Picasso CPI Governance Assessment

SAP CPI assessment to decide with evidence before go‑live, production or migration.

We evaluate SAP CPI / SAP Integration Suite landscapes from technical evidence, even when the client cannot grant direct tenant access.

Picasso CPI Governance Assessment turns ZIP exports, snapshots and safe metadata into a traceable inventory, a difference matrix and a DevOps roadmap. Offline/file-based assessment is the primary path; API Assessment can be evaluated with read-only access, authorized scope and controlled validation.

Request SAP CPI assessment Explore Deep iFlow Diff

If you prefer to confirm scope or assessment mode first, open WhatsApp with this context.

New capability · Deep iFlow Diff

Don't just identify differences.
See where your iFlow changed.

For example, use the iFlow exported from DEV as the Base (baseline) and its version exported from QA or PRD as the Compared version. Locate changes on the diagram and review differences between environments with technical evidence.

Deep iFlow Diff as it appears in the report.

Actual report screenshot · approved sample

Deep iFlow Diff report in Spanish: Base and Compared diagrams side by side, with six localized changes highlighted in red.
  • Modified
  • Added
  • Removed

Red means a difference, not necessarily an error.

Screenshot of an exported report, sanitized and approved for this sample. The diagrams are our own representations of the CPI export, not SAP editor screenshots. The controls shown within the image are not interactive. The screenshot is in Spanish.
View full-size screenshot (opens a new tab)How to read this comparison
Δ

Localized changes

This sample shows six localized changes. That number is not the total number of findings in the technical report.

↔

Geometry in context

Available positions and connections help locate differences. Visual movements alone are not treated as functional changes.

{ }

Evidence-linked resources

Script or mapping changes can highlight their nodes when an explicit, verifiable reference exists; this does not interpret all of their logic.

  • Review in context

    Compare versions or environments on the flow, alongside technical evidence.

  • Locate what matters

    Find modified, added or removed nodes and connections.

  • Start with less noise

    Focus on functional, technical and structural changes. Externalized parameters are summarized while risk exceptions stay visible.

  • Share evidence

    Bring the visual review and technical detail into documentation and team discussions.

A deliverable you can share

The comparison travels with the report.

The exported HTML opens with comparative views, a legend and annotations, followed by the technical report. It can be read without keeping the application open.

What can the exported HTML do?

In the reviewed samples, you can follow internal links to details and expand a full-scale view to scroll through the diagram. These are report controls; the application's interactive tools are not being attributed to the HTML.

  1. Base vs. Compared views
  2. Annotations and links to detail
  3. Technical report and scope
Review my iFlows with visual evidence

Let's agree on versions, sources and assessment scope.

When SAP CPI grows without governance, risk appears late.

SAP CPI often starts as a quick response to integration needs: connecting SuccessFactors, HCM, payroll, WFM, APIs, ERPs, external systems or critical business processes. Over time, packages grow, iFlows multiply and each environment starts telling a different story.

The problem is not having many interfaces. The problem is not knowing with certainty what exists in each environment, what changed, what reached production, what configuration is out of control and what technical risk may affect the next deployment or a future migration.

Common pain points

  • No reliable inventory of packages and iFlows.
  • DEV, QA, UAT and PROD are not aligned.
  • Undocumented differences exist between environments.
  • No clear visibility of versions, endpoints, adapters and parameters.
  • Dependencies or configurations may affect a Neo to Cloud Foundry migration.
  • Errors surface late: during go‑live, hypercare or production.
Our solution

A consulting assessment for SAP CPI governance.

Picasso CPI Governance Assessment does not stop at listing iFlows or producing a decorative report. We build real visibility over the integration landscape, identify differences across environments, document technical evidence and translate findings into concrete actions.

The assessment is supported by internal analysis capabilities to review available exports, snapshots and configurations. We do not infer dependencies without technical support and we state limitations when evidence is not enough for a responsible conclusion.

The promise is simple: understand what you have, where your environments differ, what risks exist and what actions to take to govern SAP CPI integrations better.

For CPI landscapes with real complexity

Designed for multiple environments, critical integrations, inherited tenants, go‑live pressure or scenarios where architecture and PMO need evidence before deciding.

Technical capabilities

CPI inventory

Client/project/environment registry (DEV, QA, UAT, PROD or others) with runtime identification, safe metadata and deterministic hashes.

