Once entered the implementation phase, how can you (still) turn things around? And how can the system be improved for further and future requirements even after the actual changeover? 

Managers of transforming companies often get insecure during the course of the transformation as to whether they are following the right course, how they can still achieve their goals and whether they have set the right goals at all. This can be the case, for example, if the top management does not pay attention to the project early enough. Our experience and the study show that it is not uncommon for companies to commit an "act of desperation" and expand the scope even during the transformation. However, this is also the main reason for project deviations, and a sign of lack of transparency and prioritization as well as misjudgments of the organization's capabilities and the required resources. 

A successful transformation project is characterized by a clear strategic focus, a stable governance structure and continuous performance measurement. Companies should therefore regularly ask themselves: 

• Are the original objectives still the focus or have they been diluted over time? 
• Is there a transparent project management with clear responsibilities and effective decision-making? 
• Are the critical processes, IT interfaces and requirements fully defined and documented? 

Well-established status checks, for example through structured reviews, help to identify deviations at an early stage. Optimization measures must be prioritized, including a clear distinction between "must-haves" and "nice-to-haves". The specialist departments must be involved, for the impact of change depends on the acceptance and training of employees. And finally, it needs a certain degree of flexibility in the scope, for adjustments may be necessary and reasonable, but not outside a clearly defined framework. 

It's not over once the transformation is completed. In particular, companies that have transformed with the brownfield approach often only postponed necessary optimizations for future requirements. The following questions are now crucial: 

• How can important objectives that had to be cut in the course of the project be achieved retrospectively? 
• How can the potential of the new SAP S/4HANA system be further improved?  
• What future requirements will the system have to meet in the short to medium term as a result of the dynamics of new technologies, such as AI? 

In order to identify and prioritize the need for further action, a holistic and targeted assessment is recommended. Our framework shows the dimensions that need to be considered: 

On the main axis are the key dimensions of the TOM (Target Operating Model): Business Model, Steering Model, Processes, People & Organization, and IT Landscape & Data. On the second axis are the technology characteristics, S/4HANA core system, the functional suites, AI systems, etc.  

There is no such thing as a standard solution to this assessment. Each company must determine individually how to further optimize its system landscape and prepare for future challenges. 

Companies that regularly review their strategic goals, proactively manage them and use new technologies will reap the greatest long-term benefits from their SAP S/4HANA implementation. However, this only works if you also "surf" the optimization wave after the transformation.