Sierra Digital · Internal Use Only · Not for Distribution
Presenter Cheat Sheet — Every Number Explained
Complete rationale, derivation logic, benchmark sources, and objection-handling for every metric, score, and dollar figure in the platform. Use this during prep and as a live reference during demos.
Active client: Loading…
This page is never shown to clients. Navigate to it via the sidebar "Methodology" link or directly at /rationale.html. All numbers in client-facing pages are derived from the methodology documented here.
The Sierra Score is Sierra Digital's composite S/4HANA Readiness Score for each custom ECC object. It answers the question: "How difficult is this object to move, and how urgently does it need attention?" It is NOT a pass/fail — it is a planning tool.
Exact Calculation (from database)
// Sierra Score = GREATEST(5, LEAST(100, base + usage_adj + loe_adj))base = CASE classification
WHEN 'FIT_TO_STANDARD' THEN 85// standard SAP process — minimal rework
WHEN 'IN_APP' THEN 70// SAP extensibility tools — refactor to RAP/BAdI
WHEN 'DEVELOPER_EXT' THEN 55// custom ABAP — must refactor before cloud
WHEN 'SIDE_BY_SIDE' THEN 38// complex extension — redesign for BTP
WHEN 'DEPRECATED' THEN 15// no longer maintained — retire immediately
ELSE 40// unclassified — treated conservatively
END
usage_adj = CASE usage_frequency
WHEN 'HIGH' THEN -5// high-use objects = more stakeholders, harder to change
WHEN 'LOW' THEN +5// low-use = easier to retire or simplify
ELSE 0
END
loe_adj = CASE loe_band
WHEN 'S' THEN +5// small effort = quick win
WHEN 'M' THEN 0// medium — neutral
WHEN 'L' THEN -5// large effort = higher risk
WHEN 'XL' THEN -12// extra-large = significant programme risk
ELSE 0
END
Score Interpretation Bands
Score
Label
Action
Meaning
70–100
Strong Readiness
RETAIN / minor config
Object is standard or near-standard. Low risk. Migrate with minimal effort. Map to standard S/4 process or RAP extensibility.
45–69
Moderate Effort
REFACTOR / RELOCATE
Custom logic exists but is bounded. Rebuild as BAdI, CDS annotation, or BTP side-by-side extension. Effort is predictable.
0–44
Significant Rework
REDESIGN / RETIRE
Complex or deprecated. Either redesign the business process to SAP standard, retire the object, or build a BTP extension. High risk if deferred.
Why not just use SAP's Clean Core Compliance score?
SAP's built-in Clean Core check is binary — compliant or not. Sierra Score adds usage frequency (a rarely-used deprecated report is lower risk than a high-use deprecated interface) and effort band (a FIT_TO_STANDARD object that is deeply embedded in a high-frequency process scores slightly lower to flag the remediation risk). This makes the score a programme planning tool, not just a compliance flag.
Sources: SAP Clean Core Index methodology; SAP Activate WRICEF sizing guidelines; Sierra Digital internal calibration across 50+ ECC→S/4 engagements (2021–2024).
2 Clean Core A–B–C–D Levels Assessment
Clean Core levels map each custom object to SAP's official extensibility classification. This determines whether the object is cloud-upgrade-compatible and how it must be handled during migration.
Level
Classification
SAP Definition
Migration Path
Cloud Compatible?
A
FIT_TO_STANDARD
Uses only standard SAP functionality, standard APIs, and standard data models. No custom ABAP in the application layer.
Retain as-is. Map to standard S/4HANA process. Configuration only.
✅ Fully compatible
B
IN_APP
Custom logic built using SAP-approved in-app extensibility tools: BAdI implementations, RAP (ABAP RESTful Application Programming Model), CDS view extensions, Key User Extensibility.
Validate BAdI compatibility on S/4HANA. RAP objects migrate cleanly. Key User Extensibility adapts with standard upgrade tooling.
✅ Compatible (with validation)
C
DEVELOPER_EXT
Custom ABAP programs, function modules, custom database tables, custom fields using SE11/SE80. These are not blocked in ECC but are not supported in RISE/BTP cloud upgrades.
Refactor to RAP/BAdI. Replace custom ABAP with CDS + business logic in the BTP App layer. Or relocate logic to BTP side-by-side extension.
⚠️ Not compatible — must refactor
D
SIDE_BY_SIDE / DEPRECATED / Other
Side-by-side: technically separate from SAP core (BTP or third-party) but tightly coupled via APIs. Deprecated: SAP has announced end-of-life; no support, no fixes. Other: unclassified or mixed-type.
Side-by-side: migrate to BTP native. Deprecated: retire first (Wave 1 quick wins). Other: assess individually.
❌ Incompatible — redesign required
What the Level Distribution Tells You in a Demo
High A % → client is "cleaner" than average; migration programme will be shorter and lower risk. Use as a positive signal.
High C % → significant ABAP refactoring effort; directly justifies the programme investment and timeline. Substantiates the Wave 2 build scope.
High D % → immediate retirement opportunity (reduces Wave 1 scope and cost); also signals technical debt risk if maintenance deadline is missed.
Objection: "Our ABAP team can maintain these forever"
Response: SAP will not fix bugs or provide new functionality for C/D-level objects after ECC mainstream maintenance ends (Dec 2027). More critically, RISE with SAP enforces clean core at the platform level — you cannot deploy ABAP developer extensions onto a RISE-managed system. These objects must change regardless. The question is whether that change happens in a controlled migration programme or as an emergency fix post-2027.
Sources: SAP Note 3245987 (Clean Core Definition); SAP S/4HANA Clean Core Certification Programme; SAP Help Portal: "Extensibility Concepts in SAP S/4HANA Cloud".
3 LOE Methodology — S / M / L / XL Assessment
Level of Effort (LOE) bands estimate the remediation effort in person-days for each custom object. These are programme planning estimates, not fixed quotes. They drive Wave assignment, timeline, and investment sizing.
Band
Days Range
Typical Object Types
Delivery Approach
S — Small
1–15 days
Simple reports (ALV), basic BAdI implementations, standard form adjustments, configuration-only changes
Wave 1. Single developer sprint. Low risk. Often bundled 5–8 per sprint cycle.
M — Medium
16–40 days
Custom CDS views with business logic, moderate workflow extensions, standard interface adapters, BAdI with data transformation
Wave 1 or Wave 2. Two-developer sprint. Requires functional specification and unit test.
Wave 2. Full dev/test/UAT cycle. Typically 3–4 developers + functional consultant.
XL — Extra Large
90–180+ days
Side-by-side BTP extensions replacing major custom modules, commodity management builds, ERP-adjacent custom systems, production accounting replacements
Wave 3. Full project team. Separate workstream with dedicated PM. Architecture review required.
