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

[Becker, Stephan]

Well either you put a user decision in the dynamic parallel processing, or
the dynamic parallel processing is one of the results of a user decision, or
am I missing the point here? What do you want to do?
 
Stephan
 
-----Mensaje original-----
De: weston at clockwork.ca [mailto:weston at clockwork.ca]
Enviado el: 04 February 2004 19:52
Para: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Asunto: Re: WF best practice for multiple approvers in seperate WI's ?
 
Thanks Stephan, Jim....do you know if this dynamic processing functionality
is
available with a user decision step ? Just tried this and that section of
the
Others tab is blank !! is there a way to enable this functionality for a
user
decision ?
 
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 ?
>
> 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
> ?
>
> Cheers
> David Weston
>
>
>