Indirect vs. Digital Access: Choosing the Right Approach

Indirect vs. Digital Access

Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and IT leaders in SAP-run enterprises face a pivotal licensing decision in the era of digital integrations. SAP’s traditional Indirect Access model (licensing third-party usage via named user licenses) has long been the default, but it carries compliance uncertainties that have tripped up even large companies.

In response, SAP introduced a newer Digital Access model – a document-based licensing approach meant to bring clarity and fairness to licensing indirect usage. This playbook provides a comprehensive, decision-focused guide to understanding these two models and choosing the right approach.

We will explain the differences, evaluate risks and costs, and outline a strategy to assess your landscape.

The goal is to help CIOs chart a course that minimizes audit risk and optimizes licensing value as their SAP environments grow increasingly interconnected.

Understanding Indirect Access vs. Digital Access

Indirect Access (Traditional Model): In SAP terms, Indirect Access refers to situations where users or systems use SAP functionality without directly logging into the SAP system, typically via a third-party application, interface, or automation.

Under SAP’s traditional licensing, all usage of SAP software – direct or indirect – requires a Named User License. This means that if an external system (such as a customer portal, supplier app, Salesforce CRM, or IoT device) interacts with your SAP ERP data or triggers transactions in SAP, each end-user or device is expected to have an SAP user license.

Indirect Access was historically not a separate license type, but rather a compliance condition: customers were required to ensure that any indirect usage was covered by appropriate user licenses (often Professional, Limited Professional, Employee, etc., depending on the usage).

The trouble was that these rules were vaguely defined and not well understood for years. Many SAP customers didn’t realise, for example, that a customer placing an order on a non-SAP e-commerce front-end might technically count as using SAP and need a user license.

This ambiguity led to uncertainty and, in some cases, hefty compliance audits when SAP found unlicensed indirect use. (We will cover those risks shortly.) In summary, Indirect Access is essentially the legacy approach: licensing by user count, even for third-party or external usage, unless special terms have been negotiated.

If you haven’t explicitly adopted Digital Access, you are likely still under this traditional model by default.

Digital Access (Document-Based Model): Introduced in 2018, SAP’s Digital Access model is a new licensing approach for indirect usage. Instead of tying licenses to named users, Digital Access ties it to the number of certain business documents created in the SAP system by indirect (third-party) access.

SAP identified nine key document types that are commonly generated by business processes, often triggered by external systems. These include Sales Documents, Purchase Documents, Invoices, Manufacturing Documents, Material Documents, Quality Management Documents, service and maintenance documents, Financial Documents, and Time Management Documents.

Under Digital Access, whenever an external system or non-SAP application creates one of these document records in SAP, it counts toward your licensed volume. For example, if a customer orders via a third-party web portal and creates a Sales Order in SAP, that is one document if an IoT sensor triggers a recording that creates a Material Document (e.g., a goods movement), that also counts.

Each document type has a specific definition per SAP’s terms. Reading or querying data (without creating a document) generally does not count and does not require a document license; the model is focused on creating new records.

The Digital Access license is often described as an “outcome-based” model: you pay for the business outcomes (documents) rather than for each user or device that might interact with SAP.

It’s important to note that Digital Access applies only to indirect usage. Direct human users still need traditional named user licenses. In practice, with Digital Access, you have a hybrid model: your employees and internal users continue to be licensed by the user, as always.

However, the document count licenses cover all the various non-SAP systems and external users who create SAP documents. The aim is to provide a more transparent and predictable way to license the explosion of integrations and digital touchpoints in modern IT landscapes, from APIs to bots to customer mobile apps.

Why Indirect Access Became a Hot Issue

For years, Indirect Access flew under the radar – until a few high-profile compliance cases exposed just how costly it could become.

Under the traditional model, many enterprises unknowingly accumulated “hidden” indirect usage liabilities.

SAP’s license auditors eventually began scrutinizing these scenarios, leading to some headline-making disputes:

• Diageo Case (2017): Global drinks company Diageo was ordered by a UK court to pay SAP for thousands of customers and sales reps who accessed SAP data indirectly via a Salesforce-based front-end. The bill? Around £54 million. Diageo had licensed SAP Process Integration (PI) to connect Salesforce to SAP and assumed that was enough. The court ruled that each customer and rep using that connected system still required a named user license for SAP. This case rattled SAP customers worldwide – if even customers viewing their data via a portal could trigger license fees, many realized they might be out of compliance. It highlighted how SAP’s contracts allowed very broad interpretations of “use,” essentially covering any scenario where SAP data is accessed or written indirectly. The Diageo judgment made clear that SAP had the right to enforce named-user charges for indirect use and that SAP’s integration middleware (SAP PI) did not exempt you from that requirement. The result was a huge, unexpected liability for Diageo and a wake-up call for others.
• AB InBev Case (2017-2018): Anheuser-Busch InBev, the world’s largest brewer, was hit with an astonishing claim of $600 million from SAP for alleged unlicensed indirect access. SAP and AB InBev entered arbitration, and the dispute was settled out of court (with undisclosed terms). While the exact details never became public, it was clear that SAP believed AB InBev’s widespread system integrations had bypassed proper licensing on a massive scale. The sheer size of the claim sent shockwaves through the SAP customer community. If a company could owe half a billion dollars for indirect use, what about everyone else? It underscored the high audit stakes: a large enterprise with many systems could theoretically accumulate huge license shortfalls under the traditional model.

These cases, along with others whispered in industry circles, created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty around Indirect Access. CIOs began asking: Are we next? Do we even know how our systems interact with SAP and whether we’re compliant?

Many organizations discovered that they had integration scenarios (such as customer portals, supplier extranets, and mobile apps) that might be considered indirect access and required licenses. The rules in SAP’s contracts were often seen as opaque and outdated, as they did not spell out what was allowed.

For instance, simply pulling data from SAP to display on a website for customers could be interpreted as implying that those customers use SAP. In theory, even a consumer checking order status on a website could be considered an SAP’ user” if the data came from SAP. This broad interpretation wasn’t always enforced, but SAP had established a legal precedent that allowed it to be enforced.

Licensing and Compliance Risks of Indirect Access:

The primary risk of staying on the traditional Indirect Access model is exposure to compliance audits. If SAP audits your system and finds indirect usage that isn’t covered by named user licenses, you could be liable for back-license fees, potentially with retroactive maintenance.

These fees can be massive lump sums, as seen above. The tricky part is that counting indirect users is not straightforward.

Unlike direct users who have usernames in SAP, indirect users may be unknown to the SAP admin – they exist in external systems. Companies often use technical or “dialogue” user accounts to enable integrations. Behind one such account, there could be dozens or even thousands of end-users or devices funneling data in and out.

During an audit, SAP’s team might ask detailed questions about interfaces or use technical logs to identify patterns. For example, an external interface user ID creating thousands of transactions could hint that multiple people or devices are behind it.

The ambiguity in defining what constitutes a licensable “use” means customers and SAP often disagree – historically, this has led to tough negotiations or legal battles.

In short, under Indirect Access, the customer is responsible for proving compliance or paying the fine. Without careful management, it’s easy to find yourself on the wrong side of an audit.

However, it’s not all negative: the traditional model can sometimes work out cost-wise if your indirect usage is small or easily contained. We’ll discuss the trade-offs in the pros/cons section.

However, the industry pressure and negative PR from cases like Diageo also pushed SAP to rethink its approach, which set the stage for the Digital Access model.

How the Digital Access Model Works

Documents Instead of Users: The Digital Access model flips the licensing metric from “users” to “documents.” SAP identified nine high-value document types (listed earlier) that cover core business transactions, including sales orders, invoices, and purchase orders.

These document types essentially represent the outcomes of business processes that an external system might trigger in SAP.

Under Digital Access, you purchase a certain entitlement (or pay-as-you-go in some cases) for the quantity of documents created in your SAP system by any indirect access.

For example, if your external systems create 100,000 Sales Orders and 50,000 Invoices in SAP within a year, you need to be licensed for that volume of documents.

Here are a few key details about how it works:

• Counting and Multipliers: Not all document types are treated equally – SAP assigns a weighting factor to each document type based on its business “value.” For instance, a high-value document, such as a sales order, may have a full weight (100% of the document’s value). In contrast, a lower-value, frequently generated document (perhaps a financial journal entry or a timesheet entry) might count as 0.2 of a document. (SAP has indicated, for example, that Financial documents have an 80% discount factor in counting.) The idea is not to overcharge for documents that are very numerous but less directly tied to revenue. In practice, you count the number of each document type, multiply by the weight, and sum up to a total “document count” that you need licenses for. SAP provides guidelines and tools to help calculate this.
• Volume Tiers and Pricing: Digital Access is sold in blocks of documents, often referred to as “Document Pack” licenses. The pricing per document decreases at higher volumes – a volume discount model. SAP does not publicly list prices, and they can vary by customer and negotiation. For example, SAP might quote a price per 1,000 documents for your expected volume, with larger commitments resulting in a lower unit price. This means enterprises must engage with SAP to get a cost proposal; you can’t just look up a price list. The model is intended to be flexible: you can choose a block that covers your needs and then true up if you exceed it.
• What’s Included vs. Free: Only the nine specified document types count toward the license. If an external system creates a document in SAP outside of these categories, SAP does not charge for it under Digital Access. (In practice, most important transactions fall into the nine categories.) Also, reading data or updating an existing document doesn’t count as creating a new document. For example, if a third-party app pulls customer data from SAP or updates a field on an existing order, that alone is not a licensable event by document count. This is a critical difference – the traditional model might view any access as “use,” but the Digital Access model cares only about document creation events.
• No Double Charging: SAP has clarified that they won’t double-charge for subsequent document creations that result from an initial one. For instance, if an external trigger creates a Sales Order (which you license) and that sales order internally causes, say, an outbound delivery document, SAP does not count the subsequent delivery against your license. They focus on the initial creation by the external party. (However, one challenge reported by some customers is that distinguishing initial vs. subsequent documents in the system can be tricky with the available tools – we’ll touch on this in the audit section.)

The Digital Access Adoption Program (DAAP): 

To encourage customers to transition to Digital Access, SAP introduced this program in 2019. DAAP is essentially a promotional program that offers financial incentives and safeguards for switching from the old model to the new one.

Key features of DAAP include:

• Free Evaluation: SAP, through its Global License Auditing and Compliance (GLAC) team, will help you run a Digital Access Evaluation Service. This is a free service (or you can run an SAP-provided report or note in your system) to measure your current indirect document usage. It provides an estimate of how many documents (in each of the nine categories) your system is generating via indirect access. This gives a baseline to understand what Digital Access would mean for you.
• Credit for Existing Licenses: Perhaps the biggest incentive, SAP allows you to trade in certain existing license investments to offset the cost of Digital Access. If you already paid for a bunch of named user licenses or a special “orders” license in the past for indirect scenarios, those payments aren’t lost. Under DAAP, SAP will grant a credit of up to 100% of the value of those licenses when purchasing the new document licenses. Essentially, you won’t pay twice for the same usage; your prior spending can be applied towards the new model, subject to SAP’s calculations and the specific items you trade in.
• Discounted Pricing Options: DAAP initially offered two pricing options for the first Digital Access purchase:
  1. 115% Option: You estimate your current annual document count (say 100,000 documents/year) and then license 115% of that (115,000 in this example). By doing so, you pre-pay a buffer of 15% growth, and SAP would only charge for that 15% portion (the wording was “only pays for the 15% growth”). This effectively gives you headroom for growth without incurring immediate costs for the extra buffer. 90% Discount Option: You license 100% of your estimated usage, and SAP gives a 90% discount on that initial purchase. In other words, you pay only 10% of the list cost for the amount of documents you need, which is a huge one-time discount to make the transition palatable.
  Both options were designed to make the cost of moving to Digital Access more attractive compared to sticking with the status quo. In either case, you’d also apply any credits from old licenses as described above. These deals were under time limits, which SAP extended multiple times due to customer feedback.
• Timeline and Extensions: Originally, DAAP was intended to be a one-year offer (2019-2020). However, SAP received a lot of uptake and also pressure from user groups, stating that customers needed more time to evaluate. As a result, SAP extended DAAP repeatedly – first to the end of 2020, then through 2021, then again through 2022. As of 2025, SAP has effectively left the DAAP program open-ended, with no fixed end date announced. This means enterprises can still take advantage of these incentives today. SAP can end the program with notice, but the indefinite extension shows that they want as many customers as possible to consider moving to Digital Access, rather than fearing it. For CIOs, this is good news: you haven’t “missed the boat” if you didn’t decide by 2020 – you can still engage SAP and likely get similar discount terms for your transition.

