2. Fit-to-Standard — But Which Standard Are You Actually Choosing?
- David Murphy
- Apr 12
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 17
Introduction
“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.
S/4HANA Transformation Series
When “Agile” S/4HANA Programmes Quietly Revert to Waterfall — and Why It Matters
Fit-to-Standard — But Which Standard Are You Actually Choosing?
Why Data Will Make or Break Your S/4HANA Programme — Long Before Go-Live
Right-Sizing Change Management in S/4HANA — Why Timing Matters More Than Headcount
Rationalising External Systems in S/4HANA — Why Integration Simplicity is a Strategic Advantage
Documentation from Day One — Why Documentation from Day One Matters
Comments