Issue

The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the two Product cost valuation approaches currently utilized in Syensqo: the revaluation on actuals with the use of the Material Ledger and the Semi-standard approach. This evaluation aims to determine the most suitable approach to implement in the S4 system, based on a collaborative assessment by business and IT stakeholders.

Decision

Optionally supplement with additional details or diagrams if required, else delete this 'Details' section.

Background & Context

We currently have two systems with two different valuation approaches and ways of working. These differences stem from mergers and acquisitions (M&As), where the acquired organizations used different valuation methodologies. Additionally, there were fiscal requirements that necessitated deviations from standard operating procedures. In this document, the two approaches are referred to as follows:

• • Re-valuation on actuals with Material ledger for PF1
  • Semi-standard for WP1

Assumptions

• Currently we have two different approaches for assigning company codes to controlling areas in the two systems. These are, 
• PF1: single controlling area 
• WP1: Four controlling areas by Region (Europe, APAC, North America, South America) + one for Financial companies, total five controlling areas
• In S4 we anticipate having a uniform enterprise structure. Especially on lower controlling objects like cost centers, profit centers, segments etc
• In S4 we will have a single costing approach for all Legal entities. Local deviations are expected due to local fiscal requirements.
• The product cost system will be S4
• The implications of Universal Parallel Accounting, whether positive or negative, on the valuation question are not considered in this KDD. There will be another KDD to address Universal Parallel Accounting's new features and their overall implications for product costing.
• Manufacturing is using Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) as well as planning systems, specifically Dynasys, and in the future, Kinaxis. MES and in some instances spreadsheets and manual input feeds SAP processes and production orders with confirmations and consumptions. 
• Currently, in PF1 the confirmation is on std quantities and hour
• Currently, In WP1, some plants confirm actual quantities and hours, while others do not.
• Std prices are calculated in both systems
• Activity prices are entered manually. Although in WP1, there is an activity calculation process, the capacities are loaded manually. Please see below on the additional information sections  

Constraints

• In S4 material ledger is mandatory. but his does not imply that actual cost is mandatory.
• If the transfer price functionality is implemented then actual costing has to be activated. Transfer price functionality is addressed to a separate KDD with the same title.

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

Option A: Option Title

Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Revaluation on actuals with Material Ledger (PF1)

The Material Ledger consists of two main functionalities: actual costing and parallel valuation. A common misconception about the Material Ledger is that it refers solely to actual costing because actual costing tends to get the most attention. Therefore, when hearing the term “Material Ledger,” many immediately think of actual costing, not parallel valuation. Conversely, when the actual costing functionality is mentioned, it’s usually referred to generically as a “Material Ledger functionality.”  Furthermore, the Material Ledger falls within the CO menu, but it has as much impact on the FI module as it does in the CO module because of its impact on the inventory transactions that are posted to the general ledger

Actual costing generates a Material Ledger document and valuates all goods movements within a period at the standard price (preliminary valuation). At the end of the period, you calculate the actual price for each material based on the actual costs of the period. You call this actual price the periodic unit price, and you can use it to revaluate the inventory and COGS (and other consumptions) for the period you are closing. In addition, you can use this actual price as the standard price for the next period.

The revaluation on Actuals with Material Ledger makes it possible to use an actual cost system in addition to the standard cost system, because the values of the standard cost cannot be readjusted during a subsequent allocation. The Revaluation on actuals program with ML creates postings to the general ledger and relevant cost objects.

Option B: Semi standard

The semi-standard approach emphasizes the importance of accurately calculating and allocating costs in a manufacturing environment. It distinguishes between fixed and variable costs and ensures proper accounting and variance tracking to maintain cost efficiency and accuracy. The semi-standard costing method is highlighted as a key practice for effective cost management.

Raw materials, trading goods, semi-finished and finished products, and packaging are controlled under Price Control S (standard price), while spare parts use Price Control V (moving average price). In SAP, the Moving Average Price (MAP) is calculated regardless of the material's price control designation. If a material is under Price Control S (standard cost), the MAP serves only as statistical information. The MAP is calculated at every goods receipt by considering the quantities and values in stock along with the quantities and purchase price of the goods receipt (GR). If the invoice does not match the quantities and values of the GR, the variances are also considered in the MAP, provided there are stocks available at the time of invoice verification. 

Exceptionally, in Brazil and Korea, raw materials are valued at the moving average price (Price Control V) due to tax authorities' requirements. Strategic raw materials can have their prices entered manually if the MAP is not adequate for calculating the semi-standard cost of the period.

A new standard price is recalculated monthly for raw materials, packaging, semi-finished products, finished products, and trading goods. This recalculated price is then released, revaluating the inventory accordingly.

The strategy sequence used in the semi-standard approach (WP1) is as follows:

- Commercial price

- MAP (Moving Average Price) plus any additive cost

- Purchase price (info-record)

- Standard price

This valuation strategy ensures that with the new standard price calculation, the Moving Average Price becomes the standard price for raw materials, trading goods, and packaging. Using the cost roll-up method, these new standard prices for the Bill of Materials (BOM) components will roll over multiple production levels all the way to the Semi Finished and finished products.

In summary, the semi-standard approach is also a "revaluation on actuals" process with notable similarities and differences, which are summarised below.

1. Similarities and differences 

The two methods might sound different but are quite similar. ML Actual valuation allocates cost variances from lower levels of production to higher levels, whether these variances come from purchasing or production. Similarly, the semi-standard approach does the same but instead of allocating variances, it recalculating the standard prices by using the moving average price.

One major difference between the two approaches is that the ML approach revaluates not only the inventory but the COGS and other consumptions, as well.

Broad Similarities and differences:

There are some important similarities and differences between the two approaches that we need to look at closely. The similarities are not about the system used (which is SAP in both cases) but more about the accounting and management aspects. On the other hand, there are also some key differences between the two approaches. Below, we will list these differences and similarities and see what can stay the same regardless of the final choice. By doing this, we want to show that even though there are differences in how things are done, the accounting and management results are not significantly affected.

Option C: Option Title

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	Pro Con	Pro Pro	Pro Con	Pro Con
Criterion 2	Pro Con	Con	Pro Pro	Con 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.

Change log

Workflow history