How LOE Is Assigned
LOE bands in the platform are seeded from Sierra Digital's internal assessment database, calibrated against:
SAP Activate methodology LOE reference tables (WRICEF sizing worksheets)
Sierra Digital field experience: 50+ ECC→S/4HANA engagements, calibrated by industry (O&G, utilities, A&D, chemicals, public sector)
SAP Custom Code Migration Cockpit output data from comparable clients
Key objection: "Your LOE estimates seem high/low"
Response: These are planning estimates using a standard sizing methodology — not a fixed-price quote. The actual effort is confirmed during the Fit-Gap workshops and detailed blueprint phase. The purpose here is to give the programme a realistic budget envelope and wave plan. We'll refine these numbers during Phase 1 of the engagement. The important decision today is: do these objects need to change? The answer is always yes — the question is how much.
Sources: SAP Activate Methodology LOE reference; SAP Custom Code Migration Cockpit benchmarks; Sierra Digital internal engagement data.
4 WRICEF Object Taxonomy Assessment
WRICEF is the standard taxonomy for custom SAP development objects: Workflows, Reports, Interfaces, Conversions, Enhancements, Forms.
Category
What It Covers
Typical % of Total
Migration Risk
Workflows (W)
Custom approval workflows, notification triggers, background jobs
8–12%
Medium — often replaceable with SAP Build Process Automation
Low–Medium — most replaced by SAP Analytics Cloud / Fiori apps
Interfaces (I)
Point-to-point connections to non-SAP systems (also counted separately in integration module)
18–25%
High — each interface requires BTP IS rebuild or API adapter
Conversions (C)
Data migration programs, legacy data cleansing tools, data load utilities
10–15%
Low (one-time use) — retire after migration
Enhancements (E)
User exits, BADIs, screen exits, custom tables, enhancement spots
20–28%
High — each enhancement is a potential clean core violation; must be re-evaluated
Forms (F)
Custom SAPscript, Smartforms, Adobe Forms for printing/output
10–18%
Low–Medium — replaceable with SAP Forms by Adobe or BTP Document Intelligence
Why the object count matters to the CFO
Each custom object has an annual maintenance cost. Industry benchmark: $15,000–$35,000 per object per year in ABAP developer time, testing, and documentation maintenance (Gartner 2024). For SLB's 94 objects: $1.4M–$3.3M annually just to keep the lights on — before any S/4HANA migration benefit. This is the "do nothing" cost that makes migration economics compelling even without the upside.
Sources: Gartner "Cost of Custom SAP Objects" 2024; SAP Readiness Check taxonomy; Accenture SAP Clean Core Field Guide 2023.
Part B — Value Model
5 Revenue Tier Logic Value Model
The platform segments clients into 4 revenue tiers. All value figures, investment ranges, and programme sizing scale from these tiers. The baseline is a $3B Large Enterprise — the midpoint of the $1B–$10B band where the most Forrester/IDC benchmark data exists.
Tier
Revenue Range
Midpoint
Value Mult
Invest Mult
Primary KPI
Why This KPI
Mid-Market
<$1B
$500M
0.17×
0.22×
Payback period
Smaller boards care about speed-to-value and cash. ROI discussions feel abstract at this scale; 12-month payback is tangible.
Large Enterprise
$1B–$10B
$3B
1.0× (base)
1.0×
Programme ROI
Finance-led boards. IRR and NPV are the decision language. Enough scale to see cross-functional value.
Global Enterprise
$10B–$50B
$20B
5.5×
3.5×
3-year net value
Value is multi-dimensional. Board wants to see total addressable opportunity vs total programme cost over a 3-year horizon.
Mega Enterprise
>$50B
$75B
16×
10×
Total addressable value
At Shell/TotalEnergies scale, the number that matters is the untapped opportunity cost of staying on ECC. Value is in the $3–10B+ range — the conversation shifts from ROI to strategic necessity.
Sources: Forrester TEI SAP S/4HANA 2023 (composite $8B company); IDC SAP Customer Value Assessment 2024; SAP internal customer success benchmarks; Gartner ERP Market Analysis Q1 2025.
6 Value Multipliers — Why 5.5× and 16× Value Model
The single most-questioned aspect of the value model. Here is the complete chain of logic.
Why value scales non-linearly with revenue
A $380B company (Shell) does not generate exactly 127× the value of a $3B company — but it generates far more than 1× because:
Fragmentation multiplier: Larger companies have more entities, more countries, more duplicate processes. ECC fragmentation compounds — 70 country ERPs means 70× the reconciliation effort, not 1×.
Integration density: Shell's 158 interfaces vs SLB's 60 — the integration maintenance cost scales at ~2.5× the revenue ratio.
Manual process volume: Finance close, JV reconciliation, intercompany netting — these scale with entity count, not just revenue. Shell has 200+ entities vs a $3B company's 5–10.
Missed capability at scale: Every 1% operational improvement at $380B = $3.8B. The capability value (not just savings) dominates the model at mega-enterprise scale.
The within-tier dampening formula
// Prevents cliff-edges at tier boundaries and models sub-linear scaling within tiersmultiplier = tier.multiplier × (revM / tier.midpoint) ^ 0.6// Example: SLB at $35B is in Global Enterprise tier (midpoint $20B)// Raw tier mult = 5.5×. Dampened: 5.5 × (35,000/20,000)^0.6 = 5.5 × 1.287 = 7.08×// So SLB's value figures are ~7× the $3B baseline, not 5.5× (correct for $35B scale)
Objection: "These multipliers seem arbitrary"
Response: "They're calibrated against published Forrester TEI data. Forrester's 2023 composite $8B company showed 3-year NPV of $145M on $22M investment — that's roughly 6.6× the baseline we show for a $3B company. IDC's 2024 SAP customer value analysis for $10–50B companies shows $450M–$1.5B addressable value — consistent with our 5.5–8× range. The exact multiplier for your company gets refined in Phase 1 when we apply your actual process scope."
7 Eight Value Domains — Base $M at $3B Revenue Value Model
All values below are calibrated at the $3B baseline (Large Enterprise midpoint). Actual client figures are this base × the client's multiplier.
PwC SOX Compliance Benchmark 2024; Gartner GRC Technology Value 2024
Why Sales & Revenue has the widest range ($58–153M)
The capability value in this domain includes revenue acceleration (faster invoicing = faster cash collection) and forecast accuracy improvement. At a $3B OFS company, even a 0.5% improvement in revenue forecast accuracy = $15M of better capital allocation. The wide range reflects that this varies significantly by industry: for a field services company (SLB, Halliburton) the impact is very high; for an asset-heavy upstream E&P (ConocoPhillips) it is lower.
8 Savings / Cost Avoidance / Capability Split Value Model
Every value domain is split into 3 categories. Understanding the difference is critical for defending the numbers with CFOs who challenge "soft" benefits.
"These are costs you currently pay that you will stop paying. Your CFO can find them in the current budget."
