaver 2004s when this was the correct terminology (and it is still correct terminology if talking about releases prior to 2004s). Expect to see SDN shift from the old components to a view based on the SAP NetWeaver technology map (link is in the weblog above). So most references to or use of the term SAP NetWeaver XI will morph into being represented by the IT Scenarios under the End to End Process Integration IT Scenario. As soon as we have fixed dates for changes, the ‘SDN comrades’ will surely give everyone advance notice.

      I know some people will say that this is just marketing hype and the components are still there. While this is true that components were absorbed in 2004s and some may say that the old components are still recognizable in 2004s, it will not be the case going forward. Change is often slow and people need their own time to adjust to the change and decide when or will they embrace it. Some people will chose to continue to use the old terms like SAP Basis, SAP R/3, SAP XI, etc in the new releases while other will start adopting the new terminology faster – we have to thank our human nature for this.

      Well I have waffled on a bit on this, so I’ll stop before even the insomniacs complain.
      I glad that this weblog generated such healthy dialogs and hopefully we can make this transition to the platform view in a way that even a true luddite can appreciate.

      All the best,
      Mike.

      (0) 
  28. Wajid Mir
    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for letting us know about the change in SAP terminology – in a nicely written, with humor script.

    Thanks,
    Wajid.

    (0) 
  29. Wajid Mir
    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for letting us know about the change in SAP terminology – in a nicely written, with humor script.

    Thanks,
    Wajid.

    (0) 
  30. Wajid Mir
    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for letting us know about the change in SAP terminology – in a nicely written, with humor script.

    Thanks,
    Wajid.

    (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Victor,

      I’m not sure what you are asking. Are you asking about the old ASAP implementation methodology?

      As you mention the BI Capabilities of SAP NetWeaver 2004s and templates, are you asking about the default web template now shipped?

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
      1. Victor Figueroa
        old ASAP implementation methodology ?

        That is my question, in Nw04s BI : what is new implementation methodology ?

        So i have some confused too in new structures ..

        MySap Concepts and Nw04s BI ?

        – SAP NetWeaver 2004s
        ————> MySAP Business Suit
        ——————-> MySAP ERP
        ——————-> MySAP CRM
        ——————-> MySAP PLM
        ——————-> MySAP SCM
        ——————-> MySAP SRM
        ——————-> MySAP BI (Nw04s BI) ???

        OR is ?

        – SAP NetWeaver 2004s
        ——> SAP Auto-ID Infrastructure
        ——> SAP Business Intelligence (Nw04s BI) ??
        ——> SAP Enterprise Portal
        ——> SAP Exchange Infrastructure
        ——> SAP Web Application Server
        ——> SAP Master Data Management
        ——> SAP Mobile Infrastructure

        Thank you.

        (0) 
        1. Victor Figueroa
          This is correct model :

          SAP NetWeaver 2004s
          ——> SAP Auto-ID Infrastructure
          ——> SAP Business Intelligence
          ——> SAP Enterprise Portal
          ——> SAP Exchange Infrastructure
          ——> SAP Web Application Server
          ——> SAP Master Data Management
          ——> SAP Mobile Infrastructure

          So, only need know what is new implementation methodology ?

          Thank you.

          (0) 
          1. Michael Eacrett Post author
            Hi Victor,

            The big change with SAP NetWeaver 2004s is that we don’t have components anymore. The therefore effects how you consider implementing SAP NetWeaver. what you implement now is covered by the IT Scenarios and for the most part their IT Scenario variants. The process steps for implementing the IT Scenario variants are fully documented in Solution Manager.

            Cheers,
            Mike.

            (0) 
              1. Michael Eacrett Post author
                Hi Victor,

                Please do not excuse your English. I’m bound to a single language (English) so I’m the one who is humbled by the limitation. I’m glad that you asked the questions and I was able to help.

                All the best, and keep asking questions (better to ask than not to ask).
                Mike. 🙂

                (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Victor,

      I’m not sure what you are asking. Are you asking about the old ASAP implementation methodology?

      As you mention the BI Capabilities of SAP NetWeaver 2004s and templates, are you asking about the default web template now shipped?

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
      1. Victor Figueroa
        old ASAP implementation methodology ?

        That is my question, in Nw04s BI : what is new implementation methodology ?

        So i have some confused too in new structures ..

        MySap Concepts and Nw04s BI ?

