WF best practice for multiple approvers in seperate WI's ?

[Cooper, John M]

Put it in a subworkflow.
 
-----Original Message-----
=46rom: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of
weston at clockwork.ca
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 12:52 PM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: WF best practice for multiple approvers in seperate WI's =3F
 
 
Thanks Stephan, Jim....do you know if this dynamic processing
=66unctionality is
available with a user decision step =3F Just tried this and that section
of the
Others tab is blank !! is there a way to enable this functionality for a
user
decision =3F
 
Cheers
Dave
 
 
Quoting Jim Sauceman <sauceman at tennessee.edu>:
 
> David,
>
> We make heavy use of the dynamic parallel processing feature. In my
humble
> opinion, this technique has a tremendous advantage over a serial
approach in
> the overall elapsed time it takes to get a transaction fully approved.
With
> parallel processing, the transaction is fully approved in [only] the
time it
> takes for the last (i.e. slowest to respond) approver to complete
his/her
> work item. If serial or sequential approval is used, one has to add
the time
> it takes for each approver to the elapsed time. Let me know if you
have any
> specific questions or need further clarification.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Jim Sauceman ...................... sauceman at tennessee.edu
> The University of Tennessee
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of
> weston at clockwork.ca
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 9:56 AM
> To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: WF best practice for multiple approvers in seperate WI's =3F
>
> Hi folks,
>
> We are developing a new wf template for approving budgets in projects,
> transaction CJ02 triggered by status management. As part of the wf
process
> one
> of the activity steps has to be approved by n (not known until
runtime)
> number
> of approvers, each with a seperate work item in their inbox. The
workflow
> process cannot continue until all the approvers have approved all the
> seperate
> work items.
>
> I have thought about using forks, dynamic parallel processing elements
etc.
>
> Was wondering how other people have achieved this, and what is the
best
> practice
> =3F
>
> Cheers
> David Weston
>
>
>
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain =
privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from =
disclosure under law.  If you have received this message in error, please =
inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any =
printed copy.   Thank you.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D