No. We keep S/4 clean and place probabilistic logic outside with open contracts. BTP is used where it clearly wins and exit costs are acceptable.

FAQ

Answering high-frequency SAP O2C objections

Q: How do you reduce O2C incidents if SLAs are already green?

We shift from ticket closing to prevention: KEDB + playbooks, observability packs, guardrails. This consistently drops MTTR and repeat tickets.

Q: How do you keep AI/ML initiatives auditable around SAP?

AI remains side-by-side with retrieval, feature stores, and human-in-loop approvals. Prompts, datasets, and retention controls stay documented so compliance trusts the result.

When stakeholders question AMS value, platform choices, or AI enablement, these responses make the economics and guardrails clear.

How do you reduce O2C incidents if SLAs are already green?

We pivot from patching to prevention: build a KEDB, codify playbooks, and wire observability packs across interfaces. With backlog age, repeat-rate, and MTTR tracked weekly, we cut noise and redeploy capacity into automation.

Do you force SAP BTP for every extension?

No. Clean core S/4HANA stays sacred, but the edge remains composable. We adopt BTP when it clearly wins on capability or economics; otherwise, we run open runtimes with portable contracts so exit costs stay low.

How do you keep AI/ML initiatives auditable around SAP?

AI lives side-by-side: retrieval-first patterns, feature stores, and human-in-loop approvals. We log prompts, datasets, and retention rules so compliance trusts the result and operators keep full control.