Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →ZEISS chose a greenfield SAP S/4HANA implementation built around process standards and harmonization. During a roll-in phase, the new target environment was prepared while the existing SAP R/3 system continued to run. The available case account does not specify the countries or company codes in rollout order, or establish a final enterprise-wide go-live date.
What migration strategy did ZEISS choose?
ZEISS pursued a greenfield implementation: establish a new S/4HANA target and design processes around standards, rather than simply converting the existing R/3 configuration in place. CIO’s case summary describes the approach as emphasizing standards and harmonization.
That choice is about how the target system and processes are established; it does not, by itself, reveal how much historical data was transferred or the precise rollout sequence. The case account does not publish ZEISS’s detailed data-retention rules, migration budget, rollout count, or quantified business benefits.
How did the roll-in work while R/3 remained live?
The ZEISS case describes a roll-in phase in which the S/4HANA target was prepared while the existing R/3 environment continued operating in parallel. This separates two kinds of work: designing and preparing the new system, and bringing organizational scope onto it under a controlled rollout.
#1 Best Overall
Parallel operation during preparation should not be mistaken for evidence that every business unit ran both systems indefinitely, or that ZEISS used a particular country-by-country or company-code sequence. Those details are not stated in the published case summary.
How does greenfield differ from other S/4HANA paths?
The terms describe different transformation choices, not simply different names for a phased rollout. SAP’s guidance distinguishes system conversion from new implementations: a system conversion moves systems and interfaces from ECC to S/4HANA at the same time, while a new implementation may roll out across countries or organizations over years.
| Approach | What changes | Typical rollout implication |
|---|---|---|
| Greenfield implementation | A new target system is established and processes can be redesigned around standards. This is the approach identified in the ZEISS case. | Organizational scope may be introduced in phases; the ZEISS case confirms a roll-in phase but does not disclose its full sequence. |
| System conversion | The existing ERP system is converted, retaining the established system configuration as the starting point. | SAP says systems and interfaces transition at the same time in a system conversion, rather than through multi-year country or organizational rollouts. |
| Selective data transition | Data and scope can be selected as part of moving to S/4HANA, rather than treating the move as either a full in-place conversion or a wholly new implementation. | SAP describes support for multiple phases and phased go-live, allowing organizations to define their pace. This is a general option, not an approach identified for ZEISS in the case account. |
These categories answer different questions. Greenfield concerns the target-system and process starting point; selective transition concerns the scope and data moved. A phased go-live describes when organizational scope becomes active. Do not infer one of those choices solely from another.
What does a phased S/4HANA migration involve?
The following is a practical implementation sequence based on SAP’s general migration guidance. It explains the work a phased program may need; it is not a published step-by-step chronology of the ZEISS project.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches- Prepare and define scope. Confirm technical prerequisites, choose the organizational and country-specific scope, and define target processes. SAP’s implementation guidance includes prerequisite settings, SAP Best Practices content, customer-solution scope, activation, cache refresh, and implementation-phase setup.
- Create a migration project. In the S/4HANA migration cockpit, create a project and select the migration objects required. SAP describes migration objects as definitions of source tables and their relationships.
- Stage and map data. Populate staging tables, work through value and fixed-value mapping tasks, and correct source-data issues before transfer.
- Repeat test migrations. SAP recommends development and test projects with repeated migration cycles. Carry corrections and refinements forward into the next cycle before production transfer.
- Roll in organizational scope. Activate the planned units in the selected rollout sequence. ZEISS’s case says its target-system roll-in took place while R/3 remained active, but does not publish the sequence or a complete list of waves.
- Cut over and stabilize. Where appropriate, simulate transfers, execute migration, use correction files to resolve errors, and validate interfaces, reporting, user roles, and business processes.
What else is known about ZEISS’s transformation?
Process standardization
SAP’s ZEISS transformation material says ZEISS and Deloitte used SAP Signavio to standardize business processes alongside the S/4HANA transformation. This supports the case’s emphasis on harmonization, but does not establish which processes were standardized or how much variation was removed.
Data and analytics context
A separate SAP Innovation Awards case describes FeRDI, a Federated Real-time Data Integration setup combining SAP HANA Cloud, SAP Datasphere, and SAP HANA smart data integration and provisioning. SAP says it provided real-time access and consistent analytical data, and supported data-quality work for a CRM migration. That separate case is not evidence that FeRDI was the S/4HANA migration method.
Implementation support
SAP reports that ZEISS used SAP Early Adopter Care and premium engagements for proof-of-concept work, testing, and go-live. The same account says dashboards and automations were running on day one of a production migration. It does not supply a quantified measure of migration benefits.
Quick Recap
Best Value
What can other companies learn from the ZEISS case?
- Decide process ambition before choosing the mechanics. A greenfield path creates room to standardize and redesign; a conversion starts from the existing system. The choice should follow the desired operating model, not a presumption that one path is universally easier.
- Treat organizational rollout and system design as separate decisions. Preparing a target while the legacy environment remains operational can make a staged transition possible, but the rollout order still needs explicit scope, ownership, and cutover criteria.
- Make data scope a deliberate design choice. Establish what history must move, what needs harmonization, and what can remain accessible elsewhere. SAP’s selective-transition guidance is relevant where an organization needs phased activation or selected data, but the ZEISS case does not disclose its own history-retention policy.
- Budget for repeated migration rehearsals. Mapping and cleansing problems are easier to find in test cycles than at production cutover. Carry fixes forward and validate interfaces, reporting, roles, and business processes in addition to data transfer.
- Do not confuse published milestones with proof of outcomes. The available ZEISS accounts describe approach, tools, and implementation support, but do not establish migration cost, duration, rollout count, or quantified enterprise-wide gains.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
