After the acquisition of Calliduscloud.com by SAP in 2018 it’s only natural that the flagship Incentive Compensation Management product, dubbed now SAP Commissions, is getting a full architecture rewrite to core SAP technologies (and will be called SuccessFactors Incentive Management).
The previous architecture, based on Oracle, won’t be supported beyond 2026 and the customers face a choice of either upgrading to HANA on Google Hyperscalers or moving to a different ICM/SPM platform vendor.
Every time a migration (whether to HANA or to another ICM/SPM system) is considered, there are quite a few things that can make the project fail from the start. The writing is literally on the wall (or – in the contract) and here is a suggested approach to score the SOW:
All vendors and SI promise to deliver projects on time and within budget, but the reality is that during the sales cycle you’ll get the world, while the reality is in the SOW.
In the end, “we talked about this during a call or two” loses dearly vs “here’s the contractual statement”.
To measure risk of the project not finished on time and within budget, you may want to deliver a scorecard (an example is provided below) to consider the following factors:
One of the most important considerations is the type of project. Some vendors are going for T&M option only, others are very comfortable with Fixed Price.
That factor alone tells you much about chances of staying within project budget…
Vendors know that Fixed Price is an extremely important factor, so they put strange clauses in SOWs to cover for the fact, that SOW is in reality T&M.
Look for typical clauses like these:
There are many more ways of writing that a Fixed Price contract is in reality a T&M, so take a big magnifying glass when reading the SOWs!
Some vendors agree to cover the cost of migration – but as always, you need to take it with a pinch of salt.
Something you may find in the SOW is that the cost of migration is indeed covered, but the migration is on a T&M basis.
That basically means that the vendor may be actually interested to extend the timeline, despite verbal promise that it’s otherwise.
One might think that the cost of data storage is irrelevant – and one would be making a great mistake.
Some vendors make their storage very expensive, not only that, there’s no way of telling how much storage the system will consume!
Do ask yourself a question: if the storage allowance is not only for the input data volume, but for all intermediate storage the system will produce, what influence will you have to modify the system’s behavior and reduce storage consumption?
Why is the vendor charging you for everything that the system will produce, instead of only for the data you’ll load?
If you translate this scenario, what you get in reality is: “it’s a black box, you need to pay for everything it does – but we don’t know how much.”
Of course, in the course of sales calls, you’ll get a lot of statements like that from vendors:
Data storage cost can produce significant charges in case of overages, so vendors that charge you only for the input data volume tend to be a much safer choice in terms of running cost.
That one looks like a no-brainer – if the vendor/SI knows your business already, they sure will have an advantage over other implementation partners. As always, things are more complicated than this:
This one can get costly – it’s only natural, that for a period of time there will be two systems running: the old one (SAP Commissions) and the new one.
Please consider the following:
Here’s an example scorecard that you may want to use – the weights can be adjusted to your specific needs:
|1 for T&M, 3 for capped T&M, 10 for Fixed Price
|Cost of migration covered by vendor
|0 if not, 5 if partially, 10 if fully
|1 for limited with risk of overage, 2 if limited with low risk of overage, 5 if unlimited
|Margin/Uro changes included
|0 if not included (additional cost will apply), 5 if included
|Client-specific implementation partner
|0 if little knowledge of Client commissions or known of delays, 5 if client commissions knowledgeable partner with no/little history of delays
|Parallel testing includedd
|0 if not included, 3 if 2 months, 5 if 3+ months
|Reduced parallel license cost
|0 if no mitigation, 3 if mitigated for 3 months, 6 if mitigated for 6 moths, 12 if mitigated for 12 months