Saying Goodbye to SAP WM – Which Warehouse Management System for the Future?

Mr. Petersen will take his well-deserved retirement at the end of 2027. This is great news for Mr. Petersen—but it poses a business risk for his employer, a medium-sized industrial company in northern Germany.

Mr. Petersen is the head of logistics and was already involved in the 2005 implementation of SAP WM as a key expert. He knows the SAP WM implementation and the processes supported by the warehouse management system inside and out. The documentation for the WM implementation also dates back to the year of implementation; in the past, this wasn’t a problem—Mr. Petersen was there and could answer all questions about warehouse processes quickly and competently.

If Mr. Petersen and his story sound familiar to you, it’s no coincidence: Many companies using SAP WM have a “Mr. Petersen”—that is, the one colleague who serves as the central point of contact and is nearing retirement. On top of that, the regular maintenance period for SAP WM expires at the end of 2027. It can be extended through Extended Support until 2030, but with Mr. Petersen, it’s not that simple. So the deadline is approaching for making a decision about future warehouse operations—ideally before that expertise retires.

In this article, we’ll take a closer look at the applicable deadlines, the possible target architectures and which target architecture actually makes sense for your warehouse management migration.

SAP WM—more specifically, Warehouse Management within Logistics Execution (LE-WM for short)—is one of the most successful modules SAP has ever released. Since the early days of SAP R/3 and continuing through SAP ERP, it has reliably managed inventory, storage bins, and transport orders in tens of thousands of installations worldwide, ranging from manual block or open-shelf warehouses to modern distribution centers.

Compared to other modules, these numerous successful WM implementations had the distinctive feature from the very beginning that they had to reflect the individual physical conditions of the warehouse, thereby entailing a high degree of customization. Over the years, this led to highly customized systems with numerous customer-specific developments, interfaces, and temporary processes. There were good reasons for all of this, and overall, it resulted in stable, reliable, and efficient warehouse processes.

However, the actual documentation of warehouse processes often ended with the implementation; the deeper process knowledge resided within the day-to-day operations—that is, in the habits, workarounds, and minds of the knowledge holders and decision-makers, such as Mr. Petersen from our opening anecdote.

In light of the deadlines for the phase-out of SAP WM, the challenge now is to make optimal use of the long-standing process knowledge held by these experts while simultaneously creating room for innovation to ensure the smooth operation of warehouse processes well into the future.

Three dates are key to the end of SAP WM:

• May 31, 2026: The use of SAP WM in compatibility mode under SAP S/4HANA has expired.
• December 31, 2027: Mainstream maintenance for SAP WM in SAP ERP ends. After that, maintenance will only be available as a paid extension.
• Dezember 31, 2030: As of this date, SAP WM may no longer be operated in production.

The first deadline has already passed. It is not particularly significant for most companies, as it concerns SAP WM running on SAP S/4HANA. Companies that have already migrated to S/4HANA or are implementing SAP S/4HANA for the first time must find a solution for warehouse management—often, this solution is already SAP EWM or SAP Stock Room Management.

The second deadline poses a significant hurdle: Companies whose ERP system is currently still SAP ERP or SAP ECC and that use the integrated SAP WM will lose regular SAP maintenance starting in 2028. This can be extended until the end of 2030, which gives companies more time to migrate to SAP S/4HANA and thus phase out SAP WM.

The third deadline is often underestimated in planning meetings because 2030 sounds far away. However, especially for companies with multiple locations requiring warehouse management or complex warehouse processes, time can quickly run out if, for example, architectural decisions, budget approvals, and competitive bidding are still pending. Therefore, with sound project planning, this deadline already creates a certain sense of urgency to take action now.

And then there is the fourth deadline, which is unique to each company: the retirement of key personnel, as mentioned at the beginning. As long as they are still with the company, concrete, tangible process knowledge can be drawn upon when designing the new warehouse management solution. A migration that begins after the key experts have retired is like conducting an archaeological dig and results in higher costs for analysis and design.

This is where the conceptual work begins—work that you yourself must carry out, together with experienced partners like us. SAP offers several possible warehouse management solutions as target architectures; which one is right for your company depends on your warehouse and your processes.

The table above lists the options for your future SAP warehouse management solution.

