Responsibility Rules - Thanks for the feedback

[Soady, Phil]

The client Im at has the overlapping mess in Org units.
The responsibilities are based on a source Org unit from the container
and the target assignment is an orgunit.
 
Last night when I transported the RYs they failed as the orgunits
didn't exist.  Im happy to do the assignment in QA and PRD but when the RY itself
doesn't arrive your stuffed.
 
I might try transporting them without assignments.
And hope OOCU_RESP does the job.
 
Thanks guys...
 
 
Phil Soady
Senior Consultant
Business Technologies
SAP Australia
M  +61 (0) 412 213 079
E  phil.soady at sap.com
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Maue Jr
Sent: Thursday,15 April 2004 4:16 AM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Responsibility Rules
 
 
Phil,
 
Mike brings up some good points.  On one project I was not allowed to update within production so had no choice - make the assignments in development and then promote.  In this case it was relating Org Units to a user defined field.
 
Experience to share:
The Org Units (O) created in Dev did not transport correctly.  Reasons - client and configuration settings, overlap issues.
 
Missing relationships for responsibilities (RY).  Reason - the role responsibilities created in Dev did not transport correctly because the Org Unit objects did not transport correctly.
 
In order to alleviate the problems and prevent overlaying existing HR objects I created a external number range for the Org Units, created new Org Units, made the responsibility assignments and transported everything.
 
This might help you if you go the transport route.  Would much prefer to update the assignments directly.
 
 
Regards,
Thomas Maue
 
 
Michael Pokraka <workflow at quirky.me.uk> wrote:
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 not
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 or
Purchasing org, and client transports these, then responsibilities are also
transported.
If however workflows use responsibility rule for vendors - which are
obviously maintained in prd, then all responsibilities should be maintained
via OOCU_RESP (security can become an issue). I suppose one can also go with
mixed approaches (transport for some), as long as number ranges are OK. So
far I've successfully avoided that :)
 
Cheers
Mike
 
Soady, Phil wrote:
> Im interested in how people usually setup and PFAC RULE Responsibilities 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 PRD is
> the question.
> Ideally an administrator would update the assignment directly as the target
> 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 whatever
> 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 Kjetil
> 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 |
> | | > | | celor.com> |
> | | Sent by: SAP Workflow |
> | | > | | 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 may
> 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 info
> 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 immediately
> ***********************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 the
> addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
> this message.
> Thank you.
>
>