A global pharmaceutical company modelled the conversion-credit logic line by line, contested an engine reclassification, and removed nine point four million dollars from the migration quote.
Every result on this site is anonymised at the client's request. Specific figures are real and verifiable through a confidentiality-protected reference call arranged on request.
The pharma company had operated SAP ECC for nearly two decades, with a heavy investment in engine licences including SAP HANA runtime, Process Orchestration, Manufacturing Integration and Intelligence, Quality Issue Management, and the Global Trade Services bundle. The estate also included a sizeable BusinessObjects deployment and four BW-on-HANA environments. The decision to convert to S/4HANA was driven by an internal IT strategy refresh and by SAP's published end-of-mainstream-maintenance dates for ECC.
SAP's initial conversion quote presented the migration as a clean swap with a Product Conversion exchange model for the existing ECC entitlements. The quote was approximately fourteen million dollars in net new spend, with several engine reclassifications proposed as part of the conversion: Process Orchestration was to be reclassified into the S/4HANA Integration Suite at a higher unit cost; MII was to be replaced by the S/4HANA equivalent at a different metric; and the HANA runtime was to be converted to S/4HANA HANA Enterprise at a higher tier.
The conversion-credit methodology was opaque. The quote presented a single net figure with no line-by-line traceability between the existing entitlements and the proposed S/4HANA entitlements. SAP's conversion team did not initially provide the underlying credit calculation. The pharma's SAM team had no internal capacity to model the conversion at the level required to validate the quote.
An audit notification was also pending, raising the question of whether the conversion conversation was effectively an audit settlement in different clothing.
We accepted the engagement on condition that the audit and the conversion were treated as a single matter. SAP was informed in writing that no conversion would be signed until the audit had been independently validated, and no audit settlement would be signed until the conversion credits had been independently modelled.
We then required SAP to provide the line-by-line conversion-credit calculation. Initial resistance gave way after a written request citing the audit defence necessity. The provided calculation revealed three issues: the Process Orchestration reclassification used a metric conversion factor that exceeded the published SAP S/4HANA conversion guide; the MII replacement was being priced at full S/4HANA list rather than at the conversion-credit rate; and the HANA runtime tier change was based on a contested usage measurement that we had separately challenged in the audit work.
On the engine measurement contest, we obtained the raw measurement data and demonstrated that the HANA runtime usage measurement had counted reporting workloads incorrectly. The corrected measurement supported the lower tier conversion credit, not the upper tier. We provided the corrected measurement to SAP with the contract-clause references.
On the conversion credit calculation, we re-modelled the full migration against the published S/4HANA conversion guide and produced an independent credit calculation that was approximately nine point four million dollars below SAP's opening quote. The model was provided to SAP with a request to either accept the corrected calculation or to provide a written explanation of the divergence. After three negotiation rounds, the corrected calculation was accepted with minor adjustments.
Net conversion spend was reduced from fourteen million dollars to four point six million dollars — a saving of nine point four million dollars. The audit settlement was rolled into the conversion as a release-and-settlement clause, with no additional cash payment beyond the conversion credits already negotiated.
The conversion order form included three protections the original quote did not: a measurement-protection clause for the first three years of S/4HANA operation, a re-measurement methodology aligned with the published SAP guide rather than the audit team's interpretation, and an integration-suite measurement floor that excluded internal traffic.
Total elapsed time from engagement to signed conversion was twenty-eight weeks. The pharma was able to begin the technical migration in the following quarter without further commercial negotiation.
The conversion credit calculation was a black box. They opened it, line by line, and the box was wrong by nine million dollars.
Model the conversion. Negotiate the credits. Defend through the migration window — the moment when SAP's audit and pricing leverage is at its highest.
Read the brief →Post-audit settlement and renewal restructure. We rewrite the order form, the schedules, and the audit-rights clause. Price is one of seventeen levers we negotiate.
Read the brief →What hides in the conversion order form, and the model you need before you sign anything.
HANA runtime, Process Orchestration, BW on HANA. The measurement methodologies and the contractual definitions that constrain them.
How a regulated utility reset its Ariba Network commercial structure and removed $2.8M in pass-through supplier fees.
It is the opening position of a negotiation. Speak with a specialist before responding. The first conversation is at no cost and under privilege.
Contact Us →Every Wednesday. Field reports from active matters, decoded SAP communications, and what to look for in the next audit cycle. Work email only.