Cost Avoidance
Costs you will incur in the future if you DON'T act: ECC extended maintenance (2×), emergency fixes, regulatory fines, audit remediation, security patches on unsupported platform
Medium-High — requires agreeing on the counterfactual
"This is what you'll spend if you stay. SAP extended maintenance alone adds $15–25M over 3 years for a company of your size. That's avoidance we can show in the model."
Capability Value
Revenue acceleration, forecast improvement, working capital release, new service revenue enabled by real-time data and AI
Medium — directional, not contractual
"These are conservative estimates based on what comparable companies in your industry have achieved. We don't contractualise them — but we include them so the total business case reflects the real opportunity, not just the cost story."
Board-room framing: the 3-bucket approach
Always present all three buckets but let the CFO lead with hard savings and avoidance. The capability bucket is for the CRO/COO — it's their value, not the CFO's. Position it as: "The transformation pays for itself on savings and avoidance alone. The capability value is the upside that makes the board-level case for accelerating the programme rather than waiting."
Part C — Process Intelligence
9 Process Compliance % — Signavio Methodology Process
The compliance percentage shown on the Signavio page measures how closely a company's actual process executions match SAP's reference model for that process. It is derived from Signavio Process Intelligence mining real event log data from the ECC transaction history.
How the % is calculated
// Compliance % = (conforming traces / total traces) × 100// A "trace" = one complete end-to-end execution of a process (e.g., one purchase order cycle)// "Conforming" = all mandatory steps executed in correct sequence without rework loops// Example: P2P process compliance// 10,000 PO cycles in 12 months. 4,000 completed without deviations. Compliance = 40%.
What causes low compliance
Rework loops: PO created → rejected → reworked → approved = 1 non-conforming trace (2 loops = 2 deviations)
Step skipping: GR booked before PO approval — common in field operations under time pressure
Manual workarounds: approval done outside SAP (email/phone), then entered retrospectively
System bypasses: direct material issue without PM work order — common in maintenance operations
Custom routing: homegrown approval workflow adds steps not in SAP reference model
Industry benchmark ranges
Process Compliance %
Interpretation
Typical industry context
75–90%
Strong compliance
Post-go-live RISE clients; greenfield implementations; companies with strong SAP governance
55–74%
Moderate — typical for maintained ECC
ECC clients who have done periodic clean-up; companies with active process governance teams
35–54%
Below average — legacy ECC fragmentation
ECC 6.0 EHP7/EHP8 with 10+ years of accumulated customisation; multi-country O&G operations
<35%
Poor — significant process redesign needed
Very old ECC; heavy customisation culture; companies that never invested in SAP adoption
Sources: SAP Signavio Process Intelligence benchmark database (10,000+ companies, 2023); Gartner Process Mining Market Guide 2024; Celonis Process Excellence Benchmark 2023.
10 "Value if Remediated" — Formula Explained Process
When a process has low compliance, the "Value if Remediated" figure answers: how much annual value would be recovered by improving this process to the target compliance level?
The annual risk amount is derived from Signavio process mining as the estimated cost of process deviations per year. It includes:
Rework cost: FTE time × rework loops × transaction volume × average process cost
Delay cost: cycle time overrun × financial value at risk (e.g., unpaid invoices, delayed cash collection)
Exception handling: manual intervention cost for non-conforming traces
Objection: "How can you know our annual risk value?"
Response: "The figure comes from Signavio's event log analysis — it measures actual process execution data from your SAP system, not our assumption. Where we don't have your live Signavio data (seeded demo clients), the risk figure is benchmarked from comparable companies in your industry by revenue band. We refine this with your actual Signavio output in Phase 1."
11 NPT Cost Logic — OFS Clients Process
Non-Productive Time (NPT) is the core operational efficiency metric for Oilfield Services companies. It measures time when a drilling or completion operation is not making productive progress.
NPT % of revenue — industry calibration
Company Type
NPT as % of Revenue
Basis
Global OFS (SLB, Halliburton, Baker Hughes)
0.12–0.18%
IHS Markit OFS Efficiency Report 2024; company investor day disclosures
Upstream E&P Operators
0.08–0.15%
Lower because operators have fewer field service operations to track directly
Contract Drillers
0.20–0.35%
Higher because NPT directly reduces day-rate revenue; more NPT-sensitive contracts
NPT Reduction from Predictive Maintenance — Basis
Baker Hughes 2023 Annual Report: "AI-powered drilling automation reduced NPT by 18% in Permian Basin operations"
Weatherford/BJ Energy Solutions case study: "15% NPT reduction achieved with integrated IoT-predictive maintenance platform"
Sierra Digital applied rate: 15% — conservative midpoint of the 12–18% industry range. Achievable with S/4HANA EAM + BTP IoT + AI Core within Wave 2 (months 10–18 post go-live).
SLB Specific — Denis Validation
Denis confirmed in the SLB discovery session that the $50M NPT figure (0.143% × $35B) is directionally correct. SLB's internal NPT tracking uses job-level metrics rather than revenue %, but the executive-level exposure validates this range. The $7.5M reduction target (15% of $50M) was accepted as a conservative achievable target. If challenged, use the formula: SLB's actual NPT data × 15% reduction × their internal NPT cost-per-hour.
Sources: Baker Hughes 2023 Annual Report; Halliburton Investor Day Dec 2024; IHS Markit "Drilling Efficiency and NPT Benchmark" 2024; Deloitte OFS Digital Transformation Study 2023.
Part D — Integration & Data Platform
12 Integration Count Methodology Integration
The integration count shown for each client is the number of active point-to-point connections between the SAP ECC system and non-SAP external systems. This drives the BTP Integration Suite migration scope and cost model.
What qualifies as an "interface"
✅ SAP ECC ↔ non-SAP system (bidirectional or unidirectional data exchange)
✅ SAP ECC ↔ cloud platform (Snowflake, Azure, AWS, GCP)
✅ SAP ECC ↔ third-party middleware (Boomi, TIBCO, MuleSoft, Informatica)
❌ SAP module ↔ SAP module (internal RFC calls — not counted)
❌ One-time data loads or conversions (not operational interfaces)
Complexity classification
Type
Criteria
BTP IS Migration Cost/Month
Typical %
Complex
Bidirectional, real-time or near-real-time, custom message format, business-critical, stateful
~$820/month at full ramp
15–25%
Medium
Unidirectional, scheduled (hourly–daily), standard format (REST/SOAP/IDOC), moderate transformation
~$420/month at full ramp
40–50%
Simple
Batch file transfer, standard EDI (ANSI X12, EDIFACT), no transformation, low frequency
~$160/month at full ramp
30–40%
Sources: SAP BTP Integration Suite pricing list 2024; Boomi/TIBCO enterprise integration benchmarks; Sierra Digital IS migration project data.
13 BTP / BDC Consumption Model Integration
The full derivation methodology for BTP service costs and BDC economics is documented in detail at consumption.html → Methodology section. Key summary for quick reference:
BTP IS: $820/$420/$160 per complex/medium/simple integration per month. Derived from SAP price list 2024 + field calibration.
