The Sales and Operational Planning (S&OP) processes and activities are an essential and strategic element of the ERP Rebuild project scope and design therefore, playing a pivotal role in the overall success of the project.
In parallel to the ERP Rebuild program, the Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) project is currently in progress and being executed concurrently, utilizing the Kinaxis Maestro tool (a leading S&OP software solution), to implement a product planning process and solution including the Demand Planning and Sales and Operational Planning functionalities within the Syensqo business.
This document serves as a guide, designed to offer an understanding of the current "As-Is" planning processes, the "As-Is" integration mechanisms, and the "As-Is" overall system landscape associated with the Maestro system, all within the scope of the APS project.
Additionally, this document aims to identify and highlight the changes required to ensure that the APS solution aligns seamlessly with the ERP Rebuild project’s goals, objectives and timelines. It outlines the potential adjustments and modifications needed to adjust the existing APS system design to accommodate the ERP Rebuild related processes and solution changes. Furthermore, this document provides a detailed vision for the future state of the integration and system landscapes, showcasing how the APS and ERP systems will function cohesively after the rebuild program is complete. A proposed approach for data cleansing and cutover, aligned with the ERP rebuild design, is also included.
APS project includes the following functionalities:
APS project is planned to be deployed in Drops with each drop delivering enhanced functionality of the categories listed above. A high level view of the scope of the APS project can be found below:
Category | Key Elements | Details |
Demand Planning | Demand Planner Process, Ownership, Cadence, Calendar | Standard procedures, defined responsibilities, and schedules for demand planning activities. |
Demand Plan Targets | Establish targets based on historical data, market trends, and business goals. | |
Statistical Forecasts | Use statistical models to generate baseline forecasts from historical data. | |
Consensus Forecasts | Incorporate input from sales, marketing, and operations to refine forecasts. | |
Reporting and Visualization | Use dashboards and reports to track forecast accuracy, trends, and overall performance. | |
Supply & Inventory Planning | Planner Process, Parameters, and Ownership | Establish roles, responsibilities, and parameters for supply and inventory planning. |
Cadence and Calendar | Define schedules for inventory reviews, planning updates, and collaboration. | |
Ability to Define Key Constraints | Identify production, supply chain, or resource limitations. | |
Constraining the Plan | Adjust plans to align with identified constraints. | |
Pegging and Firming the Supply Plan | Match supply to specific demand and finalize orders for stability. | |
View and Act on Supply Exceptions | Identify and address supply-related issues, such as shortages or surpluses. | |
Ending Inventories | Optimize closing inventory levels to minimize costs and risks. | |
Inventory Exceptions | Identify anomalies in inventory data and take corrective action. | |
Periods of Coverage | Ensure adequate inventory levels to cover demand for a specific period. | |
Publishing the Supply Data to ERP | Share finalized supply plans with ERP systems for seamless execution. | |
Reporting and Visualization | Track and analyze inventory and supply performance using dashboards and reports. | |
Production Planning & Scheduling | BOM Substitutions and Alternatives | Manage flexibility in the bill of materials (BOM) to accommodate material shortages or alternatives. |
Master Production Plan | Create a high-level production plan based on demand forecasts and constraints. | |
Enterprise Scheduling | Detailed planning and scheduling of production activities across facilities. | |
S&OP/IBP | Demand and Supply Balancing | Align demand forecasts with supply capabilities while addressing constraints and trade-offs. |
S&OP Dashboard | Centralized platform for tracking KPIs, aligning stakeholders, and facilitating decision-making. |
Below is the split of the functionalities across multiple drops.

Multiple interfaces are required to connect the Maestro system with existing SAP ECC (ERP Central Component).
