Issue

Syensqo has a legal obligation to create and exchange e-invoices with many global regulatory authorities. Additionally responses are often required back to confirm they have been correctly submitted. Without this information goods cannot be sold in these jurisdictions and fines can be imposed.

Recommendation

Use the S/4 functionality and integration provided in the ‘Document & Report Compliance’ toolset (DRC). This will provide the most robust, compliant, auditable and scalable solution for Syensqo whilst maximising ease of use.

Background & Context

Currently, e-invoice exchanges with the regulatory authorities are required when selling goods and services to the countries below - an e-invoice is sent to the authority and often a message is sent back to confirm the approval. Approximate invoice quantities shown below:

The number of countries that require this reporting is expected to rise each year - for example, all EU countries by 2028.

Even though there are similarities between the formats required they can differ substantially by each country. For example, Brazil has a different submission required depending upon the type of good or service sold.

Therefore Syensqo needs an efficient, robust and reliable method to send and receive the legally required sales invoice information.

Assumptions

Specific licence costs still need to be established with SAP - need to ensure future invoice volumes included in this estimation.

SAP S4/HANA will be the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) application that will enable the management and execution of the sales through to billing processes.

SAP keeps up the maintenance of the DRC to be compliant with the differing requirements of each country.

Constraints

The e-reporting tools chosen to support Finance and Procurement - there is also similar functionality required for tax and inbound invoice government submission / reporting - therefore this KDD should be considered as part of an overall e-documentation approach. (KDDs from Procurement & Finance to come)

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: 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	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