You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 15 Next »

Status

  Approved

Owner
Stakeholders

@Marie Flourie

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.
Process CategoryProposal
CompositionClassic (Replicate custom development)
Raw Materials ManagementClassic (Partially replicate the solution in S/4HANA Classic by managing raw materials data based on supplier SDSs, while partially leveraging S/4HANA New capabilities for managing raw materials data objects driven by logistics events)
SDS Template and GenerationClassic (Migrate the WWI templates along with the associated specific characteristics (and certain function modules) as-is, except for the CH1 address, logo, and emergency telephone numbers, which will revert to the standard configuration)
Other DocumentsClassic (Replicate RDS (Regulatory Data Summaries) authoring in S/4HANA Classic, excluding Certificates. Explore alternative methods for document authoring— either using the new technology (Adobe Forms) available in S/4HANA New, or leveraging Datasphere to address ad hoc requirements.)
SDS Authoring Automation Algorithm (“Expert Rules”)Classic (As Authoring is not available in S4 NEW) 
Mass Upload / Modification (User Accessible)Classic (Replicate the solution in S/4HANA Classic and explore how it can be replaced with standard functionality in S/4HANA New after the transition to SDS Authoring.) 
SVTClassic (Revert to standard functionality in S/4HANA) 
Company Substance ManagementNew (Develop in S4 New (if not feasible using standard functionality))
SVHCNew (Implement in S/4HANA New with limited custom development)


Background & Context

  • In legacy SAP EHS (CG02-based), Expert Rules were used to:

    • Auto-derive property values.

    • Copy composition data.

    • Apply regional compliance logic.

  • Expert Rule functionality is not carried forward in the new Fiori-based Product Compliance apps.

  • SAP now promotes rule-based checks via integrated services, supported predefined compliance requirements.

  • Logic for data consistency checks is build into the data management apps

  • Logic to determine secondary data is build into compliance requirements

          - e.g. for marketability by integrated “Substance list check” pattern

          - e.g. for SDS content via partner solution “Intelligent SDS authoring” by 3E1

  • Logic to check marketability status or dangerous goods transport allowance of a 
    product is either

          – Part of the compliance requirements, or
          – Part of the process integration

  •  Compliance requirements are processed

         – 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

  •  Customers can define their own compliance requirements (based on existing patterns)

Assumptions

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

  • Composition Data, SVT are managed in S4 Classic and DG, SDS and Marketability checks are managed in the new compliance framework.

  • Business rules used in classic Expert Rules are still relevant and required post-migration if Product Classification and SDS Authoring is in S4 Classic.


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.


Impacts

AreaImpact
AutomationNeed to rebuild logic using BRF+/Custom
Migration EffortHigh if many Expert Rules exist
User TrainingNew interfaces and logic mechanisms
PerformanceMay improve with optimized BRF+ logic
Future-readinessAligns with SAP’s roadmap and innovations


Business Rules

  • Compliance Relevance Rule: A material or product must be marked as Compliance Relevant in the Product Master for compliance checks to be triggered via Compliance Requirements.
  • Regulatory Scope Rule: Compliance Requirements must be defined and maintained for the specific regulatory areas relevant to the business (e.g., Marketability, Dangerous Goods, SDS, SVT, PCN).
  • Process Trigger Rule: Compliance Requirements must be integrated into key processes such as: Sales Order Creation/Change, Outbound Deliveries, FU/FB/FB Creation
  • Compliance Decision Rule: The outcome of Compliance Requirements must drive decision-making (e.g., Block Order, Allow Order, Generate Compliance Report, Trigger Notification).


Options considered

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



Option A: Continue AS-IS

Option B:
Compliance Requirement
System Integration

(minus)Con: Complex Customization and Maintenance:-Even minor changes may require deep understanding of EHS data structures, rule sequences, and integration dependencies.

(minus)Con: Limited Reusability:- Expert Rules are tightly coupled to specific EHS data models and not reusable across modules like Product Compliance, Dangerous Goods, or SVT without significant rework.

(plus)Pro: Instead of using separate tool like EHS Expert, everything is now integrated, smarter, and more flexible, right inside S4 HANA - or through connected services when needed.


Compliance Management

(minus)Con: Compliance Management:- Hard to adapt to complex or dynamic regulations

(plus)Pro: Centralized, scalable, Flexible

            

Maintenance

(minus)Con: Requires technical effort for every update

(plus)Pro: Centralized Management: Compliance Requirements are managed in one place and can be applied across products and regions, reducing redundancy.

(plus)Pro: Impact Analysis: Any changes in a requirement can automatically trigger re-assessments, helping ensure ongoing compliance without having to manually track updates.

Scalability

(minus)Con: Performance issues in large datasets

(plus)Pro: Modular Structure: Each requirement can be scoped to a region, regulation, or compliance purpose, allowing companies to scale by simply adding new requirements (e.g., for new countries or products).

(plus)Pro: Integration with Product Master Data: Seamlessly integrates with material/product data and processes (e.g., sales, purchase), allowing the compliance framework to grow with the business.

Reusability

(minus)Con: Rules are tightly scoped and hard to generalize across processes

(plus)Pro: Reusable Assessment Logic: Once created, Compliance Requirements can be reused across multiple products, plants, or business units.

(plus)Pro: Rule Reuse Across Products: Rules and checks defined within a requirement automatically apply to any product linked to that requirement — no need to recreate logic.




See also


No files shared here yet.

Change log

Version Published Changed By Comment
CURRENT (v. 15) Sept 10, 2025 12:51 WENNINGER-ext, Sascha
v. 42 Aug 20, 2025 16:00 WENNINGER-ext, Sascha
v. 41 Aug 20, 2025 10:49 ROUT-ext, Praksh
v. 40 Aug 20, 2025 10:45 WENNINGER-ext, Sascha
v. 39 Aug 14, 2025 16:59 CHOUDHARY-ext, Tanvi
v. 38 Aug 08, 2025 12:57 ROUT-ext, Praksh
v. 37 Aug 08, 2025 12:56 ROUT-ext, Praksh
v. 36 Aug 08, 2025 11:01 ROUT-ext, Praksh
v. 35 Aug 08, 2025 10:53 CHOUDHARY-ext, Tanvi
v. 34 Aug 08, 2025 10:48 CHOUDHARY-ext, Tanvi

Go to Page History

  • No labels