These interfaces will facilitate data exchange and integration between ECC and Maestro, supporting critical business processes such as planning, inventory management, order fulfillment, and reporting. They can be categorized into the following:
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| Enterprise Structure Data | This includes organizational data such as company codes, plants, storage locations, sales organizations, and distribution channels. Ensuring alignment between SAP ECC and Maestro allows for accurate representation of the organizational hierarchy and dependencies. |
| Config Data | Configuration data includes system settings, rule definitions, and organizational configurations like MRP settings, delivery priorities, and planning parameters. This ensures that ECC and Maestro operate with aligned business rules and logic. |
| Master Data | Master data encompasses key foundational data such as material master, customer master, BOM's, Routings etc... It ensures consistent and accurate information flows between SAP ECC and the Maestro system for efficient operations. |
| Transactional Data (Demand / Supply) | This category includes real-time transaction data such as sales orders, purchase orders, demand signals, supply plans, and stock movements. It supports demand & Supply planning, inventory management processes. |
| Planning Results | These are outputs from planning activities, including demand forecasts, production schedules, procurement plans, and ATP (Available-to-Promise) data. Planning results support Maestro's decision-making and strategic planning functions while aligning with ECC data. |
Below is an overview of the interfaces.
Note: ECC is represented as one line and it is comprised of both the ECC's systems

Below is the detailed list of the interfaces
|
High-Level Architecture: Integration of Kinaxis with Existing SAP ECC Systems
The proposed architecture for the Kinaxis Maestro system uses two productive instances, one for the composite business (Maestro US) and another for the rest of the business (Maestro ROW).
The integration of the Kinaxis system with the existing SAP ECC systems need to take into account the two distinct Kinaxis instances to support different business needs and geographical requirements:
Kinaxis US:
Kinaxis ROW (Rest of the World):
Both instances will integrate with the existing ECC systems to enable real-time planning, supply chain visibility, and data sharing across multiple GBUs while adhering to regional compliance and operational requirements.

A detailed analysis/comparison has been conducted on the functionalities and data structures to be deployed as part of the scope of the APS project and the conceptual design from the ERP Rebuild initiative. The analysis has identified a range of changes that will be required to the current APS solution and scope in order to align with the ERP rebuild Functional, Data and Interfaces requirements.
The following topics are identified as potentially requiring changes in APS solution during the ERP Rebuild project. Note that the below table represents only the functionalities that require a change. The total list of functionality that is in scope can be found in the attachments.
Area | Key Topics | Current Design | Change Description | Change complexity |
Demand Planning | Demand forecast unit definition | Packed Material + Ship-to / Sales area | Packed Material(SKU) + Sold to + Ship To + Sales Area | High |
Demand Planning | Hierarchy definition | Several hierarchies required to facilitate the data entry (forecast entry at aggregated level with automatic disaggregation at lowest level) and analysis. | Changes are in the data section. Depending on the hierarchy the corresponding functionality also has to change (Aggregation and disaggregation logic definitions might change) | High |
Demand Planning | Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) vs Departure (ETD) | Forecast are entered at ETA level and needs to be converted to ETD for the supply part but also for the revenue projection. AI team support requested to get the most accurate supply offset and financial offset | The logic to calculation ETD from ETA or vice versa will change and the data will be have to be consumed from S/4 instead | Medium |
Demand Planning | Disaggregation | Based on the changes in the data modes / hierarchies | High | |
Demand Planning | Achievable demand | Once the demand consensus published, we can then get back from the SP part, the achievable demand. (= when Consensus demand can not be reached) | Extra constrains from S/4 will have to be taken into account ex: Maintenance plans | Medium |
Demand Planning | Allocation | In progress: When there is no option to meet the demand, the allocation process is triggered = Volume allocated to customer - Control of the allocated volume at sales order entry in SAP for SPP. | PAL Integration | High |
Supply Planning | Netting / Forecast consumption | Reconciliation between order book and forecasts. Including Demand time fence (when do we consider that a non ordered forecast should be ignored ?) and spreading (from a monthly forecast to weekly/daily net demand). | Order types / Item categories / other critieria to exclude Sales Orders | Medium |
Supply Planning | Distribution network | Escalation of the demand to the distribution sites and upstream to the production plants | Intercompany / China flow will have to be adopted | High |
Supply Planning | Buffer sizing and positioning | Proactive dimensioning of inventories. Setting up differentiated targets. Simulation of Safety stock adjustments (impact on inventory projection and service level). | Demand driven buffer sizing will be required | Medium |
Supply Planning | Firming the plan | Monitoring the execution of / derives from the plan : Live view on gap between Operational plan and S&OP. | Purchase requisitions instead of planned orders | High |
Inventory Planning | Including Tolling & Consignment | Vendor consignment planning to be included | Medium |
The following topics are identified as potentially requiring changes in the APS data structures/data sources during the ERP Rebuild project. Note that the below table represents only the functionalities that require a change. The total list of all the data elements can be found in the attachments.
