SAP Process Orchestration Reviews

The solution makes it easy to solve integration problems. Most ESBs and most integration we do, we find it helps solve a lot of integration problems. 

The solution is easy to use. SAP used to be difficult. It was known for being difficult, however, the feeling is quite understandable. The way it's been extracted, the way it's model-driven, it's a very unique product. 

The main job for building, developing, on the tool is the NWDS. That is a NetWeaver Development Studio, and it has some technical things you cannot do unless you switch over to the web version. Therefore, you find yourself switching between tools. You find yourself in contracts, with issues, errors, and all that. They should perfect that.

Other than improvement in what it's currently doing, I do not have anything in mind in terms of a new feature that I would like to see. It just an improvement of what is already available.

The usability, for example, is an area where it can be improved upon.

We've been using the solution since 2018. It's been a few years at this point since we first launched it.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite reliable.

As it is with most SAP solutions, the set-up for the scaling, we don't have experience with that. We are just using a single server, a single point of failure. We don't have experience with scaling.  That said, my intuition tells me that it's going to be a bit complex. It likely scales. The question as to how easily it does is what I can't really speak to.

Mostly, our team does the technical support. It's our own technical team that would handle any issues. For that reason, we have not had any direct technical support encounters or any reason to escalate to SAP Global as of right now. For that reason, I can't really speak to their level of knowledge, helpfulness, or responsiveness.

The initial set-up was done by a different team. Our business team handled it for the most part. I'm a developer and didn't really play a role in the implementation.

My understanding, however, is that it's not a very straightforward thing. It can be a little bit complex. In order to get different properties, you need to put together different materials.

We're just a custumer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

The last I checked, we were using the 7.5 version. It may have since switched to 7.6, however, I'm not 100% sure. We typically use the latest version of the solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a nine. We've been pretty happy with it overall.

We have several SAP systems in our landscape that have different modules incorporated in it, and we are using this solution as a gateway for the integration within our landscape of both SAP and non SAP applications that are within the firewall and outside of the firewall. 

The primary use case of this solution is as a gateway for all of the integrations.

Process Orchestration supports everything from simple workflows to complex practices by developing custom process applications.

Improved message processing - With the process Orchestration Single Stack version the throughput of message processing is improved. This is due to the fact that until now the messages were recorded in both the ABAP and Java databases.

Improved Alert Mechanism - Alerts can be filtered by message content.

SAP Process integration Test (PIT) tool - The PIT Tool is a framework with which you can set up automatic tests for process integration scenarios. It really helped us in testing the interfaces post-migration and saved a lot of effort and time.

B2B integration is easier with SAP B2B add-on.

ccBPM's were migrated to NWBPM which Supports human and automated tasks.

With the latest version, what I find to be the most valuable are the REST, SuccessFactors, and Ariba Network adapter, OAuth 2.0 authentication,x-csrf-token, Improved alert mechanism.

Message deletion option.

NWBPM, BRM and B2B add-on.

The NWBPM is also valuable. In the previous version, they had ccBPM, which caused performance degradation issues. With the migration into the new version, the performance has improved and our customers are pleased with this improvement.

They have rules to configure directly in the integration directory that can be done within the interface itself, instead of configuring within the NWA and manually sending it to the users.

Dell Boomi and MuleSoft have dedicated application based connectors. All of these connectors work on the same protocols such as SOAP, HTTP, and REST. They have dedicated application connectors that can be for  Amazon, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Slack, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Workday, etc that are readily available to use.

When it comes to SAP PO, SAP provides SOAP, HTTP, or the REST-based adapters, which we can use to integrate with any of the above-mentioned applications / Webservices / APIs, etc. have to bit-customize to integrate with those particular applications. This is true when using REST, SOAP, or HTTP.

I feel both application-specific adapters and SAP provided adapters (SOAP /HTTP /REST) adapters, They Still use the same set of protocols to integrate/Connect with respective applications.

Customers will think that they had a dedicated application adapter that will make our life easier. We can just plug in, play, and use it. This is the way sales and customers think and they will tend to go with these tools.

I feel that support is an area that needs improvement. They need to improve the response time and address the customer's issues as soon as possible.

Instead of maintaining so many tools, they should explore all of the features and offer just one tool. It would be good and would help customers as well as SAP.

Since they have a cloud version of integration to SAP CPI, it would be a good idea to provide a migration tool where we can install that tool and migrate the existing interfaces from Process Orchestration to CPA. Customers would appreciate the flexibility, and it would reduce the project cost and manual effort time. 

We were using the 7.3 dual-stack version and recently migrated to Process Orchestration 7.5 (Single-Stack)version. We have been using it for approximately Nine months.

This solution is stable, we have not had any issues.

We have not yet explored the scalability as we are still in the evaluating phase.

