Agentic software makes ERP migration the price of entry

Agentic software is becoming a new lever for enterprise vendors to push customers toward cloud ERP. SAP and Oracle are not merely adding tools that draft emails or summarize reports; they are embedding systems that can read permissions and approval hierarchies, make decisions inside finance or supply-chain workflows, and execute transactions.

That capability changes the stakes of an ERP migration. The source argues that access to agentic features is increasingly tied to the cloud platforms where vendors host the systems of record. For companies still running on-premises ERP, the price of adoption may be a broader and earlier move to the cloud.

SAP ties Joule access to Cloud ERP

At its Sapphire conference this spring, SAP unveiled what it calls the autonomous enterprise: more than 200 specialized agents, orchestrated by roughly 50 domain-specific assistants and accessed through a single interface, Joule.

The agents are designed to operate within SAP’s core business environment, respecting existing permissions and carrying out live work rather than simply recommending an action. That native integration is a key advantage over an external tool that cannot safely execute transactions in the system of record.

It also creates a dependency on SAP’s cloud platform. Until this spring, Joule was available only to customers with SAP’s RISE and GROW cloud subscriptions. SAP has since opened access to customers running ECC and S/4HANA on-premises, but only if they commit to moving the majority of their SAP estate to Cloud ERP.

Recommended reading

GPU shortages block AI projects at 91% of Russian firms

Even with that route, customers receive only a limited set of the available capabilities rather than the full portfolio. The source’s central point is that the on-premises option still requires cloud spending to unlock the new features.

ECC customers face an additional deadline. Mainstream maintenance ends in December 2027, with an extension to 2030 available at a premium. After that, customers must either operate an unsupported system or upgrade. The article argues that this timeline can turn the desire to use agentic software into additional pressure to migrate, regardless of whether the organization has chosen that schedule.

Oracle requires a move to Fusion Cloud

Oracle takes a more direct approach. Its new agents run only inside Fusion Cloud, on Oracle’s infrastructure and within Oracle’s security model. There is no on-premises edition to license.

That means organizations still running E-Business Suite cannot enable the agents on their current systems. They must re-platform onto Fusion to use them at all.

The result is similar to SAP’s model: the route to agentic capabilities runs through the cloud migration vendors have already been encouraging. The difference is that the new software gives the migration argument additional leverage. Cost, operational risk and disruption have kept many companies on premises despite years of pressure to move; exclusion from new capabilities may become a stronger incentive.

Migration and agentic software compete for the same budget

The source argues that cloud ERP migration and agentic software draw on the same pool of enterprise funding. Migration gets the first claim because it is the prerequisite for access.

Research from the Americas' SAP Users' Group found that 61% of members identified budget as their biggest challenge this year. The group’s research director attributed that pressure in part to cloud ERP projects, with new agentic capabilities expected to draw on the same budgets.

The spending sequence can therefore become difficult for CIOs:

• Pay to move onto the required cloud platform.
• Pay again to use the new capabilities once there.
• Cover consumption-based charges for features outside the limited set included in the headline subscription.

That structure can consume the capital intended to produce measurable business outcomes before a single agent has delivered one. It also creates a risk for programs already under scrutiny from boards that are frustrated by pilots that never reach production or spending that cannot be linked to results.

The source does not provide specific SAP or Oracle migration prices, nor does it quantify the consumption charges. It also does not cite independent performance benchmarks for the agents. The argument is about control of budgets and timing rather than a measured comparison of the products' results.

Keeping control of the ERP roadmap

The article’s recommendation is to separate two decisions that vendors increasingly present as one: whether to modernize, and when, in what order and with which budget to do it.

Third-party ERP support is presented as one way to create that separation. An independent provider can maintain the existing estate, preserve interoperability and provide security coverage instead of the vendor’s maintenance contract, typically at a fraction of the cost, according to the source.

That approach could remove the end-of-support date as an immediate forcing function and free maintenance spending for projects the organization has prioritized. The existing ERP would remain a productive operating core while executives decide where agentic capabilities can deliver value.

The source outlines two possible paths from there. A company could keep its stable ERP core and run agentic software as an orchestration layer above it, reaching into the system of record without re-platforming the entire estate first. Alternatively, it could modernize selectively—for example, moving from proprietary databases to open-source alternatives where eliminating license fees has a clear business case.

The underlying issue is governance. Software that can act inside finance, supply chain and other critical processes creates a deeper dependency on the platform vendor than an assistant that merely offers suggestions. The source argues that organizations should define their own controls, sequence and expected return rather than inherit them from a cloud roadmap.

“The autonomous enterprise may well be worth building. What a board should refuse is to let its timetable and its budget be set by the company with the most to gain from the move.”