        – SAP NetWeaver 2004s
        ————> MySAP Business Suit
        ——————-> MySAP ERP
        ——————-> MySAP CRM
        ——————-> MySAP PLM
        ——————-> MySAP SCM
        ——————-> MySAP SRM
        ——————-> MySAP BI (Nw04s BI) ???

        OR is ?

        – SAP NetWeaver 2004s
        ——> SAP Auto-ID Infrastructure
        ——> SAP Business Intelligence (Nw04s BI) ??
        ——> SAP Enterprise Portal
        ——> SAP Exchange Infrastructure
        ——> SAP Web Application Server
        ——> SAP Master Data Management
        ——> SAP Mobile Infrastructure

        Thank you.

        (0) 
        1. Victor Figueroa
          This is correct model :

          SAP NetWeaver 2004s
          ——> SAP Auto-ID Infrastructure
          ——> SAP Business Intelligence
          ——> SAP Enterprise Portal
          ——> SAP Exchange Infrastructure
          ——> SAP Web Application Server
          ——> SAP Master Data Management
          ——> SAP Mobile Infrastructure

          So, only need know what is new implementation methodology ?

          Thank you.

          (0) 
          1. Michael Eacrett Post author
            Hi Victor,

            The big change with SAP NetWeaver 2004s is that we don’t have components anymore. The therefore effects how you consider implementing SAP NetWeaver. what you implement now is covered by the IT Scenarios and for the most part their IT Scenario variants. The process steps for implementing the IT Scenario variants are fully documented in Solution Manager.

            Cheers,
            Mike.

            (0) 
              1. Michael Eacrett Post author
                Hi Victor,

                Please do not excuse your English. I’m bound to a single language (English) so I’m the one who is humbled by the limitation. I’m glad that you asked the questions and I was able to help.

                All the best, and keep asking questions (better to ask than not to ask).
                Mike. 🙂

                (0) 
    1. Michael Eacrett Post author
      Hi Victor,

      I’m not sure what you are asking. Are you asking about the old ASAP implementation methodology?

      As you mention the BI Capabilities of SAP NetWeaver 2004s and templates, are you asking about the default web template now shipped?

      Cheers,
      Mike.

      (0) 
      1. Victor Figueroa
        old ASAP implementation methodology ?

        That is my question, in Nw04s BI : what is new implementation methodology ?

        So i have some confused too in new structures ..

        MySap Concepts and Nw04s BI ?

        – SAP NetWeaver 2004s
        ————> MySAP Business Suit
        ——————-> MySAP ERP
        ——————-> MySAP CRM
        ——————-> MySAP PLM
        ——————-> MySAP SCM
        ——————-> MySAP SRM
        ——————-> MySAP BI (Nw04s BI) ???

        OR is ?

        – SAP NetWeaver 2004s
        ——> SAP Auto-ID Infrastructure
        ——> SAP Business Intelligence (Nw04s BI) ??
        ——> SAP Enterprise Portal
        ——> SAP Exchange Infrastructure
        ——> SAP Web Application Server
        ——> SAP Master Data Management
        ——> SAP Mobile Infrastructure

        Thank you.

        (0) 
        1. Victor Figueroa
          This is correct model :

          SAP NetWeaver 2004s
          ——> SAP Auto-ID Infrastructure
          ——> SAP Business Intelligence
          ——> SAP Enterprise Portal
          ——> SAP Exchange Infrastructure
          ——> SAP Web Application Server
          ——> SAP Master Data Management
          ——> SAP Mobile Infrastructure

          So, only need know what is new implementation methodology ?

          Thank you.

          (0) 
          1. Michael Eacrett Post author
            Hi Victor,

            The big change with SAP NetWeaver 2004s is that we don’t have components anymore. The therefore effects how you consider implementing SAP NetWeaver. what you implement now is covered by the IT Scenarios and for the most part their IT Scenario variants. The process steps for implementing the IT Scenario variants are fully documented in Solution Manager.

            Cheers,
            Mike.

            (0) 
              1. Michael Eacrett Post author
                Hi Victor,

                Please do not excuse your English. I’m bound to a single language (English) so I’m the one who is humbled by the limitation. I’m glad that you asked the questions and I was able to help.

                All the best, and keep asking questions (better to ask than not to ask).
                Mike. 🙂

                (0) 
  31. Victor Figueroa
    Hi, you speak the Old ASAP methodology, what is the new methodology in NetWeaver 2004s BI ?

    Any idea the methodology BPA or new methodology ?

