| Status | |
| Owner | The person responsible for driving this decision and documenting it. Type @ to mention people by name |
| Stakeholders | The persons consulted or otherwise involved in making this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
Issue
There are a number of separate EDI setups that process Invoices.
To have multiple EDI systems to track monitor and maintain does carry a cost. Can these disparate systems be consolidated into one system for simplification of maintenance?
The systems that are used and the stream that uses them are
| System | use | Replace/Retain/Retire | Stream |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elemica | (also used for non Invoicing EDI such as VMI) | Retain | S2P |
| Diverza | Mexican Govt Einvoicing setup | Replace | S2P |
| Fedex FI-AP | Courier invoices - EDI through Webmethods Assumption of no process change - Listed in As Is Application Reg as "SAP RCS WP1 - Payable Accounting Vendor Invoice Management" | Replace | S2P |
| Citibank FI-AP; | EDI through Webmethods Listed in As Is Application Reg as "SAP RCS WP1 - Payable Accounting Vendor Invoice Management" | Replace | S2P |
| Engie FI-AP | EDI through Webmethods Listed in As Is Application Reg as "SAP RCS WP1 - Payable Accounting Vendor Invoice Management" | Replace | S2P |
| ProMaster FI-AP | EDI through Webmethods Listed in As Is Application Reg as "SAP RCS WP1 - Payable Accounting Vendor Invoice Management" | Replace | S2P |
| Synchro FI-AP | EDI through Webmethods Listed in As Is Application Reg as "SAP RCS WP1 - Payable Accounting Vendor Invoice Management" | Replace | S2P |
| Xerox FI-AP | Scanning tool to SAP via XML | Replace (depends on Xerox Contract | S2P |
| Cass | NAM Rhodia Legacy Freight Service Provider. There is a Cass Portal that is used by Business and SBS to manage invoices. EDI through Webmethods | Retain | S2P |
| TMS/CHEMLOGIX | CHEMLOGIX (PF1 NAM Freight Payment Provider) - EDI through Webmethods | ? | S2P |
| Internal Invoice Portal | (for users to track Invoice process) | Retain | S2P |
Ariba Network | (aka SAP Business Network) | Retain | S2P |
Recommendation
Review consoildation on standard tools - eg Ariba Network.
Background & Context
Explain the context in which the decision is being made.
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.
From sales process perspective, Syensqo currently send a number of major customers e-invoices via Elemica to Tungsten. (Route = SAP invoice > Webmethods > Elemica > Tungsten > Customer.) Examples here are P&G, Mondelez & Unilever. Elemica hold the contract the for this process and therefore, any changes to the EDI provider needs to take both the contract and EDI connection into consideration.
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.
