SAP ROI — Enterprise Architecture & Business Solutions

Strategic SAP & IT Program Development for Measurable Business Value

ERP III – Is the Integration of Collaboration the Future of Enterprise Applications

February 11th, 2010

Corporate Collaboration

Back in the late 1990′s, while at Grant Thornton, and then later when the management consulting organization was sold to Hitachi I worked on a comprehensive knowledge management model (see the image below).  The model  has application and relevance to integrating collaboration tools into any enterprise application.

Carefully structured and planned integration of collaboration tools can produce great results,  but it is a challenge.  Finding ways to tie collaboration into the business technology for productive use in the enterprise is the goal of a lot of social media types but few of them have any idea how to do this.  Clearly there is a lot of hype around “Web 2.0″ interactive functionality but little in the way of productive business use.

By moving outside of the enterprise walls to integrate customer interaction and the extended supply chain the enterprise can gain valuable insight.  By using structured data gathering and organization techniques business value can be achieved.

In this post we will look at a few approaches I’ve taken over the years that have been effective and powerful for creating dynamic collaborative organizations.  They don’t use the trendy new tools like Facebook, or Twitter, or other communication mediums, but they do leverage the collaboration concept.  Maybe someone can create a use model for tools like Facebook or Twitter combined with enterprise applications.

Why Enterprise Collaboration Tools have Not Yet Taken Off

Too many organizations undertake the introduction of social media for the purpose of introducing social media into the enterprise.  In the Knowledge Management area this is like having information without any context of how to apply that information or the experience to apply it properly.  Information alone is NOT knowledge and social media or collaboration tools which do not have a specific business purpose are not very productive (if at all).  Without a specific “context” to apply social media tools, and the understanding of where they might fit, and how they will be used, they are more likely to be a distraction (see Social Media Fads and the Risk to the Enterprise ).

There are few methods, and even fewer tools to filter through all of the “noise” from social media tools to find what is meaningful.  From there, it is still even more difficult to distill what is meaningful into something useful.

Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter may NOT fit in your enterprise.  However, being able to capture employee, customer, and vendor knowledge, suggestions, or criticisms (information) and then publishing this internally to the right people (the context of applying that information) may make a huge difference for your company.

Few social media “gurus” have any idea on how to start this type of structured information gathering dialog from an unstructured information source (see the graphic below).  They do not know how to develop a structured program to take advantage of the unstructured data by finding meaningful ways to apply that information.  There are few methods, and even fewer tools to filter through all of the “noise” from social media tools to find what is meaningful.  From there, it is still even more difficult to distill what is meaningful into something useful.

What do they say in response to this?  What is their excuse?  You don’t understand social media and it is all about building relationships and you haven’t spent enough time and you can’t apply old business rules, etc., etc., etc.  Snake oil, snake oil, snake oil…  All you get are excuses and that you’re not doing enough or spending enough.  Few social media”gurus” have any idea at all on how to generate real value from these new channels.

Why Consultants and Collaboration Evangelists Have Not Shown Much Progress

Neither consultants nor business have learned how to use social media to drive business value.  There are few consultants out there with a coherent or even minimally functional method for business to use collaboration or social media tools to affect a company’s key value propositions.  Even moving down a layer there is still no coherent method for social media use which produces any kind of measurable business benefit.  Beyond things like video conferencing and webinars which help to reduce expenses related to travel and coordination, not much has been done to move social interaction and collaboration in business to the next level.  There is a lot of hype, a lot of claims that this is the “next big thing” but very little substance.

The real issue is not to use social or collaboration tools in the enterprise just to collaborate.  They must serve a business purpose and a business need.  The business enterprise is not a social club, but social tools can be used to serve the business purposes or goals.

In my prior post on SAP, ERP III, SOA — Learning Organizations through Social Media Collaboration there are 9 steps noted toward the end of that post on exactly how to use open source forum software for developing a learning organization.  That integration doesn’t deal with the cool, hip, or trendy social media tools of today, but they are effective collaboration methods.  The same concepts in that post can be generalized and applied to knowledge capture activities around innovation or customer experience.  The way you use these forum type tools inside the company depends on what your goals are, but the instructions for use are there.  And properly used they can be very powerful business tools for competitive advantage.  Little if any of this type of direct, clear, and understandable use case information exists for the “trendy” social media of today.