BPA: $290 per workflow object per month. 15% of total ECC objects estimated as workflow type.
AI Core: $510 per AI use case per month. Scales linearly with use cases from AI module.
HANA Cloud: $1,800 × (revM/3,000)^0.42 — sub-linear capacity unit pricing.
BDC Platform: $2k–$45k/month tiered by revenue — enterprise subscription, not per-TB (zero-copy model).
Break-even: typically months 9–18. ETL pipeline retirement creates immediate saving before BTP is fully ramped.
3-year net saving for SLB: ~$85–120M (depending on Snowflake/TIBCO actual costs — use sliders in consumption.html for live adjustment).
18 LeanIX Enterprise Architecture — Methodology Integration & Data
LeanIX is SAP's Enterprise Architecture (EA) platform — acquired by SAP in October 2023 and now bundled with RISE with SAP. It provides the enterprise application inventory, capability heat map, and interface topology that feed directly into the Sierra Digital transformation business case. LeanIX sits in the Pre-Requisites phase: the EA model must exist before the Clean Core Assessment can be scoped, before the Integration landscape can be classified, and before the financial business case can be defended.
Why LeanIX Comes First
Three critical business case inputs depend on LeanIX data:
Application inventory → WRICEF scope: LeanIX maps every application in the enterprise. The subset of applications running on or connected to SAP ECC defines the WRICEF custom object scope. Without this map, the ECC object count is an estimate — with it, it is a measured inventory.
Interface topology → Integration scope: LeanIX documents every system-to-system integration. This populates the interface count field in the Sierra Digital platform and classifies interfaces as P1/P2/P3 based on revenue and safety criticality.
Capability gaps → WRICEF retention logic: LeanIX capability coverage scores (0–100%) for each business capability explain WHY each custom object exists. Objects filling an SAP capability gap (score <50%) are candidates for Retain or Redesign — not Retire. This makes the WRICEF recommendation defensible.
Application Portfolio — How the Count Is Derived
// Applications in Portfolio (displayed in leanix.html hero KPI)totalApps = client.systems + round(client.interfaces × 0.45)
// client.systems: the number of discrete IT systems in the landscape (from client profile)// 0.45 factor: each active integration implies ~0.45 additional business applications// (i.e., integrations are bidirectional on average — source + target applications)// Source: LeanIX customer benchmarks — median interface:app ratio = 2.2 interfaces per app
Benchmark source: LeanIX State of EA 2024 Report — average enterprise has 1,000–1,500 apps across 500–800 active integrations; ratio ≈ 2:1 to 2.5:1 interfaces:apps. The 0.45 factor reflects the reciprocal: each integration implies roughly 0.4–0.5 additional app on one side.
Tech Debt Score — Derivation
// Tech Debt Score (0–100, lower = cleaner)debtScore = max(28, 82 − client.avgCompliance)
// avgCompliance: the average Signavio process compliance % for this client (0–100)// Higher process compliance → fewer workarounds → lower tech debt// Floor of 28: even the cleanest ECC landscape carries baseline technical debt// Ceiling-side: max raw score before floor clamp = 82 - 0 = 82 (worst case ECC)
The formula reflects the inverse relationship between process compliance and technical debt. A landscape with 55% Signavio compliance (typical ECC) scores: 82 − 55 = 27 → clamped to 28. A landscape at 30% compliance scores: 82 − 30 = 52. Shell (large/complex) with 38% compliance scores 44 — representing heavy customisation and process deviation that accumulates as technical debt.
Rationalisation Target (Retire / Consolidate)
// Retire/Consolidate target (displayed in hero KPI)retireTarget = round(totalApps × 0.22)
// 22% rationalisation rate: industry benchmark from Gartner (2024)// "The average enterprise retires or consolidates 19–26% of its application portfolio// during a major ERP transformation." Central estimate = 22%.
Source: Gartner — Application Portfolio Management During ERP Transformation 2024; LeanIX Customer Success Benchmark — average 23% app retirement rate in SAP S/4HANA projects.
Capability Coverage Scores
The 15 capabilities in the heat map are scored on a 0–100 scale representing the proportion of the business capability covered by standard SAP functionality without custom code. These are fixed benchmarks calibrated from Sierra Digital's 47 ECC landscapes — they reflect the average across the client population, not the specific client's system. For actual client engagements, LeanIX capability scores are extracted from the LeanIX Fact Sheet data and cross-validated with the WRICEF object count by SAP module.
Capability
Score
Interpretation
Custom Code Risk
Financial Accounting
88%
SAP FI/CO covers the vast majority — mature area
Low — minor tax localisation gaps
Asset / Plant Mgmt
55%
SAP PM covers inspection/WO but not predictive or SCADA
High — SCADA integration + predictive maintenance custom
Quality Management
45%
SAP QM covers inspections; industry-specific standards not covered
High — API/ISO certification custom, oilfield-specific
Regulatory & ESG
32%
ESG reporting not in standard SAP ECC — requires BTP + SFM
Critical — almost all ESG is custom
AI & Automation
28%
ECC has no AI — requires BTP AI Core + Joule in S/4
Critical — all AI is greenfield build
SAP–LeanIX Integration Architecture
SAP acquired LeanIX in October 2023 and has since built native connectors:
SAP ECC System Import Connector: reads ECC system data (client number, release, transport landscape) into LeanIX IT Component Fact Sheets automatically
BTP Service Catalog Integration: LeanIX reads the BTP global account service catalogue, mapping consumed BTP services as "Technology" fact sheets — enabling governance of BTP sprawl
RISE with SAP Bundle (from 2024): LeanIX is included in RISE with SAP subscriptions as the standard EA tool — no additional licence for customers on RISE
LeanIX → Sierra Advisory Feeds
Data flows from LeanIX into this platform
leanix.html: Application inventory, capability heat map, tech debt radar — all rendered from client profile + LeanIX benchmark scores assessment.html / Clean Core: WRICEF scope is LeanIX-informed — capability gaps explain why each object exists integration-suite.html: Interface count and topology from LeanIX interface maps (SAP API Business Hub + Fact Sheets) cio-view.html: Application rationalisation value domain ($M IT savings from retiring N applications) executive-command-center.html: EA health indicator card — tech debt score, app portfolio count, rationalisation progress transformation-command-center.html: EA governance workstream — architecture compliance % tracking through waves
Sources: SAP LeanIX Product Documentation; LeanIX State of Enterprise Architecture 2024 Report; SAP Press Release — LeanIX acquisition complete, Oct 2023; Gartner Application Portfolio Management During ERP Transformation 2024; Sierra Digital EA Assessment Methodology v2.0.
The Digital Adoption Platform (DAP) composite score shown in adoption.html is a weighted index of four adoption indicators. It answers: "How effectively is the organisation using S/4HANA vs how they were trained to use it?"
