SAP Indirect vs Digital Access: How to Choose the Right Licensing Model

SAP Indirect vs Digital Access

Introduction: Why the Indirect vs Digital Access Decision Matters in 2025

SAP licensing is at a crossroads in 2025. Many CIOs and IT Asset Managers are wrestling with whether to stick with the traditional Indirect Access model (licensing by named users) or switch to SAP’s newer Digital Access model (licensing by digital documents).

This decision has major cost and compliance implications. Choose incorrectly, and you could face either skyrocketing licensing costs or steep audit penalties down the road.

The issue comes to a head during SAP license audits, S/4HANA migration projects, and contract renewals.

SAP audits now routinely scrutinize “indirect use” – scenarios where third-party systems or external users access SAP data. In the past, this was a gray area that led to high-profile disputes.

Companies were shocked to discover, for example, that an e-commerce website feeding orders into SAP technically meant every customer required a user license. The result? Surprise bills in the millions if an audit uncovered unlicensed indirect usage.

To address these challenges, SAP introduced a new licensing approach called Digital Access in 2018. This model aims to align licensing fees more closely with actual system usage (documents and transactions) rather than headcount.

As we move further into the digital era – with companies connecting SAP to e-commerce portals, mobile apps, IoT sensors, and more – understanding the pros, cons, and costs of Indirect vs Digital Access is more critical than ever.

In this comprehensive guide, we’ll break down how each model works, their cost structures, and how to decide which is best for your organization in 2025.

How Indirect Access Licensing Works (Named User Model)

Under SAP’s legacy Indirect Access rules, any person or system that indirectly uses SAP must be covered by a Named User license.

In practical terms, if a third-party application or interface is accessing SAP data or functions, SAP considers it “use” that requires a licensed user on the SAP side – even if the person using the third-party system never logs into SAP directly.

Named User Types: SAP offers various categories of named user licenses, including Professional Users, Limited Professional Users, and specific External/Employee Self-Service users.

A Professional User license is the most powerful (and expensive), granting full SAP access. Limited or Employee licenses cost less but restrict what the user can do.

Regardless of type, the old model ties licenses to individuals (or sometimes devices/system logons), not transactions.

Example – The E-commerce Portal: Imagine you run an online store that isn’t built on SAP. Customers browse and place orders on your website, and those orders then flow into SAP ECC or S/4HANA for processing.

Under traditional rules, SAP could argue that each of those customers is an indirect user of SAP. In theory, 1,000 customers = 1,000 named user licenses you’d need to purchase.

That’s clearly impractical and costly – no company is going to buy a thousand SAP logins for people who just buy products on a website.

Yet this scenario actually happened in cases like the infamous SAP vs. Diageo lawsuit, which brought indirect use to mainstream attention.

Pros of the Indirect (Named User) Model:

• Simplicity: It’s a straightforward concept – count your users. If external systems or portals are used, you will need to find a way to license the human users behind them (or sometimes a “proxy” user for system integration).
• Works for Minimal External Use: If you only have a handful of external integrations or third-party users, you might already have spare SAP licenses to cover them. In a low-volume scenario, sticking with named users can be cost-effective and avoid changing your licensing approach.

Cons of the Indirect Model:

• Over-Counting and Over-Paying: The model doesn’t differentiate by activity level. A customer who places one order a year could require the same license as a full-time internal user. You might end up buying expensive licenses for light-touch external users or devices.
• Audit Risk: Indirect usage was often poorly defined in contracts. Many companies didn’t realize, until an audit, that interfaces like CRM systems, supplier portals, or IoT gateways were creating an unlicensed “back door” into SAP. Auditors can swoop in, count up all those unlicensed touches, and hit you with a huge compliance bill for unpaid licenses (plus back maintenance fees). The risk is unpredictable – you can run for years with no issues, then get a nasty surprise.
• Scalability Issues: As you connect SAP to more digital channels (APIs, automation, partners), the named user model scales poorly. Costs grow linearly with each new user or device. For organizations pursuing digital transformation, this model becomes a barrier (every new app or integration potentially triggers the need for more SAP user licenses).

In summary, the Indirect Access model served a world where integrations were limited. In 2025’s connected landscape, its limitations are apparent. That’s where SAP’s alternative approach comes in.

How Digital Access Licensing Works (Document-Based Model)

SAP’s Digital Access licensing model (also known as document-based licensing) was introduced to provide a more transparent and flexible way to license indirect use.

Instead of tying licenses to people, Digital Access ties licenses to the business documents created in SAP by indirect activity.

The 9 Digital Access Document Types: SAP identified nine specific document categories that count under this model. These are common transactions that external systems might trigger in SAP.