| Data Object Type | Data Object | Current Design | Source | Direction | Changes Required (ERP Rebuild) | Impact | Change Description | Change complexity |
| Master data | Customers | Sold to , Ship To | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | All Business Partners | Medium |
| Transactional Data | Sales Orders | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional attributes | Extra attributes ( Incoterm / Transportation mode etc..) | Medium | |
| Transactional Data | Pricing Conditions | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Access sequences might change / Future prices source might change | Medium | |
| Master data | End Use (Market) | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | To be consolidated with the customer / CMIR | Medium | |
| GBU | SAP | To Maestro | TBD | |||||
| Master data | Parts <> Material x plant | Units, Calendars, Leadtimes (MRP views), Archetype (SHS), Purch group / MRP controllers (resp.) | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | Material fields are going to change - MDS will determine the impact | High |
| Master data | Workcenters | selected by type for time being focussing on Machines/process lines | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional attributes | Shifts / Times / usage % will have to consumed from work centers | High |
| Master data | Routings | SAP | To Maestro | New | High | |||
| Master data | PIR (Purchase info record) | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Vendor consignment PIR to be included | Low | |
| Master data | Special procurement Key | Derived | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | Should come from S/4 | Medium | |
| Transactional Data | PR | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Document types / additional fields / Status | Low | |
| Transactional Data | PO | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Document types / additional fields / Status | Low | |
| Transactional Data | Deliveries (Sales Order) | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Document types / additional fields / Status | Low | |
| Transactional Data | Planned / process / production orders | SAP | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Document types / additional fields / Status | Low | |
| N/A | Source lists | Maestro | To Maestro | To be deleted | To be replaced with the functionality from Quota | |||
| Master data | Quotas | Maestro | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Should come from S/4 | Medium | |
| N/A | Transfers between SAP systems | Maestro | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | Information will come from S/4 - To use combination of SPK and Quota | Medium | |
| Transactional Data | Costing (excluding internal margins) | External File | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | Should come from S/4 | High | |
| Master data | Resource hierarchies | External data / derivation based on rules | To Maestro | TBD | ||||
| Transactional Data | Purchasing lead time | External data / derivation based on rules | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | Should come from S/4 | Low | |
| Master data | Calendars (Factory) | External data / derivation based on rules | To Maestro | Yes | Additional Combinations | Should come from S/4 | Low | |
| Master data | Geographic regions | External data / derivation based on rules | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | Should come from S/4 | Low | |
| Transactional Data | Inspection Lot | To Maestro | New | Medium | ||||
| Master data | Product hierarchy | To Maestro | New | Should come from S/4 | Medium | |||
| Master data | Customer Hierarchy | To Maestro | Yes | Different source / definition | Should come from S/4 | Medium | ||
| Master data | Profit Center hierarchy | To Maestro | New | Should come from S/4 | Medium | |||
| Transactional Data | Customer material info record | To Maestro | New | Should come from S/4 | Medium | |||
| Master data | Customer lead time fence | To Maestro | New | Lead time can be managed in Maestro and sent nack to SAP or vice versa.Master slave relationship TBD based on the design | Medium | |||
| Master data | Safety Stock | To SAP | New | Low | ||||
| Master data | Safety period | To SAP | New | Low | ||||
| Master data | Lead Times | To SAP | New | Low | ||||
| Transactional Data | Planned orders | Kinaxis | To SAP | Yes | Additional Combinations | Document types / additional fields / Status | Low | |
| Transactional Data | Purchase Requisitions | Kinaxis | To SAP | New | High | |||
| Transactional Data | Planned Independent Requirements | To SAP | New | High |
Based on the current APS design and the ERP Rebuild conceptual design, the following interfaces are identified as requiring changes. These changes are necessary to ensure alignment in process, data and integration across the new design.
