My company is implementing an EBP 3.0 system and interfacing to an existing 4.6C R/3 backend (where SAP has been rolled out to the subsidiary company) or a non-SAP system (where SAP has not yet been rolled out). The scenario chosen is the 'Standalone' on the basis of this heterogeneous backend system landscape, and the fact that the synchronous RFC communication between EBP and R/3 in the Classic scenarios represents too much of a risk to the business. Is this a wasted opportunity to not take advantage of the ready-made EBP-R/3 integration of the Classic scenarios?
Hard to say with the amount of information here. Do keep in mind that there can be multiple scenarios that can exist in a single EBP implementation.
A lot of the implementations I've been on where we've dealt with a heterogeneous backend system landscape, we've considered implementing both Classic and Standalone scenarios, split by business rules.
I would definitely suggest to explore why you cannot have both classic for R/3 backends and Standlone for non-SAP backends.
Dig Deeper on SAP SCM
Related Q&A from Sachin S. Sethi
An SAP SRM user is looking to update an SRM URL process when implementing or changing a catalog in a live environment in SAP SRM. Continue Reading
An SAP SRM user wants to know how to set Confirmation and Invoice as the default options in a limit-order shopping cart. Continue Reading
An SAP user wants to know the benefits of implementing SAP SRM, and if it's necessary to also implement SAP BI, XI and MDM at the same time. Continue Reading
Have a question for an expert?
Please add a title for your question
Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.