cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Connecting multiple C4C tenants to one SMC tenant

Srinivasalou
Explorer
503

Dear Community,

We are facing some important integration issues with connecting multiple C4C tenants to one SMC tenant. It would be really appreciated if you can give us some suggestions on how to overcome this challenge timely. we were also wondering how other companies do handle this kind of Integrations effectively. I apologize for the in-depth explanation of the issue.

Our current setup at the moment:

One C4C Instance is connected to one SMC over the Odata Interface, where match and merge are utilized to avoid duplicates, as our C4C system has very often the same contacts saved twice with different IDs, even though email and other information are the same.

The setup we are looking to implement:

We want to connect two additional C4C Systems to SMC and change the Interface to a SOAP connection. For this, we want to create a different Origin ID (SAP_MKT_BUPA and as additional ID SAP_C4C_BUPA) for each C4C System. As there is no marketing area data pattern in the standard CPI iFlow we want to implement the BadI "Business Partner Mapping: Adjust Marketing Area", to have the marketing areas assigned to the incoming C4C contacts.

Now the challenge comes in, we want to have the duplicate Contacts from one C4C System matched and merged in SMC as long as this duplicate is inside one Marketing Area, meaning no cross Area / C4C System merging. But this seems to be not supported by SMC according to the SOAP Integration guide as below.

The solution we are trying to achieve as an example below:

C4C side for different systems:

1) ID: 12345 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com / C4C System: A

2) ID: 56789 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com/ C4C System: A (newer entry)

3) ID: 23456 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com/ C4C System: B

4) ID: 7890 1 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com / C4C System: B (newer entry)

5) ID: 28394 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com / C4C System: C

After received by SMC and match and merge:

1) ID: 56789 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com / C4C System: A / Mkt_Area: A

2) ID: 78901 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com / C4C System: B / Mkt_Area: B

3) ID: 28394 / John Doe / john_doe@test.com / C4C System: C / Mkt_Area: C

The challenge and consequences we are facing at the moment:

As described above we will lose the match and merge (one per contact) functionality, which we have now with Odata Interface and just one C4C System in SMC, as soon as we change to the SOAP interface and connect multiple C4C Systems.

Meaning before connecting any additional C4C System we need this issue to be solved to have a proper analytical view on the contacts, and a working scoring and lead generation set up, to reduce the higher license cost of unwanted SMC duplicates.

Hope we could find some possible way out.

Many thanks for your support and feedback,

Srini

View Entire Topic
SCHNEIDERT
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi srinivasalou,

very interesting question. In my opinion - as you said - it is not possible using the SOAP interface.

May I ask you a question about your actual process/implementation:

Do you then have Contacts in MC that have multiple C4C IDs (so, is SAP_C4C_BUPA is configured as "one per contact" = false)? Because that would lead to issues when handing over leads (or activities) from MC to C4C when the correct Business Partner should be determined, wouldn't it?

Or do you "overwrite" the C4C ID of the Contact in MC with the one of the "newer" Contact from C4C? And if so, how do you determine which of the C4C IDs should be kept in MC?

Sorry that I cannot help at this point in time, but I'm very interestend in that use case and in finding a solution. Hopefully one of the SAP Experts here has a workaround to achieve your goal.

BR Tobias

Srinivasalou
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hello Tobias,

Yes, indeed it is challenging, and cannot find a way out with the SOAP interface. I will update you if I have some other solution.

Reg our process, we do have contacts in MC that have multiple C4C'ids. we determine with the newer entry which we consider as a valid,

Thanks for your feedback.

BR,Srini