Allocating SAP BTP Costs Across Projects and Teams

Allocating BTP Costs Across Projects (Shared Credit Pool Governance)

When multiple teams share a pool of SAP Business Technology Platform (BTP) credits, CIOs and CTOs face the challenge of governing usage to ensure fair cost allocation and prevent budget overruns.

This article provides a comprehensive strategy for allocating BTP costs across projects, covering how to structure accounts, monitor usage, and implement internal chargeback or showback.

By establishing clear governance and leveraging SAP’s tools and best practices, enterprises can optimize BTP spending and maintain transparency across all teams.

Read Negotiating BTP in Your SAP Deal: Securing Free or Discounted Credits with S/4HANA.

SAP BTP’s Credit Model

SAP BTP offers flexible commercial models for consuming cloud services, including a prepaid credit pool (the Cloud Platform Enterprise Agreement, or CPEA), pay-as-you-go billing, and fixed subscription plans for specific services.

In a credit-based Enterprise Agreement, you purchase a shared pool of “cloud credits” upfront (e.g., committing $ 100,000 for a year might grant ~100,000 credits).

All BTP services consumed by any project draw down from this one pool.

Pay-as-you-go accounts work similarly (one pool billed monthly), just without an upfront commitment. Subscription licenses, on the other hand, provide a fixed amount of capacity for a specific service (with separate fees per service).

Key implications for multi-project use:

• Unified Pool: Under a CPEA or pay-go model, every team’s usage deducts from the same credit balance. This provides flexibility – unused credits from one project can be leveraged in another – but requires oversight to prevent any single project from inadvertently consuming the bulk of credits.
• Volume Discounts: A large credit commitment often earns discounted rates on services, benefiting enterprises that run multiple projects. However, exceeding the purchased credits (overage) results in on-demand rates (higher costs), and unused credits may expire if not consumed by the end of the period.
• Subscriptions: If one or two services (e.g., SAP HANA database or Integration Suite) dominate a project’s needs, a subscription for those might isolate and cap that project’s costs. However, most enterprises with multiple teams prefer the credit pool model for its flexibility, acknowledging the governance challenges that come with it.

BTP Commercial Models Comparison:

The Challenge of a Shared Credit Pool

A shared BTP credit pool is akin to a communal bank account for cloud spending.

Without governance, it can lead to a “tragedy of the commons” scenario in IT: one enthusiastic project could consume far more resources than its intended share, leaving others with insufficient credits or triggering costly overages.

Key challenges include:

• Lack of Visibility: If teams launch BTP services freely, finance leaders might only see the total consumption at month-end. It becomes difficult to tell which project’s workloads drove the spend. This opacity hampers accountability and budgeting for individual initiatives.
• Unfair Cost Distribution: Projects often have separate budgets or are sponsored by different business units, resulting in an uneven distribution of costs. Without allocation, one department may effectively subsidize another’s BTP usage. This can strain inter-department relationships and complicate ROI tracking for each project.
• Risk of Overruns: In a pooled model, the sum of all projects’ usage could exceed the prepaid credits. Overrun charges are billed at full list price and can cause budget shock if not anticipated. Conversely, if usage is lower than expected, credits may go unused (a waste of budget). Both scenarios are problematic without active management.
• Planning Difficulty: Each team might plan assuming a certain capacity from the BTP platform. Without coordination, you could end up over-provisioning (buying more credits than needed) or under-provisioning (throttling innovation when credits run low).

In summary, shared credits require deliberate governance policies. CIOs should treat cloud credits as a strategic resource, monitoring consumption closely and instilling cost-conscious behavior across all project teams.

