Hello Team -<div><br></div><div>Thanks you all the response. I glad that I was able to invoke a very useful discussion. </div><div><br></div><div>All I was I trying to say was, since being a member of the group for more than 5 years, and having involved in many discussions before (not that often these days as I am quite busy, however I make sure I visit the group at least ones in 2 days), I don't see much topics(issues) discussed here on a daily basis and also responses/responders are also very less. I was only pointing that out and I am glad that most of you have taken that in the right sense. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I completely the agree that group is very informative, however most of the informations came from earlier days.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>Nash</div><div><br></div><div><br>
</div><div><br></div><div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Pokraka <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wug@workflowconnections.com">wug@workflowconnections.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi Mike,<br>
<br>
You'll be pleased to know that I don't consider your situation that<br>
peculiar, most of my projects have been great supporters of workflow.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately it's a question of commercial incentive for SAP to devote<br>
significant resources to the workflow engine, so it's easy to arrive at<br>
the "if it ain't broke..." conclusion when asking how further development<br>
is going to increase licensing revenue. For that matter, I don't see a<br>
major MM or SD revision coming out any time soon either.<br>
<br>
What I do know is that SAP may not place great strategic value on<br>
Workflow, but do still consider it of functional value. Of course if you<br>
mention BOR there'll be contempt because... well you know my opinion on<br>
it. Workflow however remains a recommended technology under SAP's Best<br>
Built Apps initiative, now in it's third iteration<br>
(<a href="http://bestbuiltapps.sap.com" target="_blank">http://bestbuiltapps.sap.com</a> - page 18-19), and they are committed to<br>
supporting it for a long time.<br>
<br>
NetWeaver BPM is not designed as a replacement for workflow, but a<br>
complementary product. NWBPM has breadth and WF had depth. NWBPM still has<br>
significant shortcomings - a lot of them - and some won't ever go away<br>
simply due to the opposing nature of the designs. For this reason I don't<br>
think WF is dead for a long while yet. I see at least 5-10 years of<br>
significant WF development in the majority of organisations. A great many<br>
aren't even using the UWL yet.<br>
<br>
What would be great is something in between the two, and one way would be<br>
a shift towards BPMN compliance/compatibility in the ABAP workflow engine.<br>
In theory not a ridiculous undertaking as the SAP-WF design is not too far<br>
off BPMN rules (close enough that I advocate BPMN as a documentation<br>
standard for workflows). As NWBPM is BPMN-based, it would make things a<br>
little more portable between the two engines. In dreamland that would<br>
allow people to design a process independent of either and deploy<br>
different parts of it on whichever engine is most suitable.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
develop it further, because the amount of effort required to impact<br>
=licensing revenue?<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 4, 2010 9:45 pm, Madgambler wrote:<br>
> Much as I'd like to agree with you Susan, I see and hear plenty to the<br>
> contrary from SAP's own consultants every day here in the UK. And it<br>
> disappoints me because I see a lot of untapped potential being<br>
> overlooked because: a) it's considered to be 'old' so it's not being<br>
> taught in Walldorf/Mumbai, b) it's entirely dependent on ABAP to<br>
> function and c) SAP are trying to abandon their traditional Gui for<br>
> Web UI / BOL / GenIL at an alarming rate.<br>
><br>
> Granted our situation is a bit peculiar because of the size of the<br>
> system and the (over)dependence on Workflow here but I feel I have to<br>
> regularly defend Workflow as a 'workhorse' on a daily basis. And to be<br>
> honest I'm starting to regard it more and more as an obsolete dead-end<br>
> as that seems to be the overwhelming attitude of anyone coming in from<br>
> the CRM and PI worlds. I don't really believe that it is dead by the<br>
> way but I do think the bell is tolling faintly.<br>
><br>
> Start talking about BOR to a CRM Consultant these days and you'll hear<br>
> a guffaw of contempt followed swiftly by a dismissal about it being<br>
> yesterday's tool with a limited future. Mention SBWP to the latest<br>
> breed of Developers and half won't have a clue the other half won't<br>
> care, prefering to talk instead about the Web UI home page instead.<br>
><br>
> Now it could be just me but I really don't see any investment in<br>
> Workflow stuff, just a tacit acceptance that it's hanging around so<br>
> people have to be aware of it and be backwards compatible. The only<br>
> driving force behind Workflow now appears to come from the clients who<br>
> use it and rely on it.<br>
><br>
> As with ABAP it seems that SAP aren't dumb, they know they have cash<br>
