Fit-to-Standard — But Which Standard Are You Actually Choosing?
- David Murphy
- 24 hours ago
- 4 min read
Petrol prices are a hot topic right now.
But the real question isn’t just cost — it’s choosing the right fuel.
With rising prices, knowing exactly what your vehicle needs matters more than ever. Get it wrong, and you either underperform… or overpay for something you don’t need.
The same principle applies to S/4HANA.
“Fit-to-standard” has become a cornerstone of S/4HANA transformations, especially when aligned to SAP Activate. The intent is clear: adopt proven processes, reduce customisation, and accelerate delivery.
But here’s the challenge:
There isn’t just one “standard” — particularly across Supply Chain and Operations.
Choosing the wrong one can introduce unnecessary complexity, cost, and inefficiency — the equivalent of putting premium fuel into a system that doesn’t need it.
The Myth of a Single Standard
Within SAP, there are multiple standard paradigms — and in this example we are only looking at Plan-to-Deliver. The same situation exists across Finance, HR and other domains.
Across the Plan to Deliver value chain, there are multiple “standard” options within each module — each shaping how processes run, how users interact with the system, and how data flows across the business:
PP (Production Planning) - discrete, repetitive, process
MM (Materials Management)
WM / EWM (Warehouse Management options)
SD (Sales & Distribution)
TM (Transportation Management)
PM (Plant Maintenance)
QM (Quality Management)
Each of these contains multiple standard process variants — designed for different operating models, levels of complexity, and business maturity.
Standard Does Not Always Mean Simple
A common trap is assuming that adopting SAP standard automatically leads to simplification.
In reality:
EWM may offer advanced capability — but at the cost of increased process complexity vs WM
TM can optimise transport planning — but may be unnecessary for simpler logistics networks
QM processes can be highly structured — but may introduce overhead if not aligned to actual business needs
Without careful selection, organisations risk:
Over-engineering their processes
Increasing the number of user steps
Creating reliance on workarounds
The goal should not be maximum functionality — but appropriate simplicity.
Choosing the Right Standard Across the Landscape
All of the options above are standard.
The challenge is not whether to adopt standard — but which standard to choose.
Getting this right is critical to:
Avoid unnecessary complexity
Ensure key controls are retained within S/4
Enable coherent end-to-end processes
Define effective integration with external systems
Key design decisions include:
Production Planning (PP) →
Material staging vs direct consumption
Confirmation frequency (real-time, shift-based, backflush)
Integration with Goods Receipt
Handling of bulk materials across multiple finished goods
Order creation, scheduling, and release
Materials Management (MM) →
Level of supplier collaboration
Use of forecasts, confirmations, ASN
Integration with third-party warehousing
Warehouse Strategy (WM/EWM) →
WM vs EWM vs external WMS
Retain or replace legacy systems
Level of automation and control required
Basic or Advanced requirements
Logistics (SD / TM) →
Order capture and fulfilment approach
In-house vs 3PL transport planning
Execution ownership and visibility
Need for control tower capability
Asset Management (PM) →
Retain or replace legacy maintenance tools
Integration of spare parts and scheduling
Quality (QM) →
Inspection points across the lifecycle
Traceability requirements (batch, serial, none)
Level of quality system integration
These decisions must align across:
End-to-end process flows
Data structures
Integration models
External systems
And critically — they must reflect how the business actually operates, or intends to operate.
Structural Decisions That Drive Complexity
Some of the most impactful decisions are structural, not process-driven.
For example:
Should a site be defined as a plant?
Or a storage location within a plant?
What appears to be a simple early decision can significantly increase — or reduce — overall complexity.
However, these decisions should not be locked in too early.
The most effective programmes:
Allow users to experience processes in a sandbox
Demonstrate end-to-end scenarios
Base decisions on system behaviour, not documentation
This reduces rework and ensures decisions are grounded in reality.
Who Should the User Interact With?
A key but often under-discussed question is:
Where should the user experience sit?
To maintain a clean core, not every interaction needs to happen directly in S/4.
Not all interactions need to occur in S/4:
Warehouse users → EWM RF/mobile
Shop floor → MES
Quality → LIMS
Transport → TM
The principle:
Use specialised systems where appropriate
Keep S/4 as the system of record and orchestration layer
This preserves a clean core while maintaining usability.
Keeping the Core Clean — While Keeping It Usable
A clean core approach does not mean compromising user experience.
A pragmatic approach includes:
Using SAP Fiori to simplify transactions
Applying small, targeted enhancements
Leveraging SAP BTP for lightweight extensions
This ensures:
Alignment to standard
Improved usability
Avoidance of heavy customisation
The focus is on simplifying interaction — not redesigning core processes.
Integration: Purpose over volume
Standard processes often rely on well-designed integration.
Key questions:
Which system owns the data?
What level of detail is required?
How frequently should data be exchanged?
For example:
Full LIMS results vs pass/fail into QM
Real-time MES confirmations vs aggregated updates
Over-integration leads to:
Increased complexity
Performance issues
Higher failure risk
The goal is purposeful integration — not maximum integration.
Don't Let External Systems Drive Design
A far too common mistake is allowing legacy systems to dictate SAP design.
This leads to:
Compromised standard processes
Increased customisation
Long-term constraints
Instead:
Define the SAP standard first
Align external systems to it
Clearly define ownership
Don’t Ignore Change Management
Every standard choice impacts users.
More complex solutions mean:
Higher change impact
Increased training needs
Greater adoption risk
Choosing the right standard is as much a people decision as a technical one..
Final Thought
“Fit-to-standard” is not about adopting everything SAP offers.
It is about:
Selecting the right standards
Keeping processes as simple as possible
Designing integrations intentionally
Placing user interaction in the right systems
Maintaining a clean, sustainable core
Just like fuel — the right choice isn’t the most powerful or the most expensive.
It’s the one that best fits your engine.
Get this right, and S/4 becomes an enabler.
Get it wrong, and “standard” becomes another layer of complexity — often driving users back to offline spreadsheets just to get work done.
Comments