| Status | |
| Owner | Dean Leighton |
| Stakeholders | The persons consulted or otherwise involved in making this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
Issue
The purpose and structure of this Key Decision Document (KDD) for the EAM Mobility solution serves as a comprehensive guide outlining critical decisions, considerations, and recommendations essential to the implementation and management of the Mobility solution. Firstly, the document aims to clarify the rationale behind exploring and evaluating SAP Service and Asset Manager application in comparison to the existing Neptune solution. It highlights the benefits and drawbacks of each solution, including factors such as efficiency, accuracy, safety, and compliance. Secondly, it delineates the structure of the KDD, typically comprising sections like Overview & Background, Design Options & Recommendation, Business Rules, Business & Project Impacts. Each section serves a distinct purpose, ranging from providing background information to outlining recommendations and assessing potential impacts. Overall, the purpose and structure of the KDD ensure clarity, transparency, and accountability throughout the process of adopting and utilising mobile devices for Work Management and execution at Syensqo.
Decision
Optionally supplement with additional details or diagrams if required, else delete this 'Details' section.
Background & Context
The Mobility solution plays a crucial role in the Work Management process, facilitating the effective and efficient management of maintenance activities, including the oversight of material spares. It streamlines work management by providing real-time access to critical data and functionalities, empowering field personnel to efficiently execute maintenance tasks.
Syensqo is in the process of implementing the Neptune Mobile Solution across its global plants. Presently, 46 plants worldwide have successfully adopted and are actively utilizing the Neptune Mobile Solution for their work management processes.
This document aims to compare the Neptune PM Apps with SAP Service and Asset Manager with BlueWorx as EAM (Enterprise Asset Management) mobility solutions as Syensqo transitions from SAP ECC to S/4HANA.
The below high-level requirements have been collated from current mobility functionality, discussion with Symax team representatives and future requirements based on the ERP Rebuild Conceptual design:
- Synchronization
- Online & Offline Capabilities
- Technical Objects (Functional Location & Equipment)
- Notification
- Work Order
- Work Order Operation
- Task Lists
- BOM’s
- Inspection Round & Checklist
- Permit to Work
- Work Execution
- Time Confirmation
- Bar Code Scanning
- Spare Parts
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: Neptune
Neptune PM Apps software sits on Neptune DX Platform Planet 8 module (formerly known as Neptune UX Platform) is an SAP-certified application development platform that sits on top of an existing ABAP system. It enables you to design, build, deploy and maintain SAP Fiori apps in a fraction of the time it takes with other platforms—accelerating the delivery of desktop, mobile and offline solutions.
Option B: SAP Service and Asset Manager
SAP Service and Asset Manager is designed for managing enterprise assets and maintenance activities, forming a key part of SAP's comprehensive suite of asset management solutions. It offers robust functionalities for asset tracking, maintenance planning, work order management, inspection management, safety compliance, and asset performance monitoring.
Maintenance technicians, supervisors, and asset managers use SAP Service and Asset Manager to streamline maintenance workflows, perform asset inspections, execute work orders, and track asset health and performance indicators.
As an SAP solution, it is optimized for seamless integration with S/4HANA, ensuring real-time data synchronization and streamlined workflows between the mobile app and the core ERP system. Furthermore, integration with IoT devices enables real-time monitoring and data collection, enhancing maintenance efficiency and asset performance.
Option C
BlueWorx
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.
