Stop measuring SAP success on IT milestones and demand business outcomes

The HFS Point of View on SAP S/4HANA transformation urges CIOs, transformation leaders, and procurement teams to push pushing their service providers to commit to board-level business outcomes rather than technical milestones.

The key takeaway from the HFS Horizons: SAP S/4HANA Transformation Services, 2026 report is that most CIOs and transformation leaders still measure SAP transformation programs by go-live dates, custom code counts, and system uptime, while the board cares about released working capital, shortened close cycles, and supply chains made adaptive.

No wonder 90% of 202 large enterprise leaders surveyed by HFS for the 2026 Pulse Survey plan to change their IT service providers and delivery models! That is not a market forecast. It is a verdict that current engagements are not delivering against the right standards.

Migration is table stakes; the differentiator is what comes after

The ability to execute an S/4HANA cutover no longer differentiates any provider worth shortlisting. What the market is focused on is the 6–18 months after go-live phase, in which benefit realization either arrives or quietly disappears into a post-program review. Most programs today are structured to deliver IT outcomes and then hand the business-value case back to the enterprise to work out, and that model has exhausted its credibility runway. Of the 25 providers HFS assessed, half have moved beyond it with demonstrably different commercial models and delivery accountability. The remaining providers are competing on cost and delivery speed, which is a structural race to the bottom for providers, and a missed value opportunity for enterprise buyers.

Clean core is settled architecture, but executing against two decades of debt is not

The combination of fit-to-standard ERP, BTP-first extensibility, and integration modernization on SAP Integration Suite is a technically robust architecture for SAP transformations. However, executing that against 200–400 custom developments per enterprise is a different proposition entirely. Data quality problems and legacy ABAP debt consistently rank higher on the “harder to resolve” scale than the migration itself across every briefing HFS conducted.

SAP’s extended maintenance window (standard through 2027 with premium maintenance available through 2030) gives many enterprises yet another rationale to defer. Unfortunately, deferral will just be debt compounding for longer. Enterprises that treat clean core as a governance principle rather than the delivery discipline it is meant to be will have to run the same migration conversation again in five years, with more liability and less patience from the board.

Buyers want outcome-linked pricing, but most SAP contracts haven’t caught up

Enterprise buyers are pushing for commercial models tied to business KPIs. This is the single most consistent demand signal across enterprise conversations we had during the SAP S/4HANA Transformation Services Horizons, but the reality is that 75% of current SAP transformation contracts remain fixed-price or time-and-materials. Benefit realization from S/4HANA programs arrives 6–18 months post-go-live, which is structurally misaligned with board reporting cycles.

The market is responding, with milestone-based, managed capacity, and IP-led pricing gaining ground, but genuine risk transfer remains rare. Capgemini’s gain-sharing arrangement and IBM’s 50/50 AI savings model are exceptions worth studying. Enterprise buyers today are in a stronger negotiating position than two years ago, but most are not using it.

Client innovation scores are a warning signal, not a satisfaction metric

Across 26+ enterprise client references, providers score highest on value proposition and lowest on innovation, with a 3.0-point spread between top and bottom quartiles. Read that gap not as a satisfaction score but as a leading indicator of relationship risk. The providers scoring low on innovation in client feedback are the ones most exposed at the next contract renewal.

Enterprise clients are explicitly calling out the need for stronger AI and GenAI capabilities, deeper BTP skills, better test automation, industry-specific IP, and greater outcome-based transparency. If your provider sits in that category in your own reference checks, treat it as a strategic watch-out rather than a footnote for the quarterly review.

The Bottom Line: Require your service provider to commit to delivering what matters to the board.

If the commercial model does not include some form of outcome linkage, push for it. The market is moving that way, and early movers get better terms. The ECC maintenance deadline creates real urgency for those willing to act, but it should not be used to rush past the question of whether your provider is accountable for business KPIs or just the technical milestones.