The term SolMan migration refers to the planned transition for companies currently using SAP Solution Manager as their central ALM tool to a successor platform. It is not just about replacing a tool, but about redesigning an architecture that, in many cases, has evolved over more than a decade.
In typical installations, SAP Solution Manager provides the following core functions:
Change Request Management (ChaRM). Managing the entire change process: from requirement capture and approval to transport and go-live. For many customers, ChaRM is the operational control center for SAP operations.
Transport Management and CSOL. Orchestration of transport requests, management of import queues, and Cross System Object Lock for parallel development lines.
Test Suite. Test case management, execution, and documentation. Often a validated system for GxP-regulated customers.
IT Service Management (ITSM). Incident and problem management, service catalog, and SLA management.
System Monitoring and Alerting. Monitoring of system availability, performance, and technical metrics.
Depending on usage, a SolMan migration covers all or part of these functions. Deciding what to migrate, where to migrate it, and in what order is the core of the migration project.
SAP Solution Manager 7.2 is in SAP mainstream maintenance until December 31, 2027. After that, extended maintenance is available until 2030, but it comes at an additional cost (a surcharge on the standard support fee) and is not guaranteed for all functions.
For customers with productive ChaRM usage, the deadline specifically means:
No further functional development. SAP is no longer developing ChaRM functionality. New regulatory requirements (EU AI Act, NIS2, DORA) will not be addressed in Solution Manager.
Reduced support. During extended maintenance, only critical bugs are fixed; no new features or S/4HANA-specific enhancements will be provided.
Growing incompatibility. With every S/4HANA release and SAP Cloud update, the risk increases that Solution Manager functions will no longer be fully compatible.
Erosion of expertise. Specialized knowledge for Solution Manager is becoming scarcer. External consultants capable of implementing or supporting ChaRM are becoming rarer and more expensive.
For ChaRM customers, there are three migration paths after 2027:
Path A: SAP Cloud ALM. SAP Cloud ALM is the successor option recommended by SAP. It is being strategically developed by SAP, is available as SaaS, and offers strong integration with SAP cloud solutions. Well-suited for: RISE customers, customers with predominantly cloud landscapes, and customers who do not require full transport orchestration. Less suitable for: single-landscape customers with parallel development tracks, customers with complex on-premise transport scenarios, and customers who require CSOL for single landscapes.
Path B: Third-party platforms. Rev-Trac, ActiveControl, and other specialists offer full transport orchestration, CSOL for all scenarios, and proven migration paths from ChaRM. Well-suited for: customers who need to fully replicate ChaRM functions, customers with single-landscape CSOL requirements, and customers with complex release cycles. Migration requires: project planning, data migration, process adaptation, and employee training.
Path C: Extended maintenance for SolMan. Technically possible until 2030, but at an additional cost. It delays the decision but does not solve the problem. For customers who lack the capacity for a migration in 2026 or 2027 and need to buy extra time, this can serve as a transitional solution.
CSOL gap in Cloud ALM. The single-landscape CSOL gap in Cloud ALM is the clearest example of a functional regression when migrating directly from ChaRM to Cloud ALM. Customers currently using single-landscape CSOL in ChaRM must make a clear decision: do they accept the missing functionality, compensate for it through processes, or choose a third-party path?
Time pressure and its costs. Experience shows that a SolMan migration project for a medium-sized SAP customer takes 9 to 18 months, from functional analysis to productive operation on the new platform. Anyone who has not yet started by now (April 2026) will be migrating under time pressure. Time pressure in ALM projects is expensive: it leads to incomplete testing, reduced process quality, and increased risks in production.
Sunk cost trap. Some customers delay their decision because they have invested in ChaRM: configuration, training, and processes. While rational from a short-term perspective, this is strategically flawed. The costs of indecision—in the form of future time pressure, higher migration risks, and reduced options—typically outweigh the perceived costs of an early decision.
ChaRM functional inventory today. The first step in any SolMan migration is a complete inventory of the ChaRM functions currently in use: What is being used? How frequently? How critical is it to operations? What customizations exist? This inventory serves as the foundation for the gap analysis against Cloud ALM and third-party providers.
Landscape structure as the primary decision criterion. The most important decision variable is the landscape structure: single-landscape or multi-landscape? On-premise dominant or cloud-dominant? These structural questions determine which migration path is functionally appropriate. Cloud ALM is well-suited for multi-landscape RISE scenarios. It is less suitable for single-landscape on-premise environments with parallel development tracks.
Scheduling with a buffer. Anyone starting a functional analysis today (April 2026) has about 18 months until the end of SolMan maintenance. This is tight, but feasible if the project is launched promptly. A realistic timeline includes: 2–3 months for analysis and decision-making, 6–12 months for implementation and testing, and 3–6 months for stabilization in production.
The end of SolMan maintenance on December 31, 2027, forces a decision. Cloud ALM has functional gaps for single-landscape environments. Use functional inventory and landscape structure as the basis for your decision.