Skip to Content
avatar image
Former Member

Challenges & Risks in implementation of SAP ILM Implementation for CUSTOM Archive objects

Hello SAP ILM Experts,

Any help is highly appreciated .

We have a business requirement to implement SAP ILM Solution for our client . We have a requirement for ILM Archival, Implement Retention Management,and E Discovery & Legal Hold solution for custom archive objects .

I am aware that SAP has provided a list of standard archive objects which are ILM compliant . Now the challenge is , since all of my objects are custom in nature, how can we implement ILM solution ( archival, retention manager , legal hold and E Discovery). With respect to ILM Implimentation in Custom Object ,what are the CHALLENGES & RISKS in : (1)implementing SAP ILM for custom archival ojects Vis-a-Vis Standard Objects . (2)Mapping an Archive Object to an ILM Object, (3)Mapping ILM Object to Destruction OBject, (4)Mapping ILM Object to BOR Object Types ( Standard objects have BOR , but ductom objects donot have one ). Do we need to create custom BOR's for custom object archival in ILM (5)Defining IRM POlicy Rules (6)Assigning plicy rules to Audit Areas (7) Define Audit area specific retention policies (8) Assigning Audit areas to my custom Archive Object . (9) Applying Legal Hold to my custom objects (10) Applying E Discovery solution I want to know the challenges faced in the above mentioned steps. For your information, we are using OPEN TEXT as CMS. PS : I have already undergone through the entire SAP Help Material on SAP ILM and this doesnt help me in implementing ILM solution for my custom objects. I am facing lot of issues in the above mentioned 10 steps. Any Guidance would greately help me.

Thanks and Best Regards

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

1 Answer

  • May 08, 2017 at 05:02 AM

    Hi Ajay
    It is a while since you posted this question but I will offer the following anyway.

    We have decommissioned a couple of non-SAP HR systems using ILM. This has obviously involved 100% custom archiving objects.
    (1) Limited risk. The challenges in custom v standard are the same. The definition and setup of time references for use in the policies for custom objects is just as challenging as for standard objects.
    (2) One of the key tasks is to set up an ILM object in IRM_CUST including linking it to the (custom) archiving object. There is no issue with using a custom object as the target.
    (3) In our case, the destruction is done by age of the data (or employee) using the standard data destruction functionality without the use of Data Destruction Objects so I cannot comment on this
    (4) We don't use BOR Objects so can't comment
    (5) Policies are the same as for standard objects. So long as you have set up all the customising and object definition correctly then setting the policy is simple.
    (6/7/8) Again, there is no difference between standard and custom objects here so no challenge or risk.
    (9/10) Legal Hold Management works the same - using eDiscovery report SLCM_ADK_FILES_SELECT_RW it will select any Archive Object regardless of whether it is standard or custom.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded