Issue

Syensqo is currently using a SaaS application named ‘CCH Tagetik’ provided by Wolters Kluwer for I/C reconciliations carried out as part of the local and group period-end closing activities. The application has also been integrated into the current consolidation system used at Syensqo through custom API developments to provide data feeds for easy reconciliation and faster group closes.

In S/4 HANA, a not entirely new but completely revamped I/C reconciliation tool and solution has been introduced under the product name 'Intercompany Matching and Reconciliation' or in short ICMR. It has a lot of benefits compared to its predecessor with view to ease of use, automation and integration and following the project's overarching principle of 'SAP first' this document is meant to outlay and evaluate possible deployment options for ICMR at Syensqo.

Recommendation

While the new ICMR tool available in S/4 HANA is a game changer for I/C reconciliations compared to the obsolete special ledger solution previously available in SAP ECC systems, it is only able to play out its full potential of technical and business benefits once all operational entities have started using S/4 HANA.

While some cost savings could be reaped from an immediate deployment of ICMR in S/4 HANA and the replacement of the current ‘CCH Tagetik’ solution from a licensing cost perspective, additional customization would be required to integrate the ICMR tool with the existing diverse SAP landscape upstream for local closing activities and down-stream for group closing activities under the assumption that the current degree of automation of the respective process designs should not be decreased in S/4 HANA.

As such it is recommended to go with option 2 and deploy ICMR together with the new consolidation software at a later stage in the S/4 HANA transformation program to keep business disruptions minimal and capitalize on its full capabilities through its native integration with Group Reporting in S/4 HANA.

Background & Context

Assumptions

Constraints

Impacts

Business Rules

Options considered

Option A: 

Option B: 

Option C: 

Option D: 

Evaluation

	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

Change log

Workflow history