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?

During Conceptual Design phase, it is been endorsed that Syensqo will use Future Neptune-based Solution for essential logistics and warehousing operations via mobility devices, which offers both online and offline capabilities to ensure users can perform daily tasks continuously even during network disruptions.

Potentially, there are two approaches to implementing the solution: Pre-built Applications versus In-house Developments. This KDD seeks to compare these approaches and evaluate the most effective option for the mobility solution.

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.

Project Background

Neptune is a Norwegian company whose Neptune platform is designed to create and deploy mobile applications that interface seamlessly with SAP applications. As a SAP-native solution, Neptune enables efficient integration while minimizing the need for middleware. The platform integrates multiple data sources and environments into a single launchpad or view.

Syensqo has rolled out the Nereid project to selected plants and warehouses. Nereid solution is a Neptune-based mobility solution, which sits on Neptune DX Platform SAP Edition, including a set of business tailored applications which support and manage the site logistics and warehouse operations.  

During the Conceptual Design phase, a decision was made to continue using the Neptune platform with the Future Neptune Solution, which will provide warehouse users with an unified view of both logistics and warehouse management functionalities within the SAP S/4HANA environment. It will not only offer online and offline capabilities to ensure operational continuity, but also minimize change management impacts, facilitating a smooth transition to SAP S/4HANA. More details are described in KDD025 - Mobility Solutions in Logistics and Warehouse Management Processes.

Depending on the future process design, the decision will be made in Detailed Design phase whether to develop highly customized applications in-house or utilize the third-party vendor pre-built applications with reasonable enhancements.

Business Requirements

To effectively support the logistics and warehouse operations, the Future Neptune-Based Solution should cover the business requirements from process, user experience and technical perspectives.

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. 

1. The scope of this KDD excludes the mobility solution for Plant Maintenance (PM).
2. Current handheld functionalities may be harmonized to align with the SyWay program principles. However, the future mobility solution must continue to meet all relevant business needs. 
3. This KDD also includes an assessment of the potential vendors offering pre-built Neptune solutions. 
4. Engagement with Neptune or any potential pre-built solution provider will be handled separately from this KDD.  
5. A separate assessment will be carried out to determine the scale of hardware and infrastructure required for sites planned to roll out the future mobility solution. 
6. A review of existing hardware and infrastructure will be conducted separately for sites have already implemented the currently mobility solution.  
7. It is assumed that the third-party Neptune partner solution is augmented, which can be expanded and enhanced to fit in the Syensqo specific business requirements. 

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: Pre-built Solution with Reasonable Customized Developments

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Solution Overview

Key Functionalities

Vendor/Partner Involvement

Mobility Solution: Vendor Selection Matrix DRAFT - Google Sheets

(** Separate file: Vendor Selection Criteria)

Option B: Full In-house Developments

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Solution Overview

Key Functionalities

Implementation Team

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  Pre-built Solution with Reasonable Customized Developments	Option B Full In-house Developments
Function Fit & Customization	Limited customization options, although many pre-built apps offer configuration settings.	High degree of customization, as Syensqo can design the solution to fit your specific requirements.
Scalability	Generally scalable, as they are designed for a wide range of use cases, and may have limitations in extreme scaling scenarios.	Scalability can be tailored to business needs Requires careful design and ongoing monitoring.
User Experience (UX)	Typically follow SAP Fiori UX design principles, which are user-friendly and familiar to users.	Syensqo will have full control over the design and user experience. To achieve a high-quality, intuitive UX may take more time and effort.
Integration with SAP S/4HANA	Out-of-the-box integration with SAP S/4HANA, leveraging standard APIs and predefined processes.	Can be tailored for specific integration needs but may require more development effort and testing to ensure seamless integration with SAP S/4HANA.
Time to Implement	If there are few customization requirements, in general, faster implementation and go-live, as they are ready-to-use with minimal configuration. Product unique skills are required, so will be largely rely on the expertise and availabilities from vendor.	Longer time frame required for design, development, testing, and deployment. Expertise base is much wider and generic. Has less limitation and constraints on the required skills.
Maintenance and Support  (** Country Base, Language etc.)	Regular updates from the vendor or SAP ensure the app stays up to date. Vendor updates may not always align with your timeline.	Syensqo will have full control over updates and maintenance but must allocate internal resources to manage it.
Security
Innovation and Future-Proofing	Likely to be continuously updated by the vendor. Vendor updates may not always align perfectly with your evolving needs.	Flexibility to incorporate new features and innovative technologies. Requires ongoing investment.
Cost Considerations	Initial Investment Licensing and subscription costs. Lower initial cost. On-going Costs Maintenance, updates, support costs. Ongoing fees.	Initial Investment Development costs (including resources, training, infrastructure). Higher initial cost. On-going Costs Maintenance, bug fixing, future upgrades, and resource requirements for ongoing support. Potentially lower long-term maintenance.

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.

Syensqo AS-IS Handheld Functions Overview.xlsx

Change log

Workflow history