SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 38, Issue 30
Gerald Pecover
pecover at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 13:58:28 EST 2008
Sue
Thanks for the response and thoughts.
The WF Admin person is a trusted individual and in fact is responsible for
most of the master data, so as you say, if they really wanted to, they could
approve POs one way or another.
I will pursue the idea of letting the WF Item error; thanks for the tip.
Gerald
On 16/01/2008, sap-wug-request at mit.edu <sap-wug-request at mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Send SAP-WUG mailing list submissions to
> sap-wug at mit.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sap-wug-request at mit.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sap-wug-owner at mit.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SAP-WUG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Workflow administrator (Gerald Pecover)
> 2. RE: Workflow administrator (Keohan, Susan)
> 3. RE: Resource planning (Srinivasan Ramanan)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Gerald Pecover" <pecover at gmail.com>
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:52:45 +1300
> Subject: Workflow administrator
> We are developing a fairly straight forward PO aprproval workflow and
> using SWU3, have specified a User Id to act as Workflow administrator ready
> for when things go wrong. In the case where workflow cannot determine the
> agent (perhaps master data is missing), we want the work item to be sent to
> WF Admin.
>
> Once it is with WF Admin, we do not want them to have the option to
> approve it, only to forward it to the correct agent.
>
> Is this possible and how?
>
> I thank you for your time and good advice.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Gerald Pecover
>
> pecover at gmail.com
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Keohan, Susan" <keohan at ll.mit.edu>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:50:44 -0500
> Subject: RE: Workflow administrator
>
> Hi Gerald,
>
>
>
> Excellent question. I suppose you could remove the authorizations to
> release the PO from the Basis authorizations. On the other hand, the
> Workflow Administrator needs a lot of authorizations (sometimes) in order to
> keep things moving. Ideally, this person would be a trusted individual who
> would know NOT to approve the PO, but to initiate the correction procedures
> necessary, and restart the workflow.
>
> You could have your workflow look for approvers in the step prior to the
> approval task. If no approvers are found, then let that task error out.
> The WF Admin can take corrective measures and you are still not giving the
> approval task to the WF Admin.
>
>
>
> Finally, regarding trusted individuals, your workflow administrator will
> (or at least **ought**) to have access to many powerful workflow
> transactions, and if they were determined, they would find a way to approve
> a PO. I've been doing WF Admin for years, and I've never wanted my
> fingerprints on a PO approval.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Susan R. Keohan
>
> SAP Workflow Specialist
>
> MIT Lincoln Laboratory
>
> 244 Wood Street
>
> LI-200
>
> Lexington, MA. 02420
>
> Phone: 781-981-3561
>
> Fax: 781-981-1607
>
> keohan at ll.mit.edu
>
>
>
> *From:* sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Gerald Pecover
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:53 PM
> *To:* sap-wug at mit.edu
> *Subject:* Workflow administrator
>
>
>
> We are developing a fairly straight forward PO aprproval workflow and
> using SWU3, have specified a User Id to act as Workflow administrator ready
> for when things go wrong. In the case where workflow cannot determine the
> agent (perhaps master data is missing), we want the work item to be sent to
> WF Admin.
>
>
>
> Once it is with WF Admin, we do not want them to have the option to
> approve it, only to forward it to the correct agent.
>
>
>
> Is this possible and how?
>
>
>
> I thank you for your time and good advice.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Gerald Pecover
>
> pecover at gmail.com
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Srinivasan Ramanan <r_m_n_n at hotmail.com>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:29:45 -0500
> Subject: RE: Resource planning
> Thanks Rick,
> Your template for 'functional specification' could also be a starting
> point for my workflow resource planning.
>
> Thanks again
> Ramanan
>
> ------------------------------
> Subject: RE: Resource planning
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:39:38 -0600
> From: Rick.Sample at gbe.com
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
>
> 1. The Multiplicity Rule. 1 + 1 does not = 2 if on same project. Laws of
> diminishing returns. (i.e. tripping over each other)
> 2. From the sound of it whatever your initial guesstimate, double it!
