In many SAP EWM projects, the issue of mobility comes up early on.
Should we keep the standard RF screens?
Should we switch to Fiori?
Should we integrate a dedicated mobile solution?
The market today offers several approaches, some with similar promises: modernization, performance, and usability.
However, there are significant differences in terms of architecture, deployment, performance, and adoption in the field.
This guide provides a structured framework for evaluating these solutions and making a choice that best suits your needs.
Contrary to popular belief, mobility is not merely a matter of user interface.
It directly impacts:
A poor choice can lead to workarounds, low adoption, and additional IT complexity.
Conversely, the right solution becomes an immediate driver of performance.
This is the first criterion to analyze.
Questions to ask:
Is the solution 100% integrated with SAP?
Does it use SAP transports?
Does it require middleware?
Direct integration minimizes risks and simplifies maintenance.
Not all solutions are based on the same architecture:
Key Considerations:
Compatibility with different S/4HANA versions
Technical dependencies / Maintainability
Deployment complexity
A simple architecture is often more sustainable.
This is a key factor for success.
To evaluate:
Number of steps per transaction
Screen readability
User guidance
Error handling
Scan management
A good UX reduces training needs and improves productivity.
In a warehouse, a few seconds per operation make all the difference.
To analyze:
Response time
Smoothness of workflows
Ability to handle high volumes
Actual performance must be tested under real-world conditions.
An aspect that is often underestimated.
Does the solution make it easy to handle:
Inventory discrepancies
Partial picks
Non-standard cases
Poor exception handling quickly undermines operations.
Warehouses primarily use industrial terminals, particularly Zebra devices running Android.
To be verified:
Compatibility with Android
Utilization of scanning and photo-taking capabilities…
User interface optimized for the device
A solution must be designed with the hardware in mind, not just for SAP.
Depending on the environment, offline mode may be critical.
Key questions:
Does the solution work without a network connection?
How are synchronizations handled?
How are brief connection interruptions handled?
What are the limitations?
It’s important to carefully evaluate the claims surrounding offline functionality.
Finally, it’s essential to plan ahead for the project.
Points to analyze:
Deployment time
Configuration effort
Ease of updating
Dependence on specific developments
A solution that can be deployed quickly allows you to generate value faster.
|
Criterion |
RF / ITS Mobile |
Fiori |
Dedicated mobile solutions |
|
SAP Integration |
Native |
Native |
Variable |
|
Field UX |
Limited |
Average |
Optimized |
|
Performance |
Fair |
Variable |
High |
|
Exception handling |
Average |
Medium |
Advanced |
|
Device Compatibility |
Average |
Limited |
Optimized |
|
Offline |
No |
Partial |
Possible |
|
Deployment |
Simple |
Medium |
Variable |
Relying solely on the SAP standard
Underestimating the impact of the user experience
Failing to test under real-world conditions
Neglecting maintenance costs
Choosing a solution that is too complex
Separating the choice of devices (PDAs, tablets, etc.) from the choice of solution
The choice of a mobile solution for SAP EWM should not be guided solely by technical criteria or by default.
It must be evaluated based on a simple objective: to tangibly improve the execution of field operations.
The criteria presented in this guide help structure this decision-making process and avoid suboptimal choices.