SAP EcoHub on IFRS

Leveraging the New GL for Dual-Reporting

and IFRS

Pete Graham
SAP Business Suite Solution Management

John Steele, Sr. Manager

Deloitte Consulting LLP

Norm White
SAP Consulting

June 22, 2010

Legal Disclaimer

The information in this presentation is confidential and proprietary to SAP and may not be disclosed without
the permission of SAP. This presentation is not subject to your license agreement or any other service or
subscription agreement with SAP. SAP has no obligation to pursue any course of business outlined in this
document or any related presentation, or to develop or release any functionality mentioned therein. This
document, or any related presentation and SAP's strategy and possible future developments, products and or
platforms directions and functionality are all subject to change and may be changed by SAP at any time for
any reason without notice. The information on this document is not a commitment, promise or legal obligation
to deliver any material, code or functionality. This document is provided without a warranty of any kind, either
express or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose, or non-infringement. This document is for informational purposes and may not be incorporated into a
contract. SAP assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in this document, except if such damages
were caused by SAP intentionally or grossly negligent.

All forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to
differ materially from expectations. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-
looking statements, which speak only as of their dates, and they should not be relied upon in making
purchasing decisions.

© SAP 2010 / Page 2

 This presentation contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this presentation,
rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services.
This presentation is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a
basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any
action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor.

Deloitte, its affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person
who relies on this presentation.
About Deloitte
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each of which is a
legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of
Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

© SAP 2010 / Page 3

 Agenda

 Speaker Introductions

 IFRS / Convergence Update

 Solutions for IFRS / Convergence

 SAP General Ledger (New GL) Update

 Building the Business Case

 Wrap-Up / Q&A

© SAP 2010 / Page 4

 The global move towards IFRS (listed companies)

Canada
2009*‒11
Europe
United States 2005
Japan
2015‒16? China 2010*/15?
2007
India
Mexico 2011
2012

Brazil
2010
Australia
Chile 2005
2009 South Africa
2005

Adopted or will adopt

Developing plans to adopt
* Early adopters No plans or unknown

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 5
 Regulatory updates on use of IFRS

United States
• Shift to IFRS is highly likely, though not imminent
• Company efforts have been slowly building sense the release of this workplan
• SEC’s Statement on Convergence and Global Accounting Standards issued in
February 2010
– Strong commitment to a single set of high-quality global standards
– IFRS is ―best positioned‖
– Support for convergence by end of 2011
– Directed Staff to carry out a ―Work Plan‖
• Evaluate the impact of IFRS, support a decision on an IFRS mandate in 2011
• Consistent with timing outlined in proposed IFRS roadmap
• Timeline for conversion noted by the SEC is no earlier than 2015/2016 (thereby
reflecting a January 1, 2013/2014 transition date)
• Directs the staff to carry out a ―Work Plan‖ that sets forth specific areas and factors for
consideration before potentially transitioning to IFRS
• Also directs the staff to provide public progress reports to the Commission beginning
in October 2010 and continuing until the work is complete

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 6
 Regulatory updates on use of IFRS (cont.)

Global statutory environment

• Foreign territories are permitting or requiring IFRS for statutory financial
reporting
• Creates a near-term compliance challenge
• Creating potential opportunities for Companies to streamline and standardize
statutory reporting policies and procedures
• Lower compliance costs by taking advantage of shared service centers
– Countries requiring IFRS-based statutory financial reports (e.g. Australia, South Africa,
Hong Kong, Singapore, Philippines)
– Countries that have recently announced proposals to move to IFRS in the near future
(e.g. UK, Ireland, Brazil)
– Others countries provide companies with the option to use IFRS or are converging local
GAAP standards and IFRS standards

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 7
 Overview of current FASB/IASB convergence efforts

