Issue

Several Manufacturing Plants in the current scope for project Sy-Way are not using AVEVA PI nor Aspentech. Therefore, we must define a common solution for Manufacturing Control and Actual Production Postings for these plants.

The list of plants includes:

 As per the information collected in Conceptual Design

 Newark plant is currently in SAP ECC, but it is not using any Manufacturing SAP functionality.

Recommendation

The Project Team recommend Option 2: use one single Production Confirmation Dashboard to fulfill with one object three requirements coming from different directions:

• Provide a flexible and easy to use tool for production confirmations. This is going to be the new Syensqo standard for all production operators who need to book their time tickets and the goods movements directly in S4/HANA, either because they do not have an MES system or their MES is not integraed yet.
• Subsitute the current IPA custom development in Composite with a new Dashboard that provide the same functionalities with a better user experience and a modernized technology
• Provide a Validation/Confirmation Tools for the plants and production lines served by the MES integration, to allow the supervisors to check, edit, validate the proposals from MES interface.

Background & Context

There are some requirements to be considered in context together with the topic of this KDD:

• Composite Materials GBU is using a custom App to book production confirmations in the current SAP ECC WP2. It is commonly known as "IPA"  and these are the main features it provides:
  • associate multiple Sales Order Items to a single Process order
  • allow the production confirmations for each combination Process Order-Sales Order Item
  • Show in a single Dashboard multiple Process Orders / Sales Orders and their target quantities, with relevant production information: Customer Spec, position of the target product in the Semifinished roll, etc.
• The MES integration with S4 will features 5 main Data Flows:
  • Process Order Data at Release
  • Process Order Changes 
  • Consumption of Process Order Components, including by-products Goods Receipt
  • Time Tickets
  • Main Products and Co-Products Goods Receipts by Process Order
• The last three listed data flows, which are from MES to S4, will require a Validation/Editing Tool in S4, as per the architecture we agreed on, there is no enough confidence on the accuracy of the data that S4 will receive from the MES systems for several reasons. The proposed postings must be visible, editable by the Production Supervisors before they are booked in S4.

Assumptions

1. The MES integration Model will be implemented as agreed
2. We will build a new "IPA" for Composite to fulfill the same requirements
3. The possible variants that the proposed solutions will need to manage are:
   1. EWM and not-EWM managed Storage Locations, HU-managed and not-HU-Managed Storage Locations for Components Consumptions
   2. EWM and not-EWM managed Storage Locations, HU-managed and not-HU-Managed Storage Locations for Goods Receipts
   3. Only Time Tickets by Operation/Phase for Activity Confirmations, Confirmations by Event and Order Confirmations are not in scope

Constraints

N/A

Impacts

Business Rules

Components' consumptions will rely on the BOM used by the process orders, therefore it is worth mention here a business rule that has been defined in the Production Master Data Workshops:

"The BOM will list all components which are used in 

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	Pro Con	Pro Pro	Pro Con	Pro Con
Criterion 2	Pro Con	Con	Pro Pro	Con 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.

Change log