Issue

Succinctly describe the issue or problem statement that this Decision addresses. Why is a decision required? What business or technical problem does it address?

Syensqo is currently operating in a multi-system SAP landscape which is the result of acquisitions of organizations with separate SAP systems and legacy decisions to keep separate SAP systems for confidentiality reasons (e.g. WPX for classified information of materials used in the defense industry, PI1 to ring-fence access to data and transactions pertaining to in-house banking). This has lead to disparities between the two systems in terms of Finance master data in use across the various systems, most notably on key master data objects such as Chart of Accounts or Cost Centres and Profit Centres.

With a move to a single SAP system, opportunities arise to harmonize master data from the various systems and define new master data frameworks and associated governance rules to ensure that all master data objects follow a single design and purpose in the new system with the goal of increasing transparency, efficiency and accountability across the organization.

Recommendation

Summarise the recommendation being made for the reader, leaving the pro/con evaluation and exact decision-making process to the subsequent sections.

Background & Context

Explain the context in which the decision is being made.

Multiple Finance master data objects do not follow a consistent and unique master data governance design and approach across the organization due to its diverse system landscape which has grown over time from acquisition activities as well as special requirements with regards to data confidentiality. As part of the transition to S/4 as a single system of records, the following master data objects have been identified as potential candidates for further rationalisation and simplification:

1.) Chart of Accounts:

A single operational Chart of Accounts resembling the consolidated group Chart of Accounts which can be used across all Syensqo entities globally brings about benefits such as

• Reduction in Reconciliation Efforts:

2.) Profit Centres and Profit Centre Hierarchies:

3.) Cost Centres and Cost Centre Hierarchies:

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 constraints or limitations inherent to the recommended option. This could be aspects which, if changed or removed in future, could cause the decision to be revisited or invalidated. For example, a constraint might be that a new product has significant gaps in important functionality, which caused an older alternative to be recommended. If those gaps are closed in future, this might cause the decision to be invalidated.

Impacts

Describe the impact of the decision on other aspects such as other 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