First part what you mention is a bit arrogant, no company wants to do that, and by doing it would lose most of competitive advantage which can very well be in those edge cases and their handling (and often they do lose their edge by going SAP way and sometimes collapse because of it). Like hearing SAP sales guy.

Second part is actually correct - you have to change your way into how SAP works, its just a typical crappy legacy rigid mammoth software that requires overpriced army of devs/analysts, not much more. If it would be marketed that way, they would go bankrupt very quickly because no company willingly wants to do that, and certainly not at that cost.

But anytime some c-suite manager picks up SAP, you can be sure there were some nice meetings done in ultra luxurious places and more often than not some bribes went that way, in one form or another. This is the way, if your system sucks so much it destroys companies

>But anytime some c-suite manager picks up SAP, you can be sure there were some nice meetings done in ultra luxurious places and more often than not some bribes went that way, in one form or another. This is the way, if your system sucks so much it destroys companies

The drive to ERP is understandable. The issue is that homegrown solutions suck too - most businesses aren't IT companies and can't properly maintain a custom solutions. Using a third party makes sense, and allows you to hire outside devs with experience. SAP is however usually not the best solution...

As a rule of thumb, take 80% of an ERP system as is adopt max. 20%. If said edge cases are truely your competitive advantage by all means get them working in your ERP system. More often than not, people consider edge cases competitive advantages when they usually are just legacy stuff that doesn't really matter.

Yes, that is also my understanding. SAP implements "best practice" solutions, and companies adapt to SAP to get the advantages af that.