Modern SAP Role strategy boils down to two common models: task based Roles and position based Roles. Both are viable, but they create very different operational, risk and maintenance profiles. This post explains how each works, their strengths, their weaknesses and a pragmatic recommendation for when to use each approach.
What task based Roles are
Task based Roles group related transactions into small, reusable Roles. Examples: a Role called Manage Sales Orders containing VA01, VA02, VA03 and VA05, and a Role called Manage Customer Pricing containing VK11, VK12 and VK13. Users are granted multiple small Roles to cover their daily activities; it is common for a User to hold 20–50 of these small Roles.
Pros
Fast fulfilment: When a User asks for a transaction, the security team can quickly locate an existing Role that already contains that transaction and assign it.
Reusability: Pre‑built task Roles can be reused across many Users and teams without rebuilding Roles each time.
Cons
Over‑provisioning: A User approved for VA01 may also receive VA02, VA03 and VA05, creating more access than strictly required and increasing SoD risk and licence exposure.
Difficult remediation: Removing an SoD conflict is painful. Either you remove the whole Role and strip unrelated access from Users who still need it, or you remove the offending transaction from the Role and unintentionally break other Users who rely on it. Both outcomes typically force creation of additional granular Roles, swelling the Role library.
Scale complexity: As the Role library grows to resolve conflicts, administration, testing and audit evidence all become heavier.
Analogy for remediation complexity
Task based remediation can feel like penalising a player in another match for a foul in a separate game. Changing one shared Role to fix one User often impacts other, unrelated Users.
What position based Roles are
Position based deployments define one composite Role per job or position. The composite usually contains a set of underlying Roles—for example a Read‑only Role and an Update Role tailored to the position’s organisational level restrictions. Users receive a single composite Role that precisely represents their job function; derived Roles are used when the same job requires different organisational boundaries.
Key technical note: SAP merges all authorisations from every assigned Role into the User buffer at logon, so having many small Roles or one composite makes no difference to how SAP evaluates authorisations at runtime.
Pros
Precision: Users receive exactly the transactions and object restrictions they need. A User requiring 100 transactions gets those 100 transactions rather than 120 or more because of Role bloat.
Simpler remediation: Fixing an issue requires changing a single Role; the change applies consistently to everyone in that position without creating ad‑hoc Role sprawl.
Onboarding and consistency: Assigning access to new hires is straightforward—assign the composite for the job title and the correct organisational scope.
Easier recertification: Certification looks at Role content per job rather than auditing dozens of Roles per User, simplifying review and governance.
Operational alignment: Master/derived Role patterns handle minor organisational differences while keeping Role semantics consistent.
Cons
Change cadence: When a User needs a new transaction, the responsible Role must be amended, transported and tested before the User gets access. This is slightly slower than granting an existing task Role on the spot.
Requires disciplined process: Development, testing and transport discipline must be applied so the one‑Role model remains stable and auditable.
Despite the slower fulfilment for ad‑hoc requests, position based models reduce overall administrative overhead and risk at scale because changes are localised to the Role that truly represents the job.
Practical trade offs and where each model fits
When to favour task based Roles
Small organisations with limited User counts where speed of fulfilment is prioritised and SoD risk is low.
Projects where you need rapid, temporary access changes and you can tolerate higher Role count.
When to favour position based Roles
Mid to large organisations with many Users performing the same job across different locations.
Environments where SoD, auditability and licence cost control are primary concerns.
Migrations to S/4HANA or major Role redesigns where a clean, auditable baseline matters.
Hybrid approach
Many organisations benefit from a hybrid: use position based Roles as the canonical, long-term model and maintain a small catalogue of carefully governed task Roles for legitimate short-term or exceptional needs. Any task Role added temporarily should follow a fast review workflow and a sunset rule.
Recommendation and governance controls
Treat position based Roles as the baseline for long‑term access control and auditability.
Use task Roles sparingly and only with strict governance, expiry and review controls.
Adopt master/derived Role patterns for organisational level differences rather than proliferating bespoke Roles.
Ensure every custom Z program includes proper authority checks and that SU24 is maintained so Role generation and mapping remain accurate.
Automate Role testing and regression so changing a composite Role or derived Role can be validated quickly.
Document ownership, transport and testing steps so changes to position Roles are swift and low‑risk.
Final thought
Position based Roles deliver precision, simplified remediation and better governance at scale. Task based Roles buy speed but increase long‑term risk and maintenance overhead. For organisations serious about SoD control and licence optimisation, position based authorisation aligned to job definitions is the smarter, more sustainable strategy.