Three Reasons Why SAP Supply Chain Planning Is a Risk to Your Business

I am writing this blog post in the air, sitting in seat 4c, somewhere over the Midwest en route to Philadelphia. As I look below, I see field after field of United States farmland. The land looks like a giant puzzle. After a busy week with high-tech and electronics clients, my fingers are itching to help others solve a different type of puzzle. The goal of this blog is to help business users maximize their current SAP Investments in a time of change.

Reflections

High-tech manufacturers in the Silicon Valley of the United States are some of the best at supply chain planning. With changing product profiles, short life cycles, constraints with downstream suppliers, and changing markets, being good at supply chain planning matters. In this tough market excellence in supply chain planning is a critical element to be competitive. In high-tech, supply chain planning is more important than in other industries like chemical, pharmaceutical, consumer packaged goods and retail.

Over the course of the last decade many clients implemented supply chain planning but have struggled to maximize the value. The reasons are numerous. Planner turnover, time to plan, ability to get to data, system usability, and talent gaps are all major issues. Getting good at planning requires executive leadership. Business leaders need to support a new way of doing business. It requires investing in planning talent, and the recognition of planning as a core competency. Most companies fail before they succeed.

Getting good at supply chain planning also requires the adoption of a different cultural paradigm. How so? Most organizations reward the urgent. The urgent gets in the way of the important. Planning is important, and planners need time to plan. When companies reward fire fighting, they never get good at planning. Supply chain planning and the discipline and rigor is a different way of working. To get good at planning, it requires focus and discipline.

At Supply Chain Insights, we complete 25-30 quantitative studies a year. Most of our work is focused on supply chain planning. The respondents vary by study; but during a year, we will collect about 3,000 unique responses. In the research I notice three trends:

1) Demand Planning Is Stronger than Supply. We have made more progress in forecasting than supply planning. Organizations are happier with their systems in the areas of demand planning than supply. Demand planning processes are less industry-specific and the principles can be more widely applied than those of supply planning. Satisfaction with supply is much lower. Constraint-based modeling and “what-if” analysis are major gaps.

2) Increased Dependency on Excel Spreadsheets. Despite large investments in supply chain planning, today, the global multinational is more dependent on Excel. Due to usability issues, Excel is the planning system of choice. While companies have deployed large planning systems, Excel ghettos have popped up in most organizations. Planners plan in Excel and write the results to the supply chain planning system. The gap has grown. Most organizations struggle to use the planning technologies. Few realize that they will never be able to model the complex, non-linear supply chain relationships in an Excel spreadsheet.

3) Business requirements Are Changing. Forecastability (the ability to forecast a product line) has gotten worse, demand error and bias is increasing, and supply is more complex. The rhythms and cycles of business have increased. Organizations want better decisions faster. As a result, organizations struggle to match the cadence of planning to the required cadence of the business.

So, bottom line, most organizations are looking to improve their supply chain planning systems; but at the core of this discussion with my clients that have chosen SAP supply chain planning technologies, the question is, “What should we do with our supply chain planning systems from SAP?” While the name of SAP’s Supply Chain Planning suite has changed to SCM7 (the old name was SAP APO), the gaps are glaring.

I council clients to stabilize their investments in the SAP Supply Chain Planning technologies, and recognize SAP APO with the CIF Interface as a planning system of record. For SAP users, it is the best and a much needed system of record. Why a planning system of record? Most organizations have 2-3 demand and supply instances and 5-7 ERP systems. The IT world of a large multi-national is complex.

I then recommend that the business augment the SAP SCM functionality using best-of-breed, industry-specific optimization. I recommend using best-of-breed solutions to write to the current SAP APO framework. Here is my advice.

Why I Believe SAP SCM Is a Risk to Your Business.

In these sessions I always encounter a discussion around IT standardization. Most business users must justify to their IT teams that they need to justify doing something other than SAP supply chain planning. This article is written to help organizations better address this question.

In many companies, SAP has a lock on the decision processes. The SAP team is masterful at selling the value of SAP everywhere to the C-suite, and the system integrators, with deep bench strength in SAP, will nod in agreement. (The dirty little secret is that the system integrators make more revenue and profit on SAP deployments than other planning options. So, it is in their best interest to support the implementation of SAP Supply Chain Planning software.)

