The Zeiss SAP case, for a steering committee
What Bloomberg and The Register reported, what this issue cannot establish, and what to ask about your own programme.
The reported record
Bloomberg reported on 7 September 2026 that Zeiss had overhauled its move to SAP's cloud after costs passed €200 million. According to Bloomberg, the greenfield build, a new core system designed from a blank sheet, was more complicated than expected. SAP declined to comment on a customer project.
The Register reported on 10 September that Zeiss has dropped the greenfield approach and will move the systems it already runs onto the new platform. According to The Register, the project started around 2020. Bloomberg's figure of about €200 million covers the whole migration programme, not SAP software alone.
A Zeiss spokesperson told The Register: "This also applies to the ERP migration, which has now been realigned to achieve faster progress in the transformation and to better meet the diverse requirements of the ZEISS segments."
The timeline
| When | What | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1992 | Zeiss introduces SAP R/3. | The Register |
| 2015 | SAP releases S/4HANA. | SAP |
| Around 2020 | The migration programme starts. | The Register |
| 7 Sept 2026 | Zeiss has overhauled its move to SAP's cloud after costs passed €200 million. The greenfield build was more complicated than expected. | Bloomberg |
| 10 Sept 2026 | Zeiss has dropped the greenfield approach and will move the systems it already runs onto the new platform. | The Register |
| End of 2027 | SAP ends mainstream maintenance for ECC, the old on-premise suite. | SAP |
What this issue cannot establish
This issue is built from two published reports and nothing else. We do not have the programme's approved baseline, its forecasts or its committee papers. So the issue does not say why the approach changed, and it does not say which check would have changed the outcome. The second half asks about your programme, not about Zeiss.
Sources
- Bloomberg, 7 September 2026. The report
- The Register, 10 September 2026. The report
- Our story, 8 September. Zeiss stopped a €200m SAP build after six years.
- Our story, 11 September. Zeiss dropped the clean rebuild of its SAP after about €200 million.
- The discussion on LinkedIn. Comments are reader views, not evidence about Zeiss.
The committee paper
Ask for the approved budget and the current forecast on the same scope, side by side.
- Three numbers to ask your programme for, with how to ask
- Six questions for the next steering committee
- Greenfield or brownfield, as a decision, with three approach questions
- A print version for the committee pack
The second half is the working part: the three-number review, six questions for your own programme, and greenfield against brownfield as a decision. Enter a work email to open it here.
Three numbers on one page
| The number | At approval | Today |
|---|---|---|
| Approved baseline | ||
| Forecast at completion | ||
| Benefits at risk |
Six questions for the next steering committee
| 1 | What is the approved baseline? | |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | What is the forecast at completion today? | |
| 3 | Which benefits are at risk, and who owns them? | |
| 4 | What evidence would make us change approach? | |
| 5 | Who takes that decision, and by when? | |
| 6 | What do we still not know? |
Greenfield or brownfield, as a decision
Greenfield means redesigning processes on an empty system. Brownfield carries the system you already have, and 30 years of what was done to it.
- 1Ask which design decisions in your programme would be expensive to reverse, and when each was last reviewed.
- 2Ask which expected benefits change if the implementation approach changes.
- 3Ask who owns a decision to change course, and where it would be recorded.