The Challenge: RISE with SAP at Inflated Cost
When SAP announced the end of support for ECC (Enterprise Core Component) in 2027, enterprises worldwide faced a critical decision: migrate to S/4HANA or sunset their on-premises investments. For a $4 billion U.S. financial services company operating across 12 markets with 12,000 employees, the decision was inevitable. Continuing on ECC beyond 2027 carried unacceptable compliance and operational risk, particularly in banking and payment systems regulated by strict data residency and audit standards.
The company had invested nearly two decades in SAP ECC, building a comprehensive financial and procurement backbone. The core finance team managing this legacy system understood ECC licensing intimately. But RISE with SAP represented a fundamental shift from on-premises licensing to a cloud-subscription model—and SAP's initial pricing quote proved shockingly misaligned with the company's actual operational needs.
SAP's opening gambit: approximately $15 million over five years. For a company generating $4 billion in revenue, this represented both a significant operational expense and an apparent overestimation of what the migration actually required. The initial quote failed to account for the company's ability to right-size their footprint or the redundancy already built into their on-premises infrastructure—what would be termed "shelfware" in licensing discussions.
Understanding SAP's RISE with SAP Architecture
Before the company could effectively challenge SAP's quote, their team needed to understand what RISE with SAP actually includes—and equally important, what it does not. This clarity proved essential to negotiation strategy.
RISE with SAP includes:
- S/4HANA Cloud Private Edition license (the core ERP migration)
- Business Technology Platform (BTP) credits for custom development and integration
- Signavio process mining and design tools
- Business Network Starter tier for EDI and supply chain connectivity
- Baseline cloud infrastructure, backup, and disaster recovery
RISE with SAP does NOT include:
- SuccessFactors (human capital management requires separate licensing)
- Ariba (procurement network requires separate licensing)
- Concur (travel and expense management requires separate licensing)
- Industry-specific add-ons or verticals
- Custom apps or industry cloud solutions beyond core S/4HANA
This distinction mattered deeply for the financial services firm. Unlike manufacturing or retail enterprises that might layer Ariba and SuccessFactors into their migration, this company's focus was pure core finance and procurement. They could rightfully challenge whether they needed the full BTP credit allocation SAP proposed, or whether Signavio's premium modules were necessary given their existing process documentation investments.
The DDLC Risk in Financial Services Indirect Access
The financial services sector faces a unique licensing complexity that generic SAP migrations often overlook: DDLC (Digital Document Licence Count) metrics and indirect access counting rules.
In banking and financial services, SAP systems integrate with multiple third-party platforms: payment gateways, credit decisioning engines, KYC (Know Your Customer) systems, fraud detection platforms, and banking communication platforms. Each integration point represents a potential indirect access exposure under SAP's licensing terms. When a payment processor queries the SAP customer master to validate transaction details, or when a credit bureau integration pulls data asynchronously, SAP classifies these interactions as "indirect access."
The DDLC metric counts the logical document instances flowing through integrated banking platforms. A financial services firm with 50+ active banking system integrations could quickly accumulate DDLC exposure that SAP's standard cloud subscription model fails to price correctly. The company discovered that SAP's initial RISE quote assumed 200 DDLC—but their actual banking ecosystem generated closer to 350 DDLC based on integration audit findings.
This discrepancy represented nearly $800,000 in unplanned costs. The company's negotiation strategy immediately pivoted to challenge SAP's DDLC methodology, arguing for a revised calculation based on documented integration flows rather than SAP's generic financial services baseline assumptions. This single line-item correction would ultimately become one of the most impactful elements of the final discount.
The Shelfware Discovery: $2 Million in Redundant Licensing
The company commissioned a detailed SAP license audit before presenting their renegotiation case. The findings shocked internal stakeholders: the current ECC environment carried approximately $2 million in annual shelfware costs—modules, services, and user licenses that had been acquired but never meaningfully utilized.
Examples included:
- Legacy business intelligence modules running parallel to modern Power BI integrations, generating duplicate reporting costs
- Supply chain network module licenses held for a procurement initiative cancelled three years prior
- ECC Analytics licenses for data warehouse connectivity no longer used after a cloud analytics migration
- Named user accounts for legacy interfaces that had been automated away in recent years
The shelfware audit revealed a painful truth: the company had been over-licensed on ECC for years without realizing it. But this also created leverage in RISE with SAP negotiations. The company could argue: "Our current SAP spend reflects years of accumulated inefficiency. RISE with SAP presents an opportunity to rationalize our footprint entirely. Your initial quote of $15M should reflect that rationalization."
This argument proved persuasive. SAP recognized that losing a $4B customer to competitive cloud solutions or hybrid-cloud alternatives would be more costly than offering aggressive terms that locked in a multi-year subscription. The shelfware analysis gave the company credible rationale to demand a 30% initial discount—a position that moved from defensible to reasonable once SAP understood the alternative was potential customer churn.
Annual Support Costs vs. Cloud Subscription Economics
A critical data point in the company's negotiation toolkit: understanding how SAP's traditional support model compares to RISE with SAP subscription pricing. Traditional SAP ECC support runs approximately 22% of net license value annually. For a company with $2 million in annual license costs, that translates to roughly $440,000 in support fees each year.
RISE with SAP bundles support into the subscription price. But the company's analysis revealed that SAP's initial quote effectively built in a support tier roughly equivalent to what the company was already paying—without accounting for the operational efficiencies and vendor lock-in dynamics that cloud migration introduces.
By modeling the total cost of ownership across 2027–2032, the company demonstrated that accepting SAP's quote meant paying support costs on infrastructure they would no longer own or manage. A 22% support assumption on top of perpetual licensing made sense when the customer bore infrastructure risk. But in a cloud subscription model where SAP manages infrastructure, support, patching, and availability, the support leverage should shift materially toward the customer.
This economic argument contributed to the final 5% annual price cap negotiation clause—a protection that prevents SAP from using force-fit updates or feature dependencies to justify dramatic annual price increases.
S/4HANA Migration Resets the License Baseline
A subtle but critical point that sometimes gets overlooked in RISE with SAP discussions: migrating from ECC to S/4HANA fundamentally changes the licence baseline calculation. SAP counts Full User Equivalents (FUE) differently in S/4HANA than in legacy ECC, and licensing rules around indirect access, embedded analytics, and functional module pricing have shifted.
The financial services company's ECC environment had been licensed for approximately 850 FUE. However, S/4HANA's modern user interface and mobile-first architecture can consolidate roles and eliminate the need for multiple user accounts that were necessary in ECC's batch-processing era. The company's analysis showed that S/4HANA could comfortably serve the same business at roughly 750 FUE—a 12% reduction.
But SAP's initial RISE quote assumed 850 FUE carryover without reassessment. When the company challenged this assumption, SAP eventually conceded to a 10% FUE reduction right, allowing the customer to rightsize their subscription within the first 18 months of the contract after confirming actual user populations in the new S/4HANA environment. This flexibility protected both parties: SAP avoids over-licensing a customer who will immediately demand refunds, and the customer gains certainty about costs during the risky migration window.
SAP negotiations require deep technical and commercial expertise. Let Redress guide your RISE with SAP strategy.
Schedule a no-commitment discovery call with our SAP advisory team.Negotiation Strategy: Timing and Commercial Pressure
The company's negotiation timing proved strategically sound. They initiated serious RISE with SAP discussions in Q3 2025, giving them an 18-month window before the 2027 ECC end-of-support deadline began creating panic. SAP's fiscal year ends December 31, which meant that closing a multi-million-dollar subscription before year-end would benefit SAP's Q4 revenue targets significantly.
The company's commercial leverage derived from three factors:
- Realistic competitive alternatives: SAP knew the company had explored hybrid-cloud partnerships with tier-two cloud providers who could host ECC longer-term at lower cost, delaying S/4HANA migration. This option was never realistic long-term, but it created just enough credible alternative to make SAP defensive about losing the deal.
- Reference customer potential: A $4B financial services customer succeeding on RISE with SAP generates significant reference value for SAP's banking and financial services practice. The company made clear they would become an active reference for SAP, driving future pipeline, if RISE with SAP pricing aligned with their cost expectations.
- Scope definition control: By controlling the initial scope—identifying which modules, what DDLC levels, which BTP credits—the company forced SAP to renegotiate individual components rather than defending the monolithic $15M quote. Disaggregation of pricing reduces vendor pricing power.
Over six months of negotiation, the company moved SAP from $15M to approximately $10M on the five-year contract—a 33% reduction. Combined with the right-sizing flexibility and annual price caps, the total value creation exceeded $5 million against SAP's initial position.
The Final Contract Outcomes
The negotiated RISE with SAP agreement delivered three critical customer protections:
1. Absolute dollar savings of $5 million over five years, translating to approximately $1 million annually. For a $4B enterprise, this is not merely a line-item savings; it's strategic capital preservation that can fund digital initiatives elsewhere.
2. 10% FUE reduction right within the first 18 months, allowing the company to rightsize user licensing based on actual S/4HANA utilization without triggering renegotiation or penalty. This flexibility acknowledges the reality that user populations change during migration and stabilization.
3. 5% annual price cap across the five-year contract term, protecting the company from the scenario where SAP introduces new feature dependencies or service tiers that force price escalations beyond inflation-plus-growth assumptions.
Additionally, the DDLC calculation was revised based on documented integration audit findings, locking in a reasonable indirect access baseline that won't expand unless the company materially increases its banking system integration footprint—which would be a business decision, not a licensing surprise.
Key Lessons for Enterprise RISE with SAP Negotiations
This financial services case illustrates several principles that apply across industries:
License audits are negotiation leverage. Understanding your current ECC shelfware and inefficiencies gives you credible rationale to demand discounts on new cloud subscriptions. SAP knows that customers migrating away from over-licensed on-premises environments should rightsize immediately.
Understand what RISE with SAP includes and excludes. Many enterprises accept SAP's bundled offering without recognizing that separate SaaS applications (SuccessFactors, Ariba, Concur) require separate negotiation. Disaggregate the quote and negotiate components separately.
DDLC and indirect access matter more in regulated industries. Banking, insurance, healthcare, and pharmaceutical enterprises integrate with more third-party platforms than typical manufacturers. Your integration architecture determines your true licensing cost, not SAP's generic industry baseline.
Timing creates leverage. SAP fiscal year-end, your internal budget cycles, and the ECC end-of-support deadline all create windows where SAP becomes more motivated to close deals. Use these windows strategically.
Right-sizing flexibility and price protection are worth fighting for. Annual price caps and mid-term user reduction rights protect you from the scenario where SAP uses feature dependencies or service tier changes to justify dramatic cost escalations.
Conclusion: Turning an ECC Sunset into Strategic Opportunity
For 20 years, this financial services company's SAP investment had been a cost center. The 2027 ECC end-of-support deadline could have been an existential threat, forcing acceptance of SAP's initial asking price out of perceived urgency. Instead, the company recognized that SAP's $15M quote reflected years of accumulated licensing inefficiency and misalignment with modern cloud economics.
By commissioning a comprehensive license audit, understanding RISE with SAP's true architecture and limitations, quantifying indirect access exposure specific to financial services banking integrations, and leveraging realistic commercial alternatives and strategic timing, the company extracted $5 million in value from SAP while securing operational flexibility they would not have obtained without disciplined negotiation.
The lesson extends beyond SAP: enterprise licensing migrations are not commodity transactions to be accepted as final. They are commercial negotiations where deep technical understanding, market leverage, and strategic timing compound into material savings.
Your SAP negotiation deserves the same rigor this financial services firm applied.
Redress Compliance advises on RISE with SAP contracts, licence audits, and right-sizing strategy.