A U.S.-based financial services company with 12,000 employees and $4 billion in revenue was facing SAP’s 2027 end-of-support deadline for ECC. SAP’s initial RISE proposal bundled S/4HANA, Ariba, cloud infrastructure, and support into a $15M package with hidden fees, inflated FUE counts, and one-sided contract terms. Redress Compliance deconstructed the proposal, optimised the licensing structure, and negotiated a deal that saved $5M while securing flexibility protections rarely achieved in RISE contracts.
The client is a U.S.-based financial services company with approximately 12,000 employees and $4 billion in annual revenue. The company provides banking, wealth management, and insurance services across the eastern United States, with a growing digital banking platform serving both retail and commercial customers. Headquartered in a major East Coast financial centre, the firm operates over 200 branches and manages approximately $30 billion in assets under management.
The firm relied on SAP ECC for its core finance and procurement systems, running on-premise infrastructure managed by internal IT. The SAP estate supported approximately 3,500 regular users across finance, procurement, and operations, with an additional 8,500 occasional or self-service users accessing the system for expense reports, leave requests, and management dashboards. With SAP’s announced 2027 end-of-support deadline for ECC approaching, the company evaluated RISE with SAP as the path to migrate to S/4HANA in a managed cloud environment. SAP’s initial proposal combined S/4HANA Private Cloud Edition, SAP Ariba for procurement, cloud infrastructure (hyperscaler hosting), and SAP Enterprise Support into a single subscription bundle priced at approximately $15 million over five years.
While the promise of cloud ERP — reduced infrastructure management, automatic updates, and improved agility — was attractive to the board, the CIO and CFO were deeply concerned about cost control and licensing complexity in this all-in-one deal. The financial services industry demands rigorous cost governance and regulatory scrutiny over major IT investments, and the initial RISE proposal raised several red flags that prompted the company to seek independent advisory support before making any commitment to SAP.
U.S. financial services (banking, wealth management, insurance). Heavily regulated environment requiring strict cost governance, audit readiness, and predictable IT spending. The board required detailed cost justification for any major technology investment exceeding $5M.
SAP ECC for finance and procurement, SAP Ariba for supplier management, approximately 12,000 employees including 3,500 regular SAP users and 8,500 occasional or self-service users. Multiple third-party systems integrating with SAP data for reporting and analytics.
Internal audit had identified indirect access issues — third-party systems (data warehouses, reporting tools, customer portals) accessing SAP data without proper licensing coverage. Estimated exposure of seven figures in potential audit penalties if not addressed in the RISE migration.
$4 billion annual revenue, 12,000 employees, operations across the eastern United States. The SAP environment supported mission-critical financial processing, regulatory reporting, and procurement operations where any disruption would have immediate business and compliance impact.
SAP’s initial RISE proposal presented multiple challenges that, without independent review, would have locked the company into an unfavourable agreement for five years. Each issue individually would have cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars; together, they represented millions in unnecessary spend and unresolved compliance risk:
SAP’s initial RISE quote was approximately $15 million over 5 years. Analysis revealed the bundle contained opaque cloud infrastructure fees, overstated storage requirements, and included services the company did not need. The all-in-one pricing made it difficult to identify which components were driving costs and where savings were possible. Additional growth charges for users, storage, and BTP credits were buried in the fine print, creating exposure for significant cost escalation above the headline price.
Converting the company’s 12,000 employees into SAP’s Full-Use Equivalent (FUE) model was proving confusing and expensive. SAP’s initial FUE count treated many casual and self-service users (read-only dashboards, expense approvals, leave requests) at the same conversion rate as power users. Without careful mapping, the company was being quoted for significantly more FUEs than their actual usage pattern justified — inflating the subscription cost by an estimated 20–25%.
SAP pushed for a standard “all or nothing” RISE contract: 5-year commitment with no ability to reduce user counts mid-term, no price cap on renewals, and no mechanism to remove unused components. The contract allowed only costly expansions — adding more FUEs, storage, or BTP credits at list pricing. The company’s CIO described the standard terms as “a one-way ratchet that only moves in SAP’s favour.”
An internal audit had identified that several third-party systems — including a data warehouse, customer-facing portal, and regulatory reporting platform — were accessing SAP data through interfaces without proper digital access licensing. This represented a seven-figure compliance exposure. The concern was that moving to RISE without explicitly resolving these indirect access issues would simply carry the liability forward, potentially triggering an SAP audit after migration when the company would have no negotiating leverage.
