taway19920706

Likewise. I know people who bought helicopters from the money they made during the boom years pre-2000.

My current workplace has implemented a custom SAP HANA-based solution for forecasting (code is written in a mixture of Python and R). I wasn't involved in the project but I'm not convinced it couldn't have been architected completely differently - perhaps a suite of microservices running on K8S with a PostgreSQL backend. Having an in-memory database licensed by RAM usage quickly gets mother-f'ing expensive as Nathan Fielder would say.

Especially considering Bill McDermott (current CEO) used to be CEO of SAP...

Trivia time...

Back in the 90s Sybase was the only "major" database that SAP didn't support, ostensibly because it didn't support row-level locking, only page-level. Support for SQL Server 6.5 was added in 1993/1994 with the assistance of Microsoft (SQL Server also only supported page-level locking at the time and was still based largely on Sybase). Sybase ASE was only supported by SAP many years later, after they'd bought the company (primarily, I believe for the now-discontinued mobile products).

Yes, fair point - I didn't explain myself clearly (I've been commenting too much in this thread as it is!). My thinking is that why would they speak up? Lidl has deep pockets so the thinking was probably "another $5/10/20 million will get the project over the line". Not looking at the project and saying "we've billed you so much already, we've delivered something that's not fit for purpose so we'll absorb some of that and get something that works".

For all its faults, SAP is the market leader ERP. Without knowing anything more than what I've read in the general press, I'm fairly confident that the implementation could have been a success.

It's an interesting observation. SAP has opened up some of their offerings (like OpenUI5) but there's been very little buy-in. Perhaps it's also partly due to the earlier comments from then-SAP CTO Shai Agassi claiming that open source stimulates innovation? Maybe it's because the products aren't great (I'm no fan of UI5).

FWIW, I'm a massive HANA skeptic - I think it's overpriced and SAP betting the farm on it a few years ago wasn't necessarily the best option. It's a product that was put together from various disparate components - TREX, P*TIME (from Transact in Memory), etc - and that shows. It hangs together like something made of brown paper and string, with so many tuneables it puts Oracle to shame.

Jeez, don't mention Gartner. If I see another $%&" "magic quadrant" in my life it'll be too soon.

As a matter of interest, what's it being replaced with?

Agreed! SAP's GUI is generally terrible for occasional users (luckily most have now been moved to web-based applications, of varying levels of user friendliness), but in the hands of experienced back office staff it works well. Not pretty, but very functional and with shortcuts for everything.

Agree 100% - NIH is a huge thing with SAP, along with very often picking the wrong horse (Silverlight anyone?). They've also built their new PaaS using Cloud Foundry, which I'm not certain about...

I'm glad that someone else feels the same way I do about OData and UI5. I've used both extensively (initially to learn more about them and then because I need to develop solutions that can be supported by customers) and neither is, well, ideal. The worst is that the SAP ecosystem is a massive echo chamber, filled with fanboys saying how wonderful OData and UI5 are. Really, they're not - UI5 is open source and yet no-one uses it. Why? And let me not get started with CAP (WTF did you give a product the same name as Brewer's theorem?).

There have been some attempts to extract some of the UI5 controls so that they can be used with React/Angular but I can't see those ever being adopted. I've worked with UI5 development teams that struggle with even getting the basics of Git and love using that godawful WebIDE, so I have no hope for customers being dragged away from SAP solutions to anything vaguely "industry standard".

Sorry for the negativitiy, but after 20+ years of SAP paying my bills (and paying them well), I'm even more cynical than ever.

It's the same today - S/4HANA is still accessible from the GUI and DIAG is still used. Web applications (which SAP is pushing customers towards) are freed from this, of course (they talk native http to the SAP application server).

Remember that back in the late 90s SAP had a native GUI that ran on Windows, OS/2 and Unix (Motif-based) and each had their own native controls (a native Windows listbox is implemented differently from a Motif one, for example). Developers would develop a UI in ABAP with platform-independent controls and that UI would be sent over the wire to the client as DIAG and the client would translate that into the native control and data, etc for the end user.

Agree 100%. The whole "management consulting" industry is rotten and all of the "Big 4/5" accounting firms suck. There are boutique consultancies that do excellent work but so many CIOs will go with Accenture et al. because of their name and perhaps because they perform their annual audits, etc.

BTW, on the last point - ABAP (SAP's proprietary language) has improved a lot over the years. Variable names are no longer so short (a vestige of the R/2 mainframe days) and the language has adopted a lot of features from Java and JavaScript. Not always the best (OOP like it's Java in 1998, woo!), but definitely a lot better than in the past.

Not AFAIK but there are components for governance, risk and compliance, etc.

Bit harsh to mention this, but SAP (who run SAP ERP internally, naturally) have not been immune from bribery scandals -

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/sap-apologise-to-south-...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sap-se-safrica-exclusive-...

A bit more background: https://www.news24.com/Fin24/what-sap-really-knew-when-it-pa...

Did the WebGUI really use AJAX in 2003? IIRC the early versions still used the old standalone (AGate/WGate) ITS, not even the integrated version.

Indeed, for a long time it seemed like SAP didn't "get" cloud. Having to sign long contracts and speak to an account executive to get access to their cloud platform (rebranded every few months, now "Business Technology Platform", BTP) was the way they did things. Contrast with Google, Amazon, etc.

I've not yet used S/4HANA Cloud (only the on-premise version), but it looks to me like it's just a hosted version of standard S/4HANA but with various restrictions on what you can customise etc. No real elasticity, cloud scaling, etc. SAP ERP has been multi-tenant since at least R/3 in 1992 (I never used R/2) so "Cloud ERP" smells to me like "we host it for you and call it cloud".

Yes, I am rather cynical at times.

Implementing SAP in retail has its own challenges. The large number of products ("articles") sold, locations ("sites"), handling POS data etc.

My first ever SAP implementation was for a large retailer and the project was cancelled (they later implemented SAP ~10 years later after the product matured somewhat) and another project 8 years later was also cancelled. Only two SAP projects I've been involved in that have been cancelled and both were retail (and using IS-Retail, SAP's solution for retail industries).

Hey, keep your hands off Debian! :P (I say this as as retired Debian developer)

I'm no fan of CAP but I love your YouTube videos - greetings from another NeoVIM fan :)

Indeed it is. Even when using other development tools (eg, ABAP in Eclipse or the third-party addons for VS Code), the code is still stored in the database and executed from there by the ABAP VM. There's no such thing as "offline development" with SAP ABAP, although people are working on it...

Not the OP, but my feeling is that you use standardised processes when they are not your core. For example, if you produce a widget using various raw materials, is the way you pay your staff delivering any competitive advantage? Or the MRP process you use to re-order engineering spares? Probably not - standardise those. Implement unique processes where they differentiate you from your competition. Standardise everything else.

This. SAP has no restrictions on how much you customise it - you can customise and extend to your heart's content. The problems come during upgrade - SAP has very mature tooling to manage upgrades but a customer who has veered too far from standard will need to rework their customisations to fit the new version.

Many many customers have been burned by this over the years - being too trigger happy and customising/building their own extensions rather than using the out-the-box functionality. Packaged software exists for a reason, don't use it like a PaaS to built your own solutions.

SAP is now pushing customers to "keep the core clean" and stick to standard as much as possible, which is definitely a move in the right direction.

You would think so, but all of the large consulting firms (Accenture, Deloitte, etc) are driven by billing and people wanting to climb the corporate ladder. What the customer needs comes a distant second. Many projects are staffed with 90-95% juniors or people who have no industry knowledge.

