Skip to content
← All casesPlatform MigrationEnterprise

SAP Import Substitution

4-variant weighted analysis — SG-Trans 93%, 1C TMS 74%, VAG 71%, IT Vectura 61%. 31% out-of-box coverage

Problem

What doesn't work

After SAP's exit from Russia, the operator of 140K+ railcars lost support for critical systems (SAP S/4, SAP TM, SAP EM, SAP BW). 31% of SAP TM functionality was covered out-of-box by any solution — the remaining 69% required custom development. Continued SAP use carried licensing and operational risks.

Solution

Architectural approach

Architecture design for target solution: 4-variant weighted analysis of replacement systems with scoring criteria. Evaluation across 10+ criteria: functional coverage, TCO, implementation timeline, risks, competency availability. Recommendation with justification for the Board of Directors.

Challenges

What made it hard

SAP left Russia — support ended, but 140K+ railcars keep moving. 69% of SAP TM functionality isn't covered by any out-of-box solution — every percentage point of customization means months of development. The intuitive 'just use 1C' choice scored only 74% — had to explain to leadership why the less obvious SG-Trans (93%) was better.

Role

My role & contribution

CTO / Technical Director

Personally developed the 4-variant weighted scoring methodology with 10+ criteria. Decomposed SAP TM into 100+ business processes and conducted gap analysis (31% OOTB). Prepared Board justification. Defined zero-downtime cutover strategy.

Demo

How it looks

Architecture

System architecture

SAP Import Substitution: Current → Target ArchitectureCurrent (SAP)TargetSAP S/4HANASAP TMSAP EMSAP BWGap Analysis31% OOTB coveragedecomposeevaluateСГ-Транс93% Selected1C TMS74%VAG Control71%ИТ Вектура61%Weighted Scoring ModelFunctionalityCostTimelineRisksCompetenciesrank100+ business processes decomposedZero-downtime cutover strategy
Implementation

How it works

Decomposed SAP TM into 100+ business processes → out-of-box coverage assessment (31%) → gap analysis. 4 variants: SG-Trans (93% final score), 1C TMS (74%), VAG Control (71%), IT Vectura (61%). Each variant scored via weighted model: functionality × cost × timeline × risk × competencies. Parallel system operation during transition.

Architecture Decision

Why this way

Weighted scoring of 4 variants instead of single solution

Alternative

Choose the 'obvious' solution (1C) without comparative analysis

Why it didn't fit

Without comparison: the 'obvious' 1C TMS scored only 74%, while the leader SG-Trans scored 93%. Intuitive choice would have led to a solution with −19% score. Weighted scoring revealed a non-obvious leader with better functional coverage.

Result

Selected SG-Trans (93%) over 1C TMS (74%). Transparent justification for the Board of Directors

Metrics

Results

01
4 variants with weighted scoring
02
SG-Trans: 93% | 1C TMS: 74% | VAG: 71% | IT Vectura: 61%
03
31% out-of-box SAP TM coverage
04
10+ evaluation criteria with weights
05
140K+ railcars, zero-downtime cutover
Business Impact

Impact on business

Structured selection from 4 variants prevents errors on a ₽B-scale project. Weighted scoring makes the decision transparent for the Board. Gap analysis (69% custom development) sets realistic budget and timeline expectations. Zero-downtime cutover ensures operations continuity.

Methods

Algorithms & patterns

Weighted Scoring ModelGap AnalysisZero-downtime MigrationParallel RunProcess Mapping (100+ BP)
Stack

Technologies

  • SAP S/4
  • SAP TM
  • SAP EM
  • SAP BW
  • 1C:ERP
  • Integration Bus

Ready to discuss?

If you need an architect who builds autonomous AI systems — reach out.

Serbia-based · CET/CEST timezone · EU-aligned working hours · International contracts experience