Independent, line-by-line review of your SAP licence proposal or Bill of Material, with every quantity, metric and clause tested, not assumed. Practical and granular, built for the point before commercial negotiations conclude.
SAP hands enterprises a Bill of Material that is, in practice, difficult to interrogate: some line items are easily recognisable, some carry unfamiliar metrics, and some are bundled descriptions covering several underlying components at once. Pulling it apart requires licensing, architecture and commercial expertise that sits in three different departments, and rarely 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, and on a multi-year, fixed-volume commitment, those errors compound and are expensive to unwind after signature.
This is the core of the offering, shown in enough operational detail to see it's a real method, not a marketing slide.
Every source document is assembled and version-controlled under a single named owner on each side: the order form and annexures (not just the commercial summary), the vendor quotation in native form, any existing licence agreement with addenda, the latest system measurement, and the confirmed architecture and rollout sequence.
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.
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.
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.
Effective unit economics per material line are tested against a reference set, with a position taken on each: hold, challenge, or restructure.
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, and extending to the full set of terms specific to your construct, with alternative wording drafted where it falls short.
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.
Steps 3 and 4 typically run in parallel. In a compressed timeline, the constraint is document access, not effort.
Enterprises evaluating SAP advisory support consistently say they don't want a generic high-level approach. This is what leads instead.
We lead with worked detail over frameworks: 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. Advice unmoderated by any interest in you buying more or less.
The methodology is built around RISE-style bundled infrastructure, BTP/consumption-based metrics and Digital Access, the constructs where negotiation leverage is actively changing.
Every finding is tied to a stated basis and a financial exposure figure, not a generic risk flag.
You already have a relationship with SAP; this offering protects your side of it. It doesn't attack the vendor.
The earlier this starts relative to a target signature date, the more of the review can inform the deal, rather than just document it after the fact.
Or are about to, and haven't signed yet.
A business case or funding submission that depends on a defensible cost/TCO position.
Still valuable if talks have started. Earlier is better, but findings can still inform rounds that haven't closed yet.
Works as a standalone engagement, or as the practical, deal-specific complement to Unnati's Commercial Governance offering, which covers the ongoing operating model.
Every step produces a concrete, usable output, not a slide deck summarising a conversation.
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.
"UnnatiCA has delivered measurable, board-level commercial outcomes for a large, asset-intensive enterprise running one of the more complex SAP operating environments in its sector, combining large-scale integrated operations, extensive regulatory obligations, and a demanding enterprise-wide cost-reduction programme. Outcomes included material cost take-out within the SAP RUN estate, led RISE and SAP Line-of-Business contract negotiations, multi-year price protection and flexibility rights secured through structured negotiation, and licence exposure reduced through systematic rationalisation."
- Large asset-intensive enterprise · Commercial Governance & License Advisory engagementThe 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/bundling maps aren't published in advance. They're either drawn from other clients' confidential commercial terms, or they constitute the deliverable itself.
Commercial Governance covers the ongoing operating model for managing SAP cost and value over time. SAP License Advisory Services is the practical, deal-specific counterpart: a defined review of an actual licence proposal or Bill of Material at a single point in time. The two work well together but stand independently.
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 commercial negotiations conclude.