Considerations

We had a saying among those within the SAP ecosystem that “once the software matches the SAP slide deck, we’ll all be in trouble”. Well, most in the ecosystem are still here and still going strong, so there must be differences between the SAP software functionality and the slide deck that require investigation.

When speaking to our customers about the topic, I tend to focus on the following key considerations.

• Complexity
• Functionality
• Flexibility

Then there is also the return on investment or total cost of ownership considerations, but I’ll cover these at another time.

Complexity

SAP solutions tend to be much more complex than third-party alternatives.

Let’s take system copy automation and change control automation as examples. Solutions like Libelle SystemCopy and Rev-Trac are pretty much out-of-the-box ready-to-run solutions, whereas the SAP alternatives (LAMA and ChaRM) require an extensive set-up and configuration effort

The effort to make workflow changes, add or subtract systems, or make functional adjustments is much greater.  

This might not be an issue for those organisations with time, resources and budget. Still, for the smaller to mediums sized SAP user, it is.

Functionality

SAP solution functionality tends to be limited when compared to third-party alternatives.

Third-party software vendors are specialist software developers. They are experts in their field and have the advantage of focusing their attention on the one problem they are solving. Finding the functionality advantages may take some digging, but they are there. One must be willing to go beyond the sales deck

The SAP solutions may be adequate for those organisations looking to improve their processes or do something. i.e., close enough is good enough. But others look to best-of-breed solutions.

Flexibility

SAP solutions tend to be less flexible than third-party alternatives.

SAP applications are renowned for their rigid processes and reliable outcomes. To do anything differently requires z-code customisation to better match a business requirement. The same approach seems to apply to SAP support solutions, They tend to be rigid and inflexible.

For organisations with specific approaches or unique requirements, third-party solutions are the better way forward.

Decision making

At a high level, it’s pretty easy to articulate the significant differences between the SAP offering and the third-party alternative.

However, it’s a little more involved in identifying apparent functionality differences. For example:

• Slide deck – both look the same (I see no difference)
• Overview demo – both look similar (Oh, I see – there is some difference)
• Technical demo and Q&A – differences begin to emerge (Ah – they are different)

The longer you look, the clearer the differences become.