The estimation service, the adoption programme, and the credits inside the offer. Three knowledge checks along the way, and 4 clips from a senior licensing analyst.
This is a taught session, not a talking head. The instructor works through analyst grade slides, and three times the video stops on a question with four options on screen. Pause, commit to an answer, and the next slide explains which option is right and why each of the others is wrong. 4 times in the session the frame splits and a senior licensing analyst gives the view from inside real SAP negotiations, and the instructor picks the clip apart when the slides return.
The full narration of this session, section by section, for reading and reference. Guest analyst clips are marked.
Welcome back. Session fourteen. Last time you built a document count of your own, with a scope page, a stored query, a subtraction ledger and a growth model attached to it. Today somebody else arrives with a number. SAP has tooling that measures document creation in your systems, and it usually arrives alongside a commercial offer: the Digital Access Adoption Program, a priced route out of the named user reading of indirect use and into the document model. So this session is about reading their measurement, understanding what the programme is actually selling you, valuing the credits properly, and deciding whether to move at all. There is one idea underneath all of it. Every figure in an adoption offer is derived from the document count, which makes the count the negotiation and the discount the distraction. Three knowledge checks. Let's start.
Five things by the end. First, know what the estimation service is: what it measures, what it does not, and why its output depends completely on how the run was configured. Second, read their number, which means the five questions you ask in writing before a figure produced by somebody else gets discussed as though it were a fact. Third, understand the programme: what it prices, the two shapes it has taken, and what is discounted as against what is not. Fourth, value the credits, because a licence trade in is not a refund and the recurring support line matters more than the one off concession. And fifth, decide and evidence it: whether staying on the named user reading or moving to documents is right for your estate, costed across three years rather than one.
Four things to frame it. Their number: SAP's tooling produces a figure from your own systems, using their scope choices, and it is useful and it is not neutral, because no measurement is neutral. Two shapes: the adoption programme has come either as a discount against the documents you need now, or as a credit for licences you trade in, and which one you are shown depends largely on what you already own. One way: moving into the document model changes how indirect use is licensed for the rest of the relationship, and it is very rarely reversed. And timing: the offer is at its best when SAP wants the transaction and you are not under audit, and those two conditions do not coincide by accident. Now, the sentence to keep. Everything in an adoption offer scales off the document count. Let's play a clip on why that matters more than the headline percentage.
Guest analyst clip. I want to talk about where the value in one of these offers actually sits, because the way they are presented steers you away from it. An adoption offer arrives with a large percentage on the front page. A very large one, sometimes. And the human response to a large discount is gratitude, which is a terrible frame of mind to negotiate in. But think about what a discount is. It is a reduction applied to a quantity. If the quantity is wrong, the percentage is decoration. I have seen an offer with an enormous headline concession where the underlying document count included follow on documents throughout, which meant the base was roughly three times what it should have been. The customer was delighted. They had negotiated hard on the percentage and won several points, and they still paid substantially more than they needed to, because nobody spent the day auditing the count. So my rule is simple, and I would apply it to any usage based offer, not just this one. Settle the quantity before you discuss the price. Get the measurement agreed, in writing, with its scope and its exclusions named. Only then look at the percentage. The percentage is a negotiation you will win a few points on. The quantity is a negotiation you can win by half.
Settle the quantity before you discuss the price. That is a rule worth writing down, and it generalises to every consumption based deal you will meet later in this course, including RISE and BTP. A percentage is a conversation where you win a few points. A quantity is a conversation where you can win half the total. Almost every buyer spends their energy on the first one, because it is the number on the slide. So let's look at where the quantity comes from when it is not yours.
What is the estimation service, precisely? Four things, and I want to be careful here because people treat it either as gospel or as a trap, and it is neither. It is a measurement programme: tooling run inside your own systems that reports document creation against the nine types, and you run it, and the output goes to SAP. It is not a formal audit: this is a commercial measurement rather than a compliance submission, and that distinction changes what you are obliged to hand over and when. It is definition driven: the output depends on how systems, creators and chains were configured for the run, and the same estate returns genuinely different numbers under different settings. And it is an anchor: whatever it reports becomes the figure the commercial conversation starts from, which is exactly why last session told you to produce yours first. None of that makes the tool untrustworthy. It makes it a measurement with assumptions, like every measurement, and assumptions are things you are allowed to ask about.
