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 | |||
Hi,
you said below but its seems standard model is supported in BPC11 in BW/4 HANA - please check blog: http://www.expertum.net/blog/sap-bpc-11-an-experts-opinion
Dushyant
yes it is now supported.
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 Arvind,
Can SAP BPC Standard runs on Embedded BW? If can't, may I know why?
Regards,
Mae
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
Hi Arvind,
Noted on this. Thank you for the clarification.
Regards,
Mae
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.