Insights from Real SAP S/4HANA Programs
Independent perspectives on delivery risk, governance, and execution — drawn from complex, high-stakes SAP S/4HANA transformations.
Why Most S/4HANA Programs Fail After Design
Design success does not guarantee delivery success. The highest risk appears when assumptions meet execution reality — especially during integration, data migration, and cutover.
​
Why it matters:
Risk is often recognized only when change is expensive and recovery options are limited.
Governance Gaps Are More Dangerous Than Technical Gaps
Programs rarely fail due to SAP configuration alone. They fail due to unclear decisions, diluted accountability, and late escalation.
​
Why it matters:
Weak governance compounds risk silently until recovery becomes disruptive.
SI Confidence ≠ Program Readiness
Positive status reports often mask unresolved dependencies, critical readiness gaps, and optimistic assumptions.
​
Why it matters:
Executives need independent signal — not delivery optimism.
Cutover Is a Leadership Test, Not a Checklist
Cutover success depends less on runbooks and more on decision velocity, cross-functional coordination, and executive alignment under pressure.
​
Why it matters:
Most go-live issues are leadership and coordination gaps, not technical surprises.
The difference between recovery and failure is rarely effort — it’s early, objective insight.
What We Consistently See in SAP S/4HANA Programs
Patterns We See Repeatedly
-
Clean Core is agreed to — but silently compromised
-
Data readiness is declared before validation is complete
-
Testing passes, but business confidence is low
-
Cutover decisions lack a single owner
-
Executive steering bodies meet — but don’t decide
Early Warning Signals in SAP Programs
-
“We’ll fix that after go-live.”
-
“The SI says it’s standard.”
-
“Testing passed, but users are still unsure.”
-
“Cutover planning will start later.”
​
These signals rarely resolve on their own — they compound.