Everyone wants to talk about transformation.
Digital roadmaps, intelligent ERP, AI integration, and industry cloud solutions dominate the conversation. But when it comes to why SAP implementations succeed or fail, it often comes down to something much simpler:
Did you get the basics right?
In every S/4HANA project I’ve been part of, the biggest delays, change requests, and post-go-live regrets came not from edge cases or futuristic aspirations — but from foundational decisions that were rushed, ignored, or delegated to the wrong people.
Let’s talk about the parts of an SAP implementation no one posts about on LinkedIn, but that determine whether your project thrives or implodes.
What “The Basics” Actually Means in SAP
You hear the word a lot: “Let’s start with the basics.”
But in SAP, that doesn’t mean starting simple. It means starting correctly.
Here’s what “the basics” really refers to in an SAP S/4HANA implementation:
- Defining your organizational structure the right way
- Setting up profit centers, company codes, plants, and storage locations with intention
- Designing material master data, customer/vendor data, and chart of accounts with consistency
- Clarifying which entity does what in a multi-company or multi-country environment
- Establishing a COGS and revenue flow that reflects how you run your business
It’s not glamorous work. But get this wrong, and the best dashboards, mobile apps, and GenAI assistants can’t save your project.
Real-World Example: Profit Center Regrets
A customer we worked with had five legal entities in Europe. During the blueprint phase, they quickly agreed on using one company code (Germany) and “just adding profit centers later.”
Post go-live, they realized:
- They couldn’t separate revenue by country
- Cost of goods sold was lumped into one bucket
- Tax reporting for France and Sweden required custom workarounds
The system was working — but the business wasn’t getting what it needed. And fixing it meant going back to square one.
The painful truth? If the profit center structure had been designed properly in the beginning, none of these issues would have emerged.
The Most Overlooked “Basics” That Blow Up SAP Projects
1. Organizational Structure Design
Too many teams treat this like a formality. But your company codes, sales orgs, plants, and profit centers define:
- What data you can report on
- How transactions are processed
- What gets consolidated and where
Tip: Invest real time in simulating business flows through your proposed org structure. Think beyond SAP’s view — think about how your CEO wants to see performance.
2. Master Data Governance
Poor master data design is like building a skyscraper on sand.
If your material types, numbering schemes, and field definitions are inconsistent, you’ll end up with:
- Broken reports
- Misrouted workflows
- Chaos during order processing or procurement
Most rework in SAP stems from bad master data decisions made early — or never made at all.
3. Finance Configuration That Matches Reality
Many companies try to “figure out controlling later.” But your ability to produce clean, country-specific income statements, allocate SG&A, or track COGS by product line depends entirely on how you design:
- Your cost elements
- Cost centers vs. profit centers
- Valuation strategies
- Internal orders (for allocations and reclassifications)
Fixing this post-go-live is always harder than getting it right before Day 1.
4. Process Ownership and Decision Fatigue
Another “basic” that gets ignored? Assigning real owners to business processes.
In many SAP implementations, the same issue keeps stalling workshops:
- “Who signs off on this workflow?”
- “Do we handle returns differently in the UK?”
- “Who decides what fields are mandatory for materials?”
Without clear ownership, you get:
- Endless loops of indecision
- Last-minute redesign
- Testing delays
And worse: no one feels accountable when things break.
Why These Basics Get Ignored
Because they’re not exciting.
Because they’re “just config.”
Because leadership assumes the team will figure it out.
But let me say this clearly: Getting the basics right takes leadership. It takes time, focus, and people who understand both the system and the business.
These aren’t junior consultant tasks — they’re strategic business design decisions.
“We’ll Clean It Up Later” Is a Trap
This is the most common lie SAP customers tell themselves.
You won’t clean it up later.
Once you go live:
- Changing master data requires migration scripts
- Rebuilding org structure means re-implementing parts of Finance
- Reassigning ownership in-flight causes churn
A better approach?
Slow down early to move faster later.
Ask the hard questions up front.
Validate your design by walking through real scenarios before you build anything.
The “Basics First” Checklist for SAP Success
| Area | Key Questions to Validate |
| Org Structure | Do we have alignment across Finance, Sales, and Ops on how we structure entities, profit centers, plants, and sales areas? |
| Master Data | Are we defining clear rules for material types, naming conventions, mandatory fields, and field values? |
| Reporting Design | Have we validated how financial reports will look across countries, entities, and product lines? |
| Ownership | Do we have named owners for every major process: quote, order, ship, invoice, produce, procure? |
| Governance | Is there a clear escalation and approval path when teams disagree on design decisions? |
Final Thought: Transformation Begins with Foundations
You don’t build a cathedral with glass.
You build it with stone.
In SAP, the “stone” is your org structure, your master data, your process governance, and your reporting model. It’s not exciting — but it’s everything.
If your SAP project is underway — or about to begin — ask yourself:
Have we mastered the basics? Or are we assuming we’ll figure it out later?
Because transformation doesn’t begin with innovation.
It begins with discipline.