Environment comparison

Differences by existence, version, endpoints, adapters, parameters, configuration and resources, including equivalences when names do not match.

Artifact analysis

Technical extraction and review when evidence exists: Groovy, JavaScript, XSLT, mappings, WSDL/XSD/EDMX, properties/parameters and referenced or unused resources.

Structured findings

Findings with severity, category, auditable evidence and recommendation, separating expected per-environment differences vs items that require review.

Security and governance

We do not store secrets in plain text or print tokens/passwords/certificates. Credential references are reported as Security Material objects that require an owner and process.

Neo to Cloud Foundry Readiness

BTP dependency signals, configuration and relevant tasks before planning a transition from Neo to Cloud Foundry.

Assessment modalities

A mature offline path, and API only under controlled validation.

Offline/File-based Assessment

We work with ZIP exports of packages or iFlows by environment when the client cannot allow direct access. We process local evidence, generate snapshots and do not retain the original ZIP by default.

API Assessment under validation

When the client authorizes read-only access, we evaluate a controlled capture limited to available roles, permissions and capabilities. It is not presented as a production connector or runtime monitoring.

Homogeneous evidence

For formal comparison, all active environments must be captured from the same source: equivalent ZIP exports, or an authorized and validated API capture. If evidence is mixed, it is declared as a limitation and we recommend homogeneous recapture before concluding environment differences.

API Assessment: controlled read-only validation

When the client authorizes direct access, we can evaluate a capture limited to available permissions. The result reflects the capture moment, role-enabled capabilities and technical limitations of the environment.

  • No tenant, package, iFlow or artifact changes.
  • Not presented as production API integration until scope is validated with authorized credentials.
  • Does not replace SAP ALM, SAP Transport Management or runtime monitoring.
  • Documents what could be queried by environment and what remained out of scope.

Offline/File-based Assessment: ZIP export evidence

When direct tenant access is not available, the client provides exports by environment. This reduces security friction and allows sanitized technical evidence review while stating that it does not replace runtime validation.

  • Useful for restrictive policies or third-party tenants.
  • Stores snapshots, hashes and sanitized evidence, not secrets or full sensitive content.
  • Depends on exports representing the agreed scope.
  • Does not include logs, metrics or full runtime state unless present in evidence.
Neo to Cloud Foundry Readiness

A specialized capability, not an automatic migration promise.

For clients still operating SAP CPI on Neo, we include a readiness view that identifies signals, dependencies and relevant tasks before planning a transition to Cloud Foundry.

  • Prepares the technical migration conversation with evidence.
  • Does not execute deploys, connectivity tests or automatic migrations.
  • Does not replace runtime validation or formal Cloud Foundry testing.

What we analyze (when evidence exists)

Technical analysis depends on what the client provides or enables per mode. We do not “guess” what is not supported by evidence.

  • Packages, iFlows, versions, artifacts and available internal resources.
  • Groovy, JavaScript, XSLT, mappings, properties/parameters.
  • WSDL, XSD, EDMX, JAR and auxiliary resources (when present in exports).
  • Endpoint, adapter, destination, dependency and Security Material references (without exposing secrets).

How findings are delivered

Findings are delivered with structure and evidence: severity, category, impact and rationale. When applicable, we reference SAP documentation and clearly declare limitations by information source.

  • Expected per-environment drift vs differences that require review.
  • Auditable technical evidence (hash/metadata), with no tokens or passwords.
  • Remediation backlog: prioritization and recommended steps (no auto-remediation).

Limitations by evidence source

The assessment is responsible with what it can conclude. Offline analysis depends on export quality and completeness. API analysis depends on roles, authorizations and enabled capabilities.

  • It does not include full runtime observability.
  • It may not reflect logs, metrics or production errors.
  • It may not show actual deployed configuration if the export does not contain it.
  • We do not infer dependencies without sufficient technical evidence.
  • Formal comparison requires homogeneous evidence across environments.
  • The report declares reviewed sources, scope and limitations.

What it is not

  • It does not replace SAP ALM.
  • It does not replace SAP Transport Management.
  • It is not continuous runtime monitoring.
  • It does not sell API Assessment as a productive SAP connector without prior validation.
  • It does not modify tenants, packages, iFlows or artifacts without authorization.
  • It does not produce a formal comparison when environment evidence is mixed.
  • It does not execute automatic remediation, Neo to Cloud Foundry migration or fixes unless explicitly in scope.
Deliverables

From technical evidence to governance decisions.

