Enhancement Concept, Implementation and Standardization of Multiple Legal (Headquarter) Addresses

[rybtim]

Description

Realization of concept to include multiple legal addresses for one BPNL e.g. for companies in the US.

It should be ensured that multi legal headquarter addresses, e.g. Siemens AG in München and Berlin, can be processed to make sure that special cases with this requirement can be reflected in the golden record processes.
First approach based on example “Siemens AG” already aligned.

In this feature it must be checked if this constellation exists also in other countries, e.g. USA.

Pool / Gate Data Model and APIs MUST be adapted to allow multiple legal addresses for one and the same legal entity. Portal onboarding and own company data maintenance UIs MUST allow to maintain multiple legal addresses for one and the same legal entity.

Impact

• BPDM Gate and Pool API
• Portal

Additional information

• I'm willing to contribute to this feature

[jjeroch]

Attention @rybtim : Upcoming PI Planning Preparation

As we gear up for the forthcoming PI Planning session, it is crucial that all features under consideration align with our established Feature Quality Standards and Definition of Done (DoD) guidelines. To ensure your feature is thoroughly prepared and stands a strong chance of being prioritized, please provide comprehensive documentation that includes the following components:

1. Feature Summary: An executive overview that encapsulates the essence and objectives of the feature.
2. Change Description:

• High-Level Overview: A succinct synopsis of the proposed changes and their overarching impact.
• Detailed Analysis: An in-depth exploration of the specific alterations, including a clear exposition of the anticipated impact on existing systems.

3. Impacted Components: A list identifying all system components that will be affected by the feature implementation, accompanied by a brief explanation of the nature of the impact.
4. Acceptance Criteria: A set of clearly defined conditions that must be met for the feature to be considered complete and acceptable.
5. Test Scenarios: A detailed outline of test cases that cover all functional paths of the feature to ensure robust validation and verification.
6. Risks/Dependencies

Please note that any feature submissions lacking these essential elements will not be eligible for consideration in the upcoming PI Planning. It is imperative that your documentation is both thorough and precise to facilitate a smooth and effective planning process.

Please let me know in case you have any questions

[Grand-Thibault]

@rybtim please a content to the description in alignment with the expert groups

[jjeroch]

Moved it back to "Inbox" it is too far away to be able to discuss it. No content there - we can not proceed with this limitations

[rybtim]

No implementation feature for R. 24.08. Handover to Expert Group plannend and moved to Inbox

[stephanbcbauer]

As discussed in open planning, this feature will stay in Inbox until there is a handover to the related expert group. Please reach out, when the handover is done and the expert group is ready to work on the feature. Please also keep @jjeroch comment in mind.

Don't just start with the feature. Clarification is still needed. Same for:

• Adding a BPNL (Legal to Legal) Hierarchy Structure in the Gate/Pool #600
• Data feedback concept, change-log, types of notifications etc. implementation #643
• Harmonization and Enhancement of identifier types #605

Thx

[stephanbcbauer]

@rybtim added you as assignee because we need a contact person for every feature.

[stephanbcbauer]

Didn't think about it before, but since the feature is still in Inbox, the open decision label is not needed. Opinions?

[MichaelvonSomnitz]

Proposal based on Example "Siemens AG":

• Both HQ from Siemens AG (München, Berlin) with equal rights
• Both HQ are BPNL
• Both BPNL have to be linked together via relationship (same legal entity or same HQ or same ...)
  --> NEW - relationship not yet implemented!! --> (not) to be linked via Hierarchy?!
• BP with additional addresses (BPNA) have to be linked to one BPNL (proposal München)
• Corresponding BPNS has to be linked to one BPNL (proposal München)
• Via above mentioned relation between both HQ, all BPNA and BPNS are then automatically linked correctly

This approach is also applicable for other countries where more than 1 Corporate HQ is valid.

[MichaelvonSomnitz]

to be discussed also within: Adding a BPNL (Legal to Legal) Hierarchy Structure in the Gate/Pool #600 ?

[MG2023-RB]

Feature from business point of view (almost) done.
Proposal naming of relationship: Same Headquarter
Approach to be discussed with DEV

[Sebastian-Wurm]

Feature from business point of view (almost) done. Proposal naming of relationship: Same Headquarter Approach to be discussed with DEV

@MG2023-RB: Naming things is a business task, please discuss this in the BPDM expert group first. Current proposal for the relationship name is "is registered alternative for". Proposal is described here: #754.