The nine document types are:

• Sales Documents – e.g., sales orders or quotes created in SAP
• Purchase Documents – e.g., purchase orders created
• Invoice Documents – customer or supplier invoices created
• Manufacturing Documents – production orders or related manufacturing records
• Material Documents – goods movements, goods receipts/issues
• Quality Management Documents – quality inspection records, QM notifications
• Service & Maintenance Documents – service orders, maintenance orders/notifications
• Financial Documents – financial postings (general ledger entries, journal entries)
• Time Management Documents – HR time entries or confirmations

If an external system (or non-SAP application) triggers the creation of one of these documents in your SAP system, that document counts toward your licensed volume.

SAP sells Digital Access in bundles of documents (for example, you might purchase a block of 1000 documents/year, or some similar metric; the exact pricing unit can vary). Any documents created beyond your licensed amount would require you to purchase additional capacity.

Importantly, if a document doesn’t fall into those nine categories, it does not require a license under this model. SAP deliberately limited the scope to these key documents, which represent the majority of business transactions.

This means some activities (like purely reading data or creating a custom document type) might not incur a Digital Access charge at all. For instance, an IoT sensor updating a temperature reading in SAP (if that doesn’t create a listed document) wouldn’t count. This represents a significant change: under the old model, any use was licensable, but under Digital Access, only the creation of the defined documents matters.

How Usage Is Measured:

SAP provides tools to help customers measure and estimate their document usage. Two main methods are: the SAP Passport mechanism and a Digital Access estimation service/tool.

The Passport is a technical tracking feature that tags transactions entering SAP with an identifier, allowing the system to trace whether a document was created via an external system.

The estimation tool (which SAP offered free of charge in early adoption phases) can scan your systems to count how many of each of the nine document types are being generated indirectly. With these tools, companies can determine their annual document volumes for licensing purposes.

Digital Access Adoption Program (DAAP): To encourage customers to switch to this model, SAP launched the Digital Access Adoption Program in 2018. DAAP offered steep discounts (up to 90%) on the cost of digital document licenses for the initial purchase, and it allowed customers to trade in existing named-user licenses for credit.

This helped offset the cost of transitioning to a document-based licensing model. SAP initially set end dates for this program (it was extended multiple times through 2021 and 2022), but eventually removed the end date and kept the program open indefinitely.

As of 2025, customers can still negotiate DAAP incentives, effectively securing a heavily discounted price per document and making the switch more financially attractive. (SAP reserves the right to end the program, but so far it continues.)

The takeaway: if you’re considering Digital Access, make sure to leverage these incentives while they last.

Pros of the Digital Access Model:

• Licensing Aligns with Usage: You pay for the system outcomes (e.g., number of orders or invoices) rather than paying for every user. This feels fairer in scenarios where you might have thousands of external users generating a manageable volume of transactions.
• Avoids “Named User” Explosion: No need to assign SAP user IDs to every customer or device. You can have unlimited external users as long as the documents they create are within your licensed volume. This is ideal for high-volume environments, such as e-commerce sites or IoT platforms, where user counts are large but individual usage may be light.
• Scalable and Predictable (if measured): If you understand your document volumes, costs become a more predictable, metered expense. It’s easier to forecast spending based on transactions. It also largely eliminates the audit surprises – if you’re correctly counting documents, there’s less ambiguity about what’s licensed or not.

Cons of the Digital Access Model:

• Requires Monitoring: You’ll need to track document counts actively. This is a new responsibility for license management teams. Under the old model, once you bought user licenses, you were covered (until an audit). Under Digital Access, if your business activity spikes (say, a huge increase in orders one quarter), you might blow past your licensed documents and need to true-up sooner than expected.
• Potential for Cost Spikes: Because its usage is based on, costs can increase directly with business growth. Good news if business is booming – but you’ll need a budget for additional SAP licenses as those document counts rise. There’s also the risk of underestimating: if you initially buy too small a document bundle, you’ll have to go back to SAP and purchase more (possibly at a higher unit price if not negotiated up front). Conversely, overestimating means you paid for more capacity than you used.
• Complexity and Change Management: Transitioning to this model means learning new measurement tools and processes. Both IT and business teams must be educated on what counts as a licensable document. There can be gray areas, too – for example, if an external system updates an existing order, does that count? (SAP’s rule is generally that only creating a new document counts, not updates or reads, which helps.) It’s vital to get clarity in your contract on how documents are counted to avoid disputes. Initial setup can involve running SAP’s evaluation reports, refining how interfaces are identified, and possibly modifying certain processes to optimize license usage.

In short, Digital Access is a more modern approach designed for an interconnected world. It shifts the cost calculation from a vague “number of users” to a concrete “number of documents.” But with that shift comes a need for more active license management to ensure you stay compliant and cost-efficient.