For the record, let me state a few facts that I strongly believe. SAP is one of the best, if not the best software vendor, at writing software code when they are clear on the requirements. The SAP solution is better than the Oracle SCM solution for planning. The problem is that supply chain planning is just not a hot market for SAP to invest in, and the culture struggles to attract and retain thought leaders.

I also believe that SAP is one of the best, if not the best, ERP system for most process manufacturers. So, why do I not believe in SAP SCM 7? Why am I so bold as to pen an article to state that the investment in SAP SCM 7, and the migration from SAP APO, is a risk to your business? I have three primary reasons. It is centered in the now, the ten-year vision, and the opportunity.

1) SAP Supply Chain Planning Is a Poor Supply Chain Planning and Optimization Technology. Let’s face facts. When SAP launched APO in 2002, the optimization technologies were inferior to most best-of-breed technologies in the market. Over the years, as technology innovation has improved, staying current on supply chain planning optimization has not been a focus for SAP. Relative to other technology development areas, the opportunity for SAP was not as great. They quickly became a market leader, and then shifted resources to other areas.

As a result, the most successful SAP Supply Chain Planning implementations layer on optimization technology from a specialist vendor or University. It is an expensive workaround.

In addition, the SAP Supply Chain Planning solution is more expensive, has a longer time to value, and is harder to use than alternative solutions. In a study of 187 supply chain planning instances, we found a correlation at a 90% confidence level that SAP APO implementations were longer to implement, lower ROI and user satisfaction than best-of-breed technologies from JDA, Kinaxis, Logility, or OM Partners.

The data from this study is shown in Figure 1. While consultants will often rationalize the difference away stating that an 80% fit is good enough, the wise business leader knows that supply chain planning is not a game of horseshoes. Model fit and speed are essential to plan. The SAP Supply Chain Planning suite of products is not competitive. This is especially true for the core business user/planner.

Figure 1. Relative Comparison of Best-of-Breed Providers versus ERP Expansionists like SAP/Oracle

best-of-breedd_vs_expansionist

2) SAP Is Discontinuing Support of the Current Supply Chain Planning Technologies. At first the announcement by SAP was that SAP APO would be discontinued in 2020. Following a customer uproar the date was extended until 2025. Assuming that it takes 3-5 years to build an effective planning organization in a global multinational, the rewriting of the SAP Supply Chain Planning platform is an opportunity cost to the business implementing the solution. It is not an evolution. Instead, it is a re-implementation. While SAP is busy redefining the architecture, a reimplementation has risks.

This movement from SAP APO to SCM 7 is a redesign of supply chain planning by SAP. It bundles Integrated Business Planning, a Supply Chain Control Tower, Inventory and Demand/Supply planning into a new cloud-based architecture based on HANA. The solution is evolving, and will take time. In my calls I find that current references report significant issues—roll-up and roll-down of hierarchies, and depth of demand functionality. They are actively partnering with SAP to make the new architecture work. They will get there, but the progress is slow. Mature SAP manufacturing IT and line-of-business teams have been testing the functionality for more than a year and currently do not consider it mature enough for rollout. Consideration of the new technologies is currently recommended by only mature SAP/line-of-business teams used to working through implementation issues with SAP.

The rewrite extends to redefining ECC architectures. Current functionality of SAP GATP and SAP APO PPDS (production planning) will be moved into the ECC ERP frameworks. Since most companies have 5-7 ERP instances, this approach will fragment the functionality slowing the implementations and making it more difficult to build multitier ATP and visibility solutions. Multitier optimization is critical for optimizing the outsourced network.

SAP SNC will be moved into the Ariba Network. SAP is pushing for the adoption of the Ariba network for B2B connectivity and inter-enterprise business process management. The adoption rate is slow. Ariba, while mature for indirect procurement, is still not the preferred method for direct material management.

I wish the SAP team luck in this endeavor. If history is our guide, competitors’ rate of success of re-platforming a supply chain planning solution is low. I know of no time in the history of supply chain planning where a rewrite of the supply chain planning platform has been successful. The launch of Manugistics 7.1/7.2 was a failure, and was a nail in the coffin for a struggling supply chain planning vendor 15 years ago. In parallel, the rewrite of the Numetrix software by Oracle was also problematic. History shows that a major rewrite of supply chain planning platform will take five to six years to stabilize. So, while the shift in adoption will happen in 7-10 years, the issues with bugs and bug-fixes will take much longer.