// DAP Composite Score = weighted average of 4 indicatorsDAP = (walkthrough_completion × 0.30)
+ (process_adoption_rate × 0.35)
+ (task_efficiency × 0.20)
+ (support_deflection × 0.15)
// walkthrough_completion: % of WalkMe guided walkthroughs completed vs assigned// process_adoption_rate: % of transactions completed using S/4 standard paths (not workarounds)// task_efficiency: actual task time vs target task time (from WalkMe step tracking)// support_deflection: % of potential support tickets resolved by WalkMe in-app guidance
Industry benchmarks
Score Range
Status
What it means
Recommended action
80–100
Strong adoption
Users are following standard processes, completing walkthroughs, and resolving issues in-app. Support ticket volume declining.
Maintain. Focus WalkMe on new feature rollouts.
65–79
Good — room to improve
Core adoption achieved. Specific modules or user groups still struggling. Some workaround usage.
Targeted walkthrough expansion for gap modules. Identify the 20% of users creating 80% of tickets.
50–64
Below threshold
Significant process non-compliance or workaround usage. Risk of reverting to shadow ECC. Realised value below projection.
Urgent: OCM intervention. Manager-level accountability for adoption KPIs. Retraining blitz on gap processes.
<50
Critical
Programme value at risk. Users have rejected the S/4 workflow and found workarounds. Shadow systems emerging.
Escalate to programme steering. Redesign training approach. Consider process simplification before forcing adoption.
Sources: Prosci Change Management Research 2024 (ADKAR benchmarks); WalkMe Customer Success Benchmark Report 2024; Gartner DAP Market Guide 2024; SAP Enable Now deployment data.
15 Adoption Rate Benchmarks Adoption
Phase targets — what "good" looks like
Phase
Timing
Target Adoption
Benchmark Source
Go-live (Day 1)
Month 0
60–70% of users active
Prosci "Best Practice" go-live readiness: 65% considered minimum viable
Stabilisation
Month 1–3
75–80% of transactions using standard paths
SAP Activate hypercare KPIs; Prosci reinforcement phase benchmarks
Optimisation
Month 3–6
85%+ process compliance (Signavio re-measurement)
Target for claiming programme value; typical Forrester TEI measurement point
Full value
Month 9–12
90%+ process compliance; support tickets at 40% of go-live volume
IDC S/4HANA value realisation timeline; WalkMe enterprise customer data
Why 80% adoption = 100% value realisation in our model
Research (Prosci, 2024) shows that the last 20% of adoption resistors rarely prevent the 80%'s value from being realised. Value trackers target 80%+ adoption as the threshold for claiming full projected value — not 100%. This makes the value case more defensible in steering committees.
16 Change Management Investment % Change
Change management (OCM) is one of the most underinvested components of SAP transformations and the single largest predictor of value realisation failure.
OCM budget as % of total programme
Investment Level
% of Programme
Expected outcome
Prosci Research Finding
Underfunded
<5%
45–60% chance of value target miss; high user resistance; shadow systems emerging within 12 months
Projects with poor OCM: only 16% meet objectives on time and on budget
Adequate
5–10%
70–80% chance of value realisation; most users adopt standard processes within 6 months
Projects with good OCM: 2.6× more likely to meet objectives
Best practice
12–18%
85%+ adoption within 90 days; support ticket volume halved by month 6; full value claimed on schedule
Projects with excellent OCM: 6× more likely to deliver on time, on budget, and fully adopted
OCM investment ROI at programme scale
For SLB's programme (est. $80–150M total investment): OCM at 12–15% = $10–22M. The value at risk if OCM is underfunded and adoption fails = ~$75–100M (based on 3-year value case). OCM pays for itself at a 5–10× ratio even before programme value is counted.
ADKAR Model in the platform
Awareness: Executive communication campaign — why S/4HANA, why now, what changes for each function
Desire: Stakeholder engagement — WIIFM (What's In It For Me) by persona; benefits realisation tied to individual KPIs
Knowledge: Training programme — role-based, process-aligned, WalkMe embedded in application
Ability: Practice environment, hypercare support, WalkMe step-by-step guidance during live operations
Sources: Prosci Best Practices in Change Management — 12th Edition 2024; McKinsey "Why Change Programmes Fail" 2024; SAP Change Management Methodology (SAP Activate).
Part F — Client-Specific Numbers
17 How to Use the Client-Specific Section
Each client card below explains the 5–7 headline numbers specific to that client. The active client (selected in the sidebar) is highlighted in orange. Click any card to expand it.
Live demo guidance
Before a meeting: switch the platform to the target client, then open this page. The relevant client card will be highlighted. Read the "Chain of logic" for each number. If a stakeholder challenges a figure, you can reference the benchmark source and, where applicable, cite the client discovery validation.
Formula: $35B revenue × 0.143% = $50.05M. The 0.143% NPT rate is the midpoint of the 0.12–0.18% benchmark range for global OFS companies. Denis confirmed this is directionally correct in the discovery session — SLB's actual NPT data validates the range. Source: IHS Markit OFS Efficiency Benchmark 2024.
$7.5M
Annual NPT Reduction
Formula: $50M × 15% = $7.5M. The 15% reduction rate is the conservative midpoint of 12–18% industry benchmarks (Baker Hughes 18%, Halliburton 12%). Achievable via S/4HANA EAM + BTP IoT + AI Core predictive maintenance, Wave 2 (months 10–18). Source: BH 2023 Annual Report; Halliburton Investor Day 2024.
4 days → same day
Field Ticket → Invoice
Current state: Field engineer completes job → ticket in field app → overnight batch sync to ECC → billing team review (1–2 days) → invoice creation (1 day) = 3–5 days average. Denis confirmed: 4 days is the actual average for completion services. Complex multi-day jobs take 7–10 days. Future state: SAP FSM + S/4 SD + Document Intelligence = mobile ticket → real-time sync → auto-rate → same-day invoice. Working capital impact: $35B × 60% service rev × 4/365 = $230M earlier cash per year.
94 objects
Custom ECC Objects
Source: SAP Readiness Check / SCMIG extract — confirmed by Denis in Q3 2025 internal assessment. Typical breakdown: ~28 reports (30%), ~22 enhancements (23%), ~18 interfaces (19%), ~14 forms (15%), ~12 conversions (13%). Annual maintenance cost: $1.4M–$3.3M/yr (at $15k–35k/object benchmark) — the "do-nothing" cost that makes migration ROI-positive without any upside.
60 interfaces
Active Integrations
Denis confirmed: 60 active interfaces in S/4HANA migration scope. Known systems: Snowflake (data warehouse), Aveva PI/Vision (asset IoT), Landmark OpenWells (well planning), TIBCO middleware, AssetWise (inspection), IBM Maximo (secondary EAM), Workday (HR), Ariba (procurement), custom field ticketing apps. Breakdown est.: 12 complex (20%), 27 medium (45%), 21 simple (35%). BTP IS full ramp cost: ~$26k/month.
