Issue

This document aims to evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks of copying over custom units of measure (ie no SAP Standard ones) that have been created over time by Qyensqo for use with Supplier integration, Ordering and Invoicing.

Decision

Decide whether to bring over the custom UoMs created for stopping vendor issues at invoicing stage into the S4 Hana System or to start with just the standard ones.

Background & Context

In the past suppliers who did not send in a standard ISO or SAP Unit of Measure on an acknowledgement, or an invoice would get an error at the point of the data being entered (manually or by interface) on SAP.

This means that the transaction has to be checked and the Unit of Measure corrected by the supplier causing delays – or for the UoM to be added to the SAP UoM list as a custom unit and mapped to the existing standard to avoid recurrences.

The ERP Rebuild will mean a switch to SAP standard as a default. This could result in going through the same UoM errors that were found in the past and having to correct the supplier or add the custom UoMs to SAP again.

Alternatively, the custom UoMs that have been used to bypass the issue in ECC could also be ported to S4 HANA (and Ariba) to avoid repeating the same errors.

Assumptions

Not all suppliers adhere to the SAP standard or ISO Units of Measure and will send non standard ones on Acknowledgements or Invoices

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

However, it is important to consider potential drawbacks or challenges associated with adding in custom UoMs

• UoMs and mapping will have to be carried over from the legacy system either manually or by some extraction process.
• There is unlikely to be a standard SAP tool to do this copy over as the assumption with SAP is that the SAP and ISO UoMs are enough
• If custom UoMs are present in the system then they could be used by Syensqo staff when creating transactions and master data, rather than using htem to map suppliers own UoMs to SAP standards. This could cause confusion downstream and so a review of how these are currently handled by the system should be carried out.
• If all suppliers are no longer using non-SAP or non ISO UoMs then this may not be a live issue. Review of UoMs currently received on invoices should be carried out.
• Accepting nonstandard UoMs without proper and complete mapping can cause confusion in standard reports, blocking global analysis.
• There may be legacy data to be transferred that uses these custom UoMs
• UoM mismatches can occur in other streams – eg O2C where customers send in non standard UoMs causing similar issues to procurement.

Business Rules

Any Custom UoM needs to be manually added to the new system and transported through as config. 

Options considered

It would be painful to go through the same UoM errors that Syensqo has already solved by adding in custom UoMs. However, the impact needs to be analysed across the system in order to see how big an issue it is and any downstream or reporting impacts.

Option 1: Do not transfer over the custom UoMs

The organisation simply starts with the standard SAP offering

Advantages:

• No effort required to develop a process to transfer the UoMs
• No issue with non-standard UoMs impacting reports
• No potential confusion due to unexpected downstream use of non-standard UoMs
• Ensures that only standardized data is used in the new system, which can simplify future upgrades and integrations.
• Reduces the long-term maintenance burden as there are fewer custom elements to manage.

Disadvantages:

• May hit the same issues that have already been solved when receiving transactions from suppliers
• May invalidate legacy data that uses custom UoMs – e.g. Supplier Invoices and that would need to be altered
• If plan is only to use SAP standards, then another way of fixing the suppliers who send in non-standard UoMs need to be applied

Option 2: Carry over the custom UoMs As Is

Take over the current custom UoMs as they are, including any mapping

Advantages:

• UoM Problems that are already solved / mapped do not re-occur
• No issue with legacy data that use custom UoMs (if any)

Disadvantages:

• Any pre-existing issues (e.g. in reports due to unexpected UoMs) will also re-occur
• May have an impact on other standard tools or integrations
• Complexity: Increases the complexity of the migration process, potentially leading to more errors and requiring more time and resources.
• Maintenance burden as custom UoMs will need to be supported and managed in the new system.
• Risk of conflicts with standard UoMs and future upgrades or integrations with other systems.

Option 3: Review current situation, size the problem and move any UoMs that are required

Assess how many non standard UoMs are currently being received, volume of legacy data that would carry them and any issues with reports. Bring over any non standard UoM where the impact is such it cannot be avoided.

Advantages:

• Balanced Approach: Combines the benefits of both full migration and non-migration by ensuring critical UoMs are maintained while unnecessary ones are discarded.
• Risk Mitigation: Reduces the risk of data discrepancies and supplier issues by retaining only essential custom UoMs.
• Resource Optimization: Optimizes resource usage by focusing efforts on critical data, making the migration process more efficient. Can review any suppliers that still send in non standard UoMs and see if we can realign on a standard
• Can review any reports that are affected by non standard UoMs or would be affected by a switch back to standard
• Get a company wide view of any UoM issues across other streams to assess impact of stopping custom UoMs

Disadvantages:

• Analysis Effort: Requires additional effort and time to conduct the impact analysis, which can delay the migration process.
• Decision Complexity: Decisions on which UoMs to migrate can be complex and might require significant stakeholder involvement.
• Partial Continuity: Might still lead to some data consistency issues for less frequently used custom UoMs that are not migrated. Will take time to carry out review and contact suppliers

Evaluation

Based on the evaluation of the solution options, it is recommended that the Review approach is used to size and scale the nature of the problem.

To successfully carry out the review approach, the following Requirements should be taken:

• Review of impact of issue: Conduct a thorough analysis of the custom UoMs to understand their usage, importance, and impact on business processes and supplier relationships.

• Stakeholder Consultation: Engage with key users, suppliers and customers(?), to understand their requirements and preferences regarding UoMs.

• Migration Strategy: Based on the impact analysis, decide on a balanced approach that ensures critical custom UoMs are retained while minimizing the overall complexity and maintenance burden.

Review data :

• Check recent PO outputs, GRs and invoices (last 3 years) for any non standard UoMs
• Review legacy data (POs, GRs, Stock, Material Masters, Sales Orders etc) for use of any non standard UoMs
• Check streams for any UoM related issues/inconsistencies with reports due to UoM issues
• Ensure that any custom UoMs not migrated are properly mapped to standard UoMs in historical data to maintain data consistency.

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