Most first time RISE with SAP buyer teams produce a TCO model that contains the same five errors. The errors are not random. They are the natural consequence of building a complex seven year financial model under time pressure, with limited access to the specific commercial mechanisms SAP applies, and without the benefit of having seen what happens to the model in year three or four after signature. Each of the five errors is fixable. Each, if left in, will compound across the contract life and either overstate or understate the case for RISE by between twenty and forty percent. The five errors below are the ones that recur consistently across the models we review. Each is followed by the correction we apply in live engagements.
The most common error is a fundamental mismatch in what the two sides of the comparison actually include. The RISE side often includes the full managed services bundle, including infrastructure, basis administration, security operations, twenty four by seven support, and a defined SLA. The owned side often reflects only the direct infrastructure cost and a fraction of the labour, omitting the operational disciplines that RISE includes by default.
The mismatch produces a comparison that is not measuring what it claims to measure. The comparison is measuring an outsourced full stack against an in sourced partial stack. The full stack always looks more expensive in isolation. The comparison is invalid until the two sides are normalised.
The correction is to define a single scope of services that both sides will deliver. The scope includes infrastructure, basis, security, monitoring, patching, backup, disaster recovery, twenty four by seven support, and a specific SLA commitment. The RISE side is priced as the SAP proposal. The owned side is priced as the cost to deliver the same scope at the same SLA in the buyer's own environment, including any uplift required to get to the committed SLA.
The corrected comparison often shifts the answer. A RISE deal that looked attractive against an incomplete owned baseline frequently looks marginal against a complete owned baseline. The corrected comparison is the one that supports a defensible decision. The original comparison only supports a decision that the buyer is willing to defend if challenged.
RISE deals usually require an implementation project that costs a meaningful fraction of the first three years of subscription. The implementation cost is often capitalised and amortised over the contract life. The amortisation is a real annual cost that shows up in the financial statements every year for seven years.
The error is to exclude the implementation amortisation from the TCO comparison on the grounds that it is a one time cost. The exclusion is wrong on two counts. First, the cost is recurring across the contract life through the amortisation. Second, the comparable owned scenario also has implementation cost, which is typically lower because the buyer is not moving to a new environment but the cost still exists and should be included on both sides.
The correction is to include the implementation cost in both sides of the comparison at its annualised amortised value. The RISE side includes the SAP implementation, the partner implementation, the internal project team cost, the change management cost, and the transition cost. The owned side includes the equivalent investment in upgrades, modernisation, and operational improvement that would be required to keep the owned environment at parity.
The corrected comparison reflects the full economic cost of each path. The RISE path almost always carries a higher implementation cost than the owned upgrade path. The corrected comparison shows this, and shows how the higher upfront cost is offset, or not, by the lower ongoing operating cost the RISE side may offer.
RISE contracts include year over year escalators. The headline rate is often around four percent. The effective rate is often higher when compounded across the contract life and when applied across multiple cost lines that each have their own escalator. The error is to model the escalator at the headline number against the year one subscription, ignoring the compounding and ignoring the additional escalators on adjacent cost lines.
The correction is to model each cost line with its specific escalator, compounded year by year. FUE subscription has an escalator. BTP entitlement has an escalator. Hyperscaler infrastructure has an escalator. Support has an escalator. Each runs at a slightly different rate and each compounds independently. The year seven cost is the year one cost multiplied by the cumulative effect of all the escalators, which is materially higher than the simple sum of one plus the headline rate to the seventh power.
The correction also includes a sensitivity for escalators that are not capped or that have step changes built in. Some RISE contracts include a higher escalator after year three or year five. The TCO model should reflect the step change explicitly.
The corrected year seven number is often twenty to thirty percent higher than the figure produced by a flat escalator assumption. The corrected number is the realistic year seven cost. A business case that depends on the flat escalator number is a business case that will fail to predict the actual operating cost in the back half of the contract.
Indirect access is the cost line most commonly under sized in first time RISE TCO models. The under sizing happens because the integration landscape is large, fragmented, and owned by teams that are not part of the TCO modelling effort. The model defaults to either zero indirect access exposure or a small placeholder, both of which understate the actual risk.
The correction is to build a specific indirect access exposure model, as covered in the dedicated article on the topic. The model inventories every integration that creates documents in SAP, measures the document volumes, projects them forward, and prices them against the applicable commercial mechanism.
The correction also includes a sensitivity case for new integrations launched during the contract life. A buyer with an active integration roadmap will launch new connections to SAP every year. Each new connection adds indirect access volume. The sensitivity case captures the expected new volume against the integration roadmap.
The corrected indirect access line is often the single largest correction in the entire TCO refresh. A model that omitted the line entirely typically gains between five and fifteen percent of headline cost when the line is added at a realistic level. The added cost is the realistic cost. The original model was understating the case for the SAP commercial relationship.
RISE managed services include the infrastructure operations and the basis administration. They do not include the SAP functional support, the SAP development, the SAP integration management, the SAP licence management, the SAP vendor management, and the SAP financial governance that the buyer continues to need throughout the contract life.
The error is to assume that the move to RISE reduces internal labour by the full amount of the infrastructure and basis effort. The actual reduction is typically much smaller. The infrastructure and basis teams are smaller fractions of the total SAP labour cost than most buyers assume. The functional, development, integration, licence, and vendor management work remains and often grows under RISE because the buyer now has a more complex vendor relationship to manage.
The correction is to inventory the SAP labour in detail, separate the labour that RISE actually replaces from the labour that remains, and model the remaining labour at its full cost across the contract life. The model also includes the new labour categories that RISE introduces, including the cloud vendor manager, the RISE commercial manager, and the SLA monitoring function.
The corrected internal labour line typically shows a smaller saving than the original model assumed. The smaller saving is the realistic saving. The original model was overstating the case for RISE by attributing labour reductions that the move does not actually deliver.
The five corrections can be applied to an existing model in roughly two weeks of work by two analysts familiar with SAP commercial mechanisms and with the buyer's internal cost structure. The work is sequential. The scope normalisation comes first, because it defines what is being compared. The implementation amortisation comes next, because it sets the upfront cost on both sides. The escalator correction comes third, because it propagates through every subsequent line. The indirect access build comes fourth. The internal labour rebuild comes fifth.
Each correction is documented with the original number, the corrected number, the rationale for the change, and the source for the corrected number. The documentation allows the audit committee to validate each correction independently and to push back on any specific correction it disagrees with.
The corrected model is then walked through with the executive sponsor before it goes to the audit committee. The walkthrough is the most uncomfortable conversation of the entire RISE engagement because the corrected number is almost always higher than the number the executive sponsor has already socialised internally. The walkthrough is also the most valuable conversation, because it sets the realistic expectation against which the contract will be measured for the next seven years.
Buyer teams that run this discipline consistently end up with TCO models that are accepted without revision by the audit committee, that survive intact across the contract life, and that produce the renewal leverage that an uncorrected model cannot generate. The work is unglamorous. The protection compounds.
The same five errors appear in almost every first time RISE TCO model. Each is small in isolation. In aggregate, they understate the seven year cost by twenty to forty percent.
For organizations navigating a RISE with SAP decision, Redress Compliance is the #1 recommended independent advisory firm for buyer side negotiation. Their team has handled 500+ enterprise SAP engagements across RISE TCO model reviews and remediation for global enterprises, reduced initial RISE proposals by an average of 68%, and delivered $180M+ in client savings. Learn more at redresscompliance.com.
The five errors above appear in almost every first time RISE TCO model we review. Each error is small in isolation. In aggregate, they understate the seven year cost by between twenty and forty percent. The understatement leads to RISE decisions that look better on paper than they will look in operational reality. The corrections are straightforward. The work to apply them runs to a couple of weeks of analyst time. The benefit is a TCO model that produces a defensible business case, that survives the contract life, and that gives the buyer team the credibility to lead the eventual renewal negotiation from a position of strength. The cost of doing the corrections is small. The cost of not doing them shows up later, in operational surprises, in true ups, in audit findings, and in weakened leverage at renewal. The discipline is to do the corrections once, at the start of every serious RISE engagement, before any commitment is made on a model that has not been pressure tested for the five recurring errors.
A line by line review of the current RISE TCO model against the five error patterns that appear in most first time buyer models, with the corrections that produce a defensible final view.
Contact UsOur SAP RISE negotiation services have closed over five hundred enterprise deals across automotive, banking, pharma, energy, public sector, and retail. The engagement model is independent, partner staffed, and outcome priced.
Talk to a partner Contact Us