An independent, line-by-line review of your SAP licence proposal or Bill of Material, before negotiations conclude.
A Bill of Material is hard to interrogate. Some lines are familiar. Some carry unfamiliar metrics. Some bundle several components into one description. Testing them takes licensing, architecture and commercial expertise that rarely sits in one room.
Estimates that don't reconcile to any owned data source, carried forward into a multi-year, fixed-volume commitment.
Unfamiliar or bundled metrics with no clear tie-back to your actual usage or target architecture.
Standard and advanced tiers licensed separately inside a single bundled description, without anyone realising.
Swap rights, price locks and partial termination clauses that are narrower in practice than they look on the page.
The risk is rarely that the total is wrong. It's that the composition is wrong. On a multi-year, fixed-volume commitment, those errors compound and are expensive to unwind after signature.
Each step produces a named output your team keeps. The steps run in a fixed order because each builds on the evidence of the one before.
Every source document is assembled and version-controlled under a single named owner on each side: the order form and annexures, the vendor quotation in native form, any existing licence agreement with addenda, the latest system measurement, and the confirmed architecture and rollout sequence.
Output: a controlled evidence register, and a written statement of what's missing and what it blocks.
The Bill of Material is taken apart to individual material level and rebuilt in a fixed schema: product, material number, metric, quantity, unit, list price, discount, start date, term, and the architectural component each line enables.
Output: a single flat catalogue that becomes the spine for everything downstream. Most reviews skip this step, and without it nothing afterwards is comparable.
Every quantity is tested three ways: is a basis stated, does that basis reconcile to a client-owned data source, and does it reconcile to the target architecture.
Output: a sizing challenge log covering line, quantity, stated basis, finding, and the financial exposure if the estimate is wrong in either direction.
Each line is mapped to the phased rollout plan to flag lines billing ahead of use, lines with no owning architectural component, and the more dangerous direction: architecture with no corresponding line.
Output: a proposed product start-date and ramp reprofile.
Effective unit economics per material line are tested against a reference set, with a position taken on each: hold, challenge, or restructure.
Output: a price position per line, each with a target and a rationale.
The draft agreement is tested clause by clause against the protections that matter for a commitment of this size, starting with price protection and swap rights, with alternative wording drafted where it falls short.
Output: a clause-by-clause position paper with proposed alternative wording.
Everything consolidates into one brief for your negotiating team: asks in priority order, each with a value, a fallback and a walk-away, sequenced across negotiation rounds.
Output: the negotiation brief, plus advisory availability through the rounds to signature.
Steps 3 and 4 typically run in parallel. In a compressed timeline, the constraint is document access, not effort.
Every artefact is produced on our governance platform, where no figure survives without a document behind it. Your team works in the same workspace during the engagement and keeps the artefacts after signature.
Every source document tracked, versioned and owned.
Product, metric, quantity, price and architecture mapping in one flat schema.
Quantified financial exposure per line, in either direction.
A recommended product start-date and ramp sequence aligned to rollout.
Hold, challenge or restructure, per line, with a target and rationale.
Clause-by-clause, with proposed alternative wording where protections fall short.
Prioritised asks, each with a value, a fallback and a walk-away, sequenced by round.
Someone who can point at a specific line item and explain what it means, what it costs, and whether it's right.
No reselling, no SAP partner commissions, no channel relationships to protect.
RISE-style bundled infrastructure, BTP consumption metrics and Digital Access: the constructs where negotiation leverage is actively changing.
Each finding carries a stated basis and a financial exposure figure, not a generic risk flag.
You already have a relationship with SAP. This review protects your side of it.
The earlier the review starts relative to a target signature date, the more of it can inform the deal rather than just document it.
Or are about to, and haven't signed yet.
A business case or funding submission that depends on a defensible cost and TCO position.
Earlier is better, but findings can still inform rounds that haven't closed yet.
The review stands alone, or pairs with Unnati's ongoing commercial governance work on the same platform.
A large, asset-intensive enterprise running one of the more complex SAP operating environments in its sector: integrated operations, extensive regulatory obligations, and an enterprise-wide cost-reduction programme.
Client confidentiality applies. We can speak to the detail in conversation.
The ideal timing is before commercial negotiations conclude, but the review is still valuable mid-negotiation. The earlier it starts relative to a target signature date, the more of it can inform the deal rather than just document it after the fact.
Neither. You already have a relationship with SAP and your implementation partner, and this offering protects your side of that relationship. The tone is collaborative, not adversarial, and the engagement works alongside your existing advisors.
Benchmark values and comparator sets, proposed contract wording, and detailed SKU dependency and bundling maps aren't published in advance. They're either drawn from other clients' confidential commercial terms, or they constitute the deliverable itself.
This review is deal-specific: one proposal or Bill of Material, at one point in time. Ongoing commercial governance, run on the same platform, manages SAP cost and value across years. The two work together but stand alone. See our SAP licence management and governance service.
No. Unnati holds no SAP partner commissions or channel relationships to protect. The advice is independent and unmoderated by any interest in you buying more or less.
Start with a focused review of your SAP licence proposal or Bill of Material, before negotiations conclude.