| Status | |
| Owner | Stefanie Schwartz |
| Stakeholders | The business stakeholders involved in making, reviewing, and endorsing this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
Issue
Succinctly describe the issue or problem statement that this Decision addresses. Why is a decision required? What business or technical problem does it address?
Long term solution post RFI implementation. Sustainability Control Towers vs non-SAP.
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
Explain the context in which the decision is being made.
RFI ESG Disclosure and Performance
ESG Disclosure and Performance - SAP not mature enough with SCT (Sust Control Tower). Could be revisited in 3 years. Roadmap? SAP did not answer RFI, just off the shelf ppt. Access issues to links.
Gensuite one option. Synergies with reporting. Target state data capture and clean up close to source. May mean movin away from Gensuite to where data ownership, modelling is more frequent. Gensuite not right fit, maybe more towards Microsoft. Pilot in autumn to test automation of env metric, modelisation for data cleaning and then consume clean data on corporate level.
Shortlist of two, favourite Greenomy as short term solution so not overspend. Plug and play. Recommendation given, waiting for decision
Launch of Sustainbility Control Tower RFI, extended to SAP, SAP invited to answer. Unlikely they will be shortlisted. RFI to consolidate all sustainability data in one place, create reporting layer and insights layer on top. 1-2 year contract to revisit once ERP Rebuild is in place. Hence AS IS is a moving target. Different scope to Green Token. Demos have been presented by SAP this year to Marie with PWC. Scope, AI and insights not good enough. RFI supported by KPMG experience with other client and finalised in next days. 2.5 weeks for providers to answer by mid June. Other potential providers SAP, Gensuite, Salesforce, Microsoft (new partner AI), Simapro provider Sphera. Pure players: https://watershed.com/en-GB, https://www.cority.com/, https://figbytes.com/company/about/, Watershed.com. June/July 2023 Go-No Go decision. Syensqo IT contacts are Guillaume Muller (PM sustainability) and Mathilde Lascombes (for the AI capabilities) for now. Syensqo will involve purchasing and architecture once we have shortlisted
*Sustainability Control Tower: SAP scope, AI and insights not good enough. ESG data, elements on basic reporting using tools creating KPI library. This should be covered by SAP. Enhancement of this data SAP lacks, reporting layer e.g. KPIs, emission factors e.g. ecoinvent, ecotransit. For example carbon accounting. Pureplayers look into public data where plant data is missing, to make assumptions where there is gaps. Other functionality, AI native pureplayer is integrated benchmark. Competitors in tool for KPIs in market based on public information. SAP solution does not cover this. No company in manufacturing uses the Sustainability Control Towers.
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 |
|
|
|
|
| Criterion 2 |
|  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.
