4 ms·
> I (am actually told to) teach that changing the business to fit SAP is preferable to changing SAP to fit the business. And it's accurate advice. It shouldn't
by reallydontask 7y ago
> I (am actually told to) teach that changing the business to fit SAP is preferable to changing SAP to fit the business. And it's accurate advice. It shouldn't be, but it is.
This isn't necessarily bad advice when moving to a new system.
If the development cost exceeds or far exceeds the retraining cost then this is sound advice. I appreciate that this could be a tough calculation to make.
Change resistance will likely be a factor here but sometimes the old processes were hated by the actual users, though not the managers, making the decisions.
- hef19898 7y agoAnd while not every single SAP strandard might fit every single edge case in a given business, SAP standard processes are pretty much a condesation of best practices across hundreds of businesses. So they aren't that bad. That SAP charges extra for industry specific solution, aerospace, process / chemical, and so on, is a different story.
- m-p-3 7y agoIt's also a good practice to keep a massive system as close to the original as possible and tweak it to business needs only when absolutely necessary, otherwise it becomes a beast of its own to support and upgrade later on. This is a great example of technical debt when adding custom features to an existing commercial platform.
- kochthesecond 7y agoI have seen such customizations go badly soooo many times..
- pmart123 7y agoIt likely should be a combination. If processes are so different than the "standard" vendor approach, is there a good reason? Step two would be answering what is the key 10% that is different to customize.