I was first introduced to SAP in the final months of 1997. Between 1998 and 2000, I had the opportunity to thoroughly understand and learn the system during an exceptionally successful implementation process for that time. In the following years, I took great pleasure in participating in numerous projects involving SAP software. Although much has changed over the years, the experiences and memories from those early days remain fondly in our minds.
In the late ’90s, the name SAP was just starting to gain recognition in our country. The company first entered the Turkish market in 1994, during a time of economic crisis, with Unilever as its initial client. In 2001, once again in the midst of a financial crisis, SAP established its Turkey office. I distinctly remember SAP Turkey’s slogan that year: “Presenting the Future Together.”
Between 1994 and 2001, many organizations in Turkey, including industry multi-national leaders like Coca-Cola, Bosch, Unilever and Goodyear, began to show interest in the enterprise resource planning (ERP) software SAP. These companies aimed to transition from person-centered systems to a more corporate structure, with a focus on ensuring the sustainability of this new approach.
At that time, many existing software systems faced the “Y2K millennium bug,” where the year field was stored using only two digits. This structural issue posed a significant problem for years beyond 1999. Some companies opted for SAP software simply because it was developed to be compliant with the 2000s.
Whether driven by it being the latest “trend,” a push for “corporatization,” or concerns over Y2K, companies that made this investment were actually making a very wise decision for their future. However, this truth would only be fully realized years later. Companies often saw SAP as a silver bullet—a tool that would automatically fix broken processes or streamline outdated workflows.
All the projects began with great hopes and high motivation; however, companies in our country experiencing SAP for the first time encountered numerous unexpected challenges. Many SAP projects launched in the late ’90s and early 2000s ended up being both prolonged and quite painful, not to mention costly. At first, organizations did not achieve the results they had anticipated.
Had they made a mistake? Why was this software, which brought efficiency to some of the world’s leading companies, causing problems for our businesses? What was the root cause of failure?
For many companies, the sole culprit behind their struggles was SAP itself: “This SAP system doesn’t meet our requirements! Our business is very unique. You can’t do this or that in this software… etc.” Almost everyone was convinced that they were doing their jobs exceptionally well, that their processes were special, and that the software couldn’t fully meet their needs. In those early years, blaming the software was the easy way out.
In my opinion, these were misguided judgments stemming from a lack of sufficient understanding of the system. Looking back today, it brings a smile to my face. SAP is not a plug-and-play software that works right out of the box. It is a highly adaptable system, open to all sorts of enhancements—how could such a flexible solution be considered inadequate? Ironically, due to this very adaptability, many of our companies ended up replicating their old systems almost entirely on SAP, by requesting unnecessary customizations.
In reality, apart from production processes that may be specific to a business, processes like accounting, purchasing, sales, and human resources are quite similar across industries and organizations. While not entirely identical, these functions—which often even share the same department names—generally follow similar standard process steps in almost every company.
What sets our country apart is the need to comply with local legal regulations, and SAP includes localization programs tailored to each country. At that time, some of the key areas specific to Turkey included taxation, post-dated checks (an application unique to Turkey, Thailand, and Greece), import and customs procedures, and payroll structures. All of these were developed within SAP software to align with Turkish regulations.
Therefore, the argument that “our business is different, and SAP can’t handle it,” often voiced without sufficient knowledge, holds no ground. The reality is that the work being done is not as extraordinarily unique as claimed, and SAP is more than capable of adapting to various processes seamlessly.
So, what kind of software is SAP, which is often unfairly blamed for all these problems? And why has it been so successful worldwide?
First and foremost, SAP is a German software system that embodies the characteristics of German culture. To me, Germans are somewhat peculiar, with their strict discipline and lack of humor. However, I believe that the key to SAP’s global success lies in their unique cultural traits, which may seem foreign to us.
One of the most significant characteristics of Germans is their sensitivity to time. For them, everything related to time is of immense value; they are renowned for their punctuality, even when it comes to attending meetings. SAP is also a real-time system. Data related to business processes is entered and reported in the system simultaneously as the process occurs. For us Turks, however, the concept of time is relatively more fluid. How many “experts” in our country actually stick to the deadlines they promise? What would your answer be?
Another key trait of Germans is organization—the ability to break down tasks into sections and responsibilities. Their success stems from their highly organized approach, where tasks are divided into controllable segments, and specialists are assigned to each task. SAP reflects this same mentality. It is modular, with each module having its own set of experts. In contrast, we often struggle to find specialists in specific fields in Turkey. One person is expected to handle multiple tasks, so we end up being generalists, juggling various jobs simultaneously. Moreover, we tend to entrust responsibilities not to the most qualified, but to those we know personally. For us, relationships often take precedence over merit. These are, after all, “organized affairs” 🙂
Another hallmark of Germans is their discipline and order. Planning comes first, followed by executing tasks within a structured framework. For us, on the other hand, we are more entrepreneurial and results-driven. We expect quick wins and often dive into projects with minimal planning. We even have a saying, “the caravan straightens out along the road,” which reflects our preference for taking action first. While this is an excellent trait when it comes to starting new ventures, when it comes to activities that require expertise, not planning thoroughly, delaying tasks, or working out of sequence in a disorganized manner can negatively impact the outcomes.
Germans are not as practically-minded as we are. They have a tendency toward excessive bureaucracy, even for problems that we would find straightforward to solve. You’ll understand what I mean if you’ve ever tried to use the SAP Online Service System (SAP OSS Notes). The same bureaucratic approach is reflected in the SAP software itself. When setting up a new system, we may have to implement procedures that seem unnecessary or overly bureaucratic to us, but they help minimize errors and enhance efficiency. In fact, nearly everything related to computer systems requires a similarly strict adherence to discipline and procedures.
Finally, Germans emphasize continuity and sustainability in everything they do. They focus not on one-time successes but on long-term, sustainable achievements. These concepts are also crucial for businesses striving for enduring success.
I’m likening these cultural differences to the situation faced by Galatasaray’s head coach Jupp Derwall, who took charge in the late 1980s and attempted to implement a German football philosophy. Back then, expectations at the club were sky-high. A substantial budget was allocated to bring in the best players, and a world-class coach was hired. However, the system change didn’t yield immediate success. A team full of excellent players couldn’t play cohesively. Neither the managers nor the players were mentally or physically ready for the new techniques, leading to adaptation challenges.
In the first year, the team faced numerous defeats. Naturally, the first to be blamed was the German system and Derwall himself 🙂 Sportswriters and managers would say things like: “This won’t work with the German system; football played differently in Turkey” or “Galatasaray can’t succeed with this German system.”
I assume those statements sound familiar to you as well. Unable to endure the criticism, Derwall eventually said, “I am not a magician; if you are patient, lasting success will come in the long run.”
Similarly, SAP is not a software that works on a “press-a-button-and-everything-becomes-perfect” principle. It brings a new perspective and approach to existing business processes. To enable the entire company to work in an integrated manner, it requires new definitions. In the new setup, some processes may become redundant, while new ones may emerge. Adapting to this new approach, of course, takes time.
Unfortunately, except for a few major corporations in our country, many companies investing in SAP software failed to understand that this was not just a computer software project but a transformation and re-engineering of business processes to work more efficiently. Top management or company owners, under the assumption that providing the necessary budget was enough, did not allocate the required human and time resources, neglected motivation, and failed to provide the crucial support by not taking the helm themselves. When they started using the software (go live), they resisted changing their old working habits and managerial perspectives. While resisting the new system, they also mistakenly believed they could manage their businesses with a single click using the old logic. This mindset created a significant gap between what SAP was designed to achieve and how the companies actually used it.
In summary, the initial implementations of SAP in our country were filled with failure stories rather than success stories for the reasons outlined below:
- Misaligned Expectations from Upper Management: Many executives and business owners did not perceive this investment as a system that would transform all business processes. Instead, they viewed it simplistically as a way to “digitize” their operations or as a means to “manage the company with a single button.”
- Inappropriate Project Teams: Instead of assigning process owners to SAP project teams, inexperienced employees with little to no ownership of the relevant business processes were appointed. In many cases, even recent graduates with no professional experience were hired simply because they could “use a computer.”
- Resistance to Change: Many employees were resistant to change, often expressing sentiments like, “In our day, things were simpler. Why do we need SAP now?” At that time, the fear of computers was still prevalent due to the limited usage of technology. Many employees, still influenced by the anxiety of the 1980s that “computers would replace jobs,” deliberately withheld information during the analysis phase, thinking, “If I’m indispensable, only I will know how to do this job.”
- Managers Resistant to Breaking Down Departmental Silos: Some managers were reluctant to change their way of working, adhering to a mindset of “I’ll just take care of my department.” This resistance to integrating processes negatively impacted the project’s progress.
- Overly Ambitious Middle Managers: Middle managers, eager to leverage the project for career advancement, either inflated the project scope with unnecessary functions like “let’s include these features in case we need them in the future” or conversely excluded critical processes by saying, “Let’s keep this feature in the old system in order to reduce risks.” Both approaches hindered the implementation of systems aligned with proper process management principles.
- Customizing SAP to Fit Old Inefficiencies: Project teams frequently tailored the SAP system not according to best practices, but to match the existing inefficiencies of their legacy systems, thus losing the benefits of adopting SAP’s optimized processes.
- Parallel Run Approach: The most notorious practice was the “parallel run,” where companies ran their old systems alongside the new SAP system simultaneously. Although SAP was designed to streamline and even eliminate redundant processes, businesses preferred to “play it safe” by continuing the old ways in parallel. This was a significant mistake that limited the potential gains from SAP.
- Hiring Additional Staff for System Operation: Rather than training existing staff to use the new system, companies hired additional personnel solely to operate SAP, effectively turning them into a secretarial layer rather than empowering actual process owners to use the system.
- Inadequate Requirements Analysis: Needs assessments were often insufficient. Instead of focusing on the overall needs of the business, individual preferences and requests from staff took precedence.
- Neglect of Master Data Management: The critical importance of defining master data—which serves as the key to connecting processes within the system—was overlooked and seen as an extra burden.
- Economic Crises: The economic turmoil between 1994 and 2001, particularly the crisis of 2001, adversely impacted companies’ investment timing and willingness to commit to such large-scale projects.
- Lack of Readiness for Global Competition: At that time, Turkey was just beginning to integrate with the global market. Many Turkish companies were not yet prepared for the demands of global competition, and some senior managers and business owners who invested in SAP still did not genuinely desire the transparency that the system would bring.
These challenges combined to create a perception that SAP was an overly complex and burdensome investment, giving rise to myths that it was best avoided. And yes, SAP and its partners, even the SAP software itself had their share of responsibility in these failures :
- SAP is a complex software system that encompasses the know-how of numerous industries. Its screens are designed to cater to a wide range of sectors, making them appear cluttered with fields that may seem unnecessary or irrelevant to certain users. In this sense, it is not particularly user-friendly. However, the software’s issue is not inadequacy but rather its complexity.
- Back then, SAP projects often did not meet their deadlines due to the project management methodology in use. As timelines stretched, processes would evolve, design plans would deviate, and costs would skyrocket. SAP later modified its project management methodology to enable faster implementations—shifting from the original ASAP methodology to the newer ACTIVATE approach.
- During those early years, SAP Turkey and its Solution Partners lacked sufficient experience. In an effort to make sales, they often promised functions that were technically challenging to deliver or were not even within the scope of the project. It was as if SAP would magically resolve all the organization’s needs in a short span of time. This created unrealistic expectations among clients. SAP partners struggled to establish proper communication with customers who had high hopes, leading to poor project management experiences that ultimately impacted business outcomes.
- In the 1990s, young and inexperienced SAP consultants who lacked sufficient knowledge of the software and business processes were a common issue—not just in Turkey but in SAP projects around the world.
It was precisely during those years that the myths surrounding SAP—claiming it was something to avoid and that it entailed an extremely challenging process—were born. Expressions like “SAP is a paradise, but you have to die first to enter” or “Don’t get it, you’ll regret it” are anecdotes that have persisted from those times to this day.
What goes around comes around, even for SAP.
Much like how Galatasaray, under Derwall’s leadership, won championships and eventually transformed into a globally competitive team, SAP also evolved positively over time. It became the top choice for Turkish companies striving to be competitive on a global scale. As SAP continued to develop its products and solutions, it began to add value to businesses in our country, just as it did worldwide. Eventually, Turkey emerged as one of SAP’s regional technology hubs.
In the second part of my article series, I will delve into how SAP gradually evolved in a positive direction, how it came to be a vital player for competitive Turkish firms, and how the solutions it developed started to bring significant value to our enterprises over the years. I will also explore how Turkey became one of the regional technology centers for SAP software.
Thank you, SAP, for all the memories, learnings, friendships, and rich experiences
“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” — Benjamin Franklin, Inventor.
“Football is not a simple game.” — Jupp Derwall, Head Coach.
