10 ms·

What was the motivation to switch to SAP? Was the in-house solution lacking?

math-dev 4y ago
Working in a large corp, I find IT consultants from the outside overpromise and underdeliver on projects It’s infuriating as anybody below senior management can see right through it
- hef19898 4y ago
  SAP and ERP consultants are not your average IT consultant in that case.
- sumedh 4y ago
  > anybody below senior management This happens because the people working below senior management are usually not slick talkers and many people in senior management do not understand IT. So a savvy salesman who knows the right words can convince the guys at the top to do what he (its almost always a he) says.
lqet 4y ago
AFAIK, they introduced SAP elsewhere in the company, and it became difficult/too expensive to manage the communication between the old system and the SAP system. I can imagine too well how the conversation between the SAP people and the company went because I also took part in similar conversations with clients in a previous job a long time ago: client asks you if software X can do thing Y. Both you and the person representing the client have only superficial domain expertise on Y. "Oh, you mean enter data into a form? Of course software X can do that, it was designed exactly for that purpose!" The complexity of the task is eventually discovered in production.
- ornornor 4y ago
  > The complexity of the task is eventually discovered in production. I’m amazed that this is what happens every. Single. Time. And yet we plow ahead with this kind of projects like we have no idea it’s the usual outcome. A couple years and millions over budget later, we rediscover this axiom. I really don’t get it. And try to warn about this, you’re labeled as not a team player or whatever and paint crosshairs on your back for the next round of layoffs. It’s just soul sucking.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    On an individual decision making scale, there are no repercussions for the bad outcome. The people who decide on plowing ahead get another bullet point on resume for “accomplishing” something, since the outcome is impossible for an outside entity to verify, but doing “something” is verifiable.
  - magicalhippo 4y ago
    > I’m amazed that this is what happens every. Single. Time. The details about the day-to-day operations disappear quickly as you move up the hierarchy. My boss recently had a meeting with a large customer of us, we deliver a product used heavily by one of their departments. Here's roughly how that went down: My boss: "Well, what about when you do orders of type X?" Manager: "Oh we don't do those" My boss: "Really?" My boss brings up the order list and filters on type X, finds at least one entered each day by user ABC Manager: "Oh... so that's what she does" So that information was lost in just one level. This is why we try our best to get the actual users involved when discussing requirements with a customer. I don't think I've ever experienced a project where at least one of the users haven't brought up some edge case the manager wasn't aware of or had completely forgotten. On the flip side, the projects where the users are left out of it until it goes live never goes well. We'll get it fixed eventually, but there's always pain for far longer than necessary.
    - ornornor 4y ago
      At least we’re paid decent amounts of money to crash the bus into the wall…
    - q-big 4y ago
      Isn't this story rather a strong sign that many managers are simply incompetent? I mean: how can you seriously manage things if you don't even know what kind of tasks you actually manage?
      - greedo 4y ago
        At a certain level, managers have to delegate broadly. I think this is best illustrated by the US Army. In an ideal situation, the commander general guidance about his intent. Then his subordinates plan how to accomplish it. I wouldn't expect a Colonel to remember how to fire a mortar properly, and it's the same in IT. My manager expects a well run, secure and efficient datacenter. He expects his SMEs to take care of the details and bring issues to his attention if they exceed the ability of the SMEs to resolve.
ssdspoimdsjvv 4y ago
In-house tooling requires a dedicated team, not just developers but also analysts, testers, etc. Often a company inside the company. If the software needs to change due to industry changes or regulations or something like that, it will probably be a lot more expensive to implement it yourself compared to using an off-the-shelf tool developed by a company who's sole purpose it is to respond to those kind of changes.
- PeterStuer 4y ago
  The idea that the SAP solution will be "off the shelf" is just not true. You will need as many of those roles, probably many more, to keep the SAP based solution running.
- modo_mario 4y ago
  >it will probably be a lot more expensive to implement it yourself compared to using an off-the-shelf tool developed by a company who's sole purpose it is to respond to those kind of changes. If your company is small or at least in a field with lots of competition sure. I work in a >100person company that encounters loads of regulatory changes due to food safety and lots of international trade and 2 people developing is good enough. The part doing the accounting and such is largely outsourced to an ERP but is honestly simpler yet just as costly if not more. What's more things go wrong. That's a given and the absolute best way to deal with it is with someone as close to the processes as possible. you don't want to be calling vendors that are generally absent to see in which part the software lies. Even for industrial equipment that is a lot more single process it is kind of accepted that we people on the ground need to know a good bunch to troubleshoot ourselves rather than paying someone to come over. After all if we wait for that we get a bottleneck that has dozens of people twiddling their thumbs.
PeterStuer 4y ago
Their most succesfull salespitch to the CEO is that you're not a real company untill you join the SAP club.
- tiborsaas 4y ago
  Kinda genius pitch, if a company can't burn millions without serious troubles it's not really a stable, big player :)
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Or you don't have a solid business until it withstood trial by SAP implementation and subsequent reality check
- speakfreely 4y ago
  Salesforce uses this one, too.
crispyambulance 4y ago
If it was like typical ERP/MRP rollouts... The short answer is that a sales guy in a nice suit took some execs out for steaks and more than a couple cocktails. The long answer is that management, these days, is trained to outsource everything while still being clueless about what the people they're replacing actually do.

