RISE renewal preparation. Twelve months out.

The ideal RISE renewal preparation begins at month forty two of a sixty month contract, eighteen months before expiry. Many buyer governance teams do not have that runway. The board sponsor changes, a competing initiative absorbs the cycles, the contract is inherited mid term from a predecessor, or the renewal calendar simply slips. When the buyer team finds itself twelve months from expiry without a preparation programme in flight, the question is not whether the eighteen month playbook can be compressed. It is which artifacts are still achievable, which compromises are acceptable, and how to enter the renewal with a defensible position despite the shortened window. The twelve month plan is real but tighter, and the discipline matters more, not less.

Month twelve. Lock the renewal posture in four weeks.

The first month of a twelve month renewal preparation is dedicated to locking the renewal posture. The posture document covers the same three dimensions as in the eighteen month plan, the renewal scenario, the financial envelope, and the timeline, but it is produced in four weeks rather than in a quarter. The compression is achieved by limiting the scenario set to three options rather than seven, by sizing the financial envelope from the existing budget rather than from a fresh top down review, and by aligning the timeline to the contractual notice periods rather than to an idealised cadence.

The four week posture lock is intense. It requires the executive sponsor, the technology lead, the finance lead, the procurement lead, and the legal lead to convene in a structured working session within the first week, with a follow up cadence of twice weekly until the document is approved. The posture is then frozen and becomes the reference for every subsequent decision. The discipline of a frozen posture is more important than the breadth of the analysis behind it. A narrow posture that is locked produces better negotiation outcomes than a broad posture that drifts.

Month eleven. The current state assessment, in compressed form.

The current state assessment is produced in month eleven. The compressed assessment is forty pages with appendices, half the length of the eighteen month version. It focuses on the four dimensions that matter most for the renewal negotiation. The actual FUE consumption profile across the contract term. The actual document volume profile by class. The performance and SLA history with documented incidents. The contract drift register identifying every place where the operational reality diverges from the contract terms.

The compressed assessment relies on data that already exists in the buyer governance team and in the SAP delivered consumption reports. It does not attempt to commission new measurements or new instrumentation that would take additional months to produce. The accuracy is sufficient for the renewal position, and the speed allows the assessment to inform the alternative scenarios in month ten rather than sliding past them.

Month ten. Alternative scenarios at high level.

The alternative scenarios are constructed at high level in month ten. The twelve month plan does not permit a full brownfield TCO with a procured implementation partner, a full BTP migration plan, or a full conversion to a different ERP. The plan does permit three sized estimates that are credible enough to inform the SAP negotiating team without being detailed enough to execute. The estimates are derived from public benchmarks, from prior client engagements, and from indicative quotes from a small number of partners willing to provide them on short notice.

The credibility of the alternatives in a twelve month plan is lower than in an eighteen month plan. SAP account teams calibrate against the credibility, and they will discount alternatives that are clearly indicative rather than fully prepared. The compensating discipline is to present the alternatives precisely, with the assumptions stated, the gaps acknowledged, and the timeline to full execution articulated. A credible indicative alternative is better than no alternative, and substantially better than a vague claim that alternatives exist.

Month nine to month seven. Internal alignment and first SAP conversation.

The internal alignment is produced in month nine, with all stakeholders signing off on the posture, the assessment summary, and the alternative scenarios. The first SAP conversation occurs in month nine or month eight, depending on the calendar. The first conversation is process oriented as in the eighteen month plan, introducing the renewal calendar, the negotiation channel, the principal contacts, and the working timeline. The buyer team does not disclose the position, the alternatives, or the financial envelope.

The second SAP conversation in month seven introduces the qualitative dimensions of the renewal position without disclosing quantitative specifics. The buyer signals that the renewal will be conducted as a structured negotiation, that alternatives are being prepared, and that a counter proposal will follow the initial SAP proposal. The signal is sufficient to shift the SAP preparation posture from a renewal formality to a contested negotiation. The shift in SAP posture is itself a negotiation outcome, and it is achieved through the first two conversations alone.

Month six to month four. The SAP proposal and the buyer counter.

The SAP renewal proposal typically arrives in month six. The buyer team has prepared the counter proposal in advance, in skeleton form, so that the gap between the SAP proposal and the buyer position can be quantified within one week of receipt. The quantified gap becomes the basis for the negotiation calendar, the escalation strategy, and the executive briefing for the buyer sponsors. The buyer counter proposal is delivered to SAP in month five, not later. Delays in delivering the counter proposal compress the remaining negotiation window and transfer leverage to SAP.

The counter proposal is detailed on the dimensions the buyer most needs to move and selective on the dimensions where the SAP proposal is acceptable. Negotiating on every line item dilutes leverage. Negotiating on the three or four highest impact items concentrates leverage. The counter proposal also includes the procedural elements the buyer wants reflected in the contract, the recalibration rights, the audit protections, and the price protection clauses, so that those elements are on the table from the start rather than introduced late.

A narrow posture that is locked produces better negotiation outcomes than a broad posture that drifts.

Month three to month one. BAFO, contract draft, and signature.

The final three months are the BAFO sequence, the contract drafting, and the signature preparation. The BAFO is structured. The buyer team identifies the two or three remaining open items, sets a deadline that aligns with an SAP quarter end where possible, and frames the BAFO as the final commercial movement before the contract goes to drafting. The discipline of the BAFO produces a final commercial position that is documented and stable, rather than a drifting set of conversations that continue into the contract drafting phase.

The contract drafting occurs in month two, with the legal teams on both sides working from the commercial position established in the BAFO. The contract review specialist on the buyer side reads every page, focusing on the dimensions where the SAP draft typically diverges from the commercial agreement. The signature occurs in month one, with the buyer team retaining a small reserve for any last issues that emerge in the final review. The reserve is rarely needed in a well prepared renewal, but its absence is felt when an issue does arise.

Conclusion.

Twelve months is enough time to run a credible RISE renewal preparation if the discipline is tight. The compressed calendar requires the posture to be locked in four weeks, the assessment to be produced in compressed form, the alternative scenarios to be sized at high level, the SAP conversations to be sequenced deliberately, and the BAFO and contract drafting to be executed without slippage. The outcome is typically within five to ten percent of what an eighteen month preparation would have produced for the same buyer. The remaining difference is in the credibility of the alternatives and in the depth of the position documentation. The buyer team that finds itself at month forty eight without a preparation programme in flight should not wait until month fifty four to begin. The twelve month plan exists, and it works when the discipline is maintained.