Issue

Syensqo currently uses the following SAP functionalities in ECC to cover HSE requirements relating to Safety Datasheets, Labelling, Dangerous Goods 

Management, Substance Volume Tracking and Compositions.

• Composition
• Company Substance Management
• Raw Materials
• SDS Template and Generation
• Other Documents
• SDS Authoring Automation Algorithm (“Expert Rules”)
• Mass Upload / Modification (User Accessible)
• SVT(Substance Volume Tracking
• SVHC(Substance of Very High Concern)

These SAP functionalities are covered by SAP Product Compliance with S/4 HANA.
S/4HANA offers the option to implement a 'Classic Version' or a 'New Version' for SAP Product Compliance. A decision is required, which version of

S/4HANA Product Compliance (NEW or CLASSIC) should be implemented considering scope of the each items and timelines.

Recommendation

Recommendation: To Adapt Option D

The recommendation is to implement the S/4HANA for Product Compliance 'Hybrid Version' (Option D).

This is driven by the following key points:

• S/4HANA Product Compliance 'New Version' (Option A) is only available for implementation in the S/4HANA 2023 product, however will only attain its full functionality from 2027 onwards. Until then, the new version will have significant functionality gaps as compared to the 'classic version'.

• The implementation of S/4HANA Product Compliance 'Classic Version' (Option B) requires a new re-implementation project (big bang) before the end of support of the 'classic version' is reached in 2036. This would effectively be a greenfield implementation of Product Compliance as the data models are not compatible.

• Remaining with ECC 'On Premise' would mean a very restrictive longevity and poses a major draw back on integration with other core functions such as Logistics, Transportation Management, Product Master etc. It should be ruled out on the basis of S/4HANA adoption being the core of ERP Rebuild. Further, the feasibility to maintain an ECC6 stack for this option would be question. Hence the continuation with ECC6 (Option C) is not viable.

• S/4HANA for Product Compliance 'Hybrid Version (Option D: Classic + New) enables the phased use of New Version functionality when it becomes available. It decouples SAP scope availability from the timeline of the SyWay project. The recommendation enables Syensqo to implement newly available S/4HANA Product Compliance functionality based on business readiness. Implementation projects are expected to be of smaller scale due to phased approach. The hybrid option gives the business the benefits of new features to cover future requirements without having to cover scope gaps with additional enhancements. Hence, based on the available features, the following processes are categorized under their respective versions of Product Compliance.

Background & Context

The strategy is to utilize S/4HANA Product Compliance New functionality as extensively as possible. However, since the full scope is not yet available in the New version, a Hybrid Approach (New + Classic) has been adopted. The processes have been categorized below based on the corresponding versions of Product Compliance.

Assumptions

• Customer is migrating to or already using S/4HANA Product Compliance (New).

It is assumed that:

• The S/4HANA Product Compliance Classic version includes all functionalities required by Syensqo. SAP currently indicates that nearly all features from SAP Product Safety and SAP Product and REACH Compliance are available in this version.
• The MSDS Maker functionality is not included in the Classic version and has been replaced by CosSta (Conditions for Safety Statements), which is part of the SAP EHS Rule Editor.
• Any impacts arising from this KDD on other ERP Rebuild EHS KDDs will be addressed through subsequent KDDs related to the respective ERP Rebuild EHS components.
• The ERP Rebuild will not result in an unsupported platform, following platform license negotiations, and a supported S/4HANA version will serve as the core platform (see related KDDs listed under 'References').
• The current 3E ERC Suite (Enterprise Regulatory Content) license in use by Syensqo may need to be upgraded to include the 3E ERC+ Suite.

Constraints

• Functional Gaps and Feature Limitations

• Migration Complexity and Data Consistency

• Custom logic via BAdIs might increase implementation effort and complexity.

• There’s no UI-based Rule Editor as intuitive as the CG02 Expert Rule Editor.

• A decision for 'Classic Version' would need to consider that a reimplementation of Product Compliance will be required before 2036 for a 
  greenfield implementation of 'New Version' for S/4 HANA Product Compliance.
• SAP have not been able to provide clear guidance on the roadmap and alignment beyond 2025 of S/4HANA features at the time of writing.

Impacts

• All capabilities within the Product Compliance business area are available in SAP S/4HANA, although the specific scope may differ from the functionality offered in the ECC-based products. The available options are as follows:

1. For customers licensed with SAP S/4HANA and SAP S/4HANA for Product Compliance, there is flexibility to use either the Classic functionality or the New functionality.
2. For customers subscribed to SAP S/4HANA Cloud, private edition and SAP S/4HANA Cloud for Product Compliance, private edition, both the Classic and New functionalities are available and can be selected as needed.
3. For customers subscribed to SAP S/4HANA Cloud, public edition and SAP S/4HANA Cloud for Product Compliance, public edition, only the New functionality of Product Compliance is available.

• Additionally, the current 3E ERC Suite (Enterprise Regulatory Content) license used by Syensqo may require an upgrade to include the 3E ERC+ Suite to support extended regulatory content needs.

Business Rules

Business rules may be required to ensure alignment between the New and Classic versions of Product Compliance—for example, in areas such as SDS version management.

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: Continue AS-IS

Description: ABAP logic, and executed through the Expert Server
                   Automated logic-based rules used to derive, validate, or calculate values in specifications, substances, properties, or other EHS master data.

Pros: Flexible, standard, no code

Cons: Technical Complexity - Requires ABAP development knowledge; not accessible to business users for direct maintenance.

          Hard to Maintain - Changes in regulatory content or business logic require rule updates, which can be time-consuming and error-prone.

Option B: Compliance Requirements

Description: Directly within S/4HANA system à logic is programmed in ABAP
                   As a service à logic is hidden behind service interface, executed remotely, results are 
                   stored in S/4HANA

Pros: Flexible, standard, no code

Cons: Compliance Requirements do not derive values (e.g., hazard class, phrases) — unlike Expert Rules which could auto-populate the property tree.

Option B: Hybrid (Expert Rules + Compliance Requirements)

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.

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