This is a real story, but the company and Systems Integrator names are change to protect the innocent and guilty (in that order)

A large company, ABC,  has an $80m SAP project which is implemented by Systems Integrator, XXX. They created a blueprint that was a MSWord document with questions and answers around business requirements. Somehow they configured SAP, but the business users don’t understand any of it.

We got a call two weeks ago. We presented to the company and started an initial piece of work one week after we were contacted. The scope was mapping using Nimbus Control as the core processes.

A week later, we’re 2 days ahead of the game due to our Accelerator content and they are now looking at our HR Accelerator content which was initially out of scope.

Their CEO and CIO have iPads and are viewing the content as it’s being created. The CEO’s major concern after the SI’s work was that the business won’t understand what was created. He was right. But the work went ahead and the SI was paid.

3 questions.

1.  Why do SIs insist on using MSWord or other modelling products to capture the business processes, when they must know that the end users will not be able to use them?

2.  Why do clients let themselves be treated like this?

3. Is there a better way?   Yes..  Here’s a white paper with some clues

And finally :

Who is innocent and who is guilty, and why are the guilty allowed to reoffend like this?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s