Skip to Content
avatar image
Former Member

Advantages of BPC over BI-IP

Dear All,

I am new to BPC NW and would like your expert views on some of my observations on the much debated advantages of BPC over BI IP.

One of the benefits of BI IP was the integrated reporting capabilities with a common master data and combining the transaction data (actual and budget). However, as I understand BPC is intentionally not integrated with backend BW.

BW master data is different and separate from BPC master data, thus it is not possible to integrate BPC cubes with BW cubes. To view an actual vs plan comparison, data would need to be copied / loaded back and forth between the BW cubes and BPC cubes. However, it does not seem practical in scenarios where planning requires significant amount of actual data. Moreover, this would mean multiple reporting interfaces for the users.

BPC will be driven by Business users.

What is it that we are empowering the business users with? The ability to define his own dimensions / applications/ dimension members / Input schedules?

Usually planning requirement is not just a simple input enabled screen. There are many more functionalities that would be required which would need writing of logic, code etc. Loading of master / transaction data requires creation of transformation, conversion files and data packages. Obviously, these tasks would not be done by the business users.

To be honest, I am slightly concerned over giving the business user a free reign on creating objects in the system. Without proper training, things could get out of hand with duplicate objects popping up everywhere in the system. Another area of concern is possibility of modeling same data differently in BPC and BW. It might cause complexities while integrating the data between the two

BPC seem to be targeted to facilitate financial planning. However, we require planning for areas outside finance (headcount, volume allocation / distribution etc). I would have assumed that a reporting application of Type u2018Genericu2019 would have the flexibility to include only the required dimensions as opposed to having to include the standard dimensions of type A, E, T and C.

When compared to BI IP, I am not sure if BPC NW in its current form would be the best tool to deliver integrated planning in multiple areas.

Having said that, these are still early days for BPC NW. Hopefully we will see a tighter integration of BPC NW with BW and more flexible planning in non-financial areas in the future releases.

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

2 Answers

  • avatar image
    Former Member
    Mar 16, 2010 at 06:10 PM


    In BPC Netweaver, Everything is possible that we have been doing in BI IP that is from:

    1) Actual Vs Plan Comparison is possible and can be done.

    2) You can develop headcount planning HR based, It does not have to be Financial, definately (100%)

    3) The BI IP Data Slices CHar Relation, everything is there, It is just the way works is differemt

    4) It uses the same Locking transaction of RSPLSE as in background.

    My dear, all your queries that you have mentioned is possible. The only thing that is a problem is a integration with BW.


    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • avatar image
    Former Member
    Mar 16, 2010 at 06:11 PM


    I respect your opinions. BPC as you said, is not for financial planning only. It can be used for other plannings as well. I have used it for headcount, project planning etc.

    You can definitely report on both actual and plan data. Either you put all the data in the same application or maintain 2 different applications. You can report on multiple applications. So, I dont see any challenge in that sense.

    You are right by saying that business users, without proper training, should not be given access to the admin activities. However, the main advantage here would be that one of the business users can be trained and he or she can take care of the various objects. BPC admin is not very complex as designing in IP or BPS for that matter.

    Hope this helps.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member Federico Blarasin

      Thank you for your statement regarding the issues of using BPC in the context of BW. I very much appreciate your excellent comments.

      Also thank you for providing the link to the statement about the advantages of using BPC because of the Excel user interface. It certainly does appear that SAP marketing is trying to get customers to move to Business Objects and BPC. Of course, it would be a strong advantage to be able to leverage the existing skills of Excel users.

      We already own Integrated Planning and it appears to satisfy the immediate business requirements. We would have to pay for the software licences for BPC, which we don't currently own. Of course, we don't want to pay for these BPC licenses when we already own the IP licenses that will satisfy the requirements.

      In addition, it indeed looks as though SAP is positioning BPC to use the Business Objects universe. Although we know that, eventually, we will probably have to convert to selected components of Business Objects for business intelligence, we don't want to have to once again make another substantial investment in SAP business intelligence when we so recently made such a large investment in the SAP Business Information Warehouse. We will have not yet earned our return on investment on the Business Informastion Warehouse.

      Given the timing, we don't think it is fair that SAP expects companies to once again have to pay for the business intelligence software and to implement Business Objects, convert from the Business Information Warehouse to Business Objects, redevelop, retrain, and redeploy all the reports using the Business Objects tools. The customers will incur additional costs because of the reimplementation, conversion, redevelopment, retaining, and redeployment of the reports. Without this kind of consideration, in these economic times, it will be difficult for the installed base of companies to justify the conversion to Business Objects, and, consequently, for SAP to realize a reasonable return on its, not insignificant, investment in Business Objects.

      SAP should provide an existing customer of the components of the Business Information Warehouse a migration path to the corresponding Business Objects components of comparable capabilities at no additional license fee as long as the customer is current on its maintenance. Of course, adjustments in the license fees and annual maintenance fees should be made if there are differences in functional and/or quality capabilities between the corresponding components of the Business Information Warehouse and Business Objects.

      In our situation, we already and recently made a significant investment in the Business Information Warehouse and the Business Explorer (BEx) tools, implementation, and reports development. We don't want to have to pay to replace them with Business Objects. We thought we already paid big-time for the business intelligence tools and reports. We even paid for the BI Accelerator and have been very happy with its dramatic improvement on performance. We fear that a commitment to BPC may soon commit us to Business Objects, the latter of which, so far, carries a very large price.