Issue

This KDD document identifies the main material inspection processes that will be in scope of the QM stream of ERP Rebuld project.

These are the processes currently running in Syensqo WP1 and PF1 systems, as identified in the AS-IS analysis:

• Inspection at Purchasing Goods Receipt (01)
• In Process Production Inspection (03)
• Inspection at Production Goods Receipt (04)
• Inspection at Other Goods Receipt (05)
• Inspection at Customer Returns (06)
• Inspection at Stock Transfer (08)
• Recurring Inspection (09)
• Outbound Inspection (10-11-12)
• Manual non-stock-based inspection (89)

All these inspection types are used in combination with inspection plans.

We identify the opportunities to introduce:

• Inspection for Asset maintenance and calibration (14)
• Sample Inspection (15)
• Usage of Material Specification instead of / in combination with Inspection Plans

Recommendation

Option A is the recommended one: introduce in scope of the project inspection types 14 and 15 and allow the usage of Material Specification.

Background & Context

The two systems PF1 and WP1 have a very similar QM model, based on custom inspection types which are copies of the original standard types. 

Material inspection is largely used in SAP ECC, in some cases in combination with Labware and WEBLIMS, in other cases with a full E2E process in SAP.

The QM Material Inspection is a crucial part of the traceability and Quality Assurance process in Syensqo and involves all steps of the process: Inbound, Production, Outbound, Stock Management.

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

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Option B: Option Title

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Option C: Option Title

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Option D: Option Title

Describe 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