What you've said is absolutely true, but it's mostly a feature, not a bug. Once you get big enough to need SAP, it's actually useful to put your business processes on a standardized platform. It's painful, always mind bendingly expensive and often fails. But few companies want to be innovative in their business processes. It's actually better to move to "the standard" since it makes processes more understandable across different ginormacorps, which is useful for the upper management sorts that tend to move between them. There's virtually no competitive advantage to having unique business processes. There are many folks that even will say that that's the advantage of moving to SAP is it makes the internal mechanics of the company work a lot like every other giant company.
Telling that losing your uniqueness and being like “everyone else” will actually become your competitive advantage is something that only SAP can come up with.
If you already grew big, you won't grow bigger by adopting SAP. You can stagnate at best, as shown a million times in the real world. Companies that still want to grow just don't use SAP. Period.
This is pretty much never the case, and more often than not the company is successful despite those process, not because of.
Many processes evolve on an ad-hoc and as-needed basis, with some tweaks here and there over time as the company grows and staff turns. You eventually reach a point when no one can remember how a process came to be, or why Sarah has to export four files from three web interfaces and copy/paste data across two Excel files to send to John over in accounting that was just trained last week on how to use this file to true up actuals.
There's only so many ways a company can track inventory, or manage purchase orders, or calculate product costs, or represent sales order and invoices. An ERP acknowledges that a vast majority of businesses operate with the same set of industry-specific operational primitives, and businesses have learned that it's both more time-and-cost effective to adapt your business to the expectations of the ERP than the other way around.
In the rare case you're doing something novel, you can still build your bespoke solution on top of those existing ERP primitives without having to re-invent how the numbers come together so your company can spit out the three financial statements.
SAP does not need to touch the "unique" detailed processes that makes a company great, nor it's culture. But if you e.g. manufacture a product, the design process can still be relatively unique to your company, but most often, the manufacturing processes should follow the high-level blueprint of manufacturing companies.
If its the former, than conforming to SAP is giving up what made you good. But if its the latter, then conforming to SAP is just making the basics more standard and easier to maintain.
No executive wakes up and things ‘this is a great day to pour 500M down the drain’.
Standardise the mundane (with an ERP, with minimal customisation) business processes so your company can focus on innovating where they have true competitive advantage. This is the recipe for a successful ERP implementation.
Either is SAP though so, who knows.
> There's virtually no competitive advantage to having unique business processes.
Take "Time Accounting" for example. I'm not referring to tracking hourly employee hours for payroll, I'm referring to tracking salary employee "project time." Every past salaried position I've had at a company with more than 90 employees had its own custom time tracking software[1]. The first company to do this was a multi-national telecom that I worked for. It was done so that each project could be broken out into its stages and the portion of the employees' salary could be itemized among "Capital Expenses" and "Operational Expenses". This was so important to the company that it warranted a massive development effort along with a corporate initiative to get 100% of time reporting in "on time." They did this as you'd expect a huge company would -- fail to hand in a time sheet on time a few weeks in a row and you'd get dinged more for that mistake than anything else.
The second and third companies ended up "accidentally developing time tracking software" specifically because there was competitive advantages to improving "Resource Planning". It was most helpful to my last employer. Their businesses was creating new products (often hardware/software combinations) for companies. This involved hiring a large number of people specialized in things that had limited cross-over. Resource Planning was predicting when what skills at what level would be available. This, necessarily, involved tracking what time was spent on projects in the past to improve those predictions and ultimately ballooned into a full time management and accounting application for the business (they sold "our time" to customers at the end of the day so it helped them to plan what to charge).
I'm curious -- from your perspective, is it that the competitive advantage is lost "because the tools that everyone is stuck with won't work" if you stray too far from "standardized" or is there another advantage to this standardization?
[0] Unique business processes and marketing are frequently the difference between the #1 and #2 company in a given space.
[1] In one case (about 250 employee global company), the company wrote it as a concept for a future product but once it was available, the existing solution was tossed primarily because the business side really liked the flexibility. In another it grew out of a pet project and became entrenched. At the remaining two, a decision was made to develop something from the ground up.