Skip to main content

‘Rightshoring’ SAP? Tips for prospective SAP end users.

Given that system integrators can execute an SAP implementation from anywhere in the world, SAP end users will be called upon to decide how they want their partners to deliver service. Rightshore! offers a helpful discussion of the various options in this regard, and their respective benefits. There are five basic implementation delivery models:
External Offshore: External execution by offshore partners.
External Distributed Delivery: External execution by nearshore partners, who subcontract work out to offshore partners.
External Nearshore: External execution by nearshore partners.
Internal Centralized: Internal execution by a single party.
Internal Decentralized: Internal execution by several parties.
The fastest-growing model is external offshore, which went from being involved in 1% of IT delivery projects in 2006 to an estimated 5% by 2010. Rightshore! points out that external offshore promises 15-20% savings over internal delivery. This is why many systems integrators, Capgemini included, have hired tens of thousands of Indian workers; the resulting wage arbitrage allows integrators to deliver cheaper implementations to customers via the distributed delivery model.
Of course, this raises an interesting question — why not bypass nearshore partners and go directly to an Indian integrator, such as Wipro? This didn’t get talked about much at this year’s Sapphire, but could be a big issue by next year. Given that almost all of the major SAP failures over the past year involved nearshore partners, there’s no knee-jerk reason to dismiss offshore partners for any SAP project.
Rightshore! makes the argument that a blended approach to delivery models is the key to a successful IT project implementation, but naturally this owes something to the fact that Capgemini owns the trademark to the world ‘rightshore’ and has a vested interest in promoting this model. However, moving past the marketing fluff, rightshoring is a concept that should be taken seriously in the SAP context. An SAP project is complex enough to benefit from the ability to farm out certain kinds of tedious technical work offshore while retaining certain functions, such as training, from near-shore providers. Vendors understand the soundness of this approach as well, and Indian systems integrators have long invested in dedicated U.S. and European resources in order to be able to tell the ‘rightshoring’ story to customers.
For some enterprises, buying SAP is a relatively easy decision, but implementing SAP raises many anxieties. To begin with, there are the horror stories of implementations gone wrong, resulting in millions of dollars of cost-overruns and long delays to go-live; consider the LAUSD fiasco, Waste Management’s $100 million lawsuit against SAP, and problems in Burnaby and Portland. But even in the best of cases, SAP implementation is a major challenge. ‘Rightshoring’ your implementation is one way to mitigate the inevitable risks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Good, Bad, Dirty, Ugly SAP Implementation

  Many SAP Implementation were stated as "successfully" implemented, indeed these are 'Unsuccessful' because of these six factors which were listed. The following paragraphs elaborate on the six factor groups which could be useful to those implanting or just implemented.   Factor 1: Worked with SAP functionality/maintained scope A crucial part of working with the SAP functionality is the ability to streamline operations. When implementing a system, many organizations fail to specify their organizational objectives. Job skills are raised by the requirements of the new, post-implementation company. Idiosyncratic ways of doing business, which were manageable, although most likely inefficient, under the "old system", are no longer tolerated. Companies that do not understand these issues early on will face serious problems. Successful companies have recognized the importance of "cleaning up" their operations, which will allow them to implement

The Different Types of SAP Consultants and How They Affect Project Success

The Different Types of SAP Consultants and How They Affect Project Success For a better understanding of the risks and mistakes that impact SAP implementations, I want to explain in a very simple way how I visualize, name, and classify SAP consultants nowadays, defining in general and SAP Consultant as a person who helps implement, maintain, migrate, expand, install, or customize any SAP business solution. In the SAP world, I see four different types of consultants “SAP Techies”: I am not going to speak a lot about them as I think they don’t really manage projects or implementations, and as such, are rarely the reason for a mistake. Typically, SAP Techies are programmers, ABAP specialists, Basis specialists, or software architects specializing in SAP solutions or trainer’s. Sometimes they are used as the “tool” that causes project mistakes, but this is mainly because of the wrong decision on the part of their managers. These folks are always needed in any stage of SAP projects or i