The essentials
- In October 2026 the USF releases Verian survey results (May 2026, 276 respondents, 154 SAP organisations): more than six in ten have finished, are running, or are in project on S/4 Hana, but 39% have not started the migration.
- For 67% of respondents the trigger is vendor pressure (announced end of life for the previous ECC generation in 2030); only 20% cite business benefits. 45% feel the 2030 deadline leaves too little room.
- Active projects lean toward converting the existing system (44%, Brownfield) rather than a full rebuild; 36% of the panel have signed ERP cloud contracts (Rise or Grow), mostly out of obligation (61%), with doubts on price and data sovereignty (62%).
- Only 6% say they are convinced by SAP’s reversibility clauses; just one third have even partial visibility on five-year total cost.
Your ERP has run for years. Teams know the screens, exports, and links to finance. Then the vendor’s letter lands: end of maintenance around 2030, a mandatory move to a new generation, sometimes with a cloud contract attached. This is not a business project your board would have picked — it is a timetable set by whoever holds the support keys. Francophone SAP user organisations are living exactly that, and their user club has just published figures that matter to SMB and mid-market leaders on the same kind of stack.
Momentum — but not from enthusiasm
The USF (Francophone SAP user association) presented at its mid-October 2026 convention (Strasbourg) the 7th satisfaction survey run by Verian in May 2026: 276 respondents across 154 organisations. More than six in ten have finished, are in flight, or in project on S/4 Hana, an ERP generation first announced in 2015. Another quarter are in study or scoping. Momentum is real — USF strategy lead Bernard Cottinaud calls it a “dynamic now underway”.
Yet 39% of members have not started migration. The association warns that skills for this work will scarce, and late movers may find no integrators available when they finally go. 45% of organisations surveyed feel 2030 is no longer enough to finish. In mid-2025 Gartner already estimated 37% of the world’s ECC6 base — 13,000 companies — would not reach S/4 before the announced end of life.
Obligation first, business case second
Whatever the method, migration remains primarily imposed: 67% say they started because of SAP constraints (ECC maintenance ending 2030); 44% cite legacy obsolescence. New technology is mentioned by 39%, business benefits by 20%. In practice, leadership often funds a heavy programme without a clear business promise — familiar to SMBs locked into a single vendor on a long contract.
On approach, 44% of active projects choose conversion of the existing system (Brownfield), a share that more than doubled since the 2024 survey. Hybrid (Bluefield) moves fall to 18%. About one quarter of organisations that must decide opt for a rebuild (Greenfield). Brownfield looks safer short term; it often defers process and data debt.
ERP cloud is rising; trust less so
In parallel, 36% say they have signed an ERP cloud contract (Rise or Grow from SAP) — nearly triple in two years. Only 5% studied and rejected cloud. Still, 61% explain the cloud move as obligation, versus 36% for faster innovation. More than half find pricing unpredictable or too high; 62% question data security. The survey also notes that first SAP application offers qualified SecNumCloud would not be available, at best, until late 2028 or early 2029 — sensitive for organisations under sovereignty requirements.
On contract governance, numbers are blunt: only 6% are convinced by reversibility clauses; one third have partial visibility on five-year total cost; responsibility sharing after a major incident looks clear to just 30% of the base. Convention stories (Vinci Energies, Verescence, Giphar…) show some use migration to reopen “do we have the right ERP and contract?” — useful, but rarely planned when the first vendor letter arrives.
If a SAP or similar ERP deadline is on your desk and you are unsure whether to wait, convert, or rebuild, we can frame the options on one page — before you sign the next contract.
Sources
This note was drafted with AI tools from the cited sources, then reviewed and published under the responsibility of Jordan FOUASSIER, publication director. We summarise the facts and add our reading; source text and images are not reproduced. An error? Write to contact@aigyrosgroup.com.