Your thoughts are needed for a Workload Analysis Question

[Kouw, FA - SPLXE]

Hi Raul,
 
I agree with you. All work items with status 'Ready' are displayed under 'Not reserved by an agent' (also work
items that are assigned to only one responsible agent).
 
SAP will have reasons for this, but in my opinion the report can easily be adapted to include more valuable
information, presented in a more meaningful way (f.i. displaying the WS to which the task belongs, which is
valuable information in case tasks are being re-used in multiple workflows; indicating if the work item is
forwarded; indicating if a work item is offered to only one responsible agent etc.).
 
You could open a development request for SAP through OSS.
 
Regards,
 
Fred Kouw
 
agents.only SAP According to me tx SWI5 reserved
 
"Rivera, Raul" wrote:
 
> Running the Workload analysis (TX SWI5) and selecting the 'To be processed
> by' radio button will generate a report of work items that must be processed
> by the members of the organizational entity (or Workload analysis for the
> future in the WF book). The list of work items is grouped according to
> actual agents and tasks. At the end of the list, the work items for which no
> actual user exists are displayed under the header 'Not reserved by an
> agent'.
>
> If agent1 forwards a work item to agent2, the work item is sent to agent2's
> inbox and removes the work items from all other recipients inbox. This means
> that only agent2 has visibility and access to the forwarded item.
>
> We just found out that forwarded work items that that have not been actioned
> and whose item status is "Ready' get included under the 'Not reserved by an
> agent' category of the report.
>
> Please provide your inputs on the following:
> 1. Forwarded items that are in Ready status, in my perspective, should not
> fall under the 'Not reserved by an agent' category because the work item is
> technically reserved by the recipient agent. Rather, these items should be
> included under the recipient agent's name of the report.
>
> 2. If this is so, is this an OSS candidate?
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Raul Rivera
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________
> This inbound message from KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN IV-Scan, powered by MessageLabs.
> For further information visit: http://www.veiliginternet.nl
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Please visit http://www.klm-em.com for information about KLM Engineering & Maintenance products and services.
 
**********************************************************************
This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged
material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you
are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed,
copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or
attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received
this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail,
and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its
subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or
incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible
for any delay in receipt.
**********************************************************************
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
This outbound message from KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN IV-Scan, powered by MessageLabs.
For further information visit: http://www.veiliginternet.nl
_____________________________________________________________________________________________