What This Article Covers
- What SAP Would Like Customers to Think About AI
- What is Indirect Access Frequency?
- What are ASUG’s Incentives?
I have critiqued ASUG in several previous articles such as ASUG’s Biased and Inaccurate Coverage of SAP Indirect Access. My observation of ASUG’s media output is that ASUG is uniformly repeating SAP’s marketing messaging, that it appears to have no independence from SAP whatsoever, and that it writes false information about SAP. This article will explain what has happened to ASUG. This article will cover what ASUG says about how frequently customers actually face an indirect access claim by SAP. But first, we need to get into what SAP would like customers to think about indirect access.
What SAP Would Like Customers to Think About IA
We don’t have to search very far to determine what SAP would like customers to think about indirect access. In the article How to Best Understand Faux Change on Indirect Access, I covered that SAP created their announcement as a way to make customers minimize their preparation regarding indirect access. I won’t go over the entire article, but in the conclusion, I stated the following:
SAP intends to mislead the SAP customer base into lowering their guard by making a few slight modifications to indirect access that may end up amounting to as close as possible to zero change in SAP’s enforcement of indirect access.
Therefore, it is clear that SAP does not want customers to worry their “pretty little head” about indirect access. And the reason for this is very simple. If customers do not prepare for indirect access, SAP can spring indirect access on their customers and receive less prepared pushback from customers. In fact, I concluded that the entire reason for the announcement on indirect access that occurred at SAPPHIRE was to make many customers that were concerned about it, become less concerned. The entire announcement did not do anything to reduce the concern that customers should have regarding indirect access but instead was worded in a way that it seemed like it did.
The Frequency of Indirect Access Claims
Apparently, when asked directly about indirect access, ASUG seems to have several answers. One is to state that few customers actually receive an indirect access claim, and the reason that customers have been hearing so much about it is that those scenarios tend to be “noisy.” Secondly, ASUG will offer their services as mediators if a customer faces an indirect access claim from SAP.
As for the second response, I cover that in the article on the “faux change to indirect access,” so I won’t repeat it here. But for the former answer, it is interesting how well this dovetails with what SAP would like customers to believe. This is a constant issue with ASUG that they state exactly what SAP wants to be stated. For this reason, I have ceased to see ASUG as having any independent voice from SAP. Therefore, ASUG’s statements on any topic, can simply by seen as SAP’s statements on any topic.
We don’t know exactly how prevalent indirect access is. However, entities like ASUG and Deloitte or Accenture want indirect access to be as silent as possible. When Deloitte or Accenture are helping a company with a software selection, they do not inform their client of indirect access liabilities that come along with SAP. Why would they? It reduces the likelihood of the customer choosing SAP. And this is the problem with entities like ASUG and like Deloitte or Accenture. They pretend to represent the interests of their members or clients, but ultimately they are all simply tools of SAP.