Need clarity on connection object - premise relationship

[Former Member]

I am aware that the relationship between connection object and premise is 'one to many'. However, I have come across in few utilities industries (predominantly in UK) that they are maintaining 'one to one' relationship. When enquired the reason given was (in addition to few other trivial reasons) to maintain proper relationship with Ordinance Survey data (Postal Address data) and ease in fetching premise address.

My concern is, in the process of maintaining 'one-to-one' relationship the premise object is made almost redundant. Other than few technical benefits I couldn't find any pressing business benefits that I could get to suggest a migration towards 'one-to-many'.

Even though SAP House suggests that the relationship should be 'one-to-many' the verbatim in the SAP help document is not explicit, in fact there is a bit of ambiguity. Reproducing the verbatim for easy reference; "A connection object is usually a building but can also be a piece of property or a facility, such as a fountain or construction site."

My question is what are the positives and negatives of maintaining 'one-to-one' relationship between connection object and premise?

[Former Member]

Hi Premanand,

The relationship  b/w connection object and the premise depend upon the business requirement. If in a building more than one apartment, then its best practice to maintain the relationship of 'one-to-many', and if it have only single apartment house, then if but obvious it have 'one-to-one' relationship.

I guess it clear your doubt.

Regards

AnUrAg

[ashvinder_rana · Accepted solution]

Hi Premanand,

You're right, SAP ideal data model between CONNOBJ and PREMISE is 1:many. However, many Utilities here in the USA also have defined and are using 1:1 relationship. Both data models work fine and are totally driven by the business requirements. The only downside that I have come to know of is the search capability where the CSRs will have to ensure search also by unit number. But that is a very minor negative and in some cases is not also considered a negative because that's how the business wanted it.

Regards,

Ash

[Former Member]

Thanks Ashvinder for your clarification. Sharing few points that came out during my internal discussion with my team.

• How this model will affect the integration with Plant Maintenance model?
• 1:n may probably reduce the complexity with GIS integration.
• Reduction of manual input required for connection object update.
• Easy to identify multiple premises in a multi-story complex. This will ease in improving reconciliation and reporting.
• Ease in integration with Central Address Data Management system.
• Better management of under construction properties.
• Enhanced ability to identify missing properties (within a multi-story property).

Regards,

Prem

[former_member193025]

Hi Premanand,

Please can you explain littile more clear about both.

Thanks,

Cherry.

[Former Member]

Sorry Cherry, I was away and couldn't respond immediately. The discussion was around the right way to setup the ISU Technical Master data for connection object and premise. I have come across two models in maintaing the relationship between connection object and premise. One model is to maintain one to many relationship and the other is one to one.

If you could re-phrase your question, I will try answering it.

Regards,

Prem