Comments on: SAP's Apotheker takes on shoddy consultants, certifications

The enterprise software giant is trying to end the days where it's a whipping boy for failed implementations. The key question: How do you avoid a project failure?

[nfrengle]

I can attest that one of Herr Apotheker's people did exactly what he has said on a project with Accenture. This is a major project at a FTSE100 company, too.

[biffhenerson]

What he is proposing should have happened 10 years ago. SAP gets a huge black eye each time one of its major clients fail an implementation and it makes tech headlines. I see early on that the Customers and consulting companys completely and totally underestimate the amount of time, money, and effort that it takes to have a sucessful implementation of SAP or any software package for that matter. It is a huge investment. If its not done right, it will cost the Customer three times as much and take twice as long.

[shikarishambu]

This is not a new dilemma - how do technology vendors address perceived product issues due to consultant or even client issues.

Certifying is just one aspect of improving quality. Honestly, certification is no substitute to implementation experience. SAP and other vendors should try to focus of training/ certification companies that offer more than just training. Some, I am told, offer to cook up implementation experience if you train with them.

No technology vendor can live without independent integrators like ACN. If they can influence ACN to ensure that they do not load consultant on a project to learn at client's experience that would be great.

Finally, will SAP or any other vendor be honest enough to admit that their software may not be a good fit?

[ittesi259]

LA Unified School District gave SAP a huge black eye......teachers not getting paid, getting overpaid, nobody knowing how to correct it. Unfortunately the media focused that it was SAP's system, not focusing on the consultant who effed the whole thing up.

[PeteKr]

I would like to comment on the comments above: I am working as a consultant and I can tell you that a customer will realize a bad consultant very quickly. If you look at the project durations of 2 to 3 years for medium sized SAP projects, you may agree that this is time enough to replace a badly performing consultancy team.

It is true that it takes 4 to 5 years of project experience and continuous education to cope with the complexity of SAP ERP software, especially when it comes to integration of processes. In the later case a team of experts is needed, each having many years of experience. However, this is only half of the story.

Many executives think e.g. of an SAP upgrade as an easy exercise like upgrading the laptop from Acrobat Reader 5.0 to 6.0. However, ERP software is usually not a single user system and it deals with much more data than is stored on a local laptop.

An ERP software is the process and information backbone of a company. To support the business it must fit the customers processes, organisation and data like a glove. Now, SAP offers a standard software. This sounds like the promise to have a glove that fits all hands. It is simply not true.

Not all customer processes can be mapped equally well onto the SAP platform. There are main stream processes that are easily mapped and others that may required even the development of new software. In the sales processes these topics can be handled via "Industry Best Practices", that are SAP customization settings and process handling, that are best of class. So a win-win situation is generated: the customer improves his/her processes and SAP can map the new processes more easily. At least customers tend to believe that it is a win-win situation, which is to be seen if you get a new company.

These process changes introduce often organisational changes, so that during the project a full blown change management project can be created and responsibilities of business owners are changed. This creates a lot of uncertainty.

In the end large parts of the customers business may be rebuild to adapt to a new software platform and the consultants are running after the sales promises.

Up to now, I have been talking about getting the ERP software running and supporting the business. The sales promise is more, it is to enable the business to perform better. Also, I have not been talking about little bugs in the software, data inconsistency etc. when it comes to the role out.

[donaldpheller]

I've been working as an outside consultant on SAP implementations for over ten years now and the only thing I see missing from Herr Apotheker's statements is the fact that in my experience, SAP's own consultants have been, at times, as bad or worse than those from outside integrators. He talks about the need for training and certification, but I hope he extends that to SAP's own consultants as well.

[srinivas_Kolluri]

I agree. I came across a few projects where SAP's pwn consultants controbiuted to the mess. SAP hired a lot of SAP consultants based on the lowest rate quoted and not on the basis of skills.
The same with BIG5 too.
But I put the blame on SAP Customers and end clients too. They don't apply their mind and never care for the quality of SAP Consultants brought by the system integrators to the site and spend a fortune on them. Later they repent. At the same, when they hire SAP Consultants on contract, end clients don't
even talk to you if you rate is slightly higher.
For example, recently, an end client looking for a SAP SRM expert to blueprint for SAP SRM7.0.
I worked on SRM 7.0 on a prototype. But the end client didn't even talk to me because my rate is 30% higher and hired one who never worked on SRM7.0. He would have talked to meand then negotiated , but he didn't.
So here everyone has to share the blame.
Best Regards
Srinivas Kolluri