| Status | |
| Owner | The person responsible for driving this decision and documenting it. Type @ to mention people by name |
| Stakeholders | The persons consulted or otherwise involved in making this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
Issue
The purpose of this document is to provide an assessment of the two valuation approaches that we have currently in Syensqo. These are, the revaluation on actuals with the use of the Material ledger and the so-called semi-standard approach. The objective is to collectively, business and IT, assess what will be the approach that will be implemented in the S4 in relation to the above.
This document explores in detail the product cost approach and the integration with the manufacturing.
Decision
Optionally supplement with additional details or diagrams if required, else delete this 'Details' section.
Background & Context
Explain the context in which the decision is being made.
Assumptions
Clearly describe the underlying assumptions which informed or limited the choices available, or impacted the decision: cost, schedule, regulatory requirements, business drivers, country footprint, technology, etc. Include links as necessary. This section is important because a future change in circumstances might invalidate some key assumptions, which then prompts a decision to be revisited.
Constraints
Capture any additional constraints that the chosen alternative (i.e. the decision made) might impose on other parts of the overall design, solution, or processes.
Impacts
Describe the impact of the decision on processes, infrastructure, other SAP modules or systems, data cleansing and migration, developments, automations, interfaces, in-flight projects, etc.
Business Rules
The decision may translate into business rules which enforce the decision and will require configuration. List these business rules here. For example, "An Outline Agreement cannot be created via the RFQ process. An awarded RFQ can only result in a Purchase Order".
Options considered
List the options (viable options or alternatives) you considered. These often require a longer explanation with diagrams, or references to other documents (links are best, but attachments are also possible). Use enough detail to adequately explain what you considered so that a project or business stakeholder reviewing this decision will not come back and ask "did you think about...?"; this leads to loss of credibility and questioning of other decisions. This section also helps ensure that you considered enough suitable alternatives rather than just copy/pasting SAP's recommendations.
Option A: Option Title
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Option B: Option Title
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Option C: Option Title
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Option D: Option Title
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Evaluation
Outline why you selected a position. The best format could be a pro/con table (sample below), but is up to you as the author. You must consider complexity, feasibility, cost/effort to implement, but also ongoing operational impact and cost. You must consider the program principles and explain any deviations in detail. This is probably as important as the decision itself.
Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion 1 |
|
|
|
|
| Criterion 2 |
|  Con |
|
|
| Criterion 3 |  Pro | Con | Con | Pro |
See also
Insert links and references to other documents which are relevant when trying to understand this decision and its implications. Other decisions are often impacted, so it's good to list them here with links. Attachments are also possible but dangerous as they are static documents and not updated by their authors.
