Document Imaging & Workflow

Fri Sep 14 13:34:06 EDT 2001

Thanks Greg - that was one thing I had thought of.  I just didn't want to
have our Security group set a 'dummy' user if there was an easier or better
way to address it.  But it would certainly be easy for the users to manage
and I could control getting rid of work items from there on a periodic
basis.

Thanks for the suggestion...

Jody Chassereau
drcakes at hotmail.com

>From: Gregory Kowalik <gkowalik at ashland.com>
>Reply-To: SAP Workflow Users' Group <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: Document Imaging & Workflow
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:17:52 -0400
>
>I have created a special user ID - WF_TASH that I told my users to forward
>imaging workitems to.
>I also have a periodic job that marks these workitems "canceled" after six
>months of their creation date (this gives them time to go back and look at
>them in case they forwarded by mistake).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jody Chassereau <drcakes at hotmail.com>@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> on 09/13/2001
>10:38:45 PM
>
>Please respond to "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>
>Sent by:  SAP Workflow <Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>
>
>To:   SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>cc:
>Subject:  Re: Document Imaging & Workflow
>
>
>Thanks to all who replied about handling this configuration.  I was always
>told by the team providing the content manager solution that some parts
>were
>not transportable and that opening up config in each system was the only
>way
>to do this efficiently.  I have been able to set everything up directly and
>with transports as suggested here, so obviously they weren't entirely
>correct.
>
>It sure seems like a lot of work to align 3 environments (plus a potential
>4th for Training clients), especially considering the many different doc
>types we are defining (to provide expanded descriptions in the Inbox for
>processors).  But at least we now have things in QA.
>
>I will ask one workflow-related question on this: what is the best way to
>deal with incoming image work items in an SAP inbox that are determined
>unnecessary to process into R/3?  I know I can delete them as an
>administrator, but that doesn't seem practical - and the users cannot
>delete
>a work item not completed.  I don't think there is a Wait for event step
>that would help here to terminate the workflow.  I could only think of a
>Latest End deadline to finally get rid of something after a period of time,
>but I don't think that will meet their needs as well.  Any ideas on this?
>I
>think the task is based off the standard TS30001128 for the IMAGE object, I
>believe.
>
>Thanks again...
>Jody Chassereau
>drcakes at hotmail.com
>
>
> >From: "Sheth, Neeraja" <Neeraja.Sheth at fnc.fujitsu.com>
> >Reply-To: SAP Workflow Users' Group <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> >To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> >Subject: Re: Document Imaging & Workflow
> >Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:08:19 -0500
> >
> >We do the same thing - transport the configuration upto Production with
>the
> >correct archive, then change the configuration in Dev and Test to point
>to
> >the dev archive.
> >
> >Neeraja
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John A Haworth [SMTP:jhoworth at csc.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:11 AM
> > > To:   SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > > Subject:      Re: Document Imaging & Workflow
> > >
> > > hi
> > >
> > > Previously I have achieved this by creating the correct entries in the
> >Dev
> > > system (i.e. pointing at the Production archive) releasing the
> >transport,
> > > and taking it through to production, then changing the config back in
> >dev
> > > to point at the dev archive. (and do the same for QA but only
>transport
> > > those changes to QA)
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jody Chassereau <drcakes at hotmail.com>@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> on 13/09/2001
> > > 14:39:10
> > >
> > > Please respond to SAP Workflow Users' Group <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> > >
> > > Sent by:  SAP Workflow <Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> > >
> > >
> > > To:   SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > > cc:
> > > Subject:  Document Imaging & Workflow
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm hoping that someone in the workflow group that has set up
> >configuration
> > > in conjunction with document imaging & ArchiveLink can help answer
>this
> > > question for me.  Now that we have a process in place in our
>development
> > > system that seems to meet most of our needs, I need to move up the
> >process
> > > to our QA environment.
> > >
> > > What I am wondering is: do you (or can you) use transports to define
> >your
> > > ArchiveLink configuration in other systems?  It is generally our
>policy
> >to
> > > not open up config, but it seems that may be the only option here.
> > > Specifically I am referring to entries created under OAC0 (defining
>the
> > > archive id), OAC3 (links to document types), OAC2 (maintaining global
> > > types), SOA0 (maintaing doc types), etc.  If there can only be one
> > > archiveid
> > > defined for a document type, do you have to recreate everything in
> >QA/prod
> > > to point to the applicable archive?
> > >
> > > I hope this makes sense.  Just wondering how others have dealt with
> >this.
> > > I
> > > know some things like SM59 for the RFC destination can just be set up
> > > directly without any problem.  Please pass on suggestions if you have
> > > worked
> > > with this.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance...
> > > Jody Chassereau
> > > drcakes at hotmail.com
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp