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.
• The specifications are not same in 2 different plants for the same product for example PVDF in Tavaux  and in Changzhu.
• For the above reason, In several cases, analysis of CPK, SQC analysis across the 2 different sites are not possible.

      the values does not match because the labware is set up in different ways.

• 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.

Current State:

Recommendation

The key recommendation is Option B: Standardize on SAP S/4HANA QM for Results Recording across all Global Business Units (GBUs). This strategic move leverages SAP's full capabilities for seamless integration, unified master data, real-time analytics, and end-to-end traceability, supporting global harmonization. While diverse legacy systems (Labware, WebLims, SAP ECC) currently exist—with varying configurations and limited commonality—SAP is the only system common to all GBUs. Adopting SAP QM eliminates complex interfaces between existing LIMS and SAP, transforming it into the central platform for data consolidation. The remaining work involves Lab Equipment interfaces, primarily for SpP and TS GBUs.

Composite GBU: 

During our Demo sessions we successfully demonstrated several complex use cases. Yet, the Composite GBU highlighted that other intricate scenarios exist across various sites. Without a validated and comprehensive list of requirements, the decision was made to defer the topic, as reaching a go/no-go decision could take months—time the organization cannot afford. Therefore Composite GBU will remain in Labware.

Rest of the GBUs:

However, transitioning all results recording processes into SAP S/4HANA is not without its challenges. Below are the challenges.

• In the SpP GBU, 222 lab Test Equipment are currently connected to Labware via Lab PCs. These PCs convert measured values into CSV files stored on a shared drive, which Labware accesses through pull requests.
• Historical Data for the last 6 to 12 months for SPC and SQC charts: SPC/SQC in LIMS, used by SpP and Novecare, requires historical data for calculations. Therefore the need for 6–12 months of past data in SAP QM is essential.

          → This can be achieved by converting/uploading the historical data for the required period of time in SAP and used later in the SPC/SQC Chart retrieval process.

R&I Integration:

Below the used tools for R&I per GBU: 

1) Product industrialization

Once a test product becomes an industrial product, the industrial product specs are created in Labware and SAP for the production site --> in future this would be done in SAP only, no issue

 2) Tests done for sites by R&I labs on commercial products (SpP)

The results are shared to the site using G Drive/Aodocs  ->  no issue

The initial request is done by the site directly in Labware using a specific role --> 2 options, each site keeps one role in Labware for this, or sends the request to the R&I lab in another way (online form...)

Bertrand will check what volume of samples/tests is at stake here. 

3) Environmental testing

For example in Spinatta, 2 samples are created, one for the site, one for Bollate. Once Bollate has completed its tests, the site copies them to their sample, so everything is in one place. 3 options: the environmental lab in Spinetta continues to use Labware (it's a specific lab dedicated to environment); the site gets the Bollate results through a G Drive or equivalent and enters them in SAP; or the R&I lab enter the results in SAP (the current Labware setup can be replicated in SAP). 

Volume at stake: 100/150 samples per month 

4) Inovyn in Tavaux

This is not related to R&I but a side note that if we decide to eliminate Labware in SpP, the contract with Inovyn will have to be updated to include data entry in SAP QM

There may be other cases with interaction between the sites & R&I Labware, but around the table we didn't have an exhaustive view, the consensus is that above the most critical ones are listed.

R&I - product development phase - R&I for R&I

R&I for Industrial - will remain As- IS - this part will move to SAP QM  and Lab equipment connected will be taken into consideration

R&I - Analysis for customer complaints - this is done in G sheet 

Side note - R&I process can be standardized by moving everything to OneLIMS (Agilab). (source of information in the link here).

Background & Context

There are some requirements to be considered in context together with topic of this KDD.:

• The table below illustrates the current AS-IS SAP vs LIMS Usage for the GBUs.

SAP should be able to cover the above activities.

GBU specific requirements to be covered are the below:

• Manage Customer Specifications.
• Manage Production In-Process Controls for the Parent Batches.
• Manage Quality Inspection for the Produced Stock Batches.
• Manage “Conditional” Inspections (To be inspected if a previous Inspection Characteristic fails).
• Manage Calculated Characteristics depending on the previous results of other Characteristics.
• Manage Inspection Lot consolidation where an Inspection Lot should be automatically rejected if the previous Inspection Lot was rejected.
• Manage complex Sampling Procedures.
• Manage PRT Usage during the Quality Inspection Process.  

Assumptions

• To enable seamless inspection result recording, laboratory equipment should be interfaced directly with the SAP system, allowing automated data capture, improved accuracy, and real-time integration into quality management workflows and analytics.
• To enable automated sample drawing during the production process, a clearly defined sampling procedure or rule must be communicated. If sampling occurs randomly without a consistent or logical pattern, the process will default to manual execution.
• The proposed solution must support the inclusion of additional inspection samples throughout the quality control process, ensuring flexibility in response to evolving production conditions or specific quality concerns.
• The solution must support the recording of inspection results against multiple specifications, enabling flexible evaluation criteria tailored to diverse product requirements, regulatory standards, or customer-specific needs.

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.

Impacts

• Additional interface objects should be incorporated into the project scope, with a thorough evaluation conducted to identify the most effective integration approach based on system architecture, business requirements, and operational efficiency.
• Enable automated selection of relevant Master Inspection Characteristics and specifications during inspection lot creation, ensuring consistent application of quality criteria and reducing manual configuration effort. 
• For the Composite GBU, transitioning from Labware to SAP may necessitate customer revalidation of the testing process to ensure continued compliance with CUI and ITAR regulatory requirements.
• The initiative entails substantial change management and training efforts, requiring targeted strategies to ensure user adoption, minimize disruption, and build competency across impacted teams.   

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.
• Standardize MICs across plants and materials to ensure consistency.
• MIC Specifications will be mentioned in the Inspection Plans and not on the level of the MIC itself avoiding duplicating of them.
• Assign sampling procedures based on inspection scope and regulatory needs.
• Automate sample size calculation where logical rules exist.
• Default to manual sampling if randomness or non-standard triggers apply.
• Automate selection of specifications based on material, Customer/Vendor, or batch attributes.
• Support multiple specifications per inspection lot when needed (e.g., customer-specific vs. internal standards).
• Ensure fallback logic if no valid specification is found.
• Enforce mandatory result entry for critical characteristics.
• Allow optional recording for informational or non-critical specs.
• Enable integration with lab equipment for automated data capture.
• 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.
• Ensure seamless data flow between QM and IM, Manufacturing, EWM,S2P and A2D.

Options considered

Option A: Keep the AS-IS system usage

Currently, SpP, TS, and Composite business units utilize Labware for inspection results recording, while Novecare operates on WebLims. One proposed option under consideration is to maintain their existing systems, allowing each unit to continue using its current platform to avoid disruption, preserve validated workflows, and minimize revalidation efforts.

The SAP S/4H integration model will be as the below:

Advantages:

Since LIMS is already fully configured and operational, no additional effort is required to adapt SAP S/4HANA for inspection results recording. This minimizes the need for system reconfiguration, reduces training demands for end users, and significantly lowers change management complexity. Moreover, maintaining the existing setup avoids triggering customer revalidation processes, ensuring continuity and compliance with current quality and regulatory standards.

Option B: Use only SAP for the Results Recording

The second option involves leveraging the full capabilities of SAP S/4HANA’s Quality Management (QM) module for inspection results recording. This approach enables seamless integration across procurement, production, and logistics, eliminates interface complexity, and ensures a unified source of truth for master data. It also delivers real-time analytics, embedded compliance features, and end-to-end traceability—making it a strategic fit for harmonized global operations and enterprise transformation initiatives.

This option will involve the Development for the below activities in SAP:

Option C: SpP, Novecare and TS will use SAP for the Results Recording and Composite will remain in the Labware. 

Under this option, SpP, Novecare, and TS will transition to SAP S/4HANA for inspection results recording, while Composite will continue operating within Labware to preserve its validated setup. This approach avoids additional development for Composite-specific requirements, enables harmonization and standardization across the other business units, and delivers the benefits of Option A—without incurring the integration and revalidation challenges associated with Option B.

• Potential savings for P&C and SpP 
  
  • the yearly costs paid to QQSI / WebLims for license maintenance :  ~ 75 k€  / year
    No big  IT support in addition , WebLims is mainly managed by the GBU key users 
  • for Labware SpP: 
    - License maintenance is  : 139 k€ / year (for 129 licenses - CM has 170 not included here)
    - Infogene support is : 186 k€ / year (not including specific CM support contract)
    Cost summary: 75 + 139 + 186  =  400 k€ / year would not exist anymore as such  
• Potential new costs
  • New SAP licenses for Laboratory users who don't have one already.
  • Potential extension of SAP QM Support per GBU. 

Evaluation

 Cost Breakdown:

MSP Simulation - Detailed Design:

Assumptions –

• To finish the draft of final FSs by end of May ‘26
• Considered 27 RICEFW from CD, added 50 Low-medium complexity Interface and 5 High complexity enhancements

Build effort – 950 hours – From May ’26 till Oct’26 – 1.5 FTE 

Testing and deployment – 1.5 FTE

See also

Change log