Introduction

​

SAP Signavio is marketed as a modern process-transformation suite that lets organizations map, mine and redesign and continuously improve their processes. When companies decide to implement it, they often reach for a “safe” option by hiring a large systems integrator (SI) with a familiar brand name. Unfortunately, many discover too late that the SI’s marketing doesn’t match its capabilities. Projects drag on, deliverables are unusable and costs spiral. In extreme cases the project is shelved entirely, or another partner is engaged to remediate the mess.

​

The article is aimed at business and IT leaders who are considering or are in the midst of an implementation. This includes CIOs, process‑improvement managers, and transformation teams responsible for selecting system integrators and ensuring a successful implementation. It also speaks to project sponsors and decision‑makers who have experienced disappointing results with large SIs and are looking for more effective ways to manage Signavio initiatives and avoid costly missteps.

​

This article explores why that happens, what evidence exists to support these concerns and how companies can avoid repeating the cycle.

 

 

Why Companies Choose Big Integrators

​

Companies often engage a big SI for the following reasons:

​

• Brand recognition and perceived risk reduction. Large system integrators have global reputations and deep ties with SAP. Executives assume that a household name reduces risk.

• Complexity of process transformation. Signavio isn’t just another module; it requires integration with Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, data extraction, modelling and governance. Many firms lack in house expertise and hope that a big SI will provide it.

• Global reach and resource capacity. Large SIs can mobilize hundreds of people across different geographies, promising to accelerate delivery.

 

The appeal is understandable, but reality often diverges from expectation.

​

​

What Goes Wrong

​

Biased guidance and lack of independence. According to Third Stage Consulting, your ERP systems integrator should not be involved in software selection because they are aligned with specific vendors and will recommend solutions in their own interest. When a customer delegates evaluation to their SI, they often end up buying technology that benefits the integrator, not the business.

​

Poor quality assurance and staffing. Third Stage warns that implementing companies must take responsibility for quality assurance; big SIs cannot effectively police themselves. They also note that large integrators “are notorious for employing inexperienced staff” and outsourcing work to people with limited skills. The result is either budget overruns to fix issues or missing functionality. Customers that assume the SI will staff their project appropriately often receive teams who are learning on the job.

​

Treating the SI as a silver bullet. An SI cannot cover every aspect of an implementation. Third Stage emphasizes that big firms are not a silver bullet; companies still need internal resources, independent advisors and process specialists. When customers abdicate responsibility, the SI fills the vacuum by embedding itself across multiple channels and controlling budget decisions, often with poor outcomes.

​

Wrong expertise for the job. High profile ERP failures show how hiring the wrong implementer can derail projects. In one case, the company hired a large SI to consolidate its financials; the project stalled with numerous defects and led to a $100 million lawsuit. Analysts noted that the SI’s core competency was implementation, not planning and architecture, and the client underestimated the need for strategic expertise. The lesson, according to TechTarget, is to ensure you have the right ERP expertise for your specific project.

​

Integration responsibilities falling through the cracks. Integrating an ERP platform with legacy systems and third party applications is challenging. If roles are not clearly defined, the integration responsibility often falls on the client rather than the SI, creating gaps that lead to delays, overruns and improper testing. Many Signavio initiatives falter when system integrators concentrate solely on configuring the software and leave critical tasks—such as business process modeling and data integration—to the client’s team with little guidance. Designing the system’s configuration is not the same as mapping and optimizing actual business processes. Without a holistic view, the resulting workflows cannot support the full Signavio solution. Large SIs excel at understanding the functional ins and outs of the product, but they are often less adept at the broader process‑modeling work that makes an implementation truly effective.

​

​

Process Mining and Signavio Specific Challenges

​

Process mining projects suffer from several recurring issues:

​

Data quality and availability. ProcessMaker’s research notes that insufficient data quality is one of the main reasons process mining projects fail, incomplete or unreliable event logs lead to misleading results.

​

Lack of stakeholder buy in. Without buy in from business and IT leadership, process mining initiatives face resistance and stall. Hard for business users to understand value. Could be missing the story. Often targeted toward Technology and Data, not the end-user or business.

​

Unrealistic expectations and misaligned timelines. Many leaders expect quick results, yet process mining can take 12–24 months to roll out and requires significant resources.

​

Poorly defined scope. Starting with an unfocused project or expanding scope too quickly can dilute outcomes.

​

Inadequate skill sets. Process mining demands technical, analytical and domain expertise; lacking these skills leads to failure. Research cited by ProcessMaker found that process mining centers of excellence average 15 full time equivalents, highlighting the depth of expertise required.

 

Thomas Littooij from Mavim adds that many organizations fall into a technology versus business value disconnect. Companies focus on technical capabilities, data extraction and integration while forgetting to define the business problem they’re trying to solve. Process mining relies on data, but data scattered in silos or riddled with inconsistencies can cripple analysis. Moreover, process mining can generate so much information that organizations suffer from analysis paralysis—without clear KPIs, they fail to extract actionable insights and abandon the project.

​

Littooij stresses that process mining is most effective when integrated with a Business Process Management (BPM) framework. Without BPM, process mining becomes a diagnostic tool without a prescription. Finally, success requires collaboration between business stakeholders, IT professionals and process analysts. Technology alone will not deliver results.

 

​

How to Avoid the Trap: Strategies for Successful Signavio Projects

​

Separate evaluation from implementation. When considering SAP Signavio or any process mining technology, use an independent advisor or internal team for product selection. Avoid letting an SI decide what tools you buy because they may be biased.

​

Insist on qualified resources and verify expertise. Ask SIs to prove that they have experienced process mining and BPM professionals. Validate resumes and require that key roles are not filled by newly graduated or outsourced staff. Include skills based interviews and clearly define what competencies are needed for data modelling, mining and integration. Third Stage’s advice to validate technical capabilities and not rely on the SI to self regulate is critical.

​

Retain control of quality assurance. Implementing organizations should run or commission quality assurance independently. Regularly review deliverables, test process models against business reality and hold the integrator accountable. Consider engaging a third party QA specialist to audit the SI’s work.

​

Define integration roles and governance. Establish a RACI matrix early on to assign responsibilities for data extraction, system integration and testing. UpperEdge notes that ambiguous roles leave integration to the client and create delays and overruns. Ensure the SI, internal IT team and other partners understand their responsibilities.

​

Focus on data and business value. Before mining processes, invest in data cleansing and governance. Address data silos and ensure event logs are accurate. Align the project with specific business goals—reducing cycle times, improving compliance, boosting customer experience—so stakeholders understand why the project matters.

​

Manage scope and expectations. Start with a well defined proof of concept or pilot to demonstrate value quickly. Be realistic about timelines (process mining can take months) and avoid scope creep. Document unique statutory and internal requirements early and establish a change control board to review any deviations.

​

Build an internal center of excellence. Develop in house capabilities around process mining and BPM. This can include a combination of process analysts, data engineers and change managers. ProcessMaker’s research shows that successful organizations invest in dedicated teams. Internal expertise allows companies to challenge the SI, maintain knowledge after the project and continue improving processes.

 

Integrate process mining with BPM and change management. Treat Signavio not as an isolated tool but as part of a broader process improvement program. Mavim emphasizes that process mining must be combined with a BPM framework to translate insights into tangible changes. Plan for organizational change: communicate with stakeholders, train users and iterate continuously.

 

​

Benefits of Leveraging a Niche System Integrator

​

While large systems integrators promise scale and brand recognition, working with a niche or independent integrator that specializes in business processes and SAP Signavio can yield superior outcomes. Independent consultants typically possess deep knowledge of modern ERP platforms and comprehensive insight into a client’s business processes. Instead of pushing a generic playbook, they act as an unbiased extension of the internal team to align process transformation with clear objectives.

