I have spent much of my career close to the point where SAP programs either hold together or start to drift. That view has been shaped from inside delivery, around the decisions, teams, sponsors, vendors and boards who have to live with the outcome.
That has left me with a simple view. Complex delivery is rarely rescued by more reporting. It is rescued by better judgement, stronger cadence, clearer decisions, and people willing to deal with the real issue early.
Too many advisors confuse the method with the delivery. The plan, the phases, the governance forums and the RAID log all matter. None of them mean a program is actually under control.
A program can look controlled and still be drifting. It can report amber for months while everyone close to it knows the truth is something else. It can hold all the right meetings and still avoid the decisions that matter.
Programs rarely fail because people did not work hard enough. They fail because the real issues were visible early and were not dealt with. Scope was unclear but accepted anyway. Design decisions were delayed while the schedule stood still. Data was left as a problem for later. Testing took the blame when build quality, the flow of defects, or the decisions behind them were the real cause. The program kept producing updates, but not enough truth.
I have worked in SAP for more than 24 years, on both sides of the delivery table. I have led programs from the client side and held senior advisory and global delivery leadership roles, working across delivery methodology, governance and program assurance at scale. Along the way, my program leadership was recognised with the SAP Best Run Award. That breadth is the point. It is what lets me read a program quickly and tell the difference between noise, drift and real delivery risk.
I went independent because independence matters most at the exact moment a program needs the truth. I have seen how hard it is for leaders to get a clean view when the advice in the room is tied to software, resourcing, a commercial relationship or the next piece of work. Sometimes what a leader needs is not another framework or another large team. It is someone experienced enough to read the situation, independent enough to say it plainly, and practical enough to help them decide what to do next.
That is why Waypoint exists. Not to become a large firm. Not to sell software. Not to staff implementation teams. Not to sit outside a program and describe its problems from a distance. I wanted a practice that could sit close to complex SAP delivery and stay independent of the build. Based in Brisbane, it works with organisations across Australia.
The leaders I work with are accountable for complex programs and willing to look straight at what is really happening. Sponsors, CIOs, transformation leaders, program directors and boards weighing a major commitment. The best of them are not looking for comfort. They are looking for judgement.
Waypoint is not built for volume. It is built for the moments where senior judgement matters.