On-prem, cloud or hybrid?
In transformation, many roads lead to Rome. The converse of the wise saying is of little help here: If you know where you come from and where you stand, then you also know where you are going. In fact, there are several possible system architectures for transformation for each SAP target group.
In the run-up to the strategic preparation and elaboration of the factual criteria for a decision-making aid, experience shows that emotional topics are prioritized first. In the case of the cloud, for example, the opposing company philosophy is brought up even before the security question, whereby different views of the generations often play a role. This shows which soft skills can influence a factual and rational topic through unexpectedly complex decision-making characteristics. This circumstance should not be underestimated in the overall context.
The basis for the decision-making process for the right system architecture is the current corporate strategy and the IT strategy derived from it. Building on these cornerstones, IT specialists in the working group can deal with the necessary details.
From our own experience, we can report that the lengthy decision-making process for the system architecture takes place at the same level as the definition of the processes. Many participants invest a lot of time in various models, accompanied by unclear criteria and without sufficient decision culture. Instead, experience has shown that the methodology uses parameters to support the selection of the right system architecture in a much more targeted manner. The first challenge is to find out which parameters actually affect the company. This process takes time, but ends with the most important basis for decision-making for the next phase.
However, when the parameters are divided into levels (for example, General, IT/SAP, Infrastructure and Technology), the hard work begins. For this, the participants should be reduced to the core team of specialists. In various retreats with short time intervals, the defined parameters are to be prioritized and weighted for each level. With these evaluations, a decision tree or matrix can be used to narrow down the technically necessary and sensible system architectures and present them to management. The final decision is usually made on the basis of a profitability analysis.
Due to its complexity, the procedure for finding a suitable system architecture described briefly above can only be described very theoretically in this article. Nevertheless, some details will be discussed at least by way of example. As mentioned, the focus is on the selection of parameters, divided into levels. Here is a selection of the general parameters: Industry, trade and/or production, large, medium or small company and company structure, national or international - this list could be continued endlessly.
Subsequently, the IT and SAP-specific parameters are checked and selected. This includes answers to questions such as: Do I have centralized or decentralized IT? Am I a new SAP customer or an existing customer? Do we use or would we like to use insourcing or outsourcing in the future? Standard cloud or private cloud? Standard processes or individual processes? What about security, risk assessment, personnel, licenses and much more? The levels down should condense the parameters more and more into the necessary detailed information. In this example, the third level would include the details of the infrastructure level, hardware and software. It is essential to make sure that you do not get bogged down in unnecessary details by too many levels and parameters, thus making decision-making more difficult. Less is more!
This path is a relatively simple, proven method and contribution to finding the best possible system architecture for transformation.
