[3822] in SAPr3-news
Re: Forrestor report on R/3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter X)
Thu Sep 25 14:27:24 1997
To: sapr3-news@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 10:49:39 -0800
From: "Peter X" <netgod@mindless.com>
"bart V" wrote:
>
> Folks,
> Have you seen this report ?
> It predicts that SAP will peak in 1997 and decline later on, it also
> predicts that
> a majority of implementations will have painful problems all the time.
>
> It talks about the steps to take to achieve success in SAP implementation,
> it cites the past successful implementation's scope and size and warns
> user's not to wait till 3 or 4 years to see the end result.
>
> A very useful report. I would love to hear the opinion of this newsgroup
> readers..
>
> http://www.forrester.com/hp_apr96pkr.htm
>
> what are the statistics? Where do we stand? How implementations have
> failed in the past? Could we provide solutions to the ever changing,
> booming eCommerce requirements?
>
> --
> bart@panix.com
>
This report (dated April 1996) has been discussed a lot.
Forrester fails to show why SAP R/3 has a rep of being so risky / expensive to implement. The reason for this is that too many people try to cash in on SAP implementations without having a clue about R/3 at all.
R/3 is not hard to implement if you know what you're doing. You have to do proper research, do some BPR wherever necessary, and stay away from too many modifications.
SAP's ASAP (accelerated SAP) approach, in addition to some of the so-called 'SAP-Specialists' finally getting some real hands-on experience, will lead to less implementation problems in the next years.
IMHO, there is no excuse for steering committees and execs not doing their homework. How can people lead huge implementation projects (of any software) without even knowing the basics?
The Forrester Report states correctly:
Most R/3 implementations stretch the limits of both company and systems integrator project management skills.
This lack of skills can't be blamed on the software.
However, I disagree with the approach suggested by Forrester to isolate R/3 and use third party software for interfaces etc.
The interaction between the R/3 components are what makes a complex integrated solution manageable. You want to minimize the possible conflicts during upgrades, and put as little effort into wrestling with interfaces and legacy systems as possible.
For the sake of productiveness, would you rather go for a package like MS Office, or instead use e.g. WordPerfect, Harvard Graphics, Foxpro, Lotus Notes, Visio, OnTime and AmiPro, and try to deal with imcompatibilities and a different look-and-feel? And more important, how much technical insight can you expect from your endusers?
The paragraph "The impact of the global 2000's R/3 adventure' is totally nonsense, and shows how little those people know about R/3. Customizing a complex piece of software requires great functional and technical skills, so what? Statements like "The only way [...] is to stay externally focused." and "Large-scale re-engineering is not worth it." sound more like tabloid headlines than serious research.
My conclusion is, the authors have either a vast amount of Oracle or Baan stocks, or are afraid of a world market domination (Microsoft!).
A lot of statements are exaggerated or plain wrong, and the market proves Forrester wrong, anyway.
Peter
R/3 Basis Consultant
-------------------------- http://forumsweb.com -------------------------
Free private/public online conferencing and Usenet newsgroups
