Introduction
Fundamental question: do SAP changes really need to be governed differently than the rest of the enterprise?
For years, SAP Solution Manager has sat at the center of change governance for most SAP organizations. It has often been criticized for being restrictive, heavy, and difficult to configure. Yet those same characteristics are precisely what allowed its capabilities to endure. Over time, tools such as ChaRM became the central controller for even the most complex SAP landscapes, quietly enforcing discipline across transports, approvals, and release coordination.
Today, even organizations eager to modernize are confronting an uncomfortable reality. Solution Manager embedded a robust set of safety measures at every stage of the SAP change lifecycle, and there is no obvious one-to-one replacement. SAP Cloud ALM, SAP’s recommended successor, is more approachable and cloud-native, but it lacks the depth of governance that many enterprises have relied on for years. And while it advances SAP’s strategic direction, it remains SAP-centric, leaving open questions about how it fits into broader enterprise change models.
This forces a more fundamental question than most teams expected. Do SAP changes really need to be governed differently from the rest of the enterprise, or is this the moment to establish a unified enterprise change process? Maintaining segregated processes for SAP and non-SAP work may feel familiar, but it increasingly conflicts with how modern enterprises deliver, audit, and scale change.
The retirement of Solution Manager creates a rare opportunity to rethink change governance at the enterprise level. Is it possible to preserve the safeguards of ChaRM while aligning with modern DevOps and Agile delivery platforms? It is, but it won’t happen by accident.
Fundamental question: do SAP changes really need to be governed differently than the rest of the enterprise?
Three Strategic Paths Forward
SolMan’s retirement is less about replacing a tool and more about deciding where SAP governance should live going forward.
There is no requirement to accept weaker controls simply because Solution Manager is retiring. What has changed is not the need for protection, but the opportunity to modernize how that protection is applied. SAP change can move faster and more safely when the underlying process is redesigned rather than re-created.
For most organizations, SAP changes are typically accompanied by updates to middleware, side-by-side extensions on BTP, or digital front-end applications. Governing these changes separately introduces friction, delays, and blind spots. Governing them together creates the foundation for automation and coordinated release management.
The real decision is not about replacing a tool. It is about choosing how SAP change fits into the enterprise delivery and governance model going forward. In practice, organizations tend to converge on one of three viable options.
SolMan’s retirement is less about replacing a tool and more about deciding where SAP governance should live going forward.
1. SAP governance in Cloud ALM, integrated with enterprise delivery tools
In this model, organizations follow SAP’s standard direction by using SAP Cloud ALM as the system of record for SAP change governance. Delivery teams may work directly in Cloud ALM or in enterprise tools such as Jira or Azure DevOps, with requirements and work items synchronized in both directions. Cloud ALM remains responsible for orchestrating SAP changes and the movement of transports.
This path works well when organizations plan to leverage SAP best-practice content and manage business process definitions in Cloud ALM or Signavio. It also aligns with strategies that use test tracking or automation through Cloud ALM.
This approach is best suited to relatively simple SAP landscapes. Organizations operating parallel landscapes, managing retrofits, or subject to strict validation and compliance requirements may find gaps in the capabilities of Cloud ALM when used on its own.
2. Unified SAP change under enterprise governance platforms
In this model, organizations govern SAP change through the same enterprise platforms used for non-SAP systems, such as ServiceNow, Jira, or Azure DevOps. All changes follow a single enterprise workflow, establishing consistent approval controls, centralized reporting, and a unified audit trail from one system of record.
To support SAP within this model, SAP-specific safeguards historically enforced by ChaRM must exist directly inside those enterprise platforms. CoreALM enables SAP transport management within enterprise change workflows, including:
- SAP transport management with ServiceNow
- SAP transport controls integrated into Jira
- SAP transport management embedded in Azure DevOps
This allows SAP transports to move through enterprise change processes without weakening sequencing, authorization, or audit integrity.
This approach is well suited to organizations with complex SAP landscapes or strict compliance requirements. It supports parallel project and maintenance tracks, enables DevOps-style automations, and allows coordinated releases across SAP and non-SAP components.
3. Merge enterprise governance with SAP Cloud ALM
In this hybrid model, organizations align Jira or Azure DevOps with SAP Cloud ALM for requirements and work item synchronization, while retaining enterprise control over change governance and SAP transport execution. Approvals and change workflows are governed within enterprise platforms such as ServiceNow, Jira, or Azure DevOps, using CoreALM’s SAP transport management controls.
This approach is particularly effective when Cloud ALM context is required but enterprise governance must remain centralized. Examples include:
This model combines SAP best-practice content and Cloud ALM insight with ChaRM-style transport safeguards inside a unified enterprise change platform. It is the most comprehensive option, but it requires intentional workflow design and clear governance structures to avoid unnecessary complexity or bottlenecks.
Conclusion
Solution Manager’s retirement requires more than a tooling decision. It demands thoughtful design of a governance model that can scale with modern SAP landscapes.
As SAP environments become more modular and integrated, clean-core strategies, BTP extensions, and AI-driven change increase both velocity and risk. In this environment, fragmented governance is no longer sustainable.
Whether SAP change is anchored in Cloud ALM, enterprise platforms, or a combination of both, the choice must be deliberate. SolMan enforced discipline by default. What comes next requires discipline by design.
