Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:46 am
TL;DR: SAP S/4HANA migration creates control, data, and change-management risk because custom code, integrations, and legacy cleanup can break business continuity if they are not governed carefully, according to SafePaaS. The main issue is not the upgrade itself but whether identity, access, and process controls survive the transition intact.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SafePaaS: SAP migration challenges and best practices for a secure transition to S/4HANA
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern SAP migration without losing control over access and approvals?
A: Treat the migration as a governance redesign, not a technical refresh.
Q: When does SAP migration create the most risk for IAM and controls teams?
A: Risk rises when custom code, integrations, and data cleanup happen at the same time as business process change.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about data migration in SAP projects?
A: They often treat it as a data transfer problem instead of a governance problem.
Practitioner guidance
- Revalidate roles before cutover Map legacy SAP roles, indirect access, and workflow approvals to the target S/4HANA design, then test whether each entitlement still matches business need after migration.
- Treat data cleanup as access cleanup Remove obsolete materials, one-time customers, duplicate masters, and other stale objects before migration so outdated records do not carry forward unwanted permissions or reporting noise.
- Test integrations with control checkpoints Validate ITSM links, third-party application paths, and business process handoffs end to end so approval, logging, and segregation controls still function in the new environment.
What's in the full article
SafePaaS's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step migration planning guidance for aligning technical cutover with business objectives
- Examples of how to coordinate risk and controls experts across SAP customisations and integrations
- Practical advice for data cleanup, ETL planning, and testing before S/4HANA go-live
- Change-management considerations for user support, documentation, and stakeholder communication
👉 Read SafePaaS's guide to SAP S/4HANA migration challenges and controls →
SAP S/4HANA migration: what governance gaps are teams missing?
Explore further
25/06/2026 9:46 am
SAP migration exposes control continuity, not just technical compatibility. The article's real lesson is that enterprises often treat migration as a product upgrade when it is actually a control re-platforming exercise. Roles, integrations, approvals, and exception paths must survive the move, or the organisation inherits old access logic in a new environment. Practitioners should read migration programmes as governance transitions, not only implementation projects.
A few things that frame the scale:
- The average estimated time to remediate a leaked secret is 27 days, despite 75% of organisations expressing strong confidence in their secrets management capabilities, according to The State of Secrets in AppSec.
- Only 44% of developers are reported to follow security best practices for secrets management, exposing a significant developer behaviour gap, according to The State of Secrets in AppSec.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own control readiness during an SAP S/4HANA migration?
A: Business owners, IAM, ITSM, and controls teams should share accountability, but one function must own the post-go-live process map. If no one is accountable for approvals, escalation, and exception handling, users will create workarounds that weaken the new control model.
👉 Read our full editorial: SAP S/4HANA migration exposes IAM and control gaps teams miss
