161–170 of 622 posts
SAP is the worst software I've ever used in my entire life; they literally have to publish paid books on how to use it, that's how bad it is.
There are "paid books" about everything from Python to Go to Swift to whatever. That is quite frankly a bad heuristic.
Going through the comments here I notice the recurrent theme that it's your company that has to adapt to SAP and not the other way around. To me this raises two key questions: 1. Isn't this harmful/limiting for your enterprise in the long run? 2. How can you at some point migrate away from SAP once you adapted to it? Given these issues and the huge costs, why would it make sense to adopt it in the first place? At lea…
The closer you stick to "out the box" ERP the more chance you actually have of moving off of it in the future.
Any ERP consulting house worth their fee will know how to move customers from one standard ERP system to their own/another. The difficulties come when you heavily modify your ERP solution to fit your business rather then follow the advice given.
This is where the tender process and requirements will bog down, developers need to be hired or entire business processes need to be rediscovered and rewitten. Since an ERP move might only happen once every 10/15/20 years a lot of business will use the project as an opportunity to reshape business processes, removing a lot of legacy stuff which no longer makes sense.
Tesla decided a few years ago to replace SAP with something they built themself https://www.mendix.com/blog/tesla-cio-builds-erp-house-4-mon... I love this story, it really isn't that hard to replace SAP once you know the requirements.
Then you just discover your are doing many things unique to your company so you kind of have to retrain a lot of finance and office management staff. And keep retraining them. Then also maintain teams of programmers to do maintain your software.
You don't want a car company to focus its resources on payroll software.
Going through the comments here I notice the recurrent theme that it's your company that has to adapt to SAP and not the other way around. To me this raises two key questions: 1. Isn't this harmful/limiting for your enterprise in the long run? 2. How can you at some point migrate away from SAP once you adapted to it? Given these issues and the huge costs, why would it make sense to adopt it in the first place? At lea…
I can answer number 2. The closer you stick to "out the box" ERP the more chance you actually have of moving off of it in the future. Any ERP consulting house worth their fee will know how to move customers from one standard ERP system to their own/another. The difficulties come when you heavily modify your ERP solution to fit your business rather then follow the advice given. This is where the tender process and req…
Interesting. But it still limits you to moving from ERP to another I guess.
SAP today are just plainly incompetent and ripe for disruption. I've had quite a bit of interaction with SAP over the last few years, here are some examples: - Almost all meetings I've been in start with prospective clients mentioning to SAP consultants that SAP has a 'certain reputation'. The SAP consultants acknowledge this. - Some of the solution pitch ideas they come up with signal they have almost zero knowledge…
> ... when compared to alternatives. What do you see as the alternatives?
And a hundred other specialised systems which fit their niche markets. Not everyone needs a full stack ERP/FSM/CRM solution, their are almost as many players as variations in requirements.
The best advice about SAP I've had is that when a company is starting to use SAP, the company must adjust its processes to match the SAP model - not the other way around. If you do it the other way, you'll first spend millions and millions customising SAP and then your project will fail at some point. It will also make all SAP upgrades completely impossible and they will cost millions and millions. All of the success…
English article: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/companies/programmed-for-...
Key quote:
>Unlike many of their competitors, Lidl bases its inventory management system on purchase prices. The standard SAP for Retail software uses retail prices. Lidl didn’t want to change, so the software had to be adapted.
Hi! (I'm one of the editors of this post.) When I was researching SAP, I found a fact sheet: https://www.sap.com/docs/download/2017/04/4666ecdd-b67c-0010... , that has quite a few interesting facts: * "[SAP] customers distribute 78% of the world’s food and 82% of the world’s medical devices" * "[SAP] customers include 98% of the 100 most valued brands" * "77% of the world’s transaction revenue touches an SAP system"…
> * "[SAP] customers include 98% of the 100 most valued brands" That, er, ought to be exactly 98 of the 100 of them, shouldn't it??
SAP today are just plainly incompetent and ripe for disruption. I've had quite a bit of interaction with SAP over the last few years, here are some examples: - Almost all meetings I've been in start with prospective clients mentioning to SAP consultants that SAP has a 'certain reputation'. The SAP consultants acknowledge this. - Some of the solution pitch ideas they come up with signal they have almost zero knowledge…
I suspect the only reason for their continued relevance is that they're too big to fail. So many huge enterprises rely on SAP, and its way too integrated into their core business processes to move off it at that point. Management elsewhere follows the larger players, and from what I've heard, SAP consultants are great at luring. Kind of like lemmings jumping the cliff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a big enough organisation to need an ERP like SAP, it would cost more to manage your data with spreadsheets than it would cost to just license SAP. I mean, that's literally how you price enterprise software.
Interesting. Was thinking that some startup could exactly do this, but realized that given how deeply integrated SAP/Oracle is (as mentioned in the article) it's very hard to do. Basically: Make a really bad product + make it mission critical = a product that people are literally glued to using
Can please a decision maker regarding SAP buying/implementing tell us how on earth SAP is that mainstream (in corporate) ? I've had to use it at EU big corp, and it to this day the worst experience I had. I've seen at techcrunch Berlin 2019 that there is something called SAP.io, somewhat opening its plateform ?
The cost/implementation of SAP is so big that the decision to use it can only be signed off at C-Level. Any company who is looking at SAP is likely doing business in the US - Sarbanes-Oxley means CFO and CEO have to personally sign off on the financial accounts and are criminally liable (am sure it's the same in other countries). SAP at it's core is all about financial control. SAP sell SAP to CEOs and CFOs by tellin…
If you didn't have it a lot of money disappears without a trace.