Redress Compliance was engaged 4 months before SAP’s proposed contract signing deadline. The engagement combined deep licensing analysis, commercial benchmarking, and strategic negotiation to transform the RISE proposal from SAP’s terms to the client’s terms. The structured approach ensured that every element of the RISE bundle was scrutinised, benchmarked, and negotiated individually rather than accepted as an opaque package:
We conducted a comprehensive SAP licence review, mapping every user and role to the correct FUE category. This analysis identified approximately $2 million in shelfware (unused licences and unnecessary modules that SAP had carried into the RISE proposal from the legacy ECC estate). By optimising the FUE count — ensuring self-service users were classified at the correct 0.033 FUE rate rather than being overcounted — we reduced the required FUE total by over 20%, directly lowering the subscription cost.
We built detailed cost models challenging SAP’s proposal from multiple angles. One model removed unnecessary components (keeping SuccessFactors HR separate rather than bundling it), shrinking the RISE scope. Another compared the RISE deal against the alternative of staying on ECC with extended maintenance support, quantifying the true cost of the “walk-away” option. These scenarios gave the CIO a clear decision framework and put SAP on notice that the company had credible alternatives.
We led a data-driven negotiation using industry benchmarks from comparable financial services RISE deployments. We set explicit targets: 30%+ discount from the initial proposal, a hard cap on annual price increases, right-size provisions for FUE reductions, and contractual resolution of the indirect access exposure. SAP was told clearly that the company would defer migration unless the RISE offer improved substantially — creating genuine commercial pressure through a credible walk-away.
The negotiation produced several specific outcomes that collectively transformed the RISE agreement from a standard SAP-favourable contract into a genuinely flexible, cost-controlled arrangement. Each concession was achieved through a combination of data-driven benchmarking, credible alternative scenarios, and sustained commercial pressure:
The licence audit identified unused SAP modules, over-provisioned user categories, and legacy components that SAP had rolled into the RISE proposal without questioning whether the company still needed them. By stripping out these unnecessary elements and reclassifying user roles accurately, we reduced the subscription baseline by $2 million over the 5-year term — savings that would have been invisible without independent analysis of the proposal line items.
The final agreement included a right-size provision allowing the company to reduce its FUE count by up to 10% if business demand decreased. This addressed the CIO’s primary concern about lock-in risk — in an industry subject to regulatory change, market consolidation, and workforce restructuring, the ability to scale down without penalty was essential. Standard RISE contracts do not include this provision; it was negotiated as a specific concession based on competitive pressure and benchmarking evidence.
SAP’s standard RISE contract contained no explicit cap on renewal pricing, leaving the company exposed to significant cost escalation at the end of the initial term. We negotiated a 5% annual cap on price increases, ensuring that the company’s SAP costs would remain predictable over the contract term and at renewal. For a financial services firm with rigorous budget governance requirements, this predictability was as valuable as the direct cost savings.
Rather than allowing the indirect access issue to migrate unresolved into the RISE contract, we negotiated explicit digital access provisions covering all known third-party integrations. SAP agreed to include digital access rights for the identified data warehouse, customer portal, and regulatory reporting systems within the RISE subscription at no additional cost. This resolved a seven-figure compliance exposure that would otherwise have remained as an audit liability indefinitely. The company entered the RISE agreement with a clean compliance position and documented usage rights for every integration.
Beyond the contract terms, we delivered a comprehensive SAP licence governance roadmap. This framework includes quarterly internal usage reviews against FUE entitlements, annual benchmarking of SAP costs against market data, documented exit strategy provisions for the end of the RISE term, and defined escalation procedures for addressing any SAP billing discrepancies. The governance plan ensures the company maintains its negotiation leverage throughout the contract term and is fully prepared for the renewal discussion 12–18 months before expiry.
The negotiation delivered results across every dimension the CIO and CFO cared about — cost savings, risk reduction, operational flexibility, and governance. The RISE agreement the company signed bears little resemblance to SAP’s original proposal:
| Outcome Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Total Savings | $5M over 5 years | Negotiated RISE deal reduced from $15M to $10M — a 33% reduction from SAP’s initial proposal. Per-FUE cost now aligns with market benchmarks for comparable financial services enterprises. |
| Shelfware Eliminated | $2M removed | Unused licences, unnecessary modules, and overcounted user categories stripped from the proposal. Every dollar in the final contract corresponds to actual, planned usage. |
| Compliance Risk | Resolved | All indirect access issues addressed through contractual digital access provisions. Seven-figure audit exposure eliminated. Company enters RISE with a clean compliance position and documented usage rights. |
| Contract Flexibility | Achieved | 10% right-size clause for FUE reductions, 5% annual price cap, structured exit provisions at term end. The “one-way ratchet” was replaced with genuine flexibility in both directions. |
| Governance | Established | Quarterly usage monitoring, annual benchmarking, documented exit strategy, and licence governance framework delivered. The company is positioned to negotiate the next renewal from strength. |
The engagement delivered lasting strategic benefits that extend well beyond the immediate $5M in savings, positioning the company for ongoing cost control and negotiation advantage throughout the RISE contract term and at renewal:
The contract terms achieved — particularly the right-size clause and price cap — establish a precedent for future SAP negotiations. The company can reference these terms in subsequent renewals and expansions, preventing SAP from reverting to standard unfavourable terms. The benchmarking data collected during the engagement provides ongoing market intelligence.
The CFO presented the board with a RISE business case showing 33% cost reduction versus SAP’s initial ask, resolved compliance exposure, and contractual flexibility protections. The board approved the RISE migration unanimously — a stark contrast to the hesitation that surrounded the original, unvetted SAP proposal. Independent advisory transformed a contentious budget request into a confident strategic investment.
By resolving indirect access issues within the RISE contract, the company eliminated its most significant SAP compliance risk. The documented digital access provisions provide clear audit defence if SAP ever questions the third-party integrations. The company now operates SAP with full confidence that every access path is properly licensed and documented.
The governance framework ensures the company will not approach the RISE renewal unprepared. Quarterly usage monitoring catches any drift from entitlements early. Annual benchmarking keeps market intelligence current. The exit strategy documentation gives the company genuine alternatives at renewal, preventing SAP from exploiting the “switching cost” lock-in that traps many RISE customers.
This engagement produced practical lessons that apply to any enterprise negotiating RISE with SAP, regardless of industry, geography, or deal size. These insights are drawn directly from the negotiation experience and reflect patterns we see consistently across our SAP advisory practice:
SAP’s initial RISE proposals are starting positions, not final offers. In this case, the initial proposal was 33% higher than the final negotiated price. Every component — FUE counts, storage allocations, BTP credits, included services, and pricing tiers — is negotiable. Treating the proposal as an opening bid rather than a fixed price is the single most valuable mindset shift a CIO can make.
SAP’s FUE conversion methodology tends to overcount users by applying higher conversion rates than actual usage patterns justify. Self-service users (expense approvals, leave requests, read-only dashboards) should be classified at 0.033 FUE, not at core-use or professional-use rates. Independent user-role mapping typically reduces the required FUE count by 15–25%, with a direct corresponding reduction in subscription cost.
Migrating to RISE without addressing indirect access, digital access, or other compliance issues does not eliminate them — it carries them forward with less negotiating leverage. The RISE negotiation is the optimal time to resolve compliance exposure, because SAP is motivated to close the deal and will make concessions that would be much harder to obtain after the contract is signed.
Standard RISE contracts are designed to lock customers in with no ability to scale down. Right-size clauses, price caps, component swap rights, and structured exit provisions are not standard — but they are achievable with sufficient commercial leverage and benchmarking evidence. Every CIO should treat these flexibility terms as non-negotiable requirements, not optional enhancements.
The most powerful leverage in any SAP negotiation is a genuine alternative. In this case, the option of staying on ECC with extended maintenance support provided the credible walk-away that forced SAP to improve their offer. Without a quantified alternative scenario, SAP assumes you have no choice but to accept their terms — and prices accordingly. Always model the cost of not doing the deal before negotiating the deal itself.
“Redress Compliance acted as our ally in a complex negotiation where the odds felt stacked in SAP’s favour. Their independent expertise peeled back the layers of SAP’s proposal — showing us where we were overpaying and at risk. We ended up saving millions and, equally important, gained peace of mind that we will not be ambushed by unforeseen costs or compliance issues. Redress truly put us back in control of our SAP destiny.” — CIO, U.S. Financial Services Firm
The engagement followed a structured 4-month timeline from initial assessment through to contract execution, ensuring comprehensive analysis was completed before any negotiation positions were taken:
| Phase | Duration | Key Activities |
|---|---|---|
| Month 1: Discovery & Audit | 4 weeks | Complete SAP licence inventory and user-role mapping. Identified $2M in shelfware. Mapped all 12,000 employees to correct FUE categories. Documented indirect access integrations and quantified compliance exposure. |
| Month 2: Analysis & Modelling | 4 weeks | Built alternative cost scenarios (optimised RISE, reduced-scope RISE, ECC extended maintenance). Benchmarked SAP’s proposal against comparable financial services RISE deployments. Prepared detailed negotiation position with target pricing, terms, and concession priorities. |
| Month 3: Negotiation | 4 weeks | Led commercial negotiations with SAP. Secured 33% cost reduction, right-size clause, 5% annual price cap, and digital access provisions. Multiple rounds of counter-proposals with progressive SAP concessions driven by credible walk-away positioning and benchmark evidence. |
| Month 4: Contract & Governance | 4 weeks | Finalised contract terms and legal review. Delivered SAP licence governance framework including quarterly usage monitoring, annual benchmarking schedule, and documented exit strategy for end-of-term renewal negotiations. |
This engagement is representative of a challenge facing thousands of enterprises worldwide as SAP’s 2027 end-of-support deadline for ECC creates an urgency to migrate to S/4HANA — an urgency that SAP’s sales organisation is aggressively leveraging to push RISE subscriptions at premium pricing with inflexible terms.
