AI ERP with agents inside the systems you run
AI phone and voice agents for real calls
LLM.coPrivate, self-hosted LLM deployments
Legal AI infrastructure for firms
AI RFP discovery and response drafting
Automatic.coBusiness process automation
CyberAttack.aiThreat detection and defense
Secure AI virtual data rooms
10 business days
To start an SAP engagement
Scoping through first sprint
100%
Senior engineers, US-based
ABAP, Fiori/UI5, and integration experience
Every sprint
Working changes in a sandbox client
Not a status deck between milestones
100%
Custom code and apps you own
Deployed under your SAP landscape
What we build on SAP
SAP work, by what's actually being asked for
SAP's ecosystem spans sales and distribution, materials management, financial management, human resources, and corporate services like real estate and health and safety. What a given project needs from that range depends entirely on which modules carry your actual operations.
Custom ABAP development
Enhancements, user exits, BAdIs, and standalone Z-programs for the logic SAP's standard configuration genuinely can't express — built with an eye toward what has to survive the next S/4HANA upgrade, not just what compiles today.
Fiori and SAPUI5 apps
Custom Fiori apps and UI5 extensions that give users a modern, role-based interface on top of SAP's transactional backbone, whether that's a full custom app or an extension of a standard Fiori tile.
Workflow automation
SAP Business Workflow and equivalent automation for approval chains and process routing, tested against real transaction volumes rather than the handful of test records most workflows get validated against before go-live.
Integration
Connecting SAP to third-party systems via SAP PI/PO, the SAP Business Technology Platform, or direct API calls — the reconciliation logic on both sides of an integration is usually the real engineering work, not the connection itself.
Reporting and analytics extraction
Custom extractors and reporting layers on top of SAP BW or a downstream data warehouse, built for the KPIs your business actually reviews rather than SAP's default report catalog.
S/4HANA migration support
Custom code remediation, data volume assessment, and Fiori UX planning for businesses moving from ECC to S/4HANA — the technical migration and the code cleanup it forces are usually two separate projects wearing one name.
The decision that matters most
Customizing, enhancement, or custom code — decided per requirement
SAP gives you at least three ways to make the system do something it doesn't do by default, and which one you reach for determines how expensive the requirement is to maintain through every future upgrade.
Customizing (configuration) comes first
SAP's configuration tables (SPRO) cover an enormous range of business process variation without a line of custom code. A requirement that can be met by configuration should be, because it survives upgrades with far less risk than any custom development.
Enhancements are the middle ground
User exits, BAdIs (Business Add-Ins), and enhancement points let you extend standard SAP logic at defined hooks without modifying the core program. This is generally the right level for logic that's genuinely custom but still tied closely to a standard process.
Z-programs are custom development, full stop
Standalone Z-transactions and reports are entirely your organization's responsibility to test, document, and carry through every future upgrade. They're sometimes necessary, but each one is a decision worth writing down a reason for.
"Clean core" is the current governing principle
SAP's own guidance for S/4HANA and BTP is to keep the core system as close to standard as possible and build extensions on the Business Technology Platform instead of inside the core. Following this now is significantly cheaper than remediating a decade of core modifications during a future upgrade.
Excess Z-code is the technical debt that actually bites
An SAP landscape with years of undocumented custom code is the single biggest source of a painful S/4HANA migration — every Z-program has to be assessed, and a meaningful share turn out to duplicate functionality S/4HANA now provides natively.
API-first integration ages better than point-to-point
SAP's API Business Hub and OData services are built to be the integration surface going forward. Point-to-point RFC connections still work, but they accumulate as undocumented dependencies that make a future migration harder to scope accurately.
What's involved
SAP engagement types
What moves the scope is less the module count and more how much custom code already exists, and how much of it has to be assessed or rebuilt for the target you're moving toward.
| Engagement | Commitment | Timeline | What's included |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAP landscape & custom-code audit | Fixed scope | 2 – 4 weeks | Inventory of Z-programs, enhancements, and integrations, with an S/4HANA readiness and clean-core assessment. |
| Custom ABAP or Fiori app development | Fixed scope | 6 – 14 weeks | Enhancement or standalone development for logic configuration can't cover, plus a Fiori or UI5 interface where standard tiles fall short. |
| S/4HANA migration readiness & remediation | Fixed scope | 8 – 20 weeks | Custom code remediation, data volume and archiving assessment, and a migration plan scoped to brownfield, greenfield, or a mixed approach. |
| Integration build | Fixed scope | 6 – 12 weeks | SAP connected to a third-party system via PI/PO, BTP, or direct API, with the reconciliation logic that keeps both sides accurate. |
| Reporting & BW/analytics extension | Fixed scope | 4 – 10 weeks | Custom extractors and reporting layers built around the KPIs your business actually reviews. |
| Ongoing SAP development & support retainer | Ongoing retainer | Ongoing | Standing ownership of custom code, integrations, and SAP's regular support pack and upgrade cycle. |
Ranges assume US-based senior engineers with ABAP, Fiori/UI5, and SAP integration experience. The audit exists because the amount of undocumented custom code in an existing landscape is usually the single biggest driver of everything that follows.
ECC to S/4HANA
What the migration actually involves
S/4HANA migration gets sold as a technical upgrade. For any landscape with real age on it, the custom code and data volume work is usually the larger part of the project, not the database conversion itself.
Brownfield, greenfield, or bluefield
A brownfield migration converts the existing system in place, preserving configuration and history but carrying forward technical debt. Greenfield rebuilds from scratch on S/4HANA's data model, which is cleaner but discards accumulated configuration. Bluefield approaches selectively carry forward what's worth keeping — the right choice depends on how much of the existing landscape is actually worth preserving.
Custom code has to be recertified, not just carried over
Every Z-program and enhancement has to be checked against S/4HANA's simplified data model — some ABAP that worked fine on ECC's tables breaks or performs poorly on S/4HANA's, and SAP's own code inspection tools only catch part of what needs review.
Data volume and archiving come before the technical cutover
Years of transactional history sitting in an ECC system is usually the first thing worth archiving or summarizing before migration, since it directly affects migration time and the size of the system you're maintaining afterward.
Fiori is part of the migration, not an add-on after it
S/4HANA is built around the Fiori UX layer, and planning which custom transactions need a Fiori equivalent — versus which can stay on the classic SAP GUI — belongs in the migration plan itself, not a follow-up project nobody scoped.
The custom-code assessment usually reshapes the timeline
A landscape assumed to be a straightforward technical upgrade often turns out to need a genuine remediation project once the Z-program inventory is complete. Finding this out during the audit, rather than midway through the migration, is what keeps the timeline honest.
Fit
Where SAP fits, and what it takes to run well
SAP is built for organizations with real operational complexity — multiple entities, deep supply chains, or regulatory reporting across jurisdictions. Knowing whether that complexity is actually present changes both the implementation plan and how much custom development is worth taking on.
The core modules, briefly
SD (sales and distribution) covers order-to-cash, MM (materials management) covers procurement and inventory, FI/CO covers financial and controlling, and HR/HCM covers workforce management. Most businesses run two or three of these deeply and the rest as needed.
On-premises, cloud, or hybrid
S/4HANA is available on-premises, as a public cloud (RISE with SAP), or as a private cloud edition, and the deployment model affects how much custom code and Z-program development is even permitted — public cloud editions restrict core modifications more tightly, which pushes extension work onto BTP by design.
SAP earns its complexity at real scale
Multi-entity organizations with deep supply chains, complex intercompany transactions, or regulatory reporting across jurisdictions get genuine value from SAP's depth. A single-entity business with straightforward operations often carries more overhead than value from the full suite.
Governance is what keeps custom code from becoming unmaintainable
A transport management process that moves changes from development through quality assurance to production in a controlled, documented way is what keeps an SAP landscape auditable. Direct changes in production are the same failure mode here as in any other enterprise system.
Related
Related services
What SAP projects usually connect to.
Questions
Common questions about SAP development
What teams ask before a first call.
What drives the number is how much of the work is standard Customizing and enhancement versus genuine custom ABAP development, plus whether an S/4HANA migration and its custom-code remediation are in scope. A configuration-heavy engagement costs far less than one requiring new Z-programs and multiple integrations.
A landscape audit is usually the fastest way to find out which category a project actually falls into.
SAP is an enterprise resource planning suite covering sales and distribution, materials management, financial management, HR, and corporate services in one system. Most businesses run two or three modules deeply — often SD, MM, and FI/CO — and the rest lightly or not at all.
Scoping starts by identifying which modules actually carry your operations, since that's what determines whether a request is configuration, an enhancement, or custom ABAP.
Configuration (Customizing) uses SAP's built-in setup tables to adjust standard behavior without writing code, and it should be the first option for any requirement it can cover. Enhancements — user exits and BAdIs — extend standard logic at defined hooks. Custom ABAP, including standalone Z-programs, is genuinely new development that your organization is fully responsible for maintaining through every future upgrade.
Which level a requirement needs should be decided deliberately, not defaulted to code because it's the most flexible option.
The database conversion itself is often the smaller part. Every piece of custom ABAP has to be assessed and often remediated against S/4HANA's simplified data model, years of transaction history typically need archiving before the technical cutover, and the Fiori UX layer has to be planned for the transactions your users actually rely on.
A custom-code audit early in the process is what keeps the migration timeline honest rather than discovering the real scope midway through.
We build both — custom Fiori apps and SAPUI5 extensions on top of SAP's transactional backbone, and extensions of standard Fiori tiles where a full custom app isn't warranted. This is often part of the same engagement as backend ABAP work, since a Fiori app usually needs an OData service behind it.
Through SAP PI/PO for traditional middleware integration, the SAP Business Technology Platform for newer API-first integrations, or direct RFC or OData calls depending on volume and latency needs. SAP's own guidance now favors API-first integration through BTP over point-to-point connections, since those accumulate as undocumented dependencies over time.
Clean core is SAP's current guidance to keep the core S/4HANA system as close to standard as possible and build extensions on the Business Technology Platform instead of modifying the core directly. Following it now is significantly cheaper than remediating a decade of core modifications during a future upgrade, which is exactly the situation many ECC-to-S/4HANA migrations run into.
Yes. Custom development is deployed and transported through your own SAP landscape under your organization's ownership, with documentation and a transport history, not held in a system only we can access. That's the only arrangement that doesn't lock your ERP to a single vendor for its next upgrade or its next hire.