Thread regarding SAP layoffs

Cut experience, keep the chaos

SAP keeps getting rid of all the seasoned employees because they’re too expensive and wants fresh, young people to fix the company. Problem is, nothing about the way SAP works changed after any layoffs. They just swapped people and called it innovation. And now it's shocking it's not working out.


by
| 1942 views | | 4 replies (last October 23) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k83k1yg8

4 replies (most recent on top)

"SAP keeps getting rid of all the seasoned employees because they’re too expensive and wants fresh, young people to fix the company." Are they even doing something that (brutal but) logical, though? It seems more like (in gaming terms), with a population of about 100,000, and a desire to shed 1,000 to 2,000 people a year now, they're just rolling 1,000 to 2,000 D-100s, with employee numbers being what's on the face of each of the dice. Who knew millionaire C-suite executives were secret gamers?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @h0+1k83k1yg8

Cutting experienced people under you makes it harder to show your incompetence. If you want to see real incompetence, go no further than long term SAP colleagues that move from one area to another within less than two years. And the catastrophic consequences of their work are only visible after they’re gone.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ct+1k83k1yg8

Chuck Norris never forgets. But no one dares to ask him.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cg+1k83k1yg8

This happens all the time. SAP institutionally forgets important lessons and has to relearn them.

R/3 got big because of implementation and software partners. All the new stuff ignores partners (looking at AI, BDC...), and has to relearn.

Extensibility is also something we have to relearn. It was all there in NW. BAdIs, appends, UI extensibility... all in place. In the cloud? Slowly catching up.

I am sure there are many, many other examples. What gives me hope, however, is that the competition is not any better with the forgetting of stuff

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1k83k1yg8

Post a reply

: