Lesson 2 of 6
Reading the results
10 min
Listen to this lesson
A finished evaluation gives each integration scenario several different ratings. Teams that read only the category plan badly: they put "Ready to migrate" interfaces into an early tool wave and discover that the tool can't generate them. This lesson reads the dashboard and the spreadsheet the way Theo's team did for XP1, then turns ratings into decisions without confusing the two.
The dashboard and the two downloads
Open Dashboard shows an Overview tab and an Integration Scenarios tab. The Overview charts scenarios by assessment category, by effort estimation (SAP's tutorial shows the sizes S, M, L and XL), by modernization recommendation, and by sender and receiver adapter, plus a landscape-level migration readiness profile. The Integration Scenarios tab lists every scenario with its size, category and readiness distribution.
| Download | Format | What it holds | Use it for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Export | Spreadsheet (.xlsx) | Every scenario: category and effort, modernization recommendations, rules applied, sender and receiver adapters (standard and custom), request and response message types, throughput and mapping usage, performance data, readiness per scenario | Triage, wave planning, the regression-set register |
| Generate Report | Summary charts, scenarios per category and size, the 10 most active scenarios, standard adapter usage, effort estimation, recommendations, readiness distribution | The steering pack |
Two details catch people out. Custom adapter details appear only in the Export, not in the PDF. And a spreadsheet cell can't hold more than 32,767 characters, so very long values are not displayed in the export; check the dashboard for those scenarios.
How a rating is built
Each rule checks one characteristic of a scenario, such as the sender adapter type, and has parameters with a match value, an assessment category and a weight. A scenario's triggered rules add up to its total weight, which places it in a T-shirt size. According to SAP's tutorial, the scenario's overall category is the most severe category that any of its rules triggered, so one awkward feature makes the whole scenario "Evaluation required". The spreadsheet shows this per rule, which is how you find out why a scenario landed where it did.
Rules and sizes are settings, not constants. SAP's role table gives PIMAS_Admin the tasks to activate, deactivate and add rules and to edit or delete T-shirt size data, while PIMAS_IntegrationAnalyst can only read them. Earlier SAP tutorial material showed the rules as view-only, so check what your tenant offers. If you calibrate sizes against your own effort history, record the change and the reason, and re-run the evaluation so every scenario is rated on the same basis.
Three lenses, not one
| Rating | Question it answers | Values | Don't use it for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment category | Does Integration Suite offer the features this scenario uses? | Ready to migrate, Adjustment required, Evaluation required | Predicting how much the migration tool automates |
| Migration Tool Coverage | How much of the scenario can SAP's migration tooling generate? | Low (up to 30%), Medium (up to 60%), High (up to 80%), Very High (above 80%) | Deciding whether the interface is still needed |
| Size and readiness | Roughly how much work, and of what kind? | S, M, L, XL; weighted split across the three categories | Committed estimates before calibration |
SAP Help is explicit that the categories describe how far a scenario can be implemented in Integration Suite, not how much the Migration Tooling will do. "Ready to migrate" means every feature in use exists in Integration Suite. It doesn't mean the tool will migrate it. "Evaluation required" can mean a missing feature, a purpose the tool couldn't determine, or custom code such as a custom adapter module that it can't analyze.
From ratings to Contoso's decisions
XP1's evaluation rated the 64 integrated configurations 31 Ready to migrate, 21 Adjustment required and 12 Evaluation required. The throughput column showed 7 with no messages in twelve months. Those numbers are readiness. The architecture dispositions from sap-int-401 are a different lens: retire 7 (exactly the seven without traffic, whatever their category), keep 31, adapt 12, move 8 and rebuild 6. The two 31s are not the same list: "Ready to migrate" asks whether Integration Suite has the features, while "keep" asks whether the interface works unchanged after the S/4HANA conversion.
Theo's triage workshop added columns to the Export: business owner, disposition and reason, Migration Tool Coverage, wave, and regression-set ID. Tool coverage is the bridge to the work plan: keep and adapt interfaces go through the tool and need its coverage to be worthwhile; move interfaces are the ones the tool can't do; rebuilds ignore the old design. The spreadsheet then became the register that lessons 5 and 6 track evidence against.
What would you do?
The export shows a bank payment interface as <em>Ready to migrate</em>, size S, with Migration Tool Coverage <em>Low</em>. Grace wants it in the pilot wave "because it's ready and small." What should Theo do?
- Export (spreadsheet) is the working file; Generate Report (PDF) is the summary. Custom adapter details are only in the Export.
- Rules with weights produce the size; the most severe triggered rule sets the category; per-rule tool support gives Migration Tool Coverage.
- "Ready to migrate" means the features exist in Integration Suite, not that the tool will migrate it.
- Readiness (31/21/12, 7 without traffic) and dispositions (retire 7, keep 31, adapt 12, move 8, rebuild 6) are different lenses.
Check your understanding · not graded
Lesson check
1. What does a Migration Tool Coverage of High tell you about a scenario?
2. Where do you find the details of custom adapters used by your scenarios?
3. Seven of Contoso's 64 configurations had no messages in twelve months. How do they appear in the dispositions?
4. Per SAP's tutorial, how is a scenario's overall assessment category decided?