By Vottax at 12 de Janeiro de 2026

SAP BPC has been, for many years, a widely adopted solution for planning and consolidation. With the evolution of the SAP ecosystem and the consolidation of S/4HANA as the digital core, many companies are reassessing their close and consolidation architecturemainly to reduce dependencies on legacy solutions and achieve tighter integration with the ERP.

In this context, SAP S/4HANA Group Reporting (GR) is increasingly positioned as the most modern solution for financial consolidation within the S/4HANA landscape. More than a tool change, the migration from BPC to GR typically involves a shift in approach: moving from a more “flexible, built-over-time” logic to a more structured model, with processes, data, and governance designed for close and corporate consolidation.

First things first: separate “Consolidation” from “Planning”

A common mistake is treating consolidation and planning as the same problem, using the same tool and the same data logic. In practice, they are different needs:

Planning, simulation, and xP&A require flexibility, fast modeling, and the ability to adjust scenarios.

Close and consolidation require traceability, validation, governance, controls, and a consistent foundation of corporate structures.

By separating these fronts, it becomes easier to design a sustainable architecture: consolidation with GR and planning in an appropriate layer (for example, planning solutions), reducing coupling and improving close governance.

What changes in practice when moving from BPC to GR

The migration typically impacts three dimensions:

Processes

Redesign of the close and consolidation process (owners, steps, timelines, controls).

Validation and consistency rules to support audit and governance.

Standardization of structures and routines, reducing “historical exceptions.”

Data

Mapping of structures (accounts, entities, consolidation units, currencies, versions).

Transformations needed to move from the current model to the consolidation model.

Data quality and traceability: ensuring the data flow is explainable and auditable.

Technology and architecture

Integrations (internal and external data sources).

Performance, volumes, and close windows.

Security, roles, and segregation of duties.

Why the migration is considered “complex”

The migration is complex because it is rarely “copy and paste.” In many cases, BPC has accumulated over time:

Business-specific rules

Recurring manual adjustments

Spreadsheet dependencies and parallel routines

Data models shaped by close-time urgencies

Migrating is the best opportunity to “clean up” the process: review what is a true rule, what is an exception, what can be automated, and what must become governance.

Recommended roadmap (high level)

A pragmatic path that helps reduce risk:

Assessment of the current landscape (processes, integrations, real pain points, bottlenecks, risks).

Consolidation blueprint (data model, hierarchies, rules, validations, reports).

Data and integration strategy (sources, transformations, loads, reconciliations).

Proof of concept / pilot (validate the design with a realistic scope slice).

Wave-based implementation (by company, unit, region, or close type).

Cutover and stabilization (parallel run, reconciliation, go-live governance).

How Vottax can help

Migrating from BPC to Group Reporting requires both functional and technical expertise, along with experience in close, governance, and process design. A successful project combines:

controllership / consolidation know-how, SAP architecture and change management to ensure adoption and close stability.

If your company is evaluating this journey, the first step is an objective diagnostic to define scope, risks, timeline, and expected benefits.

Want to discuss your scenario? Talk to Vottax for an initial assessment.

Comments (0)
The comments are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not represent the opinion of this site.

No comment. Be the first to comment!