| Status | Approved |
| Owner | |
| Stakeholders |
Issue
SAP MII (Manufacturing Integration and Intelligence) will stop being supported by SAP after 2027 (or 2030). There are currently two MII instances used by Syensqo
- Composite ITAR MII (US), is already 100% managed by Syensqo
- Global MII (based in EU) is currently shared with Solvay, will be cloned
We need to identify a strategy to address this situation. This KDD document presents the possible options and identifies the best proposal, analyzing the implications and impacts under different points of view: business functionalities, IT perspective, change management, scalability and future proof solution.
Three options are available:
- A) continue running on MII after end of official support, managing internally or via a 3rd party provider the product maintenance and adaptations
- B) substitute MII with the corresponding solution in the SAP Road Map: SAP Digital Manufacturing + SAP BTP
- C) remove MII and directly connect MES systems to SAP S4 via the current StarTek platform.
Recommendation
Option C is the recommended solution: remove MII and directly connect MES systems to SAP S4 via the current StarTek platform.
Background & Context
MII acts as a middle-ware to connect the MES systems with the following data flows (not all of them are relevant for all plants/MES systems):
- process orders from SAP ECC to MES
- production confirmations from MES to SAP ECC
- production goods movements from MES to SAP (consumption and goods receipt)
These process are in place for both WP1 (WPX in case of ITAR relevant sites) and PF1.
There are no cases of direct user interactions with MII: it is used only as a middle-ware between ECC systems and MES systems.
Data Analytics and Reporting Features (KPI, OEE, Data Intelligence, etc) are not used. This is valid for both MII instances.
Assumptions
- MES systems in the affected plants won't change and MES functionalities and implementations in the affected plants will remain stable during the ERP Rebuild project
- other functionalities potentially covered by SAP Digital Manufacturing are not part of this KDD; they are addressed here: https://wiki.syensqo.com/x/-YGMNQ
Constraints
Impacts
- Conveying the current MII flows into the current Star Tek Platform must be synchronised with the ERP Rebuild timeline and the current Star Tek Roll-outs timeline, to optimize the effort and avoid temporary solutions that would be wasted in the long run.
- The affected plants and MES systems must be prepared to adhere to the unified communication protocol defined by the Star Tek layer
Business Rules
This is a pure techincal KDD, no business impact.
Options considered
Option A: Keep MII
In this option we disregard the expiry date of MII maintennce and we keep it running for the current plants and MES system using it as a connector.
The Risk related to this option is the need to build up an internal or 3rd party maintenance team to take care of the system after the SAP maintenance won't be guaranteed anymore. It is also a non-Future Proof and not-scalable solution.
The advantage is that it implies zero effort both on MES and S4/HANA sides and it keeps all current connectors in place as they are.
Pro’s | Con’s |
Effort: minimal to zero effort required both on SAP S4 and MES side. | Maintenance: after the expiry date of MII for SAP Maintenance, an internal or 3rd party team must be engaged to keep the product running and maintained. |
Future Proof: this solution is not future-proof, as any new functionality, extension, improvement will require bespoke implementation. | |
Scalability: the solution will be hardly scalable, as connecting new MES systems and new plants will require activate them in MII and MII skills will become scarce and expensive after the system dismissal by most of the companies using it. | |
|
Option B: substitute MII with Digital Manufactring + BTP
Digital Manufacturing does not have all functionalities and connectors we had in the MII system. Despite it is the designated substitute of MII, it requires BTP components to fully substitute MII capabilities as MES-SAP middle-ware.
There is also a potential risk related to current bespoke implementations in MII to be replicated in DM+BTP, for this reason the Project Effort is considered to be medium for this option.
This is the option with the best compliance with the SAP standard and Road Map, however it would add further objects to maintain on top of the current Star Tek Layer.
It would make sense only if the MES systems was substituted by SAP DM. But, as defined in https://wiki.syensqo.com/x/-YGMNQ, all the current MES systems will remain.
Option C: Remove MII and directly interface MES systems to the current Star Tek Layer
In this option, we remove MII and we the Star Tek layer as a middle-ware, to send process/production orders from SAP S4/HANA to MES systems and to collect actual confirmations and production goods movements from MES systems to S4/HANA.
It is the option with the minimal impact, as it leverage the current Star Tek solution implementation effort. It is based on bespoke interfaces, however the scalability and future-proof of the solution are guaranteed by the Star Tek design, that defined a single communication protocol for all different MES systems used in Syensqo.
This option may require a review of the current Star Tek roll out program, to assure that all plants currently served by MII will work on Star Tek platform before the MII end of maintenance period.
| Integration | PRO: Tight integration with SAP EAM, no data replication required, unified platform. | PRO: Good integration with existing SAP systems. CON: Requires redesign to align with an upgrade to S/4HANA and new business processes. | CON: Requires complex and costly integration efforts, potential data synchronization issues. |
| Real-Time Resource Management | PRO: Real-time resource monitoring and adjustments. CON: Requires separate integration to reach HR data | PRO: Capable of real-time updates within SAP environment. CON: Requires separate integration to reach HR data | PRO: Comprehensive real-time scheduling and resource management features. CON: Integration may delay real-time capabilities |
| Scheduling and Optimization | PRO: Advanced dynamic scheduling, scenario planning and simulation. | PRO: Strong visual scheduling and optimization tools. | PRO: Specialized in advanced scheduling, optimization and simulation. CON: High complexity and potential customization requirements. |
| User Experience | PRO: Consistent SAP Fiori-based user interface, intuitive for SAP users. | PRO: User-friendly interface with graphical elements. CON: UI may feel dated compared to modern platforms. | PRO: Modern, customizable interfaces, user-friendly and feature-enrich. |
| Real-Time Schedule Updates and Execution Management | PRO: Real-time adjustments and monitoring during execution, robust notification system. | PRO: Capable of handling real-time changes and work execution tracking. | PRO: Typically offers advanced real-time scheduling updates and execution management. CON: Requires additional effort for real-time data integration and consistency. |
| Analytics and Reporting | PRO: Performance dashboards and predictive analytics within SAP. | PRO: Good standard reporting features. CON: Less advanced analytics capabilities. | PRO: Strong analytics and reporting, often with advanced visualization tools. |
| Customization and Flexibility | PRO: Highly customizable within SAP framework. CON: Customization can be complex and require specialized skills. | PRO: Flexible within SAP environments. CON: Limited customization outside SAP. | PRO: Highly customizable and configurable, supporting extensive business-specific needs. CON: Customization complexity can lead to high implementation and maintenance costs. |
| Scalability and Future Roadmap | PRO: Scales well with growing SAP landscapes and has a clear future roadmap aligned with SAP's vision. Cons: Dependent on SAP's development and release cycle. | PRO: Scalable within the SAP environment. Cons: Limited scalability outside SAP; future roadmap heavily tied to SAP's development. | PRO: Often includes robust scalability options and a proactive future roadmap. CON: Scalability can be dependent on the integration with existing systems and might involve significant upgrades or costs. |
| Vendor Support and Community | PRO: Strong support and extensive community for SAP products. CON: SAP's support can be costly. | PRO: Good support from Prometheus and SAP community. CON: Limited third-party support. | PRO: Often supported by large, specialized vendors with robust support offerings. CON: Support can be costly and finding specific expertise may be challenging. |
Evaluation
The following Matrix illustrates the evaluation of each option under the considered criteria:
Criteria | Weight | Option A Keep MII | Option B substitute MII with Digital Manufacturing + BTP | Option C Remove MII and use Star Tek layer |
| Future Proof and Scalability | VH | Very Low | High | High |
| Best Practice | H | Very Low | Very High | Low |
| Functionalities | H | High | High | High |
| Simplicity | H | Very High | High | Medium |
| Maintainability | VH | Very Low | Very High | Low |
| Reduce Project Effort | H | Very High | Medium | Very Low |
Total | Medium | High | Medium |
Change log
Workflow history
| Title | Last Updated By | Updated | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| There are no pages at the moment. | ||||