4 ms·

SAP are more known for ERP than CRM They're absolutely colossal in size My ex-girlfiend's father is an engineer there in Baden-Wurttemberg - I'd characterise

by lmpdev 5y ago

SAP are more known for ERP than CRM They're absolutely colossal in size My ex-girlfiend's father is an engineer there in Baden-Wurttemberg - I'd characterise them as closer to something like Oracle rather than Salesforce

nine_k 5y ago
They are so colossal that switching to SAP usually means reworking company's processes to match SAP's, not the other way around.
- shdon 5y ago
  This was true even for Royal Dutch Shell, one of the largest companies in the world. A few years before he retired, my dad led a team responsible for coordinating implementation of SAP and for training thousands or even tens of thousands of employees to work with the new system.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  To be fair, that is the case for most ERPs. It's not really about the size of the product but rather the important role it plays in a company. Most ERPs can be quite flexible too, there's a ton of customisation possible. And a whole cottage industry of addons and integrations for every imaginable integration or business model. But the problem is you really screw yourself with added complexity when it's time to update. Then you're really condemning yourself to spending millions on consultants at a time when you might not have the resources. And postponement leads to technical debt. Hence the idea of adapting the business to the system. Making sense too if you think about it this way: you're not really just buying a system but a methodology. And another thing is that it makes integration with other companies easier. Makes the company more easy to sell or too acquire other companies and integrate them.
  - kovacs_ 5y ago
    Heh, you described my work situation to a T. They decided to modify a number of core functions to work the same way as their old terminal system instead of the default ERP process. Now our job for the next couple years is decoupling the custom add-ons so we can safely update to a modern ERP system.
- manmal 5y ago
  I read recently that not using SAP - or heavily customizing it - in markets where it’s prevalent can break big(ish) companies. Apparently the interface to other companies (from which to buy or sell) is so much easier to setup when all have the same system, that using any other system is prohibitive. If you need to interface with hundreds of enterprises that all implement standard SAP, you become the expensive outsider if you don’t. Integration projects can take years and then fail, with nothing to show for - which can threaten a company’s existence. Better to use standard SAP „off the shelf“ and do as little customization as possible.
  - regularfry 5y ago
    Without necessarily wishing to call into question your source on this particular occasion, it is of course in SAP's interest that as many as possible believe this to be true.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  One of my customers was taken over during their SAP implementation. The general feeling among management was the work had weakened them so much it made them vulnerable to takeover.
ant6n 5y ago
> I'd characterise them [SAP] as closer to something like Oracle rather than Salesforce They feel more like IBM, but more crusty, more conservative and more corporate. Working for a railway on anything touching SAP sounds like an absolute nightmare of wasting decades threading water with nothing to show for it. (I saw a bit of SAP inside DB… nope nope nope)
- lmpdev 5y ago
  It's funny, I was originally going to comment "the worst of Oracle with the worst of IBM" but I prefer the way you put it Edit: no offence intended to anyone at SAP, IBM or Oracle - I do think each company has a legitimate role to play for rather different markets

by lmpdev 5y ago

nine_k 5y ago

They are so colossal that switching to SAP usually means reworking company's processes to match SAP's, not the other way around.

shdon 5y ago
This was true even for Royal Dutch Shell, one of the largest companies in the world. A few years before he retired, my dad led a team responsible for coordinating implementation of SAP and for training thousands or even tens of thousands of employees to work with the new system.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
To be fair, that is the case for most ERPs. It's not really about the size of the product but rather the important role it plays in a company. Most ERPs can be quite flexible too, there's a ton of customisation possible. And a whole cottage industry of addons and integrations for every imaginable integration or business model. But the problem is you really screw yourself with added complexity when it's time to update. Then you're really condemning yourself to spending millions on consultants at a time when you might not have the resources. And postponement leads to technical debt. Hence the idea of adapting the business to the system. Making sense too if you think about it this way: you're not really just buying a system but a methodology. And another thing is that it makes integration with other companies easier. Makes the company more easy to sell or too acquire other companies and integrate them.
- kovacs_ 5y ago
  Heh, you described my work situation to a T. They decided to modify a number of core functions to work the same way as their old terminal system instead of the default ERP process. Now our job for the next couple years is decoupling the custom add-ons so we can safely update to a modern ERP system.
manmal 5y ago
I read recently that not using SAP - or heavily customizing it - in markets where it’s prevalent can break big(ish) companies. Apparently the interface to other companies (from which to buy or sell) is so much easier to setup when all have the same system, that using any other system is prohibitive. If you need to interface with hundreds of enterprises that all implement standard SAP, you become the expensive outsider if you don’t. Integration projects can take years and then fail, with nothing to show for - which can threaten a company’s existence. Better to use standard SAP „off the shelf“ and do as little customization as possible.
- regularfry 5y ago
  Without necessarily wishing to call into question your source on this particular occasion, it is of course in SAP's interest that as many as possible believe this to be true.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
One of my customers was taken over during their SAP implementation. The general feeling among management was the work had weakened them so much it made them vulnerable to takeover.

ant6n 5y ago

> I'd characterise them [SAP] as closer to something like Oracle rather than Salesforce They feel more like IBM, but more crusty, more conservative and more corporate. Working for a railway on anything touching SAP sounds like an absolute nightmare of wasting decades threading water with nothing to show for it. (I saw a bit of SAP inside DB… nope nope nope)

lmpdev 5y ago
It's funny, I was originally going to comment "the worst of Oracle with the worst of IBM" but I prefer the way you put it Edit: no offence intended to anyone at SAP, IBM or Oracle - I do think each company has a legitimate role to play for rather different markets