Xpandion Blog

  • Home
    Blog Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.

Pay (Only) As You Use

Posted by in Xpandion
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 6502
  • 1 Comment
  • Print

Pay (only) as you use – innovative approach? Indeed (although we have already recommended a similar approach in SAP licensing by concurrent users, suggesting that companies pay only for the licenses they really need). I am a big believer in SAP® and also in methods that enable enterprises to better use SAP. One such method is pay (only) as you use. This can be achieved by implementing the concept of usage inspection in every aspect and angle of a business. Effective ERP usage inspection enables companies to pay only for software/programs/applications that are actually being used. In this blog post I am referring to internal payment processes, which organizations can really implement very easily.

iStock 000000231263XSmall 


Based on what I witness on the field, I can (sadly) assure you that software usage statistics in companies is basically non-existent. And when I say non-existent I’m not exaggerating, as most programs and T-Codes in SAP systems are not used at all. I realize that SAP systems (or any other ERP systems) include many modules, and enterprises choose which ones to use. Thus, the percentage of program usage will always be less than 100%; in fact total usage of even 30% is considered good. Then why am I bothered, you ask? Because the overall average of program consumption is as low as 7%. Still, what troubles me even more than this number is the fact that in-house developed programs are totally overlooked, and this in my opinion definitely demands attention.

In-house development includes reports, T-Codes or other enhancements, which are not part of the initial software. I am not referring to customization, which basically entails changes in existing features. In-house development creates something new, which did not exist in the system beforehand. SAP includes a whole infrastructure for developing new programs and it is integrated in the standard environment. The only way to identify an in-house program is by its name, which starts with a Y or Z, whereas SAP standard programs begin differently. Thus, a T-Code called MM01 is a SAP standard T-Code for creating materials and report; ZSHOW_INVOICES, on the other  hand, is a self-developed report for displaying invoice data.

What harm can in-house developed programs do?

Organizations are forever facing the requirement for additional programs; and each organization reacts to this differently. This is not the time or place to have a discussion on in-house development vs. off-the-shelf software (but for those of you who wish to have a short commercial break, check out the article To build or to buy IT applications). In-house programs present no harm on their own – it is the lack of using them that can be harmful for an enterprise. Stay with me… I’ll explain: So many of these programs don’t get used. Sometimes for good reason and sometime due to lack of attention. There are cases where programs are developed internally only for converting data in initial go-live phase of the system, others are developed ad-hock for a one-time task, some are developed for an employee that already left the company, and at times such programs are not used at all due to changes in business strategy.

The average usage of own developed programs is around 25%. This means that 75% of the Y and Z programs (3 out of 4!) were developed with no use at all. Here are a couple of real cases: A manufacturing organization with about 9,000 SAP users has 1,360 Y and Z T-Codes and throughout the past year they used 424 T-Codes only – which is 31%. Another example coming from a utilities company with about 900 SAP users, has 587 Y and Z T-Codes, out of which only 98 were used in the last three months – which is 17%.

Here’s what I suggest: each department in an organization will have to pay for its usage of Y and Z programs (this is only fair, as the IT department spent time and money on developing it). If this seems too strict, departments should at least pay for unused active programs which they have required. In addition, an internal quarterly inspection will be conducted to identify Y and Z programs that are still required and those that can be eliminated.

What advantages can effective usage inspection have?

Enterprises that inspect usage of in-house programs and manage them as suggested above can benefit from the following:

  • Unused/unneeded programs are eliminated thus mitigating the system. This saves valuable time for future upgrades and increases security since closed programs cannot be misused.
  • Decrease in new development requests and increase in using current developments. If departments are required to pay for program usage and/or lack of usage, they will definitely put some thought into the process of requiring new developments. Employees will also get into the habit of searching thoroughly for an existing standard solution before asking for a new internal program.
  • Employees will have access to an inventory of programs, where they can keep track of programs that have already been developed and which could possibly be of use to them.

I can guarantee that ERP usage inspection is the basis for concepts such as pay only as you use. As to how this concept is realized, is in the end really in your hands.

Yoav Michaeli joined Xpandion in 2008 as a team leader, and in 2010 Mr. Michaeli began managing the entire Research & Development group of the company. Prior to joining Xpandion, Mr. Michaeli served in an elite technological unit of the Israeli Defense Forces as a team leader for various key military projects. Among other achievements, he was instrumental in pioneering the use of advanced .NET technologies for large scale distributed systems. Mr. Michaeli is an expert in programming, agile development, application security and specialized programming techniques.


  • Guest
    Todd Grey 07/08/2013

    This is so true. I wish I had read it before our SAP Audit.

Leave your comment

Guest 21/07/2017


in XpandionPosted by Yoav Michaeli

Optimize Licensing Costs. Increase Security

These are amongst some of the most worrying words that enterprises and managers can hear.  And, yet, they are a part of day to day terminology- whether whispered behind  soundproof board room doors, discussed openly by upper management or colleagues addressing them casually over the wate...
in Security & AuthorizationsPosted by Dror Aviv

SUIM: The Pitfalls of Analyzing SAP Authorizations During an Audit

    37 inShare (This is the short version of an article regarding the most popular T-Code used to analyze SAP Authorizations. Download the full SUIM article including examples and screenshots). When it comes to SAP audit time, audi...
in Security & AuthorizationsPosted by Dror Aviv

Take Your Hands off of SAP T-Code SU01!

In many organizations, the access to the sensitive SAP T-Code SU01 is much wider than needed. Let's explore why.

in Security & AuthorizationsPosted by Yoav Michaeli

The Adventures of a Bored Programmer

What may be considered by a programmer as just playing around might end up as a security nightmare for a SAP® based enterprise. I actually want this to sound dramatic and grab your attention – I have dealt with the consequences of bored programmers' actions too many times...

in Security & AuthorizationsPosted by Yoav Michaeli

Unexpected Party in Production

IT activities in most enterprises fall under internal rules and regulations. Transferring objects to the production environment or creating them – is no different. Companies usually have a process for transferring T-Codes into the production environment or creating new user queries in the global que...



157 Yigal Alon Street,

Tel Aviv 67443, Israel


US Office


3310 W Braker Lane Suite 300-253

Austin, TX 78758, USA


India Office


C 103, Akruti Orchid Park, Andheri-Kurla Road,

Andheri East, Mumbai, India