undefined | Better HN

0 pointsavereveard3y ago0 comments

SAP is better though as a set of libraries than a solution, and it's worth a lot precisely because it will fit whatever whacky process an organization has so that the org doesn't need to change itself while adopting the software.

The most obvious failure modes are going for the lowest bidders incentivizing them to deliver with a skeleton crew, trying to nickel and dime the budget cutting features or their scope or straight up coming at the table with no documentation of how orgs own internal processes actually work.

I know of no project failing because of sap or their consultant on its own without any of the above comorbidities.

0 comments

mr_gibbins3y ago

I taught enterprise systems for a while and SAP's ethos is very much 'change your business processes to fit SAP, because if they don't fit SAP, they're probably wrong'. This is actual advice (in slightly different wording) that comes from their training materials.

threatripper3y ago

It's probably both. If you fit the standard pattern you'll have an easy time to adopt. But they also support edge cases with extra work. A small company with many non-standard processes will need so much extra work that it's not worth it. Then it is cheaper to redesign the company and reshape the company processes.

I find it very difficult to fight for sensible defaults in a company when everybody only sees their area and has a very strong opinion about that. Only a strong force like the SAP transition can break up with those encrusted structures.

jasamer3y ago

Lidl tried to switch to SAP, keeping their own processes and customising SAP to fit their needs.

After seven years and 500 million euro spent, the project was cancelled and they went back to using their old inventory system.

So, in this case, customising SAP to fit the company's processes wasn't worth it even for a rather large company like Lidl.

hef198983y ago

Oh yeah, Lidl is such a great example of what not to do when it comes to ERP systems!

If memory serves well, Liqui Molly had similar, but cheaper, experiences with Microsoft.

riedel3y ago

I mean compliance IMHO is their selling point: If you are working internationally you make sure that you correctly handle taxation/reporting or whatever to the standards. Other even trust you because you run SAP (which must be correct by definition). And because SAP is so big I think a lot of regulation/reporting requirements will be even done a way that it can be done with SAP. We are a university/research center hybrid and use SAP. As a state entity or funds are limited. Being in a 'nieche' with tons of strange accounting requirements, a very heterogeneous IT and without the money to get the reports/etc fixed quickly I can tell you how much hell SAP is on the other hand.

throwaway0a5e3y ago

A few of old IT guys with no fucks to give and a few "up and out" junior devs working over time can whip up a one off abomination build out of LAMP stacks and CGI scrips with a little perl thrown in and an unusable set of websites to handle all the data entry and exit and it WILL ACTUALLY WORK. It will be clunky and the onboarding time will be comical but it will work.

That is a low bar. Your "lowest bidders" should at least be able to equal that. It just has to accomplish the business processes and do so within the software. It doesn't need to be fast, intuitive or look good doing it, it just needs to do it.

tluyben23y ago

> because it will fit whatever whacky process

Funny considering in the 80/90s SAP sales/management was known for saying that you don't adapt SAP to fit your company, you adapt the company to fit SAP. There was another company (was it Baan or JDE? I think Baan as I had too many meetings at the time with those religious fruitcakes) that said they were better than SAP because you don't need to change your processes; you change the software.

kerr233y ago

I worked for Baan at that time, that was one of the selling points.

Baan still exists as Infor ERP Ln

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse