Issue

A request was made by the Syensqo Manufacturing excellence team to consider the option of having one Quality system across Syensqo.

Rationale behind the request:

• No Standardized process within and across the GBUs.
• No standardized reports possible within the plants in a GBU and across GBU .
• Currently Labware is configured in a way which the local sites want to define it.
• In Labware / Web LIMS the Samples are generated manually without any trigger from upstream processes, resulting in a lack of control and  process integration.
• In Labware / Web LIMS the operator can freely define whether execute a test or carry over previous results, without any predefined control.

Recommendation

This KDD recommends the continuation of a decentralised approach for Quality Management, labelled as Option 1 in this document. 

It must be noted that the original recommendation of SyWay was for Option 4 (unified Labware system), in order to allow for full process standardization, however the resources and effort required to implement this option were significant and introduced the risk of delaying the overall SyWay program timelines. When also considering the cost of implementation, integration, and change management impacts, it was decided to move forward with Option 1. This approach allows each GBU to maintain its current Quality Management setup, with existing LIMS/Labware versions and configurations continuing to operate across different sites.

This decision was made following a comprehensive evaluation and was presented to the SteerCo on 26th November 2025, where the endorsement to proceed with Option 1 was received.

Importantly, as part of this approach, SyWay will redesign the interfaces using the latest frameworks. This will lay the groundwork for future harmonization and standardization efforts, aligning with our long-term ambition to create a more unified and efficient system across all GBUs. By taking this step, we are ensuring operational continuity while also positioning ourselves to progressively achieve greater integration and consistency in our Quality Management processes.

Note: Subsequent to the decision to proceed with Option 1, the P&C GBU has initiated a program to decommission WebLIMS and replace it with Labware. Consequently, the integration between SAP S/4HANA and WebLIMS will be out of scope for SyWay. If the migration program does not meet the SyWay timelines, the alternate option will be to manage the inspection process offline. Integration of S4 with Labware is still in scope of SyWay.

Background & Context

Current Status and Challenges:

Syensqo currently operates with a distributed Quality Organization, where quality management responsibilities, processes, and systems are spread across multiple business units and sites. Over time, each GBU/plant has implemented its own technology landscape, leading to the coexistence of different Quality Management Systems, LIMS, and data management tools.

• Lack of Standardization Across GBUs and Sites
  • There is no standardized process within or across the Global Business Units (GBUs)
  • Measured values vary because LabWare configurations and test setups differ across sites.
    
• Inconsistent Reporting and Configuration
  
  • It is not possible to generate standardized reports either within a GBU or across GBUs due to differences in local configurations.
  • LabWare and WebLIMS are currently configured independently by each site, based on local preferences and practices, leading to different data models and test definitions.

• Lack of Integration and Process Control
  
  • In LabWare / WebLIMS, samples can be created manually without any trigger from upstream processes (e.g., production, batch release, or quality notification).
    • This results in a lack of integration and limited traceability between quality results and operational data.
  • Operators can manually decide whether to execute a test or reuse previous results, this step is ad-hoc and without predefined system controls or approval steps.

Assumptions

• Master Data creation and maintenance will be in SAP S/4HANA for SpP.
• Master Data creation and maintenance will be in SAP S/HANA and Labware for P&C and Composites. 
• Inspection Lot creation will remain in SAP S/4HANA when is needed and the sample will be created in Labware.
• Usage Decision will be taken in S/4HANA in order to be able to manage Stock Posting. 
• Lab Equipment will remain integrated into Labware.
• The P&C-Novecare Plants not using S/4HANA for the QM Results Recording will be migrated to Labware.

Constraints

Various lab test equipment are currently deployed across multiple sites, but the full inventory of interfaces and underlying technologies remains undefined. This lack of visibility makes it difficult to accurately estimate the technical effort required to develop SAP integrations for test result capture. Therefore the continuation of the existing decentralised approach is recommended as a pragmatic solution (i.e. Option 1). 

Impacts

The Selected approach does not have an impact on the infrastructure, other SAP modules or systems and inflight projects, It does have an impact on the business processes and the interfaces. 

The Business process models needs to be adjusted based on the recommended option, Interface will be added to scope to connect S/4HANA with Labware.

The SpP Master Data currently stored in Labware needs to be migrated to SAP, as SAP will become the new central repository for all Master Data.

Business Rules

All Inspection Lot triggers are properly defined (e.g., Goods Receipt, Production Order, Stock Transfer).

The Inspection Types defined during the Detailed Design are correctly assigned to the Material Master.

Automate selection of specifications based on material, Customer/Vendor, or batch attributes.

Define valuation logic (e.g., accepted, rejected, conditional acceptance).

Link usage decisions to follow-up actions like stock postings or notifications.

Automate decisions where possible based on recorded results and valuation codes.

Options considered:

Following are the options proposed:

Option 1  – Decentralized Approach

Under this approach, each GBUs continues operating its existing Quality Management setup. Different LIMS versions and configurations remain in use across sites, which means data structures, reporting formats, and inspection results will continue to vary.

Option 2 - Hybrid Approach (CM As-Is / P&C and SpP Standardised)

Under this approach, Composites  retains its current configuration (“As-Is”), while other GBU’s  standardize their quality processes and integrate with SAP S/4HANA. This hybrid model promotes partial standardisation while reducing disruption to ongoing CM operations. This option will also enable Syensqo to roll out a centralised Quality Management Organization.

Option 3 – Technology Standardisation (All GBUs Move to different LabWare systems, no Process changes in Labware)

This option envisions a complete migration where all GBUs (including P&C, SpP, and CM) move to a unified LabWare Technology(One instance for CM and other instance for rest of GBU’s). This option acknowledge the possibility for P&C to unify their plants in the current Labware implementation, removing WEBLIMS.

Option 4 – Full Process Standardisation (All GBUs Move to unified Labware Design)

This option envisions a complete migration where all GBUs (including P&C, SpP, and CM) move to a unified LabWare Design (One instance for CM and other instance for rest of GBU’s).. Quality processes would be fully standardised across the enterprise, ensuring consistent data structures, harmonised reporting formats, and a single source of truth for all inspection results. It requires a deep redesign of the Labware implementation.

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

Change log