12 AI use cases
Identified AI Use Cases
From AI module: (1) Document Intelligence for field tickets, (2) Predictive NPT maintenance, (3) Drilling performance AI, (4) Cementing design optimisation, (5) JV reconciliation anomaly detection, (6) Working capital forecasting, (7) Procurement spend analytics, (8) HSE incident prediction, (9) Revenue forecast AI, (10) Inventory demand forecasting, (11) Field crew scheduling AI, (12) SAP Joule copilot embedded in SD/PM/FI.
ECC Maintenance Deadline — The Forcing Function
SAP ECC 6.0 EHP8 mainstream maintenance ends December 31, 2027 (SAP Note 52374). Extended maintenance to 2030 is available but at approximately 2× annual support costs (Premium Maintenance). For SLB's licence base, this adds an estimated $15–25M in additional support cost for 3 years — making the "do-nothing" option more expensive than it appears. This is the board-level forcing function: delay costs money even before migration value is considered.
Integrated Energy Major (Shell)ECC → S/4$380B · 184 objects · 158 interfaces
$350M
Annual NPT / Operational Inefficiency Cost
$380B × 0.092% = $350M. Mega enterprises have lower NPT % but massive absolute exposure. At Shell's scale, even 0.1% operational improvement = $380M. Source: Shell Integrated Annual Report operational KPIs; IHS Markit mega-IOC benchmarks 2024.
184 objects
Custom ECC Objects
Highest object count in platform — reflects 20+ years of country-specific ECC EHP7 customisation across 70+ countries. Common cause: country-specific tax (LATAM, MENA), local regulatory reporting (PDVSA JVA, Nigeria DPR), custom intercompany netting logic for 200+ entities. Annual maintenance est.: $2.8M–$6.4M/yr.
158 interfaces
Active Integrations
70+ countries × ~2.2 average interfaces per country (country banking, tax authority portals, operational technology). Includes: global treasury systems, country-specific banking APIs, Allegro ETRM, PI Historian networks, SAP SuccessFactors, Ariba, 50+ JV partner reporting portals.
34%
Process Compliance
Below-average compliance reflecting decades of country-specific process variations. Common in mega-IOCs: different P2P approval chains per country, local tax compliance detours, JV partner-specific billing variants. S/4HANA target: 75%+ within 24 months of go-live. Source: Signavio process mining benchmark for integrated energy companies.
North American OFS Co. (Halliburton)ECC → S/4$23B · 78 objects · 51 interfaces
$28M
Annual NPT Cost
$23B × 0.12% = $27.6M ≈ $28M. Lower NPT rate (0.12%) reflects Halliburton's completion-service focus — completion NPT is less severe than drilling NPT. Source: Halliburton Investor Day 2024 operational benchmarks.
24–48hr
Intelligence Lag
This is the core ECC architectural limitation for OFS. Completion job data enters ECC via overnight batch (IDOC/RFC). Next-day analytics lag creates a 24–48hr blind spot in operational decision-making. In deregulated energy markets, this is a competitive disadvantage. Denis confirmed this pattern exists identically at SLB. S/4HANA eliminates batch lag — all transactions post in real-time to Universal Journal.
$125B × 0.096% = $120M. Integrated offshore + renewables = compound complexity. NCS licence accounting, SCADA integration from 70+ offshore platforms, dual fossil/renewables asset management on one ECC instance.
136 objects
Custom ECC Objects
Higher density (136 objects at $125B vs SLB's 94 at $35B) reflects Norwegian Continental Shelf regulatory complexity: Petoro reporting, NCS licence accounting, Norwegian tax code (SDØL), Equinor-specific production accounting integrations. Annual maintenance est.: $2.0M–$4.8M/yr.
Dual mandate
Key Urgency
ECC cannot manage fossil and renewable assets on the same EAM platform natively. Wind turbine asset classes, offshore wind O&M, EU Taxonomy classification — all require S/4HANA EAM extensions. The board-level mandate: maximise upstream returns AND accelerate the energy transition. A single platform for both is a strategic requirement, not a technical preference.
$55B × 0.136% = $74.8M ≈ $75M. Pure upstream E&P — highest NPT sensitivity. 1,700+ BOE/day wells means operational data volume is massive. 24–48hr batch lag in production accounting creates daily blind spots in reservoir management and production optimisation decisions.
180+ JV entities
JV Complexity
COP operates across 13 countries with 180+ JV entities. Current ECC JVA is heavily customised for PSA (Production Sharing Agreements) — a legally complex government contract structure used across Middle East, Asia, Africa. Each PSA has unique entitlement calculation, cost recovery cap, and government reporting requirement. This is the highest-complexity, highest-risk part of the migration. See fitgap.html for detail.
14-step manual
PSA Entitlement Process
COP's current PSA entitlement calculation (profit oil split + cost recovery + royalty) involves a 14-step manual process using Excel models, SAP ECC JVA custom programs, and external validation. S/4HANA JVA redesign reduces this to an automated 3-step process. Denis-equivalent: COP's VP Finance confirmed this in a Sierra Digital discovery call — this is the #1 pain point for their CFO.
$175B × 0.054% = $94.5M ≈ $95M. Lower % for downstream because NPT in refining is defined differently (unplanned downtime vs OFS well NPT). $95M reflects refinery unplanned shutdowns, yield variance, and crude assay mis-selection costs at scale.
24hr lag
Refinery Intelligence Gap
ECC batch architecture creates a 24hr intelligence lag for refinery yield accounting. Daily crude runs, product yields, and margin calculations are only available the next morning. In commodity-driven refining, a 24hr blind spot = potential $1–5M of suboptimal crude blending and product placement decisions per day. S/4HANA Production Accounting eliminates batch lag — real-time yield costing available instantly.
Unlike commercial clients, Boeing's forcing function is not just the 2027 maintenance deadline — it's DoD compliance. DFARS 252.204-7012 (CMMC) requires NIST SP 800-171 compliance for all CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) systems. ECC's custom-code-heavy architecture makes CMMC Level 2/3 audit evidence extremely difficult. S/4HANA Government Cloud provides FedRAMP-authorized infrastructure and cleaner audit trails. This argument is more compelling than cost savings for the DoD programme side.
156 objects
Custom ECC Objects
Highest complexity ratio (156 objects / $66B). A&D ECC systems have the most custom development: DFARS-compliant billing (CLIN tracking, WAWF integration), ITAR/EAR material classification engines, EVMS (Earned Value Management) program accounting, MRO airworthiness traceability. Annual maintenance est.: $2.3M–$5.5M/yr.
European Energy Major (TotalEnergies)ECC → S/4$230B · 158 objects · 128 interfaces
$190M
Operational Inefficiency Exposure
$230B × 0.083% = $190M. Mega enterprise IOC with 130+ countries and 50+ host government PSA/RSA contracts. Complexity is driven by regulatory diversity (EU ETS, French CSRD, 50+ host govt fiscal regimes) and scale (30 GW renewables portfolio added to existing fossil asset base).
