| Status | |
| Owner | |
| Stakeholders |
Issue
SAP MII (Manufacturing Integration and Intelligence) will stop being supported by SAP after 2027 (or 2030). There are currently two MII instances used by Syensqo:
- Composite ITAR MII (US), is already 100% managed by Syensqo
- Global MII (based in EU) is currently shared with Solvay, will be cloned
We need to identify a strategy to address this situation. This KDD document presents the possible options and identifies the best proposal, analyzing the implications and impacts under different points of view: Future Proof Solution, Scalability, Best Practice adherence,
Three options are available:
- A) continue running on MII after end of official support, managing internally or via a 3rd party provider the product maintenance and adaptations
- B) substitute MII with SAP BTP connectors, and connect all MES Systems to S4 via BTP connectors
- C) remove MII and directly connect MES systems to SAP S4 via the current StarTek platform.
Recommendation
Option B is the recommended solution: substitute MII with SAP BTP connectors, and connect all MES Systems to S4 via BTP connectors
Background & Context
MII acts as a middle-ware to connect the MES systems with the following data flows (not all of them are relevant for all plants/MES systems):
- process orders from SAP ECC to MES
- production confirmations from MES to SAP ECC
- production goods movements from MES to SAP (consumption and goods receipt)
These process are in place for both WP1 (WPX in case of ITAR relevant sites) and PF1.
There are no cases of direct user interactions with MII: it is used only as a middle-ware between ECC systems and MES systems.
Data Analytics and Reporting Features (KPI, OEE, Data Intelligence, etc) are not used. This is valid for both MII instances.
Assumptions
- MES systems in the affected plants won't change and MES functionalities and implementations in the affected plants will remain stable during the ERP Rebuild project
- other functionalities potentially covered by SAP Digital Manufacturing are not part of this KDD; they are addressed here: https://wiki.syensqo.com/x/-YGMNQ
Constraints
- The MII substitution will synchronize with ERP Rebuild go-lives. The new solution will be available for plants running on the new S4 Platform. These Go-Lives may happen in different waves, therefore MII can continue running between waves on a subset of the current plants.
Impacts
- Conveying the current MII flows via the SAP BTP connectors must be synchronized with the ERP Rebuild go-lives timeline to optimize the effort and avoid temporary solutions that would be wasted in the long run.
- The affected plants and MES systems must be prepared to adhere to the unified communication protocol defined by the Star Tek layer, however, this impact is already addressed by the current Star Tek Roll-Out program.
Business Rules
This is a pure techincal KDD, no business impact.
Options considered
Option A: Keep MII
In this option we ignore the expiry date of MII maintenance and we keep it running for the current plants and MES systems after it.
The Risk related to this option is the need to build up an internal or 3rd party maintenance team to take care of the system after the SAP maintenance expiry. It is also a non-Future Proof and low-scalable solution.
This Option implies very little effort both on S4/HANA side and zero effort on current MES systems, as it keeps all current connectors in place as they are.
Pro’s | Con’s |
Future Proof: this solution is not future-proof, as any new functionality, extension, improvement will require bespoke implementation. | |
| Scalability: the solution will be hardly scalable, as connecting new MES systems and new plants to the current MII instances will require MII skills will become scarce and expensive after the system end of maintenance and dismissal by most of the companies using it. |
Best Practice: The solution is not on SAP Road Map and does not fit in Best Practices | |
Functionalities: current functions are guaranteed | |
Simplicity: minimal changes required, only to make sure current MII connectors with ECC will work with SAP S4/HANA |
|
Maintainability: after the expiry date of MII for SAP Maintenance, an internal or 3rd party team must be engaged to keep the product running and maintained. | |
Effort: minimal project effort, we just need to guarantee that the custom connectors currently used in the MII-ECC landscape will be adapted to S4. |
|
Option B: substitute MII with Digital Manufactring + BTP
Digital Manufacturing does not have all functionalities and connectors we had in the MII system. Despite it is the designated substitute of MII, it requires BTP components to fully substitute MII capabilities as MES-SAP middle-ware.
There is also a potential risk related to current bespoke implementations in MII to be replicated in DM+BTP, for this reason the Project Effort is considered to be medium for this option.
This is the option with the best compliance with the SAP standard and Road Map, however it would add further objects to maintain on top of the current Star Tek Layer.
It would make sense only if the MES systems was substituted by SAP DM. But, as defined in https://wiki.syensqo.com/x/-YGMNQ, all the current MES systems will remain.
Pro’s | Con’s |
Future Proof: this solution is future-proof, as a single vendor landscape with standard connectors and no bespoke interfaces, any new functionality, extension, improvement will be guaranteed by standard SAP. | |
Scalability: the solution is scalable, as connecting new MES systems and new plants to the new DM + SAP BTP layer will be feasible using standard SAP connectors and APIs | |
Best Practice: The solution is on SAP Road Map and fits in Best Practices | |
Functionalities: we can guarantee all current MII functions, via standard BTP connectors and potentially a few enhancements of some of them. | |
Simplicity: this is a full new implementation and requires a detailed analysis of current connectors, how to replicate them and potential impacts on MES systems | |
Maintainability: the std functionalities in SAP DM and the std connectors in SAP BTP will require minimal maintenance effort. | |
Effort: maximum project effort for a full new implementation. |
Option C: Remove MII and directly interface MES systems to the current Star Tek Layer
In this option, we remove MII and we use the Star Tek layer as a middle-ware, to send process/production orders from SAP S4/HANA to MES systems and to collect actual confirmations and production goods movements from MES systems to S4/HANA.
It is the option with the minimal impact, as it leverage the current Star Tek solution implementation effort. It is based on bespoke interfaces, however the scalability and future-proof of the solution are guaranteed by the Star Tek design, that defined a single standard communication protocol for all different MES systems used in Syensqo.
This option requires that the timeline of the current Star Tek roll out program assures that all plants currently served by MII will move to the Star Tek platform before the MII end of maintenance period.
Pro’s | Con’s |
Future Proof: this solution is considered good from a future-proof, as any new functionality, extension, improvement will be guaranteed by the standardization introduced by the Star Tek Layer. However, is slightly less valuable than option B. | |
Scalability: the solution is scalable, as connecting new MES systems and new plants to the new DM + SAP BTP layer will be feasible using the standard protocols defined by the Star Tek layer | |
Best Practice: The solution is not on SAP Road Map and does not fit SAP Best Practices | |
Functionalities: Star Tek is already in place and connecting several MES systems in different plants, all its functionalities are guaranteed by this approach. | |
Simplicity: no changes required, simply the current Star Tek Roll Out program goes on while the ERP Rebuild project must guarantee the compatibility of the current ECC-Star Tek connections with the new S4/HANA - Star Tek landscape. | |
Maintainability: the std functionalities in SAP DM and the std connectors in SAP BTP will require minimal maintenance effort, while custom connectors may cause an increase of it | |
Effort: minimal project effort as Star Tek roll outs are already foreseen and adaptation of current Star Tek - ECC interfaces to S4 HANA is a pure technical porting (CCM - Custom Code Migration) |
Evaluation
The following Matrix illustrates the evaluation of each option under the considered criteria:
Criteria | Weight | Option A Keep MII | Option B substitute MII with Digital Manufacturing + BTP | Option C Remove MII and use Star Tek layer |
| Future Proof | VH | Very Low | Very High | High |
| Scalability | H | Low | Very High | Very High |
| Best Practice | M | Very Low | Very High | Low |
| Functionalities | VH | Very High | Very High | Very High |
| Simplicity | H | Very High | Low | Very High |
| Maintainability | VH | Very Low | Very High | High |
| Reduce Project Effort | VH | Very High | Very Low | Very High |
Total | Medium | Medium/High | High |