Role resolution using responsibilities

[Mike Pokraka]

Generally bad practice yes, but I've had a few be exceptions. Anything
where a person is more important than their position.

If Ziggy Stardust should buy property on the Moon because he is an expert
on Lunar geography then the responsibilty is his regardless of position in
the org chart and it should follow him if he moves.

Another is our old favourite "it always works like this except for
department Y where Joe does it" (of course falling into the 'bad practice'
category). More valid is perhaps the exception case where departments
refer to themselves (everything goes to org unit XYZ except if it's raised
by them then it should be Mr. Smith).

Still haven't figured out why we need a tickbox to PREVENT anyone using
org units.... hence I've never used it.

Cheers
Mike


Alon Raskin wrote:
> It's a funny one Mike because I always considered it bad practice to
> assign User IDs directly to a responsibility. I would be interested to
> hear from anyone else as to why you would want to take this approach.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alon Raskin
> e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com>
> p: +1 207 409 4983 (please note new number)
> f:  +61 3 8610 1239
> w: http://www.3i-consulting.com
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Mike Pokraka
> Sent: Tue 1/10/2006 06:45
> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> Subject: Re: Role resolution using responsibilities
>
>
>
> Hi Akshay,
>
> Indicator: Personal Rules
>
>     Rules with responsibilities can be personal or function-based. In the
>     case of personal rules, responsibilities are only relevant if users or
>     persons are assigned directly. In the case of function-based rules,
>     responsibilities are inherited along the organizational structure.
>
> In other words, personal means you need to assign the agents directly, not
> using org units or whatever. I have no idea why it's there, never used it.
> Possibly to force people to assign individual users instead of getting
> lazy and assigning a whole org unit.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> akshay.bhagwat at wipro.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>  I have doubt related to one of the check box while creating the role
>> using responsibilities.
>> Pls. let me know the significance of check box for - " Personal role"
>> i.e when to use it and when not relevant.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Akshay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
>> to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s)
>> and
>> may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you
>> are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute
>> or
>> copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all
>> copies of this message and any attachments.
>>
>> WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient
>> should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
>> The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
>> transmitted by this email.
>>
>> www.wipro.com_______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>