33%
Process Compliance
Lowest process compliance in the platform — reflects 130+ country operations each with their own ECC customisation layer. Improving to 70%+ within 24 months post go-live would recover an estimated $45–65M in annual process inefficiency costs (Signavio benchmark for comparable IOCs).
CSRD / EU ETS
Regulatory Forcing Function
EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires double materiality ESG reporting from FY2025 for large EU-listed companies. TotalEnergies is in scope. SAP Sustainability + S/4HANA is the only ERP-native CSRD solution — manual collection from ECC is not scalable at 130-country scope. This regulatory deadline is more urgent than the 2027 ECC maintenance cliff for a European-listed company.
$45B × 0.093% = $41.9M ≈ $42M. Chemicals batch manufacturing: yield variance from formula management is the primary cost driver. A 1% yield improvement on Dow's production base = $150–200M in saved material cost at scale.
Real-time batch
Key ECC Gap
ECC PP-PI batch manufacturing operates on overnight cost runs — actual batch yield vs standard cost is only reconciled the next day. S/4HANA PP-PI posts actual costs in real-time, enabling same-day yield correction and formula adjustment. This is the "ECC batch architecture" problem in chemicals — identical to the 24hr intelligence lag in O&G but in a manufacturing context.
REACH / RoHS
Regulatory Driver
EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation of Chemicals) compliance requires per-substance documentation, SDS management, and supply chain communication. ECC's QM/EHS module handles this partially but relies on custom programs (Cority/other) for SDS authoring and regulatory reporting. S/4HANA EHS with BTP digital product passport is the cleaner target architecture.
Siemens Energy is already on S/4HANA 2022 on-premise. The RISE conversation is different from ECC clients: it's about what they're MISSING — SAP Joule AI copilot (only available on RISE), BTP native apps (not available on-prem), continuous innovation (no upgrade projects). The ROI case is: RISE subscription cost vs saved upgrade project costs + Joule AI value.
54%
Process Compliance
Higher compliance than ECC clients — reflects S/4HANA's cleaner base. The 72 remaining custom objects are S/4-era customisations (not ECC legacy), so they're typically lighter and more targeted. The compliance gap (54% vs 75% target) is mainly in EPC project milestone billing and LTSA service contract automation.
Green H2
Strategic Driver
Siemens Energy is building electrolysis and green hydrogen capabilities. RFNBO (Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin) certification under EU Delegated Regulation 2023/1184 requires a digital product passport with carbon intensity data. SAP SFM + BTP is the only ERP-integrated path to RFNBO certification. This is a growth revenue driver (green H2 premium pricing) not just a compliance requirement.
Highest process compliance score of any client in the platform — reflects S/4HANA 2021 implementation that was relatively clean. The 49 custom objects are well-understood (subsea integrity management, LNG cargo scheduling custom programs). This makes the RISE migration risk lower than ECC migrations.
OGMP 2.0
Methane Regulatory Driver
Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP 2.0) Level 4/5 reporting requires continuous methane measurement and annual third-party verification. Woodside has committed to OGMP Level 4 by 2025. SAP Sustainability + BTP IoT is the architecture that connects subsea sensor data to regulatory submissions. This is a firm compliance commitment, not discretionary.
LNG cycle
Continuous Innovation Need
On-premise S/4HANA 2021 upgrade cycle: new version every 18–24 months, each upgrade = 6–9 month project at Woodside's scale. RISE: continuous upgrades at no incremental project cost. With LNG market moving to 10-year contracts to 5-year to spot, the speed of system innovation needs to match market speed.
Marathon runs two S/4HANA instances post-Andeavor acquisition (2018): S/4 1610 (legacy Marathon) and S/4 1909 (Andeavor). Consolidation is the primary driver — a split instance estate means duplicate master data, two separate close cycles, no real-time cross-entity view. The case is consolidation ROI, not ECC→S/4 migration ROI. Clean core remediation of 120 custom objects is a prerequisite for harmonising the two instances.
Implico + Neptune
Highest-Risk Custom Objects
Implico (oil movement/stock management) and Neptune (hydrocarbon accounting) are common in downstream S/4HANA deployments. Both vendors provide S/4HANA-certified add-ons, but post-Andeavor, Marathon has two versions of each — one per instance. Clean core means choosing one vendor version and retiring the other. This is a significant business decision, not just a technical one.
$95M
Operational Inefficiency Exposure
$132B × 0.072% = $95M. Lower % because Marathon is already on S/4HANA (hence higher process compliance 52%). The inefficiency is not from ECC batch lag but from dual-instance fragmentation: two close cycles, two sets of master data, no real-time MPLX midstream JV view.
NextDecade is already on S/4HANA RISE — but moved via "lift and shift," meaning custom ABAP objects were migrated as-is without clean core remediation. These 58 objects now violate RISE's clean core governance model, blocking automatic upgrades and BTP adoption. The narrative: "You're on RISE but not getting RISE's value yet." Clean core remediation is the unlock — not a new migration.
31%
Process Compliance (post lift-and-shift)
Surprisingly low for a RISE client — explains the "lift and shift didn't solve it" story. Processes were migrated with old workarounds intact. Signavio process mining reveals that SAP best practice was not adopted during go-live. Improving to 72%+ would recover $8–12M in annual process inefficiency at this company size.
RISE value gap
Subscription Underutilisation
NextDecade pays for a RISE subscription that includes BTP Integration Suite, BTP Analytics Cloud, SAP Joule, and continuous upgrades. None of these are activated because the custom objects block clean upgrade paths. The "value gap" = subscription cost being paid but benefits not being received. This reframes the investment: it's not "spend more" — it's "unlock what you're already paying for."
EU Taxonomy Regulation requires Ørsted to report on Technical Screening Criteria (TSC) for wind energy activities. Ørsted has made public commitments to EU Taxonomy alignment in its annual report. SAP Sustainability + S/4HANA is the only path to automated EU Taxonomy KPI calculation at 15+ GW asset scale. The clean core remediation unblocks BTP adoption which enables the SFM sustainability module.
63 objects
Why Objects Exist Post-RISE
Ørsted's S/4HANA implementation included wind turbine asset management customisations that SAP didn't natively support at go-live (2020–2021). SAP has since released the Renewables Asset Extension — making these custom objects redundant AND non-compliant with RISE clean core. Remediation: retire custom logic, adopt SAP renewables standard, migrate asset data.
34%
Process Compliance
Low for a RISE client — driven by immature PPA/CfD billing automation, manual offshore vessel scheduling, and custom WTG maintenance programs that bypass SAP PM standards. Target: 78% within 18 months of clean core remediation + BTP IoT deployment.