> cow with Workflow. So it's not like it's going to disappear anytime<br>
> soon. But apart from the massive OO heart bypass we saw from 4.6c to<br>
> ECC 6 little else is on the horizon as far as we know. Perhaps you<br>
> know different?<br>
><br>
> Mike GT<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
> On 4 May 2010, at 20:25, "Keohan, Susan - 1140 - MITLL" <<a href="mailto:keohan@ll.mit.edu">keohan@ll.mit.edu</a><br>
> > wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi All,<br>
>> I have seen the decrease in traffic over the past few years. As a<br>
>> matter of<br>
>> fact, I proposed sunsetting this forum in 2007 - at it's 10-year<br>
>> birthday.<br>
>> At the time, many subscribers asked that the list be kept alive, and<br>
>> so it<br>
>> is.<br>
>> As long as someone sees benefit in it, then it is serving its'<br>
>> purpose.<br>
>><br>
>> Perhaps one way to increase traffic and pour more knowledge into the<br>
>> SAP-WUG<br>
>> fountain is to make a commitment to try to answer - say one question<br>
>> a week<br>
>> - even if it's a little time-consuming? I'll sign up for that.<br>
>><br>
>> As for Business Workflow receding and waning as a skill set - I<br>
>> respectfully<br>
>> disagree. It's true there are new tools and new technologies, but<br>
>> I still<br>
>> see workflow as the workhorse it is.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Sue<br>
>><br>
>> ----<br>
>> Susan R. Keohan<br>
>> SAP Workflow Specialist<br>
>> Enterprise Applications<br>
>> Information Services Department<br>
>> MIT Lincoln Laboratory<br>
>> 244 Wood Street, LI-200<br>
>> Lexington, MA. 02420<br>
>> 781-981-3561<br>
>> <a href="mailto:keohan@LL.MIT.EDU">keohan@LL.MIT.EDU</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu">sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu">sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu</a>] On<br>
>> Behalf Of<br>
>> Madgambler<br>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:04 PM<br>
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group<br>
>> Cc: SAP Workflow Users' Group; <a href="mailto:sap-wug-request@mit.edu">sap-wug-request@mit.edu</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: This Group<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> No point replying to other posts on this thread as the original<br>
>> message is succinct enough to merit a direct response.<br>
>><br>
>> I think the attention being paid to this forum is directly<br>
>> proportional to the amount and complexity of Workflow development<br>
>> being carried out and the depth of Workflow development experience in<br>
>> the average subscriber.<br>
>><br>
>> Now it could be argued that fewer 'new' Workflow issues being<br>
>> discussed here could mean good or bad things are happening in the real<br>
>> world. From my personal experience it seems more likely that SAP<br>
>> Buisiness Workflow is receding as a tool and waning as a skillset.<br>
>><br>
>> Granted it's more immediately accessible to the general Client because<br>
>> it's embedded in the standard offering. But are people pushing the<br>
>> boundaries of what it can do or have we hit them already and that's as<br>
>> far as SAP plan to take it?<br>
>><br>
>> These days the juicier Business Process Modelling projects are being<br>
>> done in the Composite Environment (Java) arena and less often in the<br>
>> ABAP stack at all.<br>
>><br>
>> So rather than this Forum losing support I would actually argue that<br>
>> Workflow itself has reached a plateau and stopped evolving. Perhaps<br>
>> only for a while...<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Mike GT<br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>><br>
>> On 4 May 2010, at 16:48, Nash John <<a href="mailto:emailtonash@gmail.com">emailtonash@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Hi<br>
>>><br>
>>> I get the feeling that this group is slowly but steadily loosing its<br>
>>> significance as I don't see members active/willing to get involved<br>
>>> in discussion/help as it used to be 3 to 4 years ago.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks<br>
>>><br>
>>> Nash<br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> SAP-WUG mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:SAP-WUG@mit.edu">SAP-WUG@mit.edu</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug" target="_blank">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> SAP-WUG mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:SAP-WUG@mit.edu">SAP-WUG@mit.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug" target="_blank">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> SAP-WUG mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:SAP-WUG@mit.edu">SAP-WUG@mit.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug" target="_blank">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> SAP-WUG mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:SAP-WUG@mit.edu">SAP-WUG@mit.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug" target="_blank">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
SAP-WUG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:SAP-WUG@mit.edu">SAP-WUG@mit.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug" target="_blank">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>