Technical support response time is slow. It takes some time to get a response.

I have noticed that in many cases, even though we have priority one or priority two tickets, they simply change that to decrease the level of priority from P1 to P2, and from P2 to P3.

It can take a week to get a response to tickets.

No, We have not used any other Middleware solutions previously. We have implemented all the interfaces in SAP PI/PO itself.

With the previous version, it was a bit difficult and took approximately one week to install and set everything up. When it comes to Process Orchestration, it is a Java-based system that makes it easier when it compares to a dual-stack system, and since we are hosting it in Azure Cloud, it's not a large burden.

Deployment is less than a week with the updated version. Sizing and the hardware takes a matter of seconds when it is approved and once they procure it.

We are handling the deployment.

We have implemented it with the vendor team.

There are fees in addition to the licensing. 

If we want to use B2B, which we use for sending and receiving messages to EDA, then there is an additional charge.

EDA is partners with B2B and you have to integrate them. You have to procure that separately because it is not included in the standard PO license. 

Everything else is by default and B2B is the only addon that we have to pay for it.

We are currently evaluating several solutions, such as Dell Boomi, MuleSoft, and Informatica Cloud. These are the three tools that we are evaluating and will be comparing with SAP Processing Orchestration and SAP CPI.

We will be evaluating how much flexibility there is to move the existing logic. We have to consider both the migration from SAP to a third-party or from a third party Middleware to SAP. It may not be easy, as the main transformation logic that we have built on SAP propriety tools and the other tools. They may not have the compatibility, and we will have to read all of the logic again in those applications.

This all has to be considered before we can make a decision.

We are still in the evaluating phase and we are still evaluating other tools that are available. Based on that, we will be having a round table discussion in a meeting to discuss the outcome and finalize whether we will migrate the interfaces or go with Process Orchestration.

They want to evaluate and list the pros and cons of all of the tools.

As per the automation roadmap, we are planning to move everything into the cloud. We are just evaluating the cloud, particularly tools that are available. Even though we are hosting on Azure Cloud services, it is still on-premises.

They have introduced SAP CPI, and I am not sure whether SAP Process Orchestration is going to be available for much longer as they are investing more into SAP CPI. 

SAP CPI is the new IPaas tool that is improving and not a mature tool as SAP Process Orchestration. SAP is continuously improving and adding more features to SAP CPI.

Many customers are confused, whether they should invest in procure Process Orchestration or  SAP CPI.

There are some clients that invest in both  SAP CPI and Process Orchestration. because due to the current limitations in SAP CPI, they are not able to migrate all the interfaces from SAP PI/PO to SAP CPI.

If customers are considering investing in both, then they might want to think about the licensing costs. It will be a burden for them.

It will good to have a single middleware tool, instead of multiple middleware tools. 

I don't understand why the product companies are releasing multiple middlewares to handle various integrations like A2A, B2B, and EDI integrations, etc.

It will be a burden for the organizations to procure multiple middlewares for their various integration needs. They have to invest more money in licensing and maintenance.

I feel it's a bad practice to develop several middleware tools from the same organization. Instead of developing multiple middleware tools, It would be better to have all of those features into one middleware instead of providing multiple middleware tools? It's more of a business gimmick.

I think SAP seems to be following along the same path as they have many middleware tools within SAP. 

If you see the SuccessFactors, they have a SuccessFactors integration center (IC), where they can integrate the applications using SFTP / REST / SOAP protocols. The IC features are very limited to develop interfaces, it doesn't have flexible monitoring like SAP PO or SAP CPI. 

Of course, the Integration center (IC) is having some advantages, but it will not suffice for the customer to all the integrations using IC and they have to still invest in Middleware.

The SAP CPI area has to improve a lot when compares with the other middleware. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to integrate multiple projects with SAP or non-SAP applications.

The solution allows the transformation of data through different technologies. We can integrate it with multiple new technologies.

The solution's administration management feature is very complicated to use. They should make it easier to access.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

It is easy to scale the solution.

We contacted the solution's tech support for a few issues while running multiple processes on a single server. Their response was good.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup process is slightly complex. I rate the process around five or six.

The solution is highly-priced.

We have evaluated Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft BizTalk. They are suitable products for large-size companies. 

The solution is more suitable for small and mid-sized businesses. I rate it as an eight.

SAP Process Orchestration is an interface tool. It's a tool to build interfaces between systems.

The most valuable feature of SAP Process Orchestration is its flexibility in being able to build integrations with SAP systems and non-SAP systems.

This is an on-premise platform and one area they can improve on is having the ability to work with SaaS solutions.

I have been using SAP Process Orchestration for approximately seven years. 

I rate the initial setup of SAP Process Orchestration a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability of SAP Process Orchestration an eight out of ten.

