<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)">
<title>Workflow Substitution Report</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.emailstyle18
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>…very nice, accurate summary. The
application is the only reliable source for auditable information, not workflow.
Workflow logs are transitory and not guaranteed to be the source of the update.
T&E is another application where an approver can (and sometimes does)
approve directly in PR05, bypassing workflow altogether.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Greg</span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=navy face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
7.5pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'><font
size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Trant, David<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, September 08, 2005
4:16 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> SAP Workflow Users' Group<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: Workflow Substitution
Report</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Will that definitely show
who did the actual approval, though? This issue has been in the back of
my mind for some time now. We wrote some reports that go directly against
some workflow log tables … a big no-no since they probably won’t
work whenever we upgrade from 4.6C. Two years ago, SAP brought this
subject up in an ASUG meeting. At that time, customers really
weren’t using the workflow information system and due to this lack of
interest, SAP made no plans to replace it in BW. Since SOX came along,
I’ve suspect this issue will start to get more visibility. It goes
beyond the mere technical ability to properly read workflow logs, which of
course may be archived long before audit reports require their data.
Since theoretically workflow merely connects the dots of existing processes,
it’s always possible for someone to take action outside the
workflow. Without application-level tracking, we could never be certain
who did what. For example, if a purchase order approval workflow uses
release strategy, or a sales order approval workflow uses the status network to
block and unblock orders, someone could conceivably go directly into the PO release transaction or the sales order change transaction and modify the release level
or the status. If I’m writing a report, should I look at the
workflow log or the change log? For sales orders, I’m not sure
it’s even possible to track status changes (JEST) via the change log
(CDHDR/CDPOS), but that’s another topic.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Bottom line, if you want
to report on who actually did something rather than who had the capability of
doing something, my thinking at the present is that it is safest to always go
all the way back to the application. Of course, many applications don’t
support digital signatures, change tracking, or other mechanisms for storing
this data, so in those cases it’s simply not possible.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Best of luck,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>David</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'><font
size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Toledo, Joe (NBC Universal)<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, September 08, 2005
12:53 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> 'SAP Workflow Users' Group'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: Workflow Substitution
Report</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi there Bob.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I've used table HR_USD2
to generate a report to show active substitutions.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I hope this helps.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu
[mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of
</span></b>Schmidt, Bob<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, September 08, 2005
10:00 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> sap-wug@mit.edu<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Workflow Substitution
Report</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:1.0in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>We are allowing users to create substitution rules in
their workflow inboxes usually a manager delegating to their admin. The issue
we are having is that auditors are requesting a report of workitems processed
by each user and additionally if a substitution rule was involved and whom it
was performed on behalf of.<br>
<br>
Has anyone encountered similar requirements and how was it satisfied?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bob Schmidt </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
This message is for the designated recipient only and may<br>
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. <br>
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender<br>
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of<br>
this email is prohibited.<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
[mf2]</span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>