Treasury approaches as part of the S/4HANA transformation

The S/4 HANA transformations continue to progress. Many companies are therefore thinking early on about which treasury approach is the right and more efficient solution for their organisation. In this article, we would like to look at the different approaches and support you in your considerations:

Integrated ERP approach, integrated ERP approach with treasury first strategy or treasury in a side-car approach in a stand-alone SAP system?


The overview below is based on a step-by-step transformation (release strategy) (no big bang). While the core processes of a company are largely taken into account in the integrated ERP approach as part of the transformation, treasury should be considered in isolation due to the complex system landscape. The connection of subsystems often also plays a major role in the treasury system landscape. Examples include central payment transaction platforms (BCM/MBC) as well as corresponding trading platforms (360T, Bloomberg, etc.), SAP BRIM and many others.

The isolated view and different approaches

As part of the isolated consideration due to the complex system landscape, we would like to emphasise the differences between the various approaches: On the side of the integrated approach, the company code mindset is predominant, while in the Treasury First and Side-Car approach, the view of group-wide treasury processes is highlighted. In most cases, treasury is integrated into the holding company code and is therefore also taken into account accordingly in the first step of a major S/4 HANA transformation as part of the release strategy. If the treasury group processes are also to be managed separately on two systems from the perspective of the release strategy (transformation of the BUKRS from R/3 to S/4HANA), this can lead to immense additional costs and the resulting implementation risks, which must be avoided with regard to the overall risk. Separating treasury process management on two parallel systems (R/3 and S/4) should be treated with caution.

Which approach is the right one for the release strategy?

The consideration therefore goes in two directions:

Does it make sense to make Treasury productive in the integrated ERP approach (Treasury First) before all core processes on S/4HANA or are there individual reasons to make Treasury productive on a stand-alone SAP S/4HANA system (side-car approach / treasury workstation)?


Both treasury approaches must be reviewed and compared individually. The aim of both approaches is to realise the potential of S/4HANA in the treasury area at an early stage. The opportunity to utilise the potential relates to the new innovations and improvements in operations due to performance improvements and the resulting reporting options. The new development and future-oriented SAP Analytics Cloud, whose potential can only be realised in the context of S/4, should be mentioned here. When considering the transformation options from R/3 to S/4HANA, it is essential to look at the existing and required interfaces between the systems. An integrated approach offers the opportunity to minimise the number of interfaces between the systems in parallel operation, while the treasury workstation (own treasury SAP system) requires new interfaces to the R/3 system as well as the S/4HANA system. Of course, the interfaces to the R/3 system will be removed again as part of the gradual transformation to S/4.

A future-oriented treasury is based on a solid implementation strategy and the best possible utilisation of S/4 potential.

Michael Völkl, Head of Profit Center Treasury, BDF EXPERTS