So here are the five questions, and I would send them in writing. Systems included: non production volume inflates a count materially, so ask for the list of systems the run covered, by name. Chain treatment: counting follow on documents is the largest single error there is, so ask for written confirmation that only initial documents were counted. Creator population: your own named users' activity is already licensed, so ask how the run separated dialog users from interface accounts. Type mapping: object types mapped in or out shift whole categories at once, so ask for the object type to document type mapping that was used. And period: an extrapolated partial window is wrong in both directions, so ask for the exact date range and whether anything was annualised. You will notice these are the same five rows as the reconciliation table from last session. That is deliberate. And the timing matters: send them before the number is discussed, not after it has been repeated in three meetings and become the truth.
First knowledge check. SAP offers to run the estimation service. You have not produced your own count yet. What do you do? A, accept, since their tooling is better than anything you could build. B, produce your own count first, then run theirs and compare. C, decline, since the output can only ever be used against you. D, accept, but insist in writing that the result is non binding. Pause here and pick one.
The answer is B. The tool is genuinely useful and the sequence is what decides the conversation. Run theirs first and their figure is the anchor, and everything you say after that is a challenge to an established number rather than a comparison between two. A skips the day of work that gives you a position at all, and it is usually chosen because the day is inconvenient rather than because anybody thinks it is right. C throws away a real measurement and makes you look evasive, which costs goodwill you will want later in the same negotiation. And D is worth saying, and it changes nothing about the anchoring, because a non binding number that arrived first still frames every meeting that follows.
Now the programme itself, in five parts. What it is: a commercial route out of the named user reading of indirect use and into the document model, priced as an offer rather than settled as a compliance claim, and that framing is genuinely better for you than the alternative. The two shapes: a discount against the documents needed to cover your current use, or a credit for existing licences traded in, and which one you are shown depends largely on what you already own. Today is discounted, growth is not: the concession applies to the volume you need now, and documents you add later are priced at whatever your agreement says at that point. It is a contract change: you are amending how indirect use is licensed for the remainder of the relationship, which is a different thing from buying a product. And it all scales off the count, which brings us back to the first clip. Let's hear that argument developed, because there is a second half to it.
Guest analyst clip. There is a structural feature of these offers that I think is genuinely underappreciated, and it is not hidden. It is stated plainly in the paperwork and people simply do not model it. The concession applies to the volume you need today. Growth is priced later, at whatever your agreement says then. Now, sit with that for a moment. Document volume grows with your business. If your business grows at eight percent, and most do something like that, then over a five year agreement your document requirement is roughly half again what it is today. So the shape of what you have bought is this: a heavily discounted block covering today, and then a series of undiscounted purchases stretching out across the term, each one made reactively, each one small, each one outside a negotiation. And when you total the term, the effective discount is a fraction of the headline. The fix is not complicated and it is not even contentious. You size the initial purchase to the volume you will need at the end of the term, not the beginning, and you get the concession applied to that. Or, if they will not extend the concession that far, you negotiate the future rate now, while you still have something they want. What you must not do is take a large percentage off a small number and consider the matter closed.
Take a large percentage off a small number and consider the matter closed. That is the failure mode, and it is easy to fall into because the discount arrives as good news and good news does not get audited. Two practical additions. First, if the concession cannot be extended to your end of term volume, then negotiate the future rate now, in the same paper, because your leverage is highest while the deal is still unsigned. And second, write the growth assumption you used into the file, so that in two years somebody can see whether you were right rather than arguing about it.
Second knowledge check. You are offered a large discount on the documents you need today, with future volume at standard rates. What matters most? A, the discount percentage, since it is the largest number in the offer. B, the volume you will need in year three, since that is what you are actually buying. C, the credit for existing licences, since that money is already spent. D, the implementation timeline, since the programme has a deadline. Pause here before you continue.