    _________________________________________________
    http://www.sap.com/spain/company/events/20_11_2006/agenda/index.epx

    Día 2 – Martes, 21 de Noviembre 2006. Madrid

    Aris Value Engineering (AVE) for SAP NetWeaver: La Metodología BPA para una Optima Implementación de los Mejores Procesos – Steffen Exeler, Director Comercial, Meritxell Codina, Manager BPM, IDS SCHEER AG

    ARIS Value Engineering (AVE) for SAP NetWeaver – La metodología BPA para una óptima implementación de los mejores procesos.
    Presentan la metodología y los pasos prácticos de aplicación de un concepto BPA de optimización de proceso (desde punto de vista de negocio) con el objetivo de aplicar estos procesos en un entorno SAP NetWeaver. La optimización de los procesos de negocio y la eficaz y ágil aplicación de los mismos en las aplicaciones y sistemas son el secreto de éxito en la mejora continua de los procesos: planificación – implementación – medición las fases que constituyen el ciclo del BPA/BPM. Compruebe como ARIS y SAP NetWeaver cubren este ciclo en sinergia perfecta.

    Steffen Exeler, Director Comercial de IDS Scheer AG en España, y Meritxell Codina, Manager BPM,

    _________________________________________________
    Sorry, i am only found info in Spanish ….

    Thank you.

    (0) 
  32. Victor Figueroa
    Hi, you speak the Old ASAP methodology, what is the new methodology in NetWeaver 2004s BI ?

    Any idea the methodology BPA or new methodology ?

    _________________________________________________
    http://www.sap.com/spain/company/events/20_11_2006/agenda/index.epx

    Día 2 – Martes, 21 de Noviembre 2006. Madrid

    Aris Value Engineering (AVE) for SAP NetWeaver: La Metodología BPA para una Optima Implementación de los Mejores Procesos – Steffen Exeler, Director Comercial, Meritxell Codina, Manager BPM, IDS SCHEER AG

    ARIS Value Engineering (AVE) for SAP NetWeaver – La metodología BPA para una óptima implementación de los mejores procesos.
    Presentan la metodología y los pasos prácticos de aplicación de un concepto BPA de optimización de proceso (desde punto de vista de negocio) con el objetivo de aplicar estos procesos en un entorno SAP NetWeaver. La optimización de los procesos de negocio y la eficaz y ágil aplicación de los mismos en las aplicaciones y sistemas son el secreto de éxito en la mejora continua de los procesos: planificación – implementación – medición las fases que constituyen el ciclo del BPA/BPM. Compruebe como ARIS y SAP NetWeaver cubren este ciclo en sinergia perfecta.

    Steffen Exeler, Director Comercial de IDS Scheer AG en España, y Meritxell Codina, Manager BPM,

    _________________________________________________
    Sorry, i am only found info in Spanish ….

    Thank you.

    (0) 
  33. Victor Figueroa
    Hi, you speak the Old ASAP methodology, what is the new methodology in NetWeaver 2004s BI ?

    Any idea the methodology BPA or new methodology ?

    _________________________________________________
    http://www.sap.com/spain/company/events/20_11_2006/agenda/index.epx

    Día 2 – Martes, 21 de Noviembre 2006. Madrid

    Aris Value Engineering (AVE) for SAP NetWeaver: La Metodología BPA para una Optima Implementación de los Mejores Procesos – Steffen Exeler, Director Comercial, Meritxell Codina, Manager BPM, IDS SCHEER AG

    ARIS Value Engineering (AVE) for SAP NetWeaver – La metodología BPA para una óptima implementación de los mejores procesos.
    Presentan la metodología y los pasos prácticos de aplicación de un concepto BPA de optimización de proceso (desde punto de vista de negocio) con el objetivo de aplicar estos procesos en un entorno SAP NetWeaver. La optimización de los procesos de negocio y la eficaz y ágil aplicación de los mismos en las aplicaciones y sistemas son el secreto de éxito en la mejora continua de los procesos: planificación – implementación – medición las fases que constituyen el ciclo del BPA/BPM. Compruebe como ARIS y SAP NetWeaver cubren este ciclo en sinergia perfecta.

    Steffen Exeler, Director Comercial de IDS Scheer AG en España, y Meritxell Codina, Manager BPM,

    _________________________________________________
    Sorry, i am only found info in Spanish ….

    Thank you.

    (0) 

Leave a Reply