A detailed list of all the interfaces along with their specific changes is available in the attachments for review.
| Kinaxsis Interface | SAP Object Reference | Classification | Group | Description/Reason | Changes Required (ERP Rebuild) | Change Description | Change complexity |
| Parts | Material Plant | Master Data | Master Data | All parts/materials that represent that master index of planning materials | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Medium |
| PartSource | Material Plant Sourcing | Master Data | Master Data | All sourcing records associated with supplying materials that have BOM's | New | To include SPK and Quota | |
| SalesOrders | SalesOrders | Transactional Data | Demand | All Internal or External Sales Orders that have a remaining open quantity | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Medium |
| Delivery | Delivery | Transactional Data | Demand | All Internal or External Sales Orders that on delivery and do not have a post goods issue transaction | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Medium |
| QMlot | QMlot | Transactional Data | Supply | Receipts that are in quality that have a future release date. | New | Medium | |
| WorkOrder | WorkOrder | Transactional Data | Supply | All work orders; production or process with a remaining quantity | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Low |
| PurchaseOrder | PurchaseOrder | Transactional Data | Supply | All purchases orders; stock transport, external, consignment or subcontract with a remaining quantity | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Low |
| PurchaseRequitions | PurchaseRequitions | Transactional Data | Supply | All purchases requisitions that have a remaining quantity | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Low |
| FirmPlannedOrders | FirmPlannedOrders | Transactional Data | Supply | All FIRM Planned orders that must respected by Maestro (inside PTF or FIRM Planned) | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Low |
| Tollingallocation | Transactional Data | Supply | All work order; production or process order allocations that have a remaining requirement qty. | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Low | |
| WorkOrderAllocation | Transactional Data | Supply | All tolling/subcontract allocations that need to be provided vendor | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Low | |
| HistoricalSupplyPurchase | Purchase Order | Transactional Data | Supply | All historical purchase orders receipts. Used for leadtime variability. | Yes | We will not have purchase order history when we go-live. Extra design required to aggregate and store the required data in data lake for this functionality | High |
| DependentAllocation | STO | Transactional Data | Demand | All Internal demand (stock transport) requirements that have a remaining quantity, and originate from a site not in Maestro. | Yes | Impact due to different landscapes | Medium |
| CustomerPrice | Price | Transactional Data | Demand | A list or Sales price for a part/material and Customer specific price. | Yes | Mapping / Additional fields | Low |
| HistotricalDemandActuals | Sales Orders | Transactional Data | Demand | A minimum of 2 years of External Sales shipments | Yes | We will not have Sales order history when we go-live. Extra design required to aggregate and store the required data in data lake for this functionality | High |
| HistoricalForecast | Sales Orders | Transactional Data | Demand | A period [typically 12 months] of forecast history, forecast accuracy measurements | Yes | We will not have sales order history when we go-live. Extra design required to aggregate and store the required data in data lake for this functionality | High |
| HistoricalSupplyMfg | production orders | Transactional Data | Supply | All historical work orders. Used for lead time variability. | Yes | We will not have production order history when we go-live. Extra design required to aggregate and store the required data in data lake for this functionality | High |
| CompanyCodes | Company Codes | Enterprise Structure | New | Medium | |||
| Oppurtunities | Transactional Data | Demand | Yes | Changes in the document types / additional fields / status etc.. | Medium | ||
| End Use (Market) | Transactional Data | Demand | Yes | Changes in the document types / additional fields / status etc.. | Medium | ||
| GBU | Enterprise Structure | New | Changes in the definition of GBU.. Profit center based derivation will not work | Medium | |||
| Routings | Master Data | Supply | Yes | Changes in the activity types etc.. | High | ||
| WorkCenters | Master Data | Supply | Yes | Medium | |||
| PIR (Purchase info record) | Transactional Data | Supply | Yes | Include vendor consignment | Medium | ||
| Costing (excluding internal margins) | Transactional Data | Supply | New | High | |||
| Resource hierarchies | Master Data | Supply | New | Medium | |||
| Purchasing lead time | Transactional Data | Supply | New | Medium | |||
| Product hierarchy | Master Data | Demand | Yes | Changes in the definition and source fields for determining the product hierarchy | Medium | ||
| Customer Hierarchy | Master Data | Demand | Yes | Changes in the definition and source fields for determining the customer hierarchy | Medium | ||
| Profit Center hierarchy | Master Data | Supply | New | Medium | |||
| Customer material info record | Transactional Data | Demand | New | Medium | |||
| Customer lead time fence | Transactional Data | Demand | New | Medium | |||
| Safety Stock to S/4 | Transactional Data | Supply | New | Medium | |||
| Safety period to S/4 | Transactional Data | Supply | New | Medium | |||
| Lead Times to S/4 | Transactional Data | Supply | New | Medium | |||
| Planned orders to S/4 | Transactional Data | Supply | Yes | Changes in the document types / additional fields / status / horizons etc.. | High | ||
| Purchase Requisitions to S/4 | Transactional Data | Supply | New | High | |||
| Planned Independent Requirements to S/4 | Transactional Data | Demand | New | High | |||
| PAL to S/4 | Transactional Data | Demand | New | High | |||
| Demand Key Figures to S/4 | Transactional Data | Demand | Required for Budget | New | High | ||
| Supply Key Figures to S/4 | Transactional Data | Supply | Required for Budget | New | High | ||
| Inventory Key Figures to S/4 | Transactional Data | Supply | Required for Budget | New | High |
Below is the proposed To-Be system architecture including some of the key elements to note when compared with the existing As-Is architecture

There are two views to represent the need for different systems at different phases of the program. Both these views are outlined below.
The fist view represents the timeline view. This diagram below illustrates the time-phased instance strategy for the APS Project and ERP Rebuild Project. The diagram is divided into two sections: APS (at the top) and ERP Rebuild (on the bottom), reflecting their respective project timelines.
Instances are represented within the diagram to show how they are aligned with each phase of the APS and ERP Rebuild projects. These instances are mapped to the respective project timelines to reflect key milestones, implementation phases, and decision points. The staggered deployment of these instances represent the different system needs of each phase and outlined the need for parallel instances to be available for each overlapping phase.

The second view is the system landscape view. These are also split by project phase represented by the green bar.
Below is the detailed representation of the instances along with the transportation path. The left side of the pictures represent the APS project landscape requirements while the right side of the pictures represent the ERP rebuild landscape requirements.
(note: the colored squares represent the Maestro instances while the white ovals represent the ERP instances - a legend of the ERP instance names can be found on the right hand side)

The Planning data from Maestro is required in S/4 using the day as the smallest time bucket during the short-term horizon, i.e., before the planning time fence.
However, for longer horizons, the aggregation of data at a weekly or monthly bucket can be used beyond the short-term horizon.
Integration is required between the allocation in Maestro to the PAL tables in SAP. There is already a new interface included to cater to this requirement, however more details of how PAL table is structured will be determined during the detailed design phase.
ATP functionality in SAP requires up-to-date inventory information, production/procurement plans, and delivery priorities to determine accurate delivery dates.
This information will be readily available and detailed during the short-term horizon, ensuring precise commitments. However, for long-term horizons, the data will be aggregated to simplify planning processes and manage larger time frames efficiently.
During the detailed design phase, the following topics should be considered:
Enterprise Scheduling
Following are some of the important considerations for cutover
The Existing APS Production System Will Not Be Used for Go-Live During the ERP Rebuild Project:
As part of the ERP Rebuild project's go-live strategy, the current APS production system will not be utilized. Instead, a new instance will be implemented to support the transition and operational readiness.
Migration of Planning History to the New Instance:
To ensure continuity and historical reference during the cutover to the new instance, planning history will be migrated as part of the cutover strategy. Two migration options have been identified, and the final choice will be determined during the detailed design phase:
Specialty Polymers (SpP) and Global Supply Chain:
The supply chain transaction overlap between the Specialty Polymers legal entities in scope for Group 1 and the Rest of Syensqo is minimal, based on the analysis conducted by the ERP Rebuild team. As a result:
Composites and Rest of Syensqo:
The supply chain transaction overlap between Composites and the Rest of Syensqo is also minimal, as confirmed by the analysis conducted by the APS team. Therefore:
Other Company Codes in the BAU Non-Composites Environment:
For the remaining company codes within the BAU Non-Composites environment, the transaction overlap with the global supply chain is minimal. As a result:
Below is an high level diagram to illustrate the same.

Following are some of the Governance Principles proposed for the project