Cost Structure Comparison: User-Based vs Document-Based Licensing

One of the biggest factors in deciding between Indirect and Digital Access is cost. Which model will be more cost-effective for your organization? The answer depends on your usage patterns – specifically, the number of external users vs. the volume of documents those users generate.

Below, we compare scenarios to illustrate the cost dynamics of named user licensing versus document licensing.

Sample Scenarios and Break-Even Analysis

To make this concrete, let’s look at two simplified scenarios:

Note: The numbers above are illustrative, not actual price quotes. SAP’s pricing for both user licenses and document licenses varies, and discounts are common.

However, the pattern is clear: the named user model’s cost scales with the number of users, whereas the digital document model’s cost scales with the number of transactions.

Where is the break-even? It depends on ratios, such as how many documents, on average, will one external user generate? If each external user only creates a few documents per year, then paying per document will usually be cheaper than buying that user a full license. On the other hand, if an external integration or user generates thousands of documents, a single named user license (which allows unlimited use by that user) might be more cost-effective.

For example, suppose one named user license is roughly equivalent in cost to 10,000 documents worth of Digital Access. If an external system user creates 50,000 documents per year, the document model would cost approximately 5 times the named user model for that user, favoring the named user approach.

But if they create only 500 documents, the document model is a tiny fraction of the cost of a user license. Most organizations find that for large populations of occasional users (like customers or IoT devices), Digital Access is dramatically cheaper. Conversely, for small numbers of heavy-use system accounts, sticking with named users may be less costly.

In short, Digital Access tends to be cost-effective for high-volume, many-user scenarios, whereas the legacy model can suffice for low-volume, few-user cases. The prudent approach is to model your own data: calculate the cost of covering all indirect usage with named users vs. the cost of licensing the documents those users generate. This analysis will reveal your personal break-even point.

Pros & Cons Summary of Each Model

To recap the advantages and disadvantages, here’s a quick comparison of Indirect vs Digital Access:

Indirect Access (Named User) – Pros:

• Simple concept (licenses per user) and familiar to manage.
• It can be cheaper if you only have a few external users or already own surplus user licenses.
• No need to track transaction counts – once a user is licensed, their usage is covered.

Indirect Access – Cons:

• High cost for large audiences: Doesn’t scale well to hundreds or thousands of external users (each requires a paid license).
• Audit and compliance risk: Indirect usage often goes unnoticed until an audit, resulting in unexpected back-charges. Compliance is “hidden” until checked.
• Inefficient for light use: Paying the full license price for users or devices that only perform a few transactions is not cost-effective.

Digital Access (Document Licensing) – Pros:

• Aligns cost with actual activity: You pay based on actual documents/transactions, which often saves money when user counts are large but activity per user is low.
• Scalable for digital growth: Enables broad integration (APIs, portals, IoT) without breaking the bank – you don’t need to count every user or sensor, just the documents they create.
• Reduced audit surprises: Clear rules on what is licensed (the 9 document types) mean fewer grey areas. If you’re measuring your document usage, you won’t get blindsided by an audit – you already know your compliance status.

Digital Access – Cons:

• Requires active monitoring: You must regularly track and manage document usage. Indirect consumption becomes a metered resource to watch, much like cloud service usage.
• Cost variability: Costs can spike if business activity spikes. Budgeting requires predicting transaction volumes, and you might need contingency funds for unexpected growth.
• Initial implementation effort: Setting up the counting tools and negotiating the switch can be a complex and involved project. There may be ambiguity in how certain documents are counted, which you need to iron out in the contract (for example, distinguishing internal vs external document creation can be tricky without SAP’s tooling).

Both models have their place. The choice comes down to balancing cost predictability vs. risk tolerance. Indirect access (named users) is a fixed upfront cost with latent risk (audits), whereas digital access is an ongoing variable cost with less compliance uncertainty.

When to Stick with Indirect Access (Named Users)

Staying on the legacy model might be the right move in several situations:

• Minimal External Usage: If your SAP system has very few touchpoints with third-party applications or outside users, you may not have an indirect access “problem” to solve. For example, a company that interfaces only SAP with one payroll system and one shipping carrier, involving just a handful of technical users, might easily cover those with existing licenses. In this case, the effort to switch to Digital Access may not be justified.
• Surplus of Licenses: Many organizations already own more SAP named user licenses than they actively use (often due to past true-ups or over-estimation). If you effectively have a “buffer” of licenses, you could allocate those to any indirect use scenarios and remain compliant without new spend. It might make sense to utilize what you’ve paid for instead of adopting a new model.
• Predictable, Low Document Volume: Perhaps you do have external integrations, but they generate a very low number of documents in SAP. Suppose external systems create only a trickle of transactions (e.g., a few dozen sales orders a month). In that case, the cost under Digital Access might be higher than just designating a couple of named users to cover it. Especially if those external users are actually internal employees or known partners (where giving them named logins is feasible), sticking with named users can be simpler.
• Unclear ROI on Switching: There is an upfront effort (and potentially cost) to switch to Digital Access. If initial analysis shows your indirect usage is already efficiently covered by existing licenses or the financial benefit of Digital Access is marginal, you might choose to wait. Some customers take a “wait and see” approach, deferring a switch until there’s a compelling reason (such as a big new integration project or a push from SAP during contract renewal).

In essence, if indirect access isn’t causing pain – either in compliance or cost – and your growth in that area is limited, you might reasonably stick with the status quo a while longer.

Do ensure, however, that your SAP contracts clearly define indirect use to avoid surprises. If you’re relying on named users, it should be unambiguous that those cover the specific indirect scenarios in play.

When to Adopt Digital Access (Document Licensing)

There are strong arguments for leaping Digital Access:

• High Volume of External Transactions: This is the number one driver. If your business involves heavy interactions between SAP and external parties/systems – for instance, an online store with thousands of customer orders, or IoT devices streaming data into SAP – the document model almost always comes out cheaper and cleaner. Rather than attempting to license every user or device, you license the throughput of documents. Organizations with e-commerce, customer/partner portals, mobile apps, or sensor networks connected to SAP should seriously consider Digital Access. It turns a massive indirect user population into a manageable, pay-per-use model.
• Multiple Third-Party Integrations: If you have numerous systems interfacing with SAP (CRM, supply chain platforms, B2B networks, etc.), the complexity of tracking licenses for each integration under the old model can be daunting. Digital Access simplifies this – no matter how many integration points, you just count documents centrally. It provides a unified way to license APIs and machine-to-machine interactions that were awkward to cover with named users.
• S/4HANA Migration or RISE with SAP: Moving to S/4HANA (especially if you choose RISE or a cloud subscription model) is a natural juncture to update your licensing. SAP has been incentivizing new S/4HANA contracts to include Digital Access. In some RISE deals, the pricing model for indirect usage is inherently document-based (and sometimes bundled). If you’re undertaking a major migration or re-license, it makes sense to adopt the modern model rather than carrying over the old one. It aligns with SAP’s strategic direction and can often be bundled into your S/4HANA contract at favorable terms.
• Desire to Eliminate Indirect Use Risk: Perhaps your organization was already bitten by an indirect access audit, or you are generally risk-averse regarding compliance. Digital Access offers peace of mind – it clearly delineates what’s licensed. By proactively switching, you can draw a line under the old ambiguity. Many companies use a DAAP deal as a sort of “amnesty”: you negotiate Digital Access, maybe get some credit for past licenses, and SAP, in turn, doesn’t pursue past indirect use discrepancies. In the future, you then operate with a clean slate and a transparent metric.
• Growing Digital Strategy: If your roadmap includes expanding digital channels, opening your SAP system to more apps and services, it’s forward-looking to choose Digital Access. It’s scalable: you can support growth by just monitoring and increasing document licenses as needed, instead of scrambling to assign a license for every new user or integration. In a world of microservices and automation, having a usage-based model fits better with growth.

In summary, if indirect usage is significant, growing, or central to your business, Digital Access likely yields both cost benefits and simpler compliance management. It turns what could be a licensing nightmare under the old model into a more predictable, usage-aligned expense.

Switching Considerations & Negotiation Tips

Deciding to switch to Digital Access is one thing – negotiating the switch with SAP is another.

Here are key considerations and tips if you plan to move from indirect (user) licensing to digital (document) licensing:

• Evaluate and Measure First: Before approaching SAP, do your homework. Use SAP’s Digital Access evaluation tools or your own usage analysis to determine how many of each document type you’re generating via indirect use. This data is your ammunition. It tells you what you would need to license under Digital Access. SAP may offer to help with this measurement (and indeed, their tools are useful), but you should conduct your own analysis too, so you fully understand your exposure.
• Leverage the DAAP Discounts: As mentioned, the Digital Access Adoption Program can significantly reduce costs. The standard offer was at least a 90% discount on your first batch of Digital Access licenses (in exchange for making the move). When negotiating, explicitly invoke DAAP – even if SAP doesn’t bring it up. In 2025, the program is still available, and many SAP account reps assume customers know about it. Ensure that your quote reflects the special pricing. If you’ve missed official program deadlines, note that SAP often still honors similar discounts, especially if it helps close a deal.
• Trade-In Credits: If you previously purchased shelfware licenses to cover indirect use (for example, you bought 200 extra Limited Professional Users “just in case” for interfaces), bring this up. As part of a digital access deal, SAP may allow you to convert unused license investment into credit toward the document licenses. Essentially, you’re saying, “I already paid for indirect use via extra user licenses; if we move to Digital Access, I want to repurpose that spend.” This can sometimes reduce the net cost of switching.
• Timing – Align with Renewals or Big Buys: Your strongest negotiating position is when you’re about to spend significant money or renew your agreement. If your ECC contract renewal or S/4HANA migration is coming up, that’s a prime time to include Digital Access in the negotiations. SAP sales teams are more flexible on Digital Access pricing when it’s part of a larger deal (they might throw in a large document volume at a nominal price to encourage a broader sale). If you’re mid-term, you can still switch by amending your contract, but you might not get as sweet a deal as when everything is on the table.
• Contract Clarity – Define Counting Rules: When you do sign up for Digital Access, ensure the contract language is crystal clear on how documents are counted. For example, clarify that only documents created by indirect systems count (not ones created by a human in SAP, not ones just read or updated indirectly). The standard SAP policy already says that, but it’s good to have it in writing. Also, clarify ambiguous cases, like interface vs. direct input — although SAP’s Passport technology should handle it, you want everyone on the same page to avoid future disputes. If you anticipate certain high-volume documents that might explode (say, thousands of financial documents due to an interface), you could negotiate specific terms or caps for those.
• Cap and Grow: In some negotiations, customers have obtained an agreement where SAP caps the cost or provides tiered pricing for volume growth. For instance, you might negotiate that if you exceed your document allotment by 20% in the first year, those extras are granted at the same discounted rate or at a pre-agreed price. Getting such terms can protect you from unforeseen spikes. Don’t assume it will be offered – you have to ask and justify why you need it (e.g., “Our business has seasonal peaks that could temporarily exceed the license count”).
• Don’t Double-Pay: Remember that adopting Digital Access doesn’t eliminate the need for named user licenses entirely – your internal users still need their licenses for direct SAP access. The switch mainly affects licensing of external, indirect usage. Make sure you’re not being charged twice. For example, if an internal user (already licensed) interacts via an external app, ensure SAP isn’t counting that as extra digital documents – typically, they shouldn’t, because the user is licensed. Clarity here prevents paying both a user license and a document license for the same activity.
• Negotiation Mindset: Treat Digital Access as just another item in your SAP licensing negotiation. SAP, like any vendor, may start with an offer that assumes a certain volume and price – you are free to counter with your data and desired terms. If the initial count or cost is too high, push back: “We measured X documents, not Y,” or “At that price per document, we might as well stick with named users – we need a better rate.” Often, SAP reps have leeway to improve the deal, especially if it means closing a compliance gap. Be willing to walk away from your current model if the economics don’t make sense; this gives you leverage.

Switching models is a significant move, but with careful negotiation, you can make it a win-win: SAP gets you officially on the new model (a win for them), and you get a flexible license model at a palatable cost (a win for you).

Compliance & Monitoring Regardless of Model

Whichever licensing route you choose, ongoing compliance and monitoring are essential. Licensing is not a “set and forget” task – especially not with SAP, which is known for its rigorous auditing process.

If you remain on Indirect Access (named user licensing):

• Regular User Audits: Continue to use SAP’s tools like USMM (User System Measurement Management) and LAW (License Administration Workbench) to track your named user licenses across systems. Ensure every active user ID is properly licensed and that inactive or duplicate accounts are cleaned up.
• Interface Inventory: Keep an updated list of all external systems interfacing with SAP. For each, document how you’ve licensed the usage. If an interface uses a technical user ID to access SAP, that user ID must be licensed appropriately (and you should have that on record). For example, if you have a middleware system making RFC calls to SAP with a service account, that service account might need a Professional user license under your contract – make sure it has one. Being proactive prevents auditors from catching you off guard.
• Educate and Communicate: Ensure your project teams know the implications of integrating new software with SAP. Sometimes a department might connect a new tool to SAP without thinking to involve the licensing team – until an audit flags it. Establish an internal process: whenever a new third-party integration is planned, it must go through a license impact review. This way, you either allocate an existing user license or at least acknowledge the risk.

If you move to Digital Access (document licensing):

• Implement the Passport/Tracking Tools: Work with your SAP admin team to enable the SAP Passport mechanism or relevant tracking for digital documents. This may involve updates or notes that SAP provides to ensure accurate document counting. Test that you can generate reports of document consumption. Ideally, integrate this monitoring into your regular IT governance.
• Periodic Internal Audits: Just as you would annually count users, do the same for documents. For example, quarterly or biannually run the Digital Access measurement to see how many documents of each type have been created indirectly. This will show trends and allow you to react (if one document type is trending way above forecast, investigate why – maybe a new interface is more active than expected).
• Set Alerts for Spikes: If possible, configure alerts in SAP for when certain document thresholds are passed. Some customers write custom jobs or use Solution Manager to flag when, say, 80% of the licensed documents are consumed. Early warning helps you either rein in usage or budget for an expansion before you’re out of compliance.
• Governance on Integrations: Similar to the indirect model, keep a governance process for new integrations. Now the focus will be on identifying if the integration will create any of the nine counted document types and estimating volume. For instance, if a team wants to add a new mobile app for field service that creates service orders in SAP, you’d assess how many service order documents that might generate and ensure your license covers it. Make it routine to ask “does this create a Digital Access document?” for every new connection to SAP.
• Audit Readiness: Even with Digital Access, SAP will still audit you. The difference is they might ask for your document counts instead of a list of unlicensed users. Maintain evidence for how you measure your usage and keep copies of any SAP-provided tools’ output. If you’ve stuck to the rules, an audit should align with what you already know, making it uneventful. Always reconcile your numbers with SAP’s if they do their own measurement, and resolve discrepancies (sometimes simple things like a patch level difference can cause count variations).

General tip: Keep your SAP contracts and license entitlements organized. Over time, as you negotiate changes (like moving to Digital Access or adjusting user counts), maintain a clear record of what your rights are. Compliance is much easier when you can definitively say, “We are entitled to X named users and Y digital documents, of types A, B, C, etc.” Too often, companies lose track of their entitlements, making them vulnerable during audits.

Finally, remember that SAP licensing is not static. Both your usage and SAP’s rules can evolve. What was compliant a year ago might drift out of compliance if you don’t adapt to changes. Whether on the old model or the new, assign ownership (often the IT Asset Management or SAP Basis team) to continuously monitor indirect usage, review logs, and stay up-to-date on SAP licensing notes. A bit of vigilance can prevent multi-million dollar headaches.

Recommendations & Next Steps for Decision-Makers

Choosing between Indirect and Digital Access is a strategic decision.

Here are some closing recommendations to help you make and execute the choice effectively:

1. Model Your Own Costs: Don’t rely on generic advice alone – plug in your organization’s numbers. Conduct a thorough analysis of how many external users and documents you have. Use that to compare the projected 5-year costs of each model. This data-driven approach will often make the best option clear (and it’s documentation you can show executives to justify a change).
2. Engage SAP Early (but Carefully): If you suspect Digital Access could be beneficial, initiate a dialogue with SAP (or your SAP partner). You can request a Digital Access evaluation service from SAP. Just be cautious – revealing a lot of unlicensed use before you have a plan can be sensitive. It’s wise to assess internally first, then involve SAP when you’re ready to discuss terms. When you do engage, express that you are considering the move and ask what incentives they can provide (they’ll likely mention DAAP if you haven’t).
3. Negotiate Hard, Leverage Everything: Whether sticking or switching, use every negotiation chip. If staying with named users, you might negotiate a clause to clarify indirect use or maybe secure some free licenses to cover borderline cases. If switching to documents, push for maximum discounts and favorable conditions (as outlined in the tips above). Remember, SAP sales reps have quotas and want to prevent you from seeking third-party support or reducing usage. Use that to your advantage to get a good deal.
4. Update Contracts with Clear Language: Whichever model you go with, ensure your contract explicitly covers how indirect usage is handled. No matter how friendly the discussions with SAP are, in the end, the contract text rules. If you stick with Indirect Access, explicitly document any known interfaces and state that you consider them covered by certain licenses. If you switch to Digital Access, make sure the contract lists the nine document types and any agreed exceptions or definitions. This will save a lot of arguments in the future if personnel change or memory fades.
5. Implement Continuous License Management: Treat indirect usage licensing as an ongoing program. Set up internal ownership, processes, and tools to continuously monitor usage and compliance. It’s wise to perform quarterly license compliance checks in-house. That way, when SAP’s official audit comes (typically annually or biannually), you are well prepared and there are no nasty surprises. Proactive management can also reveal optimization opportunities – for example, you might find ways to reduce document creation or consolidate interfaces, saving licensing costs.
6. Stay Informed: SAP licensing policies can evolve. For instance, today’s Digital Access model might get tweaked by SAP tomorrow (though major changes are unlikely without notice). Keep an eye on SAP announcements, user group discussions, or consult with licensing experts periodically. Peers in the industry and SAP forums (ASUG, DSAG, etc.) often share experiences that can alert you to pitfalls or new best practices in indirect usage management.

In conclusion, the best licensing model is the one that fits your usage profile and risk appetite. Some organizations will thrive sticking with the simplicity of named user licensing, while others will unlock significant savings and flexibility moving to document-based licensing.

Evaluate your situation in 2025’s context: the trend is towards digital integration and cloud, and SAP’s frameworks (like RISE) favor the Digital Access approach.

But the “legacy” model remains valid for those who manage it well.

By understanding both models deeply and negotiating smartly, you can turn SAP licensing from a potential liability into a well-managed asset – enabling your business’s growth instead of hindering it.

FAQ: SAP Indirect vs. Digital Access

Q: What is the difference between SAP Indirect Access and Digital Access?
A: Indirect Access refers to the legacy licensing approach where any use of SAP via third-party systems (like middleware, external apps, etc.) requires a named user license. Essentially, you license the people or systems indirectly using SAP. Digital Access is the newer model, where instead of licensing users, you license the documents created in SAP by indirect usage (covering nine specific document types). The key difference is users vs. documents: Indirect Access = pay per user (even if that user is an external or system user), Digital Access = pay per transaction/document (regardless of how many users or devices contribute to those). Digital Access was introduced to provide a more transparent, volume-based alternative for licensing indirect usage.

Q: What are SAP’s nine Digital Access document types, and why do they matter?
A: The nine Digital Access document types are categories of business documents that SAP counts for license purposes under the Digital Access model. They include: Sales Documents, Purchase Documents, Invoice Documents, Manufacturing Documents, Material Documents, Quality Management Documents, Service & Maintenance Documents, Financial Documents, and Time Management Documents. These cover common transactions like sales orders, purchase orders, invoices, production orders, goods movements, quality inspection records, service/maintenance orders, financial postings, and time entries. They matter because if an external system creates one of these in SAP, it consumes your Digital Access license capacity. Any document outside these categories (for example, a custom SAP object or just reading data) does not count against your license. Knowing which activities map to these document types is crucial for understanding what you need to license under Digital Access.

Q: Does read-only access (viewing or reporting data via an external system) require an SAP license?
A: It can. Under the old Indirect Access model, even read-only usage by an external application was technically considered “use” and thus required a named user license. For example, if you have a third-party reporting tool querying SAP data, SAP could insist that the tool or the person running it have an appropriate user license. However, under the Digital Access model, pure read-only actions generally do not count toward the document licenses because no new document is created in SAP. In other words, Digital Access charges for creating documents, not for retrieving or viewing them. Important: This doesn’t give carte blanche to unlimited read access; you should ensure your contract permits whatever read scenarios you have. But practically speaking, reading data via an API or report won’t incur document charges, whereas under named user licensing, you’d still need a user license for that API/report use. Always clarify these scenarios with SAP – in some cases, SAP may suggest a specialized license for extensive third-party reporting if it’s outside normal use.

Q: Is SAP’s Digital Access Adoption Program (DAAP) still available in 2025?
A: Yes. SAP has extended the DAAP multiple times, and it currently does not have a fixed end date. Initially, DAAP was a time-limited initiative (introduced in 2018 and extended through 2021) that enticed customers to move to Digital Access by offering steep discounts (often 90% off the list price) and license trade-in options. By late 2022, SAP announced the program would be extended indefinitely. As of 2025, customers can still take advantage of DAAP when switching to Digital Access. This means if you decide to migrate to the document-based model, you should absolutely inquire about DAAP incentives – SAP is typically willing to provide significant one-time discounts on the initial purchase of digital document licenses. Keep in mind, SAP could always choose to sunset the program in the future, but there’s no indication of that at the moment. If you’re on the fence, it’s wise to leverage DAAP sooner rather than later in case policies change.

Q: Can you switch from Indirect Access to Digital Access in the middle of a contract?
A: Yes, you can. Many customers transition mid-contract by negotiating an amendment or an additional agreement with SAP. There isn’t a requirement to wait until your license contract expires to adopt Digital Access. In practice, though, the best time to switch is often during a renewal or a larger negotiation (such as an S/4HANA migration deal or a periodic true-up discussion). Mid-term, you can approach SAP with your intent to convert – SAP will be happy to sell you the Digital Access licenses and may incorporate DAAP discounts. They’ll essentially add the Digital Access metric to your entitlement and possibly adjust your named user counts if some become redundant. Just be sure to negotiate the financial terms carefully (don’t simply accept a quote – use the tips we discussed). Once agreed, your contract will be updated to reflect the new licensing model in the future. Also, clarify with SAP how they will treat any past indirect usage once you switch (the expectation is that adopting Digital Access addresses it moving forward, but you want to avoid them coming back with an audit claim for past years as part of the deal).

Q: Which model is cheaper for scenarios like customer portals or IoT integrations – Indirect User or Digital Access?
A: Generally, Digital Access is cheaper for portals and IoT. Customer or partner portals typically involve many users each doing a few things (e.g. checking an order status, placing an occasional order). Licensing each user would be prohibitively expensive, whereas licensing the few document transactions they generate is very efficient. IoT integrations are similar: you might have thousands of devices (sensors, machines) sending small bits of data into SAP. With named users, you’d need a license for each device or a complex metric, which doesn’t make sense. With Digital Access, if those devices create, say, material documents or maintenance records, you just license the volume of those documents. The document model was practically designed for these use cases. The traditional model might only be cheaper in a scenario where you truly have just a handful of external users and they generate tons of transactions each – a rarer case. For example, if you had a portal used by only 3 external distributors but they submit thousands of orders daily, you could license those 3 with named users (covering unlimited use) and possibly come out ahead versus paying for every order document. But such cases are the exception. In most portal, B2B, B2C, or IoT situations with large user/device counts, Digital Access provides a much more cost-effective and scalable solution.

Q: How do you calculate or estimate how many Digital Access documents you need?
A: SAP provides a Digital Access Evaluation Service and tools that can help you calculate this. The basic approach is: activate the tracking mechanisms (like SAP Passport) in your system, then run SAP’s evaluation report, which counts how many of each of the nine document types are created by indirect means. SAP Notes and how-to guides are available to set this up. The tool will output an estimated annual document count for each type. You might also estimate manually by looking at the transactions from known interfaces. For example, if you know your web store feeds 10,000 orders into SAP per month, that’s 120,000 sales documents per year right there. Do this for each interface (purchases from a procurement system, service orders from a field app, etc.). Sum it up and maybe add a growth buffer. SAP’s official method is to run their program across your SAP system logs, which is quite accurate. If you’re not living with certain integrations yet, you’ll have to project based on expected usage. Once you have the counts, you convert that into license needs (SAP sells blocks, so figure out how many blocks cover your total). This exercise is critical before purchasing Digital Access because it tells you how big a document license to negotiate. It’s wise to involve someone from your SAP Basis or security team who knows where and how external systems connect, to ensure you count everything. And remember to count only externally created docs – if an internal user creates a sales order, that’s not “digital access” because it’s regular use. The evaluation tools usually filter this out by checking if the action had a “digital access flag” (meaning it came via an external interface).

Q: Does SAP provide any tools to monitor Digital Access usage over time?
A: Yes. SAP’s primary tool for ongoing monitoring is the SAP Passport technology and associated logging. Once configured, your SAP system will tag and log every creation of a digital document by an external source. You can then report on these logs to see your consumption. SAP has delivered notes and updates that integrate this functionality into transaction USMM and SLAW2 (which are traditionally used for user license measurement) so that digital documents can be measured similarly to users. Additionally, third-party license management tool have begun to incorporate Digital Access monitoring features into their SAP license management solutions. The key is to incorporate the monitoring into your regular administrative tasks. Also, if you have an SAP Enterprise Support agreement, SAP can guide you on setting up the Digital Access metrics. There was also an SAP Digital Access Estimator app in the early days – essentially a simplified way to get an estimate. However, for real-time monitoring, enabling the Passport and regularly running the measurement program is the most effective approach. It might sound technical, but your Basis team can typically automate these measurements (for example, run a job every month to capture document counts). In short, the tools exist and are improving; it’s up to you to use them proactively.

Q: How does SAP detect indirect access in an audit, and what happens if you’re not compliant?
A: In an audit, SAP will ask you to run their measurement programs (USMM/LAW for users, and now digital document counts if applicable). They also often send a detailed questionnaire that asks about all the systems interfacing with SAP, what data is exchanged, and how those users are licensed. SAP audit teams have become quite adept at pinpointing common areas of indirect use. For instance, they may ask: “Do you have any Salesforce-to-SAP integration? Do you connect SAP to any e-commerce platform? How do your employees or partners access SAP data externally?” They cross-reference your answers with the licenses you own. If you haven’t adopted Digital Access, they’ll look to ensure some named user or appropriate engine license covers each scenario. Technically, they can also analyze SAP logs – e.g., seeing if certain generic users (like interface accounts) created documents or accessed data extensively. If SAP identifies indirect usage not covered by licenses, the outcome is an audit finding that requires remediation. That means you’ll be asked to purchase the necessary licenses to cover the usage retroactively (often back-dated to when the use began, which can incur back-maintenance fees). This is where those multi-million dollar surprise bills come from. SAP could, in extreme cases, pursue legal action, but typically it’s resolved by you buying the licenses in a compliance order. If you have moved to Digital Access, the audit process shifts – SAP will want to see your document counts. If those counts exceed what you’ve licensed, it’s a similar story: you’d be required to purchase additional document licenses to become compliant. The best defense is preparation: know your indirect usage, license it appropriately, and maintain open communication with SAP. If you can show SAP auditors that you’re on top of monitoring and have everything licensed either via named users or digital documents, audits can be relatively painless.

Read more about our SAP Digital Access Advisory Service.

Do you want to know more about our SAP Advisory Services?

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Email *

Company

Message *

Submit