Skip to Content

Practical differences – BPC standard vs Embedded BPC (BW-IP/PAK)

I have seen a few posts contrasting the technical differences between “BPC standard model” and “Embedded BPC model” . Intent of my blog is to call out the practical differences I have noticed from a business/ Practical standpoint during the implementation that I have worked on. This is by no means a comprehensive list.

Issue   BPC standard BPC embedded (BW-IP/PAK)
Master data & other  business consideration
Special characters in master data
Many companies use “#, spaces” etc in their material#s. Example C345A76#01, C345A76#02 – to denote variation of the same basic SKU
Workaround & conversion(replace ‘space’ with _ or a similar character) required.
Forced to display the “BW Material#” attribute in BPC reports instead of the native value. Possibility of duplicates if there are 2-spaces of many disallowed characters*
Native support
Additionally MATN1 Conversion routine – that applies company’s template defined in ECC for material# representation is respected. Example remove leading zeros for display purposes
Hierarchy support Simple hierarchies, no support for duplicate nodes Full blown support
Duplicate nodes, external characteristics, also now “user-defined hierarchies”
Integration with other BW data
exampl combine the SKU-level plan with “CRM promotion data” by SKU & period
Hard to do , have to bring data to unified format Native support
Full blown functionality
Time characteristics only Calmonth, all others – such as fiscal period would have to be modeled as a another BPC dimension Native support
Full blown functionality
‘Automatic time conversion from “Date” to Fiscal period, Month etc. There is a possibility to use “WEEK” and “MONTH” in the provider – this is especially applicable to Trade-promotion planning
BW statistics
people underestimate the power of being able to records statistics on performance and usage. Allows companies to trim-down/eliminate less-used models/applications
not really supported Native support
Full blown functionality
File upload Standard need workaround
Locking Last-person wins
Desired behaviour in simple planning applications
The provider is locked with the characteristic-combination/filter. This has been a pain point for some customers
Future proof solution to take advantage of innovations on HANA platform
HANA views  & Mixed scenarios Not standard** Native support
BW models can be pubished to HANA & fully leverage mixed-scenario
Load to BPC from aDSO and other new BW/HANA objects.
i.e keep up with SAP’s innovation
Not supported Native support
Additionally MATN1 Conversion routine – that applies company’s template defined in ECC for material# representation is respected. Example remove leading zeros for display purposes
Dashboard & other BusinessObjects tools
BICS connection, develop dashboard in design studio
no native support, but can used the generated-BW virtual providers. Native support
Full blown functionality
Available on BW/4 HANA NO YES
Technical capabilities
UoM Conversion no native UoM conversion in BPC standard, needs script/formula Push-down to HANA & native support
Prompts limited use Uses BE x queries, Full support – especially leverage User-exit variables
Time characteristics only Calmonth, all others have to be modeled as a another BPC dimension Automatic time conversion from “Date” to Fiscal period, Month etc. There is a possibility to use “WEEK” and “MONTH” in the provider – this is especially applicable to Trade-promotion planning
YTD(year to date) , PTD (period to date) standard Use the new delivered variables –  for YTD, MTD to achieve this
Performance for complex allocations logic Good Best
Can be pushed down to HANA – depending upon the scenario
Navigational attribute , more complex 2-step navigational attribute NO real support in BPC-reports. Workaround use a BE x query on virtual provider Native support
* there is a system setting wherein you can allow BPC to use special characters – but SAP does not recommend
**It is possible to create HANA views on BPC-infocubes, but this is not a standard approach

 

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

      Hi Arvind,

      Thanks for a very informative article. Please let me know if real time planning and consolidation is possible with BPC embedded (not BPC optimized)?

       

      Regards,

      Shashikant

    • Hi Mae,

       

      The question is not quite phrased correctly. “Embedded BW” is not a product.
      “BPC Embedded” is a planning solution based around BW’s IP (Integrated Planning) functionality.
      “BPC Standard” is a planning solution which has its own functionality that creates and manages cubes in BW.
      Both of these flavors of BPC run on BW – they just use different features of the platform and have different design approaches.

      If you are referring to the BW which is natively included with S/4HANA, then yes – you are able to run both BPC Embedded and BPC Standard off this BW as well. However SAP standard content as a product only exists for the BPC Embedded. This is what used to be called “BPC Optimized for S/4” is.

      I hope that clearly answers the question.

      – Elliott

  • Hi Mae

    I am assuming if you can install BPC-standard component on embedded-BW , for instance S/4. I don’t know the answer . I my guess is – it is not supported.

     

    Arvind

  • With the release of Analysis office 2.6 and on BWonHANA 7.5 SP6+ , The embedded model is almost feature complete vis-a-vis BPC standard. I will post a blog shortly with my observations.