Does your SAP programme need more consultants, or better governance?
Short answer: add consultants for a capacity problem, fix governance for a decision-making problem. Most SAP programme delays are the second one.
When SAP milestones start slipping, workstreams miss agreed dates, or build and testing fall behind plan, adding more consultants can seem like the quickest way to recover time.
That only works if capacity is what caused the delay. More consultants can’t unblock an approval, clarify who owns a decision or stop scope expanding without control.
Before I approve more resource, I look at what is actually preventing the team from progressing.
If you don't have enough specialist expertise or capacity to complete the work, you have a resourcing gap. If experienced consultants are waiting for design decisions, business approvals, scope calls or executive direction, governance is holding up delivery.
Adding capacity at that point gives you more people waiting for the same decisions.
What causes SAP programme delays?
The governance issues I look for first are unclear decision rights, slow client-side approvals, uncontrolled scope and weak executive sponsorship.
Take a design decision that needs approval from a business process owner. Leave it unresolved for two weeks and configuration, integrations, test preparation and dependent workstreams all feel the impact.
Decisions requiring senior authority create the same problem when executive sponsorship is too far removed from delivery. What appears as delay across several workstreams may have started with one unresolved decision.
Is it an SAP skills gap or a governance gap?
Look at what your consultants can't progress, and why.
A skills gap is specific. You need expertise in a module you don't have. Your data team cannot cover the migration workload. Testing needs more capacity ahead of a key phase. A workstream needs leadership that isn't currently there.
A governance gap looks different. The expertise is already there, but the team is waiting for a decision, approval, scope clarification or escalation before it can move.
Four signs I look for:
-
Decisions keep moving between stakeholders. Several people are involved, but nobody has clear authority to make the final call.
-
Approvals regularly hold up delivery. Consultants complete the work they can control, then wait for business or leadership sign-off before progressing.
-
Scope changes without a clear decision. Requirements enter individual workstreams without assessing their impact on cost, integration, testing, or the wider transformation timeline.
-
Issues requiring executive intervention keep circulating. The programme has a sponsor, but decisions requiring senior authority repeatedly return to steering without resolution.
How do you fix SAP governance without adding headcount?
Give every critical decision an owner
Define decision ownership by workstream. Teams should know what they can decide themselves, what needs business approval and what requires escalation.
The owner also needs the authority to make the decision. Naming somebody without giving them that authority leaves the same blocker in place.
Set a steering cadence that matches delivery
A blocker that appears immediately after a steering committee can’t always wait until the next monthly meeting.
Set clear decision routes between formal governance meetings, with agreed turnaround times for anything holding up work.
Make escalation part of delivery
An escalation process only helps when people use it.
Define what triggers escalation, who receives it and how quickly a decision is expected. Then use the route when you reach that threshold.
Keep one decision log
Record what was decided, who made the decision, when it was made and what it affects.
A shared log gives workstreams one record to work from, reduces the risk of settled questions being reopened and makes overdue decisions visible.
Put scope changes through one route
A small requirement in one workstream can create additional configuration, integration, data, testing and change activity elsewhere.
Assess those dependencies and the impact on cost and timeline before approving the change.
When should you add more SAP resource?
Add resource when you know what it will own and what it will unblock.
You may need specialist expertise in a particular SAP area, more capacity for data or testing, support during a peak phase, or a team to own a defined workstream.
When the work is ready but you don't have the people to deliver it, add capacity. When consultants are waiting for decisions, approvals or scope clarification, resolve those blockers first.
Before adding headcount to recover a delayed SAP programme, I would ask one question: what exactly will the next consultant be able to progress that the current team cannot?
If you can't answer that, adding another consultant is unlikely to recover the plan.
If you're trying to establish what's holding up your SAP programme, Trillion can help you assess the governance and capability gaps before you commit more resource.
SAP Practice Head