The new redefinition of the SAP architecture is a better fit for casual users than for core planners. With the increase in business constraints and the complexities in demand, companies that are good at planning will need to focus on the systems for core planners first, and then augment for casual users. The design of the new SAP solution is a better fit for the casual user than the core business planner.  If I were a SAP line-of-business user, I would use this time to find a better planning solution than SAP APO or the promise of SCM 7.0.

Figure 2. Supply Chain Planner Continuum

supply_chain_planning_work_teams

3) Opportunity Cost. Supply Chain Planning is moving in new and exciting directions. The redeployment of SAP SCM is an opportunity cost for SAP to take advantage of this innovation.

We are entering into a period of rapid change for planning and the redefinition of supply chain planning architectures. Concurrent optimization, unstructured text mining, streaming data and sensing, and cognitive learning are converging. I believe that these forms of innovation will redefine supply chain planning into learning systems within five years. What does this mean? Using cognitive learning, our supply chain planning solutions will think and resolve exceptions as we sleep. Sensing through pattern recognition and sensors will shorten cycles for response. This will transform planning, making the system less reliant on manual data touches and the traditional business planner. This technology advancement will happen concurrently with the relaunch of the new SAP Supply Chain Planning Software. As a result, I believe that SAP innovation will lag and SAP will play catch-up in 2025. Investment in the SAP rewrite is an opportunity cost for the average business user to embrace new and more promising technologies.

The second area of rapid change is the use of canonical B2B operating networks to improve B2B flows. As this happens, we will see multitier Available to Promise (ATP) solutions, online network performance benchmarking, and much more advanced multitier sensing and modeling. SAP is an enterprise system. It is not a one-to-many or a many-to-many data model. The movement of significant pieces of SAP planning into ECC architectures will make it more difficult to move to support multitier functionality.

What to Do? Steps to Take…

So, if you are in an SAP shop with an SAP dictate, socialize this blog post. I think that blindly following the SAP-only path for supply chain planning is a major risk to the business. At the end of the debate, let me know your thoughts. If you believe that I am wrong, I will re-write this post. I know that this is a contentious and political debate in most organizations, but, I think that it is a discussion that needs an open forum in the industry.

As the debate ensues, what do I recommend?

1) Stabilize your SAP investments. Implement the SAP supply chain planning systems as a system of record. Use the SAP APO solution with the CIF interface without the optimization engines as a system of record. Write to the SAP planning system of record from best-of-breed solutions for optimization and cognitive learning.

2) Use in-memory visualization tools to drive insights from data. Don’t limit yourself to the SAP BI technologies. Invest heavily in visualization technologies like Qlik, Tableau, and Spotfilre to drive value and insights.

3) Invest in technologies that can model your business and that your planners will use. Supply chain planning is very industry specific and 80% is not enough. Spend time testing and refining the planning systems.

4) Actively follow the SAP rewrite and redeployment of the SAP SCM 7. Stay involved, but watch from the sidelines. If there are pieces of this solution that interest you, be a late follower. Let others work out the issues.

5) Stay connected in the industry. In the evolution of the industry, trust but verify. Actively network with SAP users and watch the deployments. Sidestep the hype and marketing rhetoric, and stay focused on the delivery of real business results.

These are my thoughts. I would love to hear from you!

____________________

Summit_video_cameraLife is busy at Supply Chain Insights. We are working on the completion of our new game—SCI Impact!—for the public training in Philadelphia in August and the content for the Supply Chain Insights Global Summit in September. Our goal is to help supply chain visionaries, around the world, break the mold and drive higher levels of improvement. The conference will feature case studies on demand sensing, rules-based ontologies, and the use of sentiment analysis.

 

 

About the Author:

Lora in italyLora Cecere is the Founder of Supply Chain Insights. She is trying to redefine the industry analyst model to make it friendlier and more useful for supply chain leaders. Lora has written the books Supply Chain Metrics That Matter and Bricks Matter, and is currently working on her third book, Leadership Matters. She also actively blogs on her Supply Chain Insights website, at the Supply Chain Shaman blog, and for Forbes. When not writing or running her company, Lora is training for a triathlon, taking classes for her DBA degree in research, knitting and quilting for her new granddaughter, and doing tendu (s) and Dégagé (s) to dome her feet for pointe work at the ballet barre. Lora thinks that we are never too old to learn or to push the organization harder to drive excellence.

 

 

 

 

 

Lora Cecere

Author Lora Cecere

Lora Cecere is the Supply Chain Shaman. A shaman interprets and connects the evolving world to a group of followers. Lora does this for supply chain. As the founder of Supply Chain Insights and the author of Supply Chain Shaman, Lora travels the world to chart the course of supply chain practices and disruptive technologies. Her blog focuses on the use of enterprise applications to drive supply chain excellence.

More posts by Lora Cecere

Join the discussion 24 Comments

  • Shaun Snapp says:

    As a longtime SAP APO consultant I find much of this article to be true. A few points where I disagree:

    1. The system of record is the system that is actually performing the activity. So for instance, if APO is not being used for demand planning, then APO is not the system of record for demand planning data. SAS or DemandWorks or whatever is being used is.

    2. I agree that high tech does tend to be quite a bit better at planning than the average. The best planning department I ever worked with was Texas Instruments. However, a big factor is that most likely (I have not seen the paystubs) high tech values planning and is willing to pay planners. At most companies planning is a relatively low paid occupation, especially when one considers the skills required. Companies repeatedly make the mistake of only allowing a few functions to be well paid. That is more of a limiting factor than math education, which companies love to talk about, but you have to pay above average if you want above average or specialized skills. Secondly, it is amazing how little so many planning departments have to offer new planners in terms of training. If the head of the planning department does not have the skills, how are the new planners to be trained? This is a huge problem that is I think unacknowledged, and it is not resolved by sending people to APICS training.

    3. SAP is nowhere close to the best system for process manufacturers. I would award this prize to ProcessPro. PP-PI’s process orders are not much better than normal production orders in terms of their fit for process industry manufacturing, and things like batch management functionality -which is commonly activated in process industries — take a lot of effort to activate, but this functionality is absolutely native in ProcessPro. However, no large consulting company introduces ProcessPro to its clients because it is not profit maximizing in terms of consulting and therefore may as well not exist to these companies.

    4. There is no doubt in my mind that SAP APO takes longer to implement in any module than any other advanced planning system. You also have to be willing to invest more time in training than in other planning systems.

    5. SAP’s statements regarding the future of APO should be taken with a giant grain of salt. I have seen many projections that never came true. SPP and EWM were supposed to be major lines of business for APO, and neither of them ever became popular in the market. Supposedly APO is to be replaced by IBP. But really who knows?

    6. I would disagree with the article with respect to innovation, in that I see very little innovation in planning. Lora works with executives primarily, and this gives a distorted view of innovation. This is because its much easier to talk about doing innovative things than actually doing innovative things. Companies also constantly overestimate their uptake of innovation, and if you talk to 100 companies, 100 will say they are innovative or implement innovation.

    I point to the many areas that were to hold great promise for planning — such as optimization and allocation that proved too complex, or the software too difficult to implement. Most companies still cannot master statistical forecasting. Most also cannot master collaborative forecasting. Production scheduling is still predominantly performed with spreadsheets and lengthy explanations are required – and often not accepted — to explain by ERP systems are hopeless at doing production scheduling. There is a lot of software out there that is impressive in one way or another for planning, but if we are talking about actual uptake of the software, its not a pretty picture.

    7. Towards the end of the article Lora gets back to APO being the system of record. I think this is problematic and I don’t understand the emphasis upon it. It makes no sense to pass data to APO that APO is not actively planning. APO, as within any system, should be the system of record for those things it processes. It would be far better for APO to simply be considered as one spoke in the wheel. It is not a hub, it simply offers various planning modules which companies can decide to activate or not activate. But I do think that Lora’s point regarding using best of breed applications along with APO is quite a good idea. You cannot get this advice from any consulting company, but it is the right approach.

  • Jean-Yves Popovic says:

    Bouncing on Shaun’s comment, and to avoid confusion: when Lora refers to SCM 7, does she mean SAP SCM 7.0 or IBP?

  • Jim Cerra says:

    Step 5 — “Trust but Verify”. This is great advice. After 25 years in the planning and scheduling market developing systems, I think there’s a huge canyon between what vendors promise and what customers really experience. It’s too easy to gloss over the details that make or break a successful system. A “pilot” or “proof of concept” is what we always recommend since the only way to know if this stuff will work for a particular company is to go do it. (The challenge is to make the “doing it” fast and affordable.)

    Thanks for the article…let’s see what 2025 brings in reality.

  • Lora: As a long time follower of your blog , a consultant in the Supply Chain field and a person who pursues all things Planning, I found the title of the article a little bit interesting!

    Hi Tech does well in planning because they understand probability of outcomes better, hire talent and pay better.

    In Tech, SC Velocity matters as opposed to old line companies where investment models determine need for efficiency & ROI. So the need for an effective Supply chain is subsumed by efficiency driven thinking in most old line industries

    Planner turnover, ability to plan, getting data are emblematic for an org not just SAP

    Mindset is the reason most are not satisfied with supply. The general thesis everyone accepts is,: “Forecast is not accurate and so Demand planning is wrong,”

    “Supply Planning is under my control and should be a certainty”.

    Dependency on Excel is a universal phenomenon, regardless of the planning system you use. Nicer UI, or cleaner UI ignores the real reason planners migrate to excel.

    The need to easily model a decision, and the ability to flatten the decision criteria seem to be the primary criteria. Look at new tools from Steelwedge, ANAPLAN, TRADESHIFT, and O9. How they address the modeling requirement counts some part for their success.

    As long as executives do not ask the impact of excel based decisions, there will be no impetus to deliver a integrated data driven decision so planning will be certainly enriched by Excel regardless of whose tool you use.

    I found a disconnect on the business requirements paragraph to be incongruent to the notion Demand is stronger.

    Gaps between Planning & execution systems are glaring not just SAP SCM. But understand your perspective why you expect SAP to do better.

    Agree that IT standardization and a drive to cost arbitrage under the guise of common talent in IT is part of the problem.

    Cost wise, most Planning implementations are a smidgen of SAP ECC or BW projects

    SCM7 is about APO. IBP is a new platform and provides solution not offered in SCM 7.

    We have published 2 white papers (Dec 2014 & June 2015) highlighting the differences between the two SAP Planning components.

    Our team has implemented more IBP projects (S&OP, Inventory ,SCT) than any other team in the SAP world.

    IBP has ability to create hierarchies. More than happy to connect you to clients who are doing well with IBP.

    Lora, I agree : Planning is moving in different areas and bringing ideas into play that will dis-intermediate the old linear thinking. SAP will get its share and so will others. We are in for changes all around.

    • Lora Cecere Lora Cecere says:

      Padman thanks for your comments. I would love to connect to your positive references using SAP IBP. My contacts in the industry are very positive on initial implementation, but the sentiment wanes through the long pilots. I see delayed implementations and missed expectations.

      I also find a gap. When I work with an organization, I will see that the CIO will remain positive through these long implementations, but that the supply chain leaders have high frustration levels. The pilots that I am following have been testing for many months and have delayed final roll-outs due to the issues that I mention in the post. As you know, I write for the supply chain leader and try to convey their sentiment.

      I look forward to connecting with your references.

  • Lora: I will connect separately. Our IBP implementations are driven by SC Leaders mostly from operations. Interestingly most often the IT team is peripheral to our conversations.

    • Lora Cecere Lora Cecere says:

      Padman
      We have reached out a couple of times by email. Sorry that we have not been able to connect one-on-one. I was looking forward to sharing insights from your references. I am sorry that you have not been able to provide the references, but I am still open to talking to them if they are available.

  • Krishna M says:

    Lora,

    Thanks for your article.

    I am co-founder of Bizbrain tech, a company formed by Ex-SAP colleagues and which focuses only on IBP implementations. All our planners (Not CIO) at our implementations are very happy. We have done most complex implementations and in a record time. I am happy to connect you with our customers to hear direct feedback from customers..

    I am not trying to change your opinion just wanted you to hear from our IBP customers…

    Thanks,
    Krishna

    • Lora Cecere Lora Cecere says:

      Thanks. I would love to interview your references. I will send you a direct email. Thanks for the help! My direct contacts working on the pilots are not so positive, so it would be great to discuss the solution with those that are having success. I appreciate your help!

    • Lora Cecere Lora Cecere says:

      Krishna
      Thanks for your response. I have reached out a couple of times to get contacts at your references, and I am sad that this has not worked out. We want to get this right, and would love to still hear what your references have to say. All the best!