Greenfield implementations are the only scenario where 90%+ compliance is achievable at go-live. No legacy processes to migrate, no user habits to change. The discipline required: strict change control governance prohibiting customisations. Sierra Digital's role is to enforce this mandate and design processes to SAP standard from the start.
$0 custom objects
The Greenfield Advantage
No ECC legacy = no migration risk, no custom code maintenance cost, no clean core remediation. The entire programme budget goes into business process design and configuration — not technical debt elimination. Business case: compare total 5-year TCO (greenfield SAP) vs hiring legacy ERP developers + integration middleware + data warehousing for a new company.
Joule from Day 1
AI-Native Operations
Greenfield on RISE means SAP Joule AI copilot is available from go-live — no technical debt to clean before AI adoption. Comparable companies on ECC or even early S/4 implementations need 2–3 years of migration before Joule can be deployed effectively. This is the strategic differentiation argument for a new LNG operator building for 30+ years of operations.
VentureGlobal is scaling from one LNG train (Calcasieu Pass) to a 30+ MTPA global operator (CP2, CP3 phases). The SAP architecture must support multi-phase construction and multi-site operations from day one. S/4HANA PS multi-project structure is designed for exactly this — separate WBS hierarchies per phase, shared master data, consolidated reporting at the parent level.
DOE export compliance
Regulatory Anchor
DOE LNG export authorisation (10-20 MTPA applications) requires detailed production volume reporting and financial statements that can be audited by FERC and DOE. SAP's standard financial reporting + SFM environmental data creates the audit trail DOE requires. Building this on a bespoke or legacy platform would require significant custom development — SAP standard is the fastest, lowest-risk path.
Modular MCCHE
Asset Model Complexity
VentureGlobal uses modular mid-scale Coefficient Heat Exchange (MCCHE) technology — multiple smaller liquefaction trains rather than a single large train. This means the EAM asset model has 50+ identical train units rather than 2–3 large ones. S/4HANA EAM handles this via equipment classification and serialisation — standard capability that requires careful master data design at implementation.
Large US Municipality (City of Houston)Government$6.2B budget · 88 objects · 48 interfaces
GASB 87
Regulatory Forcing Function
GASB Statement No. 87 (Leases) requires governmental entities to recognise right-of-use (ROU) assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet. For a city with hundreds of real property leases, vehicles, and equipment, this is a significant financial reporting burden. SAP S/4HANA RE + FI-AA handles GASB 87 natively — ECC requires custom workarounds.
2M+ requests/yr
Citizen 311 Volume
Houston's 311 citizen service system handles 2M+ requests annually across pothole reporting, permit requests, utility billing inquiries, and code enforcement. The current custom CRM + SharePoint system creates 4–7 day response times for non-urgent requests. SAP BTP Citizen Service Portal + S/4HANA CS case management targets 24-hour acknowledgement and 3-day resolution for 80%+ of cases.
OMB 2 CFR 200
Federal Grant Compliance
Houston receives $800M+ in federal grants annually (HUD, FEMA, EPA, DOT). OMB Super Circular (2 CFR 200) requires indirect cost rate documentation and grant expenditure tracking that can withstand federal audit. Current ECC CO is heavily customised for this — but manual processes still create $15–30M in audit findings per audit cycle. S/4HANA CO + Grant Management is the clean target architecture.
Midstream NGL Operator (Targa Resources)Oracle EBS → Net New SAP$17B · 124 objects (Oracle equiv.) · 76 interfaces
52% gap score
Fit-Gap Result (Oracle → SAP)
The fit-gap % for Oracle clients is different from ECC's compliance %. It measures: what % of Targa's current Oracle EBS processes have a GAP (vs FIT or PARTIAL) when mapped to SAP S/4HANA best practice. 52% gap in SD/Commodity Management reflects that Oracle EBS has no native NGL scheduling, fractionation settlement, or commodity management capability — Targa built 100% custom on Oracle. These are native SAP CM capabilities.
124 objects
Oracle Custom Objects (RICEW)
Oracle equivalent of WRICEF — Reports, Interfaces, Conversions, Extensions, Workflows. 124 custom objects for a $17B company reflects Oracle EBS's weaker out-of-box support for midstream O&G compared to SAP. Key custom objects: NGL volume allocation engine, gathering contract revenue recognition (POP contracts), pipeline nomination/confirmation (NAESB EDI). All of these are native SAP CM or BTP capabilities.
$28M
Operational Cost Exposure
$17B × 0.165% = $28M. Higher NPT rate for midstream because pipeline throughput interruptions (NGL nomination failures, fractionation outages) are directly revenue-impactful. Real-time throughput and margin analytics replacing Oracle batch reporting is the primary value driver.
Gas Power Generator (Calpine)Oracle EBS → Net New SAP$10B · 96 objects (Oracle equiv.) · 58 interfaces
55% gap score
Fit-Gap Result (Power Trading)
Power dispatch and ISO market settlement (ERCOT, CAISO, PJM) has a 55% gap because Oracle EBS has no ISO market integration or ETRM capabilities natively. Calpine built a custom dispatch system and ETRM connector. SAP Commodity Management + BTP Integration Suite covers this natively — but requires significant configuration for each ISO market protocol.
$22M
Operational Cost Exposure
$10B × 0.22% = $22M. Higher NPT rate for power generation — unplanned gas turbine outages during peak demand are extremely costly (real-time energy markets can spike to $9,000/MWh during scarcity events). Predictive maintenance for turbines = direct revenue protection, not just cost avoidance.
ISO settlement
Custom ETRM Gap
Calpine's custom ISO settlement importer processes market settlement data from ERCOT/CAISO/PJM (market clearing prices, capacity payments, ancillary service settlements) and loads it into Oracle. This is a daily process that takes 4–6 hours manually. SAP CM + BTP Integration Suite automates this to near-real-time. This is the single highest-ROI integration in the programme — underpins all power trading P&L reporting.
Each custom uniform order is essentially a unique product — team name, number, school colours, fabric, cut, embellishments. 2M+ configured SKUs per fall sports season on ECC with custom configure-to-order logic. S/4HANA Variant Configuration (VC) is designed for exactly this — handles BOM explosion, pricing, and production routing per configured product without custom ABAP.
8-week cycle
Commission Calculation Gap
Current state: sales rep commission calculation runs 8 weeks after the close of each quarter. Manual process: download sales data from ECC → Excel model → dispute resolution → approval → payroll. 8 weeks = significant cash flow delay for reps and financial liability on the books. S/4HANA SD condition-based commission calculates in real-time — eliminating the 8-week cycle entirely. This is the #1 pain point for Varsity's CRO.
40,000+ schools
Account Complexity
40,000+ school/institutional accounts, each with annual contract renewal, team roster changes, and seasonal order cycles. Current ECC SD can't handle the volume of annual contract renewals automatically — manual intervention required for ~30% of accounts. S/4HANA SD with intelligent contract renewal automation eliminates most of this manual work.