"Posted By" user in Document Parking Workflow

[Kjetil Kilhavn]

Another issue is whether the auditors would prefer that you can't be sure that the "Posted by" field doesn't necessarily show who posted the document .... I know they don't like those solutions here (which is why we don't tell the auditors, we just show them the table entries where they can themselves see who did what). We do of course not have any such solutions at all here in Statoil, at least not as far as I can recall.
-- 
Kjetil Kilhavn, Statoil ØFT KTJ BAS DEV SAP
 


________________________________

	From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Pyc
	Sent: 31. juli 2006 16:31
	To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
	Subject: Re: "Posted By" user in Document Parking Workflow
	
	
	G'day Lee,
	 
	I'm sure if you search the WUG archives you'll find other discussions on this topic, but you've got a couple of choices.
	 
	1 - Convince the auditors and users in general that WF log is sufficient as a record of who approved the posting (indeed depending on your design there may be more than 1 approver).
	 
	2 - Change the WF design such that the approving agent actually does the posting. This may be possible through use of a non-dialog foreground step to perform the posting which is executed under the approvers authority using 'Advance with Dialog'  from the decision step. Or you could just take the approver into the transaction and make the lazy sods actually manually release it. 
	 
	Have fun,
	Mark
	
	 
	On 7/31/06, lee.hassett at amcorpet.com <lee.hassett at amcorpet.com > wrote: 


		Hi All
		In the standard document parking workflow (WS10000051), once the document
		is released, the FI document header has a field that reads "Posted By: 
		WF_Batch".  Are you aware of any solutions to change this so that it gives
		the name of the approver ?   I am unsure as to whether this relates more to
		FI customising in the document header, or if there might be a solution 
		relating to the container items.
		
		It seems hard to believe that WF-Batch is acceptable by auditors. Do people
		have any experience or comments on this?
		
		Thanks
		
		Lee Hassett
		UK
		
		
		*********************************************************************************************************************** 
		
		_______________________________________________
		SAP-WUG mailing list
		SAP-WUG at mit.edu
		http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug 
		




-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20060801/03e4e834/attachment.htm