FIT 4 SAP Proof of Concept

What You Get

Watercolour of Isard Haasakker presenting in a boardroom at golden hour, seen from behind four managers in business casual. The slide on the whiteboard lists the three governance artefacts, each with an icon: 1. Scar Log (a plaster), 2. Decision Register (a rubber stamp), 3. Board Pack (a ring binder). A city skyline in the window.

Every FIT 4 SAP engagement produces three governance artefacts regardless of technical outcome. These aren't optional nice-to-haves. They're core deliverables. You get receipts, not reassurances. Plain language, executive-readable, no jargon hiding problems.

The Problem with Traditional Deliverables

Traditional pilot outputs: PowerPoint decks claiming "90% complete" for months, status reports sanitised for steering committees, RAID logs buried in appendices. Consultants vanish post-go-live, taking knowledge with them. No audit trail of what was decided when or why.

When implementations burn, blame shifts: "You never told us your business worked this way." Problems are hidden until it is too late to fix without massive change orders. Optimism bias is baked into every progress report.

Most implementation documentation is designed to avoid accountability, not enable it.

The Three Core Governance Artefacts

Scar Log: what broke and why
Decision Register: what changed and who approved
Board Pack: executive summary with evidence

Each explained in detail below.

Artefact 1: Scar Log

Watercolour of Isard Haasakker alone at a desk in the evening, writing in a notebook under a desk lamp beside his laptop. Through the glass wall behind him, a quiet warehouse with pallet racking and a parked forklift.

Running document of every problem encountered during the 30-day sprint. Chronological, dated entries with no euphemisms. Problems documented in real-time, not sanitised for stakeholders at project end.

If a consultant tries to hide a problem, it reappears later as a seven-figure change order. The Scar Log prevents this by making every issue visible immediately.

Example entry:

Day 7
Problem: Triangular invoicing fails when NL entity invoices UK customer for FR shipment
Impact: Core business scenario doesn't work in standard SAP
Workaround: Manual journal entry to correct intercompany clearing
Root Cause: Tax determination logic incomplete for three-country flow
Resolution Status: Fixed Day 8 via BRF+ rule, retested Day 9, working

Day 12
Problem: BRF+ rule for customer-specific pricing returns wrong discount tier
Impact: Prototype can't demonstrate pricing logic accurately
Workaround: None. Rule logic needs redesign
Root Cause: Business requirement more complex than questionnaire revealed
Resolution Status: Documented as gap, recommended for Phase 2 investigation

Why this matters: Prevents "we didn't know" defences. This is vital documentation for full implementation team. Shows the consultant isn't hiding problems. Reveals patterns: are issues one-off or systemic?

Governance principle: Scars are valuable. Hide them, and you repeat mistakes.

Artefact 2: Decision Register

Watercolour of a woman in a blue-and-white scarf making a request across a round table to Isard Haasakker, who smiles with his thumb raised, a short document between them, a city skyline at golden hour in the window.

Log of every scope negotiation or deviation request. Records who requested what, when, and what was decided. Tracks "mission creep" attempts in real-time.

Example entries:

Day 5
Request: CFO requests adding a second currency to test
Requestor: CFO (via PM)
Impact: +2 days configuration, delays other testing
Decision: DECLINED
Rationale: Out of scope per Scope Agreement. Recommend a separate PoC if critical.

Day 15
Request: PM requests extending the deadline to Day 35 due to data delays
Requestor: Project Manager
Impact: Violates fixed timeline commitment
Decision: DECLINED
Rationale: Data delays are a finding: document in the Scar Log, proceed with synthetic data

Day 18
Request: Executive sponsor requests adding an inventory management scenario
Requestor: COO
Impact: Completely different scope, would require a 30-day restart
Decision: DECLINED, alternative offered
Rationale: Recommend a second PoC focused on inventory. Current PoC stays focused on invoicing.

Why this matters: Shows where organisational pressure tries to break discipline. Demonstrates consultant held the line, and where a request deserves it, recommends a separate proof of concept. Reveals what stakeholders ACTUALLY care about vs. what they said in questionnaire. Prevents "you agreed to do X" revisionism.

Governance principle: Saying "no" with evidence is more valuable than saying "yes" without thinking.

Artefact 3: Board Pack

Watercolour of a manager with curly grey hair and a short beard standing at the head of a wood-panelled boardroom table with a thin folder, briefing a board of directors, a city skyline at golden hour in the window.

Executive summary designed to brief board or steering committee in 15 minutes. Combines Scar Log, and Decision Register into evidence-based narrative.

Structure (ten slides maximum):

Slide 1: Executive Summary (outcome + key insights)
Slide 2: What We Tested (scope reminder)
Slide 3: What Worked (green lights)
Slide 4: What Didn't Work (scars summary)
Slide 5: What Changed (decision register highlights)
Slide 6: Change Management Assessment (fit into clean core, or not)
Slide 7: Recommendations (three options with trade-offs)
Slide 8: Appendices (links to detailed artefacts)

Why this matters: Busy executives don't read 50-page status reports. They need synthesis in slides they can brief upwards. Evidence-based, not opinion-based. Problems named directly, not hidden in passive voice.

Governance principle: If it takes 50 pages to explain, you don't understand it well enough.

What Happens When Things Go Wrong

Not every PoC succeeds technically, but every PoC succeeds as a learning exercise.

If the prototype breaks irreparably (Day 20 meltdown), switch to Findings-First Mode: Stop trying to make it work. Document what broke, why it broke, and what that means. Deliver all three governance artefacts as scheduled on Day 30, focused on "what we learned" instead of "what we built."

Example scenario:

Day 18: Realise business requirement fundamentally incompatible with standard S/4 logic

Findings-First Mode activated:
• Stop configuration attempts
• Document incompatibility root cause in Scar Log
• Research alternative approaches (process change vs. custom code vs. third-party tool)
• Deliver Board Pack showing "Standard SAP won't work, here's why, here are three alternatives"

Key message: Failure to prove viability is valuable evidence. You paid for truth, not false hope.

Comparing Governance Approaches

Traditional Deliverables	FIT 4 SAP Governance Artefacts
RAID log buried in appendix, sanitised for stakeholders	Scar Log is primary deliverable, reviewed weekly
Change requests processed invisibly, scope drift untracked	Decision Register documents every deviation attempt
Steering committee decks hide problems in passive voice	Board Pack names problems directly with evidence

Governance isn't bureaucracy. It is insurance against amnesia and gaslighting.