Hidden Indirect Access Issues with SAP HANA?
Introduction
In previous articles, I have outlined some areas where HANA is not what is presented by SAP. One of these areas was the exaggerations of performance made by SAP regarding HANA. Companies are often lulled into an accepting posture regarding HANA on puffed up performance claims and confusing everything from the cost of HANA to what it can do versus other databases, without considering the other hidden implications to HANA.
In fact, HANA is selected in many cases, not because of any particular business case for HANA per se, but because HANA is “SAP’s future direction,” so it is a good safe choice. From a competitive perspective, this is interesting because it means that HANA is frequently selection over other alternatives because of non-HANA attributes.
Either way, what often receives little attention is some of the other ways that HANA can end up becoming a liability long after it is purchased. This is because information is trickling in that SAP is enforcing extra indirect access rules on HANA.
Indirect Access
Indirect access is when a software vendor charges to access the data that is stored in their system. The concept is still relatively new and tends to only apply to very powerful software companies that have products already installed at companies. That is, as a SAP customer you won’t find out about indirect access during the sales process. Indirect access is presented as if it is copyright protection, but the way it is often treated by SAP, it is an enlargement of copyright protection. And almost undiscussed in a published form, indirect access is used by large vendors to block out smaller vendors from their accounts. Indirect access is, therefore, a form of account control. And like any technique of account, control, indirect access is designed to point as many IT expenditures as possible back to the large IT vendor.
Published Information on Indirect Access and HANA
I could not find anything published on SAP’s treatment of indirect access with HANA. And SAP has good reason to not publish on this topic. Indirect access rules and restrictions are best used if they are sprung on the customer after the sale has been made. And even better if the disclosure of them can be made after the implementation is complete or at least somewhat far along. Then after the customer finds out what a weak position they are in, and how they will be on the hook for purchasing more SAP products, the SAP account manager can say
“We should have done a better job communicating on indirect access, but at the time we were so focused on explaining all the performance benefits of HANA.”
I have been on quite a few projects with SAP, and the
“we could have communicated better”
or
“there may have been miscommunication”
is always used instead of the more accurate
“we deliberately withheld information from you.”
And will the large consulting partner communicate on this topic as they “advise” the customer? Of course not. They want the HANA implementation business.
Declaration of Indirect Access Rules for HANA
I don’t spend a lot of time reading SAP licensing agreements. But I imagine indirect access would have to be spelled out in theses documents. However, I reviewed the On Demand HANA Terms of User, which directed me to the end user license agreement for SAP on-premises indirect sales. The term “indirect access” does not appear a single time? This lead me to question where indirect access is stipulated for SAP products, and therefore how and when SAP customers first become aware of the indirect access implications of their purchase.
Conclusion
Companies that purchase HANA are typically replacing another database with HANA. But SAP customers are not receiving the same terms for HANA that they received for the databases they are replacing. It now appears that HANA’s indirect access implications over any database it replaces.
Companies that are thinking of purchasing HANA need to get information as to what are these extra indirect access liabilities.
Companies that have already purchased HANA or are implementing HANA need to find out about these indirect access liabilities as soon as possible, as it can allow more flexibility in decision making and finding out when the SAP account manager wants to release this information to the customer. That time being when the customer has the least opportunity to do anything about it.
In my next article, I will get into a particular example of the indirect access rules that SAP is enforcing on HANA.
About Shaun
Shaun Snapp is the author of many books on technology and SAP. He is the Managing Editor of Brightwork Research & Analysis. Brightwork is a website focused on publishing storylines that do not have a way of getting out through the traditional mediums in enterprise software.
See Shaun’s LinkedIn profile here. Think about connecting with him, as he likes to connect to his readers. His other LinkedIn articles are here.
References
I cover exaggerations on HANA in the following article.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-articles-exaggerate-sap-hanas-benefits-shaun-snapp
I cover indirect access and surprise SAP license charges in this article.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dealing-surprise-sap-license-charges-indirect-access-shaun-snapp