Working in a large corp, I find IT consultants from the outside overpromise and underdeliver on projects It’s infuriating as anybody below senior management can see right through it

hef19898 4y ago
SAP and ERP consultants are not your average IT consultant in that case.
sumedh 4y ago
> anybody below senior management This happens because the people working below senior management are usually not slick talkers and many people in senior management do not understand IT. So a savvy salesman who knows the right words can convince the guys at the top to do what he (its almost always a he) says.

lqet 4y ago

AFAIK, they introduced SAP elsewhere in the company, and it became difficult/too expensive to manage the communication between the old system and the SAP system. I can imagine too well how the conversation between the SAP people and the company went because I also took part in similar conversations with clients in a previous job a long time ago: client asks you if software X can do thing Y. Both you and the person representing the client have only superficial domain expertise on Y. "Oh, you mean enter data into a form? Of course software X can do that, it was designed exactly for that purpose!" The complexity of the task is eventually discovered in production.

ornornor 4y ago
> The complexity of the task is eventually discovered in production. I’m amazed that this is what happens every. Single. Time. And yet we plow ahead with this kind of projects like we have no idea it’s the usual outcome. A couple years and millions over budget later, we rediscover this axiom. I really don’t get it. And try to warn about this, you’re labeled as not a team player or whatever and paint crosshairs on your back for the next round of layoffs. It’s just soul sucking.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  On an individual decision making scale, there are no repercussions for the bad outcome. The people who decide on plowing ahead get another bullet point on resume for “accomplishing” something, since the outcome is impossible for an outside entity to verify, but doing “something” is verifiable.
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  > I’m amazed that this is what happens every. Single. Time. The details about the day-to-day operations disappear quickly as you move up the hierarchy. My boss recently had a meeting with a large customer of us, we deliver a product used heavily by one of their departments. Here's roughly how that went down: My boss: "Well, what about when you do orders of type X?" Manager: "Oh we don't do those" My boss: "Really?" My boss brings up the order list and filters on type X, finds at least one entered each day by user ABC Manager: "Oh... so that's what she does" So that information was lost in just one level. This is why we try our best to get the actual users involved when discussing requirements with a customer. I don't think I've ever experienced a project where at least one of the users haven't brought up some edge case the manager wasn't aware of or had completely forgotten. On the flip side, the projects where the users are left out of it until it goes live never goes well. We'll get it fixed eventually, but there's always pain for far longer than necessary.
  - ornornor 4y ago
    At least we’re paid decent amounts of money to crash the bus into the wall…
  - q-big 4y ago
    Isn't this story rather a strong sign that many managers are simply incompetent? I mean: how can you seriously manage things if you don't even know what kind of tasks you actually manage?
    - greedo 4y ago
      At a certain level, managers have to delegate broadly. I think this is best illustrated by the US Army. In an ideal situation, the commander general guidance about his intent. Then his subordinates plan how to accomplish it. I wouldn't expect a Colonel to remember how to fire a mortar properly, and it's the same in IT. My manager expects a well run, secure and efficient datacenter. He expects his SMEs to take care of the details and bring issues to his attention if they exceed the ability of the SMEs to resolve.

ssdspoimdsjvv 4y ago

In-house tooling requires a dedicated team, not just developers but also analysts, testers, etc. Often a company inside the company. If the software needs to change due to industry changes or regulations or something like that, it will probably be a lot more expensive to implement it yourself compared to using an off-the-shelf tool developed by a company who's sole purpose it is to respond to those kind of changes.

PeterStuer 4y ago
The idea that the SAP solution will be "off the shelf" is just not true. You will need as many of those roles, probably many more, to keep the SAP based solution running.
modo_mario 4y ago
>it will probably be a lot more expensive to implement it yourself compared to using an off-the-shelf tool developed by a company who's sole purpose it is to respond to those kind of changes. If your company is small or at least in a field with lots of competition sure. I work in a >100person company that encounters loads of regulatory changes due to food safety and lots of international trade and 2 people developing is good enough. The part doing the accounting and such is largely outsourced to an ERP but is honestly simpler yet just as costly if not more. What's more things go wrong. That's a given and the absolute best way to deal with it is with someone as close to the processes as possible. you don't want to be calling vendors that are generally absent to see in which part the software lies. Even for industrial equipment that is a lot more single process it is kind of accepted that we people on the ground need to know a good bunch to troubleshoot ourselves rather than paying someone to come over. After all if we wait for that we get a bottleneck that has dozens of people twiddling their thumbs.

PeterStuer 4y ago

Their most succesfull salespitch to the CEO is that you're not a real company untill you join the SAP club.

tiborsaas 4y ago
Kinda genius pitch, if a company can't burn millions without serious troubles it's not really a stable, big player :)
saiya-jin 4y ago
Or you don't have a solid business until it withstood trial by SAP implementation and subsequent reality check
speakfreely 4y ago
Salesforce uses this one, too.

crispyambulance 4y ago

If it was like typical ERP/MRP rollouts... The short answer is that a sales guy in a nice suit took some execs out for steaks and more than a couple cocktails. The long answer is that management, these days, is trained to outsource everything while still being clueless about what the people they're replacing actually do.