Overview of convergence efforts

• IASB and FASB have again reaffirmed their Memorandum of Understanding (―MOU‖) on ―converging‖
U.S. GAAP and IFRS
– Efforts were initially geared toward a June 30, 2011 timeline; however on June 2, 2010 the IASB
and FASB issued a joint statement indicating that the target completion dates for a few projects
have extended into the second half of 2011
– Effective dates not expected before January 1, 2013, although early adoption likely to be allowed
– As U.S. GAAP converges, some differences may need to be addressed prior to the U.S.
mandating IFRS
• SEC statement reinforces support for the ongoing convergence activities of the FASB and IASB
• SEC statement emphasizes completion of current initiatives by end of 2011

• Convergence does not necessarily result in identical standards; focus

is on converging general principles, not every detail
• Ongoing convergence is limited to a defined group of projects
Convergence • Several of the most time consuming areas of IFRS conversion deal
considerations with areas not subject to convergence
• ―Convergence‖ will not result in a transition to IFRS by U.S. issuers in
and of itself

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 8
 (1)
Overview of selected convergence projects

Accounting Topic 2009 2010 2011

Income Taxes – Exposure Draft Final Standard

Memorandum of Understanding

Leases Discussion Paper Exposure Draft Final Standard

Convergence Projects

Financial statement presentation – Exposure Draft Final Standard

Exposure Draft(2)
Provisions – –
Final Standard
Post-employment benefits (including pensions) – Exposure Draft(2) Final Standard
Revenue recognition – Exposure Draft Final Standard
Financial instruments w/ characteristics of equity – Exposure Draft Final Standard

– –
“Financial Crisis” Convergence

Consolidation Final Standard

Financial instruments derecognition Exposure Draft Final Standard Final Standard
Fair value measurement Exposure Draft Final Standard –
Projects

Financial instruments (classification and Exposure Draft (All) Exposure Draft (Liab)
–
measurement) Final Standard (Assets) Final Standard (Liab)
Financial instruments impairment Exposure Draft Final Standard –
Financial instruments hedge accounting – Exposure Draft Final Standard

(1) Convergence status and estimated dates as of May 5, 2010 per International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) website | (2) ED has been issued

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 9
IFRS in the U.S. – Revised SEC timeline*

2010: 2011: SEC to January 1, December 31,

Expected decide 2013: 2015: Large
release of whether to Beginning of accelerated
revised “IFRS mandate IFRS the first filers could be
roadmap” and comparative mandated to
SEC workplan IFRS year report financial
regulatory timeline

results using
IFRS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

transition date reporting date

U.S. GAAP financial statements (through third-quarter 2015)

IFRS financial statements

Dual reporting period (U.S. GAAP & IFRS)

* Note that the expected date of IFRS adoption is based on the February 24, 2010 SEC Statement in Support of Convergence
and Global Accounting Standards.

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

 At what organizational level should system changes be
made?
Organizational level Description
Group • Individual entities in each
country prepare local
financial statements which
are then consolidated and
converted at the group
level to IFRS
Company • Individual entities in each
country prepare local
financial statements which
are converted to IFRS
standards before
consolidating at the group
level
Source • Changes in source systems
enable IFRS accounting
and reporting at the source
© SAP 2010 / Page 11
Considerations
Positive:
Suitable when individual entities do not have to report
under IFRS and only a few simple adjustments are
required
Negative:
There will be no ability to drill down into IFRS
compliant numbers (i.e., entities below this level would
not produce IFRS financials)
Positive:
Suitable when individual entities are required to report
under IFRS and/or there are complex group structures
and/or a large number of consolidated entities
Groundwork laid for consolidated adoption
Cost savings/efficiencies in statutory reporting
Negative:
U.S. GAAP and IFRS are evolving — backend cost
may be greater
Suitable when:
 Daily financial statements are required
 Complex IFRS calculation occur at the source
 Changes at the source are required to capture new
data
Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
 What are companies currently doing to plan for IFRS?

• Analyze impacts of IFRS on financials, systems, processes

IFRS and organization broadly
Assessment • Determine high-effort and long lead-time items
• Support dialog within (and outside) the organization

• Assess impacts of converged standards

Convergence • Potentially comment on exposure drafts
• Prepare for adoption of U.S. GAAP changes

• Understand statutory reporting landscape

Statutory
Reporting • Plan for countries converging or converting in near term
• Begin to centrally manage global reporting requirements

• Identify key impacts of IFRS on systems projects

System
considerations • Design decisions should give consideration to IFRS
• Determine whether or not to build in IFRS elements

…and monitoring SEC progress on its Work Plan

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
© SAP 2010 / Page 12
 SEC Roadmap Requirement for “Dual Reporting”

Current SEC reporting requirements mandate three years of audited US GAAP

financial statements for public issuers
– See Rule 3-02(a) of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.3-02(a)]

IFRS Roadmap continues this requirement by setting forth a requirement for three
years of IFRS financial statements
– Assumes that the audit requirement stays in place

Creates a requirement for ―Dual‖ or ―Parallel‖ accounting and financial reporting

– To illustrate, if IFRS is required per the Roadmap for the years ending on or after
December 15th, 2015, a calendar year company would report for the year ending
December 31st, 2015 using IFRS for the years ending December 31st, 2013, 2014, and
2015.

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 13
 IFRS in the U.S. – Dual Reporting timeline*
2010: 2011: SEC to January 1, December 31,
Expected decide 2013: 2015: Large
release of whether to Beginning of accelerated
revised “IFRS mandate IFRS the first filers could be
roadmap” and comparative mandated to
SEC workplan IFRS year report financial
regulatory timeline

results using
IFRS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

transition date reporting date

U.S. GAAP financial statements (through third-quarter 2015)

IFRS financial statements

Dual reporting period (U.S. GAAP & IFRS)

* Note that the expected date of IFRS adoption is based on the February 24, 2010 SEC Statement in Support of Convergence
and Global Accounting Standards.
Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
© SAP 2010 / Page 14
 Options for Parallel/Dual Reporting

There are two options — ―Real Time‖ and ―Retrospective‖

“Real Time” parallel — SAP and other systems will have to support the ability to produce
US GAAP and IFRS statements simultaneously at the transaction level
– This will require re-engineering SAP and feeder systems
– Parallel valuation functionality or account mapping will be important to support the effort
– Requires ―early adoption‖ of IFRS (functionally going live at start of parallel)

“Retrospective” parallel — SAP and other systems will not have to support IFRS at the
transaction level until ―live date‖ (12/31/15)
– Simplifies parallel reporting, but could create significant challenges offline in
Excel/consolidation tools

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 15
 Agenda

 Speaker Introductions

 IFRS / Convergence Update

 Solutions for IFRS / Convergence

 SAP General Ledger (New GL) Update

 Building the Business Case

 Wrap-Up / Q&A

© SAP 2010 / Page 16

 SAP Solutions for IFRS

 SAP offers the most complete IFRS solution, addressing all facets
 IFRS is more than an accounting issue - it impacts people, processes, and technology
 SAP provides a single technology stack with support for all major architectures
 A smooth phased transition to IFRS must leverage technology as an enabler
 SAP provides market leading, integrated ledger and consolidation applications
 Impacted systems include financial consolidation and reporting applications,
general ledger, and sub-ledgers
 Proven install base of customers already reporting according to IFRS
 1,500+ financial consolidation and reporting implementations
 4,000+ general ledger implementations (includes 100+ US GAAP to IFRS conversions)
 Agile solutions and content offer quickest wins for customers adopting IFRS

People

Phased Transition to IFRS

 Financial Consolidation and Reporting
Technology  General Ledger
 Sub-ledgers

Process
© SAP 2010 / Page 17
 SAP and IFRS Compliance Solutions and
Services
Standard SAP applications, SAP services, and our partners can
provide the necessary support for your IFRS project

 Local close/transaction SAP ERP layer

 SAP General Ledger — ERP 6.0 Financials GL
– Parallel Account with multi-ledgers
 Asset Accounting
– Multi-Asset Valuation Areas
 SAP Financial Closing cockpit (FCc)
 SAP Central Process Scheduling (CPS) by Redwood
 Upgrade/migration to ERP 6.0 — Financials GL
 Older versions of ERP — IFRS-specific configurations

 Group Close/Reporting/Consolidation Layer

 SAP BusinessObjects Financial Consolidation (incl. IFRS starter kit)
 SAP BusinessObjects Planning and Consolidation (incl. IFRS starter kit)
 SAP BusinessObjects Financial Information Management
 SAP BusinessObjects XBRL Publishing by UBmatrix
 SAP BusinessObjects Process Control
 SAP BusinessObjects Intercompany

© SAP 2010 / Page 18

 Approaches to IFRS Transition in the SAP ERP
Financials Solution

Approach Classic General Ledger New General Ledger

Account-Based

Parallel Ledger

Current recommended configuration approaches for multi-GAAP valuation

© SAP 2010 / Page 19

 Agenda

 Speaker Introductions

 IFRS / Conversion Update

 Solutions for IFRS / Convergence

 SAP General Ledger (New GL) Update

 Building the Business Case

 Wrap-Up / Q&A

© SAP 2010 / Page 20

 Updates for EHP 5 – New GL

For New GL planned innovations include: Profit Center Reorganization, Segment

Reporting, Impairment of Assets (IAS 36), and additional Formatted Reporting for
the General Ledger

For Enhanced Multi-GAAP support, planned innovations include: Parallel Cost of

Goods Manufactured (COGM) , Parallel WIP and Results Analysis, Allocate
FIFO/LIFO to different accounting principles

For ERP and POA: planned innovations include better interaction between PCM and
CO-PA & New G/L and POA.

For FCc and CPS, planned innovations include improved monitoring

© SAP 2010 / Page 21

 Concept of Ledgers – Leading and Parallel

 SAP provides the leading ledger and a summary table with the standard
system There is a new standard field ―segment‖ in SAP ERP 6.0

 There is exactly one leading ledger and is activated at the client level

 Only the values of the leading ledger are posted to CO

 The leading ledger gets many of its control parameters from the
company code

 The non-leading ledgers can be assigned alternative currencies and/or

fiscal year variants that differ from the leading ledger.

© SAP 2010 / Page 22

 Pros and Cons of Parallel Reporting Solutions
-- Parallel Accounts
 Ease of use and relatively simple
setup
 Retained earnings account and
balance carry forward – separate
retained earnings account for
each accounting principle is
maintained
 Parallel postings in the specific
account areas
© SAP 2010 / Page 23
 High increase in the number of
general ledger accounts adding
complexity to the chart of
accounts
 Difficult to report on different
fiscal years
 Postings may cross valuations –
for example, users may
mistakenly post local GAAP to
U.S. GAAP general ledger
accounts. (Note: A validation is
often created to ensure that
cross-valuation postings do not
occur
 Pros and Cons of Parallel Reporting Solutions
-- Parallel Ledgers

 Fewer general ledger accounts  Data volume may increase

significantly as parallel ledgers
 Separation of ledgers gives are updates simultaneously with
separate transparency (e.g. for all postings to the leading
auditors) ledger.

 Can maintain a separate ledger

for each accounting principle

 Different fiscal year variants can

be used for ledgers

 Different posting control variants

can be used for ledgers

© SAP 2010 / Page 24

 Migration Scenarios

 What is it

 Migration Scenarios

 Lessons Learned

 Recommendation from SAP

© SAP 2010 / Page 25

 Migration Scenarios – What is it

 The General Ledger in SAP ERP (new G/L) encompasses some of the
most important and exciting new functionality to become available in the
SAP ERP Financials application in recent years

 It is the migration from classic to new G/L or the subsequent

implementation of further functionality

 The new G/L implementation project starts with the definition of a new
G/L concept

 The SAP General Ledger Migration service is offers migration packages

ranging from the straight merging of financial ledgers to more complex
migration projects that take into account aspects such as document
splitting and parallel accounting

© SAP 2010 / Page 26

 Migration Scenarios from Classic to New GL
and Further Functionality
 Scenario 1: Merge of FI ledger
 Scenario 2: Merge of FI, PCA and SL ledgers
 Scenario 3: Scenario 2 + Document Splitting (for Profit Center, Segment &
Business Area reporting)
 Scenario 4: Scenario 2 + Change from account solution for ledger solution for
parallel accounting
 Scenario 5: Scenario 3 + Change from account solution for ledger solution for
parallel accounting
 Scenario 6: Subsequent implementation of document splitting
 New general ledger has been activated without document splitting and
now it has to be implemented for one or more company codes
 Scenario 7: Subsequent implementation of a further ledger
 Extend an existing new G/L by a further non-leading ledger
 Scenario 8: Subsequent change from account solution to ledger solution
 Implementation of ledger solution in new G/L for parallel accounting and
replacement of existing account solution
© SAP 2010 / Page 27
 Migration Scenarios – Lessons Learned

 Complete the upgrade to ERP first, then plan on G/L Migration

 The ―Migration‖ project also includes G/L configuration

 Expect to spend extra time prior to migration in cleaning up the data to be

migrated

 Migration does not ―fix‖ existing configuration issues, it only moves data
from one data table to another

 Duration of migration depends on different factors, such as

 Number of documents to be migrated
 Migration scenario
 Database system
 Etc…

© SAP 2010 / Page 28

 Agenda

 Speaker Introductions

 IFRS / Conversion Update

 Solutions for IFRS / Convergence

 SAP General Ledger (New GL) Update

 Building the Business Case

 Wrap-Up / Q&A

© SAP 2010 / Page 29

 Practical lessons learned during IFRS Assessments

Selected
Observations and insights
success factors
Disciplined project • Companies need to select the right project sponsor — one who has the breadth and depth
management of experience to understand the broad implications of the proposed accounting changes (e.g.,
should be applied system, process, tax and organizational implications)
to accounting • Downstream process and system analyses are frequently dependent on accounting policy
policy selection selection; if project management discipline is not applied to the process of evaluating
accounting policy options, the ultimate conversion project could stall
Consider U.S. • IFRS is driving significant changes to U.S. GAAP through the convergence agenda, in
GAAP convergence some cases on a more accelerated timeline
Committed • Internal resources required are often not consistently available, to participate in key
resources and decisions and achieve knowledge transfer
established vision • Companies tend to underestimate resource needs, total cost, and time requirements
• Failure to achieve durable consensus within senior executive group on program
objectives and priority
Clearly defined and • Gaps typically exist between documentation of accounting conclusions and the
communicated information Finance Technology needs to evaluate, plan for and budget system needs
system • Limited experience with managing this type of communication is often found in many
requirements organizations
Granular • Implementation roadmaps often are not sufficiently detailed from a process and a system
implementation standpoint to be actionable and to identify key resource requirements and interdependencies
planning — this lack of detail can result in inefficiencies and rework

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 30
 Building the Business Case for New GL

IFRS is not the only driver for transitioning to the SAP General Ledger.
Companies who have migrated have enjoyed additional benefits.
Functionality /
Application Observations and insights
Feature
Unified Structure • Cross Functional (GL, CO, • Allows simplification of structure of financial reporting
Profit Center Reporting) infrastructure
• e.g. eliminate CO reconciliation and COGS ledger
• Creates ―one version of the truth‖
• Allows faster month end close
• Greater traceability and auditing of results
Extensibility • Customer Specific Fields • Extremely valuable for industry specific requirements

