<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Excluded Agents</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>Hi
Abdulla, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>If the
business is ok with it, auto-approval is fine. I have done this before but
only after explaining the impact</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>to the
business and getting their agreement. Need to make sure this
is well documented somewhere also in </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>case
your auditors question the decision later. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=979223804-01082001></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>If you
calculate first and second approvers in prior steps (e.g. by adhoc agent
assignment or by calling a method</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>which
calls function module RH_GET_ACTORS or similar) then to auto-approve you simply
use a condition step</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>to
check whether the actual agent of the first approval step is in the agent list
for the second approval step, then </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>do
your auto-approval if the condition is true. Up to you to figure out what'
s needed for auto-approval, may just</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>be
skipping the next approval step, or may need to set additional flags/run
additional methods - depends on your</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=979223804-01082001>workflow.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=979223804-01082001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=979223804-01082001>Regards, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=979223804-01082001>
<DIV style="HEIGHT: 90px; WIDTH: 374px"><FONT size=2>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD></FONT>
<TD>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff>Jocelyn Dart</FONT> <BR><FONT
color=#0000ff>Consultant (EBP, BBP, Ecommerce, Internet Transaction
Server, Workflow)</FONT> <BR><FONT color=#0000ff>SAP
Australia</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>Email </FONT><A
href="mailto:jocelyn.dart@sap.com"><FONT
size=2>jocelyn.dart@sap.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>Tel: +61<SPAN
class=153385400-09052000> 412 390 267</SPAN><BR>Fax: +61 2 9935
4880</FONT></FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Abdullah Musaid
[mailto:AMusaid@qatargas.com.qa]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 27 July 2001 9:44
PM<BR><B>To:</B> SAP-WUG@MITVMA.MIT.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Excluded
Agents<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>Dear
Jocelyn,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>We
have accounted for release of payment by placing a payment block until the
work item has been approved by proper persons. In some cases, only one
person has the authority to approve an invoice. So, the use of the
excluded agents is not really geared towards security. Fraud is not
a concern because all approvals are based on a Financial Authority
Table that includes levels (attesters, approvers) and amounts control
mechanism. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>As
for your suggestions, this is how I look at it:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>-
Substitution should stay. It is supported in the system and we
have more than one workflow in the company.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>-
Substitution of a person outside the approval path (evaluation path) might not
be a good idea because of the local expertise/relevance in each approval
path.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>-
The workaround you mentioned by calculating first and second approving persons
is similar to what we do know on a monitoring
basis. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>-
Auto-approve for same persons might be an idea. I need to discuss it
with Business.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>I
was thinking of completely removing the excluded agents option from the
workflow container. I am not exactly sure about the impact of this
on. I did simple testing and things look OK with the removal.
However, I wanted to hear what others might say; especially those who probably
have seen something like this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>Thanks for your reply.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>Abdulla Musaid</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412562911-27072001><EM><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>Systems Analyst SAP FI/CO</FONT></EM></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Dart, Jocelyn
[mailto:jocelyn.dart@sap.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 27, 2001 3:31
AM<BR><B>To:</B> SAP-WUG@MITVMA.MIT.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Excluded
Agents<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>Hi
Abdulla, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>Ok
you have a real live segregation of duties issue, which you need to
discuss with the business. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>The workflow is set up to ensure (via the excluded
agent) that at least 2 DIFFERENT people approve</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>the release. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>My
guess would be that this doesn't change for your business just because
someone has been substituted - you </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>probably still want 2 different people to approve
the release otherwise when Person B is on vacation, Person
A</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>can effectively release anything on his/her own -
leaving the business exposed to deliberate or accidental fraud.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>If
you want to handle this in your workflow you could:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>*
Adjust your substitutions so this doesn't happen - e.g. delegate to another
mananger at the same level rather</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>than to subordinates.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>*
Calculate the second approver in a step prior to the second approval
workitem and if the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>first and second approvers are the same, either
send a workitem to an administrator or business process
owner</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>who can dynamically </SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>pick an
alternative agent, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>or
send the second approval workitem itself to the </SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>administrator/business process owner who can
execute the workitem on someone's behalf. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>If
you don't care about segregation of duties in this case you could
auto-approve the second approval step but</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>I
wouldn't recommend that. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=822232700-27072001>Regards,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=822232700-27072001>
<DIV style="HEIGHT: 90px; WIDTH: 374px"><FONT size=2>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD></FONT>
<TD>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff>Jocelyn Dart</FONT> <BR><FONT
color=#0000ff>Consultant (EBP, BBP, Ecommerce, Internet Transaction
Server, Workflow)</FONT> <BR><FONT color=#0000ff>SAP
Australia</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>Email </FONT><A
href="mailto:jocelyn.dart@sap.com"><FONT
size=2>jocelyn.dart@sap.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>Tel: +61<SPAN
class=153385400-09052000> 412 390 267</SPAN><BR>Fax: +61 2 9935
4880</FONT></FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Abdullah Musaid
[mailto:AMusaid@qatargas.com.qa]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 26 July 2001
10:06 PM<BR><B>To:</B> SAP-WUG@MITVMA.MIT.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Excluded
Agents<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Folks,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>We have a Release for Payment WF running in the
company. The Release for Payment task "407862" is used with
Activity_EXCLUDED_AGENTS configured to receive agents from Reference table
"WFSYST" & Reference field "ACT_AGENT" in the ABAP Dictionary.
The evaluation path (also called approval path) consists of a multi-level
WF procedure with different people at different positions/levels.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>The problem occurs when someone at a lower
level approval an invoice. This person (say "Person A") is
also acting (substituted) for another person ("Person B") where "Person B"
is on the same approval path, but at a higher level. After "Person
A" completes the approval. The WF takes the item to the upper level
for approval. But, because that "Person B" is on vacation and had
substituted "Person A"; the WF will try to take the work items back to
"Person A" for approval. This is where the work item gets stuck
because "Person A" is an excluded agent by the definition of the Release
for Payment task "407862". </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>The problem also occurs when "Person A"
substitutes "Person B". The WF system knows who completed the work
item and will remember not to send it to that person again.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Running transaction "SWI1", the work item will
appear with status "Ready" and "blank" value for the Actual Agent
field. This is where we manually end and approve the invoice using
special authorization by a Basis person. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well, I need to you what you think is a good
solution for this problem.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT> </P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>Abdulla Musaid</FONT></B> <BR><I><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Systems Analyst SAP FI/CO</FONT></I>
</P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>