{"id":1958,"date":"2026-06-24T13:27:53","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T13:27:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/?p=1958"},"modified":"2026-09-15T13:38:37","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T13:38:37","slug":"sap-went-live-business-losing-money","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/sap-went-live-business-losing-money\/","title":{"rendered":"SAP Went Live Successfully \u2014 So Why Are Inventory, Costs, and Service Levels Still Getting Worse?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><b>Quick answer:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> A successful SAP go-live is an IT milestone, not a business result. Inventory, cost, and service problems usually continue after go-live because of four fixable issues \u2014 wrong MRP parameters, poor master data, low user adoption, and no governance. The gap is closable inside the SAP you already own, usually within 6\u20139 months. No reimplementation needed.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SAP went live. So why is the business still underperforming?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The project board signed off. The steering committee celebrated. The implementation partner shook hands and moved on. Training was completed, data was migrated, and SAP went live on schedule and within budget. By every project metric, the implementation was a success.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That was twelve months ago.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Today, inventory is higher than before go-live. Service levels have not improved \u2014 in some areas they have slipped. Your planning team is still running Excel alongside SAP. Expediting costs are up. Confidence in SAP data is low. And leadership is quietly asking whether the investment was worth it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This is more common than most organisations admit publicly. The gap between a successful go-live and real business improvement is one of the most persistent and costly problems in enterprise operations. At SCM Champs, it\u2019s one of the most common conversations we have with supply chain leaders after go-live.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What is the SAP Value Gap?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>The SAP Value Gap is the measurable difference between what SAP is capable of delivering and what the business is actually experiencing after go-live.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> It is not a system failure. It is a business performance failure \u2014 and that distinction changes everything about how it should be fixed.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The go-live is the point in time that the system is ready to be used. A further milestone is business value, which requires process discipline, data integrity, user adoption and operational governance. A system that is <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">live<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is not automatically a system that is <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">delivering value<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">According to Gartner, more than 70% of recently implemented ERP initiatives fail to fully meet their original business case goals \u2014 and as many as 25% fail catastrophically. The investment is made and the system is running, but the promised improvements \u2014 lower inventory, better service, better forecast accuracy \u2014 never arrive.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The SAP Value Gap Framework<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>Go-live only gets you to \u201cthe system is running&#8221;. Real business value sits higher up, and the space between the two is the SAP Value Gap. You close it by climbing four levers in order \u2014 Master Data, Planning Parameters, User Adoption, and Governance.<\/b><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This order matters because each lever builds on the one before it:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Master data<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is the foundation. SAP plans with the data it\u2019s given \u2014 if the data is wrong, every output above it is wrong.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Planning parameters<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> sit on that data. Even clean data produces bad signals if safety stock, lead times, and lot sizes are set wrong.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>User adoption<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> sits on both. Correct signals deliver nothing if planners don\u2019t trust them and quietly work around the system in Excel.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Governance<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> holds it all together. Without leadership ownership and accountability, the first three levers slip back over time.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If any lever is weak, value leaks out and the business stalls partway up the staircase. This is why \u201cSAP is live\u201d and \u201cSAP is delivering value\u201d are two very different things \u2014 and it\u2019s the map we use for the rest of this article. Each problem below is really a symptom of a weak lever.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What is the SAP value gap costing your business?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>In most organisations, the ongoing cost of the value gap is larger than the investment required to close it.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The important post-go-live conversation is not about transaction errors or missing reports \u2014 it\u2019s financial.<\/span><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><b>Business Issue<\/b><\/td>\n<td><b>Business Impact<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Excess inventory<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Higher working capital and carrying costs<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Stockouts<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Lost revenue, missed orders, customer attrition<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Poor forecast accuracy<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Excess buffers, more waste, reactive procurement<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Manual reporting<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Lost productivity, slower decisions, data inconsistency<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Expediting<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Higher logistics spend and unplanned premiums<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Too much inventory ties up cash and adds costs for storage, insurance and obsolete stock. Too little stock means lost sales, missed commitments and, over time, damage to customer trust. Poor forecast accuracy sits under both problems \u2014 driving too much stock while still failing to have the right product in the right place.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Manual reporting is the symptom that\u2019s easiest to dismiss and most expensive in practice. When planners build their own spreadsheets because they don\u2019t trust SAP, the organisation runs two systems \u2014 one official, one real. Decisions slow, data integrity erodes, and the SAP investment keeps depreciating.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">How do you know if your organisation has an SAP Value Gap?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>If three or more of the signs below sound familiar, you almost certainly have a value gap.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Be honest and tick the ones that match your business:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Your planners still trust their Excel files more than SAP.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Inventory is higher today than it was before go-live.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Service levels haven\u2019t improved \u2014 or have quietly slipped.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">People override SAP\u2019s signals because they don\u2019t believe them.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No one actually owns SAP adoption after go-live.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Leadership asks, \u201cIs the investment giving its value?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We see this questions quite often after going live. And in most cases, it can be fixed.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b><i>Want to know where your biggest gap is?<\/i><\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Take our 2-minute SAP Value Gap scorecard, and we\u2019ll send you a short, personalised read on what\u2019s likely driving it \u2014 and what to fix first. <\/span><\/i><b><i>[Get my scorecard \u2192]<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Why do teams return to Excel after SAP go-live?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>Teams return to Excel because SAP hasn\u2019t yet earned their trust, and because no governance requires anything different. This is a process and governance problem, not a technology problem.<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Framework lever: User Adoption.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Habit is powerful. Planners who have run supply chains in Excel for years trust their own models. In the months after go-live, SAP often produces outputs that differ from what they expect \u2014 not always wrongly, but differently. Without guidance on how to interpret and act on SAP outputs, people default to what they know.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The absence of governance makes it worse. If no policy requires transactions in SAP, no consequence exists for working outside it, and leadership has no visibility into SAP utilisation, Excel use becomes normalised. Training on how to <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">navigate SAP transactions<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is not the same as training on how to <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">run a supply chain using SAP outputs<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. Most implementations deliver the first and assume the second follows. It rarely does.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SAP cannot enforce its own adoption. Only leadership can.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Why does inventory increase after SAP implementation?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>Inventory increases after go-live mainly because MRP planning parameters, safety stock, reorder points, lot sizes, and lead times are set on flawed assumptions during implementation and never corrected afterward.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This is one of the most searched and least understood post-go-live problems.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Framework lever: Planning Parameters.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Safety stock is often calculated on historical data that doesn\u2019t reflect current demand variability. Lead times are frequently estimated rather than measured. When MRP runs on these parameters, it generates replenishment signals that planners immediately recognize as wrong. Their response is predictable: they override the system and build extra buffer to compensate for their distrust.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The result compounds. Uncorrected parameters keep generating untrusted signals. Planners keep managing around the system. Inventory keeps accumulating above plan. Because nobody owns parameter changes after going live, the problem can carry on for months or even years.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It gets worse when supply chain, finance and operations are not aligned. Without shared KPI ownership, each function optimises locally, and total inventory rises as a systemic result.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Inventory increases after go-live are almost always caused by parameter errors and distrust of outputs \u2014 not by any limitation of SAP itself.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">How does poor master data quality undermine SAP performance?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>Poor master data undermines SAP immediately and compounds over time, because SAP plans with the data it\u2019s given \u2014 if that data is wrong, every output is wrong.<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Framework lever: Master Data \u2014 the foundation the whole staircase stands on.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The most common failures are: Bills of Materials with incorrect quantities or outdated structures; material master records with lead times that don\u2019t match real supplier performance; vendor data not aligned to current sourcing agreements; and inventory records not reconciled after go-live stock takes.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Each has a direct consequence. An incorrect BOM drives wrong production orders and component requirements. An overstated lead time makes SAP order too early, building unnecessary stock. An understated lead time makes it too late to order, causing stockouts. Multiply these errors across thousands of material records and you get planning outputs no experienced planner will trust.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Master data is not a one-time implementation task. It is an ongoing operational discipline. Organisations that treat master data as a continuing priority consistently outperform those that treated it as a box ticked at go-live.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Why are service levels not improving after SAP go-live?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>Service levels don\u2019t improve because the operational disciplines needed to drive improvement were never embedded alongside the system. SAP can make service problems visible; it cannot resolve them without process and people alignment.<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Framework levers: User Adoption and Master Data working together \u2014 clean inputs, used properly.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Forecasting is the most common root cause. If demand planning inputs\u2014customer history, promotions, new product introductions, and seasonality aren&#8217;t maintained in SAP IBP, the demand signal driving MRP is unreliable. Planners \u201cfixing\u201d it with manual adjustments outside the system add variability rather than removing it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Warehouse execution is a parallel issue.<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/sap-modules\/extended-warehouse-management\"> <b>SAP EWM<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and WM offer powerful pick, pack, and dispatch tools \u2014 but only when warehouse processes follow SAP transaction sequences. Companies that go live on EWM while still running the floor on paper or legacy habits see no gain in pick accuracy or dispatch performance.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Supplier data that isn\u2019t flowing correctly into SAP \u2014 delivery confirmations, goods receipts, vendor evaluations \u2014 creates visibility blind spots that turn directly into service failures.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Service improvement requires operational discipline, not just system capability. SAP shows the problem. It doesn\u2019t fix it.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What should executives review 90 days after SAP go-live?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>Executives should review business performance \u2014 not system performance \u2014 in a monthly cross-functional governance forum.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The question is not \u201cIs SAP working?\u201d It\u2019s \u201cIs the business improving?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Framework lever: Governance \u2014 the lever that keeps the other three from slipping back.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Get supply chain, finance, operations and IT working from the same plan, and track measures such as::<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Inventory value and turns vs. pre-go-live baseline<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">OTIF \/ service level trend<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Forecast accuracy<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Expediting and premium freight spend<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SAP utilization \/ transaction compliance (as an <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">enabling<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> indicator, not the goal)<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If these metrics aren\u2019t being reviewed, the organisation is flying blind on its SAP investment.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Real example: how one manufacturer closed the SAP Value Gap<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><b>A mid-size North American discrete manufacturer cut inventory 18% and lifted OTIF from 79% to 88% in nine months \u2014 without reimplementing SAP.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Here\u2019s how.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Eighteen months after a successful S\/4HANA project. Inventory was up 22%. OTIF had fallen from 87% to 79%. The planning team worked mostly in Excel, using SAP only for transaction recording. Leadership had lost confidence in the data.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A structured assessment found three root causes \u2014 three weak levers on the framework:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Safety stock parameters set at implementation on pre-migration averages that didn\u2019t reflect real demand variability. <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(Planning Parameters.)<\/span><\/i><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Master data \u2014 especially vendor lead times and BOMs \u2014 was never reviewed or corrected after go-live. <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(Master Data.)<\/span><\/i><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No governance for transaction compliance, so planners faced no consequence and got no support for working inside SAP (Governance<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and User Adoption.)<\/span><\/i><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The remediation ran all three in parallel. Parameters were reviewed and corrected across all active SKUs. A master data cleansing program launched with named ownership across<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supplychainbrain.com\/blogs\/1-think-tank\/post\/44055-why-ai-in-supply-chain-cant-succeed-without-foundational-systems\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> <b>supply chain<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, procurement, and operations. Weekly SAP compliance reviews began, chaired by the COO, with department-level adoption metrics as a standing agenda item.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Within nine months:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> inventory down 18%, OTIF up from 79% to 88%, forecast accuracy up 15 percentage points, and Excel-based reporting down over 70%.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The system hadn\u2019t failed. The business realisation process had simply stopped at go-live.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">FAQs<\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Why do SAP projects struggle to deliver ROI after going live?<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SAP ROI requires process adoption, data governance, and operational discipline \u2014 not just a working system. Most implementations are declared complete at technical go-live, and structured improvement stops there. The business phase \u2014 parameter tuning, master data governance, adoption management, and KPI accountability \u2014 is rarely planned or resourced with the same rigour as the build. Without it, the gap persists indefinitely.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Why does inventory increase after SAP implementation?<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Inventory usually rises because MRP parameters (safety stock, reorder points, lot sizes, lead times) are configured on assumptions that don\u2019t match reality. When planners distrust SAP signals, they override the system and build manual buffers. Untrusted parameters plus manual intervention almost always produce higher inventory than planned. It\u2019s correctable without reimplementation through a focused parameter review and governance programme.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Why do companies still use Excel after SAP go-live?<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Excel persists because adoption needs governance, not just training. When no policy mandates SAP-based planning and no leadership accountability exists for utilisation, experienced users default to familiar tools. The fix is a leadership-driven adoption framework with visible accountability, clear standards, and regular compliance monitoring.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">How long does it take to realise SAP business value?<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">With focused work on parameters, master data, and adoption governance, measurable improvement is typically visible within six to nine months of starting a structured value realisation programme. Without deliberate intervention, the gap doesn\u2019t close on its own \u2014 it widens as workarounds get embedded and confidence erodes further.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">How can organisations improve SAP ROI without reimplementing?<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Reimplementation is almost never the answer. Parameter errors, master data quality, adoption failures, and absent governance are all fixable inside the existing landscape. A structured value realisation programme identifies the specific gaps in your environment and builds a sequenced roadmap to close them, with results measurable within a single financial quarter.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Go-live was the start. Real value is the finish line.<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Companies rarely lose money because SAP failed. They lose it because the work of turning the system into business results quietly stopped at go-live. The platform is fine. What\u2019s missing is the discipline, ownership, and follow-through that come after.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The encouraging part: you don\u2019t need to start over. Wrong parameters, messy master data, low adoption, and absent governance are all fixable inside the SAP you already own. They are the four levers of the SAP Value Gap Framework and closing the gap is simply a matter of climbing them, in order.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So, plainly, is your SAP actually delivering business value \u2014 or is it just running?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If you\u2019re not sure, let\u2019s find out together. <\/span><b>Book a free 30-minute SAP Value Gap assessment.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> No pitch, no pressure \u2014 just an honest look at where the gap is in your business and a practical idea or two to start closing it.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Quick answer: A successful SAP go-live is an IT milestone, not a business result. Inventory,&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1962,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[6],"class_list":["post-1958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-sap","tag-sap"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1958"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1958\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2296,"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1958\/revisions\/2296"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1962"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scmchamps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}