“Centralizing access into a handful of users feels like a smart move. But it’s often a short-term win that creates long-term risk.”
— Mark Stanley, SAP Consultant
Why companies can be tempted to game the FUE model
SAP’s FUE licensing model pushes organizations to reduce the number of licensed users. And the quickest path? Give more access to fewer people.
The logic seems airtight:
- Fewer users = lower license costs
- Bundle roles into power users
- Use shared IDs or senior users execute multiple processes
This approach could save significant money—at least on the surface.
But it comes with hidden tradeoffs that many CISOs and SAP teams underestimate.
The compliance risk no one talks about
When you concentrate access into fewer hands, you concentrate risk. That’s a problem in three ways:
- SoD Violations Multiply
Users with multi-functional roles often trigger cross-process violations—finance, procurement, HR, etc. These are the exact conflicts auditors look for as it creates opportunity for frauds. - Audit Trail Becomes Unclear
When a single user executes many approvals, transactions, and updates, it becomes harder to validate segregation, especially in regulated industries. - Operational Resilience Decreases
If that “super user” is unavailable or leaves, your processes stall. Reassigning their access triggers even more risk reviews and remediation.
“You’re solving a cost problem by creating a compliance problem or operational risk. That’s not optimization—that’s shifting liability.”
— Cyril Hauppert
Real-world scenario
One client consolidated licensing aggressively. Ten users now handled what used to be done by forty.
Great savings… until audit season starts.
The issue? Those ten users now had access to:
- Create, approve, and post vendor payments
- Modify master data
- Run sensitive reports
The client had no clear mitigation plan, no review process, and no evidence of controls. The auditors flagged all ten accounts—and the remediation effort ended up costing more than the licenses they tried to save and brought the situation back to square one.
“They bought themselves a short-term saving and a 6-month fire drill.”
— Mark Stanley
What’s a better approach?
We recommend a balanced model that protects cost, compliance, and operations—all at once.
1. Analyze risk before you consolidate
Use simulation tools to test SoD impact before merging or assigning roles. If risk goes up, redesign or isolate access into separate IDs.
2. Avoid license creep by role justification
Don’t assign advanced roles by default. Use snapshot and usage analysis to see if the user needs it—then document it.
3. Build mitigations at the same speed
If you must centralize, put controls in place immediately: dual approval, alerting, time-bound access, or external oversight.
You don’t need to choose between cost and control
Optimizing SAP licensing should never come at the expense of security posture.
“Assigning access rights should be made based on job responsibility and risk, not based on financial incentives alone. When you ignore that, cost savings become audit findings.”
— Cyril Hauppert
FUE is not just a licensing model. It’s a test of your access governance maturity. Make the wrong tradeoffs, and you’ll spend the next audit cycle untangling the damage.
Want to model your FUE risk profile before making changes?
We’ll simulate licensing, access, and SoD impact in under 8 days.