01Technical inventory
02DEV / QA / UAT / PROD matrix
03DevOps roadmap
FindingsSeverity, impact and evidence
ReportExecutive and technical
ScopeSource and limitations by environment

Value for your organization

Less risk before production

Detect environment differences and prioritize actions before go‑live, hypercare or critical deployment windows.

Better traceability

Reduce dependence on informal knowledge and give visibility to architecture, PMO, support and SAP teams.

Actionable roadmap

Turn technical findings into a plan to mature governance, documentation, transports, migration readiness and operation.

Value for SAP partners

For SAP consulting firms and partners, the assessment works as a technical validation layer before go‑live, support or project transition. Picasso T&S can act as the architecture arm when integration becomes the delivery bottleneck.

  • Consulting firms that inherited CPI tenants from other teams.
  • Partners that need to validate environments before a critical release.
  • PMOs that require technical evidence for decisions.
  • Projects where the functional team does not have deep integration capacity.

Use cases

Before go‑live

Validate differences and risks before moving critical integrations.

Inherited tenants

Organize CPI landscapes with insufficient documentation or multiple teams involved.

DEV / QA / PROD comparison

Confirm which iFlows, endpoints, adapters or configurations are not aligned.

Controlled API Assessment

Evaluate read-only capture only with formal authorization, clear permissions and prior technical validation.

Offline assessment

Analyze ZIP exports by environment when direct access is not possible.

Neo to Cloud Foundry Readiness

Identify risks, dependencies and tasks before planning a migration from Neo to Cloud Foundry.

Requirements to start

Before reviewing the landscape, we define modality, scope and available evidence. The assessment can be complete or limited to critical packages, environments or iFlows.

  • Environment list: DEV, QA, UAT, PROD or others.
  • Priority packages or iFlows if the scope is partial.
  • Evidence source: Offline/File-based Assessment or API Assessment under controlled validation.
  • Homogeneous evidence by environment when formal comparison is required.
  • Existing technical documentation and owners for clarification.
  • Criticality criteria: payroll, SuccessFactors, HCM, WFM, finance or APIs.
  • Current runtime context if Neo to Cloud Foundry review is required.
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

  • No. It is our own representation based on positions and connections available in the CPI export. Highlights show differences, not errors by default. Missing valid geometry or a demonstrable reference is declared as a limitation.
  • No. It is a consulting service supported by internal analysis capabilities to turn CPI evidence into inventory, comparison, findings and a DevOps roadmap. It is not sold as SaaS or an automatic platform.
  • Yes. We can work with Offline/File-based Assessment using ZIP exports of packages or iFlows by environment. The analysis is based on the evidence provided and states its limitations.
  • It is a controlled-validation modality for clients that authorize read-only access to the SAP CPI / SAP Integration Suite tenant. Scope is confirmed case by case and it is not sold as a production connector or continuous monitoring capability.
  • It is a modality based on ZIP exports provided by the client. We process the evidence, generate snapshots and compare environments when exports are equivalent by scope and source.
  • They can be used as a diagnosis of non-homogeneous evidence, but not as a formal comparison. For rigorous environment comparison, all environments must be captured from the same source: API or equivalent ZIP exports.
  • By default we do not retain the original ZIPs. We extract metadata, hashes and evidence required for the analysis, and final handling is agreed according to client policy.
  • No. It does not replace SAP ALM or SAP Transport Management. It helps understand the CPI landscape, document risks and prioritize governance and DevOps actions.
  • No. It reflects the evidence captured at the moment of the assessment. It is not continuous runtime observability or production monitoring.
  • It is a specialized capability inside the assessment to identify signals, dependencies and tasks before planning a transition from Neo to Cloud Foundry. It does not execute automatic migrations.
  • We do not promise total detection. We identify dependencies when there is enough evidence in artifacts, configurations, parameters, exports or API-enabled information.
  • A technical inventory, a comparison matrix when evidence is homogeneous, findings with severity and impact, evidence, recommendations and a DevOps roadmap.

Understand your SAP CPI landscape before the next critical deployment.

You do not need to wait until go‑live, audit or migration to discover environment differences. We can start with Offline/File-based Assessment using ZIP exports and evaluate read-only API only with formal authorization and controlled validation; if evidence is not homogeneous, we define the right recapture first.

Request SAP CPI assessment Continue on WhatsApp