ForumsHome

The "problem" with SAP, or with any maintenance management software that's fully integrated with other applications (document management, inventory, purchasing, etc.), is that a successful implementation requires an extremely well-managed combination of business process modifications, software module customizations, and technology enhancements. It also demands a fairly labor-intensive effort to get the "right" data in the system to begin with (even in highly-regulated industries, it's common to find drawings that don't match physical configurations, design requirements that don't match buyer or vendor specs, inventory lists that don't match the parts in stock, written procedures that don't match the way the people actually perform a maintenance task, etc.). To complicate all that, most organizations have a lot of little "empires" that an integrated system threatens to eliminate -- so the very people who could initiate a simple change to make the system successful are often the ones working hardest to ensure that it fails.

SAP and similar offerings are often marketed like off-the-shelf solutions, but implementing them can easily cost two to three times the purchase price or license fee. (I'm not sure that most senior executives understand or believe that going in.) As such, it's a lucrative product on which to leverage a consulting practice, but it's not one that necessarily leaves your clients with a good taste in their mouths (especially if the ROI is several years out).