This page details the governance artefacts delivered in every 30-day FIT 4 SAP Proof of Concept prototype. In short, Scar Log, Decision Register, Board Pack, and Executive Briefing provide evidence-based decision materials instead of consultant theatre. It matters because burnt executives need governance receipts that prove accountability and document learning for full implementation. Use it when evaluating what makes FIT 4 SAP different from typical vendor demos or agile sprints.

Every FIT 4 SAP engagement produces five governance artefacts regardless of technical outcome. These aren't optional nice-to-haves. They're core deliverables. You get receipts, not reassurances. Plain language, executive-readable, no jargon hiding problems.

The Problem with Traditional Deliverables

Traditional pilot outputs: PowerPoint decks claiming "90% complete" for months, status reports sanitised for steering committees, RAID logs buried in appendices. Consultants vanish post-go-live, taking knowledge with them. No audit trail of what was decided when or why.

When implementations burn, blame shifts: "You never told us your business worked this way." Problems are hidden until it is too late to fix without massive change orders. Optimism bias is baked into every progress report.

Most implementation documentation is designed to avoid accountability, not enable it.

The Five Core Governance Artefacts

1. Scar Log — What broke and why 2. Decision Register — What changed and who approved 3. Board Pack — Executive summary with evidence 4. Executive Briefing — Plain-language recommendations

Each explained in detail below.

Artifact 1: Scar Log

Running document of every problem encountered during the 30-day sprint. Chronological, dated entries with no euphemisms. Problems documented in real-time, not sanitised for stakeholders at project end.

If a consultant tries to hide a problem, it reappears later as a seven-figure change order. The Scar Log prevents this by making every issue visible immediately.

Format: Date | Problem | Impact | Workaround | Root Cause | Resolution Status

Example entry:

Day 7 Problem: Triangular invoicing fails when NL entity invoices UK customer for FR shipment Impact: Core business scenario doesn't work in standard SAP Workaround: Manual journal entry to correct intercompany clearing Root Cause: Tax determination logic incomplete for three-country flow Resolution Status: Fixed Day 8 via BRF+ rule, retested Day 9, working

Day 12 Problem: BRF+ rule for customer-specific pricing returns wrong discount tier Impact: Prototype can't demonstrate pricing logic accurately Workaround: None—rule logic needs redesign Root Cause: Business requirement more complex than questionnaire revealed Resolution Status: Documented as gap, recommended for Phase 2 investigation

Why this matters: Prevents "we didn't know" defences. This is vital documentation for full implementation team. Shows the consultant isn't hiding problems. Reveals patterns: are issues one-off or systemic?

Governance principle: Scars are valuable. Hide them, and you repeat mistakes.

Artefact 2: Decision Register

Log of every scope negotiation or deviation request. Records who requested what, when, and what was decided. Tracks "mission creep" attempts in real-time.

Format: Date | Request | Requestor | Impact Assessment | Decision | Rationale

Example entries:

Day 5 Request: CFO requests adding a second currency to test Requestor: CFO (via PM) Impact: +2 days configuration, delays other testing Decision: DECLINED Rationale: Out of scope per Scope Agreement. Recommend a separate PoC if critical.

Day 15 Request: PM requests extending the deadline to Day 35 due to data delays Requestor: Project Manager Impact: Violates fixed timeline commitment Decision: DECLINED Rationale: Data delays are a finding—document in the Scar Log, proceed with synthetic data

Day 18 Request: Executive sponsor requests adding an inventory management scenario Requestor: COO Impact: Completely different scope, would require a 30-day restart Decision: DECLINED, alternative offered Rationale: Recommend a second PoC focused on inventory. Current PoC stays focused on invoicing.

Why this matters: Shows where organisational pressure tries to break discipline. Demonstrates consultant held the line or explains why scope changed legitimately. Reveals what stakeholders ACTUALLY care about vs. what they said in questionnaire. Prevents "you agreed to do X" revisionism.

Governance principle: Saying "no" with evidence is more valuable than saying "yes" without thinking.

Artefact 3: Board Pack

Executive summary document designed to brief board or steering committee in 15 minutes. Combines Scar Log, and Decision Register into evidence-based narrative.

Structure (5-8 pages maximum): • Page 1: Executive Summary (outcome + key insights) • Page 2: What We Tested (scope reminder) • Page 3: What Worked (green lights) • Page 4: What Didn't Work (scars summary) • Page 5: What Changed (decision register highlights) • Page 6: Change Management Assessment (fit into clean core, or not) • Page 7: Recommendations (three options with trade-offs) • Page 8: Appendices (links to detailed artefacts)

Why this matters: Busy executives don't read 50-page status reports. They need synthesis in slides they can brief upwards. Evidence-based, not opinion-based. Problems named directly, not hidden in passive voice.

Governance principle: If it takes 50 pages to explain, you don't understand it well enough.

Artefact 4: Executive Briefing

Plain-language translation answering three questions executives actually care about:

1. Can we proceed with confidence? (Yes/No/Conditional + why)
2. What did we learn that changes the business case?
3. What should we do next? (options with trade-offs)

Format: 2-page memo written for CEO/CFO who wasn't involved day-to-day. Assumes reader has 5 minutes, not 5 hours. No jargon, no consultant speak.

Example opening:

Bottom Line Up Front: The prototype proved triangular invoicing works in standard S/4HANA for 94% of your transaction types. The 6% edge cases require either business process changes or custom BRF+ rules. Proceeding with full implementation is viable if you accept documented gaps OR commit to process redesign before go-live. Recommend: Green light with conditional scope to address three specific edge cases documented in Scar Log.

Why this matters: Cuts through consultant speak. Forces clarity about actual recommendation. No hiding behind "it depends" or "more analysis needed."

Governance principle: If a consultant can't explain it, the consultant doesn't understand it.

What Happens When Things Go Wrong

Not every PoC succeeds technically, but every PoC succeeds as a learning exercise.

If the prototype breaks irreparably (Day 20 meltdown), switch to Findings-First Mode: Stop trying to make it work. Document what broke, why it broke, and what that means. Deliver all five governance artefacts as scheduled on Day 30, focused on "what we learned" instead of "what we built."

Example scenario:

Day 18: Realise business requirement fundamentally incompatible with standard S/4 logic Findings-First Mode activated: • Stop configuration attempts • Document incompatibility root cause in Scar Log • Research alternative approaches (process change vs. custom code vs. third-party tool) • Deliver Board Pack showing "Standard SAP won't work, here's why, here are three alternatives"

Key message: Failure to prove viability is valuable evidence. You paid for truth, not false hope.

Comparing Governance Approaches

Governance isn't bureaucracy. It is insurance against amnesia and gaslighting.

Author: Isard Haasakker

Organisation: No Tie Generation Limited

Framework: FIT 4 SAP / FAST IMPLEMENTATION TRACK

Source: https://notiegeneration.notion.site/what-you-get-governance-artifacts

Canonical Link: https://notiegeneration.notion.site/FIT-4-SAP-PoC-What-You-Get-2aba86c40e4f80139fe0f6a986525117

Updated: 14-Nov-2025

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Tags: #FIT4SAP #Governance #Deliverables #ScarLog #DecisionRegister