Don't forget WIS

Wed Apr 9 17:47:19 EDT 2003

Not many that I know of. I have only 1 site personally that is now looking at it.
Hence why I brought it up.
Not till people have had workflow for a few years and have archived much of it off,
do they now think about specialised reporting.

The tip, plan your WIS strategy before you archive !

Phil Soady
Senior Consultant
Business Technologies
SAP Australia
* : 0412 213 079
* : phil.soady at sap.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:16 AM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Don't forget WIS

Funny you should mention that, just this morning was on the topic of whether to use WIS or not... Currently client isn't running WIS, but this may just be the type of thing that can make it worthwhile. Out of interest, are there many people that use WIS's 'monitoring' type functionalitly - Exceptions / Early warning system and the likes? What sorrt of experience, any use?

Cheers
Mike

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 03:57:48PM +0200, Soady, Phil wrote:
> Don't forget the WIS for reporting.
> There is a user exit to fish out your variables from the container at
> the time the WIS data is written.
>
> That way special report on your data not just the technical data in a
> workflow is possible in the WIS.
>
> Worth the effort once people want to report of business processes and
> workflows and to do so effectively you need to calculate values, or at
> least use your container variables from WorkItems.
>
> Start with RMCADATA,
> then run MCAH, MCAI MCAJ to get a feel of what's possible.
>
> The Help (CD or SAPHELP site) has details on the user exit.
> A sneaky way to have good reporting on Workitems with YOUR custom
> data.
>
> Standard WIS analysis is as boring as bat shit.
> But the tool for displaying and the possibilities with real data is
> something else.
>
> That's why I like the user exit.
> You will also need to look at creating your own evaluation
> structure.(sorry).
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:16 PM
> To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: Variable deadlines...
>
>
> Hi Richard,
> I was planning on both - using the WF reports and probably coding some
> custom ones for the users to run for themselves. I suppose it would
> not be too difficult to add up the durations of all tasks under one
> flow to get the total time.
>
> I'm trying to stay with SAP's reports as far as possible though as
> they offer far more flexibility than I could knock up in the day or so
> I'd be allocating to writing my own report. There is that aspect of
> the lazy user who takes ages appearing busier than the efficient user
> who does more items in a shorter time - according to any
> SAP-reports...
>
> Also, it's about 20-30 tasks that need this type of setup, so for now
> I'm still thinking about this one...
>
> Thanks for your input..
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:38:03AM -0600, Richard Marut wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > That's correct - each would take at most one day. If your stats
> > capturing is using the Workflow log, then you will show excessive
> > activity each day rather than on the actual day that the deadline
> > should occur according to your requirements.
> >
> > Were you planning to use the log or create your own report for
> > reporting your stats? I have a hand written list of steps that I
> > would need to code to produce my own statistics report. I could send
> > it to you if you're interested. I would need a day or two to locate
> > it.
> >
> > Richard...
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf
> > Of Michael Pokraka
> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 7:37 AM
> > To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Variable deadlines...
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> > I like the theory, but one thing bothers... A minor requirement is
> > that stats are quite important , which would be skewed if I
> > understand this correctly - each task would be take at most one day,
> > correct?
> >
> > Thanks for the useful input,
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:41:50PM -0600, Richard Marut wrote:
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > I'm ready to do the same thing where I have deadlines of 3, 5 and
> > > 8
> > days
> > > for the same task. My solution and design is:
> > >
> > > 1. Create a table that defines the deadlines. This is to allow
> > additions
> > > if needed in the future.
> > > 2. Set the deadline at the task to 1 day.
> > > 3. Create a new method that reads the deadline table and
> > > determines if the actual deadline is reached. 4. Put the new
> > > deadline determination method/task after the task with the
> > > deadline.
> > >
> > > I'm going to manage this by using a container element that I
> > > increment each time the deadline is reached. If I find a match
> > > between the deadline element and one of the deadline table
> > > entries, then I do my escalation of notifying the appropriate
> > > person(s) otherwise I loop
> > back
> > > to the task with the deadline.
> > >
> > > Richard...
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf
> > > Of Michael Pokraka
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:11 AM
> > > To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > > Subject: Variable deadlines...
> > >
> > > Greetings all,
> > > I have a design issue with not-so-nice solutions and wonder if
> > > anyone may have better alternatives:
> > >
> > > Scenario: Many tasks, all call same method.
> > > Depending on an object attribute, different deadlines are to apply
> > > to each step (We have a 'deadline matrix' of flow type and task).
> > >
> > > Thus a 'Normal' obj will have 3 days, 2 days and 5 days for the
> > > first
> > 3
> > > tasks.
> > > A 'Partial' obj will have shorter deadlines (2,1 and 3 days) and
> > > so
> > on,
> > > a 'Rush' shorter again (not quite accurate - in reality we have 15
> > > different types).
> > >
> > > Since the methods are all the same, I would need to pass a
> > > parameter, thus requiring a seperate step before each task,
> > > calling a 'GetDeadlineForTask' method of sorts. At 30-odd steps,
> > > this becomes
> > both
> > > annoying and ugly. Does anyone have an idea on how to accomplish
> > > this with an attribute? I could of course create 30 deadline
> > > virtual attributes but even that is not really all that nice
> > > either....
> > >
> > > Any ideas welcome...
> > > Cheers
> > > Mike