The following is an excerpt from the “Improving Efficiency in SAP by Simplifying the User Experience” White Paper by Steve Foster:
“Companies who buy complex software are typically persuaded by the array of features that promise to show the real-time big picture of how the business is performing in order to maximize the bottom line. Asset management and decision making can be carried out faster by having full access to easy-to-understand information. Instead of having to pour over endless numbers for productivity, fast analysis can be done with one quick glance. However, SAP is a system that was made with generic goals in mind. It can’t be used as-is for employees who aren’t highly trained in how it works. In fact, it often can’t be used in this way under any circumstances. Consider one of the largest transmission companies in Canada, who needed to schedule electrical outages, but their system wasn’t able to accommodate this request. As mentioned, there are ways that a company can still work with the system, but it’s understandable that this barrier would cause a search for a more customizable suite.
Trying to mold a business into the features can result in a disparity between the data and the truth which can then cause larger problems down the line. Even the super users may not fully understand if they’re wasting time on a process that could be automated because they don’t have anyone to ask. This can be difficult for companies to accept, especially considering the expense of implementing SAP. The features aren’t necessarily readily understood by anyone, and it can take years before all of the secrets are defined. The strategy taken by a high-level User Experience is to puzzle through the various processes that are necessary for an employee at any level to understand, and then to make it easier for them to perform while still keeping the existing infrastructure.
Training is another factor that companies may severely underestimate — both in terms of time and in effectiveness. It can take literally millions of dollars’ worth of man hours, and it often results in an extreme underutilization of the system. Showing someone how to do something and having them perform it are not remotely the same. Asking workers if they have questions during training is often pointless because they’re still trying to grasp the most basic changes to begin with. One example of this was seen in one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies that uses SAP within many departments. After several years of implementing the SAP system, the executives still see end users who struggle with performing simple functions. The IT team denies they can make changes that will help because it’s not accounted for in their budget, and the management team thinks it’s too late to make the changes anyway. This type of inefficiency exists in many companies that use the out-of-the-box SAP, and the disconnect costs too much to let it continue.
Businesses also struggle with data integrity. When there is so much to keep track of, numbers can become skewed for a variety of reasons. If a worker doesn’t understand how to give direction to the system or what a field name stands for, then decision makers become understandably hesitant to use the reports available. This can stem from nomenclature problems or just a lack of understanding the interface. If a worker is familiar with a physical part or task by one term and they can’t find that exact term anywhere in the system, it opens up the possibility of guessing or avoiding the situation entirely. Help is often unavailable due to schedule constraints. This particular problem is also a side effect of the one-size-fits-all approach of EAM enterprise software on the market. Data problems can become especially rampant if a company has high turnover. Every worker has a different history with technology, and poor past experiences can cause people to have a mental block to even the most simplified processes.”