> 3. Your assumption that since you are using HR org, agent assignment is a
> non-issue needs adjusting IMHO.
>
> re:>> Hence agent assignments could be not that complex.
> Unless you are doing the simplest 'Manager of', you are in for a surprise!
>
> From the sound of it, my first suggestion would be to get someone in that
> can do this analysis work.
>
> Rick Sample
> SAP Business Workflow Developer
> Graybar, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Srinivasan Ramanan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:01 AM
> *To:* SAP Workflow Users' Group
> *Subject:* RE: Resource planning
>
>
> Thanks Mike,
> I appreciate your inputs. Its really difficult to answer this question.
> What I did is: ( Since I am in the position to answer this to my company
> as an employee of the company )
> I assumed these followings:
> 10 complex workflows ( having more than 20 tasks )
> 30 medium ( 10 to 20 tasks )
> 60 simple ( less than 10 tasks )
>
> It is decided to implement HR just for Organizational units purposes. It
> helps both roles and authorization management. Hence agent assignments could
> be not that complex.
>
> Having a time line of 6 months only for these work, I am proposing:
> 6 Personnels for development over six months period
> 4 to 6 Personnels for maintain and administer - for
> support after go live
>
> Has anyone else could share some ideas if you have executed projects even
> not to this magnitude, but with some 10 - 20 workflows development. I need
> some info on how many personnels, how many workflows and how many months. It
> will be kind of easy to extrapolate. I do understand that it will only be an
> empirical value for resource planning. But we can start with min. resource
> and continue to agument as and when the workflows start development phase.
>
> regards
> Ramanan
>
> ------------------------------
> From: asap at workflowconnections.com
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Subject: RE: Resource planning
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:08:07 +0000
>
>
> Hello Ramanan,
>
>
>
> That's a pretty major project, and there is a good reason all projects go
> through a planning phase. Faced with the same question I would estimate at
> least a month's work to come up with an answer that's anywhere near
> realistic.
>
>
>
> For starters there are many factors beyond workflow that will influence
> your requirements, such as size and makeup of the overall project team,
> length of project, willingness to invest in the right skills. Are you going
> to employ 4+ years' experienced consultants, or find ABAPers who have built
> the occasional WF, or train up inhouse staff?
>
>
>
> Next you have the workflows themselves. I've built approval workflows
> taking from two days to over a year. Even specific workflow scenarios are no
> measure: an invoice approval can take 10 days at one client and 5 months at
> another (also based on personal experience).
>
>
>
> You ask how many administrators? What sort of total volumes do you expect?
> (You obviously need to volume estimates of each of the workflows..). Do you
> use HR? More experienced resources building the WFs will pay off in reduced
> maintenance. The workflow I mentioned above created jobs for two
> administrators – just looking after the one WF.
>
>
>
> Based on the info in your question, I would seriously suggest you engage
> an Experienced (with a capital 'E') consultant for at least a few days to
> get you started on answering it.
>
>
>
> If you insist on a guess: 50% chance you need between 5 and 10 people, 50%
> chance you need more or less than that. Flip a coin to see which one.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Srinivasan Ramanan
> *Sent:* 14 January 2008 21:58
> *To:* sap-wug at mit.edu
> *Subject:* Resource planning
>
>
>
> Dear WUG,
> There are 100 workflows expected to be up and running in ECC6.0
> Please consider that it is not know exactly what are the workflows now.
> But please consider that workflows will be used for create and maintain of
> all major master data objects and pretty much for regular task distributions
> like PO release, invoice processing etc.,
>
> My questions are:
>
> How many personnels are required at the Development phase for these 100
> workflows?
>
> How may personnels are required for 'maintain' and 'administer' the
> workflows?
>
> Anyone who worked at this level, please I value your inputs very much.
> Please respond with your experiences and emprical calculations.
>
> thanks in advance.
> Ramanan
> ------------------------------
>
> Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista(R) + Windows Live™. Start
> now!<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now!<http://www.windowslive.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference. Learn
> more <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
--
Regards
Gerald Pecover
pecover at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20080117/18e88655/attachment.htm
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list