From a technical standpoint, Stock Room Management is essentially LE-WM with a reduced feature set; certain components, such as the operation of a warehouse control computer (WM-LSR) or operation as a decentralized WM instance (LE-DWM), may no longer be used. Nevertheless, Stock Room Management is an option that allows you, for example, to leave Warehouse Management largely untouched during a brownfield conversion from ECC to S/4HANA and to continue operating it beyond 2030. This option is particularly recommended if the warehousing processes are relatively simple and the WM is to continue operating more or less unchanged, or if, within the overall project context of an S/4HANA conversion, warehouse management is to be separated from the project and considered separately—for example, as part of an SAP EWM implementation.

With SAP Extended Warehouse Management (SAP EWM), you have several deployment options: In principle, EWM can be operated as part of S/4HANA, for example, following an S/4HANA greenfield implementation—known as “Embedded EWM.” In this case, you can choose between the Basic version, which is available in SAP S/4HANA at no additional licensing cost, and the Advanced version. The difference between the two versions is functional in nature; therefore, a process analysis should be conducted to determine whether you need the Advanced functionalities or if the Basic version is sufficient. You can also upgrade from Basic to Advanced at a later date.

You can also operate SAP EWM as a decentralized system. In this case, EWM itself does not differ functionally from an embedded EWM Advanced—if you operate SAP EWM as a decentralized system, you are effectively choosing the Advanced version.

Starting in November 2025, SAP Logistics Management (SAP LGM) will be available as an additional option—a cloud-based, combined warehouse management and transportation management solution developed from the ground up. This solution is particularly interesting, for example, for regional branches of corporate groups for which an SAP EWM implementation is likely to be too costly or unnecessary.

To determine the right approach for your warehouse, you don’t need to start with a preliminary study that takes several months. As a rule, just a few questions are enough to narrow down the list of options mentioned in the previous section to a few specific courses of action.

How complex are your warehousing processes? A relatively simple warehouse involving unloading, goods receipt processing, putaway, picking, and shipping—without any additional variations or special processes—should be treated as a different project than one involving multi-stage picking, additional logistics services, batch management, and production supply. A basic guideline here can be the number of actual process gaps in SAP WM that are covered by customer-specific customizations. If you find that a standard SAP WM system, with a few workarounds or manual steps, has sufficed for years, you’ll likely be well-served by Stock Room Management or EWM Basic.

Whether it’s conveyor systems, automated storage and retrieval machines, automated guided vehicles, paternoster warehouses, or shuttle warehouses: As soon as you’re using automated material flow control, there’s no getting around SAP EWM Advanced. You should keep future planned investments in mind: If you already know that you’ll be purchasing an automated solution in the coming years, you shouldn’t migrate to an architecture that you’ll have to replace again shortly thereafter.

This question essentially boils down to whether your warehouse management solution should be operated decentrally or as an embedded system. If an hour of warehouse downtime is inconvenient for you but manageable, there is generally little to argue against the embedded option from a functional standpoint. However, if the cost is in the five- or six-figure range, if integration with multiple plants is required, or if the EWM needs to be configured differently from your central S/4HANA—for example, due to high-frequency communication with container conveyor systems—then you should opt for a decentralized SAP EWM.

In practice, this is often the most important question. Essentially, the point is that the implementation of your future warehouse management solution should not be viewed in isolation from the rest of your ERP system, but rather should be closely synchronized with its migration or, alternatively, consistently decoupled from it.

If your S/4HANA conversion project is already underway, you should determine the correct sequence for your situation: Should the projects run independently—e.g., warehouse management first as a decentralized SAP EWM system—or should warehouse management be updated alongside the core system? If you decide to update warehouse management at a later stage, you have the option of using Stock Room Management as a bridge, thereby relieving the key personnel involved in your S/4HANA conversion.

Underlying all four questions is the issue of who in your organization is actually qualified to answer them. Colleagues with many years of experience in your existing system will likely be able to easily answer questions regarding process complexity, workarounds, and downtime costs.

Our recommendation is therefore to begin analyzing your processes now so that you can set the right course for the future early on. Such an analysis can be done quickly and cost-effectively as long as Mr. Petersen is still with the company; once he has left, it will take months and yield less accurate results.

Finally, we’ve prepared a short quiz to help you answer the questions above—feel free to give it a try and get some initial guidance for your company.