Individual S/4 story

An S/4 transformation is as complex as it is in need of explanation. Especially from the point of view of users, who ask themselves three central questions in advance - usually long before they actually come into contact with the implementation: Why are we doing all this? Where is the whole thing going to take us as an organization? What do I personally gain from it?

Depending on the corporate context, these questions are answered very differently. Those who take the easy way out and reduce their message set to the recurring formula "because support is coming to an end" or "because we need to become more efficient" risk losing the commitment of the relevant stakeholders right from the start.

Strategy and story development go hand in hand. It is not uncommon for management to only start looking intensively at the question of the basic motivation behind the S/4 implementation when the initial communication is on the agenda: How do we get to the heart of our strategy? How do we convey the why and wherefore so succinctly that the various stakeholder groups can place it in their specific professional context? How accurately can we demonstrate the target state despite all the strategic, technological and economic uncertainties that the program will face in the coming years? 

No one-way streets

These are the guiding questions that go hand in hand with conscientious preparation of communications around an S/4 implementation. Many organizations then confuse communication either with one-way information or with marketing and shorten the story to a good-sounding claim. Credibility is at stake when an insurmountable gap opens up between the actual state experienced and a target state painted in superlatives - or also when the actual state is perceived very differently from different sides.

Holistic transformation management brings these different views together at an early stage and aligns interests between the business units and, above all, between the business units and IT. It includes the perspective of users and key users at an early stage when the question is raised: Which urgent problem do we want to solve as a priority with the S/4 implementation? It is important here to take a holistic view of the business, IT and the further development of the organization, including the corporate culture if necessary. If the story is missing or everyone in the management team formulates their own messages, a lot of trust will be lost. Teams exchange ideas about what management is presenting to them with regard to the upcoming S/4 transformation.

"But that sounded quite different earlier"., "that's only half the truth" or "this can only go wrong", are frequent reactions of employees when the management circle does not speak with one voice. The suspicion quickly creeps in: Our management disagrees on the strategic orientation and objectives it associates with S/4, each area is concerned with its own advantage - and information is possibly being deliberately withheld. There are widespread fears that the S/4 transformation will ultimately lead to job cuts through the "efficiency back door" and in favor of greater automation. Accordingly, the experts themselves will be reluctant to contribute their knowledge to the implementation process or to participate in the discussion about the benefits that S/4 can bring to their area of activity.

Elevator Pitch

An important exercise in story development: We confront a manager with the situation of meeting an employee in the elevator and being asked why there is no way around the introduction of S/4. The result is an elevator pitch that every manager - even if jolted out of sleep at night - can recall prayerfully. The first answers that come to the management circle are often "more efficiency," "more automation," "concentration on core tasks," or similar.

But the management vocabulary is quickly exposed as an empty formula. Moreover, are these benefits, which undoubtedly accrue to the organization, equally strong and compelling from the perspective of most affected employees? More likely, no. In communication, it is essential to pay attention to which argumentation catches on with these relevant stakeholders and potential change ambassadors, and which arguments they can then use to beat the advertising drum for the program themselves.