Indirect access is the most common source of large, unbudgeted SAP demands, and SAP's exposure figures are routinely inflated. We rebuild the number independently, scenario by scenario, and settle it on defensible terms.
This engagement is bought when SAP raises indirect or digital access: a claim in an audit finding, a document count presented in a renewal conversation, or a pointed question about third party systems touching SAP data. The figure is large, the methodology is opaque, and finance wants to know how much of it is real.
It also serves organizations that want the answer before SAP asks: architecture teams connecting e commerce, CRM, or middleware to SAP systems, and procurement teams heading into an S/4HANA or RISE negotiation where indirect access will surface as leverage. Knowing your exposure first changes who controls that conversation.
Indirect and digital access claims are built to a pattern, and each element of the pattern is contestable:
An independent baseline, contract analysis, and a settlement designed to close the issue permanently: that is what turns an open ended demand into a bounded, negotiated outcome.
The engagement follows the four workstreams of our indirect access defense statement of work. The landscape is inventoried and classified, the contractual defense is built scenario by scenario, every resolution path is costed, and information flows to SAP only on your terms.
| Deliverable | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Exposure assessment report | The full interface inventory, risk classification per scenario, an independent document count baseline, and the comparison against SAP's figures. |
| Defense position memo | The contractual arguments per scenario, a strength rating for each, and the recommended line of defense. |
| Settlement strategy paper | Scenario cost models across digital access, DAAP, legacy licensing, and contested paths, with target and walk away figures and required terms. |
| Audit response protocol | Who communicates with SAP, what is shared and when, and written reviews of every data request and response. |
| Proposal assessments to close | A written assessment of each SAP proposal and meeting preparation briefs through to resolution. |
SAP's indirect access demands work because most companies cannot check them. We can: the document counts, the scenario classifications, and the contract interpretations behind the claim are each rebuilt independently, and the parts that do not survive scrutiny come off the number before negotiation starts.
The defense draws on 500+ engagements across 11 enterprise vendors, including SAP audit and indirect access resolutions where the final figure bore no resemblance to the opening demand. We also know when the Digital Access Adoption Program genuinely helps and when it is a conversion sales tool wearing a discount.
No vendor money touches the advice: no reseller agreements, no referral fees, and nothing to gain from you licensing more documents than the evidence requires.
One fixed, all inclusive fee covers all four workstreams, up to four advisory calls, and email support through the term, with settlement terms designed to close the issue permanently, including release language for past use and clear definitions for the scenarios that matter to your roadmap.
Indirect access and audit outcomes on the record.
A technology firm resolved its SAP indirect access claim after the document count was rebuilt independently.
✓ Published case studyA German automotive manufacturer removed 4 million euros of audit exposure while negotiating its RISE migration.
✓ Published case studyA Michigan automotive supplier defeated an audit claim by demonstrating its indirect usage was properly licensed.
✓ Published case studyA Swiss multinational closed its SAP audit from a documented entitlement position.
Any situation where third party systems, interfaces, middleware, or external users create, read, update, or delete data in SAP systems. SAP monetizes it through digital access document counting or legacy named user claims, and it is the most common source of large, unbudgeted SAP compliance demands.
Because they rest on aggressive document counting assumptions, worst case scenario classifications, and contract interpretations that do not survive scrutiny. An independent baseline routinely lands far below SAP's presented figure.
Sometimes. DAAP can cap exposure at a discount, but it is also a conversion tool that assumes SAP's document counts are right. We evaluate it against your specific position and the alternative paths before any commitment.
Often, partly. Scenarios can be covered through existing named users, engine licenses, or the language of historical agreements and price lists. Building those coverage arguments is a core workstream of the engagement.
The response protocol comes first, so nothing further reaches SAP unreviewed. The exposure baseline and defense position are then built inside the audit timeline, and every finding is answered from evidence rather than urgency.
With settlement terms designed for permanence: release language for past use, clear definitions for future scenarios, and protection against repeat claims. A settlement without those terms is a pause, not a resolution.
The integration landscape: interfaces, middleware, RFC and IDoc flows, APIs, and third party applications touching SAP, plus your SAP contracts, system measurement history, and any SAP correspondence or estimation tool output.
The exposure assessment report typically lands within 15 business days of complete landscape and measurement data, with the defense memo and settlement strategy following on the schedule the claim demands.
An independent baseline, a scenario by scenario defense, and settlement terms that close the issue for good. That is the difference between a demand and a negotiation.
One letter a month. Negotiation moves, audit signals, and price book shifts.