In summary, the Digital Access model provides a framework for licensing indirect usage in a controlled and measurable way.

SAP’s intent (at least in messaging) is to reduce the adversarial audit scenarios and let customers “innovate without hesitation,” meaning you can build new digital capabilities on SAP without worrying that each new integration will incur unpredictable user license fees.

But that doesn’t automatically mean Digital Access is cheaper or better for everyone – there are important pros, cons, and gotchas to consider.

Pros and Cons of Indirect vs. Digital Access

Both licensing models have advantages and disadvantages. The right choice depends on your company’s usage patterns, integration plans, and risk tolerance. Let’s break down the comparison:

Indirect Access (Named User Licensing) – Pros and Cons

Pros of Staying with Indirect Access:

• Simplicity of User Metrics: The concept of a named user license is straightforward – you count users (albeit including external ones) rather than tracking document volumes. For organizations with minimal third-party integrations, it can be simple: e.g., if only 50 external partners need access, you buy 50 appropriate user licenses, and you’re done. License management stays in the familiar territory of users and roles.
• Known Cost for Low Usage: If indirect usage in your landscape is very limited (few interfaces, low transaction counts), the traditional model might be more cost-effective. For example, a scenario where one B2B portal allows 100 distributors to occasionally place orders might be cheaper than getting 100 extra user licenses, especially if those distributors place orders frequently. In some cases, companies already own sufficient extra user licenses that can cover indirect scenarios, essentially making the marginal cost zero.
• No per-transaction charges: With Indirect Access, once a user is licensed, they can create an unlimited number of transactions in SAP. This means if you have a high-volume automated interface but only a small number of interfacing systems, you could process millions of transactions without additional cost, as long as the interfacing “user” is licensed. For example, if you have one integration user that funnels IoT data into SAP, you might need one user license for that integration account. In contrast, Digital Access would count every document created by those IoT readings. So, for certain high-volume, low-user-count scenarios, the traditional model doesn’t penalize transaction volume.
• Compatibility with Existing Contracts: Many enterprises have long-term SAP license agreements with specific discounts and bundles tied to named users. Staying on Indirect Access means no major contract changes – you’ll continue under the same familiar terms. Some CIOs may prefer to avoid opening up the contract for renegotiation (which Digital Access might require) if they currently enjoy advantageous terms or have negotiated Indirect Access exceptions.

Cons of Indirect Access:

• Major Audit Risk and Unpredictability: As discussed, the biggest downside is the potential for a licensing time bomb. The lack of transparency in how indirect use occurs can lead to unpleasant surprises during an audit. The costs are not predictable because you often don’t have a clear internal count of “indirect users.” You might be one new integration project away from being out of compliance. In today’s API-driven and digital transformation environment, this is a significant strategic risk.
• Complex Compliance Management: Ensuring compliance under the traditional model requires constant vigilance. You must track every interface and external user and ensure they are licensed appropriately. This often involves coordination between business teams, who might set up a new customer portal, and IT licensing teams – a disconnect here can create exposure. It’s easy to miss something. Also, the definitions of indirect use in SAP’s contract can be hard to interpret without legal help, creating ambiguity in decision-making.
• Potential Over-Licensing or Underutilization: Some companies, fearing the audit risk, preemptively bought a large number of extra-named user licenses “just in case” to cover partners or customers. These licenses can be expensive (professional user licenses can cost several thousand dollars each), and often, the majority might go unused at any given time. This ties up capital in shelfware. If your indirect use is variable, you might over-purchase to stay safe, which is not cost-efficient.
• Barrier to Innovation: There is an intangible but important downside that CIOs cite – the Indirect Access model can act as a brake on digital innovation. Teams might hesitate to integrate a new SaaS application with SAP or to enable a new data-sharing feature because each new connection potentially triggers a licensing review or more user fees. In the worst case, business units might build workarounds to avoid touching SAP, leading to suboptimal architectures. In short, the old model’s complexity and uncertainty can make IT leaders more conservative about opening up the SAP environment to new digital channels.

Digital Access (Document-Based Licensing) – Pros and Cons

Pros of Adopting Digital Access:

• Clarity and Transparency: Digital Access provides a much clearer definition of what you’re paying for – you pay for documents created via indirect means. This aligns cost with actual system usage more directly. Many CIOs find this more transparent than trying to figure out how many unseen users might be out there. You can measure documents in the system objectively.
• Aligned with Digital Economy Use Cases: This model was designed for modern use cases, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), robotic process automation, machine-to-machine communication, and large customer or partner ecosystems. It eliminates the need to count every individual user or device. For example, suppose thousands of IoT sensors are connected to SAP through Digital Access. In that case, you must ensure the resulting records are counted – you don’t need to somehow license thousands of devices as “users.” This flexibility makes it much easier to extend SAP’s reach to new channels without a licensing nightmare. You get unlimited external user and device connectivity, limited only by the number of documents generated.
• Predictable Budgeting (in the right conditions): If you have a stable or reasonably forecastable business process, you can predict the document volumes and budget accordingly. Some companies have found that after switching to Digital Access, they gained better cost predictability year over year. For instance, a company that is growing its digital orders dramatically could see the cost increase in proportion, rather than suddenly finding out it needs a huge batch of new user licenses. The cost becomes a variable tied to business activity, which, if measured, can be planned. One healthcare company that integrated many third-party systems reported that with document licensing, they could finally forecast their SAP licensing costs based on transaction volumes. In contrast, previously, it was a guess whether an audit might hit them.
• Reduced Audit Friction: In theory, compliance with digital access is more straightforward. You and SAP can run the same document count reports and agree on the numbers. The scope of what’s licensable is narrower and well-defined, which should reduce the contentious interpretations. The nightmare scenarios of “surprise, you needed 5,000 more user licenses” are largely avoided because the metric is clearly in the system. SAP audits become more like a volume true-up check, similar to how you might true up engine metrics or modular licenses, rather than an investigation.
• One-Time Incentives and Value for Money: The DAAP incentives (90% discounts, conversion credits) mean that many companies can transition to Digital Access at a fraction of the normal cost. This potentially allows you to unlock value from shelfware – e.g., trading in unused licenses for something you will actively use. If negotiated well, some enterprises have essentially transitioned to Digital Access without incurring additional costs, using credits and discounts to meet their needs. That is a compelling proposition if your document counts are moderate.
• Future-Proofing for S/4HANA: SAP has signaled that Digital Access is the go-forward model. New SAP contracts, especially with S/4HANA, encourage it. By adopting it now, you align with SAP’s strategic direction and potentially simplify your eventual move to S/4HANA, which will also be an opportunity to revisit your licensing. You won’t have to renegotiate the indirect access topic later – it’s handled. This can be part of a broader digital transformation strategy.

Cons of Digital Access:

• Potential for Higher Costs: The most significant concern is that, depending on your usage patterns, Digital Access may result in higher licensing fees compared to the status quo. Particularly for high-volume transaction environments, costs might skyrocket. For example, consider a manufacturing company where automated systems create hundreds of thousands of material documents and financial entries – even if only a handful of interfaces generate them, every single document counts toward the license. Companies have found that when they projected their document counts, the list price cost of Digital Access would be significantly more than what they were paying (or even more than worst-case audit penalties). Although SAP offers discounts, after the initial DAAP deal, growth in document counts means buying more capacity. Over a multi-year period, if your business transactions grow, you’ll pay more.
  In contrast, under Indirect Access, you might have been able to handle that growth with the same set of user licenses if no new user types were introduced. In short, heavy transaction volumes can make Digital Access expensive. UpperEdge, a licensing advisory firm, noted that in about 90% of the cases they studied, the Indirect model turned out to be financially more favourable – this underscores that Digital Access isn’t automatically cheaper; each case is unique.
• Ongoing Monitoring and Management: With Digital Access, you’ll need to implement new monitoring processes to track document creation counts. It introduces a new layer of license management. Organizations should set up dashboards or reports to watch their document consumption against licensed amounts. This is doable; SAP even promised a “License Utilization Dashboard” tool to help, and many companies have built custom monitors. Still, it’s an operational task that your SAP basis or compliance team needs to own. If not managed, you could exceed your entitlement and then face an unexpected cost to make up for the difference.
• Complexity in Measurement: Early adopters reported that SAP’s measurement tools, such as the Passport tool or the notes SAP provided for ECC/S4, had accuracy issues. These tools sometimes overcount documents because they can’t distinguish, for example, an original document creation from a minor update or a system-generated follow-up. While SAP has improved guidance, there’s still a need for careful interpretation of the results. Customers often have to work closely with SAP’s auditors to validate the document counts. Until you become comfortable with how documents are counted in your specific processes, there is a risk of either underestimating or overestimating, which can lead to compliance issues or over-purchasing licenses. In short, measurement has a learning curve – it’s not as plug-and-play as counting named users.
• Cost of Change and Contract Lock-In: Moving to Digital Access usually means signing a contract amendment. You might be committing to a new metric that, while flexible, locks you into a certain way of licensing. If your company’s strategy changes or if SAP were ever to change the terms, you have less wiggle room to revert to user-based licensing (SAP generally doesn’t allow going backward once you convert). Also, after the DAAP incentives, any additional document capacity you need is at far higher prices. CIOs should be aware that SAP also views this model as a revenue opportunity – once you’re on it, expanding usage may result in significant additional spending. Some have voiced concern that SAP could audit more frequently (even annually), as it is a metric-based system, although SAP has not formally stated any change in audit frequency.
• Process and Integration Adjustments: This is an often-overlooked point – once you realize that “every document costs money,” some organizations start to optimize their integrations to reduce document creation. For example, they might batch certain updates or avoid unnecessary document postings. While efficiency is good, if teams start making design decisions to minimize license counts, that can lead to suboptimal processes or additional development effort. Under Indirect Access, you never cared how many documents a given interface created as long as the user was licensed. Now, you might alter system behaviour to reduce the count. This is not exactly a con of the model itself (which is doing what it’s supposed to) but a potential side effect: licensing considerations influencing system design.

In summary, Digital Access offers clarity and flexibility, but at the potential cost of higher variable expenses and additional management overhead. In contrast, Indirect Access offers a simpler concept and potentially lower costs for low-volume usage, but it carries significant compliance risks and rigidity.

How SAP Evaluates Usage and Conducts Audits Under Each Model

Understanding SAP’s oversight mechanisms is crucial for CIOs to manage compliance proactively.

Auditing Indirect Access (Traditional Model):

Under the classic model, SAP’s License Auditing (GLAC) team typically conducts periodic audits, often annually or biannually, depending on the contract and audit schedule. These audits historically focused on named user counts and license classification, using tools like USMM and LAW to gather user data from systems.

Indirect Access audits are more challenging because there’s no automatic tool that lists “indirect users.” Instead, SAP may use a combination of methods:

• Questionnaires: SAP often sends audit questionnaires asking if you have various types of third-party interfaces (e.g., “Do you interface SAP with any non-SAP systems? If so, describe them.”). They want you to self-declare indirect usage.
• Interface User Analysis: Auditors can look at your SAP user list for generic or technical users (accounts often named “SAPPI” or “INTERFACE”, etc.) and then investigate what those are used for. If one user ID is posting an unusually high number of transactions, that’s a flag to ask what application is behind it and how many people use that application.
• System Logs: In some cases, SAP might request gateway logs or STAD logs that show calls coming into SAP from external systems. These can reveal patterns of use.
  If auditors find scenarios where, say, 500 different people are accessing SAP data via a single interface, they will likely conclude you need 500 named user licenses of the appropriate type for those people. In an audit resolution, SAP might price them at the list price (plus back maintenance), which results in a large bill. It’s then up to negotiation – sometimes customers argue down the user type or count. However, this audit process is adversarial and uncertain. SAP’s stance in the late 2010s became stricter on this, as evidenced by enforcement actions, and they were willing to pursue it. For CIOs, this means that if you remain on Indirect Access, you should consider conducting your internal audit of indirect usage before SAP does, to identify and license any gaps in advance.

Auditing Digital Access (Document Model): If you switch to Digital Access, how do audits work? The process becomes more metric-driven:

• SAP provides a Digital Access measurement program (SAP Note for ECC or a built-in report for S/4HANA) that can count the number of each of the nine document types created indirectly in the system. In an audit, you would run this report (or SAP might assist remotely) to obtain the counts. You would compare that to your licensed entitlement.
• Typically, you purchase a certain number of documents, such as an annual allotment or a perpetual entitlement per year. SAP will check if your usage exceeds that. If it does, you are out of compliance and need to purchase additional document capacity. If it’s below or within your licensed amount, you’re fine.
• One key question customers often have: “Is SAP going to audit us every year for Digital Access usage?” The model itself doesn’t necessarily require annual true-ups unless specified in the contract, but practically, SAP may request the report annually, along with user counts. Many customers incorporate digital document counts into their regular license compliance process. Since it’s just data from the system, it’s much easier to provide than to prove indirect user counts. That said, SAP has not explicitly announced more frequent audits – they will likely stick to normal audit cycles, just including Digital Access in the scope once it is available.
• Another question: “What if our usage drops one year – do we get credit?” Typically, licensing is generally about entitlements, not consumption like a utility. If you purchased rights to, say, 1 million documents per year and you only used 800,000, you don’t get money back. You just have headroom. (Unless you negotiated some consumption-based model, but the standard is perpetual metrics.)
• Handling of spikes or changes: If you have an unusual one-time event (e.g., a merger causes a spike in documents one quarter), you’d likely need to speak with SAP about adjusting your license or using some of that buffer if you had any. SAP might be reasonable if it were truly unforeseen, but contractually, you are required to license any use beyond your entitlement. So, planning for peak usage is important.
• Suppose you are out of compliance under Digital Access. In that case, one saving grace is that SAP’s exchange credit policy might allow you to trade some underutilized other licenses to cover it (for example, if you had spare engine or user licenses). This was part of the Digital Access proposition – flexibility to move investment where needed.

In practice, customers who have moved to Digital Access report that audits have become more mechanical—just numbers to review—and less about negotiation through argument. But it’s still early for many – widespread adoption only ramped up in the last couple of years due to DAAP.

CIOs should ensure that, after adoption, they have the tools in place to continuously measure document usage, so they aren’t caught off guard during audits.

SAP has hinted at better built-in dashboards, and third-party license management tools are also evolving to handle digital documents.

SAP’s Perspective:

It’s worth noting SAP’s position: they argue Digital Access is meant to simplify compliance and remove grey areas. They’ve collaborated with user groups to address concerns. SAP publicly committed to not using Indirect Access as a “gotcha” for loyal customers but rather to offer this new model for transparency.

The extension of DAAP and quotes from SAP’s leadership, such as CEO Christian Klein, indicate that they want customers to choose the model that fits without feeling punished. Of course, SAP also stands to gain revenue if many new documents are licensed, so it’s a balance.

Assessing Your Landscape: Estimating Indirect Usage and Document Counts

Before making any decision, a CIO should lead an internal assessment of the organization’s SAP integration landscape.

This exercise will illuminate whether Indirect Access or Digital Access is more suitable.

Here’s a step-by-step framework for assessment:

1. Inventory All Third-Party Touchpoints: Create a comprehensive list of all the systems, applications, and external user groups that interface with your SAP ECC or S/4HANA system. This includes obvious interfaces (such as a CRM system, supplier portal, or e-commerce site) as well as less obvious ones (custom mobile apps, IoT platforms, partner EDI connections, and reporting tools that write back to SAP, etc.). Document for each interface whether it reads from SAP, writes to SAP, or both.
2. Identify Document-Creating Activities: For each interface or integration, determine what kinds of transactions it performs in SAP. Does it create sales orders? Purchase orders? Does it post goods movements or invoices? List out the relevant document types involved. If an interface only reads data (for example, an analytics tool pulling information), note that as well – such read-only access might require a user license under Indirect Access but would generate zero documents under Digital Access.
3. Estimate Volume of Transactions: Gather metrics on how many transactions each interface generates in a typical month or year. For example, your B2B portal might generate 5,000 sales orders per month, or your warehouse scanning system might post 20,000 material documents (such as goods issues or receipts) per month. Use logs, database records, or application stats to get these figures. If you have seasonal or cyclical variations, capture those as well (peak vs. average).
4. Run SAP’s Measurement Tools: If you are an SAP ECC customer, consider implementing SAP’s Note 2644139 (for ECC) or the equivalent tool for S/4HANA that SAP provides to track digital access documents. This automated report will scan your SAP system and report the number of each of the nine document types created through external usage within a given period. You might need to run it for the past year to get annual numbers. It may require some basic team effort, but SAP can assist as part of their evaluation service. Compare the results of this tool with your manually gathered estimates to ensure they are accurate and make sense. Be prepared to interpret – for instance, if it reports 100k financial documents indirectly, verify if those were truly external triggers or internal processes.
5. Map External Users (for Indirect Access): In parallel, enumerate the distinct external users or entities that interact with SAP via the integrations. For example, “Portal A has 300 customer users,” “System B represents 50 devices on the shop floor,” and “10 customer service reps use Interface C at a partner company.” This will give you a sense of how many named users you would theoretically need to cover all indirect usage if sticking to the traditional model. Also, classify them by type of use (display only vs. transactional) to guess which license category each would need (Professional, Limited, etc.), as different licenses have different costs.
6. Calculate Current License Coverage: Check your existing SAP license entitlement. How many named users do you already own, and of what types? Do you perhaps already have some “external user” license bundle negotiated (some companies, for instance, negotiated special terms for partner or OEM access)? Also, check if you own any “SAP Application” licenses, such as the Sales and Service Order Processing Engine. SAP historically licenses indirect use based on engine metrics, such as the number of orders per year. If you have those, note their usage limits and current consumption.
7. Model the Costs for Each Option: Now, the critical part – compare scenarios:
   • Indirect Access Scenario: Determine how many additional named user licenses you would need to properly license all the indirect users you identified (and of what type). For example, if you identified 500 external users who currently aren’t licensed, and you’d categorize 300 as occasional users (maybe Employee Self-Service users) and 200 as heavy users (Limited Professional), price that out. Use your discounted prices if you know them. Also, include any one-time costs if you think an audit would result in a chargeback for maintenance – effectively, what is the worst-case financial exposure of continuing as is and being found non-compliant? That figure might be high, but it’s important for risk evaluation. On the other hand, if you’re largely compliant, the cost to stay might be incremental licenses.
   • Digital Access Scenario: Using the document counts from step 4, apply SAP’s pricing model. You’ll need input from SAP for the actual prices, but you can make a rough estimate based on assumptions. For instance, assume a price per 1,000 documents and scale it. Apply the weighting (if the tool or SAP provided weighted totals, use those). Then factor in the DAAP discounts: a first purchase is 90% off, and so on. Also, consider any credit from your existing licenses that you would surrender. The result should be an approximate net cost to switch to Digital Access. You might consider a 5-year horizon: initial cost with DAAP, plus any growth. Because after the initial purchase, as your documents grow, you’d buy more at closer to the list price, so project, say, a 5-10% growth in documents per year and accumulate that cost.
8. Consider Qualitative Factors: Cost is not the only factor. Reflect on strategic and operational considerations:
   • How likely are you to significantly increase integrations, which could lead to increased indirect usage? (If very likely, Digital Access may pay off in avoiding constant license management.)
   • What is your risk tolerance for an audit fight? Some companies do not want to ever face a legal dispute like Diageo did – the reputational damage and distraction were huge. Digital Access largely eliminates that particular kind of conflict.
   • How important is a predictable OpEx vs potentially lumpy true-up CapEx? Digital Access can make SAP licensing more usage-based (some might even negotiate it as a subscription metric), whereas Indirect might hit you with a big bill once a decade.
   • Do you have internal capabilities to monitor document usage? If not, are you willing to invest in that process? If yes, then managing Digital Access is feasible; if not, Indirect might be simpler to stick with.
   • Also consider the industry context: Some industries, such as utilities or telecoms with millions of customers, or consumer goods with e-commerce, have faced greater pains with Indirect Access and thus find Digital Access almost necessary. Others (like a professional services firm with few external systems) saw little benefit.
9. Engage with SAP Early: It’s often wise to have an open dialogue with your SAP account executive once you’ve done some homework. SAP can provide a formal Digital Access estimate (typically under NDA) as part of the evaluation service. They can also clarify any questions about the contract. Be honest about your concerns and ask for customer references – SAP might share how similar customers approached it. This engagement doesn’t commit you, but it sets the stage if you decide to negotiate a switch.

Through this assessment, you should arrive at a clear picture: Under what circumstances does Digital Access make sense for us, and is it financially and operationally advantageous?

It will also reveal if you have any serious compliance gaps today that need to be addressed, regardless of the model.

For example, you might discover unlicensed usage that you should address now to avoid immediate risk.

Decision Framework: When to Choose Digital Access vs. Remain with Indirect Access

Every enterprise’s situation is unique, but here are some guidelines and scenarios to help inform the decision:

Consider SAP Digital Access if:

• You have a growing ecosystem of integrations, including APIs, third-party apps, IoT devices, and business partners, all of which interact with SAP. If digital transformation is on your agenda – say you’re opening your ERP to a web of new services – Digital Access provides unlimited connectivity without having to count users for each new integration. For example, a global manufacturer connecting hundreds of machines and sensors to SAP for real-time data may find user licensing impractical, whereas document licensing provides a clean solution.
• The external user count is very high or unbounded. Companies with customer-facing systems that interface with SAP, such as e-commerce or customer portals, often have potentially tens of thousands of end-users. Licensing each one by name is cost-prohibitive and operationally impossible. Digital Access shines here: whether it’s 10,000 or 1,000,000 customers, you pay for the documents (orders, etc.) they create, not the headcount. This can be a game-changer for B2C scenarios. A large retail enterprise, for instance, chose Digital Access because it wanted all its online orders integrated into SAP, but couldn’t fathom trying to license each consumer; the document model matched business reality.
• You want to eliminate Indirect Access compliance risk. If your leadership has a low tolerance for legal or audit risks, Digital Access offers peace of mind. Once on it, you largely avoid the grey area debates about what a user is. Many CIOs opt for Digital Access to sleep better at night, knowing they won’t become the next Diageo case, because they proactively licensed the indirect use via documents. In highly regulated industries or companies with strict compliance cultures, this risk reduction can outweigh cost considerations.
• Your analysis shows Digital Access is cost-effective. Suppose your internal assessment (with SAP’s help) shows that the cost of document licensing will be comparable to or less than the cost of continuing with users (especially after DAAP discounts). It’s probably a good idea to move forward. For instance, if SAP shows that you can move to Digital Access with a net investment of $ 500,000 and that covers your anticipated growth, compare that to the potential multi-million-dollar exposure under Indirect – it may be a bargain. Some companies have even found that they can reduce maintenance costs by trading in oversized user licenses for a leaner document license tailored to their actual usage.
• You are planning a S/4HANA migration or contract renewal. Major transitions are opportune times to re-evaluate licensing. If you’re moving to S/4HANA (especially by 2027, when ECC support ends), SAP will likely encourage you to adopt the new model as part of your new contract. Embracing Digital Access during a migration can simplify the new environment’s license structure. Additionally, you have more negotiating leverage at such junctures to secure good terms (for example, bundling Digital Access as part of a broader S/4 deal). Essentially, if a big change is coming anyway, it’s an ideal moment to lock in a future-proof model.
• Your usage profile is document-heavy but user-light, and it can be optimized. Suppose you notice that much of your indirect usage comes from automated processes that generate many documents from a few sources. In that case, you might still consider Digital Access if you’re prepared to optimize those processes. Some organizations have successfully reduced their document count through minor process changes, such as consolidating multiple small transactions into a single larger one when feasible. If you can control the volume somewhat, the cost can be kept in check, enabling you to enjoy the other benefits of Digital Access without runaway fees.

Sticking with Indirect Access (Named Users) might be preferable if:

• Your indirect usage is minimal or stable. If you looked at your integrations and found very few external touchpoints – or maybe your business model doesn’t involve much external IT integration – then the old model might suffice. For example, a company that mainly uses SAP internally and has one or two integrations involving only a handful of partner users can license those users. The effort and expense to switch to Digital Access might not be justified if the benefit is negligible. In this case, maintaining the status quo and just being diligent with user licensing is the pragmatic choice.
• The projected Digital Access cost is significantly higher. This is a critical factor: if your analysis reveals that moving to Digital Access would, even with incentives, substantially increase your annual SAP spend, you have to question the ROI. Let’s say you currently pay $1M in SAP maintenance annually. Under Digital Access, it appears that the cost would increase to $1.3 million due to document licenses – that $ 300,000 delta needs to be justified by intangible benefits or risk avoidance. If you and your CFO don’t see the justification, you might defer adopting the model. Some companies discovered that their transaction volumes would make Digital Access two or three times more expensive than their current licensing. This is a hard sell unless the risk of not doing it is equally severe.
• You have already mitigated indirect risks via contract or architecture. Savvy SAP customers sometimes negotiate special clauses in their contracts that allow certain types of indirect use without additional license fees. For example, there are instances of companies negotiating that “customer self-service use via portal X is included in fees” or similar. If you are one of those and have it in writing, the risk of SAP coming after you for that scenario is greatly reduced, as long as you operate within that scope. Also, if your architecture is set up in a way that limits SAP interaction – for example, if you mostly sync data one-way to a data warehouse for external consumption – you might have effectively isolated SAP from indirect use. In such cases, you may not feel a pressing need to switch models.
• Your organization is not ready for the operational change. Adopting Digital Access isn’t just a financial decision; it’s an operational commitment to track a new metric. If your IT team is small or already overextended, taking on license monitoring and optimization for documents can be daunting. Some companies may choose to delay moving to Digital Access to avoid adding complexity for now. They may instead focus on tightening their indirect usage manually (e.g., by limiting who can build integrations or ensuring each integration is reviewed for license impact).
• You plan to eventually move to SAP’s cloud solutions that include indirect use in the subscription. This is a bit forward-looking: if your strategy is to migrate from on-premise ERP to SaaS (like SAP S/4HANA Cloud or other cloud offerings), in those models, the subscription often covers certain external usage or the metric is different (such as orders or revenue). You might not want to invest in restructuring on-prem licensing if you see yourself exiting that model in a few years. Instead, you’d manage Indirect Access risks in the interim (maybe through a short-term license deal or increased vigilance) and then let the issue resolve itself when you move to the cloud. This is a less common scenario for large enterprises in the near term, but it’s a consideration if it aligns with your roadmap.

In making the decision, it’s also worth noting that it isn’t necessarily irreversible. Some companies take a phased approach: for example, adopting Digital Access for new systems or subsidiaries, while keeping legacy environments on the old model until they are retired.

However, SAP’s official stance is usually to have one model per customer environment to avoid confusion, so any hybrid approach would need to be carefully discussed and documented with SAP- and this is not typical.

Finally, ensure that any decision is not just an IT decision – involve your procurement, legal, and finance teams as well.

Licensing changes have contract implications and long-term cost impacts that these stakeholders should take into account.

When done collaboratively, you’ll make a more balanced decision that the whole leadership can support.

Real-World Examples and Lessons Learned

Seeing how others navigated this decision can provide valuable insights:

