Lesson 1 of 5
Building P2P coverage from scope items
12 min
A procure-to-pay sign-off is only as good as its coverage. If nobody wrote down which processes, variants and exceptions were tested, then "P2P passed" means "the cases someone thought of passed". This course builds Contoso Motor Co.'s P2P test and sign-off plan from requisition to payment for the move to SAP S/4HANA, and it starts with a coverage baseline that comes from SAP rather than from memory: the SAP Best Practices scope items.
Scope items as the baseline
SAP Best Practices package standard business processes as scope items, each with a process flow and test scripts, published in SAP Signavio Process Navigator. For procure-to-pay, the core scope items are well known, and SAP Learning describes them in detail. Scope item content and availability differ between Cloud Public Edition and Private Edition or on-premise, and between releases, so check the list for your edition in Process Navigator before you build on it.
| Scope item | Name | What it covers | Contoso use |
|---|---|---|---|
| J45 | Procurement of Direct Materials | Requisitions, purchase orders, goods receipts, stock, supplier invoices (SAP Learning also lists down payments) | Rotors CMC-RTR-200 from Lakeside Components for plant 1710 |
| 18J | Requisitioning | Self-service requisitions from catalogs, free text or product ID, with approval; limit items for unplanned needs | Engineering orders test-bench supplies |
| 22Z | Procurement of Services | Purchase requisitions and orders for services, service entry sheets, invoices | Machine maintenance at Detroit |
| BMK | Return to Supplier | Return purchase orders, goods returns, optional outbound delivery, credit memos | Defective rotors returned to Lakeside |
| J60 | Accounts Payable | Invoice processing, payment preparation, payment runs and reporting | Paying Lakeside and other suppliers |
Core P2P scope items used as Contoso's coverage baseline. Verify names and content for your edition in Process Navigator.
The scope items give you a vocabulary and a checklist of standard steps, and their test scripts are a starting point for test cases. They do not know Contoso's approval thresholds, tolerance limits, output channels, custom fields or interfaces. Those are the company variants you add on top.
Adding Contoso's variants
Priya's team runs a short workshop per scope item with the procurement key users and asks three questions for every step: Do we do this differently? What can go wrong here? Which rule or control applies? The answers become variants and exceptions. For Contoso the list includes: PO approval through flexible workflow above $25,000 (a fictional Contoso threshold), POs with cost center account assignment for indirect spend, services with service entry sheets, deliveries into both plants 1710 and 1720, invoices with price and quantity variances, and returns of defective goods.
| ID | Scenario | Baseline | Variant or exception | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P2P-01 | Stock PO, approval not needed | J45 | PO of $25,000 or less | Medium |
| P2P-02 | Stock PO with approval | J45 | PO over $25,000; approver approves | High (control) |
| P2P-03 | Approval rejected | J45 | Approver rejects; PO not output | High (control) |
| P2P-04 | Price variance block and release | J45 / J60 | Invoice $1 above PO price beyond tolerance | High (control) |
| P2P-05 | Quantity variance block | J45 / J60 | Invoice 520 against receipt 500 | High (control) |
| P2P-06 | Account-assigned PO | J45 variant | Cost center, valuated receipt | Medium |
| P2P-07 | Service PO with entry sheet | 22Z | Entry sheet approved before invoice | Medium |
| P2P-08 | Return to supplier and credit memo | BMK | 30 defective rotors | Medium |
| P2P-09 | Payment run | J60 | Due items paid; blocked items not paid | High (financial) |
| P2P-10 | Duplicate invoice | J60 | Same reference entered twice | High (control) |
| P2P-11 | Requisition from MRP | J45 | MRP proposes requisition for 1720 | Medium |
| P2P-12 | Self-service requisition | 18J | Catalog item with approval | Low |
An extract of Contoso's P2P coverage map.
- Does the scope item step run in Contoso's business?Yes → include it · No → record it as out of scope with a reason
- Does Contoso use a rule, threshold or custom field at this step?Yes → add a variant that exercises it, at and beyond the limit · No → baseline case only
- Is there a control at this step (approval, tolerance, segregation of duties)?Yes → add a negative test proving the control refuses · No → next question
- Does the step hand data to another system or team?Yes → add an integration check (output, interface, finance posting) · No → done
What would you do?
Grace proposes cutting P2P testing to the J45 happy path to save a week, because "the scope item is SAP standard and already tested by SAP". What should Priya say?
- Start P2P coverage from scope items such as J45, 18J, 22Z, BMK and J60, checked for your edition in Process Navigator.
- Add company variants, exceptions, negative tests and integration points in layers.
- Ask at each step: do we differ, what can go wrong, which control applies?
- Trace every test case back to its scope item step so coverage can be shown, not claimed.
Check your understanding · not graded
Lesson check
1. Which scope item is the core baseline for buying stock materials such as rotors?
2. Where are SAP Best Practices process flows and test scripts for scope items published?
3. What do scope items not cover for Contoso?
4. Which scope item covers service entry sheets?