This could be mutually assured destruction in SAP world – Enterprise …

One of the most toxic contractual terms in SAP world is that of “indirect access” where users exchange information with the SAP software in dialog or prompt mode. The issue is not with licensed users who access the software using its UX, more with those in surround systems that have been custom built or licensed from other vendors. SAP wants to also be compensated for those users accessing data in the SAP system.

This has caused massive heartburn with SAP customers for years now. I have heard everything from “its OUR data, not that of the SAP system” to “SAP was invited to bid for the surround software, lost it fair and square and still wants to be compensated”  to “this is a time bomb – we are getting hit after years of paying SAP maintenance. If we had known this upfront, we likely would not have implemented SAP” to plenty of un-publishable rants. I know for a fact it has cost SAP plenty of new business because several CIOs and procurement folks have told users to freeze their SAP footprint.

A UK court has recently ruled in favor of SAP in and it sounds like Diageo had the time bomb scenario described above “According to the text of the judgment, the drinks company and SAP had begun their software licence and maintenance agreement in 2004, and came into dispute after Diageo deployed two new third-party systems in 2012.”

If this emboldens SAP to become more aggressive in going after more customers, I am fairly certain it is going to accelerate the “coping strategies” – diversification away from SAP and partners – I have described in SAP Nation. Except that this time, they will also extricate SAP from the core. The reality in many SAP customers is that for all the talk of “wall to wall” coverage, the functionality actually delivered by SAP is pretty small. Lots of surround systems deliver the industry specific and other impactful functionality. Customers have tolerated SAP at the core, but the financial and emotional pain from constant threats of audits is a bit too much to bear.

Yes, it will cost those customers to migrate away from that core so in that sense it is “mutually assured destruction” for both sides.

The only deterrent is – will SAP restrain itself? And how many customers are willing to wait to find out?


(Cross-posted @ Deal Architect)

Article source:

News Feed

  • The Clover-Leaf Talent Economy Posted on: Aug 21st, 2017

    In analyzing factoids from the recent listing of the Fortune 500, I came up with a startling data point. The F500 have a combined total revenue of…

  • Misys, D+H combine to form Fintech company Finastra Posted on: Aug 15th, 2017

    Published 15 June 2017 UK-based financial services software provider Misys and Canada-based payments and lending…

  • Inforum: Mixed emotions Posted on: Aug 14th, 2017

    Updated with comments from Charles Phillips, CEO of Infor The buzz at Infor’s annual user conference (and a side analyst summit) was around…

  • SAP Leonardo: The dawn of intelligent applications Posted on: Aug 6th, 2017

    By Vinnie Mirchandani on July 10, 2017 At SapphrieNow a few weeks ago, SAP’s Hasso Plattner painted the vision of “Intelligent Applications”…

  • Why midmarket customers love Workday Posted on: Jul 28th, 2017

    Since its early days, I have heard Workday executives talk about having a highly scalable cloud so large companies would feel comfortable moving off…

  • 'Irevna is constantly redefining KPO landscape' Posted on: Jul 27th, 2017

    Six years ago Crisil-Irevna, the KPO wing of leading credit rating agency, Crisil, pioneered the offshoring of investment research work to the…


Read more