| Status | |
| Owner | |
| Stakeholders | The persons consulted or otherwise involved in making this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
This Key Decision Document (KDD) serves as a comprehensive guide outlining the decisions, considerations, and recommendations essential for the implementation and management of maintenance processes at Syensqo. The document aims to clarify the rationale behind evaluating whether to process maintenance orders using a phase-based approach, determined by predefined order types (Reactive Maintenance and Proactive Maintenance), versus Standard Maintenance Processing across Syensqo plants.
Key areas covered in this document include:
The purpose and structure of the KDD ensure clarity, transparency, and accountability throughout the process of adopting and utilizing the chosen maintenance approach within Syensqo.
Summarise the recommendation being made for the reader, leaving the pro/con evaluation and exact decision-making process to the subsequent sections.
Syensqo operates diverse plants, ranging from large and complex to small with minimal maintenance staff.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
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 |
|
|
| |
| Criterion 3 |
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.
