![\"\"](\"https:\/\/teolupus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/stressful-business-team-holding-hands-on-face-feel.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/b><\/h3>\n1.3 Digital Legislation Network<\/b><\/h3>\n
Turkey has one of the most sophisticated digital tax administrations in the world. The Revenue Administration (RA) has mandated a suite of real-time digital compliance tools, including e-Invoice, e-Ledger, and e-Delivery Note, which are far more advanced than those found in many Western European countries [9].<\/span><\/p>\nFor a multinational corporation (MNC) or a large Turkish conglomerate implementing a global ERP template (Global Template), this regulatory environment presents a unique challenge. Global templates designed in Walldorf or Silicon Valley typically address tax compliance as a “reporting layer.” In T\u00fcrkiye, however, it’s a “transactional layer.”<\/span><\/p>\nYou can’t ship products without creating a real-time, government-approved digital delivery note. Failure to deeply integrate these requirements into core process logic leads to operational paralysis. The distinction between a standard and a customized ERP package is closely tied to accurately defining requirements and cost.<\/span><\/p>\nAdditionally, the Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK) imposes strict data residency and sovereignty requirements that often conflict with the \u201ccloud-first\u201d strategies of large ERP providers [11].<\/span><\/p>\nThe divergence between GDPR and KVKK, particularly regarding explicit consent and cross-border data transfers, creates a legal minefield that can derail a project later in life if not addressed in the design phase.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row type=”in_container” full_screen_row_position=”middle” column_margin=”default” column_direction=”default” column_direction_tablet=”default” column_direction_phone=”default” scene_position=”center” left_margin=”100″ constrain_group_8=”yes” right_margin=”100″ left_margin_tablet=”10″ constrain_group_10=”yes” right_margin_tablet=”10″ text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” row_border_radius=”none” row_border_radius_applies=”bg” overflow=”visible” id=”finansal” overlay_strength=”0.3″ gradient_direction=”left_to_right” shape_divider_position=”bottom” bg_image_animation=”none” gradient_type=”default” shape_type=””][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_tablet=”inherit” column_padding_phone=”inherit” column_padding_position=”all” column_element_direction_desktop=”default” column_element_spacing=”default” desktop_text_alignment=”default” tablet_text_alignment=”default” phone_text_alignment=”default” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ column_backdrop_filter=”none” column_shadow=”none” column_border_radius=”none” column_link_target=”_self” column_position=”default” gradient_direction=”left_to_right” overlay_strength=”0.3″ width=”1\/1″ tablet_width_inherit=”default” animation_type=”default” bg_image_animation=”none” border_type=”simple” column_border_width=”none” column_border_style=”solid”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][nectar_animated_title heading_tag=”h2″ style=”hinge-drop” color=”Accent-Color” text=”Chapter II: Financial Pitfalls”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][vc_column_text]\nTrap 1: “Inflation Blindness” \u2013 Neglecting TAS 29 \/ UAS 29 Integration<\/b><\/h3>\n
The most common and structurally damaging trap in the current Turkish conjuncture is the lack of Inflation Accounting requirements, particularly those related to “Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies”.<\/span>TMS 29 (Turkish Accounting Standards)<\/b> ve <\/span>IAS 29 (International Accounting Standards)<\/b>are integrated in an understated manner [12].<\/span><\/p>\nStrategic Blind Spot<\/b><\/h4>\n
Some forward-thinking managers with high financial literacy already monitor inflation-adjusted financial statements using ERP or integrated special software to clearly see their companies’ “real” economic situation and capital structure. However, in general, many managers and project sponsors still operate under the assumption that inflation accounting is a simple “financial problem” that can be solved with spreadsheets (Excel, etc.) at the end of the period.<\/span><\/p>\nAs a result of this misconception, ERP designs (blueprints) are approved that prioritize legal tax compliance (VUK – historical cost-based) but, unlike these pioneering managers, neglect the architectural requirements for inflation-adjusted management reporting. This “inflation blindness” results in an uncompetitive system that may record daily transactions but fails to provide a realistic picture of the company’s financial health.<\/span><\/p>\nFailure Mechanism<\/b><\/h4>\n
When an ERP system is not designed for the reality of hyperinflation from the outset, some critical errors occur:<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Corruption of Historical Data: <\/b>In a high-inflation environment, comparing Q1 sales with Q4 sales without adjustment is meaningless. In an environment of 65% inflation [2], a 40% increase in nominal revenue actually indicates a significant real contraction. Standard ERP dashboards that rely solely on nominal figures mislead management into believing the company is growing when, in real terms, it’s actually shrinking.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Depreciation in Asset Valuation:<\/b> Non-monetary assets, such as inventories and fixed assets, lose significance on the balance sheet when tracked at historical cost. The ERP system must be capable of applying complex revaluation factors based on the acquisition date [12] if the Fixed Asset module does not natively support date-based indexing tables. In that case, the balance sheet will significantly understate the company’s capital base, distorting Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) indicators.<\/span><\/li>\n
- “Net Monetary Position” Error: <\/b>Perhaps the most insidious problem is the inability to track profits or losses on net monetary positions. In a high-inflation environment, holding cash incurs losses, while holding debt yields gains. Most standard ERP configurations track profits and losses on transactions, but not on the profits and losses generated by holding monetary items. Without a dedicated “Inflation Adjustment Cockpit” (as some ERPs offer [13]), this vital economic reality remains hidden from monthly management accounts.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Strategic Imperative: Dual-Ledger Architecture<\/b><\/h4>\n
To avoid this trap, ERP architecture must embrace complexity. Administrators must enforce a “Multi-Ledger Approach”:<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Ledger 0L (Leading Ledger): <\/b>The ledger, structured in accordance with IFRS\/TMS 29, serves as the “single source of truth” for management, investors, and banks. This ledger must be integrated with data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (T\u00dc\u0130K) to update the CPI indices monthly [14].<\/span><\/li>\n
- Ledger 2L (Local Ledger):<\/b> Ledger that records historical costs required for legal tax reporting, structured to comply with the Tax Procedure Law (VUK).<\/span><\/li>\n
- Real-Time Reconciliation:<\/b> The system should define matching rules between these ledgers to prevent the finance team from spending weeks manually reconciling the two views.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
While the exclusion of financial institutions from some inflation accounting requirements [12] creates a fragmented market perception, for the real sector (manufacturing, retail, logistics), inflation accounting is not an option, but the lens through which reality is observed. An ERP that fails to provide this lens is effectively blind.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/h3>\nTrap 2: Currency Devaluation and Drift \u2013 Unhedged Licensing and OPEX Risk<\/b><\/h3>\n
The second financial pitfall concerns the foreign-currency structure of ERP contracts and the risk of long-term operating expenses (OPEX). While Turkish companies sometimes negotiate implementation services in Turkish Lira, they often overlook that the project’s underlying layers (software licenses, cloud hosting, and third-party support) are inextricably linked to the hard currency (USD\/EUR).<\/span><\/p>\nStrategic Blind Spot<\/b><\/h4>\n
With the Turkish Lira projected to depreciate by approximately 37% against the dollar in 2023 [2] and volatility expected to persist, a contract signed during stable times can serve as a financial backstop. Managers often focus on the implementation’s one-time Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and aggressively negotiate advisory day fees, neglecting the sensitivity of recurring OPEX to exchange rate fluctuations.<\/span><\/p>\nThere’s a critical paradox here that managers should be aware of: During periods when inflation reached 65% and exchange rate appreciation reached 37%, foreign exchange-indexed contracts may have provided the company with a real cost advantage relative to Turkish Lira inflation. The currency may have remained relatively “cheap” compared to local inflation. However, this should not lull managers into a false sense of security. When this temporary exchange rate\/inflation gap closes, or if the exchange rate suddenly corrects, today’s advantage could turn into tomorrow’s unmanageable cost risk.<\/span><\/p>\nFailure Mechanism<\/b><\/h4>\n\n- License Cost Increase: <\/b>Major Tier-1 suppliers (SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.) typically create their price lists in Euros or Dollars. Even if a local invoice is issued in Turkish Lira, this amount is calculated based on the spot exchange rate or the monthly average. As the Turkish Lira depreciates, the software’s functional costs increase monthly, eroding the operational budget.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Cloud Consumption Risk: <\/b>The shift to cloud ERP (SaaS) exacerbates this situation. Consumption indicators (storage, processing power, API calls) are global commodities priced in foreign currencies. The seemingly flexible “pay-as-you-go” model can become punishingly expensive during a currency crisis [15].<\/span><\/li>\n
- Consultant Fee Indexing: <\/b>While local consulting firms accept Turkish Lira contracts, innovative suppliers add indexation clauses tied to inflation (CPI\/PPI) or currency baskets to protect their margins against inflation in talent costs [16]. If the client’s procurement team doesn’t cap these indexation clauses, the project’s “cash burn rate” can double over an 18-month cycle due to macroeconomic factors alone, even with no change in scope.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Strategic Imperative: Financial Hedging and Contract Engineering<\/b><\/h4>\n
Senior management should apply rigorous currency risk stress tests to the ERP business case:<\/span><\/p>\n\n- “Bad Case” TCO: <\/b>Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) should be calculated not at today\u2019s exchange rate, but with a severe devaluation forecast (e.g. +30-40% devaluation within 2 years).<\/span><\/li>\n
- Contractual Lock-ins: <\/b>Fixed exchange rates should be negotiated for the first 24-36 months of the license agreement. If the supplier refuses, financial hedging instruments (forward contracts) should be purchased to lock in the cost of the software obligation.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Cap-and-Collar Indexing: <\/b>Inflation adjustments for professional services should be based on caps and collars. For example, even if inflation is 65%, fee increases should be capped at 40%, ensuring the supplier shares some of the macroeconomic burden.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row type=”in_container” full_screen_row_position=”middle” column_margin=”default” column_direction=”default” column_direction_tablet=”default” column_direction_phone=”default” scene_position=”center” left_margin=”100″ constrain_group_8=”yes” right_margin=”100″ left_margin_tablet=”10″ constrain_group_10=”yes” right_margin_tablet=”10″ text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” row_border_radius=”none” row_border_radius_applies=”bg” overflow=”visible” id=”teknolojik” overlay_strength=”0.3″ gradient_direction=”left_to_right” shape_divider_position=”bottom” bg_image_animation=”none” gradient_type=”default” shape_type=””][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_tablet=”inherit” column_padding_phone=”inherit” column_padding_position=”all” column_element_direction_desktop=”default” column_element_spacing=”default” desktop_text_alignment=”default” tablet_text_alignment=”default” phone_text_alignment=”default” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ column_backdrop_filter=”none” column_shadow=”none” column_border_radius=”none” column_link_target=”_self” column_position=”default” gradient_direction=”left_to_right” overlay_strength=”0.3″ width=”1\/1″ tablet_width_inherit=”default” animation_type=”default” bg_image_animation=”none” border_type=”simple” column_border_width=”none” column_border_style=”solid”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][nectar_animated_title heading_tag=”h2″ style=”hinge-drop” color=”Accent-Color” text=”Chapter III: Human Capital Traps”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][vc_column_text]\n
Trap 3: The Brain Drain Gap \u2013 Institutional Amnesia<\/b><\/h3>\n
“Brain Drain” is the single biggest non-technical threat to ERP success in T\u00fcrkiye. It’s the silent killer of projects, manifesting as delays, quality issues, and a loss of strategic direction.<\/span><\/p>\nStrategic Blind Spot<\/b><\/h4>\n
Traditional ERP methodologies (like SAP Activate or Oracle OUM) assume a stable internal Core Team of “Subject Matter Experts” (SMEs) who mentor external consultants. This assumption is dangerous in the Turkey of 2025. The employee you train as a “Super User” today is a prime recruiting (headhunting) target for European companies or remote international contractors tomorrow [3].<\/span><\/p>\nFailure Mechanism<\/b><\/h4>\n\n- “Bus Factor” Risk: <\/b>In many Turkish companies, critical process knowledge (for example, the complex logic of export incentives or specific quality control workflows) resides in the mind of a single person. When that person leaves, they take the “why” of the configuration with them. Their successor often lacks this context, leading to reversals or “vanilla” (standard\/non-customized) configurations that don’t meet business needs.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Advisor Revolving Door:<\/b> Talent shortages affect the vendor side equally. Consulting firms face high attrition rates, creating a “revolving door” of junior consultants who constantly change on projects [8]. A project might start with a Senior Architect who understands the industry, but six months later, the work might be done by a junior associate with no field experience, supervised remotely.<\/span><\/li>\n
- “Sultan Syndrome”:<\/b> To compensate for the lack of reliable middle management (due to the exodus), decision-making processes become overly centralized. The CEO or General Manager becomes the bottleneck for every minor decision, causing project momentum to stall.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Strategic Imperative: Knowledge Capture and Retention Architecture<\/b><\/h4>\n
Managers should approach the ERP project as both a Knowledge Management effort and a software implementation.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Documentation as Delivery:<\/b> Implement a strict policy that no configuration is approved without detailed process maps and decision logs recorded in a central repository (e.g., Confluence or Solution Manager). “It’s in the mail” is unacceptable.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Retention Bonuses: <\/b>Create a dedicated “Project Completion Bonus” for the internal Core Team, paid only after a successful stabilization period (e.g., 6 months after go-live). This creates a financial anchor for potential migrants.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Shadowing Protocols: <\/b>Assign junior “shadows” to each critical Subject Matter Expert (SME). The goal is to eliminate dependency on a single person (the “Bus Factor”). If a key player leaves, the shadow should be ready to step in.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
Trap 4: The “Double Shift” Syndrome and Organizational Resistance \u2013 Burnout Edge<\/b><\/h3>\n
One of the most significant “invisible” factors in ERP project failure is the psychological and physical burnout experienced by project teams. Internal management dynamics reach a breaking point when employees are expected to both maintain daily operational tasks and build the system of the future.<\/span><\/p>\nStrategic Blind Spot<\/b><\/h4>\n
Upper management often views the ERP project as a “part-time” job that employees can do in addition to their current duties. The assumption is, “They know the job best, so they should be the ones installing the system.” However, managers often find it difficult to shoulder the additional burden of placing an extra 30% of the project load on key personnel already working at 100% capacity. <\/span>“Change Fatigue,” <\/b>and they underestimate the passive resistance this triggers.<\/span><\/p>\nFailure Mechanism<\/b><\/h4>\n\n- Silent Resistance and Sabotage: <\/b>Employees overwhelmed by the additional workload often choose to slow down the project rather than openly oppose it. Behaviors such as skipping meetings, delaying data cleansing, or marking test cases as “approved” undermine the project’s foundation. This is a defense mechanism against increased stress, not the technology itself.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Inter-Departmental “Trench Warfare”: <\/b>ERP projects require clarifying the gray areas between departments. However, stressed middle managers often avoid collaboration to protect their own turf and resources (territorial behavior). Historical tensions between Sales and Production departments usually escalate into deadlock in ERP design meetings.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Decision Paralysis: <\/b>Tired minds can’t make decisions. Burnout stifles the project team’s initiative. Even a simple approval process turns into a stressful bureaucracy where no one wants to take responsibility.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Strategic Imperative: “Backfill” Strategy and Psychological Management<\/b><\/h4>\n
To overcome this trap, the ERP project should be treated as an “HR Management” process.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Backfilling:<\/b> It’s essential to alleviate the daily operational burden for key users involved in the project. If necessary, temporary staff should be hired and assigned to handle daily tasks, while core experts’ time should be dedicated to the ERP project (design and testing).<\/span><\/li>\n
- Emotional Intelligence and Empathy: <\/b>Management should openly acknowledge the stress created by the project. The message should be, “This is a challenging process, and we recognize your sacrifices.” The project team should be provided with “decompression” opportunities, such as flexible working hours or additional leave.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Resistance Management: <\/b>Rather than labeling resistant managers or employees as “problematic,” it’s essential to address the source of their concerns. Often, resistance isn’t directed at the system itself, but rather at an individual’s fear of inadequacy or loss of status.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
<\/p>\n
Trap 5: \u201cShadow IT\u201d and Excel Dependency \u2013 Cultural Resistance<\/b><\/h3>\n
Despite the sophistication of modern ERPs, the “Excel Manages Production” phenomenon is deeply ingrained in Turkish business culture [17]. This trap is that Shadow IT cannot be eliminated, resulting in a system that is technically viable but operationally obsolete (unused).<\/span><\/p>\nStrategic Blind Spot<\/b><\/h4>\n
Managers often believe that shutting down the old system forces the adoption of the new ERP. They underestimate the tenacity of the “Excel underworld.” In high-pressure environments fueled by inflation and supply chain volatility, employees revert to what they know\u2014Excel\u2014to get the job done quickly and view ERP as a bureaucratic hurdle [18].<\/span><\/p>\nFailure Mechanism<\/b><\/h4>\n\n- Data Fragmentation: <\/b>Critical decision data on inventory levels, actual margins, and supplier commitments exists only in personal spreadsheets. The ERP becomes a “graveyard” where data is entered, often days later, and only for compliance.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Security Vulnerabilities: <\/b>Shadow IT poses significant security risks. Unapproved tools and cloud storage used to bypass ERP limitations are primary vectors for data breaches. In a remote\/hybrid work environment, employees can upload sensitive customer lists to their personal Google Drives for faster processing [19].<\/span><\/li>\n
- Incorrect Estimation:<\/b> If sales teams manage pipelines in Excel and only enter closed orders into the ERP, the organization loses visibility into future demand, making inventory forecasting and planning impossible.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Strategic Imperative: User Experience (UX) as a Line of Defense<\/b><\/h4>\n
Combating shadow IT requires a Change Management strategy that addresses the root cause: user experience and speed.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- UX Optimization: <\/b>If the ERP screen takes 5 minutes to enter a sales order and the Excel sheet takes 30 seconds, Excel wins. The application should prioritize UI\/UX optimization (e.g., using Fiori for SAP) to ensure the “right way” is also the “easiest way.”<\/span><\/li>\n
- Data Amnesty: <\/b>Introduce a period during which employees can bring in their \u201cshadow\u201d data to be integrated into the ERP without penalty, recognizing that these spreadsheets often contain valuable business logic that the ERP Blueprint may miss [17].<\/span><\/li>\n
- Embedded Analytics: <\/b>Create the same reports within ERP that users currently create in Excel. If ERP provides better and faster insights, users will naturally switch.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row type=”in_container” full_screen_row_position=”middle” column_margin=”default” column_direction=”default” column_direction_tablet=”default” column_direction_phone=”default” scene_position=”center” left_margin=”100″ constrain_group_8=”yes” right_margin=”100″ left_margin_tablet=”10″ constrain_group_10=”yes” right_margin_tablet=”10″ text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” row_border_radius=”none” row_border_radius_applies=”bg” overflow=”visible” id=”calisan-refahi” overlay_strength=”0.3″ gradient_direction=”left_to_right” shape_divider_position=”bottom” bg_image_animation=”none” gradient_type=”default” shape_type=””][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_tablet=”inherit” column_padding_phone=”inherit” column_padding_position=”all” column_element_direction_desktop=”default” column_element_spacing=”default” desktop_text_alignment=”default” tablet_text_alignment=”default” phone_text_alignment=”default” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ column_backdrop_filter=”none” column_shadow=”none” column_border_radius=”none” column_link_target=”_self” column_position=”default” gradient_direction=”left_to_right” overlay_strength=”0.3″ width=”1\/1″ tablet_width_inherit=”default” animation_type=”default” bg_image_animation=”none” border_type=”simple” column_border_width=”none” column_border_style=”solid”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][nectar_animated_title heading_tag=”h2″ style=”hinge-drop” color=”Accent-Color” text=”Chapter IV: Operational Pitfalls”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][vc_column_text]\n
Pitfall 6: The “Big Bang” (One-Time) Transition Fallacy \u2013 The Current Data Quality Issue<\/b><\/h3>\n
Migrating from local legacy systems (Logo Tiger, Netsis, etc.) to global, top-tier ERPs (SAP, Oracle) is a risky endeavor in T\u00fcrkiye. A one-time approach\u2014trying to change everything in a single weekend\u2014is often the primary culprit in disasters.<\/span><\/p>\nStrategic Blind Spot<\/b><\/h4>\n
Local Turkish accounting software may often allow for loose data governance (e.g., free-text fields, non-standardized material codes). Administrators usually assume that “data migration” can be handled by an automated script [20].<\/span><\/p>\nThey fail to realize that mapping unstructured data from such a software environment into the rigid, structured environment of SAP S\/4HANA requires a massive manual cleanup [21]. Sometimes, the long-term corporate damage of taking the easy way out in the short term should not be underestimated.<\/span><\/p>\nFailure Mechanism<\/b><\/h4>\n\n- Master Data Corruption: <\/b>Carrying “dirty” data (duplicate records, obsolete stock codes, missing supplier records) infects the new system from the start. As the saying goes: “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”<\/span><\/li>\n
- Chart of Accounts (CoA) Mismatch: <\/b>Turkish companies typically have a Chart of Accounts designed for tax compliance rather than management accounting. Matching this to a globally standardized (IFRS-based) Chart of Accounts is not a one-to-one (1:1) exercise. It requires a fundamental redesign of the financial model [22].<\/span><\/li>\n
- Historical Data Load: <\/b>Trying to migrate years of transaction history is often a mistake. The data structures are too far apart.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Strategic Imperative: “Clean Core, Smart History”<\/b><\/h4>\n
Adopt a strict data hygiene strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Pre-Project Cleaning: <\/b>Before the ERP project officially starts, launch a master data cleansing project. Use data profiling tools to identify duplicates and gaps.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Opening Balance Rollover Approach: <\/b>Do not migrate historical transactions (transactional history). Migrate only open balances and purged master data. Keep the legacy system open in read-only mode for historical queries [23].<\/span><\/li>\n
- Phased Rollout: <\/b>Avoid one-shot migrations. Migrate on a module-by-module basis (Finance first) or by a business unit basis to limit risks.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
<\/h3>\nTrap 7: The Inventory Valuation Black Hole \u2013 Costing in Hyperinflation<\/b><\/h3>\n
For the manufacturing and retail sectors, inventory valuation in a high inflation environment is the most technically complex aspect of ERP.<\/span><\/p>\nStrategic Blind Spot<\/b><\/h4>\n
Standard costing models (valuing inventory at a fixed estimated cost) break down when input prices change weekly due to inflation and exchange rate devaluation.<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/teolupus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-stylish-woman-in-elegant-attire-takes.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n