Workflow Substitution Report

[Gregory Utley]

...very nice, accurate summary.  The application is the only reliable
source for auditable information, not workflow.  Workflow logs are
transitory and not guaranteed to be the source of the update.  T&E is
another application where an approver can (and sometimes does) approve
directly in PR05, bypassing workflow altogether.

 

Greg

 

________________________________

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
Of Trant, David
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:16 PM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: RE: Workflow Substitution Report

 

Will that definitely show who did the actual approval, though?  This
issue has been in the back of my mind for some time now.  We wrote some
reports that go directly against some workflow log tables ... a big
no-no since they probably won't work whenever we upgrade from 4.6C.  Two
years ago, SAP brought this subject up in an ASUG meeting.  At that
time, customers really weren't using the workflow information system and
due to this lack of interest, SAP made no plans to replace it in BW.
Since SOX came along, I've suspect this issue will start to get more
visibility.  It goes beyond the mere technical ability to properly read
workflow logs, which of course may be archived long before audit reports
require their data.  Since theoretically workflow merely connects the
dots of existing processes, it's always possible for someone to take
action outside the workflow.  Without application-level tracking, we
could never be certain who did what.  For example, if a purchase order
approval workflow uses release strategy, or a sales order approval
workflow uses the status network to block and unblock orders, someone
could conceivably go directly into the PO release transaction or the
sales order change transaction and modify the release level or the
status.  If I'm writing a report, should I look at the workflow log or
the change log?  For sales orders, I'm not sure it's even possible to
track status changes (JEST) via the change log (CDHDR/CDPOS), but that's
another topic.

 

Bottom line, if you want to report on who actually did something rather
than who had the capability of doing something, my thinking at the
present is that it is safest to always go all the way back to the
application.  Of course, many applications don't support digital
signatures, change tracking, or other mechanisms for storing this data,
so in those cases it's simply not possible.

 

Best of luck,

David

 

________________________________

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
Of Toledo, Joe (NBC Universal)
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:53 PM
To: 'SAP Workflow Users' Group'
Subject: RE: Workflow Substitution Report

 

Hi there Bob.

 

I've used table HR_USD2 to generate a report to show active
substitutions.

 

I hope this helps.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
Of Schmidt, Bob
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:00 AM
To: sap-wug at mit.edu
Subject: Workflow Substitution Report

 

We are allowing users to create substitution rules in their workflow
inboxes usually a manager delegating to their admin. The issue we are
having is that auditors are requesting a report of workitems processed
by each user and additionally if a substitution rule was involved and
whom it was performed on behalf of.

Has anyone encountered similar requirements and how was it satisfied?

Regards,
Bob Schmidt 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. 
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
[mf2]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20050908/5a876702/attachment.htm