Toward Transforming Information to Knowledge – A Working Knowledge Management Model

By using collaboration tools properly, or by finding meaningful ways to use the Web 2.0 tools in a more structured way, it is possible to make systematic progress to support business purposes.

Back in 1997 and 1998 I worked through the model and developed a systematic approach, by using primitive collaboration and social media tools, to convert consulting into knowledge centered learning organizations.

It relied heavily on:

  • collaboration,
  • cooperation, and
  • information dissemination.

This was done by using the tools that were available at the time.  A systematic process was developed to capture, then synthesize, organize and disseminate the information to knowledgeable individuals throughout the organization.  By doing this the first seeds of a collaborative learning organization were planted.

The knowledge management graphic and model I produced years ago (see below) was used to advance the concept of a learning organization because that was a clear business fit for consulting companies.  A consultant’s capabilities are directly tied to their knowledge, and that knowledge is a consulting company’s capital or stock in trade.  From that learning organization real business transformation and business benefit can be achieved.  A learning organization is more dynamic and adapts to change more readily.  As a result of the ability to absorb change, dynamic market conditions help ensure you are a leader rather than a laggard in the marketplace.

Early Collaboration and Social Media Efforts that Started to Produce Results Shortly After Y2K

Even the most knowledgeable, talented, and proficient consultants get stuck at times. The nature of complex business and technology problems means there are times you need a little help.  Early on we recognized the need to have dynamic tools, templates, and resources available to consultants.  But the consultants were widely dispersed and didn’t all know each other.  At the same time we also recognized the need to be able to tap into other knowledgeable experts within the organization on a moment’s notice, even if the consultant who needed the help didn’t know the individual.  Outside of a consultant’s own personal network they didn’t know where to look for the specific skills or expertise they needed to resolve a particular issue.  The solution had to be simple, almost instantaneous, and be able to gain key information and insight even from someone you had never contacted before.

It had to be, the right knowledge, right now!

We wanted a structured method that was simple and intuitive to create a collaborative environment.  After looking at our technology landscape right after Y2K we started to use MS Exchange Public Folders, Outlook Shared User Folders, e-mail, and MS Messenger.  Today these collaboration tools have been rolled into SharePoint. 

A Simple Collaborative Solution Using MS Exchange Public Folders and MS Messenger (today it would be in SharePoint)

We developed an MS Exchange folder structure that matched our client project needs and sales force needs for tools, templates, resources and our own best practices on demand.  The beauty of MS Exchange was that the Web Access version allowed our consultants to leverage public folders through the web interface from anywhere, just like they were using MS Explorer / MS File Manager.  The public folder structure was the perfect fit because there was little to learn beyond the new folder structure of how we would store the data.  Dragging, dropping, and opening files in this MS Explorer like interface was intuitive and took no time to adjust to.  This was immensely helpful at some client sites where security is very high so that only the client’s computers or hardware were allowed on the client’s corporate network.  In other words, where access to internal resources would have been limited or non-existent this allowed for ready access to anything that was needed.  Add to this the MS Exchange folder permissions are robust so security was meaningful.

Together with this we used MS Messenger as our IM client but rather than just having an employee’s  name which was unknown to those outside that employees “circle” or network, we applied their key skill to the logon name.  From a standard list of key skill codes for SAP (SD, MM, PP, FI, CO, AM, CRM, SRM, APO, etc.) we placed that in front of the person’s name so that it automatically grouped like skills, and placed the skill reference first in a list of over a hundred resources.  In an instant if you needed some input from a seasoned Sales and Distribution person you would just look on your IM list for those names starting with SD_Employee_Name.  SAP practice users were then exposed to each other all over the United States and even in other countries by their skill codes so that even if they did not know the user, if they had a question of a colleague or peer they could ask in real time.  This was part of the “pull” information exchange infrastructure.

There was also a regular weekly publication containing special “tips and tricks” for productivity or functionality.  This was part of the “push” information exchange sent through e-mail and a copy stored in the knowledge management folder in MS Exchange.  It could be referenced at any time in the future.  This created a reusable but organized information  repository that allowed the quality of the tools, templates, resources, presentations, and other material to be continually advanced and quickly reused.

When I left we had just started on the internal forum posting initiative and unfortunately I do not believe it was completed.  This was to provide a central location to capture knowledge sharing or information discussions in a searchable database.  Using open source content management systems and open source integrated forums our goal was to create a central communication collaboration hub to capture and exchange ideas, custom coded solutions, and best practices.  With the many available add-ons to the open source CMS systems we considered adding an internal high level project management status tracking system and resource request system for senior level managers to gain near real-time visibility to the status and resource needs of all of the many projects taking place all over the country.

This was a very practical way we leveraged existing social and collaboration technology by building the structure and processes to add business value.  It enhanced the customer value proposition by providing better and faster customer solutions, more customer focus, and better internal employee interaction.  In other words, this whole solution was low cost and used existing collaboration tools to advance business interests.  It helped to promote end client satisfaction because of the nature and ability to gain “the right answer right now.”  It started to produce a “learning organization.”

Refinements, Enhancements, and New Dimensions to Collaboration and Knowledge Tools

As the efforts and my research on the subject matured I wrote a piece about my perspective on this issue as it had matured and called it SAP, ERP III, SOA — Learning Organizations through Social Media Collaboration.  That article laid out a way to integrate social media tools like Forum software into the SAP help system.  What this means is that end users can capture real time information about the system, or shortcuts, or requests for simplification or other useful information and disseminate it to the organization.  This also provides a method for workers in any department or area, in real time, to provide feedback that focuses on the company value proposition or competitive pressures.  Here is the model I produced:

1)  Raw Information:  The unstructured data, ideas, “crib notes,” and thoughts that we all have.  However in this instance, it is the raw information surrounding the job or responsibility that the individual performs within the enterprise.  Sometimes these are the “workarounds” to get something done when you run into obstacles or roadblocks, other times they are just shortcuts, techniques, to perform a job or function.

Knowledge Management Process

2)    Organized Information:  This is the process of capturing and classifying that raw information.  This is where the “knowledge bases” and other types of information systems come in.  Many enterprises make it this far. Sometimes these are the “workarounds” to get something done when you run into roadblocks or obstacles.  Other times they might be the shortcuts or techniques to more efficiently perform a job or function.

3)    Acquired Information Experience: This is the interaction with the organized information.  This can be through search functions, employed taxonomies, reports, or other methods of accessing the organized information.  This is after the capture of the information in steps 1) and 2) above, and involves its wider availability than in the individual who originally developed or “held” the knowledge or information.  Few organizations or enterprises make it much further than this.  However, this is the beginning of the true learning organization.

4)    Applied Experience (Knowledge!):  This is the practical application of the organized information after it has been acquired.  Whether this acquisition is through word of mouth, training, or some type of information management system (that is wrong named a knowledge management system) or through a “knowledge base”. This is where the cost savings, revenue opportunities, continuous process improvement opportunities, and real competitive advantage begins to come to fruition.

5)    Refined Experience:  This is more of the inherent “knowing” what to do in a broad variety of contexts that may not be directly related to the task or issue at hand.  It is when an individual can draw on that level of inner experiences mixed with intuition and make the right decision or provide the right answers when there is not enough information to make such a determination under normal circumstances.  This can also be a type of “making the complex appear to be simple.”

This knowledge model I created in the late 90′s seems to be pretty well accepted today [Fn1].  Notice it is very different than an information model because knowledge by its very nature requires information together with the context of how, what, and when to apply that information together with experience.

The ERP III future will rely heavily on delivering on the value propositions of customer focus and innovation.  By moving outside of the enterprise walls to integrate customer interaction and the extended supply chain the enterprise can gain valuable insight.  By using structured data gathering and organization techniques business value can be achieved.

It is my belief that both of these pillars will occur through the use of corporate collaboration tools–, but only corporate collaboration tools that are focused on the business goals of capturing critical “knowledge” and information around these two key premises.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[FN1]  The knowledge model I produced was based on a synthesis of a number of sources I had studied at the time to try to bring some clarity around the confusion between “information management” and “knowledge management.”  At that time, or possibly earlier, there may have been someone else with the same ideas and a similar model but I couldn’t find it then.  Today I see too many variations of these terms but the same basic process all over the place.  If someone else can claim *earlier* authorship I won’t dispute it.  I produced my first version before Y2K.

Related Posts:

Opportunities for INNOVATION SAP, HELLO?

September 19th, 2009

SAP Opportunities for Innovation

What if some little guy like me–, a lowly contract consultant came along and said “SAP, I’ve got some really, really great ideas on how you can dramatically change the application for far greater success in the marketplace!” 

What if it would make a significant change in the usefulness of the application, AND would not cost that much in developer time or resources. 

What if it could be done with almost completely pre-existing functions, functionality, and code that SAP already has but has not done a good job themselves of integrating?

Low cost, high benefit, game changing scenarios in the ERP application space.  Game changing because the changes below and many more I know of cover the vaunted three areas of value proposition all at once–,  product innovation, operational excellence, and customer experience.

What if these changes demonstrated enough benefit to create a compelling case for version upgrades without expiring support as the reason? 

What if these changes made it an easier sell into the Small and Midsized Business (SMB) space?
 
Would SAP take up the cause?

I’ve got just such a set of propositions for you.  Just the thing to completely change the ERP competitive landscape and move the application to the next level without much cost, complexity, or difficulty involved.
  
Remember when you paid millions upon millions of dollars to do the “EnjoySAP” design work, employ the consultants (internal and external), developer coding, and lots of expenses to build that user experience.  I’m giving you the next generation application process FREE and it will make a huge difference in the application experience. 

SAP, knock, knock, anybody there?  You know basic value proposition issues like “customer experience” leading to better user acceptance.  These and other solutions also cover the operational excellence value proposition of reducing the post-go-live change management “valley of despair”?
 
SAP, what if I can deliver without all the bucketloads of cash you paid for “EnjoySAP”?  Are you interested?

“EnjoySAP”? 

Years ago I remember when SAP embarked on a transformation project called “EnjoySAP.”  The idea was to design the application to be more user friendly, and to be just plain more usable.  Along the way we ended up with a new GUI interface and lots of “N” transactions for the new interaction paradigm.  That was about 10 years ago.  It’s time for a change…

SAP has the ability today to add tremendous value to its transaction processing and to be able to take the application to the next level by doing a few “relatively minor” changes.  These would appear to be dramatic changes on the surface, but underneath they are relatively simple and low cost.  Best of all, all of them can be made 100% backward compatible, and most of that even without having to use a “switched framework.”  How’s that for benefit?
 
Most can be done with few or no core application code changes to existing transactions, and even when there must be a few changes, they can still be done without tremendous difficulty.  Even when those changes are necessary, SAP can simply incorporate its “switched framework” for coding enhancements and add the switches to the IMG to give customers the option of using the old, existing ways, or the new, significantly enhanced methods.

Here we Go…   

For many years I’ve done full-cycle, full-module, functional configuration in SD, MM, and PP.  Along the way I’ve encountered some interesting things that have made me wonder why in the world SAP hadn’t done more work on application “usefulness” to the end user.  We’re talking one of the vaunted three value proposition pillars here SAP –, “customer experience.”

DIMP solution add-on transaction, ADSUBCON 

The SAP subcontracting functionality has always been a royal pain in the backside.  Separate t-codes for nearly every process, separate inventory management processes, separate stock report t-codes (forget about MMBE here), you name it.  Overall it is a disjointed and painful process.  However, one day on a DIMP project at an automotive company I accidently ran into this absolutely amazing subcontracting processing cockpit transaction called ADSUBCON.  It is probably one of the most useful, well thought out, and well-designed transaction options in the system.
 
Why isn’t this included in the core application for every customer, whether they use DIMP or not?  SAP, are you listening?  This is a BIG win for end customers.
 
This “cockpit” paradigm should be extended to other process areas of all of the modules.  Simply create the transaction code process flows, with all of the options, and enable configuration to be done to include or exclude certain transaction “buttons” or “options” in the cockpit.  Here are the advantages of the cockpit paradigm.  Users are exposed automatically to the full breadth of the process so they gain a more holistic business process perspective (even if they can’t execute certain transactions).  Knowledge transfer and usability are facilitated by the common look and feel of the cockpit.

ME21N – Do we need a VA01N? 

One of the really useful functions in ME21N is the document overview and the ability to drag requisitions to the shopping cart to create new POs.  Why doesn’t this exist for Sales Orders?
 
Come on SAP, you could easily incorporate the VA05 transaction processing behind the scenes to make this more usable.  The VA05 could be the document overview like what is used in ME21N.  The copy control could easily be used to copy document to document, or item to item.  And on top of that, depending on how the transaction is structured, it could also include a list of the last X orders / deliveries / invoices (based on configuration settings) for that Ship-To party as soon as that customer number is entered and you press ENTER.  Wow, now that would be useful.
 
On top of that, the development for a lot of this has already been done in several function modules that are used for the R3 Internet Sales application.  What are you waiting for?  This would create a dramatic change in usability for a key transaction string.  Along with that it would not require a huge amount of development work. 
 
SAP, can you see the benefit to the end customer who uses these transactions?

Document Flow in MM and PP 

The PO History was a good start in the ME”xx”N transactions, but this should be extended to material documents, accounting invoice displays, etc.  This was done in SD and has been a tremendous asset and help for troubleshooting, understanding document history, etc.  Why hasn’t this same paradigm been applied to MM and PP yet?  Come on SAP, the info is already there, it’s not that hard to attach the data.

Pricing, Schmicing, SD-MM coordination 

This one would require some re-design but in the end it would be worth the pain.  I’ve always been baffled by the “differences” between SD “Pricing Procedure” maintenance and MM “Schema” maintenance.  A significant amount of the backend plumbing, tables, etc. are the same between the two modules.  Even a lot of the programs are the same but are separated by application area settings.  Why again are they named differently?
 
In reality lots of these things should be made exactly the same, but in reverse.  I’ve even been on many clients where they wanted to do similar types of posting functionality that is available on the SD side but on the MM side.  Instead of revenue accounts, maybe expense and liability account determination. 
 
The consistency in naming conventions in the IMG for SD and MM pricing would be helpful.  The similarity in functionality would open doors to more consistent thought and condition setup leading to better business benefit.  The ability to be able to drive more granular General Ledger level spend tracking on PO’s by having similar functionality to SD’s Revenue Account Determination functionality would provide greater ability for business to track discrete components of the competitive pressures that vendor power creates.

Making the pricing processes both similar and just as robust on both the SD and MM side, along with the expanded FI integration opens a whole new world of possibilities for business.

Output Processing WMTA-Style 

On nearly every project I’m on there is always some request to automate this transaction into that one, etc.  The process chain automation seems to be a consistent and routine theme no matter what module it is. 
 
Over the years I’ve used Lean WM and the Auto TO creation through the standard WMTA condition. 
 
This paradigm is a great solution to performing any kind of auto processing throughout the system.  Because of the number of BAPIs and Function Modules that are already produced for most of the document creating (or changing) transactions, this would be relatively easy to do.  Simply include a BAPI or function module in a condition to create the follow-on document and pass the data to the function module or BAPI through the print program.
 
This solution is tremendously flexible because of the ability to control the individual behavior of each output through the use of the condition technique and access sequences.  What a great way to get the job done!
 
On top of that, you could develop a standard print program with all of the standard supported output options, and a configuration switched framework that uses the application area and standard or custom condition type to be processed.  Then unnecessary processing would not be required, only a single print program would need to be maintained, and the output condition could have its own separate BAPI or function module assigned.
 
Do I hear highly flexible workflow without all of the difficulties, pain, and setup work of normal workflow?  This is a great way to enable business process flows with standard functionality and standard programs for processing or re-processing outputs.  This is the type of innovation that small and midsized businesses badly need.

Conclusion 

SAP, if you’re listening at all, I have many more areas where you can substantially improve the ERP application, without significant expense, time, or resources.  These and many other improvements begin to provide a compelling case for upgrades even without support ending.  Between these and several other ideas I have you could make the case so compelling for an upgrade that it might create a rush to “keep up with the SAP Jones’s” so that their competitors don’t gain too much of an advantage.
 
With some of these enhancements, the case for ease of use, business process focus, and innate knowledge transfer are so strong that it provides reasons for small and midsized business sales as well.  
 
If you’re listening and interested have one of your key developers from Palo Alto or Waldorf call me.  After over 20 implementation projects I have a pretty good idea what customers are looking for and what is meaningful to the small and midsized business space.  Let’s work together to “supercharge” the ERP application and in the process shoot for 90% of the entire ERP application space!  It’s time for order of magnitude changes on the customer experience and business process side of the house.

Think about it, these changes cover the vaunted three areas of value proposition all at once–,  product innovation, operational excellence, and customer experience.  How could you possibly go wrong! 

Related Posts:

Tactics, Strategy, ROI, TCO and Realizing Business Benefit from SAP

August 26th, 2009

Tactics, Strategy, ROI, TCO and Realizing Business Benefit from SAP

When implementing or upgrading SAP too often I encounter back yard mechanics who changed the oil on someone’s cars and checked the tire pressure–, somehow they think that qualifies them to do engine overhauls on Formula 1 race cars.

And just in case the analogy doesn’t seem to make sense, why again do you expect old-style implementation vendors and consultants to transform your business into a competitive powerhouse by only addressing cost-focused ROI and TCO methods?

What About SAP and ERP Cost Savings for ROI and TCO?

Sure, cost-savings and process improvements are critical today, and they can not be ignored or dismissed on any ERP project, but they can NOT be the key focus of the project either if you expect your company to gain any marketplace competitive advantage.

No wonder survey after survey shows C-level executives disappointed by the return on their ERP investments. If you want Formula 1 results in the marketplace, use Formula 1 approaches, methodologies, vendors, and consultants on your SAP implementation or upgrade. I must warn you though, most consultants and vendors are clueless at how to do anything but take you down the same old tired cow paths to marketplace obscurity.

A cost based ROI or TCO implementation or upgrade approach will never make you a winner in the marketplace.

It’s certainly important to save you a few bucks and reduce some of your overhead, but you can only squeeze so much out before something else has to give. There is nothing about it that makes you unique that can’t easily be copied by all of your other competitors in the marketplace. Worse still, sometimes when you are the first to implement all of these new process improvements and automation methods your competitors get your lessons learned on what worked and what did not when it comes time to modify their own processes.[FN1] You pay the R&D premiums for the trial and error which they receive the benefit of in lower costs and reduced time. Sure, they may lag a little behind but in today’s world I can assure you they are not that far behind.

With today’s globally competitive environment focusing on cost-based metrics alone will not make you win in the market unless that cost decrease is a game changer. Many of today’s modern companies are in the last few miles of business process improvement in system design–, the last few miles of “better, faster, cheaper” ways of doing business. The drive to reduce cost has become so extreme that to squeeze the last few pennies out of products and services companies now outsource entire factories, plants, and operations to Third World countries. But now everyone is doing that too.

Except for some game changing process transformation (which is not likely) the last few miles of process improvement yield the smallest gains at the highest cost. ALL of these ROI and TCO methodologies use lagging indicators to measure success. And lagging indicators will not provide you with the forward business benefit you need to win in the marketplace.

Dusty Old Trails – Why ERP Implementations Focused on Cost

The herd mentality is alive and well with ERP implementatoin vendors. Marching down the ROI and TCO road all I find are the same old worn-out cow paths cut in the brush that everyone wants to follow. In the technology arena, known for innovation, cutting edge transformation, and forward thinking, these old dusty paths are silly. Sure, these implementation vendors try to re-package their offerings, try to suggest a focus on ROI, but they only understand cost-based lagging indicators because they don’t truly understand business.

The Perfect Lagging Indicator of Cost Control

Here’s an extreme example of why these methods are dangerous, unless there is a significant improvement in cost without a significant impact in operations or marketplace competitiveness.

It is the PERFECT lagging indicator or the “perfect” accounting scenario. It is a set of perfectly balanced books, with no deviations, no discrepancies and no risks. It is the model of absolute simplicity. The books close immediately with no lag, and they always balance to the penny. It is the company with no employees, no inventory, no products, no services, no buildings, no assets, no expenditures, no shareholders, no nothing. It is an empty, hollow shell. But that is the “perfect” lagging indicator of accounting and financial performance. It’s also an extreme illustration of some of the silliness in the marketplace around ROI and TCO for an implementation.

Cost savings are an important part of any implementation or upgrade. But unless the cost savings are dramatic, unless they provide you with a major improvement in the “operational excellence” value proposition, they are often hardly worth the effort. Using lagging indicators such as cost-based measures of implementations or upgrades does little to alter a company’s competitive landscape.

The last few miles of process improvement (i.e. cost reductions) yield the smallest gains at the highest cost.

So why won’t it work? Unless you have huge process improvement gaps either as an industry, or compared to your competitors, you just don’t gain that much from process improvement initiatives alone. Should you avoid it? Of course not, it would be both silly and absurd to suggest you should not take on process improvement initiatives. Every little bit helps, there’s no denying that. But without dramatic changes most process improvement initiatives are little more than tactics when your business needs strategies to address your competitive pressures and revitalize your value proposition. And then this needs to be translated into your SAP ERP or CRM implementation–, you need solid, strategy-based IT solutions!

SAP’s Rarely Used Tools and Techniques for Strategic ERP Implementation

It’s always shocking to me to find out how many vendors, consultants, and sales people have no idea about the value and strategy tools and resources SAP provides. And of the few that do, most of them have little idea or understanding on how to use them because they are not experts, they are merely technicians. Along the way they’ve found or developed their one or two “wrenches” and they’ve found “cool” ways to convince you their tire pressure gauge is the best at working on your race car. They’re not Formula 1 mechanics they are oil changers.

With so many vendors and consultants who are not aware of the SAP value and strategy tools, or how to use them, how can SAP customers be aware of them? Few vendors or consultants understand business strategy, competitive pressures, value propositions, and how to integrate them into an SAP implementation of the ERP package or CRM. They know how to change oil and and show you their cool tire pressure gauges. Sure, they’ve got slick presentations to try to convince you their wrench or pressure gauge is really a super-secret James Bond gadget that can do magic, but if that were the case there wouldn’t be so many frustrated C-level executives over the lack of ERP results.

Now that SAP is a very mature product with significant market penetration the focus of the conversation is changing. CIOs, CFOs, and CEOs are now starting to cut back on their SAP budgets, ignoring upgrade requirements, running to alternate support vendors, and generally have little or no desire to go through a painful upgrade process. And the number one reason why this is all happening is because C-level executives are not seeing the return promised by all those implementation vendors.

For over 10 years that I know of many of these tools and techniques have been available freely to customers and vendors in one form or another. Even though they are not used nearly as often as they should be, SAP continues to develop and invest in them but somehow they keep getting missed. While all of those consultants and implementation vendors are out there tuning up their oil changing techniques, and trying to build better tire pressure gauges, the market marches on and C-level executives continue to challenge the ERP paradigm.

The Future of SAP is in Leading Indicators of Business Success Like Customer Acquisition, Customer Retention, and Revenue Generation

Surveys of CIOs routinely show that top priorities for their IT department spend is to focus on business related issues like customer acquisition, customer retention, profitability, etc. And implementation vendors are unable to articulate how an SAP implementation or upgrade can enable that to happen. SAP provides the tools and resources to make that happen but no software company can change the skills, talents, and abilities of the implementation vendors or their consultants. That is up to the educated ERP consumer to ensure they are actually getting what they are paying for.

Significant SAP and ERP Success Criteria will not Change Until Business DEMANDS that Fakes and Frauds are Removed from the Marketplace

Business must become more savvy at “looking under the hood” of their implementation vendors. Vendor claims must be more carefully evaluated and the skills of the consultants they provide more thoroughly vetted.

To this day I’m still shocked by the number of resumes I see which show some 5 – 10 years, and 3 or more full lifecycle implementation projects in a country where the individual making these claims can barely understand or speak the language. Again I have to ask how did they lead the requirements discussions sessions to know what needed to be set up? And how do they lead meetings and discussions related to markets, company direction, or required processes to support your business? And who wrote their portion of the blueprint or logged their issues or resolved complex process and integration problems that came up during the project? Just exactly how does someone who barely speaks the native language of the company they are performing the work for take care of the communication intensive knowledge transfer and change management activities? Are you getting the picture here? [FN2]

In other words, do you really have to wonder why your implementation didn’t deliver to your expectations when so many of the consultants you bring onto your project can hardly understand the language?

It’s a testament to SAP’s ability to deliver methodologies like ASAP, Best Practices, and other materials that there aren’t more lawsuits for all of the outright fraudulent “consultants” with completely fake resumes in the marketplace.

Is it any wonder there is little genuine business awareness on what tools and techniques SAP offers to take your business to the next level?

Too often these vendors and their consultants are just like the carnies at the County fair on the midway hawking their “better, faster, cheaper” midway games to the unwary. And just like those carnies, they’ve got lots of slick marketing, slick packaging, and supposed unique methodologies and approaches to solve your problem and deliver to you cost-reduction based ROI.

They replace your legacy transaction systems with future legacy transaction systems in the form of your SAP implementation. But they have no idea on how to use the tools and techniques SAP provides to realize value based on a strategic implementation method.

SAP Tactics, Strategies, or Both?

So here we are, back to the old back yard mechanics, the ones who checked their tire pressure and changed the oil on a few cars but want to overhaul a Formula 1 race car engine. Good luck!

Doing research for an upcoming book on using a strategy based implementation or upgrade approach to SAP I’ve read probably thousands of pages of academic articles, research information, and company websites about “ROI” with IT systems, and more directly, “ROI” with ERP implementations. Maybe one percent (1%) of the material I read contains any substance about strategic options for ERP. This seems to be a “mystical subject” where the Formula 1 mechanics can’t be found so companies continue to rely on tire checkers and oil changers to overhaul their race cars.

Companies undertaking an ERP implementation will continue to be disappointed until they begin to demand the Formula 1 teams and realize they may cost a little more than the backyard mechanics. They will be disappointed until they begin to demand real business consultants from the marketplace who understand and can communite about competitive pressures, value propositions, and change management about the SAP application in terms of:

  • Knowledge transfer
  • Change management
  • Competitive pressures
  • Marketplace performance
  • Supply chain integration with the customer
  • Customer experience
  • Customer or sales conversion
  • Product or service innovation
  • Niche markets
  • Joint venture opportunities
  • Product or service portfolios

and a whole host of business issues that the application can enable. That list contains BUSINESS issues, not application issues. How is a company going to achieve real breakthroughs in SAP or ERP implementations or upgrades with-out focusing on business reasons for the system? And even if you do, you still need to find the vendors and consultants who understand how to translate these business-centered strategic initiatives into application solutions.

Why, why do you buy a Formula 1 race car and then bring in backyard mechanics to work on it?

Some of the research I read is plainly misplaced, it is more like marketing material for the backyard mechanics claiming they have the answer to working on your Formula 1 racer. One research piece that tried to make the case that just improving processes alone “supports” goals of revenue and profit growth. Sure, that’s a marginally true statement, but business doesn’t just need the “support” that process improvement offers (unless there are large improvements), business needs a new IT focus.

That same research paper went on to explain that business should not be cutting back on ERP IT spend during tough economic times. And while I agree, it is for an entirely different reason. ERP IT spend should be preserved, but with a new focus and direction. That direction is on strategic implementation and upgrade directed at business benefit along with the tactical cost-based process improvements. [FN3] In other words, IT spend should be focused on producing business centered solutions and results, not just replacing transaction systems with cool new best practice processes.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[FN1] Change How You Look at SAP to create ROI
http://www.r3now.com/change-how-you-look-at-sap-to-create-roi

[FN2] Screening methods to find the right SAP consultant
http://www.r3now.com/screening-methods-to-find-the-right-sap-consultant

[FN3] Why SAP Projects Fail to Deliver ROI (and how to change it)
http://www.r3now.com/why-sap-projects-fail-to-deliver-roi-and-how-to-change-it

Related Posts: