Issue

Currently Syensqo has multiple SAP systems (WPX, WP1 WP2 and PF1PF2), and a single material can be represented in different systems with a different Material Master number. 

Recommendation

To balance global standardization with critical business constraints, Syensqo will adopt a hybrid material numbering approach (Option 3):

    • All material masters, except those belonging to the Composite Materials GBU (ZDIR: rawSyensqo's all materials (finished, semi-finished and raw materialsfinished products), will be represented by a unique material master number which will be assigned from a new number range. For ease of search, the newly created material number will have the reference to the old material numbersassigned new material numbers from the global number range as part of the migration to S/4HANA.
    • Composite Materials will retain their legacy material numbers to avoid triggering regulatory or customer requalification processes.
    • A robust mapping and governance framework will be established to ensure seamless integration and traceability between legacy and new material numbers.

This approach enables the program to advance with standardization for the majority of materials while mitigating significant business risk for qualified Composite Materials.

Background & Context

Currently Syensqo has multiple SAP systems (WPX, WP1 WP2 and PF1PF2) and a single material can be represented in different systems with a different Material Master number. 

Assumptions

N/A

Constraints

Qualification constraints are non-negotiable for Composite Materials within the current project timeline.

Constraints

• Regulatory product qualification processes limit immediate renumbering for Composite Materials.
• Dual numbering requires additional governance and control.
• Integration and reporting layers must accommodate both numbering strategies during the transition.

Impacts

Legacy Data – Master data

All dependent master data ex: BOM's etc.. will be updated with the new material numbers. 

Legacy Data – Transactions

Any historical data that is migrated to the new S/4 system will be updated with the new material numbers

Any catalogs (internal / 3rd party hosted on Ariba network) will be updated with the new material numbers

Legacy Data – Interfaces

Mappings to the customer / vendor material numbers will be updated with the new material numbers

Stock Valuation 

There might be an impact on the stock valuation when there is de-duplication of materials with different valuations

Downstream systems

Any downstream system using the material master numbers will be updated with the new material numbers or by creating a mapping table with the old and new material numbers

Change Management

Training material will describe how the users can search and find the material using the old material number

Communication

Communication will be sent to customers / vendors / 3rd party system owners using material master number 

Business Rules

• Material

• numbers will be

• system-assigned

• with no intelligence.
• Legacy numbers will remain traceable through mapping structures.
• Governance will ensure consistent treatment of dual numbering throughout the transition.

Options considered

Option 1 – Do not change the legacy material numbers 

Materials from the legacy systems are copied into the new S/4 system without de-duplication. 

Advantages:

• No impact on legacy data
• No impact on vendors and customers as material numbers don’t change

Disadvantages:

• Significant duplication of material masters
• No global view of material data
• Sub optimal supply chain planning
• Incorrect inventory levels
• Incorrect reporting

Option 2 – Create all valid Material Masters with new number ranges

As a part of this option, the material masters are de-duplicated, and one material master is created per valid material. The material numbers are automatically assigned by the system and are sequential with no intelligence.  

• Clean set of de-duplicated material masters
• Optimal supply chain planning
• Correct inventory level across the globe
• Correct reporting

Disadvantages:

• Additional one-time effort for de-duplication 
• Additional one-time effort by the downstream system to adopt the new material master numbers or to incorporate a mapping table between old and new numbers

Option 3 – Hybrid Numbering Approach 

This approach recognizes the unique regulatory and qualification requirements associated with Composite Materials, where changing material numbers would directly trigger product requalification, involving both internal testing and third-party regulatory approvals.

Under this hybrid model:

• All materials except those from Composite Materials GBU (ZDIR: raw, semi-finished, finished) are assigned new S/4HANA material numbers from the global number range.
• Composite Materials retain legacy material numbers to avoid triggering requalification.
• Mapping tables are implemented to manage mixed numbering in S/4.
• All new materials created after go-live will follow the standard global numbering approach, including for Composite Materials

Advantages 

• Maintains compliance and avoids costly qualification impacts for Composite Materials.
  
• Enables global standardization for the majority of materials.
  
• Reduces overall implementation risk while maintaining project momentum.

Disadvantages  

• Increased complexity in data migration (dual numbering strategy).
• Additional effort in interface mapping and reporting structures.

Evaluation

Based on the evaluation of the options, Option 2 is recommended. All Syensqo's materials (finished, semi-finished, raw materials, spares etc.) will be represented by a unique material master number which will be assigned from a new number range. For ease of search, the newly created material number will have the reference to the old material numbers

Evaluation

Based on the evaluation of the options, it is recommended that Syensqo should choose option 2 and align the material master numbering to a single standard in the new system and also align the master and transactional data brought across to the new standard to ensure accurate reporting and information in the new system. It should also work with customers and vendors to have them also use the new single material master numbers.

For simplicity the numbering scheme should be a sequential number range with no intelligence, potentially with differing number ranges split by material type. 

Factor	Option 1 - Do not change the legacy material numbers	Option 2 - Create all valid Material Masters with new number ranges	Option 3 Hybrid Numbering Approach
Alignment with project charter - Standardization and Simplification	No standardization and simplification	Aligns with the standardization and simplification principle	Achieves standardization for most materials while maintaining exceptions for qualified products.
Operational Efficiency	No Operational efficiency	Increased operation efficiency e.g. supply chain planning etc..	Standardized material base enables streamlined operations and global planning.
Reporting	In accurate / fragmented reporting	Accurate global reporting e.g. stock etc..	Accurate reporting benefits will be ensured through material cleansing and standardization
Regulatory & Qualification Impact	No renumbering avoids requalification.	Composite Materials may trigger extensive requalification effort	Hybrid approach isolates impact and avoids qualification issues while enabling progress elsewhere.
Change Impact	Low, data must still be migrated	High due to the reasons above mentioned	Focused change for most materials, with minimal impact for Composite Materials GBU.
Integration Impact	Low	One time cleansing or mapping activity in downstream systems	Dual numbering requires more complex migration mapping and processes

See also

Change log

Workflow history