Segment Reporting • Reporting required by SFAS
131 and IAS14
Document Splitting • Full Balance Sheet by Profit
and Profit Center Center or other dimension
Reporting
Parallel Ledgers • Statutory Reporting (could be
IFRS in certain countries)
• Creates robust solution for Segment Reporting
• Provides enhanced management reporting at profit center
or other management unit
• Significant enhancement over functionality in earlier
releases
• May eliminate FRICE-W / user exits in earlier releases
• The simplification and standardization of statutory reporting
is a significant benefit seen by customers
• Provide flexibility for local and group close

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 31
 Building the Business Case for New GL (Cont.)
Functionality /
Application Observations and insights
Feature
Additional Standard • Provide additional reporting • Multi-dimensional and Drilldown analysis
Reporting capabilities to end users • BW Remote reporting – slide and dice for all dimensions
• Pre-defined reports delivered as standard SAP content
Foreign Currency • Posting FC Valuation to • Additional dimensionality in foreign currency reporting
Valuation additional dimensions allows flexibility for customers
EHPs • General usability and features • Significant enhancements have been put in place in EHPs
1-4
• EHPs cannot be applied unless already on the New GL

Closing thoughts on the Business Case for New GL

– IFRS has provided a catalyst for companies to examine their underlying financial system
infrastructure
– Many have found the New GL functionality compelling after a close examination
– A New GL Migration could be a core component of a strategic roadmap
• Allows implementation of functionality that benefits the business (e.g. PCs) and the
core finance function (faster closing)
• Sets a firm foundation for IFRS (parallel ledgers)
– Understanding IFRS and the New GL functionality should allow a business case to be
built.

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 32
 Agenda

 Speaker Introductions

 IFRS / Conversion Update

 Solutions for IFRS / Convergence

 SAP General Ledger (New GL) Update

 Building the Business Case

 Wrap-Up / Q&A

© SAP 2010 / Page 33

 Additional Resources

 Check out SAP IFRS Resource Center

 White papers
 Webcasts
 Demos

 Join the Business Process Expert (BPX) Community for IFRS:

 IFRS on SAP knowledge from SAP community
 Blogs and Forums to discuss issues
 Contribute to IFRS wiki on SAP Ideas, Best Practices, Tips and Tricks

 Listen to the IFRS Webinars and Other Resources from SAP Ecohub
 http://ecohub.sdn.sap.com/irj/ecohub/ifrs

© SAP 2010 / Page 34

 IFRS on SAP Community:
sdn.sap.com/irj/bpx/ifrs

Have an idea?
Write a blog

Get your questions

answered on the
IFRS Forum …

… at …
https://www.sdn.sap.c
om/irj/scn/forum?foru
mID=400

© SAP 2010 / Page 35

 Thank you!

© SAP 2010 / Page 36

 Contact information

Norm White
Senior Consultant
SAP Consulting

SAP
John E. Steele Jr.
Norm.white@sap.com
Senior Manager
Deloitte Consulting LLP

johnsteele@deloitte.com Pete Graham

Director Solution Management

SAP Labs LLC

E pete.graham@sap.com

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

© SAP 2010 / Page 37
 Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
© SAP 2010 / Page 38
 Copyright 2010 SAP AG
All Rights Reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express permission of SAP AG. The information contained herein may be changed without prior notice.
Some software products marketed by SAP AG and its distributors contain proprietary software components of other software vendors.
SAP, R/3, xApps, xApp, SAP NetWeaver, Duet, SAP Business ByDesign, ByDesign, PartnerEdge and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany
and in several other countries all over the world. All other product and service names mentioned and associated logos displayed are the trademarks of their respective companies. Data contained in this document serves informational purposes only.
National product specifications may vary.
The information in this document is proprietary to SAP. No part of this document may be reproduced, copied, or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express prior written permission of SAP AG. This document is a preliminary version
and not subject to your license agreement or any other agreement with SAP. This document contains only intended strategies, developments, and functionalities of the SAP® product and is not intended to be binding upon SAP to any particular course of
business, product strategy, and/or development. Please note that this document is subject to change and may be changed by SAP at any time without notice. SAP assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in this document. SAP does not warrant
the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links, or other items contained within this material. This document is provided without a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranti es of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement.
SAP shall have no liability for damages of any kind including without limitation direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials. This limitation shall not apply in cases of intent or gross negligence.
The statutory liability for personal injury and defective products is not affected. SAP has no control over the information that you may access through the use of hot links contained in these materials and does not endorse your use of third-party Web
pages nor provide any warranty whatsoever relating to third-party Web pages.

