Issue

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:

• Benefits and drawbacks of each solution, including factors such as efficiency, accuracy, safety, and compliance.
• Overview & Background
• Design Options 
• Evaluation
• Recommendation
• Business & Project Impacts

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.

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

Syensqo operates and maintains a diverse number of plants globally, each with different sizes and complexity levels. Maintenance teams are tasked with a wide range of activities to ensure the smooth operation of these plants. The goal is to achieve standardization and simplification across its maintenance processes, enhancing efficiency, reducing downtime, and improving overall operational performance.

The current maintenance system faces challenges in meeting the dynamic and varied needs of different plants, ranging from large, complex operations with extensive maintenance requirements to smaller sites with more straightforward needs. The maintenance activities cover a broad spectrum, including corrective, preventative, emergency, predictive, refurbishment, shutdown, and projects, each with unique demands and complexities.

The organization’s strategic objectives include:

• Standardization: Creating uniform maintenance processes across all plants to ensure consistency, improve compliance, and facilitate easier management and reporting.
• Simplification: Streamlining maintenance operations to reduce complexity, enhance usability, and improve efficiency.
• Efficiency: Optimizing maintenance activities to minimize downtime, reduce costs, and improve asset reliability and performance.
• Flexibility: Ensuring the maintenance process can adapt to the varied needs of different plants and types of maintenance activities.

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 additional constraints that the chosen alternative (i.e. the decision made) might impose on other parts of the overall design, solution, or processes.

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