Challenging SAP modernization assumptions

There is always an alternative! 🚨 After attending the DSAG annual conference and discussing with various experts and clients, I've noticed a recurring sentiment among SAP customers: many feel they have no alternative but to 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁 𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗘 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗔𝗣 if they wish to remain within the SAP ecosystem. The assumption seems to be, "If we stay with SAP, RISE is the only path forward." 🤔 SAP has done an effective job of promoting this narrative, but is it really the full picture? Personally, I’m not a fan of the TINA (𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲) approach. When a situation appears to funnel you into a single path, that’s often the moment to pause, rethink, and explore what options might actually exist. 💡 So, what alternatives are available? For one, existing SAP customers can 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗘𝗖𝗖 𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟬 under extended maintenance. Beyond 2030, customer-specific support from SAP remains an option, as does hiring a third-party provider like Rimini Street for ongoing support. 🔄 Another option is to 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗦/𝟰𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗔 𝗼𝗻-𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲 while retaining perpetual licenses. SAP may prefer customers to transition to RISE, often offering significant discounts on RISE compared to perpetual licensing, but S/4HANA on-premise is still a viable choice. 🏢 It’s also crucial for clients to consider the implications of a RISE contract conversion. Moving from an owned infrastructure to a rental model has fundamental implications: 1. 𝗩𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗼𝗰𝗸-𝗜𝗻: Exiting the RISE model isn’t straightforward. Once in, you’re essentially committed. 🔒 2. 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗦𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘁𝘆: You relinquish a degree of control over your data, which, for some, can have far-reaching consequences. 📊 I believe that understanding all available options—and the trade-offs involved—is critical for making informed decisions. SAP customers deserve a clearer picture that goes beyond the "one-size-fits-all" RISE narrative. 🌐 What has been your experience with RISE or alternative strategies? (* picture from Alternative Economique )

🏗️ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 $𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐀𝐏 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 My latest SAP analysis reveals persistent misconceptions about clean core, SAP Business Technology Platform, and SAP S/4HANA Cloud ERP that are derailing digital transformations across Fortune 500 companies. In a comprehensive webcast to the global SAP Community, I exposed the architectural myths that continue to plague enterprise modernization efforts: "𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘴—𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘐'𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥 4 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴." 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐬: 🚫 Myth 1: Architecting a clean core is intricate 🚫 Myth 2: Clean core does not allow for custom development 🚫 Myth 3: Clean core only applies to S/4HANA 🚫 Myth 4: One can only architect clean core after SAP S/4HANA adoption 🚫 Myth 5: Clean core only applies to S/4HANA public cloud editions 🚫 Myth 6A: Complex business processes remain the gold standard in S/4HANA 🚫 Myth 6B: Under S/4HANA, SAP no longer helps with complex business processes 🚫 Myth 7: Data remains siloed without semantic harmonization 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮'𝐥𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫: ✅ The seven most damaging EA myths in SAP modernization ✅ Evidence-based debunking strategies with real customer examples ✅ Architectural patterns that prove misconceptions wrong ✅ A practical "cheat sheet" for countering myths in steering committees Perfect for IT architects, enterprise architects, CIOs, CTOs, and technology leaders navigating SAP transformation decisions. First in a four-part series on Enterprise Architecture for Modern SAP Landscapes #SAP #ITArchitecture #EnterpriseArchitecture #S4HANA #BTP #DigitalTransformation #CleanCore

My thoughts on the most pressing questions many of my fellow CIOs are facing today (other than AI) Modernizing Legacy SAP ERP: the True Costs/ benefit Large Enterprises The push to modernize legacy SAP ERP systems is at a critical juncture. Large enterprises face a strategic dilemma: should they transition to on-premise S/4HANA or migrate to the private cloud via Azure, AWS, or GCP? While SAP and hyperscalers tout cloud as the inevitable future, does the business case truly add up? Let me share my view: The Case for On-Premise S/4HANA ✅ Data Sovereignty & Control: Mission-critical applications remain in-house, ensuring compliance with regulatory and security needs. ✅ Cost Predictability: No recurring cloud subscription fees; costs remain within IT CapEx budgets. ✅ Customization & Performance: High flexibility for industry-specific configurations without cloud provider restrictions. ❌ Infrastructure Costs: Requires substantial upfront investments in hardware, maintenance, and specialized SAP Basis teams. ❌ Scalability Challenges: Upgrading and scaling require additional CapEx and planning, making agility an issue. ❌ Talent Shortages: Finding skilled SAP Basis and ABAP developers is becoming increasingly difficult. The Private Cloud Argument (Azure, AWS, GCP) ✅ Elastic Scalability: Enterprises can scale computing power on demand, avoiding over-provisioning. ✅ Lower IT Overhead: Managed cloud services reduce dependency on in-house SAP technical teams. ✅ Security & Compliance: Hyperscalers offer best-in-class security, but at an additional cost. ✅ Future-Proofing with AI & Analytics: Easier access to cloud-native AI/ML services for real-time analytics. ❌ Lock-in Risk: Enterprises become dependent on SAP’s RISE program and cloud hyperscalers, limiting flexibility. ❌ Cost Overruns: While OpEx pricing seems attractive, long-term cloud costs often exceed on-premise investments. ❌ Performance Variability: Shared cloud environments can lead to latency and unpredictable performance. ❌ Complex Migrations: Moving from ECC to S/4HANA Cloud is not a simple lift-and-shift; extensive reimplementation is needed. Hidden Costs & the SAP-Cloud Hyperscaler Play • SAP Benefits the Most: The cloud-first push enables SAP to enforce RISE contracts, generating steady recurring revenue. • Licensing & Exit Costs: SAP’s licensing structure and vendor lock-in make moving out of RISE costly. • Unclear ROI Timelines: Cloud cost advantages materialize only after years, making the short-term financial case weak. Therefore, No Clear Winner, but a Cloud-First Hype remains • For heavily customized industries (e.g., manufacturing, defense, pharma), on-premise remains relevant. • For fast-scaling, digital-first firms, private cloud offers agility but at a price. • Hybrid cloud models with selective cloud adoption (e.g., AI, analytics, disaster recovery) may be the best compromise.