Weitergabe und Vervielfältigung dieser Publikation oder von Teilen daraus sind, zu welchem Zweck und in welcher Form auch immer, ohne die ausdrückliche schriftliche Genehmigung durch SAP AG nicht gestattet. In dieser Publikation enthaltene
Informationen können ohne vorherige Ankündigung geändert werden.
Einige von der SAP AG und deren Vertriebspartnern vertriebene Softwareprodukte können Softwarekomponenten umfassen, die Eigentum anderer Softwarehersteller sind.
SAP, R/3, xApps, xApp, SAP NetWeaver, Duet, SAP Business ByDesign, ByDesign, PartnerEdge und andere in diesem Dokument erwähnte SAP-Produkte und Services sowie die dazugehörigen Logos sind Marken oder eingetragene Marken der SAP
AG in Deutschland und in mehreren anderen Ländern weltweit. Alle anderen in diesem Dokument erwähnten Namen von Produkten und Services sowie die damit verbundenen Firmenlogos sind Marken der jeweiligen Unternehmen. Die Angaben im
Text sind unverbindlich und dienen lediglich zu Informationszwecken. Produkte können länderspezifische Unterschiede aufweisen.
Die in dieser Publikation enthaltene Information ist Eigentum der SAP. Weitergabe und Vervielfältigung dieser Publikation oder von Teilen daraus sind, zu welchem Zweck und in welcher Form auch immer, nur mit ausdrücklicher schriftlicher
Genehmigung durch SAP AG gestattet. Bei dieser Publikation handelt es sich um eine vorläufige Version, die nicht Ihrem gültigen Lizenzvertrag oder anderen Vereinbarungen mit SAP unterliegt. Diese Publikation enthält nur vorgesehene Strategien,
Entwicklungen und Funktionen des SAP®-Produkts. SAP entsteht aus dieser Publikation keine Verpflichtung zu einer bestimmten Geschäfts- oder Produktstrategie und/oder bestimmten Entwicklungen. Diese Publikation kann von SAP jederzeit ohne
vorherige Ankündigung geändert werden.
SAP übernimmt keine Haftung für Fehler oder Auslassungen in dieser Publikation. Des Weiteren übernimmt SAP keine Garantie für die Exaktheit oder Vollständigkeit der Informationen, Texte, Grafiken, Links und sonstigen in dieser Publikation
enthaltenen Elementen. Diese Publikation wird ohne jegliche Gewähr, weder ausdrücklich noch stillschweigend, bereitgestellt. Dies gilt u. a., aber nicht ausschließlich, hinsichtlich der Gewährleistung der Marktgängigkeit und der Eignung für einen
bestimmten Zweck sowie für die Gewährleistung der Nichtverletzung geltenden Rechts. SAP haftet nicht für entstandene Schäden. Dies gilt u. a. und uneingeschränkt für konkrete, besondere und mittelbare Schäden oder Folgeschäden, die aus der
Nutzung dieser Materialien entstehen können. Diese Einschränkung gilt nicht bei Vorsatz oder grober Fahrlässigkeit.
Die gesetzliche Haftung bei Personenschäden oder Produkthaftung bleibt unberührt. Die Informationen, auf die Sie möglicherwei se über die in diesem Material enthaltenen Hotlinks zugreifen, unterliegen nicht dem Einfluss von SAP, und SAP unterstützt
nicht die Nutzung von Internetseiten Dritter durch Sie und gibt keinerlei Gewährleistungen oder Zusagen über Internetseiten
Dritter ab.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

© SAP 2010 / Page 39