Learn, Practice, and Improve with SAP P_SAPEA_2023 Practice Test Questions

Explanation

Why A is correct:

SAP's Reference Solution Architecture (RSA) content provides standardized artifacts to illustrate how SAP solutions support end-to-end business processes.
The complete set includes four key diagrams:

Solution Value Flow Diagram: A high-level, abstract view focusing on value-adding activities and their support by solution components.
Solution Process Flow Diagram: Detailed BPMN-based flows showing process steps, integrations, and collaborations between solution components.
Solution Component Diagram: Depicts the solution components, their roles, relationships, deployment units, and communication channels.
Solution Data Flow Diagram: Illustrates the flow of master and transactional data objects between solution components.

These four artifacts together form the core of SAP's detailed Reference Solution Architecture content, providing a comprehensive link from business value to technical implementation and data integration. This set is explicitly listed in multiple exam preparation resources and aligns with SAP's delivery in tools like SAP Signavio Process Explorer and SAP Business Accelerator Hub.

Why B is incorrect:

Solution Context Diagram is a general TOGAF artifact (or SAP's Business Context Diagram equivalent), focused on high-level stakeholders and external interactions, but it is not part of the SAP Reference Solution Architecture content.
Solution Application Use-Case Diagram is not a standard SAP RSA artifact; use-case diagrams are more general UML/TOGAF elements, not specific to SAP's reference content.

Why C is incorrect:

This option lists only three diagrams, omitting the Solution Data Flow Diagram. While some SAP learning materials describe the "three primary artifacts" (Value Flow, Process Flow, and Component), the full set in detailed RSA includes the Data Flow Diagram for complete data integration views.

Official References:

SAP Learning Journey: Analyzing the SAP Reference Solution Architecture — Mentions the three primary artifacts but also explicitly references the Solution Data Flow Diagram for data integration.
https://learning.sap.com/courses/introducing-enterprise-architecture-frameworks/analyzing-the-sap-reference-solution-architecture

SAP Learning: Understanding SAP Reference Solution Architecture — Highlights the four diagrams in detailed views.
https://learning.sap.com/courses/becoming-an-sap-btp-solution-architect/understanding-sap-reference-solution-architecture-1

Explanation

Why B is Correct

Developer Extensibility is optimal for heavy ABAP logic requiring direct database and API access within S/4HANA.
Side‑by‑Side Extensibility is ideal for applications that are less data-intensive but heavily use SAP BTP services (like advanced integrations, analytics, or microservices) or require modular cloud deployment.
This approach balances performance, scalability, and maintainability, following SAP recommended best practices for S/4HANA extensions.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Option A: “Use Developer Extensibility for data-intensive ABAP extensions / Use Side-by-Side Extensibility when additional BTP services are intensively used and SAPUI5 UIs are required”
✘ Emphasizes UI requirements (SAPUI5) as the primary criterion for Side-by-Side, which is misleading. The actual drivers are data intensity, service usage, and integration needs. Focusing only on UI can cause poor performance or unnecessary cloud dependency.

Option C: “Use Developer Extensibility for ABAP extensions that do not require a UI / Use Side-by-Side Extensibility for extensions that require SAPUI5 UIs”
✘ Assumes UI presence dictates extensibility choice, which is incorrect. Many SAPUI5 apps can be implemented on-stack, and ignoring data volume and BTP service requirements violates SAP best practices.

Official References

SAP Help – Developer Extensibility
SAP Community – Side-by-Side Extensibility

Explanation

Why C (Application Architect) is correct (and missing):

Wanderlust's current EA practice has only a Chief Enterprise Architect and a Technology Architect. No dedicated Application Architect exists. This role is needed for application portfolio management, rationalization, integration design, and transition planning (e.g., ECC to S/4HANA), which are critical gaps in their modernization efforts.

Why D (Business Architect) is correct (and missing):

No Business Architect role is present. This role is essential for business capability modeling, value stream analysis, process mapping, and strong business-IT alignment—key weaknesses in Wanderlust's nascent, technology-focused practice.

Why A (Data Architect) is incorrect:

The Wanderlust case study does not highlight a specific absence or priority need for a dedicated Data Architect role. While data architecture is part of the overall EA domains, the scenario emphasizes gaps in business and application layers as the primary immaturity indicators, not data.

Why B (Architecture Board) is incorrect:

An Architecture Board is a governance body responsible for reviewing architecture compliance and decisions (as per TOGAF recommendations), not an individual architect role. The question specifically asks about missing roles in the EA practice structure, which focuses on domain-specific architect positions rather than governance mechanisms.

Official References:

SAP Learning Journey: Exploring the SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework Foundation (Wanderlust case study context)

Explanation:

Option C: I tell the CIO that the SAP EA Framework also encompasses architecture services and practices. Based on a cost-benefit analysis I consider using the services and practices that fit best the project.

Why Correct: The framework is built on five pillars: Methodology, Reference Architecture Content, Tooling, Services, and Practice . The "Practice" pillar involves how to implement EA in your organization, and "Services" are consulting offerings. These can be evaluated and used based on their own merit. Official learning material states you can use "single aspects" of the framework .

Option D: I check whether the SAP Reference Business Architecture and Reference Solution Architecture Content can help to either define the scope of the architecture work or describe a target architecture structure. If they do, I suggest to use the Reference Architecture Content of SAP.

Why Correct: This content is a key benefit of the framework. It provides standardized business capabilities, process models, and solution maps that act as accelerators . Using this "Reference Architecture Content" is explicitly recommended to "overcome typical difficulties when starting architecture activities from scratch," and it is designed to be consumable regardless of your tool .

❌ Incorrect Answers: A and B

Option A: I tell the CIO that the SAP EA Framework cannot be used because the Wanderlust GmbH uses a non-SAP EA tool. Therefore, further evaluation is not necessary.

Why Wrong: This is directly contradicted by official SAP sources. A common myth is that "The SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework can only be used with SAP EA tools," which is labeled as WRONG . The framework is designed for flexibility.

Option B: I evaluate both the SAP EA Methodology and TOGAF ADM. I recommend the approach that fits best Wanderlust's requirements.

Why Wrong: While a valid general EA activity, it does not address the CIO's specific request to evaluate the SAP EA Framework. The SAP framework itself is a refinement of TOGAF designed to reduce tailoring effort . The request is to assess this specific framework's applicability, not to choose between methodologies.

📚 Official Reference Links

SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework Overview:
community.sap.com/t5/enterprise-architecture-blog-posts/sap-enterprise-architecture-framework/ba-p/124037

SAP Learning Journey:
https://learning.sap.com/learning-journeys/exploring-the-sap-enterprise-architecture-framework-foundation/relating-the-sap-enterprise-architecture-framework-to-togaf-

Explanation

Why C is Correct:

To "rejuvenate" a business area with a specific set of employees and partners, the Enterprise Architect must move beyond high-level organizational charts. By detailing business roles and personas, you define exactly who does the work, what their motivations are, and how they interact with the systems. This allows the CEO to see the human aspect of the online marketing ecosystem and identify where new skills or partner integrations are needed. In the SAP EA Framework, the Organization Map is the baseline that is extended into these detailed human-centric roles.

Why A is Incorrect:

A Statement of Architecture Work is a governance document that defines the scope, budget, and schedule for an architecture project. While it initiates the work, it is a management artifact rather than a descriptive architecture model of the human ecosystem.

Why B is Incorrect:

A Stakeholder Map is used primarily for communication planning and identifying who has influence or interest in the project. While it mentions stakeholders, it does not typically reach the level of detail regarding personas and specific business roles required to redesign an operational business unit like Online Marketing.

Why D is Incorrect:

Extending the ecosystem into business capabilities and processes focuses on what the business does and how it functions. However, the CEO’s specific request was for information regarding "a set of employees and partners." This points specifically to the Organization view within the SAP EA Framework, which deals with people and roles, rather than the functional/process view.

Official References

SAP Learning Journey: Defining Business Architecture — This module specifically defines the Organization Map and how it is detailed into Business Roles to represent job profiles.

SAP EA Framework Foundation: Investigating the SAP EA Methodology — Explains the four views: Capability, Process, Data, and Organization (where Roles/Personas reside).

Explanation

Why A is correct:

In the SAP BTP Cloud Foundry environment, the runtime is fundamentally based on buildpacks, which provide the necessary framework and runtime support for applications written in specific programming languages.

The choice of programming language directly determines which buildpack is selected (automatically or manually) during deployment. Buildpacks compile the application code, install dependencies, and prepare the executable droplet that runs in containers at runtime. SAP officially supports languages like Java, Node.js, and Python via dedicated buildpacks, while community buildpacks enable others (e.g., PHP, Go). This polyglot capability is a core characteristic of Cloud Foundry runtime behavior.

These factors are critical during runtime as they define how the application executes, its compatibility, dependencies, and overall performance within the containerized environment.

Why B is incorrect:

While CPU capacity (entitlement based on memory) and memory size are important for scaling and resource allocation, they are configurable quotas rather than inherent runtime characteristics of the Cloud Foundry environment itself. They impact performance but are not the primary definers of runtime execution like buildpacks.

Why C is incorrect:

Number of users and API calls represent workload and load patterns, which influence scaling decisions (e.g., via Autoscaler). However, they are external usage factors, not core elements of the Cloud Foundry runtime environment during execution.

Official References:

SAP Help Portal: Cloud Foundry Environment — Emphasizes support for multiple programming languages via buildpacks.
https://help.sap.com/docs/btp/sap-business-technology-platform/cloud-foundry-environment

Explanation

Why B is Correct

Option B: “If the data objects are built with data from different SAP and non-SAP sources that can be structured and unstructured, change with high frequency, and need to be cleansed, correlated and partly newly calculated.”
This describes exactly when a data-oriented integration (Data Integration) approach is preferred.
Data Integration tools (for example, SAP Data Intelligence, SAP HANA Cloud data integration) are designed to handle large data volumes, high-frequency changes, and complex transformations.
They support data cleansing, enrichment, correlation, and recalculation, which are core characteristics of data-centric scenarios.
This approach fits best when the target is a central data store (SAP HANA Cloud) used for analytics, reporting, or data-intensive applications rather than real-time transactional processing.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Option A: “Data from different SAP and non-SAP sources that change infrequently and are available from REST and Message APIs (event-driven systems)”
✘ This scenario is better suited for API-based or event-driven integration, not data integration.
Infrequent changes and API/event availability indicate process or message-oriented integration, not bulk or transformation-heavy data replication.
Using Data Integration here would add unnecessary complexity.

Option C: “Data from different SAP and non-SAP sources that can be structured and unstructured, change with high frequency, and need to be newly calculated”
✘ This option is incomplete and therefore incorrect.
It omits data cleansing and correlation, which are key reasons to choose a data-oriented integration approach.
Without these transformation-heavy requirements, other integration styles (such as streaming or event-based processing) could be more appropriate.

Official References

SAP Integration Suite – Integration Styles (Data, Process, API, Event)
https://help.sap.com/docs/integration-suite

SAP Data Intelligence & Data Integration Overview
https://help.sap.com/docs/data-intelligence-cloud