Governance Structures for Cost Allocation

To allocate BTP costs by project, start by structuring your BTP environment in a way that naturally separates or tracks usage. SAP BTP provides an account hierarchy and tools that you can leverage for cost governance:

• Global Account and Subaccounts: In BTP, your Global Account is the top level tied to the contract (credit pool). Within it, you can create multiple subaccounts – think of these as environments or spaces for different projects, teams, or landscapes. Best practice is to assign each major project or department its subaccount (or set of subaccounts for dev, test, and prod stages). Usage is tracked at the subaccount level, which makes it easier to see, for example, that Project A consumed 60% of the credits last quarter, while Project B used 30%. Segmenting by subaccount also means you can set entitlements (service quotas) separately, ensuring one team can’t provision resources beyond a certain amount without approval.
• Directories and Labels: BTP enables grouping subaccounts into directories (e.g., by business unit or region) and assigning labels to subaccounts. By labeling each subaccount with a project name, cost center, or team, you gain the ability to filter and aggregate usage data by those labels in reports. For instance, label subaccounts as Project=Alpha or Dept=Finance and use SAP’s cost tools to sum usage per label. This way, even if a team has multiple subaccounts (for multiple environments), you can see their total spend.
• Shared Service Instances: Sometimes, different projects share a single service instance to reduce costs (for example, a single SAP HANA database used by two applications from different teams). In such cases, costs won’t separate cleanly by subaccount because the service runs in one subaccount. Governance here might involve manual allocation rules – e.g,. Agreeing that Team X uses 70% and Team Y 30% of that database, and splitting the credits accordingly. Define these percentage splits upfront for shared resources. SAP is introducing features to support cost splitting for shared instances (allowing predefined percentage allocations in cost reports). Still, until the system is fully automated, you may need to calculate it outside the system.
• Quotas and Budgets: Internally, set credit budgets per project. For example, out of a 100,000 credit annual pool, you might assign 25,000 to Project A, 25,000 to Project B, etc., based on planned usage. While the platform won’t hard-stop a team at 25,000 credits (all can technically consume the whole pool), you can simulate quotas by setting up alerts (e.g., at 80% of budget consumed) and requiring governance review if a team needs more credits than budgeted. Some organizations even enforce this via policy: a project must get approval from an internal cloud governance board to exceed its allocation or to spin up very expensive services.

Organizing your BTP accounts with these structures creates a map of consumption aligned to your organization. It’s the foundation for any showback or chargeback practice.

Financial Management: Showback vs. Chargeback

Structural separation of usage is step one; step two is deciding how to bill or report those costs back to the teams:

• Showback: This is an internal reporting method that shows each team their BTP usage cost (often on a monthly or quarterly basis) without actually transferring money between budgets. Showback is a transparency play: it makes teams aware of their cloud spend and accountable for efficiency, but finance still pays the central bill. Many enterprises start with showback because it’s less contentious – think of it as a cloud “expense report” for awareness and visibility. It helps project managers, for instance, see that “Project X used $10k of credits last month” and compare it to their plan. Showback alone can incentivize teams to optimize usage once they see the price tag of idle services.
• Chargeback: This goes a step further by formally allocating the BTP costs to each team’s budget. Essentially, IT or the FinOps function acts like a cloud service provider to internal departments: if Team A used 20% of the credits, Team A’s budget is charged for 20% of the bill. Chargeback creates strong accountability since departments directly “pay” for what they use. It’s particularly useful if separate divisions have their own profit and loss statements (P&Ls) or if you want to drive efficient behavior through financial responsibility. However, it requires more mature processes – accurate tracking, agreed pricing (do you charge them at the cost of the credits, or add overhead for management?), and sometimes cultural change to accept internal billing.

Many organizations initially implement showback, then evolve to chargeback once they trust the data and have obtained executive buy-in.

Some may stick with showback in the long term if full chargeback isn’t suitable.

Either way, communicate clearly to teams how their usage will be measured and reported. Pair the reports with guidance, such as highlighting which services are driving costs and suggesting optimizations (e.g., turning off development systems on weekends, rightsizing databases).

Tools and Practices for Monitoring BTP Usage

Governing a shared pool is greatly aided by the right tools. SAP and third parties provide solutions to monitor and allocate cloud costs:

• SAP BTP Cockpit – Costs and Usage Analytics: SAP’s administrative console features a dedicated “Costs and Usage” page, providing a transparent view of your consumption. You can filter by service, subaccount, or directory, and even apply labels to slice the data by project or cost center. The cockpit displays both billing data (what you’ll be charged in credits or dollars) and raw usage (the underlying service metrics, such as hours and GB of memory). Crucially for cost allocation, it has features for cross-charging analysis – essentially, tools to attribute costs across your account hierarchy. For example, you can quickly see which subaccounts incurred the most cost in the current month, or how a particular service’s usage is split between teams. There’s also an export function to download detailed usage and cost data (e.g., an Excel with sheets by subaccount and service), which your finance team can use to build internal charge reports.

