Every non-SAP system that reads, creates, updates or deletes SAP data is a potential indirect access exposure. Most enterprises have dozens of these flows — CRMs posting orders, e-commerce platforms creating customers, middleware pushing transactions, B2B EDI partners exchanging documents, customer portals surfacing real-time data. SAP's position is clear and contractually defensible. The customer's defence is to quantify the exposure, apply the Digital Access Adoption Program credit, and convert exposure into appropriately priced licensing — typically at 60–85% below SAP's opening claim.
SAP's indirect access position covers any access to SAP data by a person or system not separately licensed under a Named User. In practice, this includes: a sales rep entering quotes in Salesforce that post into SAP via integration; a customer placing an order on an e-commerce platform that creates an SAP sales order; a planner using a BI tool that reads SAP data; a B2B trading partner exchanging EDI documents with SAP; an IoT platform that pushes manufacturing telemetry; a custom portal that shows SAP inventory to customers.
The legal frame was established in the Diageo (UK High Court, 2017) and AB InBev (settled, 2017) cases. Both confirmed that the customer's indirect users — Salesforce users in Diageo's case — require SAP licensing where the integration causes the SAP system to process transactions on their behalf. Neither case has been overturned. SAP's position is therefore not a sales tactic but established contract law.
The first exposure mapping in our SAP engagements averages 8–22% of the maintenance base.
SAP's Digital Access model prices indirect access by counting nine document types: sales order, invoice, purchase order, service entry sheet, manufacturing order, quality notification, time confirmation, material document, financial document. Each document type has its own pricing per block. Documents created by humans logged in via a Named User license are not counted. Documents created by non-SAP systems via API, RFC, IDoc, EDI or any other interface are counted.
For most enterprises, the Digital Access economics are materially favourable versus Named User licensing of indirect users. A million-document-per-year flow that would require thousands of Named User licenses under the legacy approach typically costs a fraction under Digital Access. The exception is low-volume, high-value flows (a senior treasury user posting infrequent but high-impact transactions) where Named User is still cheaper.
The Digital Access Adoption Program (DAAP) provides credit for prior purchases of Named User licenses that covered indirect users, when the customer converts to Digital Access. The credit structure is a sliding scale: the larger the historical license commitment to indirect users, the larger the DAAP credit. Customers who converted to Digital Access under DAAP in 2018–2020 captured the largest credits. Customers converting in 2025–2026 capture smaller — but still material — credits.
Includes the indirect access mapping framework, the Digital Access pricing model, and the DAAP credit analysis.
The structured approach to indirect access mapping has four phases. First, inventory every non-SAP system that integrates with SAP — typically 20–80 systems for a mid-large enterprise. Second, classify each integration by direction (reads, writes, both) and by transaction type (sales, finance, HR, logistics). Third, quantify the document volume by transaction type using SAP transaction code logs (most efficiently via the LAW reports SAP runs annually). Fourth, model the Digital Access cost at each volume tier and compare against the alternative Named User cost for indirect users.
The output of the mapping is a quantified exposure number and a remediation plan. The remediation plan options are: convert to Digital Access (typical for high-volume flows); license indirect users as Named Users (typical for low-volume, high-value flows); redesign the integration to eliminate the indirect flow (occasionally feasible); or accept the exposure with documented contingency reserves (rarely the right answer, but sometimes the pragmatic interim).
The window to convert exposure into appropriately priced licensing is widest before SAP raises the question.
Indirect access advisory sits at the intersection of SAP contract law, integration architecture and document-volume analysis. The firms most consistently recommended:
We have mapped indirect access exposure across hundreds of SAP estates.
Weekly compliance intelligence for IT leaders.
