| Status | |
| Owner | Anjali Upadhyay |
| Stakeholders | The persons consulted or otherwise involved in making this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
Issue
Currently, there are multiple applications to manage Sysenqo's portfolio of projects. In principle, all these applications ( COLMAR, WEGO, BIARRITZ, WAVE) provide the ability to manage the lifecycle of a project from idea stage to its closure. However, these systems do not automatically integrate with the financial ERP systems to get the complete monitoring and tracking of projects. Some of these applications (such as COLMAR) are at the end of their life and require improvements and upgrades. Existence of multiple applications pose following challenges in overall Portfolio and Project Management
- No single source of truth
- Inconsistent reporting
- Manual and disintegrated processes
- No audit trail
Recommendation
Based on the detailed analysis of evaluation criteria for efficient Portfolio and Project management, Option A - SAP S/4Hana EPPM (Enterprise Portfolio and Project Management) is recommended
Background & Context
Syensqo’s project portfolio is largely comprised of the Capex related projects. Capex management is detailed in the CAPEX 01 procedure based on the project classification (Current, Medium, Major and Major > 50 M€). The Group Investment Committee provides the ELT with recommendations for approval of major projects (> 7M€) but some approvals and challenges are nevertheless mandatory for projects < 7M€. Capex01 procedure defines the process and guidelines for prioritizing and ranking the Capital projects based on the investment reasons that are aligned with the Group and GBU strategic objectives and envelops.
Small projects can be managed (for realization) by GBU/Sites without the help of the GEC (Group Engineering and Construction) but it is not systematic.
OPEX are not managed by projects and OPEX costs are booked to specific cost centers
GBUs use different application to manage their own portfolio and project lifecycle. There is no strict mandate to manage all projects in single application/system. Below are the portfolio and project management applications in Syensqo.
| Application |
| Features/ Functionalities | Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| COLMAR | Group and GBUs (inconsistently) |
|
|
| Accolade (WEGO) | R&I |
|
|
| Accolade (BIARRITZ) | IT |
|
|
| WAVE | Manufacturing Excellence |
|
|
It is evident from above analysis that there is a lack of standardized and integrated Portfolio and Project management tool in Syensqo. This KDD intends to evaluate an integrated and consistent tool for the management of the portfolio of projects.
Assumptions
Syensqo's objective is to apply a core and common procedure across all GBUs for managing portfolio of projects. It is assumed that all financial and non financial information resides in SAP S/4Hana for seamless integration and informed decision making process for prioritization, ranking and budget allocation of projects across all GBUs.
Constraints
No constraints identified in this phase
Impacts
Implementation of SAP S/4Hana EPPM as following impacts
- Requires separate license to use EPPM
- Requires integration with other SAP modules such as Finance (FI), Procurement (MM), Human resources (HR), Enterprise Asset management (EAM), Reporting systems, Budgeting and planning
- Requires consolidation of data from various applications for consolidated portfolio management
- Other projects - There are other projects to upgrade the existing applications ( such as COLMAR) will be impacted by this decision. Timelines need to be assessed
- Requires change management to get business buy in for adoption of core and common solution across the board.
Business Rules
Existing business rules and procedure such as Phase/gates and CAPEX01 procedure and guidelines can be adopted in implementation of SAP EPPM. Further details will be analyzed in detailed design phase.
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.
