Status
Owner	VAN OS-ext, Nico
Stakeholders	Najaite Nidboufker

Issue

BluJay is the legacy TMS system in North America (NA). This system caters multiple modes of Transport. As with the ERP Rebuild Hub project SAP TM is introduced, it is only logical to evaluate what should happen with a TMS system as BluJay: Replace or Integrate.

This question has reached higher urgency, because CLX (an important transportation provider) has decided to no longer support the current BluJay version (previously called Kewill Transport). CLX would like Syensqo to migrate to system TM Shippers instead.

The deadline for this transition is beginning of 2026.

The expectation is that the TM Shippers transition is a 5-6 month project and some of high level activities required are listed below:

Business requirements to be accounted for.
Thorough TMS configuration.
Establish super users and Training.
New integration between SAP and TM Shippers.
Carriers to be transferred over...

Recommendation

If Syensqo would like to avoid having a second and standalone TMS system for NA, it would require doing a proper analysis of NA’s detail requirements. Based on these requirements, a fit-gap analysis needs to be done to have an understanding of what effort would be required to deliver these requirement.

A POC for certain requirements could be helpful to take away worries about the maturity of SAP TM. Or this could confirm that TM Shipper (next version of BluJay) is the correct solution.

Requesting CLX to support the current BluJay solution for a longer period of time would be helpful, especially if this scope becomes part of ERP Rebuild Hub project.

Background & Context

Introduction of SAP Transportation Management

ERP Rebuild Hub is foremost intended to replace the existing two SAP systems. With the introduction of the latest SAP version (S/4 HANA) , the module SAP Transportation Management (TM) is part of the business suite.

SAP TM is developed as a global solution for managing transportation. Both for LSP businesses as well as shippers. Initially as a standalone system, but later it was integrated with S/4 HANA.
The objective is to have full TMS capability including the functions of;

Order Management
Transportation Planning, Manual / Automated, Load Optimization, Routing, Resource Planning
Carrier Selection, Tendering, Order Integration
Track & Trace, GTS integration, Transportation Documents
Freight Charges Calculation, Freight Agreement Maintenance

North America Specifics

The region of North America is the most complex region for transportation to comply with local regulations and industry standards. Some of the requirements that are specific to North America (mainly for USA) are:

Advance notice to customs prior to import to USA
Specific bill of lading requirements
Many small trucking companies
Specific charge calculation requirements like Rule-11 and many Accessorial Charges.

Integrate vs Replace

When trying to consider to integrate or replace with the local TMS solution, the following consideration can be made:

Integrate

Replace

By utilising the existing TMS solutions and replicating the the existing interfaces there are benefits that need to be considered:

A TMS system is often integrated with several carriers. Retaining the system means there is no effort required to rebuild these interfaces.
The business will be familiar with the system. Limitations are known and users known on how to deal with these limitations.
There are many functions within an TMS system and replacing an existing system has significant scope, budget and timeline consequences.
With introducing a new system there is always a risk that the new system does not meet business expectations and important requirements are not being met.
With replacing the core SAP system this risk can be reduced by keeping an existing TMS system in place. Replacing can always still be on the road map.

When a new system is being implemented with same or similar functionality then considering replacement of an existing makes sense because of following considerations:

Two systems and paying two licences for systems that can do the same does might not be desirable.
Building interfaces between systems that are likely to be migrated can be money and effort wasted?
Having all functions in one system has many advantages for related documents and access to data.

Implication of transition to TM Shippers

As imposed by CLX, Syensqo needs to transition to a new TMS system by end of 2025. The expectation is that the TM Shippers transition is a 5-6 month project.

Based on this information the following options could be explored:

Postpone the transition until ERP Rebuild Hub is completed
It needs to be investigated that SAP TM can cover the requirements of a North America TMS system. CLX needs to be requested to support BluJay until go-live of ERP Rebuild Hub.
Replace BluJay with an early go-live version of SAP TMS
SAP TM to be set up to cover North America requirements. For the first period the system works as a sidecar where the system is integrated with WP1 and PF1. Once ERP Rebuild Hub is completed the TMS system can continue to operate as an embedded system.
TM Shippers to replace BluJay and ERP Rebuild Hub will be integrated with TM Shippers
If TM Shippers is a better TMS solution than SAP TM, it can well be decided to have ERP Rebuild Hub integrated with TM Shippers and keep these systems operating for North America.
TM Shippers could be a temporary solution, replacing TM Shippers with SAP TM to be put on the roadmap
This approach will keep options open. There is no danger of CLX no longer supporting the NA TMS solution. NA has control of their TMS processes. During or after the ERP Rebuild Hub project it can still be decided to replace TM Shippers solution.

Assumptions

n/a

Constraints

n/a

Impacts

Replacement of current or new TMS solution will impact the scope significantly and is not to be underestimated. Transportation processes are complicated and are often underestimated in effort required.
Replacing a complicated solution will increase the chances of a failed implementation. It should be part of the consideration to estimate these risks to determine if this is worth it for Syensqo.

Business Rules

n/a

Options considered

Postpone the transition until ERP Rebuild Hub is completed
It needs to be investigated that SAP TM can cover the requirements of a North America TMS system. CLX needs to be requested to support BluJay until go-live of ERP Rebuild Hub.
Replace BluJay with an early go-live version of SAP TMS
SAP TM to be set up to cover North America requirements. For the first period the system works as a sidecar where the system is integrated with WP1 and PF1. Once ERP Rebuild Hub is completed the TMS system can continue to operate as an embedded system.
TM Shippers to replace BluJay and ERP Rebuild Hub will be integrated with TM Shippers
If TM Shippers is a better TMS solution than SAP TM, it can well be decided to have ERP Rebuild Hub integrated with TM Shippers and keep these systems operating for North America.
TM Shippers could be a temporary solution, replacing TM Shippers with SAP TM to be put on the roadmap
This approach will keep options open. There is no danger of CLX no longer supporting the NA TMS solution. NA has control of their TMS processes. During or after the ERP Rebuild Hub project it can still be decided to replace TM Shippers solution

Evaluation

As consultant we would like to guide Syensqo to choose the correct future landscape. With the timeline for BluJay this is an extra complication. Support from management is required to make the decision making process possible. If there is a strong preference to implement TM Shipper, then ERP Rebuild should not spend lots of effort on making that assessment.

For this reason the scope of this decision document is on the process and it is not a final decision of which system landscape to choose.

Change log

Version	Date	Author	Change log
0.1	27 Jun 24	Nico van Os	Initial version