​

Because niche firms are not tied to a particular vendor or product line, they deliver an outside perspective and deeper industry insight. They analyze processes against best practices and provide unbiased advice on where to simplify, automate or standardize. This impartiality enables them to focus on delivering value rather than upselling additional software or services. Their experience in change management also helps organizations secure user adoption and acceptance across business units. By keeping projects on time and within scope, they reduce conflicts and support successful digital transformation initiatives.

​

A specialist integrator places significant emphasis on knowledge transfer and training. They share methodologies and best practices with the client’s team, ensuring that internal stakeholders can maintain and evolve the solution after go‑live. Moreover, these consultants bring specialized skills and experience—including project management expertise, industry‑specific knowledge and risk‑mitigation strategies—to anticipate challenges and guide the project to success. As summarized by Surety Systems, independent consultants offer unbiased guidance focused on the client’s needs, greater control over the engagement, enhanced communication and knowledge transfer, the ability to pay only for hours worked and one‑to‑one consultant relationships.

​

By leveraging a niche system integrator that truly specializes in process transformation and SAP Signavio, companies gain a partner who is invested in delivering sustainable improvement rather than volume. This can be the difference between a shelved project and a thriving process‑improvement initiative.

​

​

Conclusion

​

Implementing SAP Signavio can provide tremendous value, but the project’s success depends more on governance, expertise and alignment than on the size of the systems integrator. Too often, companies hire a well known SI thinking that reputation equates to capability. As the evidence shows, large integrators may be biased in their recommendations, under staffed with juniors, or unwilling to take responsibility for integration. Process initiatives also fail when data is poor, and business goals are unclear.

​

Success with Signavio requires due diligence and active ownership. Companies must verify the SI’s expertise, set realistic goals, manage scope and data quality and integrate process mining with BPM and change management practices. By taking these steps, organizations can turn process mining into a driver of continuous improvement rather than an expensive lesson in what not to do.

​

To transform your business with SAP Signavio successfully, don’t settle for the status quo. Take ownership of your process journey by partnering with a specialist integrator who prioritizes your goals over headcount. Begin by auditing your current processes, insisting on qualified consultants, and setting clear data and governance standards. Then, seek out an independent Signavio integrator who combines technical mastery with deep process‑modeling experience. The right partner will help you unlock actionable insights, build internal capabilities, and deliver real operational improvements.

​

Reach out today to discuss how IMPRIVA can help your organization realize the promise of SAP Signavio.

 

 

References

 

Potts, Brian. “ERP System Integrator vs. Customer: Who Is Really to Blame for your Implementation Challenges?” Third Stage Consulting, 25 May 2019, https://www.thirdstage-consulting.com/erp-system-integrator-vs-customer-who-is-really-to-blame-for-your-implementation-challenges/. Accessed 8 Aug. 2025.

​

Lawton, George. “12 notable ERP Implementation Failures and Why They Failed.” TechTarget, 4 Jun. 2025, https://www.techtarget.com/searcherp/feature/7-reasons-for-ERP-implementation-failure. Accessed 8 Aug. 2025.

​

Bayaa, Sam. “Avoiding ERP Implementation Failure: Common Risks and How to Manage Them.” UpperEdge, 4 Feb. 2025, https://upperedge.com/erp-program-management/avoiding-erp-implementation-failure-common-risks-and-how-to-manage-them/. Accessed 8 Aug. 2025.

​

Turdibayeva, Kazyna. “5 Reasons Process Mining Projects Fail and How to Overcome Them.” ProcessMaker, 30 Aug. 2024, https://www.processmaker.com/blog/5-reasons-process-mining-projects-fail-and-how-to-overcome-them/. Accessed 8 Aug. 2025.

​

Littooij, Thomas. “How to Avoid Common Pitfalls in Process Mining Implementation in 2025?” Mavim, 22 Feb. 2025, https://blog.mavim.com/trapped-in-the-data-swamp. Accessed 8 Aug. 2025.

​

Surety Systems. “How Can Independent ERP Consultants Help You?” Surety Systems Insights, n.d., https://www.suretysystems.com/insights/how-can-independent-erp-consultants-help-you/. Accessed 8 Aug. 2025.