"Beware the Lag Between Presales and Reality in SAP Projects" While reviewing some of my past solution designs, I found myself double-checking: Are these still up to date with SAP’s latest offerings? And it hit me. How often do system integrators propose architectural solutions based on what was true two years ago? An SAP client buys BTP licenses in 2025. - The proposal? Based on a 2023 template. - The solution design? Already outdated. - The contract? Signed. Delivery kicks off. Consultants start digging into the architecture. 🔍“Why are we building custom bots? SAP Build Process Automation handles this now.” “Event Mesh takes care of this - why are we bringing in Kafka?” “Do we stick to the outdated scope, or rearchitect mid-flight?” Sound familiar? Too often, proposals are built using yesterday’s understanding of SAP. But the tech moves fast and solution decks don’t always keep up. 🧩 As architects, consultants, and project leads, we must re-validate the assumptions baked into those decks during onboarding. 📌 A proposal is a starting hypothesis, not a final blueprint especially in fast-evolving platforms like BTP. If we don’t challenge yesterday’s design, we risk building a solution that’s already behind the curve. 🎯 Let’s build what’s right - not just what was written. Have you run into this gap before? 🔹 As end users, how do you feel when the solution delivered doesn’t reflect the capabilities you thought you were buying into? 🔹 As consultants, how do you address these mismatches when onboarding onto a project with outdated assumptions? Would love to hear how your teams are navigating this. #SAP #SAPBTP #EnterpriseArchitecture #SAPConsulting #DigitalTransformation #Presales #ArchitectureMatters #BuildSmart

With SAP’s 2027 deadline fast approaching, S/4HANA programs are kicking off everywhere. But many are sleepwalking into critical architectural decisions without internal tech ownership. 🚨 After decades of advising and leading large-scale SAP S/4HANA transformation programs, one challenge continues to frustrate me more than any other: the absence of true ownership when it comes to architecture and technology decisions. Most organisations do a good job of defining business processes during the migration. They have business owners who ensure the new processes in SAP S/4HANA support current and future needs. But when it comes to critical architecture questions like: “Which tool should we use for data migration?” “Should we embed reporting in SAP or push data into a central analytics layer?” …the room often goes silent. No one on the inside truly owns these decisions. Some organisations involve CIOs or tech leaders, thinking that covers the gap. But strategic oversight isn’t enough. These decisions need someone with hands-on knowledge of the current landscape, who can challenge assumptions and connect technical detail to business impact. Otherwise, choices are made from slides, not substance. Even more concerning is the assumption that the system integrator or consultancy will take care of it. Yes, external partners bring valuable knowledge. But they don’t live with the long-term consequences of those decisions, you do. And when issues inevitably arise down the line — from performance bottlenecks to licensing inefficiencies or poor integration — it’s the internal team that ends up firefighting. Ironically, these are often the same people who weren’t involved in the original decision-making process. Programs drag on for years or go live with technical debt because no one internally was empowered to connect the dots, challenge assumptions, or steer the architectural direction. Without an in-house expert embedded in the program from day one, organisations are effectively flying blind. The most successful programs I have witnessed always had a strong internal voice. Someone technical, credible, and trusted, guiding decisions alongside the delivery partners. They helped align design with strategy, caught costly issues early, and acted as the program’s technical conscience. So if you are about to embark on an S/4HANA journey, do one thing differently. Invest in internal tech capability. Hire or upskill someone who can sit at the decision-making table. Give them real authority, not just a seat in the room. And ensure that external advice is balanced with internal accountability. Because in the end, it is your organisation that lives with the outcome. Make sure someone on the inside is shaping it. 💪 #SAP #S4HANA #EnterpriseArchitecture #DigitalTransformation #Leadership #TechnologyStrategy #LessonsFromTheField

At Colgate, we once planned a migration using the same process we'd used three times before. It blew up on us. Why? Because the system had 20% more load, 50% more users — and we didn't find out until go-live. That's when I stopped trusting assumptions and started trusting live data. I've been doing SAP migrations for 25 years now. The players change. The destinations change. But the problem stays the same: How do you move critical business systems without breaking everything? Most companies still do assessments with spreadsheets. Think about that for a second. You're planning a $10 million project that could shut down your entire supply chain... based on static documents. What typically happens: Three system integrators bid for your assessment. They all ask for the same information. Inventory lists, performance reports, connection diagrams. They disappear for two months analyzing your data. They come back with proposals that look roughly similar. But by the time they present to management, your system has changed. You've added users, rolled out features, grown your database by 30%. The data they analyzed is stale. So you get proposals based on yesterday's reality for tomorrow's migration. I've seen Fortune 100 companies go dark for days because of this disconnect. Imagine Colgate's entire supply chain stopped. No toothpaste on Walmart shelves. No products moving through distribution. All because we trusted old data instead of live data. The solution isn't complicated: Create a live data room for your migration assessment. Not spreadsheets. Not PDFs. A connected dashboard that updates daily. When vendors need information, they access the platform. When analysts need metrics, they run reports. When timelines change, everyone sees current data. This approach cuts assessment time in half and reduces migration risk by 80%. Because the biggest risk in any migration isn't technical complexity. It's operating on outdated assumptions. Your business doesn't stand still for six months while you plan a migration. Neither should your data. Have you experienced a migration based on stale data? What happened?