| Status | |
| Owner | Antonio Zappone |
| Stakeholders |
Issue
A key decision is required on when to deploy the new Consolidation tool. Along with a multiphase ERP implementation comes options on when to deploy, whether in Phase 1, 2 or X.
Recommendation
The new Consolidation Tool to be deployed in the later Phase. The exact phase will be concluded when the Deployment Approach is finalised (estimated to be August 2024).
Background & Context
BFC (Business Objects Financial Consolidation) is the current consolidations tool. This is an SAP system however it is not fully integrated with the SAP ERPs, rather data is loaded from the source SAP ECCs. Data loads are via flat files that are produced with automation tools (RPA).
SAP is phasing out BFC and support will cease in 2030 (extended from 2027).
As-Is Systems Integration for Consolidations
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.
Deployment:
- S/4HANA will be Deployed over more than one Phase.
Tools:
- Group Reporting is the current/latest SAP tool for consolidation processes, and is on the SAP Roadmap for the future.
- With the Syensqo consolidations tool implementation occurring in a later Phase of the deployment comes additional time in the detailed design phase. The final decision on the Consolidation tool will not be made at this stage, and is not a key decision of this document.
- Simplification and synergies can be gained utilizing a fully integrated SAP Module, and it is assumed Group Reporting will be utilized unless there are major gaps in the business requirements.
Risk.
- Syensqo's financial statements are produced from the Consolidations tool. A risk resides in presenting inaccurate numbers. A key evaluation criteria will relate to the deployment approach which lowers this risk.
Constraints
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.
BFC product support by SAP ends in 2030. It is assumed Consolidation will be deployed prior to this date.
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.
Below are the major impacts on the decision are on the following:
Integration impacts: Interfacing or data loading into the consolidation system. There is an impact whether data is flowing into BFC or new Consolidation tool.
- Aligned with the deployment decision, loading data packages into BFC from the source system, being PF1, WP1, or S4HANA, will continue.
Data Conversion:Timing and complexity of data conversion.
- Aligned with the deployment decision, historical data loads will occur in the later phase. Conversion will be a one off activity upon deployment.
Reporting: Reports currently being produced from BFC.
- Aligned with the deployment decision, existing Reports will continue to be produced from BFC until the new Consolidation tool is implemented in the later phase.
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".
- Existing BFC Rules will continue.
- S/4HANA business rules relevant at this point in time will be largely governed by the Enterprise Structure Definition. More specific Consolidation Rules will come in detailed design.
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: Deferred Deployment
Continue with BFC in the initial phases and deploy the new Consolidation tool in the later Phase
Orange Box and Arrows are new / added, the rest remains as is.
Key Points:
- System: BFC will stay in place until the last phase of the deployment.
- IC Eliminations: All existing intercompany elimination, reporting and reconciliation processes remain.
- Reporting: Existing Reports will continue from BFC.
- Existing ECC entities: will continue to integrate with BFC in the same manner.
- Entities transitioning to S4HANA: will transfer data in the same manner as the ECC system entities. Data load output templates will remain largely the same, the data to fill the template will come from S4HANA. Mapping of data will be required and tested.
Option B: Upfront Deployment
Implement the new Consolidation Tool and discontinue BFC in Phase 1 of the Deployment.
Orange text Boxes show what will change with an upfront deployment.
Key Points:
- System: BFC will be replaced by the new consolidation tool in the initial Deployment Phase.
- Intercompany Eliminations: All existing intercompany elimination will be designed and build in the new tool. Existing ECC entities will need to adopt the new rules.
- Reporting: Reports from BFC will need to be replaced with new S4HANA equivalents.
- Existing ECC entities: will need to load data into the new consolidation tool, new templates and processes need to be developed. Additional training also required for the interim.
- Entities transition to S4HANA: Data from S4HANA will automatically be consumed by the new Consolidation tool.
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.
| Criteria | Option A - Defer Deployment | Option B - Upfront Deployment |
|---|---|---|
Risk | Pro Low Risk. Existing tool continued to be utilized. Loading from the existing source system not initially transferring to S4HANA will continue as is. Data from the entities transitioning to S4HANA will follow the same\existing approach to load into BFC. | Con Higher Risk approach with high likelihood of business disruption for the initial closing periods. |
Stabilization at Deployment | Pro Most of the new processes\modules have an impact on the Consolidated result. Allowing time for the initial phase\s to stabilise will result in more accurate data being automatically consumed by Consolidation, and leading to more accurate financials. | Con Most of the new processes\modules have an impact on the Consolidated result. Upfront deployment will have higher probability on process and data issues from integrated process feeding into the final consolidated figures. |
Simplicity | Pro Data Loads: Existing Data load process to continue for ECC entities that transition in later phase/s. Consolidation & Intercompany Elimination: rules to remain and continue for the transition period. Reporting: will continue for both ECC and S4HANA Entities Con Data Loads: Data loads for tranisitioning entities to be developed, but to follow existing processes | Con Data Loads: New Process will need to be developed to integrate data from the ECC systems into the new Consolidations Tool. Consolidation & Intercompany Elimination: Consolidation & Elimination rules to be developed for ECC systems during the transition period. Reporting: New Reports will need to be built in phase 1. The above mentioned will require addition training for the transition period. |
Data Conversion Ease | Pro Easier data conversation taking the historical data at one point in time. A later deployment allows more time to manage\test\rehearse the historical data conversion. | Con Data conversion required earlier. Less opportunity to test, rehearse, run in parallel. |
Testing - Additional Parallel Testing Option | Pro Allows the possibility of more robust parallel testing utilising actual data. Parallel testing entails testing consolidated results in the new system against the like for like results in BFC. This is relevant for the base consolidation as well as reports. | Con Parallel Testing is not an Option, continue with Conventional Testing (Eg. Unit, Integration & User Acceptance Testing) |
| Benefits Realisation | Con Benefits from the new Consolidation Tool to be realised at a later stage. | Pro Benefits (eg. integrated data, streamlined processes) from the new Consolidation Tool to be realised earlier. |
| Criteria | Weighting | Option A Deferred Deployment | Option B Upfront Deployment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk | VH | Low | High |
| Stabilization at Deployment | H | Medium | Low |
| Simplicity | H | High | Low |
| Data Conversion Ease | H | Medium | Low |
| Testing - Additional Parallel Testing Option | M | High | Low |
| Benefits Realisation | H | Low | High |
| Overall Rating | High | Low |
Preferred Option
Option A - Deferred Deployment is the recommended approach.
Option A is a lower risk option for reporting financial results for the organisation, along with an easier transition period. Although the benefits coming from the new Consolidation system are deferred, they will still be realised, albeit at later date.
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.