• The earlier example of Diageo stands as a stark reminder. They extended SAP data to customers and salespeople via Salesforce without additional SAP licenses. The result was a legal defeat and a multi-million dollar cost. The lesson for CIOs is clear: if you rely on Indirect Access, you must have explicit licenses for those scenarios, or a legal risk looms. After that case, many companies scrambled to identify similar exposures. Some quietly bought additional user licenses for their external users, while others accelerated consideration of Digital Access to avoid such scenarios. Diageo’s case also prompted SAP to clarify its policies – in fact, it was a catalyst for SAP’s introduction of Digital Access in the first place.
• Industrial Manufacturer (Sticking with Indirect Access): Consider a large industrial manufacturing firm that has a few key system interfaces, such as a manufacturing execution system on the shop floor that posts production data to SAP, and a handful of engineers accessing SAP through a custom application. This company analyzed its indirect usage and found it amounted to perhaps 50,000 documents a year, mostly production confirmations and inventory movements. They also identified approximately 40 shop floor terminals and users, as well as 10 engineers involved. When they got a quote for Digital Access, it turned out that they would spend more on document licenses (even at a discount) than simply buying 50 additional user licenses to cover everyone who might use those systems. They opted to stay with Indirect Access, purchased some extra Limited Professional User licenses for those shop floor users, and tightly controlled any new interfaces. Their rationale was that the cost was low and predictable under the old model, and they felt confident they could manage compliance by just counting the known users.
• Global Beverage Company #2 (Choosing Digital Access): On the flip side, a different beverage company with a massive global footprint decided to go all-in on Digital Access. They had multiple consumer-facing mobile apps, distributor portals, and IoT projects, such as connected vending machines, that interfaced with SAP. Trying to license each of those users or devices would have been impossible. After running SAP’s evaluation, they estimated around 200,000 relevant documents per year. With DAAP incentives, they converted a chunk of their existing licenses and purchased document capacity. The initial cost was modest due to credits, and now they effectively have carte blanche to connect new apps. They found a side benefit, too: previously, their SAP integration projects often stalled while the team debated licensing; now, with document licensing, they ensure any new interface’s transactions are counted, and they proceed. It unlocked a sort of agility – their IT architecture became more open, knowing licensing wasn’t a roadblock. Over time, they saw documents rise to about $250,000 per year, for which they had to true up (at standard rates); however, the business value of those new digital channels far outweighed the additional cost.
• Global Brewer (Hybrid Approach Leading to Digital): Anheuser-Busch InBev’s encounter with SAP, which we mentioned, ended in a settlement. While details are private, it’s known that around that time, SAP’s new model was emerging. It’s quite possible, though not publicly confirmed, that part of their settlement or subsequent negotiations involved switching to an updated licensing model to avoid future conflicts. Large enterprises that settled indirect disputes often pushed for better terms as we progressed, effectively not wanting to repeat that experience. For other enterprises, the AB InBev scenario highlighted that even if you have deep pockets and fight, you might end up paying something with little to show for it. Many concluded that it’s better to invest proactively in proper licensing (whether more named users or digital access) rather than paying penalties. In licensing forums, it was discussed that some companies began negotiating “caps” on indirect fees in their contracts after these major cases – e.g., an agreement that limits how much SAP can claim in an audit. Such clauses are hard to come by, but the specter of a $600M claim motivated me to try.
• Healthcare Provider (Cost Predictability): A large healthcare organization that handles patient data across third-party systems chose Digital Access primarily for its predictability. They had struggled before with allocating SAP user licenses for various partner systems, often ending up with overbought user licenses. After moving to Digital Access, they had a clear annual count of documents (in their case, items such as service records and billing documents triggered by external health apps). They could present to finance a neat report: “We used X documents out of our entitlement of Y, and next year, with these new projects, we forecast Z documents, which will require an extra purchase of N units.” Finance appreciated this clarity – it turned SAP licensing into a usage-based expense that could be budgeted, akin to cloud subscriptions, rather than an irregular spend.
• Retail Company (License Optimization): A retail chain with multiple store systems and an e-commerce site integrated into SAP adopted Digital Access but soon realized that their interfaces were generating a lot of unnecessary documents, including duplicate entries and test records. The licensing team worked with their developers to optimize transactions, for example, bundling certain updates into one document where possible rather than multiple. They managed to trim their yearly document count by 15%, which, in effect, saved them licensing costs and maintenance fees on those documents. This was a positive outcome, but it highlights that once on Digital Access, companies may actively manage how processes create documents, a task they never had to think about before. This retailer publicly shared that they considered the exercise healthy – it eliminated inefficiencies – but others might view it as an unwanted side chore.

These examples illustrate a range: some stayed put and tightened compliance, some jumped to the new model eagerly, and some were forced into changes by audits.

One clear pattern is that companies with significant external interaction lean towards Digital Access, while those with contained environments might lean towards Indirect Access, provided they keep compliance tightly under control.

Also, almost everyone who switched to Digital Access did so with careful measurement and negotiation – it wasn’t a blind leap of faith but a calculated move after ensuring they got the best possible deal from SAP.

What CIOs Should Do (Recommendations)

1. Boldly Assess Your Indirect Usage Today – Don’t wait for SAP to flag an issue. Conduct an internal audit of all third-party integrations and indirect usage of SAP. Know exactly how your SAP data is being accessed by non-SAP applications and document who or what is doing it. This baseline is crucial for any decision.

**2. Leverage SAP’s Evaluation Services – Engage SAP early and take advantage of the free Digital Access Evaluation Service. Let SAP’s tools measure your document usage in a risk-free manner. This not only provides you with data but also signals to SAP that you’re proactively managing compliance, which can foster goodwill.

**3. Compare Scenarios Side by Side, with Costs – Develop a clear cost comparison of staying on Indirect Access versus moving to Digital Access. Include potential audit penalties in the Indirect scenario and include future growth in the Digital scenario. Present these scenarios to finance leadership to ensure the comparison is understood beyond IT. Often, the predictability of one model versus the risk of the other will spark a productive discussion.

**4. Engage Expertise and Peer Insights – If needed, bring in SAP licensing experts or consult with user groups (such as ASUG or DSAG) that have gone through this process. Many peers have shared experiences; some user groups have published guides on indirect access. External experts can help validate your estimates and negotiation strategy. Don’t rely solely on SAP’s word; get a second opinion on the best approach for your situation.

**5. Negotiate from a Position of Knowledge – If you decide to pursue Digital Access, come to the table with data. Use the DAAP to your advantage – negotiate the best discount and credit you can, and ensure you get an adequate buffer for future growth in writing. Conversely, if you decide to stay with Named Users, consider negotiating clarifications or amendments to your SAP contract that explicitly define acceptable indirect use cases. A little contractual clarity now can prevent disputes later.

**6. Build Monitoring into IT Processes – Regardless of the model, implement ongoing monitoring. If on Digital Access, establish a quarterly check on document consumption against licenses and tune integrations as needed. If you remain on Indirect Access, track the creation of any new integration or user group that interacts with SAP, and update your license counts accordingly. Embedding this into your IT change management will ensure you remain compliant and can adjust before an audit forces your hand.

**7. Educate and Communicate – Make sure your broader IT and business teams understand the licensing model you’ve chosen. If Indirect, educate application developers and project managers about the implications of connecting new systems to SAP, as they may need licenses. If Digital, ensure they know that creating SAP documents has a cost, not to scare innovation, but so they can architect efficiently. Keeping everyone aware prevents inadvertent compliance issues or cost overruns.

**8. Plan for the Future – Licensing should not be static. Revisit your decision periodically (e.g., annually or with any major system change). If you stayed with Indirect Access but suddenly planned a big digital initiative, re-evaluate Digital Access at that time. If you adopted Digital Access, regularly confirm it remains the right fit as your business evolves. SAP’s offerings and policies may also change, so keep an eye on any new licensing developments. For example, if SAP adjusts the document model or pricing, you’ll want to reassess.

By following these steps and recommendations, CIOs can approach the decision between indirect and digital access in a structured and strategic way. The key is to be proactive – the worst position is to do nothing and hope for the best. Given the potential financial stakes and opportunities for optimization, it’s a decision worth tackling head-on. When done right, you’ll either negotiate a modern licensing model that supports your digital strategy or reinforce your controls under the existing model to ensure you’re safe – either outcome is far better than uncertainty.