Responsibility Rules

[Michael Pokraka]

Hi Phil,
My approach has always been on an 'as needed' basis, depending on the
client's implementation. That is, as long as productive maintenance is no=
t
required, it shall remain transportable. Usually this depends on the
underlying objects.
 
e.g. if the only workflows that use responsibilities are based on Plant o=
r
Purchasing org, and client transports these, then responsibilities are al=
so
transported.
If however workflows use responsibility rule for vendors - which are
obviously maintained in prd, then all responsibilities should be maintain=
ed
via OOCU_RESP (security can become an issue). I suppose one can also go w=
ith
mixed approaches (transport for some), as long as number ranges are OK. S=
o
far I've successfully avoided that :)
 
Cheers
Mike
 
Soady, Phil wrote:
> Im interested in how people usually setup and PFAC RULE Responsibilitie=
s and
> Assignments.
> Physically building it DEV is not the drama. (PFAC type responsibility)
> Finding the best of approach to transporting the RULE and RY
> (Responsibility)
> and performing the assignment in PRD, or direct maitained or RULES in P=
RD is
> the question.
> Ideally an administrator would update the assignment directly as the ta=
rget
> agents(Object/s) change.
>
> What experiences can you share.
> Has anyone got any clear recommendations on what worked for them.
> Perhaps PP01...
>
> PS: Im assuming the to be assigned objects eg ORG units positions whate=
ver
> will have a DIFFERENT id in PRD than in DEV.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Phil Soady
> Senior Consultant
> Business Technologies
> SAP Australia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of K=
jetil
> Kilhavn
> Sent: Wednesday,14 April 2004 9:26 PM
> To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: flexible inbox view
>
>
> Tell them that this is of course possible, but it costs them an arm and
> both legs - and their soul too.
>
> Looks like your best option is a custom report with ALV Grid display.
> --
> Kjetil Kilhavn
>
>
>
>
> |--------+---------------------------------->
> |        |          Veerle De Smet          |
> |        |          <veerle.desmet at sidmar.ar|
> |        |          celor.com>              |
> |        |          Sent by: SAP Workflow   |
> |        |          <Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MI|
> |        |          T.EDU>                  |
> |        |                                  |
> |        |                                  |
> |        |          13.04.2004 15:11        |
> |        |          Please respond to "SAP  |
> |        |          Workflow Users' Group"  |
> |        |                                  |
> |--------+---------------------------------->
>   >--------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------|
>   |
>                                  |
>   |       To:     SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>                                  |
>   |       cc:     (bcc: Kjetil Kilhavn)
>                                  |
>   |       Subject:     flexible inbox view
>                                  |
>   >--------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> we get complaints of our WF users about the non-flexibility of
> showing/grouping the inbox tasks !! They are overwhelmed with messages =
and
> do not find back the most urgent  or most critical or related tasks ...=
. .
> The fact is indeed that we have A LOT OF workflows;
> - WFs for the validations of contracts (SD)
> - WFs for the validation of orders (SD)
> - WFs for the validation of scheduling agreements (SD)
> - ....
> In each of these WFs, there are several parties to validate. Moreover,
> each party can change the SD document and hence we have to send back a
> validation message to all the other parties ... . Moreover, we have a
> validation workflow per sales document item while one sales document ma=
y
> have several items and hence several WFs at the same time. So it is
> obvious that the users want to see all related WFs one after the other =
...
> . Or want to see all WFs for a certain customer, or all WFs of sales
> documents with a requested delvery date within x weeks, ..... . Or all =
WFs
> already accepted by party X but not yet accepted by party Y, ....
>
> I am aware of the possibility of using "dynamic columns" . In this way,=
 we
> can add additional info to the work item text and the user can define
> sorting and filters on it. We use them of course already but this is
> restricted to 6 columns. And yes, this is not enough for our users ....=
 .
>
> What they really want is some "very flexible way "  to select a part of
> all their WF tasks based upon various selection options (additional inf=
o
> of the WF object) and then sorted is some flexible way.
>
> Does anybody has some good idea to help us ?
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Veerle.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Veerle De Smet
> SIDMAR N.V.
> Tel. : +32 9 347 47 60
> E-mail : veerle.desmet at sidmar.arcelor.com
>
> ***********************************************************************=
************
>
> This message should only be read by those persons to whom it is
> addressed, and may contain confidential information, the disclosure
> of which is prohibited. This message is not intended to create rights
> or obligations without subsequent written confirmation of its contents.
> If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediatel=
y
> ***********************************************************************=
************
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
> intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of=
 the
> information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not th=
e
> addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and de=
lete
> this message.
> Thank you.
>
>