I've worked alongside consultants from Accenture, Deloitte, IBM, etc over the years and, while many of them are very competent, I would /never/ engage one of those large system integrators (SIs) on any project I was involved in. There are many excellent individuals working for those companies, but the companies themselves are terrible and you will struggle to get any of the excellent people involved during your implementation. The experts will appear during the early stages of the consulting sales cycle but will be nowhere to be seen during the implementation.

Unfortunately this is the dirty little secret of SAP implementations. Many SAP customers think "I'll pay top dollar and get a good SI" but they end up getting the latest round of juniors doing the implementation. Seen it many a time.

> But it looks like sub-ERP functions (payroll, HR, etc) have been tackled by many companies and they are wildly successful.

That's true but TBH, even those that are wildly successful aren't actually that great. I've implemented Workday as a replacement for the user-facing portions of SAP's HR and while it looks good, it's nowhere near as flexible. There's a lot of stuff I would expect to be available in Workday and just isn't. That surprised me as Workday is pretty much the HR market leader.

TLDR; Opportunities are there for new companies to do ERP better. It's not easy though...

SAP is successful because they've spent over 50 years learning how businesses work and somewhat successfully implemented reasonably configurable processes within their software. You need to handle MRP? Check. Multi-country payroll with complete integration to finance? Check. Even things as esoteric as downstream oil production (think ARAMCO). Check.

I'm not sure why in the early days they were more succesful than the competitors (JD Edwards, BAAN, etc) - all of the others were doing something similar but SAP overtook them all. Perhaps it was because the system was very flexible - if you needed to enhance the SAP-delivered functionality or build your own to integrated with SAP, they delivered tooling to do so (very crude in the early days, a lot better now).

Related to this is that almost all application souce is available to customers (not open source, but available to view and modify if required). For those who've never worked with SAP, the majority of the application code in their on-premise systems is written in a proprietary COBOL-like 4GL called ABAP. One of SAP's key differentiators in the early years was that customers had access to all of this code and, with the required access, could extend/modify as needed. A masterstroke IMHO.

Source: I've worked as an SAP consultant for 20+ years (including a fair number of those working for SAP) and I'm no fan of any of their products. For the number of extremely intelligent people who work there (and I mean that sincerely - a lot of their employees are /extremely/ smart and forward thinking), the code quality and quality control of their products is abysmal. It's like the majority of the code is written by people who did a training course last week and they /love/ overengineering things, reinventing the wheel or backing the wrong horse. SAP went all in on Silverlight at one point and these days they love OData, which NO-ONE really uses. It also took them years and years to officially support a browser other than IE.

At times they have done some pretty forward-thinking things though. In the late 80s they adopted three-tier before most (R/3, the first three-tier release came out in 1992) and they cleverly have a very portable application. Back in the days of the Unix wars SAP ran on pretty much every OS and all the major databases (heck, Microsoft had to convince them to port to NT and SQL Server, primarily so that Microsoft could run SAP on NT in their own back office).

Rambling a bit here but SAP still pays my bills (and fairly well at that), but I'm no fan and I'm always looking for a way out. Unfortunately, for me the situation is like many SAP customers - once you've checked in, it's hard to leave (apologies to The Eagles).

"but why wouldn't you consider that a core part of your business worth investing into"

Yes, that's true, and every organization of any size (one sufficiently large enough to implement SAP) will have experts in those domains. The problem is that implementing them in software is a large task - definitely not impossible, or even extremely difficult (it's just CRUD on a grand scale), but you need software that can change quickly when new legislation is implemented, etc. Painful, and the reason why so many do implement a COTS ERP. Hell, even Google run SAP S/4HANA these days (they migrated off Oracle ERP AFAIK).

Indeed, to SAP the "partner ecosystem" is a big thing. I think they realised early on that if they were to succeed, their success would be driven by consultants with "business expertise" who were recommending SAP as "best of breed".

Of course, the reality is that many of those consultants who are being charged to customers at eyewatering rates just finished the training course last week and are now "senior".