The financial services firm’s experience demonstrates several patterns we see consistently across RISE negotiations. First, SAP’s initial proposals routinely contain 25–40% of avoidable cost through shelfware, overcounted FUEs, and bundled components the customer does not need. The all-in-one nature of the RISE bundle makes this particularly difficult to identify without independent analysis — which is precisely what SAP’s pricing strategy relies on.
Second, the standard RISE contract is deliberately structured to favour SAP in every meaningful way: no ability to scale down user counts, no price caps on renewals or annual increases, no flexibility on bundled components, and no structured exit provisions at term end. These terms are not immutable — they are starting positions that SAP will modify under sustained commercial pressure — but most enterprises accept them because they do not know what is genuinely negotiable or what comparable organisations in their industry have achieved. Benchmarking evidence and a credible walk-away alternative are the two most powerful tools available in any RISE negotiation.
Third, the 2027 deadline creates artificial urgency that SAP exploits to compress negotiation timelines and discourage thorough proposal analysis. In reality, extended maintenance support options exist, third-party support alternatives are available, and the actual technical migration to S/4HANA takes 18–24 months regardless of when the contract is signed. CIOs who allow SAP to dictate the timeline consistently achieve worse outcomes than those who take control of the process and negotiate on their own schedule.
For any enterprise currently evaluating or negotiating RISE with SAP, the core lesson is straightforward: independent advisory support fundamentally transforms the economics of the deal. In this case, the advisory engagement delivered a 25:1 return on investment in direct cost savings alone — before accounting for the compliance risk resolution, flexibility protections, and governance framework that will deliver value throughout the contract term and beyond.
Based on our experience across multiple RISE engagements, independent negotiation typically achieves 25–40% reductions from SAP’s initial proposal. The savings come from three main sources: eliminating shelfware and unnecessary components bundled into the proposal, optimising FUE counts through accurate user-role mapping, and benchmarking pricing against comparable industry deployments to identify inflated rates. In this case, we achieved a 33% reduction ($5M over 5 years).
A right-size clause allows the customer to reduce their FUE count (and corresponding subscription cost) by a defined percentage if business demand decreases. In this engagement, we negotiated a 10% right-size provision. This means the company can reduce its FUE commitment by up to 10% without penalty, protecting against overpaying if headcount decreases, business restructuring occurs, or usage patterns shift. Standard RISE contracts do not include this — it must be negotiated explicitly.
Full-Use Equivalents (FUEs) are SAP’s unified licensing metric for S/4HANA in RISE. Instead of buying separate named-user licence types, you buy a pool of FUEs. Different user roles consume different amounts: a professional user might equal 1.0 FUE, a core-use user 0.2 FUE, and a self-service user approximately 0.033 FUE. The critical negotiation point is ensuring your users are classified at the correct conversion rate — SAP’s initial proposals often overcount by applying higher rates than actual usage justifies.
Yes. The RISE negotiation is the best opportunity to resolve indirect access and digital access compliance issues. SAP is motivated to close the deal and will make concessions (such as including digital access provisions at no extra cost) that would be much harder to obtain after the contract is signed. Migrating to RISE without addressing these issues simply carries the liability forward — often with reduced negotiating leverage and the risk of an SAP audit after migration.
Common hidden costs include: overage charges for exceeding cloud resources or BTP credits, costs for additional non-production environments or increased storage, migration and implementation services not included in the subscription, bundled components you do not need (shelfware inflating the baseline), and open-ended renewal pricing with no cap on annual increases. Always require a complete line-item breakdown of the proposal and challenge every component against your actual requirements.
Yes, with sufficient preparation and leverage. While SAP’s standard RISE contract is deliberately inflexible, specific concessions are achievable: right-size clauses (FUE reduction provisions), annual price caps, component swap rights, mid-term adjustment mechanisms, and structured exit terms. The key is combining commercial pressure (a credible walk-away alternative) with benchmarking evidence (demonstrating that comparable firms achieved better terms). SAP will not volunteer flexibility, but they will concede it when the alternative is losing or deferring the deal.
Before signing, get an independent assessment of SAP’s proposal. Redress Compliance provides RISE cost analysis, FUE optimisation, benchmarking, and negotiation support — ensuring you get the best possible deal on your terms.
Book a Free Assessment RISE with SAP Advisory Services →