A detailed roadmap outlining stakeholder roles and key SAP module activities in automotive transformation.
In SAP implementations for automotive Tier‑1 suppliers, the question “whose optimization are we pursuing?” is never static. Sales pushes for more product variants and shorter lead times, Manufacturing wants to minimize changeovers and maximize OEE, while Finance demands inventory reduction and better cost accuracy.
In this environment, Enterprise Architecture (EA) easily degrades into “pretty pictures” unless it actually supports the concrete trade‑off decisions that play out between stakeholders. To make EA truly executable, it is crucial to adapt three concepts from the TOGAF® library to the Tier‑1 context: baseline definition, option (trade‑off) matrix, and transformation roadmap.
TOGAF® assumes that each stakeholder has a different viewpoint and makes explicit that “the same architecture will be interpreted differently depending on the stakeholder’s viewpoint.” Architecture views can therefore diverge even when the underlying architecture is identical.
In a Tier‑1 environment, typical conflicts look like this:
The role of EA is to enumerate these stakeholder concerns and make explicit which viewpoints (cost, lead time, flexibility, quality risk, etc.) will be used for evaluation. TOGAF® then becomes a toolkit for designing decision criteria that move the conversation from “who wins and who loses” to “how to converge on enterprise‑level optimization.”
The first step in any trade‑off discussion is defining the baseline: from which state are we improving? TOGAF® guidance recommends defining the baseline not as a simple “as‑is,” but as a state that already incorporates the impact of ongoing projects.
In other words, the baseline should represent the assumed state “after currently running projects have been completed,” and all value assessments and trade‑offs should be evaluated against this baseline.
For a Tier‑1 organization, this can be applied as follows:
As a result, trade‑offs around SAP S/4HANA—such as inventory policies, lot sizes, or the introduction of PP/DS—are evaluated not against today’s chaos, but against the conceptual future state that already reflects existing project outcomes. For project managers, this avoids loading unrealistic expectations onto the SAP project alone, because benefits from parallel initiatives are explicitly assumed in the baseline.
When discussing trade‑offs, meeting room conversations tend to be pulled toward emotion and storytelling. TOGAF® recommends using an option matrix to counter this tendency.
The idea is to list, in a single matrix, the options (alternatives), their risks, and the controls (mitigation measures), and then analyze feasibility and trade‑offs with stakeholders based on that structure.
An example of an option matrix in a Tier‑1 × SAP context could be:
| Option | Main benefits | Main risks | Example controls | Key stakeholders |
| Full unification of global production template | Easy standardization and rollout; lower run cost | Insufficient local fit; shop floor resistance | Local extension guidelines; exception approval process | HQ, mother plant, local plants |
| Allow regional process variants | Maintain local competitiveness; flexible response | Higher maintenance cost; lower global transparency | Standard variant catalog; extension review board | Regional sales, plants, IT, Finance |
| Lot size optimization + inventory reduction | Lower inventory cost; improved cash | More changeovers; risk to OTIF | Introduce PP/DS; increase line capacity; safety stock rules | Production, logistics, Sales, Finance |
The way this table is constructed follows the TOGAF option matrix pattern. The Project Manager uses this matrix to decide which options to adopt at which timing, while the Enterprise Architect clarifies which options align with architecture principles and which indicators to use for evaluation from each viewpoint.
The outcome of trade‑off discussions should not end as “decisions on paper.” In TOGAF®, Phases E and F are responsible for turning those decisions into a transformation roadmap—answering “when, where, and in what sequence do we implement them?”
Phase E (“Opportunities and Solutions”) identifies and plans implementation projects, and Phase F (“Migration Planning”) develops the roadmap for implementing the target architecture, including timelines, milestones, and resource requirements.
For a Tier‑1 supplier, a practical approach is to design a three‑layer roadmap:
Options selected through trade‑off analysis are then mapped to these three layers and assigned where and when they will be introduced. The PM’s role is to translate this into an executable plan by considering total resource capacity, key milestones (for example, OEM SOP timing), and cross‑project dependencies.
TOGAF® describes EA’s contribution to portfolio management in terms of three success measures: alignment of decision‑makers, total resource envelope, and clarity of trade‑off criteria.
In an SAP program for a Tier‑1 supplier, this leads to a practical division of roles:
Enterprise Architect
Project Manager
This role split makes it easier for both PM and EA to share a common understanding of “who decides what” and to keep governance coherent across a multi‑year, multi‑plant program.
Finally, here are some concrete situations in which TOGAF® library concepts become particularly effective in a Tier‑1 setting.
Scene 1: Inventory reduction vs. on‑time delivery
Scene 2: Global template vs. local requirements
Scene 3: Responsibility split between PLM, MES, and SAP
For automotive Tier‑1 suppliers, SAP programs are inherently multi‑stakeholder and conflict‑rich: Sales, Manufacturing, Logistics, Finance, HQ, regions, and plants all optimize different things. TOGAF’s baseline, option matrix, and transformation roadmap concepts provide a way to turn this complexity into explicit, structured trade‑offs rather than political compromise.
By defining the baseline as “now plus the impact of ongoing projects,” visualizing options, risks, and controls in an option matrix, and mapping agreed decisions into a layered roadmap aligned with ADM Phases E and F, Enterprise Architects can make EA genuinely actionable. Project Managers can then execute with clearer scope, realistic expectations, and governance that reflects enterprise‑level optimization instead of local wins and losses.
Used together, TOGAF® and SAP S/4HANA become not just implementation frameworks, but decision‑making frameworks for Tier‑1 suppliers navigating the tension between global standardization and local competitiveness.
Parts of this article were developed with reference to generative AI suggestions and were reviewed, refined, and supplemented based on the author’s professional expertise and judgment.
A practical guide for project managers to prioritize PLM, SAP, and AI initiatives using enterprise…
This article explains how automotive electronics manufacturers can architect the combination of SAP S/4HANA Cloud,…
A practical guide to SAP stakeholder strategy using stakeholder maps and influence–interest matrix for successful…
This article shows how to turn SAP programs into true enterprise transformation roadmaps by combining…
A practical guide for SAP project managers to apply Enterprise Architecture in PLM × S/4HANA…
A practical guide to SAP S/4HANA Private Edition concept planning, covering strategy alignment, As-Is/To-Be design,…