Issue

Currently Syensqo has multiple SAP systems (WPX, WP1 and PF1) and a single real-world material can be on different systems with a different Material Master number in each. As part of moving to a single new system and the associated data cleanse, a single system needs to align the material (and other transactional legacy data) so the same real-world material has the same number in the new system.

Recommendation

To remove/change the material master numbers across the system and align them so that the same material has the same number and is easily identifiable globally.

Background & Context

Historically Syensqo has let plants maintain their own Material Master data across three different systems. This means that while Syensqo may use the same real-world physical materials across the world, a single materials may have been created under different material master numbers in each system.

This makes it hard to get a global view of the usage and availability of the same material. In addition, implementing S4 HANA as a single entity means that the same real-world materials which had different numbers in the old systems now have to be aligned to the same number in the new system.

This will have an impact on the data migration of master and transaction data to the new system and will have a change management impact on the users who will have to use a different material number for old materials. The materials in each system will need to be compared to find genuine same Real-world materials and any legacy transaction data using these materials will need to be updated with the new single material number.

This change may also cause confusion if, as expected WPX remains as a separate system. A pre-existing material is likely to have its number changed to the new standard even though the users may perceive WPX as still being a separate system.

We can copy over all the material numbers as is along with legacy data

We can copy over all materials that only exist in one system as is - and use new numbers forany shared item

We can copy over all materials that only exist in one system as is - and use one system (WP1 or PF1) as the master for the shared numbers 

We can create new numnbers for all materials and carry over the legacy numbers for any/all systems for the new material records

Assumptions

• The same physical material does actually get used by the different systems
• It is feasible to identify where the same physical materials are represented differently in the systems even when the descriptions or other factors may not be identical

Constraints

Changes to the numbering will have impacts across many parts of the system and these need to be considered when reviewing the options.

Impacts

Legacy Data – Transactions

If we bring across legacy data from the WP1, PF1 and WPX systems then it will hold the old differing material numbers. If we do not amend the legacy data to include the new single numbering approach, then it will be invalid. Any changes will need to be applied to the legacy data.

Legacy Data – Master data

Any contracts or other master data will need to be replaced with the new material number – which for things like contracts could result in multiple contracts in the old system, with different pricing and conditions having to be aligned to a single standard.

The same applies to material master information at the Material wide level. E.g. Classification. If a material in one system mandates batches but in another system, it does not then one standard will have to be agreed on and the system aligned.

Legacy Data – Other Systems/distributed data (e.g. Ariba and Catalogs)

A new installation of Ariba could be uploaded with the new material standard without much impact. But the 400 or so Catalogs  (External and static) would need to be checked for any legacy material numbers and have these updated. Most catalog items are used to Indirect Spend and do not use Material Masters but there is the possibility that some exist and so these should be confirmed and updated.

Legacy Data – Interfaces

Any EDI Interfaces using material numbers and therefor potential mapping to customer’s or vendor’s own material numbers will need to be investigated and re-mapped.

Legacy Data – Stock Levels, Material Pricing

When aligning three material masters, their legacy stock levels and their material pricing will all need to be consolidated into a single set of stock levels and a single valuation approach. This will be a significant change from a finance point of view and will have an impact on the corporate balance sheet. Therefor this part of the migration/unification will need to be done carefully and in close coordination with Finance.

Legacy Data – 3^rd parties (Vendors and Customers)

If we change the material numbers that we order for we will need to update this with the vendors and customers or facilitate a mapping that lets them continue to use the old numbers. Mapping to the old numbers would be tricky as each new material numnber cold have up to three different old numbers and so it would be a vendor or customer specific number that would need to be mapped to.

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 1 – Do not change the legacy material numbers – have each material replicated even if they we now have multiple versions of the same material on the new system

Advantages:

• No work required to map the materials to their new number
• No impact on legacy data
• No impact on vendors and customers as material numbers don’t change

Disadvantages:

• No global view of material data
• Duplication of material masters
• Confusing and inconsistent reporting

Option 2 – Change the legacy numbers but not the legacy transaction data, create mapping for the vendors and customers to let them keep using the old numbers.

Advantages:

• No effort to update and map the legacy data
• No change for the vendors and customers

Disadvantages:

• Legacy data will be inconsistent and possibly unusable
• Reports using historical data will not be compatible with the new report data
• Need to create a vendor/customer mapping of the old to new material numbers

Option 3 – Change the legacy numbers and the legacy transaction data and work with vendors and customers to use the new material numbers.

Advantages:

• Fully consistent data and reporting. Global view of availability and usage
• No need to build custom mapping for customers and suppliers

Disadvantages:

• Considerable effort to remap and test the legacy data
• Vendors and Customers will need to adapt to new system and so may result in errors or confusion

Evaluation

Based on the evaluation of the options, it is recommended that Syensqo should aim to align the material master numbering to a single standard in the new system and also align the master and transactional data brought across to the new standard to ensure accurate reporting and information in the new system. It should also work with customers and vendors to have them also use the new single material master numbers.

Next Steps

• Work with the business to identify true real-world materials with multiple numbers across the system
• Work with data team to determine the amount of effort required to re0align any legacy master and transaction data to this new standard

See also

Change log

Workflow history