How Gartner Got HANA So Wrong

Executive Summary

  • Gartner made many false proposals about HANA, but without declaring how much money they take from SAP.
  • Forrester also provides pro-HANA information, in return for SAP’s money.
  • Neither Gartner or Forrester have enough knowledge of databases to write on these topics.

Introduction to Gartner Accuracy Verification

On January 11, 2013, ComputerWorld published the article Will Oracle’s Customer Base Migrate to SAP Business Suite. In this article, Gartner is quoted on the topic of HANA. In this article, you will find the accuracy of the Gartner article with the benefit of 4.5 years of hindsight.

Article Quotations

Biased Information Source Says What About HANA?

“SAP’s announcement that its Business Suite applications, which are deeply embedded in many global enterprises, will now be able to run on its in-memory database technology, HANA, leaves the IT community with a very interesting decision on its hands. SAP’s announcement that its Business Suite applications, which are deeply embedded in many global enterprises, will now be able to run on its in-memory database technology, HANA, leaves the IT community with a very interesting decision on its hands. SAP is the first vendor in the market to fully combine transactional applications with analytics in-memory and has two to five years, according to some analysts, to sell to customers before other vendors catch up.”

This turned out to be false because ComputerWorld relied upon Gartner and Forrester. Of course, ComputerWorld did not point out that Gartner and Forrester receive large amounts of income from SAP. Brightwork estimates this income to be in the range of $100 million.

This is perhaps because ComputerWorld also receives large amounts of money from SAP. At this point, Oracle 12c and IBM DB2 BLU have both exceeded HANA’s performance. This is covered in the article Which is Faster HANA or Oracle 12c?

SAP Was First to Market?

“Computerworld UK spoke to Donald Feinberg, VP and distinguished analyst at Gartner, who explained the significance of the announcement for IT managers.

“Until now, this has been impossible to do. The structures that are needed in a disk-based database system are different for online analytical processing (OLAP) and online transactional processing (OLTP). However, what has changed now is that you have got a database in-memory where you can create OLAP structures virtually,” said Feinberg.

“Now SAP can set up a database to do my transactions and analytics with everything virtual. People have wanted to do both in the same database for years, but have not been able to do it because of the discrepancy between the two types of data.”

In the magazine ReadWrite further quoted Donald Fienberg in a separate article:

“It’s the only in-memory DBMS (database management system) that can do data warehousing and transactions in the same database. That’s where it’s unique.”

Natural Questions

A few questions come to the surface.

  • One being if that is actually a requirement driven by customers.
  • Secondly, even years later SAP customers do not perform analytics as described by Gartner.
  • This is because so few companies use HANA for their ERP system. This is covered in the article How SAP Controls Perceptions with Customer Numbers. The vast majority of HANA sales are for SAP BW. BW is a database warehouse. Therefore even with years of hindsight, the functionality that Gartner promoted does not have applicability. At least not yet. Therefore the impact of Feinberg’s statement has been very close to zero.

A second question is whether this is all that advantageous. Companies have been using data warehouses for many years and doing reporting off of them. It is preferable to perform some types of reporting in the application. For instance, ECC has many reports that are used. But more complex reports that draw results from many tables are most often pushed to the data warehouse. What SAP and Feinberg proposed is that the data warehouse and the ERP system should essentially unify. That might or might not be a good idea, but it is not where the IT industry is headed presently.

How HANA Lags

IBM had something very similar to HANA all the way back in 2008. Therefore, SAP was not the first. SAP was the first to heavily market this capability.

Since this article’s publication, HANA now lags other competitors because SAP’s design of HANA is inferior to the alternatives. This is demonstrated in the poor performance of HANA for anything but read performance on actual projects.

“I think this is going to be disruptive to other vendors, as I think it’s going to propel SAP from a database standpoint. It’s going to put them on the map – today they are number four in the market, and a small number four at that,” said Feinberg.

And SAP has not changed this position since this time.

HANA for Sales Forecasting?

For SAP customers, HANA-powered applications can speed up the sales process dramatically. For example, today when salespeople for a large manufacturer takes a large order from a customer, they may not be to say on the spot exactly when the order will be fulfilled. That information often comes hours later after the numbers are run separately through forecasting applications.

With HANA running SAP’s enterprise resource planning applications – called Business Suite – salespeople will be able to take the order and get forecasting information in seconds. “This changes the way they do business. It really does,” Feinberg said. “And that’s the kind of value proposition that HANA brings to the table because of the fact that it’s an in-memory database.” – Donald Fienberg

Considering the Process Outlined by Fienberg

This entire process as described by Fienberg is incorrect. Let us break it into individual parts.

  1. If a salesperson requires a data quote, that is part of order promising. Order promising is performed inside of either SAP SD (Now renamed to Order To Cash) or in GATP, which is the order promising module in the APO suite. But this does not require the creation of a forecast on the spot. The forecast is not generated in real time, and there is actually no reason for it to be. Forecasts actually should not be regenerated much more than monthly (in most cases) because it reduces forecast accuracy. This is covered in the article Monthly Versus Weekly Forecasting. A new order being generated (or in this case a quotation) does not change the forecast in any way. A sales order decrements the forecast. Forecasts are based upon previous sales orders, not based upon as sales order today. Therefore this explanation of how forecasting works is completely inaccurate.
  2. The information does not come hours later. Anyone who has worked with SAP in order management can attest that the order promise date comes back very quickly. It does this because it is simply checking on pre-calculated information.
  3. Fienberg states that with HANA the salesperson can get the information in seconds. Yet, they already get the information in seconds.
  4. Fienberg states that this changes the way the company does business, but it doesn’t because Donald Fienberg does not understand how the order promising system works in SAP.
  5. It does not the value proposition that HANA brings to the table. It has nothing to do with order promising as described by Fienberg.

SAP’s Adaptive Server?

“You now have SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise that runs underneath the applications, and they also have HANA. I suspect that you are going to see people moving from Oracle, IBM and Microsoft over to these. They just couldn’t do it before now,” he added.”

What does SAP’s Adaptive Server have to do with HANA? The question is about HANA, and Fienberg switches to SAP’s Adaptive Server which is row oriented database design. Is this article about standard RDMBSs? No, it is not.

Furthermore, SAP’s Adaptive Server, which is an old Sybase product is in a state of decline.

This shows the decline of the popularity of SAP Adaptive Server as tracked by DB Engines. 

Literally, what is Donald Fienberg talking about?

Fienberg’s Problematic Timeline

“Oracle today does not have a transactional, in-memory database. They have TimesTen, but none of the main enterprise application packages (SAP, Infor or Oracle’s e-business suite) run on this. I don’t believe SAP will ever certify an in-memory database for Oracle applications (when one is released) and so what you are asking is: will Oracle lose SAP customers that are running on Oracle databases? The answer is yes.”

Oracle 12c, which has transactional, in memory database (not the entire database as HANA, but parts of the database. Placing all of the database into memory is not something non-SAP vendors do because it does not make any sense. Therefore, Oracle had this capability 5 months after this article with Fienberg’s statement was made. Fienberg must have been in contact with Oracle and knew they were developing this. Why did Fienberg then propose that it would take HANA competitors “5 years to catch up?”

Now the Second Financially Biased Source is Used

“Duncan Jones, principal analyst at Forrester, agrees with Feinberg and believes that this announcement ‘sets SAP customers free from the clutches of the other database vendors’.

He said: “If it works, as SAP plans, it will be very damaging for Oracle. Oracle has some great products, but it does a lot of things to annoy its customers. There comes a point when you can only annoy your customer base so much, and if they are given an alternative that works, many of them will embrace it.”

Like Feinberg, Duncan Jones was also wrong. Forrester was paid a large amount of money by SAP to write a paper projecting a lower TCO for HANA. This exceedingly low-quality paper is covered in the article How Accurate Was Forrester’s TCO Study on SAP HANA?

Oracle’s Sales Tactics are Bad, But According to Forrester, SAP’s Aren’t?

“He said: “If it works, as SAP plans, it will be very damaging for Oracle. Oracle has some great products, but it does a lot of things to annoy its customers. There comes a point when you can only annoy your customer base so much, and if they are given an alternative that works, many of them will embrace it.

“Oracle overcharges, they are very aggressive in the sales process, they don’t necessarily negotiate, they have obsolete licensing rules, and they sell customers products they don’t necessarily need. If a CIO is desperate to save money, they might see SAP HANA as a way to do that.”

And all of these things apply to SAP as well. I constantly have customers reach out to me to

I constantly have customers and vendors reach out to me to describe in fine detail shady tactics used by SAP. I don’t focus on Oracle, so the same thing does not happen for Oracle. However, Forrester is as several hundred person company. It is simply infeasible to imagine that Forrester does not have similar insight into SAP’s underhanded business practices. Yet according to Forrester, the problematic business practices are with Oracle. Apparently, SAP gets a clean bill of health.

Gartner’s Feinberg Seems to Get Lost

“Gartner’s Feinberg generally agrees. He believes that for deeply embedded legacy applications, large enterprises will not consider the move – they will just wait for Oracle to come up with something similar. “Changing my DBMS platform underneath SAP is not that disruptive to the company, but changing my applications from Oracle to SAP, that’s expensive. I have to retrain everybody, I have to change all my data – it’s time consuming and disruptive.”

Right. That is true, but what is the relevance of this comment? The question of the article is whether companies will switch from Oracle to HANA.

“If I was a small company running on Oracle today and I grow and I need to replace my applications, that’s a risk for Oracle. If I have got a business case for making the transition from one set of applications to another, that will then mitigate the expense and the disruption,” he said.

This is another completely unrelated comment from Feinberg.

Gartner’s Conflicts of Interest

Donald Fienberg was both an analyst at Gartner while being a vendor relations manager with SAP, which is a conflict of interest.


Feinberg did not disclose his position as a relationship manager with SAP. His accuracy on when competitors would come up with something similar to HANA (which ended up being actually better) was off by years. His quotations at the end of the article are not related to the question in the article. He lacked the understanding of the order promising and the forecasting process in SAP to even explain how HANA would change it.

Overall, Fienberg and Gartner do not come across as independent entities. They come across as paid spokesman for SAP. In the articles where Fienberg is quoted, there is no mention that Gartner is not independent of SAP but receives probably somewhere around $100 million from SAP annually. Secondly, Fienberg’s statements on HANA are undifferentiated from the SAP talking points. Therefore it looks like Feinberg was coached on what points to make by SAP, and that there was no processing of the information or attempt to validate whether it was true.

Search Our Other HANA Content

Brightwork 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.

HANA & S/4HANA Research Contact

  • Interested in Research on S/4HANA & HANA?

    It is difficult for most companies to make improvements in S/4HANA and HANA without outside advice. And it is not possible to get honest S/4HANA and HANA advice from large consulting companies. We offer remote unbiased multi-dimension S/4HANA and HANA support.

    Just fill out the form below and we'll be in touch.



The Risk Estimation Book


Software RiskRethinking Enterprise Software Risk: Controlling the Main Risk Factors on IT Projects

Better Managing Software Risk

The software implementation is risky business and success is not a certainty. But you can reduce risk with the strategies in this book. Undertaking software selection and implementation without approximating the project’s risk is a poor way to make decisions about either projects or software. But that’s the way many companies do business, even though 50 percent of IT implementations are deemed failures.

Finding What Works and What Doesn’t

In this book, you will review the strategies commonly used by most companies for mitigating software project risk–and learn why these plans don’t work–and then acquire practical and realistic strategies that will help you to maximize success on your software implementation.


Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Enterprise Software Risk Management
Chapter 3: The Basics of Enterprise Software Risk Management
Chapter 4: Understanding the Enterprise Software Market
Chapter 5: Software Sell-ability versus Implementability
Chapter 6: Selecting the Right IT Consultant
Chapter 7: How to Use the Reports of Analysts Like Gartner
Chapter 8: How to Interpret Vendor-Provided Information to Reduce Project Risk
Chapter 9: Evaluating Implementation Preparedness
Chapter 10: Using TCO for Decision Making
Chapter 11: The Software Decisions’ Risk Component Model

How Gartner Got SAP Fiori So Wrong

Executive Summary

  • Gartner has provided information on SAP Fiori to the market that has proven to be highly inaccurate.
  • Gartner laid down and without performing research that Fiori would be SAPGUI’s replacement and that Fiori would be a “game changer.”
  • In this article, we analyze Gartner’s statements.


In a previous article What is Actually in the Fiori Box? I went through Fiori in detail and explained some features of Fiori which are not understood. In this previous article I stated that in my analysis, Fiori’s future is much more tenuous that one would think.

In performing this analysis, I repeatedly came across references for Gartner’s article, titled SAP Fiori UX: It is Not a Matter of if, but When.

This proposal of inevitability has been a common theme used by SAP recently when selling anything from HANA to S/4, etc.. It does not at all appear coincidental the SAP’s selling messaging is just about the same as Gartner’s title of an article on Fiori. In fact, in several areas, Gartner’s article did not read so much as an independent article, but more of an article that SAP partially wrote. This is reminiscent of an article I critiqued years ago where Aberdeen Research published an article that was paid for by IBM.

Now it is well known that Gartner takes money from vendors, and it makes the most money from the largest providers. Gartner says this does not affect their output. 

However, Gartner fails again and again to predict SAP. They have been wrong about Fiori, HANA and S/4HANA. And every time their failure is being too optimistic. Hmmmmm…. this plus being paid by SAP what is we estimate $100 million per year looks like bias.

This Magic Quadrant is devastating for Gartner’s credibility. Oracle Cloud ERP is so lacking in functionality that it is mostly implemented alongside on-premises Oracle ERP, as explained by Rimini Street. 

“If there is functionality coverage in Cloud ERP, some new features may be available. This is a big if, as there are huge gaps still present in Cloud ERP applications. Precisely the reason Oracle promotes the Cloud ERP co-existence strategy.”

Yet, somehow this widely lampooned system is the best cloud ERP on the planet. Right. Oracle has been desperate to get attention for their lagging ERP and clearly shoveled so much money at Gartner that they bought the top spot. But it should be pointed out, Gartner shows more preferential treatment to SAP versus Oracle. I have never estimated how much Oracle pays to Gartner.

Gartner on SAP’s Effort on SAP Fiori

Gartner did a poor job of covering up their bias in this article, which is why I have decided to analyze the article in depth. Lets begin with the first quote.

“SAP Fiori UX is an output of a conscious and well-funded effort to establish an internal design team inside SAP. This, in turn, is the result of a commitment to design-led software development at the most senior levels of the organization.”

That is certainly true.

However, Gartner should recognize that this in itself is not a predictor of success. If Gartner does not realize this, then Gartner has not studied SAP over the years on its multiple product introductions. Any analyst who stops at this level that Gartner finished at here….well they are not qualified to cover the topic.

If Gartner were interested in bringing this background into its analysis, it would know that SAP has had many well-funded efforts with senior level support. And that only sometimes leads to success.

  • CRM had senior level support – and CRM is nowhere now as a product for SAP. (to be replaced by C/4HANA — someday)
  • PLM has had senior-level support – and is essentially no longer discussed
  • SPP had lots of support, (in addition to having very few competitors in the marketplace for service parts planning) is now a dead product

In fact, most new initiatives do have senior level support as some senior person leads the group, etc.. But many applications with high-level support have also failed to become important drivers of SAP’s success.

Gartner on Fiori’s Scope

“Over 18 months, SAP Fiori UX has dramatically expanded in scope, in purpose and as a strategic component of SAP new S/4 Hana release.

Based on these factors, Gartner believes that SAP Fiori UX is unavoidable. While SAP customer are not being forced to implement SAP Fiori UX on SAP’s timeline, SAP customers must start planning for an SAP Fiori UX future.”

This is a very definitive conclusion proposed here by Gartner, but it is based on little evidence.

Let’s recap this evidence.

Gartner has concluded that Fiori is unavoidable because:

  • Fiori is well funded
  • Fiori has senior support from SAP
  • Fiori has grown in scope

That is it?

That is all it takes to convince Gartner that Fiori is unavoidable?


  • Does Gartner believe that Fiori is inevitable as used along with SAPGUI, which will be still be managing the vast majority of screens?
  • Does Gartner believe that Fiori is unavoidable under the construct proposed by SAP that Fiori will replace SAPGUI?

We don’t know because Gartner provides little in the way of detail.

  1. If Fiori is not a SAPGUI replacement, as I covered in detail in my previous article, and if a customer wants to use another mobile and custom UI application provider (like a FreedomApps, or Kony, etc.) Then how is it that Fiori is unavoidable?
  2. If customers don’t want to use HANA, and as the vast majority of Fiori apps only work with HANA, then is Fiori still inevitable?
  3. I have been testing Fiori’s performance and have been communicating these problems to clients (as covered in the article Why is Fiori So Slow?). If Fiori is never able to meet minimum performance requirements, is Fiori still inevitable?

If Gartner had actually tested Fiori, rather than just cashing SAP’s check they would know some of these things, but Gartner has (apparently) a specific policy to never touch any software.

Gartner on Using SAP Fiori

“Avoid modifying existing SAP Fiori UX apps if possible, and instead focus future SAP-related UX development on creating new apps.”

This is a confusing sentence. I had to go back to the original article to make sure I had not miscopied this somehow.

However, if I interpret it to mean that the customer should not customize Fiori apps — then it is true. However, it is true because Fiori’s development environment is inefficient for performing customization. SAP has proposed that Fiori can be customized. But in researching this issue, Gartner is correct; one should think of using each app as is from SAP.

Why is Gartner leaving the “why” out of the explanation, I thought Gartner was providing analysis. Is Gartner providing analysis or providing a covering for SAP here?

“Use SAP Fiori UX as a way to drive great process standardization in systems of record.”

This sentence means absolutely nothing.

Fiori does not allow for important process standardization. The term “system of record” seems just thrown into this sentence and it has no meaning.  What if it did allow for process standardization — should it be applied also to SAP applications that are not the system of record?

At this point, it is becoming more than apparent that the authors don’t know what they are talking about. 

Gartner on SAP Fiori as SAPGUI Replacement?

“SAP Fiori UX is the new user experience for SAP Software. This seems like an innocuous statement — a statement that can be read as “Oh, that’s nice; SAP is making things look better.” If seen in that context, SAP Fiori UX would end up being something SAP customers might eventually consider when they have time.”

I think this paragraph requires one critical caveat. Fiori is partially a new user experience for SAP software.

Gartner is making the same proposal that SAP routinely makes — which is proposing in, at least an indirect manner, that Fiori is set to replace the SAPGUI. My previous article illustrates why this is untrue. Gartner gives no hint of this and is very much right on message with SAP.

As I point out in this analysis, Gartner is mimicking SAP’s messaging. That might be normal and not all that much of concern under other circumstances (i.e., repeating things that are true). However, SAP’s messaging on Fiori not accurate (as my previous article described). Therefore, Gartner is not performing much if any independent analysis versus what it is being provided by SAP.

Not to beat the dead horse, but let us say that a company has all the time in the world and that they like Fiori. But, as with most businesses, they do not have plans to use HANA. Or if they plan to it is in some very limited way. Port the BW to HANA for instance. So now what?

Gartner on SAP Fiori as A “Game Changer”?

“SAP Fiori UX is anything but innocuous. It is such a radical rethink of the way people should interact with an ERP system that it will impact the way application leaders need to manage their SAP implementation, including team responsibilities, structures and success metrics. If successful, SAP Fiori UX will have profound implications on the enterprise software market.”

Fiori is much nicer looking than the SAPGUI, but it is less functional than SAPGUI because it is primarily a mobile reporting app.

Its almost as if Fiori is designed more to look good, in brochures rather than being a functional UI. In testing Fiori takes longer than diong the same actions in SAPGUI. Fiori only has the advantage of graphics display over SAPGUI. Outside of a few small SAP consulting partners that are using the Professional Services functionality, globally, we estimate that companies using exclusively Fiori to “work in” S/4HANA is close to nil. 

SAP’s Overhyped Mediocre UI

I don’t see it as in the same category as the top UI’s among the 53 vendors I have covered. Plus, one can’t analyze a series of mobile applications — that are designed to do more simple things as a user interface that drives the entire application. Fiori is not the primary user interface of SAP. Again, this distinction seems lost on Gartner.

“SAP Fiori UX delivers a fundamentally different user experience by being centered on the tasks and activities that matter to the end user. In contrast to previous approaches by SAP, the Fiori experience is not limited to a functional area, but rather cuts across functional areas and end-to-end processes. This is delivered through a collection of purposeful apps (see “The App and Its Impact on Software Design” ). The Fiori concept also entails end users’ ability to choose, invoke and manage their own set of apps via the Fiori launchpad. Fiori apps work equally on desktops, tablets or smartphones (see “Turning Supertankers: Getting SAP UX Right”).”

Having extensively tested Fiori, (rather than taking notes from SAP relationship managers as Gartner did) I don’t think this is true, and a lot of details are being glossed over here.

  • First, many Fiori apps are solely within one functional area.
  • Second, I am also not convinced that Fiori works equally well on desktops, tablets or smartphones. In fact, it would be highly unlikely if it did. SAP made an error basing Fiori on mobile UI technologies. People do not need to use SAP applications on tablets or phones. If they do, they can use apps created by mobile teams that write in either Android or iOS that send data to SAP. (SAP seems to be refighting the battles of SAP Mobile. SAP already lost the mobile space to Andriod and iOS development.)

Fiori’s Core Strength in Display

Fiori’s core strength is on mobile devices, so tablets and smartphones. How can a user interface that is designed to show a screen work as well on a phone as it does on a computer? Even web pages — which are considerably less complicated than an enterprise application screen and are geared for display — lose functionality when transitioning from a computer to a phone. Try using LinkedIn on the phone, and then compare the experience/functionality to using LinkedIn on a computer. LinkedIn is actually optimized for phones, not computers.

Screen real estate, as well as input devices (keyboards, mice, etc.), mean substantial differences in usage. I am happy to be updated on a phone or tablet, but if I have serious work to do. If I am going to plan a supply network or analyze a series of forecasts, I don’t see how any application on the planet is going to work “equally” well on a phone, tablet or a computer. And this had nothing to do with SAP or Fiori — it is a statement that applies to application interfaces overall. A user interface also works differently also depending upon the size and resolution of a monitor, or when used across two computer screens versus one.

Where is Gartner coming from here? Don’t they user, user, interfaces on different devices? Why don’t they just intuitively know this?

Once again, this sound suspiciously like SAP’s messaging on Fiori. Who are the actual authors of this article — the people listed by Gartner on the article or SAP?

Gartner Wraps Up with Some Lightweight Fare

Later in the article, Gartner waxes philosophically about how Fiori should be looked at differently than SAP’s previous (and failed) UI attempt — called Personas.

Well, wait for a second — what happened to Personas??

In 2015  I was proposing Personas as pre-sales support for part of a sales team as a new way to use SAP that was much better than the SAPGUI. (Personas is now dead by the way). Why does Gartner not discuss the failure of Personas? Personas has almost the same marketing as Fiori.

Gartner Praises Hasso Plattner’s Philanthropy

The article goes on to praise Hasso Plattner for his philanthropic donations to the Hasso Plattner School of Design. (Interestingly, they don’t point out Hasso Plattner’s “philanthropic donations” to Gartner itself) Then Gartner discusses how Fiori should be seen as a culmination of his commitment to this high-minded principle or that high-minded principle. I teared up at one point! It’s all very captivating until you realize that Gartner is being paid per word.

First, I don’t see what any of this has to do with Fiori’s real prospects. Secondly, once again, these paragraphs (which I do not include so as not to provide too much of Gartner’s content) seem like they were coordinated with SAP’s PR department.

Gartner then falls a logical utility hole when providing an utterly spurious example from history — which will confuse anyone unfamiliar with what happened.

“A good analogy is to see this in the context of SAP’s move from client/server to service-oriented architectures. Modern service-oriented architectures were not simply a matter of upgrading infrastructure and then installing the new version. SOA has had direct impacts on the way application design and management occurred. For example, application development teams needed to understand the principles of good service design and associated information architecture implications while manifesting a culture of reuse…. Just like the transition to SOAs, SAP Fiori UX will necessitate that application teams understand the principles of good UX design and put these into regular practice.”

This entire paragraph is incorrect. SOA was one of the high lead balloons in the past ten years in technology. SOA never came to fruition, and SAP never did much to enable SOA.

SAP’s Financial Incentives Against SOA

In fact, one could say that a vendor like SAP would have all the financial incentives to push against SOA — not to promote it, as it moves towards more open systems. But more open systems leads to less lock-in, and less lock-in leads to less profit. This is reminiscent of Vinnie Mirchandani’s book SAP Nation, where SAP talks cloud to Wall Street, but then sells on-premises, because of that locks in customers are better.

Therefore if we review Gartner’s logic here, Gartner is saying that something that never took off — SOA, is a reason why Fiori should be considered inevitable? Does Gartner even know that SOA never was successful? It is an interesting approach. I never thought of working fake history into any of my articles.

This entire paragraph brings up a lot of questions to me. This might be one of the only paragraphs that would argue against SAP writing this, as SAP must know that this is incorrect and that people familiar with technology would see this as a major red flag.


  • This article by Gartner is almost entirely inaccurate regarding Fiori but is also filled with falsehoods that are unrelated to Fiori.
  • It also fails to bring up any of the most interesting points about Fiori.
  • Based on the article, I have no confidence that the authors know anything about Fiori beyond what they were told by SAP.

Someone did not mind the store when this article was released. Gartner is supposed to take money from vendors, but it is intended to do a better job of covering up their bias — and not release documents like this that show such blatant bias.

Something I find interesting is that I have rated many applications, and rated their user interface. Some of the best user interfaces I have come across are from Arena Solutions, DemandWorks, BaseCRM, and PlanetTogether. These are not add-on apps that are a sideshow to the main event; they are the actual user interface used by these applications. They have been around for years and are live on many accounts. However, instead of writing about exemplary user interfaces that are already live at customers from smaller vendors that have much smaller checkbooks, Gartner spends time writing about the “inevitability” of adjusting apps that cannot replace the core user interface of the supplier in question.


That is something the reader can most likely answer for themselves.

And so far, Fiori has very little uptake by customers (and this article was updated in July 2018). So Gartner has so far not done a good job predicting the future of Fiori.

Search Our Other Fiori Content

Brightwork 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.

HANA & S/4HANA Research Contact

  • Interested in Research on S/4HANA & HANA?

    It is difficult for most companies to make improvements in S/4HANA and HANA without outside advice. And it is not possible to get honest S/4HANA and HANA advice from large consulting companies. We offer remote unbiased multi-dimension S/4HANA and HANA support.

    Just fill out the form below and we'll be in touch.


Five Upgrade Strategies for Oracle E-Business Suite Customers to Consider, Rimini Street

The Gartner Book


GARTNER-1Gartner and the Magic Quadrant: A Guide for Buyers, Vendors, and Investors

How to Figure Out How to Effectively User Gartner

Whether you are a software buyer, a large or small vendor, or are wondering how Gartner can help you make better investment decisions, this book will give you new insights to Gartner’s research. By studying the methodology behind such popular analytical tools like the Magic Quadrant, you will understand how a vendor earned its rating and whether or not the ratings are justified!

Understanding Gartner, It’s History, and It’s Incentives

Starting with the history of Gartner and how it compares to other IT analyst firms, this book gives a realistic assessment of the value of Gartner research to a company and provides ideas about other resources that could complement Gartner’s analysis. You will also have the tools to level the playing field between large, medium and small vendors when using Gartner’s analysis in selecting software.


  • Chapter 1: Introduction
  • Chapter 2: An Overview of Gartner
  • Chapter 3: How Gartner Makes Money
  • Chapter 4: Comparing Gartner to Consumer Reports, the RAND Corporation, and Academic Research
  • Chapter 5: The Magic Quadrant
  • Chapter 6: Other Analytical Products Offered by Gartner
  • Chapter 7: Gartner’s Future and Cloud Computing
  • Chapter 8: Adjusting the Magic Quadrant
  • Chapter 9: Is Gartner Worth the Investment?
  • Chapter 10: Conclusion
  • Appendix a: How to Use Independent Consultants for Software Selection
  • Appendix b: What Does the History of Media Tell Us About This Topic
  • Appendix c: Disclosure Statements and Code of Ethics

Risk Estimation and Calculation

Risk Estimation and Calculation

See our free project risk estimators that are available per application. The provide a method of risk analysis that is not available from other sources.