SAP Test Case Design: Scenario-Based E2E Testing Guide

The success of SAP projects is ultimately determined by the final "quality validation" phase. Yet many practitioners find themselves lost while managing thousands of Excel-based test scenarios. If you've ever asked, "We completed the VA01 (Create Sales Order) test—why did accounting document generation fail after go-live?"—it's time to re-examine your test case design approach.

Today, we'll explore the core strategy that determines SAP testing efficiency: scenario-based End-to-End (E2E) test design, with concrete examples.

1. Limitations and Risks of T-Code-Centric Testing

Many organizations still create test cases centered around individual T-Codes (Transaction Codes). For example, verifying "does the VA01 (Create Sales Order) screen load and save properly?" However, this fragmented approach has critical limitations:

Business Disconnection: Even if the VA01 screen functions normally, you cannot verify whether the entered data flows seamlessly to subsequent processes like Outbound Delivery or FI document creation.

Maintenance Nightmare: When SAP patches or business logic changes occur, you must manually filter through thousands of Excel rows to identify affected scenarios.

Test Coverage Uncertainty: While individual function tests may be completed, it's difficult to quantitatively measure how much of the actual end-user "complete business flow" has been validated.

2. Scenario-Based E2E Test Design

To address these issues, test cases must be redefined by scenario types following business flows.

2-1. Scenario Types

1) Representative Business Scenarios

Core business flow units where hand-overs occur between departments.

Example:

• Order-to-Cash (O2C) - Managing the entire process from customer order to payment collection as a single scenario bundle

This uses "complete business processes" actually performed by end-users as the fundamental testing unit.

2) Cross-Module Scenarios

Moving beyond simple module distinctions (SD, MM, etc.) to define enterprise core value chain units such as 'Sales Management,' 'Procurement Management,' and 'Production Management.'

Examples:

• Sales → Shipping → Billing → Collection (SD → MM → FI)

• Purchase → Goods Receipt → Inspection → Payment (MM → QM → FI)

• Production Planning → Material Issue → Production Execution → Cost Settlement (PP → MM → CO)

By validating integrated scenarios where multiple modules are organically connected, you can detect cross-module interface errors proactively.

3) Variant Scenarios

The minimum unit where actual testing is performed. Even within the same business flow, processing logic differs based on data conditions.

Examples:

• Standard order, Rush order, Return order

• Domestic sales, Export sales (currency and tax differences)

• Taxable transactions, Tax-exempt transactions, Zero-rated transactions

2-2. Concrete Design Example: O2C (Order-to-Cash) Scenario

If "scenario-based design" still seems abstract, let's examine how to structure SAP's most representative process, O2C (Order-to-Cash).

Cross-Module Scenario: Sales & Distribution (Sales Management)

Representative Scenario: Domestic Standard Sales Process (Standard Sales)

Variant Scenarios - Detailed Steps:

• Step 1: Customer Order Entry (VA01) - Order type, customer information input

• Step 2: Availability Check and Delivery Creation (VL01N) - Inventory verification and logistics handover

• Step 3: Picking and Goods Issue Confirmation (PGI) - Actual warehouse goods issue processing

• Step 4: Billing and Invoice Generation (VF01) - Customer invoice issuance

• Step 5: Customer Payment Processing and Clearing (F-28) - Accounting document confirmation and payment completion

With this structure, when testing "Rush Order" or "Return Order" processes, you can keep the already validated Steps 2-3 (shipping/goods issue) intact and only swap Step 1 (order) and Step 4 (billing) logic, reducing test design time by over 50%.

3. Four-Step Strategy for Scenario-Based Structure Design

Simply dividing structure doesn't automatically create efficiency. You need practical strategies to transform this into a reusable "asset."

Step 1: Business Inventory Identification and Mapping

Don't start by listing all currently used T-Codes. Instead, open the business operation manuals and map processes based on "hand-over" points where work transitions between departments. This map becomes your testing roadmap.

Step 2: Reusable Component Separation

Actions repeated across all tests—login, organizational code entry, master data lookup—should be created as individual "components." When system configurations change later, you modify just this one "component" rather than hundreds of Excel rows, and the change automatically propagates to all scenarios.

Step 3: Data-Based Variant Configuration

Results vary based on data even within a single representative scenario. Map business rules like "Entity A is taxable, Entity B is tax-exempt" to scenarios. The key is using valid data combinations that actually occur in production, not arbitrary test data.

Step 4: Test Result Asset Management and Regression Test Integration

Successful test cases aren't just "completed" and finished. They become the "baseline" that guarantees consistent quality during system upgrades or patches. Scenario-based structured cases can be directly imported into automation tools, becoming a powerful weapon ensuring "zero-downtime service" during the next deployment.

4. Industry-Specific Application Cases: Transformation Through Scenario Design

Case A: Manufacturing with Complex Production Chains

Before: Production (PP), Procurement (MM), and Sales (SD) departments tested independently, missing cross-departmental data integration errors.

Change: Structured cross-module scenarios connecting production-shipping-settlement

Result: 100% identification of cross-departmental interface errors and 40%+ expansion of overall E2E test coverage.

Case B: Retail/CPG with Frequent Promotions

Before: Managed countless discount conditions and channel-specific scenarios in Excel lists, leading to frequent settlement errors from scenario omissions.

Change: Structured variant scenarios by channel and promotion type, with modularized pricing logic

Result: 50% reduction in scenario creation time for new promotions and perfect settlement data integrity.

5. Conclusion: Beyond Simple Function Testing to Scenario-Centric Validation

Many organizations remain stuck in T-Code-level function testing. Simply verifying that the VA01 screen loads and the save button works cannot guarantee actual business stability.

The Core of Testing is "Scenarios"

Real business operations don't complete with a single transaction. Orders must be received, inventory checked, goods shipped, billing issued, and payments collected—the entire flow must proceed seamlessly.

Therefore, testing must be designed scenario-centrically to reflect this flow.

Tests designed on a scenario basis validate not just "does the screen work?" but "does the business flow properly?" This is true quality assurance and the starting point for stable SAP operations.

[Next Episode] To execute these structured scenarios perfectly, you need "data." In our next post, we'll cover "Data Provisioning Strategies to Reduce Test Data Preparation Time by 70%."