• BTP FinOps Automation (SAP’s Resource Consumption Monitor): SAP has released a BTP Financial Operations (FinOps) application, which is essentially an add-on toolkit for advanced cost management. It’s available as a sample deployment (on GitHub and SAP Community) that integrates with your BTP accounts. Key features include automated tag-based cost allocation (you can tag resources or subaccounts by project, and the tool will split costs accordingly), multi-account aggregation (for users with multiple global accounts or regions), and alerting on usage spikes. It can also feed data into SAP Analytics Cloud for dashboarding. For instance, if three departments share one large database instance, the FinOps app could be configured to allocate, say, 50% of that instance’s cost to Dept A, 30% to B, and 20% to C each month. This kind of automation reduces manual effort in cross-charging. While this application is not an out-of-the-box product (it’s a deployable solution provided by SAP as-is), it signals SAP’s focus on cloud cost governance. It can significantly help in a multi-project setup.
• Third-Party Cloud Cost Management Tools: Enterprises with multi-cloud usage often utilize tools such as CloudHealth, AWS Cost Explorer (for non-SAP clouds), or custom dashboards to monitor cloud spending. For SAP BTP specifically, third-party options are fewer (since BTP is more niche than AWS or Azure), but a knowledgeable SAP partner or an internal team can export BTP usage data and incorporate it into your broader FinOps dashboards. The goal is to have a single pane of glass showing each project’s total cloud costs, including BTP. Some organizations feed BTP cost data into their SAP ERP Controlling module or ITFM (IT Financial Management) software, allowing internal cost allocations to be handled through existing finance systems.
• Alerts and Policies: At a practical level, set up alerts for unusual spending patterns. SAP BTP Cockpit allows basic alerts (like if your credit usage reaches a certain threshold). The FinOps app extends this with daily monitoring and anomaly detection. You might configure alerts such as: “Notify IT Finance if any subaccount spends over X credits in a day” or “Alert the project owner if their monthly spend is trending 20% above forecast.” In addition, implement governance policies such as required tagging (naming conventions for subaccounts to identify the project owner) and periodic usage reviews (a monthly meeting to review BTP spend by project, discuss variances, and agree on any corrective actions).

By actively monitoring and using these tools, you move from reactive to proactive management of BTP costs. The FinOps practice is iterative: measure, share the data with teams, optimize, and refine your allocation and budgeting as projects evolve.

Contract and Budgeting Considerations

As an SAP licensing and contracts expert would advise, governance isn’t only an operational concern – it starts at negotiation and planning:

• Right-Size Your Credit Commit: If you know multiple projects will use BTP, aggregate their forecasted needs to negotiate a single CPEA credit pool that’s sufficient but not excessive. SAP often has a minimum commitment (e.g. $10/year or more, depending on the deal). Committing more credits can earn better discounts, but only commit what you reasonably expect to use. Involve each project team in forecasting their consumption (for instance, estimating the number of integration flows, memory requirements, and runtime hours they’ll need). It’s better to slightly under-commit and top-up later (or scale projects gradually) than grossly over-commit and end up scrambling to consume leftover credits.
• Negotiating Flexibility: When many teams share a pool, priorities can change – one project might be canceled or delayed while another ramps up. Try to negotiate contract terms that allow flexibility. For example, ask SAP if unused BTP credits can roll over to the next year or be converted to other SAP services (some customers negotiate converting unused BTP credits toward SaaS subscriptions like SuccessFactors or Ariba, in case they can’t use them on BTP). Also, clarify the overage policy: ensure you have the option to purchase additional credits mid-year at the contracted discount rate, rather than paying full price for overages due to a surprise spike.
• Interim True-ups: If your company does internal budgeting annually, consider a mid-year review of BTP spend. Projects often evolve; a mid-year checkpoint allows reallocation of the shared pool. For instance, if Project A is trending 50% over its expected usage and Project B is under-utilizing, you might “transfer” some credit budget from B to A, or plan a purchase of extra credits. At the same time, there’s time to negotiate (rather than at year-end in panic). Communicate these adjustments to stakeholders to avoid surprises.
• Cost Overrun Mitigation: Despite the best planning, there’s always a risk that a team will consume more than their share. Have a policy in place for what happens if a team significantly exceeds its allocation. Options include requiring the team’s department to fund the excess (through chargeback or additional budget transfer), throttling or optimizing their usage to reduce the run-rate, or, in extreme cases, temporarily suspending non-critical environments to conserve credits. This must be discussed beforehand, so everyone understands the rules of engagement.
• Controlling Unused Capacity: On the flip side, if credits are not being fully utilized (e.g., as year-end approaches, you have a surplus), have a plan to get value from them. This could mean accelerating a planned initiative into the current year, running extra training sessions or demos on BTP, or using credits to experiment with new services (since you’ve already paid for them). While the “use it or lose it” approach is not ideal for sound financial planning, it’s better to proactively utilize prepaid capacity for business benefits than to let it expire. Communicate this to project teams – there may be small backlog projects that could be quickly executed if resources are available.

Real-World Example:

Consider a manufacturing enterprise that purchased a 500,000 BTP credit package for the year to support five strategic projects. They initially allocated an expected 100k credits per project.

After six months, usage data showed very different consumption patterns:

• Project Alpha (Analytics dashboard) has already utilized 150,000 credits (30%), far exceeding the forecast due to higher data volumes and additional instances deployed.
• Project Beta (IoT integration) used only 50k (10%), as it’s still in early stages.
• The other three projects (Gamma, Delta, Epsilon) used around 60k–80k each (total ~45% together).

This left only ~20% of credits for the remaining half-year, potentially not enough given Alpha’s pace. The CIO’s office took action: they convened a review, where Project Alpha agreed to optimize (clean up unused systems, switch some workloads to a cheaper service tier) to reduce its monthly burn.

They also decided Project Beta could delay a portion of its work to next year (freeing some credits), and reallocated 20k credits “budget” from Beta to Alpha. Additionally, they approached SAP to discuss a top-up purchase of 50k credits, leveraging the existing agreement’s discount rates, to ensure the pool suffices for the year.

Thanks to early detection (via detailed subaccount usage reports) and cross-team transparency, they averted an overage crisis or a situation where critical projects run out of cloud resources. Each project’s costs were later settled in internal accounting: Alpha’s department absorbed a larger share, while Beta’s unused allocation was credited back to central IT funds.

This example highlights that ongoing governance and open communication are key.

By monitoring and adjusting, the company optimized its use of prepaid credits and ensured all projects remained on track.

Recommendations

To successfully allocate SAP BTP costs across projects and maintain control of a shared credit pool, consider the following best practices:

• Structure Your Accounts: Create separate BTP subaccounts (or groups of subaccounts) for each major project or team to isolate and track their usage. Use directories and consistent naming and tagging conventions for clarity.
• Implement Labeling: Leverage SAP BTP’s labeling feature to tag subaccounts with project names, departments, or cost centers. This will enable quick filtering and aggregation of costs by those tags in the BTP cockpit or exported reports.
• Start with Showback: Begin by providing each team a monthly cost report of their BTP usage. Make the data transparent and easy to understand (e.g., charts of spend by service). This builds accountability and awareness, even if you aren’t charging them yet.
• Gradually Transition to Chargeback: If appropriate, evolve into an internal chargeback process once data and trust are established. Ensure all stakeholders agree on the chargeback methodology (e.g., actual costs vs. fixed allocation, handling of shared resources) to prevent disputes.
• Use Cost Monitoring Tools: Regularly review the Costs and Usage dashboard in the SAP BTP cockpit. Set up alerts for unusual spikes. Consider deploying SAP’s BTP FinOps (Resource Consumption Monitor) tool for automated cost distribution and advanced analytics, especially if you have many teams or complex usage patterns.
• Define Internal Budgets: Allocate an expected credit budget to each project at the beginning of the year or quarter. Treat it as their “cloud budget”. Compare actual consumption against these budgets on a monthly basis, and require justification or optimization plans if a project is trending over its budget.
• Optimize Cloud Usage: Encourage and train teams to follow best practices for cloud cost optimization. This includes rightsizing service plans (avoiding over-provisioning capacity), scheduling non-production resources to shut down when not in use, utilizing free service tier options for development and testing when possible, and eliminating unused services. Little optimizations across projects add up and keep the shared spend in check.
• Plan for Surges and Unused Credits: Identify early if a project is likely to experience a surge in usage (e.g., a go-live event) and factor that into your capacity planning. Conversely, if some credits appear to be unused, find ways to utilize them (such as additional testing, employee training environments, etc.) to prevent value from being lost. Communicate these plans across teams so everyone is aligned.
• Engage Finance & Adjust Regularly: Involve your finance or controlling department in the BTP cost governance process. Align the showback and chargeback reports with your corporate financial reporting. Revisit the allocation model periodically – for example, quarterly refinements to percentage splits for shared services, or rebalancing project budgets based on actuals.
• Negotiate Smart Contracts: When renewing or expanding SAP BTP agreements, bring usage data to the table to inform negotiations. Leverage the insights (which services you used most, which projects drove consumption) to negotiate better terms or a credit structure. For instance, if one service is dominating costs, consider whether a separate subscription would reduce these costs. Ensure clauses for flexibility (carryover, conversion, top-ups at discounted rates) are discussed to protect your investment in a multi-team scenario.

By following these recommendations, CIOs and CTOs can turn a potentially unruly shared credit pool into a well-governed, efficient cloud investment that empowers many projects without financial surprises.

FAQ

Q1: How can I prevent one project from consuming all the BTP credits and starving other projects?
A1: Implement governance guardrails. Use separate subaccounts for each project and monitor their usage. Set internal credit budgets for each and implement alerts when a team approaches its limit. If possible, enable quotas on certain services per subaccount. Regularly review consumption – if one project consistently requires more than the allocated amount, you may need to redistribute credits or purchase additional resources, but this should be a conscious decision, not a surprise.

Q2: Is it better to have multiple BTP global accounts to split costs by project instead of one shared global account?
A2: Generally, one global account with a shared credit pool is easier to manage under a single enterprise agreement (and gets volume discounts). SAP’s tools enable cost splitting within a single global account through subaccounts and labels. Multiple global accounts (each with its contract) could be physically separated by team. Still, you’d lose the flexibility of sharing unused credits and possibly pay higher rates if each account’s usage is smaller. Only very large enterprises or those with completely separate lines of business may negotiate multiple BTP contracts; for most, it’s best to share one pool and govern internally.

Q3: What tools can I use to track BTP usage by project in detail?
A3: Start with the SAP BTP Cockpit’s Costs and Usage section, which shows usage and costs per subaccount, service, etc. You can filter or export this data to see exactly how much each project (subaccount) consumed each month. For more advanced needs, deploy SAP’s BTP FinOps (Resource Consumption Monitor) application, which provides tagging-based cost allocation, multi-account aggregation, and integrations for analytics. Additionally, you can integrate BTP usage data into your existing cloud cost management or BI tools by using the export or APIs that SAP provides.

Q4: How do we allocate the costs of a shared BTP service between teams? (For example, two teams using one SAP HANA instance.)
A4: In cases of shared infrastructure, you’ll need to decide on an allocation key. This could be based on usage metrics (if measurable per team) – for instance, if one team’s usage is 70% of the database workload and another’s 30%, split costs 70/30. If usage is difficult to measure, agree on a fair percentage or factor, such as the number of users or transactions per team. Document this in your internal policy. Some tools can help: SAP’s cost monitor app allows fixed percentage splits for a resource’s cost. However, it may often require exporting usage logs or estimates to justify the breakdown. The key is transparency: both teams should understand and accept the basis of the split to avoid conflicts.

