SAP ROI — Enterprise Architecture & Business Solutions

With Michael Doane’s permission I’m re-posting part 2 of his critique on SAP implementation projects.  For the first part you can see it here, SAP Implementation Projects: Still Crazy After All These Years.

In a previous post, I pointed out my discovery of an anonymous blogger who is providing a blow-by-blow of his firm’s painful SAP implementation. (SAP: Loathe It or Ignore It, You Can’t Like It http://sapmesideways.blogspot.com/. )

Since that post, I have had some e-mail contact with the writer, who has agreed to my re-use of our correspondence.

The most striking comment of his was this:

“I don’t know if the SAP project methodology is being used as I have nothing to gauge our experiences against; however, over the past 2 years, I have read a number of items by experienced SAP consultants, and I suspect that they are not applying it correctly, if at all.”

My reply:

“…if they were using a methodology, you would definitely know it. Outside of IBM and Accenture, all certified partners MUST adhere to SAP’s ASAP methodology, sometimes referred to (recently) as Focus ASAP. Most of these partners add some of their secret sauce to the core SAP methodology. I am willing to bet that if you look at this firm’s proposal of services to you that they make a big deal about their methodology.”

The blog was started in January of 2009, so over an eight month period our correspondent is not sure whether or not a methodology is being followed. While this may seem “crazy”, it is unfortunately a more widespread (mal)practice than the systems integrators will admit.

When clients search for SAP consulting help, they are looking for:

a) specific expertise (business process design, configuration, and technical) and

b) a proven project method or methodology by which all necessary project activities are navigated.

My research since 2001, both in the field and through extensive survey work, reveals that the leading SAP systems integration firms routinely fail to adhere to their own methodologies.

They claim to have best practices repositories that are referenced in the course of business blueprint but clients report a high incidence of white-boarding.  They claim to that their proven methodologies result in on-time, on-budget implementations and yet SAP implementations are still routinely late and over-budget. (I actually blame this aspect on clients who just as routinely establish wildly optimistic budgets and time-frames).

Failures to actually leverage promised assets are not limited to the usual suspects. Our anonymous correspondent had this to say about his firm’s SI partner:

“My main beef is with the consultants (what you would call the system integrators I think) – they are a mid sized company and it appears they have not previously implemented in the specific sector which my company operates in. They are an SAP gold partner, but I’m not sure what value that has – in my opinion they do nothing to enhance the reputation of SAP, the company or the product.

Although we had one person for a few months that was very experienced in SAP implementation (some 15+ years), most of the people seem to be very new to the role, less than 2 years. We have had so many different consultants, that I have actually lost track of the number (almost 60, I now believe, where they originally proposed just 4). They have failed to meet a single target on the deadline, or on the budget and in many areas have not met all of the requirements of the business. “

Individually, clients should do a better job of holding their systems integrators’ feet to the fire. Collectively, only SAP itself can directly address these failures and they can do so through the leverage of third-party project quality assurance as well as by leveraging more pressure on all systems integration partners, be they gold, silver, or bronze.

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

The original article can be seen at: http://sapsearchlight.blogspot.com/2009/08/sap-implementation-projects-still-crazy.html

Visit Author Michael Doane’s web site for more insightful articles on SAP projects at http://sapsearchlight.blogspot.com

Related Posts:

• SAP System Vendor Project Success Criteria 1
• Removing SAP Project Barriers to Realize ROI and Business Benefit
• Tactics, Strategy, ROI, TCO and Realizing Business Benefit from SAP
• 7 Tips for Effective Client Management of SAP Consultants
• SAP System Vendor Project Success Criteria & Factors 4

The following is re-posted with the permission of my friend Michael Doane, see his site at http://sapsearchlight.blogspot.com/

———————————-

Through the good graces of my long-time associate Jon Reed (www.jonerp.com), I recently discovered a blog that covers the life of an SAP project: SAP: Loathe It or Ignore It, You Can’t Like It http://sapmesideways.blogspot.com/.

Shortly thereafter, Dennis Howlett posted about this blog “Your Implementations are Killing Us” http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=1075 and the next morning I received a frantic e-mail from a friend at SAP lamenting its posting. So I guess this blogger is gaining some buzz.

I take exception with the title of the SAP blog as I have seen countless clients who actually do like SAP. All the same, I find it a curious and worthwhile contribution. The writer maintains complete anonymity throughout. No profile or mention of his name, his company’s, the implementation partner’s identity. Mum. While this is largely understandable as a matter of the blogger’s self-protection, it also degrades the effect. All the same, the twenty-seven postings since January, 2009 vividly describe the mind-numbing frustrations, side-shows, and cul-de-sacs that a poorly-run implementation can engender.

The appearance of this blog is in parallel to some serious SAP head scratching on the subject of bad implementations. At the end of the day, when an SAP implementation project goes wrong, it is the joint fault (in varying measures) of the client and the systems integrator but it is usually SAP that gets the PR black eye.

I have been involved in SAP implementation work since 1995 and the balance of my book “The New SAP Blue Book, A Concise Business Guide to the World of SAP” provides guidance for the best practices for implementation. The book first appeared in 1998 and has been revised seven times as better practices continue to emerge. During this same time-period, I have done a considerable amount of primary research with more than 1500 clients reporting upon their SAP experiences and the performance of their SAP systems integrator.

SAP does not deserve the full black-eye for failed implementations. In my esteem, however, SAP does a poor job of policing its SAP partners. The 1500 clients reported upon the field performance of all of the leading integrators (Accenture, IBM, Deloitte, et al) and the following provider failures were chronically noted in regard to deficient project process (in order of importance):

• Poor scope/resource management
• Lack of adherence to methodology: all the systems integrators have sophisticated methodologies and tools; they just don’t use them consistently (if at all);
• Ineffective partner management.

In this research, clients cited who they considered responsible for various issue. They tabbed themselves the guilty party for:

• Over-engineered and difficult to use results
• Insufficient post-implementation planning
• Lack of client ownership.

What SAP Can Do to Address Implementation Issues

All the systems integrators, including SAP Consulting, regularly tout their client satisfaction ratings. When you scratch the surface, these ratings tend to be childish and generalized buckets for entire projects of Very Satisfied, Satisfied, and Not Satisfied. The first reaction is to ask who is satisfied, what are they satisfied with, and when were they satisfied. Many clients I have spoken to who claimed that they were satisfied added that the whole project was a bumpy nerve-wracking mess but they were finally satisfied that it was over.

In this light, SAP needs to finally recognize that implementation services are every bit as much about consulting as about software. While tools such as Solution Manager are excellent for tracking software issues, project issues relative to consulting, governance, etc. are not tracked. SAP should be working more closely with its largest implementation partners to create client-satisfaction tracking that continually addresses these issues from an SI perspective:

• Business/IT Alignment
• Governance & Control
• Human Capital Management
• Technology, Tools & Process
• Service Delivery & Operations

Short of this, SAP should create and cultivate a network of objective, third-party quality assurance units (not SAP, not SAP implementation partners) to accomplish this tracking. When such a QA unit exists, life is better for both the client and the systems integrator as in many cases the QA group can point out to clients where they are going wrong. Again, each of the systems integrators have their own internal quality assurance but it is seldom demonstrably objective. By the same token, such QA should not be undertaken by SAP.

Quality assurance can add 1% to 2% to an overall implementation budget while resulting in a 10% to 30% savings in over-all implementation costs (primarily by fending off budget over-runs).

Value to Clients of Third Party Implementation Project Quality Assurance:

• Cost containment, derived from progress monitoring
• Time adherence, resulting from continuous (phase to phase) monitoring as well as scope management
• Vision/benefits realization: assuring that the project will deliver the intended business value
• Reduced administrative and strategic burden; fewer client/SI meetings for the purpose of progress reporting, issues management, and the like
• Objective advisory as to what other services or support functions might be appropriate and desirable.
• Quality assurance reporting would be most effective if it is directed to the client, to SAP, and to the systems integration partner.

In the field, I find that systems integrators initially balk at the inclusion of third party quality assurance on the premise that it will act as an audit of only their performance. Once they understand that the quality assurance role also focuses on client performance and SAP performance, the activity yields positive results.

It should be noted that the SAP/SI partner dynamic is not the same for all partners. Clearly, IBM and Accenture are not as malleable as a small partner such as Capgemini or any number of boutiques. However, it is evident that scrolling a third-party quality assurance activity into any SAP implementation will benefit all three parties (client, SI, and SAP).

It is probably too late for our anonymous blogger. I look forward to when he fills out his satisfaction rating.

—————————-

The original posting for this article can be seen at: http://sapsearchlight.blogspot.com/2009/07/sap-implementation-projects-still-crazy.html

Related Posts:

• ERP Project Plan: Getting Real Part 3
• ERP Project Plan: Getting Real (Part 2)
• Some Reasons SAP Projects are Over Budget and Over Time
• Planning For a Smooth SAP Go-Live: Part 2
• Breakthrough Project Success: 2 of 4, IT Vendor Proposal RFP

That hardy perennial “SAP consultant certification” is blooming again but this time in regard to independent consultants as opposed to those in systems integration firms.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=761

Below is a link to Jon Reed’s excellent analysis of a recent survey of SAP consultants in this regard:

https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/13913

Past certification programs, administered by SAP, have been met with partial success at best and have been unfortunately skewed entirely to SAP technical bones and not at all toward consulting skills.

Since 1995, I have come across a lot of SAP consultants who know the software inside and out but are incapable of holding a conversation with a business person (manager level or user level). These consultants would fly through any SAP certification to date but I wouldn’t want them on my implementation team.

More to the point, what problem do we seek to remedy? If it is poor implementation results, I would have to say that consultant performance is only a subset of that problem. The SAP implementation teeter-totter includes two sides:

Systems Integrator

• Adherence to Methods/Practices
• Level of SAP Skills
• Level of Consulting Skills

Client

• Adequate Budget
• Realistic/Tangible Goals
• Project Ownership

A few years ago, I was involved in deep research of SAP systems integrator performance based upon input from 1,502 clients of the leading SAP systems integrators (the usual suspects and SAP Consulting). Roughly two-thirds of the client respondents were project leadership or delivery team members and the remainder were training, change management, and business stakeholders for projects completed between 2003 and 2006. The results of this research were both varied and compelling. Some of the numbers mumble (it is still hard to determine true client interest in an SI’s industry focus) but other numbers scream in perfect grammar.

Some of the screaming results

An alarmingly high number of teams fail to adhere to established methods & practices; in essence, business process white-boarding and seat-of-the-pants configuration prevails far too often. (In this instance, even the best consultants may well be wasting client time and dollars).

Very few clients set tangible goals, so projects drift toward go-live, leading to “till’s empty, time’s up, might as well go live”.

Client ownership and participation in implementation project is regularly compromised by faulty knowledge transfer (attributable to both SI’s and clients).

My long-held belief is that systems integrators, not individual consultants, should be held to a certification/ratings fire. To date, they are not. Most of them tend to claim “our clients love us” but it is readily evident that they are not talking to all of their clients.

Well known “rating” systems such as the Magic Quadrant, the Forrester Wave, and others are not sufficiently based upon field input. All are founded upon a very small client sampling mixed with analyst opinion. Further, none of these rating systems cover various aspects of projects or even types of projects (new implementations, upgrades, geographic roll-outs, or optimizations. For example, one key finding in my studies is that Deloitte (240 clients reporting) is chronically challenged by new implementations but shines at all other types of SAP projects. Another finding is that Accenture (276 clients reporting) performs very admirably in large projects but causes considerable grief in small and mid-sized projects.

(FYI, an identical study of leading Oracle systems integrators was also conducted and yielded very similar results.)

I do agree that efforts to improve field performance are a necessity. In that light, I generally welcome ongoing efforts to certify SAP consultants provided:

A suitable third party (separate from the SAP organization) has a hand in such certification.

Certification addresses consulting skills and is not, as we have seen in past efforts, a conglomeration of multiple choice questions relating primarily to technical acumen.

(I will have to give some thought to the latter consideration. Consulting skills address a combination of experience, communication skills, empathy, and the like and as such are not subject to written examination.)

Further, I would like to see some sort of certification process for project managers whose role in any SAP field endeavor is of paramount importance.

All the same, if we are going to visibly improve SAP systems integration field results, I believe that we should be certifying what matters most: the systems integration firms. Maybe Gartner can replace some of the magic in the Magic Quadrant with actual field data or the Forrester Wave can include hundreds of clients hitting that beach.

—————————–

Author Michael Doane runs a great site devoted to successful SAP projects.  Author of several books, frequent speaker, and business to SAP alignment analyst.  Visit his site for more information and insight at:

http://sapsearchlight.blogspot.com/

Related Posts:

• Tactics, Strategy, ROI, TCO and Realizing Business Benefit from SAP
• Removing SAP Project Barriers to Realize ROI and Business Benefit
• SAP Development Landscape and Systems: Misguided Practices Carry Huge Costs
• Using SAP to Improve Revenue and Profitability
• How To Navigate the SAP Business Transformation Journey