The answer is B. A discount applies to a quantity, so the quantity is the deal. A three year run rate bought at a good rate beats today's count bought at a slightly better one, every single time, and the arithmetic is not close. A is the number the offer is designed around, which is the reason to look at it last rather than first. C is worth having and it is a smaller effect than sizing, though we will come to it properly on the next slide. And D is real pressure, genuinely, and it is still not a reason to buy the wrong quantity. A deadline that forces the wrong size costs far more than a missed deadline, and in my experience deadlines on these programmes move rather more often than they are said to.
The credits, which is the part of the offer most often misread, usually in the customer's disfavour. A trade in, not a refund: value from licences you already own is applied against the new model, and nothing comes back as cash, and nothing reduces your support base by itself. It depends what you hold: shelfware you were never going to deploy can become genuinely useful here, and this is one of the very few places where unused entitlement has value. Maintenance follows: ask what the annual support base is before and after the exchange, because that is the recurring number and it outlives the one off concession by years. And everything is a term: the credit rate, which licences are eligible, and the volume it applies to are all negotiable, so treat the first version as an opening position rather than as a calculation. That third point is the one I would press hardest. Let's hear why.
Guest analyst clip. I want to draw your attention to a line that almost never appears in the presentation, and it is the one that decides whether the deal was good. The annual support base. Here is how it goes wrong. You trade in a set of licences. You receive a credit against the new document entitlement. The one off arithmetic looks excellent and everybody is pleased. But your support and maintenance is calculated off a base, and that base has just changed. Sometimes it goes down, which is the outcome you want and should be asking for explicitly. Sometimes it stays flat, which is acceptable. And sometimes it goes up, because the new entitlement carries a larger base than the licences you surrendered, and now you are paying more every year, forever, in exchange for a discount you received once. I have seen deals where the one off saving was recovered by the vendor in under four years through the support line alone. So ask for two numbers, in writing, before you sign anything: the annual support base today, and the annual support base after the exchange. Two numbers. If the account team cannot produce them quickly, that itself tells you something worth knowing. And if the second is higher than the first, that is not automatically a reason to walk away, but it absolutely must be in your three year model rather than discovered in year two.
Two numbers, in writing, before you sign. The support base today and the support base after. I would add that this is not a Digital Access issue specifically. It is true of every licence exchange, every conversion and every migration you will meet in the rest of this course, and it comes back very directly in the S/4HANA conversion session in module four. The one off number is what gets presented. The recurring number is what you actually live with.
So should you move at all? Five questions, and honest answers to them. Is it countable? Very low document volume with few integrations points to staying, while substantial integration volume you can actually measure points to moving. Can you forecast it? Erratic volume unrelated to business activity points to staying, while documents that track a figure finance already forecasts point to moving. What do you hold? Little tradeable entitlement means no credit to earn, while significant unused licences give you something to exchange. Where is the growth? A flat estate with no new interfaces points to staying, while a growing integration surface of portals, APIs and partner connections points to moving. And how is the argument going? If the named user reading is settled and nobody disputes it, that has real value, whereas recurring disputes about who counts are exactly what the document model resolves. There is no default answer here. The document model is preferable when your exposure is measurable and growing. The named user reading is fine when the exposure is small and nobody is arguing about it.
Five traps in the commercial route. Buying at the audit's number: accepting an estimate produced under pressure and then discounting from it, so the discount looks generous and the base was never right. Sizing to today: taking the concession on current volume and returning at list price in year two, which is the tier trap from session twelve wearing a new suit. Ignoring the maintenance line: optimising a one off discount while the recurring support base quietly rises, and the recurring number always wins over a three year view. Trading licences you still need: exchanging entitlement that another part of the estate is consuming without telling you, so check the deployment before you trade the licence. And no future counting definition: agreeing the model without agreeing how the count will be measured next year, which turns every renewal into this session again. That last one is the one that keeps costing people, and it is the subject of the final check.
Last knowledge check. Before signing an adoption offer, which single document matters most? A, the discount schedule. B, the definition of how documents are counted in future years. C, the credit calculation for the licences being traded. D, the implementation plan and its timeline. Pause here, and think about which of these outlives the transaction.
B. Every other number in the offer is a one time figure. The counting definition is what you live with for the rest of the agreement, and if it is left vague you will renegotiate this entire session every single year. A and C are both single transactions, and both are far easier to fix later than a bad definition is. D matters operationally and it does not bind your cost. So get the measurement method, the exclusions and the owner of the count written into the paper, in the specific language you would want a stranger to read in three years. Let's hear that argued, because it is the least exciting term in the document and it is the one I would spend my last hour of negotiating capital on.
Guest analyst clip. If I could give a customer one thing in an adoption agreement, it would not be a better price. It would be a precise definition of how the count is produced in future years. Let me explain why that is worth more than points of discount. Without that clause, here is your next three years. Every anniversary, somebody at SAP produces a number. You produce a different number. Neither of you has agreed a method, so you have the same argument annually, from scratch, with different people each time as the account team rotates. Each round costs you several weeks of internal effort, some credibility, and usually a settlement somewhere above your figure because you got tired. Now add the clause. It says which systems are in scope, that only initial documents count, that documents created by licensed users are excluded, which object types map to which document types, and who runs the measurement and when. Suddenly the annual conversation is thirty minutes long, because there is nothing to argue about. The method is agreed and you are simply reading out a result. That clause costs you nothing to ask for. It is not a concession in any commercial sense, it is a clarification, and account teams will often agree it precisely because it does not appear to cost them anything. And it is worth more, over a five year agreement, than several points off the initial price.
It is not a concession, it is a clarification. Remember that framing, because it gets terms agreed that a discount request would not. So, five things to run this decision properly. Your count first, always: one documented number built the session thirteen way, before any estimation service runs in your systems. Ask for their method in writing: systems, chains, creators, types, period, sent before the number is discussed rather than after. Model three years, both paths: staying and moving, costed across the full term including growth, and a rough model beats a precise one that only covers year one. Price the recurring line: annual support base before and after, because that is the figure that compounds and the one the offer talks about least. And negotiate the definition: how future counts are produced, who runs them, which exclusions apply. That clause is worth more than several points of discount, and it is easier to get.
Three sentences. SAP's estimation service is a useful measurement made with SAP's scope choices, so run it after your own count and treat any difference as five factual questions rather than as a dispute. The adoption programme prices a move into the document model, and every figure in it scales off the count, which makes the count the negotiation and the discount the distraction. And the two terms that outlive the transaction are the future counting definition and the recurring support base, so those are the two to negotiate hardest. Next session closes module three by turning the whole subject around: instead of measuring and pricing the exposure, how you reduce it, at the architecture, in the contract and through the licence, and in that order.
Homework before session fifteen, about an hour, and most of it is asking other people rather than doing analysis. One, list your integrations: every system that creates records in SAP without a person logging in, one line each, with a named owner beside it. Two, draft the five questions, meaning the written request for SAP's method covering systems, chains, creators, types and period. Write it now while it is calm and keep it for when an offer arrives, because you will not write it well under time pressure. Three, find your tradeable entitlement: licences you own and do not use, and session eight's dormant user work already found some of it. Four, get the support base, meaning the current annual maintenance figure, from finance rather than from memory. And five, cost both paths across three years with growth. Even a rough model tells you which conversation you are actually in.
Five guides, all on redresscompliance dot com. The Digital Access Adoption Program guide covers how to evaluate an offer and every cost trap inside it, and it is the written companion to slides eight through eleven. Digital Access measurement tools explains what each tool measures and why two outputs differ on the same estate, which is the reconciliation problem from a different angle. The top ten Digital Access negotiation recommendations rank the terms worth pushing on by what they are actually worth, and the counting definition is high on that list for the reasons the last clip gave. Indirect access pricing in twenty twenty six covers where the pricing has moved and what that means for a decision taken now. And the indirect access and Digital Access guide sets the two models side by side, which is the decision on slide twelve in written form.
That is session fourteen. You now know how the number is produced, how the offer is built on it, and which two terms to fight for. Next time we close module three by reducing the exposure rather than pricing it. See you then.