Q5: What’s the difference between showback and chargeback, and which should we use?
A5: Showback means you inform each team how much cost they incurred, without actually billing them. Chargeback means you formally deduct that cost from each team’s budget (they “pay” for their usage). Showback is easier to start with and still drives awareness. Chargeback enforces accountability since teams feel the cost impact directly. Many organizations begin with showback to establish trust in the numbers, then transition to chargeback once processes are mature. The choice also depends on culture – if business units are accustomed to internal billing and have separate budgets, chargeback can be effective. If not, showback might achieve the necessary accountability with less friction.

Q6: How can we negotiate our SAP BTP agreement to better support multi-project usage?
A6: When negotiating with SAP, leverage the fact that multiple teams will use BTP to commit to a larger volume, thereby securing better discounts, while ensuring flexibility. Ask for provisions such as: the ability to carry over some unused credits to the next period, the option to reallocate credits to other SAP services or cloud products if priorities change, and predefined rates for additional credits if you need to top up mid-year (so you’re not stuck paying full on-demand price). It’s also wise to negotiate for regular usage reports and possibly even SAP advisory check-ins, which can help you manage consumption effectively. Essentially, align the contract with your governance plan: SAP should be aware that you plan to have multiple projects and require transparency and flexibility to ensure their success.

Q7: What if our BTP credit consumption is lower than expected – can we get a refund or use credits elsewhere?
A7: In a standard agreement, prepaid credits are “use it or lose it” for the term of the contract – refunds are not typical. That’s why accurate sizing is important. However, you might be able to negotiate some leeway, such as converting unused BTP credits towards other SAP offerings (perhaps by adding to a SaaS subscription) or carrying a percentage forward to the next term. If you consistently under-consume, consider reducing your commitment in the next renewal to avoid waste. In the meantime, if you’ve spare credits, consider deploying additional value-add projects (for example, building that prototype or proof-of-concept you’ve been postponing) to take advantage of the sunk cost.

Q8: How do we handle BTP cost overruns if a project exceeds its planned usage?
A8: First, ensure you detect it early via monitoring. If a project is trending over, engage with that team to understand why – maybe the scope grew or there was a performance issue causing inefficiency. In the short term, you have a few options: absorb the overage in the central IT budget (which is not ideal in the long term), charge the project’s department for the excess (if using chargeback, this happens automatically), or mitigate the issue by optimizing usage or pausing certain activities. Also, check if you can purchase additional credits at contractual rates to cover the overage, which is usually cheaper than paying overage fees on the fly. Long-term, feed this back into your planning: it might mean increasing that project’s allocation next cycle or investing in optimization to prevent repeat overruns.

Q9: Will using subscriptions for some services make cost allocation easier?
A9: It can in certain cases. A subscription (fixed annual cost for a set capacity of a service) gives you a predictable cost that you can assign to one project or department. For example, if Project A alone needs a SAP Integration Suite subscription, you know exactly what to charge them per year. This prevents them from drawing on the shared credits for that service. It simplifies cost allocation because it’s a direct expense for that team. However, subscriptions reduce flexibility – if that project doesn’t use the full capacity, money is wasted. If another team wants to use the same service, they can’t tap into Project A’s subscription without a separate deal. In practice, many enterprises use a hybrid approach: a credit pool for most services and perhaps a subscription for one or two high-use services dedicated to specific teams. It’s worth comparing costs: sometimes consuming a service via the credit pool is cheaper with your discounts, versus a standalone subscription. Always evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Q10: How can we ensure our internal cost allocation feels fair to all teams involved?
A10: Fairness comes from transparency and collaboration. Involve the project teams in setting the ground rules – explain how costs are measured and let them provide input on allocation methods (especially for shared resources). Provide timely and detailed reports so no one is surprised by their bill. If a team significantly disagrees with how costs are allocated, hear them out – maybe the model needs adjustment (for example, a research team might argue they shouldn’t pay for unused standby systems that another team insisted on keeping). Regular cross-departmental meetings to review BTP spending can foster understanding; teams see each other’s usage and learn from peers who optimize their usage well. Lastly, leadership support is crucial: if the CIO/CTO communicates that cloud costs will be managed and everyone is responsible for prudent usage, it sets the tone that the policy is to help the company innovate sustainably, not to punish teams.

Read about our SAP Advisory Services.

Schedule a meeting to discuss our SAP Advisory Services.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Email *

Company

Message *

Submit