Most SAP migrations bust budgets and project timelines, research finds

Steven

Most SAP migrations bust budgets and project timelines, research finds

Summary

Research from ISG of 200 senior decision-makers at large global organisations finds nearly 60% of SAP migration projects run late and over budget. Many teams underestimate complexity, suffer scope creep and underestimate internal constraints. Fewer than one in five organisations reimplement processes when moving to S/4HANA; almost half carry out little or no re-engineering and preserve legacy processes and data.

The report highlights three migration approaches: brownfield (34%), greenfield (18%) and hybrid/”bluefield” (many organisations mix approaches). Over-customisation of legacy ERP is common and creates resistance to standardising on SAP’s preferred clean-core model, which in turn can limit long-term benefits and hamper adoption of newer tech such as AI.

The findings come as mainstream support for ECC ends in 2027 (extended support available to 2030 at a premium) and show around two-thirds of SAP ERP users are still in planning stages — making the mainstream-support cutoff unlikely for many. ISG emphasises that people, processes and governance — not just technology — are key causes of delays.

Key Points

  • Nearly 60% of SAP migration projects run over budget or are delayed, per ISG research of 200 senior decision-makers.
  • Fewer than 20% of organisations fully reimplement processes when migrating to S/4HANA; 49% perform little or no re-engineering.
  • Migration strategies: 34% brownfield, 18% greenfield, with many using hybrid/bluefield approaches that can muddy outcomes.
  • Extensive legacy customisations create fear of standardisation and contribute to inertia and scope creep.
  • Fragmented processes and legacy data structures limit the ability to deploy AI and realise automation and forecasting benefits post-migration.
  • With mainstream ECC support ending in 2027 and extended support to 2030, many organisations remain in planning and risk missing the cutoff.
  • ISG warns delays are often caused by people and governance issues — poor planning, changing requirements and underestimated constraints — rather than technology alone.

Why should I read this?

If you’ve got SAP on your watch, read this — it’s a quick reality check. The survey shows the usual suspects: underestimated complexity, scope creep and terrified stakeholders clinging to customisations. It flags concrete risks if you’re not planning re-engineering, and why that will bite you on timelines, budgets and future AI/automation plans.

Author style

Punchy. This is a timely wake-up for CIOs, programme leads and project managers wrestling with ECC and S/4HANA timelines. If you’re responsible for ERP change, the detail matters — the numbers and the quotes here underline that migration strategy, governance and stakeholder management are as important as the technical lift.

Source

Source: https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2026/02/05/sap_migrations_research/