  • Alexei Merkoulov says:

    APO is a tool. It is fairly well documented in what it does and what it does not. One can literally buy a book (or books) that explain how it works. It can be extended by custom development if you choose so or not if you don’t feel like it. If you don’t like APO, then buy another tool or tools. Do whatever – the market is full of software packages (Kinaxis, Quintiq, ToolsGroup, etc).
    I don’t understand, how’s misapplication of use is tool’s problem?
    Full disclosure: I work for Accenture. I thought I should mention it upfront.

    • Lora Cecere Lora Cecere says:

      Alexei
      The issue is that the tool–from either vendor mentioned–is usually poorly understood by the system integrator; and the client wants to use the technology to automate past practices. I find that the best practices use new forms of decision support to drive new processes to improve value.

      • Alexei Merkoulov says:

        Are you saying that both system integrator and the client are at fault? Hmm, usually just the software gets the blame because being inanimate object, it does not fight back.

  • Lora, I just found your blog and this article – I am impressed by your way of writing and your perspective to connect architecture to business. Regard me as a regular reader from now on. Regards & thanks, Boris

  • Bert Legrand says:

    Hi Lora,
    Without going into details, from my experience having started S&OP on HANA at SAP from scratch (and the IBP conversion), I couldn’t agree more with your perspective! Note that despite the commercial success of S&OP/IBP, I decided to join a different company (Anaplan) which I have to humbly admit is at least 5 years ahead of my old product line. I would add a point that cloud competency (affecting the whole customer experience) is very much lacking in supply chain planning for most players…
    Looking forward to your next post!
    Bert

  • Tony Seck says:

    Lora – have been reading your blog for about a year and have been following Shaun for quite some time (as an APO consultant I use Shaun’s blog materials all the time as technical references). I agree with Shaun’s point about APO being a system of record to a point. If the end goal is to still use APO for the supply side or to somehow feed the demand plan back into SAP so an organization can run MRP or perform other finance related activities then I would agree that this makes sense. Using APO as a gateway back into APO or ECC to conduct other activities is common since the interfaces are already built. However, the reporting and analytics capabilities are so limited that if I had something better I’d probably stick with that as my system of record.

    Regarding Excel, I could not agree with you more. Planners are too quick to abandon their tools in favor of going to Excel because that is the path of least resistance. However, that is usually for good reason. I will say that my experience is not because the UI is better or that Excel is easier to use. I see this behavior (myself included) because Excel is ultimately flexible and allows the user to do whatever he or she requires. That is not always a good thing and does not consider the necessary data integrity or integration ramifications. But, it gets the job done in a pinch even though it leads to a huge problem in connecting planning to execution which I believe is one of the 7 deadly sins you call out in your most recent blog post. I told a COO (whose SC team was using Excel to plan $2B in annual procurement) that he was getting excellent return on a tool that you can buy at Costco for $199. Everyone will keep using Excel and it is easier to understand than a complicated system but it can’t scale.

    SAP was putting on the full court press at this year’s Sapphire at preaching the gospel of IBP. It looks like a great tool and while it does not have all the functionality of APO I believe it puts them on better footing against competitors like SW and Kinaxis. However, the biggest pushback I kept hearing from clients already using APO was that IBP is a re-implementation and not an upgrade. This means a whole new lengthy project and abandoning the billions spent in APO projects to start the process over again. That is a serious drawback to many organizations which I fear will leave many APO customer stuck in this “no man’s land” which is why I agree Shaun’s point #5.

    Great article – I look forward to reading your next blog.

  • “We have made more progress in forecasting than supply planning.”

    Since about year 2000 innovation has switched to creating certainty of demand for asset light digital business, exemplified by systems behind Google, Amazon and Facebook. Folks like Oracle, SAP and even Microsoft have not architected core technologies for to optimize certainty of supply.

    I suspect Microsoft (who is now underway with a come back) maybe Salesforce will invert the demand platform innovations (Hadoop/Spark et al) to address supply planning. Amazon even builds warehouses rather than optimizes supply chain – how cute having the worlds largest one level MRP system (little wonder hardly profitable).

  • […] form of a proof-of-value exercise. Other vendors are attempting to refresh their solutions via a "re-platforming". Lora Cecere, CEO at Supply Chain Insights, provided commentary on the challenges that SAP is […]

Leave a Reply