The initial setup of SAP Process Orchestration is simple.

I rate the initial setup of SAP Process Orchestration a nine out of ten.

There is some monitoring that you can do in the platform in the interfaces which is beneficial. It's a little difficult to use, but it is a typical SAP design.

I rate SAP Process Orchestration a nine out of ten.

We are using SAP Process Orchestration to connect our on-premises safety banking systems. In the middle, we have another layer called SAP POL, which is the Process Object layer. That builds the actual orchestration and persistence of data with respect to the business objects. This is in case anything fails across multiple steps. 

For example, if we have seven steps and the process fails in the third step, we need to start processing from the point of failure, rather than from step one. So, there is a primary user for the process orchestration, which is the SAP POL. 

The most valuable feature is the seamless integration with backend systems.

SAP has decided to move everything to the cloud, which means that we have to invest more. New investments would include things like redevelopment and data transfer. In general, we are not satisfied with the roadmap.

I would like to see more flexibility. It does not have all of the industry-standard solutions available in PO and it is not plug and play, so we have to do a lot of development.

We have been using SAP Process Orchestration for about nine years.

We are satisfied with technical support.

We did not use another solution prior to SAP Process Orchestration but we are considering moving to something new, like Mulesoft.

SAP is doing some arm-twisting, saying that they are ending the support for this product and that we have to move to a cloud-based platform. This means that we have to redo all of our on-premises development and transition to the cloud. There are some small solutions that we can migrate but we are not convinced that this is the only way to go. This is the reason that we are researching alternatives.

The pricing for this solution is fine.

At this point, I'm not sure what advice I would give to those people who are researching this type of solution. I am looking at other products because I want to see how good they are. It may turn out that SAP Process Orchestration is still much better, which means that I would continue with it. There are pros and cons with all vendors, so it may not be worth switching if you are already using this.

At this point, I am generally satisfied with SAP, but the roadmap is something that is bothering us.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use SAP Process Orchestration because we have a lot of SAP systems that need integration. There are several on-premises applications that fall into this category.

The most valuable feature is the proxy, which can be used when we have a very large volume of data.

The connectors are very good because you can connect with databases such as Microsoft SQL and Oracle to use their services.

The file adapter is great because we can deal with various file application systems.

The monitoring is one of the greatest features in Process Orchestration because it is user-friendly and easy for somebody who is not experienced. The messages are clear and they can learn how to use the monitoring by themselves.

Improvements are needed with respect to being able to handle a very large volume of data.

The responsiveness of technical support needs to be improved.

The pricing can be improved.

I have about 13 years of experience with SAP Process Orchestration.

Sometimes, if there is a system-related issue where I have to contact SAP and raise an incident, it takes a couple of days to resolve the issue. It is a crazy amount of time spent waiting because all of the end-users are on hold to complete their business, and the problem is stopping them.

In terms of technical expertise, my experience with support has been really good. The timeframe is too long, but their technical competence is high. 

The cost of SAP products is quite high but the quality is really good.

SAP Process Orchestration is something that I recommend because it is a very high-quality product. If the support were faster then it would be even better.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Primarily, my customers are using the solution for integration. There is so many possible scenarios. For example they are using RFC, IDOC, BAPI like SAP based protools and Database (JDBC), SOAP, File, Mail(SMTP) or REST API integrations. All these adapters are used bi-directionally, enabling a large number of synchronous and asynchronous integrations.

In addition, it offers different complicated solutions with extensive adapters such as expanded B2B, SalesForce and EDI etc...

There are multiple adapters and they are very good/native with SAP. There's a File/FTP/SFTP adapter, JDBC adapter, B2B (EDI) adapter, SOAP, REST. 

The solution provides very good and central logging systems. It offers high flexibility with vertical and horizontal extend capacity.  It means; each node or cluster added horizontally is put into use fully effectively. Likewise, all the RAM and CPU added vertically are allocated according to the need and put into use.

The PO package has about eight or nine products inside it. Like SAP PI, BRM, BPM; so it's quite extensive.

The solution could be more customizable. It's customizable, however, it's underdeveloped.  It supports custom modules, custom adapters, etc. but they need more time to truly develop them. 

It would help if the solution offered flexible adapters like REST adapters or some custom solution. It would help make it a more flexible product.

In terms of technical support, it would be helpful if they handled the tickets a bit faster when queries are sent to them.

I've been using the solution for ten years. I'm still working with it currently. Also have an senior level team in my own company that i manage.

The solution is very stable. In fact, it's amazingly stable. It's never shut down on us and we haven't witnessed any problems with the stability at all.

There are a lot of adapters, including non-SAP adapters. It's a good middleware product.

Typically the clients who have SAP are quite sizable companies. For us, some of the biggest companies in Turkey use this solution, so it can handle quite large organizations.

