| Status | |
| Owner | |
| Stakeholders | The business stakeholders involved in making, reviewing, and endorsing this decision. Type @ to mention people by name |
Issue
Currently in North America there are two different processes that are used to audit and pay freight rates. For both processes the system BluJay is involved. However, for Specialty Polymers the auditing is done by CLX Logistics in BluJay, while for other business units the auditing is done by CASS.
These vendors mainly cover road transportation, which represents the bulk of Syensqo freight volumes.
This KDD focusses on the future process for auditing freight charges in North America. Standardization of these processes among all GBU’s are recommended.
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
In North America freight is handled using the system BluJay. This system is integrated with both SAP systems; PF2 and WP2.
Specialty Polymers (PF2) has subcontracted the transportation management operations to CLX Logistics. This service provider audits the freight rates in BluJay and pays the carriers for their services. Syensqo pays CLX one collective bill, including all freight orders over a period of time.
For the other business units in North America, the freight charges are audited and paid by CASS.
Services provided by CASS
1. Invoice Receipt
CASS receives freight invoices from carriers (via EDI, email, or portal upload). These invoices include detailed charges for transportation services.
2. Data Matching
CASS matches each invoice to the shipment-level data from your ERP or TMS. This includes:
- PO or shipment numbers
- Agreed carrier, route, service level
- Agreed rates (contracted or spot)
3. Audit Process
CASS applies a multi-layer audit process:
- Rate Audit: Compares invoiced charges against the contracted rates (e.g., base rates, accessorials, fuel surcharges).
- Duplicate Check: Flags invoices already processed.
- Compliance Audit: Validates that invoices adhere to internal policies (e.g., required reference fields).
- Tolerance Check: Allows a predefined small variance if needed.
4. Dispute Handling
If discrepancies arise:
- CASS flags the invoice
- Sends it back to the carrier or holds it for client review
- Only approved or corrected invoices proceed to payment
5. Payment
CASS aggregates approved invoices and executes payment to carriers on behalf of the client or provides a payment file for the client’s AP system to process.
6. Reporting & Accruals
CASS provides:
- Visibility into freight spend by mode, BU, lane, etc.
- Accrual reports for unbilled shipments
- Benchmarking and trend analysis
- Compliance/KPI dashboards
CLX Logistics
CLX Logistics provides Freight Audit Services and Payment. CLX prevents overcharges, duplicate or delayed payments and incorrect freight accruals.
CLX Logistics combines industry know-how with technology to ensure the freight audit services and payment processes achieve one goal: reducing costs. Timeliness of invoice payments to freight audit functionality that reduces incidences of overpayment, CLX promises to eliminate the frustration and undue expense of payment processing with seamless freight pay management.
Replacement of BluJay with E2Open TMS4S
BluJay will be replaced by end of Q1 2026. The system that will take over the functions from BluJay is E2Open TMS4S.
E2Open will initially integrate with the SAP PF2 and WP2 systems. The integration with these systems and the processes will be largely the same as per current landscape. The scope of this KDD is a recommendation on the to-be design with integration with SAP S/4 HANA.
Assumptions
- As North American transportation industry utilizes CzarLite and CarrierConnect to determine LTL base rates, it is assumed that both E2Open and CASS can connect to these platforms for freight rate determination.
- Decision on migrating BluJay to E2Open TMS4S has been taken and is final.
- With the integration of E2Open TMS4S to the legacy SAP systems, the processes will stay roughly the same.
Constraints
- Keeping both CLX and CASS as business process break the objectives of standardization of processes. For that reason this option is not considered.
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
Option A: Integration with E2Open without CASS, serviced by CLX Logistics
The services with CASS are to be terminated and all freight processing and auditing will be done by CLX.
Freight Order are to be integrated to E2Open and CLX will take care of calculation of freight rates in E2Open and will interface this back to the SAP Freight Order. Additional charges are to be managed and updated in E2Open and will trigger an update to the SAP Freight Order.
Impact
- All GBUs (except SpP) would be required to transition from Cass to CLX.
- A recent policy change within CLX suggests CLX will only take on freight invoice auditing activities if they “are managing the daily transportation operations, and therefore have direct visibility into the Load planning activities”.
- The E2Open system is owned by CLX and resold to Syensqo.
Option B: Integration with E2Open including CASS
In this option the services with CLX are to be terminated and all freight auditing will be done by CASS.
In this configuration it needs to be considered where the Freight Agreements reside and freight rates are calculated.
Freight Orders could be integrated to CASS for charge calculation. CASS will return the planned charges. This update could be transferred to E2Open for information purposes. Additional or assessorial charges are then to be received through CASS, preventing updates on charges through both platforms.
Details on this design to be worked out during detail design, and will be addressed during vendor engagement sessions.
Impact
- GBU Specialty Polymers would be required to transition from CLX to CASS.
- To receive charge updates from both E2Open and CASS complicated. For this reason disputes and assessorial charges are to be received through CASS. These are then only recognised once CASS has received the update from the carrier.
Option C: Integration with E2Open without CASS, with internalization
The services with CASS are to be terminated and all freight processing and auditing will be done by Syensqo.
Syensqo will no longer rely on a third party to manage the freight processes. The auditing will be done by either the transportation planners, or serviced by a GBS team. The system landscape will be the same as option A.
Impact
Internal resources to be hired, trained and managed. Possibly supported by GBS team.
Evaluation
Other pain points / issues to consider:
- Validating whether invoices meet contractual agreements are not automated, and requires manual work by GBS’s Procurement Service Line. Lack of a robust (automated) approach suggests potential value leakage.
- Fuel surcharge management (based on contractual agreements) was raised as another pain point during SyWAY detailed design workshops.
- In general, a significant reason for the current process's inefficiency is Syensqo’s failure to encompass the entire source-to-pay process, with different systems used for different steps in the process. Several attempts to overhaul this over the last decade (to have one single global multi-modal TMS) have been postponed. Competitors such as Arkema have overhauled its environment gaining a competitive advantage over Syensqo.
Draft comparison table:
Topic | Option A: Cass+CLX | Option B: Cass-only | Option C: CLX-only | Option D: Insource |
Cost: | – Having 2 systems with similar functionality within Syensqo might not be ideal. | + | + | – Insourcing would require hiring resources; while also paying for a fit for purpose software solution. |
Knowledge / Change | + Keeping both Cass and CLX would result in the least amount of change for the business. | – Moving to a single solution will require training; impacting SpP. | – – Moving to a single solution will require training; impacting all GBUs, except SpP.. | – New resources will have to be trained to insource freight invoice auditing and transport mgmt activities. |
Integration effort | – Integrating 2 solutions for the same process steps into SAP might not be ideal. | + | + | Depends on which software solution is chosen. |
Features: A feature assessment would be helpful to provide a more mature view. | – There are existing scenarios that CASS is unable to handle correctly. | + CLX has a technology relationship with Syensqo’s recommended TMS from E2open ⇒ suggesting potential synergies. | Depends on which software solution is chosen. | |
Complications: | + CASS is not just being used for transportation invoices, but also procurement invoices in some cases | + CASS is not just being used for transportation invoices, but also procurement invoices in some cases | – Moving away from CASS would require resolving how procurement invoices will be handled in the future. | Depends on which software solution is chosen. |
Option A CLX | 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.
