What do the Remote Conversion approach and the Shell Conversion approach have in common? Note: There are 3 correct answers to this question

Question

Options

• ABoth approaches uninstall the unsupported BW Add-ons from the sending BW system as the first
• BBoth approaches require the SAP BW/4HANA Starter Add-on to be installed on the sending
• CBoth approaches result in an SAP BW/4HANA system with a new system ID
• DBoth approaches convert unsupported object types during import into the new SAP BW/4HANA
• EBoth approaches are set up by installing required SAP notes via the SAP BW Notes Analyzer.

• A
  12% (3)
• B
  68% (17)
• C
  20% (5)

Explanation

Both Remote Conversion and Shell Conversion share three foundational requirements: the SAP BW/4HANA Starter Add-on must be installed on the source BW system (B) to enable the transfer mechanism; unsupported object types are converted automatically during import into the target BW/4HANA system (D); and both are prepared by running the SAP BW Notes Analyzer to identify and install the required SAP notes before the conversion begins (E).

Option A is wrong because uninstalling unsupported BW Add-ons is not described as the first step in both approaches - the Notes Analyzer setup (E) is the preparatory step, and Add-on removal behavior differs between the two methods.

Option C is wrong because Shell Conversion retains the same system ID as the source system (the shell inherits the original SID), while Remote Conversion creates a new system - so they behave oppositely on this point, making it a key differentiator, not a commonality.

Memory tip: Remember B-D-E as "Before, During, Enablement" - you enable both with the Starter Add-on and Notes Analyzer before conversion, and objects are converted during import. Option C is the trap because SID behavior is actually what distinguishes the two approaches.

No community discussion yet for this question.