How to Best Understand JNC Consulting on Indirect Access License Fees

 Executive Summary

  • JNC consulting wrote an article on JNC Consulting.
  • We cover the accuracy of this article.

Introduction

JNC Consulting has written some of the most popular articles on SAP indirect access. In this article, we will evaluate their top article on this topic.

Quotes from the ASUG Article

“SAP Indirect Access License Fees Can Be Significant and Unexpected.

Interfacing third-party applications to your SAP system could cost you dearly, due to what SAP refer to as Indirect Access usage. Indirect Access has been around for a long time, although in recent years it has emerged as a hot topic in the SAP licensing world. With claims for unlicensed Indirect Access usage by SAP reaching into the millions, even tens of millions, organizations can no longer afford to ignore the issue. This article addresses the key factors affecting Indirect Access licensing providing guidance on the best way to avoid significant and unexpected licensing fees.

All of this is very true.

Indirect Use

“Named users primarily use the SAP software. Users from upstream or interposed technical systems require licenses as named users if they exchange information with the software in dialog or prompt mode, regardless of whether the software is accessed directly or indirectly. If redundant functions that are also available in the software are used in upstream or interposed systems that access the software, the users of these redundant functions also count as named users, even if the data is transferred to the software in background processing (that is, not dialog related). Indirect access means that the user is communicating with a system upstream from the SAP software that transfers communication activities to the SAP software installation or otherwise accesses the SAP software or uses its functions. In particular, the following are examples of indirect use:

“Users in an upstream system enter or make data available that is transferred to, or interacts with, the SAP software – for example, order entry in a mobile system, or users of a portal to the extent that they use functions of the software.

Users operate non-SAP software to access data that is read, modified, or stored using SAP software and for which they use SAP programs such as the BAPI® programming interface, remote function calls (RFC), or transaction calls.”

Examples of Potential Indirect Access Usage

“Business customers using an eCommerce platform to place sales orders

Sales representatives capturing sales orders via mobile device to input into SAP ERP

A third-party CRM system accessing data in SAP ERP

Partners and suppliers accessing SAP to check inventory and stock levels

Partner or suppliers running and accessing reports on SAP system data via SAP BO

Engineers entering plant maintenance data into SAP via mobile devices

A third-party logistics provider using a handheld device in the warehouse and accessing SAP ERP to get data on materials or stock movements.

Using Salesforce to view customer master data that resides in SAP ERP”

To understand if any given interface or third-party system scenario constitutes Indirect Access you must first examine the nature of the usage, and how data is being exchanged to and from SAP. Primarily, the risk of indirect access resides in your contract, so your SAP contract will be the key in determining if that usage constitutes Indirect Access and if you could be liable to pay SAP additional licensing fees.

This is all accurate in that it reflects SAP’s view on indirect access, but it does not question whether SAP’s definition of indirect access is correct. Therefore, it does not get into the topic of what I call Type 1 Versus Type 2 indirect access. It also does not get into why SAP’s definition of indirect access is so different from every other software vendor on the planet. These are important things to bring up.”

Why is Indirect Access Such a Hot Topic Right Now?

“There is a notable correlation between the global financial crisis and the emergence of Indirect Access. Firms spending power shrunk, and growth shrinkage resulted in less re-occurring annual licensing demand. With spending power and growth slowing down SAP have had to resort to other revenue streams and where Indirect Access had historically been low on SAP’s radar it became a focus. This has also been supported by two key trends. Firstly, the move to interfacing best-of-breed non-SAP applications to SAP, and the emergence of cloud technology and web based platforms extending the use of SAP out beyond the usual boundaries.”

Now, this is inaccurate. The global financial crisis was 10 years ago and indirect access did not start being applied in any meaningful way until around 2013. Therefore it is difficult to see where JNC Consulting is seeing this connection. SAP is having slowed growth in ECC which is related to several factors. A number of SAP’s non-ERP applications have had serious implementation issues on projects, a topic which I cover in How SAP is Now Strip Mining its Customers. With SAP consulting companies recommending SAP applications no matter what the fit with business requirements, SAP sold many applications that should have never been sold. And finally, SAP has been telling Wall Street a growth story that is not really capable of happening. I covered this topic in How SAP Mislead Analysts in Thier Q1 2017 Call. So SAP has created really their own long-term revenue problem, and it is a bit compliant of JNC Consulting to try to pin this on the overall economy, and it also brings up questions of JNC’s objectivity, as it seems like a made up story by JNC to shield SAP from their own dysfunctional decision making.

Secondly, SAP’s cloud offerings are not particularly competitive. So they are getting beaten out in that area. But those boundaries have not “been pushed out.” SAP is losing in important markets. It takes a propagandist who can’t write what is really happening to come up with what JNC Consulting is proposing. But then again JNC Consulting is not a research entity, they are a consulting company, and they have no organizational dedication to communicating truthful information. They exist to maximize profits.

“According to a typical SAP contract, users who indirectly access SAP must have an SAP user license too. There are numerous contractual inclusions or exclusions that could give rise to indirect access risk or protect you from it, and yes, every customers contract is different and different clauses and wording can give rise to Indirect Access risk. Sophisticated organizations specifically define the correlation between indirect access usage and license types in their SAP contracts, either at the initial negotiation before purchase or during annual maintenance. For example, they might write something like, “All indirect access will be classified as user type ESS.” Typically, if a non-SAP system accesses SAP data, the user of that external data needs to be covered by an appropriate SAP license. If you don’t have a clause in your contract, you’d be wise to agree with SAP what constitutes Indirect Usage to avoid any nasty surprises.

Every customers contract is different and different clauses and wording can give rise to Indirect Acccess risk”

And why is that? Why Isn’t JNC Consulting asking the question of why SAP does not offer a standard indirect access set of rules to customers? Also, why is SAP taking a secretive approach to how it enforces indirect access?

Indirect Access FAQ’s

“From our experience these are the 5 most asked question about Indirect Access:”

2. My data passes through multiple connected systems. Would this be classed as Indirect Access?

“It depends on how those systems are connected to the SAP system and whether data is being created, manipulated, or viewed in the SAP system via the connected systems. It also depends on the activity of the users using the system. If they are operating in a way, in terms of their system usage activity that matches any contractual definition of a named-user then they will require the corresponding named-user license to cover that usage.”

Why JNC is drawing a distinction here is unclear. Any non-SAP application being connected to any SAP application is considered indirect access.

3. Is there a certain license type applicable to a named-user who is given the required permissions to access the SAP system indirectly?

“No, the normal rules behind the assignment of named-users apply. If it is small community of users are performing business critical activity they may all need a professional license. A large community of users viewing reports may need an ESS (Employee Self-service License), or indeed some form of specially negotiated blanket coverage usage license which provides a degree of flexibility across large external user populations or where user numbers frequently fluctuate.”

5. What about when SAP creates Indirect Access instances themselves when performing a systems integration or deployment

“SAP may well have been involved in or directly responsible for a third-party system and or performing the integration. Whilst contractually the usage can later be defined as indirect and therefor subject to indirect access licensing fees, any organisation would have a strong case in defending against having to pay these unexpected and un-illustrated fees at a later stage. If these costs had been explained at the time of purchase or implementation the customer may not have proceeded knowing the total licensing fees they would be faced with. JNC have successfully defended clients in this position on that basis.”

Right, JNC to the rescue. But it brings up a question which is unanswered, which is how legitimate can SAP’s claim be when they knew the other system was being connected to SAP the entire time and never alerted their customer? SAP has proposed that their consultants are not aware of the rules of indirect access, which is clearly misleading, as the SAP account manager would also have been aware of the integration to a non-SAP system. But SAP overall does not like non-SAP systems to be connected to SAP, as is covered in the article SAP’s Position on Connection Non-SAP Systems to SAP. 

6. Are Indirect Access claims from SAP negotiable?

“Yes they are! JNC offer a service called Indirect Access Defence, which supports customer facing a claim for Indirect Access from SAP.  We perform a detailed contract analysis and usage evaluation with a view to proving compliant usage. If there is a risk the usage in question could be non-compliant we help the customer by quantifying the risk, identifying target outcomes and developing a response and negotiation strategy.  Due to the complexities of the contract and differences in interpretations of usage SAP can sometimes get it wrong meaning their claim for Indiorect Access can either be proven to be excessive or completely unsubstanciable. So yes, its negotiable so give it a shot! If you need help, call JNC!”

They are negotiable because SAP actually wants to use the indirect access claim to simply get the customer to buy more SAP applications. And here we go with JNC pitching its services.

Map the interface environment

“The first step is to get a clear picture of the interface environment by mapping all SAP systems, and mapping interfaces both to, from, and between SAP systems. From a technical point of view, you need to map your RFC connections to the organization’s systems. A good starting point would be to map all of the connections in T-Code SM59 (RFC Destinations) and review all incoming RFC connections through T-Code ST03N (Workload and Performance Statistics). Architects, technical managers, systems owners, and integration experts can all collaborate to build this picture. The task to identify Indirect Usage becomes all the more difficult if you have multiple servers and applications spanning different geographies, operation verticals and service lines.”

This is all true.

Carry out a contract review

“A thorough and detailed contract review needs to be carried out to understand the terms and conditions that impact indirect access usage obligations. As mentioned earlier in the article there are clauses or a lack thereof that can give rise to Indirect Access or protect you from it. With an understanding of these terms and conditions it is possible then to perform an enterprise wide assessment of all interfaces to determine if that usage gives rise to any Indirect Access liability as defined in the contract.”

So this is leading to the reader contacting JNC consulting.

Perform an Indirect Access risk assessment

“With a detailed understanding of indirect systems usage and contractual entitlement an assessment of licensing risk can then be made on a system-by-system basis. Risk indicators (high, medium, and low for example) can be assigned to all third-party systems. High risk usage can be pro-actively addressed by seeking to procure entitlement from SAP, which will most certainly involve negotiation. It is highly beneficial to approach SAP to discuss your needs rather than be discovered by them, and to come prepared with a clearly defined position and target outcome. For all levels of risk, the risk should be quantified by looking at the potential cost of licensing that usage correctly.”

This is again leading to the reader contacting JNC consulting.

Define Your Risk Response and/or Negotiation Strategy

“The low or no risk usage can be dealt with by writing a business case demonstrating compliant usage referring both to the detailed technical and functional evaluation of the usage and the contract analysis. If SAP were to come knocking on your door regarding indirect access you will be prepared to present your business cases to SAP defending your indirect usage as compliant. Demonstrating to SAP that you are knowledgeable and prepared goes a long way to dispelling any further advances and contributes to Vendor Audit Readiness. Where high risk usage is identified, which is most likely non-compliant and the risk response is to present this to SAP to buy entitlement, the act of having the usage under question clearly defined will help your organisation perform better in the negotiations and most likely result in a better licensing deal. Leaving indirect access to be discovered and pursued by SAP could result in significant and unexpected licensing fees.”

This is all true, but it falls into the category of “be prepared,” rather than providing insights into indirect access.

Indirect Access Conclusion

“With the continued global uptake in SAP the issue of Indirect Access has most certainly not peeked. As a result of some high-profile cases and an increase in awareness within the SAP eco-system, far more organisations are taking action to deal with Indirect Access risk. Some in response to a claim that has been presented by SAP and some with the foresight to address it pro-actively to identify any risk, quantify potential license fee exposure, take appropriate steps to mitigate the risk and minimise their potential exposure. The key to successfully dealing with Indirect Access risk is to get informed, put in place an Indirect Access action plan, and be prepared for a licensing audit.”

“The key to successfully dealing with Indirect Access risk is to get informed, put in place an Indirect Access action plan, and be prepared for a licensing audit”

This is all true. However, this article seems to be mainly about getting people to contact JNC Consulting. That is the article is doing a good job of identifying the issue but is not providing much information outside of that.

Conclusion

This article is accurate, mostly. But it has several major problems:

  • But it is rather deliberately leaving out information that could help the reader.
  • It made up a fake narrative to explain why SAP has been increasing its enforcement of indirect access.
  • The article is entirely promotional on JNC and never once questions whether any of SAP’s claims are even legitimate.

Actually, the article could have been written by SAP rather than by an entity that is posing as independent of SAP. Will JNC Consulting behave as an independent entity that represents customers’ interests when they are hired, or will they show the same compliance to SAP that they have demonstrated in this article? No consulting company in IT is a fiduciary. This means that no consulting company in IT (that I have ever heard of) has signed a legal document which declares they have a duty to place their customer’s interests ahead of their own. Therefore, the independence or lack of independence of any advisory entity that is hired is of paramount importance.

Therefore while some of what is presented in the article is accurate, what it leaves out actually leaves the reader misinformed. For this reason, this article receives a Brightwork Accuracy Score of 6 out of 10. Overall, it seems strange that this would be the top article on the topic of indirect access on the web.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

This article and no other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle and SAP. Brightwork does offer competitive intelligence work to vendors as part of its business, but no published research or articles are written with any financial consideration. As part of Brightwork’s commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research, the company’s business model is driven by consulting services; no paid media placements are accepted.

Indirect Access Contact

  • Questions About This Area?

    The software space is controlled by vendors, consulting firms and IT analysts who often provide self-serving and incorrect advice at the top rates.

    • We have a better track record of being correct than any of the well-known brands.
    • If this type of accuracy interests you, tell us your question below.

References

SAP Indirect Access Explained

How to Understand SAP Indirect Access as an Abusive Relationship

Executive Summary

  • The way that SAP uses indirect access against companies is abusive.
  • Indirect access means engaging in high-pressure tactics to extract undeserved monies from customers.

Introduction

I recently found an interesting article from UpperEdge on the topic of indirect access. Like me, UpperEdge can tell the truth about indirect access in the way that an entity that accepts money or is an SAP partner can’t.

However, something in a recent article from UpperEdge got me thinking about what it translates to, and how that connects to abusive relationships.

How Strong is Your Relationship with SAP?

One of the most impactful areas of the article is in the following quote, where UpperEdge asks the SAP customers to ask the question regarding the strength of their relationship with SAP.

“Our experience shows that company executives are most comfortable navigating their SAP relationship when they fully understand the following:

  • How strong and of what quality is my SAP relationship? (emphasis added)
  • What is the overall quality of my commercial agreement with SAP?
  • What is my true utilization of the SAP software given what I bought and deployed and what optimization opportunities exist?
  • What is my overall compliance risk, inclusive of direct and indirect use?
  • Given my future demand profile with SAP, what should my next-generation relationship look like with SAP?

In summary, the issue of use by way of indirect access is not going away. SAP firmly believes it has the right to protect its intellectual property and believes it should to protect the value of its software. SAP customers are well advised to proactively assess their SAP relationship in a holistic manner as outlined in the 5 points above.”

This is eyebrow-raising. UpperEdge is right here, but it is the implication which is bothersome and should be discussed.

Interpreting What Strength of Relationship Means

If we unpack this we can see the following:

  • What is the best way to improve the strength of your relationship with SAP?
  • What would make the SAP account executive most pleased with you?

That is right, to purchase some SAP software. The account executive is not only looking at your present purchases but is estimating the potential for your future purchases.

And alternatively, what would worsen your relationship with SAP?

  • Either not buying more software licenses.
  • In particular not showing the signals that you intend to buy a substantial amount of licenses in the future.

The SAP Account Executive’s Expected Sales Level

What we are talking about is what I have coined the ESL or the expected sales level for the account on the part of the account executive. This may seem strange, but it is the level of entitlement that exists at SAP. In SAP’s view, their customers owe them a particular level of revenue.

What this means is that the more the customer buys from SAP, the lower your potential for receiving indirect access charges. If the account executive sees current or the potential for future sales that are in line with their TSL, then indirect access probably won’t come up. But if they don’t then indirect access has a far higher likelihood of being brought up.

What I noticed is how close this is the definition of an abusive relationship. Abusive relationships occur when one of the parties can do something that is not considered part of the normal relationship, to gain the power of the other party. Verbal abuse, controlling behavior, physical abuse, all have their foundations in the same motivation factor.

That is the desire to get the other party to do what the abusing party wants. Abusive relationships also have a cycle.

The Standard Cycle of Abusive Relationships

According to Wikipedia, abusive relationships tend to have the following repeating cycle.

  1. Step 1: Gain Trust
  2. Step 2: Overinvolvement
  3. Step 3: Petty Rules and Jealously
  4. Step 4: Manipulation, Power, and Control
  5. Step 5: Traumatic Bonding

If we look at SAP and their use of indirect access, we can assign it to this cycle like this.

Step 1: Gain Trust

Occurs during the sales phase.

At this stage, prospects are told all manner of falsified concepts including the idea that SAP contains all best practices. This is covered in the article The Evidence for SAP’s Best Practice Claims.

They are told that the project will have a positive ROI, that SAP only recommends the consulting companies with the highest standards, that the project will implement very quickly because of SAP’s ASAP methodology, etc.

Overinvolvement

After SAP a consulting partner implement software, they know everything about that company, and they seek to control the IT spend at the account. This can happen with any software category, but it is particularly important when the ERP systems are involved, and SAP uses the ERP system as the queen on a chessboard. This is covered in the article How ERP Systems Were Trojan Horses

Petty Rules and Jealously

On SAP projects, and I have been on many, all the current systems at a client are discussed in derogatory terms. SAP leads the industry in using the term “legacy” to reduce the status of all systems that the client already had purchased. This is covered in the article How SAP Misused the Term Legacy.

When it comes to other systems, everyone from consulting companies to independent SAP consultants proposes that all purchases be kept with SAP regardless of the fit with the requirements or the features of the system versus competitors.

Fallacious arguments are presented that all integration is essentially a sin, and therefore the way around it is to purchase SAP.

Manipulation, Power, and Control

Both SAP and SAP consulting companies are highly manipulative entities. When I worked at KPMG the phrase that was used by one partner was that one should

“penetrate and radiate the account.” – KPMG Partner

That means to get business doing one thing and then look around to other work while doing the initial work. KPMG wanted its senior members to do what they could to control the account. But none of the partners I worked with at KPMG seemed to care about whether what they told the account was true. Both SAP and the consulting companies set forth a series of rules and simplistic platitudes that if followed lead to the customer to purchase more SAP and more SAP consulting services. All other software vendors are excluded. Most of the statements made by SAP and consulting companies ranging from the expected ROI of ERP projects to the difficulty in integration applications are either directly contradicted by academic research or through experience on projects.

Traumatic Bonding

When indirect access is applied. This is the abusive event used by SAP to cut off the options of their customers that have the temerity to begin exploring alternatives outside of SAP. The intent is to bring the customer to heel and to have them understand their place, which is of course under SAP. Optimally, the customer thinks twice before ever exploring a non-SAP alternative in the future.

SAP has effectively used its control over media, private messaging and now the Diageo case in the UK to make their Type 2 version of indirect access seem more valid than it is.

The Importance of Bonding After the Traumatic Event

After the traumatic event, SAP will then attempt reconciliation. Some account executives talk about “repairing” the relationship after they have enforced indirect access to a customer. Well, of course, the SAP account executive needs to continue to sell into the account. If you look at abusive relationships, they swing between periods of non-conflict and then the traumatic bonding. That is “sugar” is added to the sour notes. Relationships that are 100% sour can’t last, and the abuser knows this.

Well, of course, the SAP account executive needs to continue to sell into the account. If you look at abusive relationships, they swing between periods of non-conflict and then the traumatic bonding. That is “sugar” is added to the sour notes. Relationships that are 100% sour can’t last, and the abuser knows this.

“This article captures the main discussion points and actions from two Special Interest Group (SIG) meetings regarding SAP Licensing.”

This quotation is from SIG.

“SIG participants questioned why SAP would want to clarify indirect access, since it such a cash cow and they greyness in license terms allows them to drive their commercial agenda. The standard response from SAP to licensing ambiguity is “Come and talk to us”. Yet SIG members stated that SAP was the last place they would ask for clarity, since that would initiate an audit or sales enquiry. “[SAP] That would be the last place we go for licensing information” “[I’m] very paranoid about approaching them” This is akin to trying to find a competitive quote for new tires for your car, but having to go back to your old tire supplier to work out how to get the wheel nuts off. It is a RESTRICTIVE and UNCOMPETITIVE.”

Come into My Lair, Said the Spider to the Fly

Something about this is reminiscent of this poem.

“Will you walk into my parlor?” said the spider to the fly;
“’Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you did spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many pretty things to show when you are there.”
“O no, no,” said the little fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne’er come down again.”

This is accurate. Come talk to us is a standard line to get more business. The participant is wise to see it for what it is.

“In the case of Diageo, they were trying to explore an alternative system using Salesforce.com, which free competitive markets should allow them to do. The general consensus from SIG participants was that, whilst Diageo was not a landmark legal case, it would give SAP enough ammunition to give their customers the heebie-jeebies. “SAP will be after everyone” stated one SIG member. Customers are using SAP beyond what could be imagined when the contracts were created (Mobile, Internet, Virtualization, Ecommerce etc.) and SAP’s archaic contracts and manipulative approach to licensing is LIMITING INNOVATION.”

Type 1 Versus Type 2 Indirect Access

I wanted to clarify as I have in my other articles that there are two types of indirect access. One is legitimate and is what I call Type 1, and the other is what SAP enforces, which is called Type 2. These are explained in the article Type 1 Versus Type 2 Indirect Access. So I am not proposing that all indirect access lacks legitimacy. Type 1 indirect access violations do occur, and it’s just that they are uncommon.

Type 2 indirect access is nefarious because any type of connection to an SAP system could be classified as Type 2 indirect access. This is what people that try to view indirect access as simply a matter of having the indirect access clause of an SAP license agreement either don’t get or are misleading their readers. Type 2 indirect access is new in the past few years and is almost exclusively employed by SAP (versus other vendors). Secondly, SAP does not hold to a position that a customer must pay the indirect access charges. No. SAP wants to the customer to make other license purchases in return for dropping the indirect access charge.

How This Enables SAP to Achieve its Objectives

This allows SAP to do what SAP wants, which is to grow license revenue, and for the customer to feel like they are paying for something of value, rather than merely paying indirect access fees. SAP wants to pose for investors and to other customers that its customers are “choosing to” purchase SAP. They do not want the broader market to know that they are coercing customers into purchasing SAP’s software that customers do not want to buy. SAP likes maintain the illusion that they compete and win the business that they get because the value of the software is so outstanding.

This is validated by the following quote from SIG.

“SIG participants suggested that indirect claims were predatory, and that spending money with SAP made spurious indirect access claims go away. Spend money, or buy strategic growth products important to SAP such as HANA. One SIG member quoted their SAP account manager who said “wouldn’t it be easier just to settle with us and pay than to go to court”. Tantamount to BLACKMAIL.”

Let the Shenanigans Begin

So SAP will pull all manner of underhanded shenanigans in private including things that appear to be blackmail to clients, all while presenting the face of being a completely normal and honest company that is just selling software and delivering fantastic value to companies with enormous innovation.

In fact, if we want to see how SAP projects itself that can be found in the 2017 Q1 analyst call.

“The facts show that we are executing our winning strategy at scale. Our customers are endorsing the unique breadth and depth of SAP core cloud networks, and all come with soaring adoption for our new innovation on a global basis. We believe SAP is the only company in the business software industry to deliver soaring cloud growth and double-digit license growth.

Driven by S/4HANA, our core innovations are growing really fast with software licenses up 13%. We now have more than 5,800 S/4HANA customers with global companies like Energy SE, choosing S/4 in the first quarter. Big brands like Citrix Systems selected S/4 cloud edition, the leading intelligent cloud ERP solution in the market by far.”

I am constantly reading SAP’s material, and I can’t find anywhere that SAP admits to coercing customers into buying software with indirect access claims. I can’t find anywhere that SAP admits to only charging extra fees for ERP licenses if a customer chooses Salesforce, but not charging for the ERP licenses if the customer chooses SAP CRM.

This is why I have researched how SAP’s use of Type 2 indirect access falls under an antitrust provision as covered in the article on How SAP’s Indirect Access Violates US Law on Tying Agreement.

SAP presents all its revenues as if this is based on customer choice, all while doing as much as possible to restrict choice in each customer situation.

Conclusion

There is something very wrong with responding to being shaken down by SAP on Type 2 indirect access, by having to ensure that you are meeting the SAP account executive’s ESL.

SAP is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They also want to keep IA as quiet as possible and spring it on customers at the time of their choosing. New accounts are not being told about IA during the sales cycle. Type 2 IA is something you use on a customer most often years after the sale is made and the software is implemented. Indirect access is used when the company is many millions of dollars down the road and when their SAP’s leverage is at it maximum. And like an abusive relationship, after SAP uses IA against a customer, they want to focus on repairing the relationship afterward.

With the major consulting companies recommending SAP no matter what the quality, maturity, capabilities regarding the other offerings in the market or fit with client business requirements combined with the use of indirect access, the one thing SAP does not want to do is compete on a level playing field against other software vendors.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

This article and no other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle and SAP. Brightwork does offer competitive intelligence work to vendors as part of its business, but no published research or articles are written with any financial consideration. As part of Brightwork’s commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research, the company’s business model is driven by consulting services; no paid media placements are accepted.

Indirect Access Contact

  • Questions About This Area?

    The software space is controlled by vendors, consulting firms and IT analysts who often provide self-serving and incorrect advice at the top rates.

    • We have a better track record of being correct than any of the well-known brands.
    • If this type of accuracy interests you, tell us your question below.

References

SAP Indirect Access: What the Diageo Case Means to SAP Customers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_and_control_in_abusive_relationships

https://www.itassetmanagement.net/2017/03/16/sap-sig-minutes/

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4065023-saps-sap-ceo-bill-mcdermott-q1-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript

https://holyjoe.org/poetry/howitt.htm