| Status | |
| Owner | Antonio Zappone |
| Stakeholders | The business stakeholders involved in making, reviewing, and endorsing this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
Issue
Decision is required as the when to deploy the SAP In-House-Bank.
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
The existing IHB within ECC resides in PI1, within the legal entities SSA and ????. Interfaces are current in place to link PF1 and WP1 to the IHB in PI1.
All entities are mandated to participate in the IHB process, except where it's not legally possible. For example, China, x ,x ,x , is not part of the IHB due to legal restrictions.
A high level of complexity exists with IHB largely due to the internal factoring process. Internal factoring brings benefits in the way of cash concentration and tax savings.
Internal factoring is not a common process and not supported by standard SAP, hence the current solution is supported by nemerous complex custom developements. To "to-be" design will aim to streamline and simplify, hwever it is epected that some level of custom delopments will still be required.
Cash movements related to payments and receipts is a higher risk area of any ERP implementation. The internal factoring complexity increases the risk.
Assumptions
IHB and internal factoring will continue in S4HANA.
Constraints
Nil
Impacts
Depending on the approach, interfaces from S4HANA to PI1 need to be considered. If they are required, the existing interfaces from PF1 \ WP1 will need to be replicated for S4HANA.
Business Rules
Participation in the IHB will continue to be mandatory unless not legally supported.
Options considered
Early deployment of IHB was considered, however due to its impact on extending the overall ERP project imeline, and also requiring early
Option A: (Overall Deployment = "Phased" OR "All-in-one") Defer the deployment of IHB for all GBUs/entities
Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Option B: (Overall ERP Deployment = "Phased") Deploy IHB for live GBUs/entities in-line with the Phased Releases.
This option entails running two IHBs. One IHB in PI1 for entites still on ECC, and a second IHB for GBUs\entities that have S4HANA for transitioned to S4HANA.
This allow
Option C: (Overall ERP Deployment = "Phased") Deploy IHB for live GBUs/entities in the second Release with the Phased Releases.
Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Option D:
(Overall ERP Deployment = "All-in one") Deploy IHB for live GBUs/entities in line with th all-in-one go-live.
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.