I've contacted technical support in the past when we found some errors in the product. Their support is based on a ticketing system. Usually, I get the answers I require. Occasionally they can be slow, but overall they're very good. We're quite satisfied with the level of service provided by them.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward. It's not complex. Previously, in older versions, it was very complex, but now it can be installed in one day or maybe even over the course of a half-day. They've really worked to simplify things. It could potentially take a maximum of two days to deploy, but no more than that.

It only takes about one to two people to deploy the solution. To maintain the solution, typically my clients might need one or two people.

We have freelancers that assist with deployment and handle other tasks. I'm a freelancer as well.

If you get a PO license, you have PI, BPM, BRM, etc. All of these tools can come in PO, or can be available in a single package under a single license. 

The licensing is based on a yearly contract. It is usually licensed per core, but may vary by country.

Some B2B or custom adapters may cost extra, but other adapters are included in the cost and free.

I have my own SAP installation on my local server but I'm not using it on production items. I'm just consulting with my customers on their production environment.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If the solution was more flexible and offered external monitoring features I would rate it higher. The PI portion of the system is quite flexible, but I've had very complex integrations and had to develop an adaptive modem. It needs some more time to really come into its own.

I'd recommend the product to others. It's very stable and you can use it for SAP and non-SAP integrations.

I have been a solution architect since 2005. I have a lot of experience with SAP Process Orchestration. I have a lot of experience with many kinds of integration between all kinds of processes. SAP Process Orchestration is the tool we chose to use to help us effectively design and improve workflows.  

The components that we use a lot and find very valuable are the integration map, the routing and we also use planning products for SAP in order to map each process there. My colleagues and I have extensive experience in process development, solutions, and architecture.  

All the integration, all the data maps, all the routing functions are good. These things are well managed by SAP. The ST-PI (Solution Tools Plug-In) that is part of the integration of the cloud services is also well-designed.  

In my opinion, the part that SAP needs to improve in Process Orchestration is the monitor and governance. The monitoring governance offered by SAP is too technical. Only the consultants that have technical skills or development skills are able to manage this product. What is missing, in my opinion, is a better business monitoring component.  

Our company creates business monitoring in UI5 and Fiori applications that help the customer to have a better view of what good monitoring is. With the technical monitoring of SAP, someone in the organization has to have technical skills rather than business skills. So using these solutions in combination, we are able to give the client another more business-oriented kind of monitor and governance which is not so technical.  

I am a solutions architect, a consultant, and partner of a tech services company that does integrations since 2010. Our core business is process orchestration, process integration, development for SAP HANA, and mobile application development. I have some experience with some BPM (Business Process Management) and I have a lot of experience with PI/PO (Process Integration and Orchestration).  

I would say SAP PO is stable because it offers the possibility to implement an architectural cluster with some nodes for the security layer and also for the stability. SAP PI/PO uses on-premises information. So if you have to connect an application on the LAN or potentially the same network, it is good. But if you needed to integrate an external service, you probably need to use the SAP PI product because the service is not an on-premise application.  

The scalability of SAP PI can be adaptive as a solution for targeted software integration.  

Since early on, I never needed a lot of support from SAP because their solution is stable. Probably the first time we used this product it was unstable, so we contacted them and they needed to issue a patch in order to fix some issues. But the latest releases of SAP are stable, so we do not need to use the SAP support often. When we do, it is good. If the customer pays to have the support, they are always available.  

I previously worked with Dell Boomi. Dell Boomi is a part of the process for cloud server integration. We had previous experience with TIBCO. But mostly, our experience is based on SAP products.  

The main differences or advantages of SAP over other vendors has grown. SAP is now one of the leaders in integration. But of course, if the customers need an integration broker or need a solution for integration, SAP is probably the first choice for the customer. Because if you have another product like Oracle or Microsoft, or third parties that are not SAP products — or the customer chooses a different solution like Boomi — all the integration of these applications may be more challenging.  

SAP Process Orchestration can be used even if you do not have other parts of the SAP digital suite. But I recommend the PO or PI if the customer has another handler like SAP S/4HANA,  or HDCC. Otherwise, I suggest other diagnostic products.  

The initial setup for the product is straightforward and easy. At this point, we deal mostly only with the application part. So when we have to integrate components on the back end, the basic part is not so difficult. That is about one or two days of work per layer. The initial part of the installation may take some time, but it is easy. You need to set up the communication between the third-party application systems and you have to hook that to the ethernet in order to get to the point where you start with development integration.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight-out-of-ten.  

Additional features that I would like to see in the next release to improve the rating would be to improve the governance of the monitor component and adopt SAP PI/PO with the new connectors that have the capabilities to work better with applications. All they are offering with the solution currently is the ability to integrate application to application or business to business.