SAP workflows and BPM

Thu Jun 3 20:34:00 EDT 2010

Mike, 
Re the modelling yes pretty much ... the process modelling perspective is basically a subset of the full process composer perspective. 

You can create processes via either the model or the process composer... the process modelling just fills in preset defaults for anything needed at the process composer level and hides most of the "it's not all their yet under the covers" errors. 

If you're interested you can download NWDS 7.2 to try out the perspectives - it's all GA now.   
Regards,
Jocelyn 

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Pokraka
Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 6:27 PM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: RE: SAP workflows and BPM

Hi Jocelyn,

Thanks for clearing the licensing up (sortof!). I was under the impression
if someone is running the latest Java+UWL system they'd automatically have
all the necessary kit in place.

Interesting you mention "but already in 7.2  we can do true black box
drafting of Business Process Models and take them directly to Business
Process Execution" - this is exactly what I was referring to when I said
it's a little deficient in pure modeling capabilities. I'm obviously a
version behind, but glad to see it's coming to fruition.  :-)

Does this mean that process changes at any level will be reflected
throughout the model? (i.e. changing the executable will be reflected in
the BB model and vice versa).

Cheers,
Mike

On Thu, June 3, 2010 2:08 am, Dart, Jocelyn wrote:
> Hi Sandy,
> Always welcome new interest....
>
> Plenty of articles on http://sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/nw-bpm
>
> As an example of what BPM can do that workflow can't do (or at least can't
> do very well) is control processes across multiple SAP and non-SAP
> systems.
> But yes there is a sample PO approval scenario in the Simple Sample apps
> on http://esworkplace.sap.com
>
> And yes multiple approval levels, escalation mgt (by the way we have an
> EXPIRY deadline in BPM - something I've always wanted in workflow), etc.
> are all possible.
> What you don't have yet is a lot of business content - but all of the
> Enterprise Services (and there are far more Enterprise Services than
> BAPIs) can be used directly in your process WITHOUT creating any sort of
> wrapper method - essentially ES are already organised by business object
> anyway.
>
> And that's before we even get into linking Business Process Modelling to
> Business Process Execution... there's more functionality to come here but
> already in 7.2  we can do true black box drafting of Business Process
> Models and take them directly to Business Process Execution - another
> thing that's not so easy in workflow.
> Regards
> Jocelyn
>
>
>
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of Sandy
> Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:37 AM
> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> Subject: Re: SAP workflows and BPM
>
> Hi all.
> What a perfect time for me. I have been looking for this topics couple
> days back.
> As an additional to Will's question
> Based on my readings, BPM is more on the process level integration and
> automation where business process owner can do some analysis and
> governance in their business. This include similar features between two of
> them such as ability to user to monitor the processes, who can do what,
> all the transparent process, required consistency of proceses, etc.
>
> In my opinion existing workflow capability with additional features of UWL
> such as collaboration task, etc. is very powerfull tools of business
> process re-engineering.
>
> So, what actually can and can't do by BPM as an example does BPM suitable
> with PO release scenario where involve mutiple approval level, escalation
> management, automatic PO release, etc.
> Appreciate if someone can point me out any particular article of
> comparison between BPM and Workflow
>
> Cheers
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Dart, Jocelyn
> <jocelyn.dart at sap.com<mailto:jocelyn.dart at sap.com>> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> There's a licensing arrangement for Composition Environment Server and BPM
> (which includes BRM).
> It also includes all the other software you need to run such as an Ajax
> version of the Portal (if you don't have an existing EP), NWDI, ESR (if
> you don't have a suitable release of PI), BI Java, ADS, NWDS, Adobe
> LiveCycle Designer, etc.
>
> The licensing for CE and BPM/BRM is currently largely based on CPU cores
> rather than users, although yes usually user ids still need to be licensed
> depending on how they are accessing SAP and there are a number of
> different scales for that including handling of multiple users under
> generic ids.
>
> As always licensing is a complex area and depends a lot on how your
> organization's agreement with SAP has been structured so best approach is
> to ask the question and hand it over to the professionals.  E.g. If you
> already have a Java NW system it's possible that your arrangement might
> cover you for CE but not for BPM so you should still ask for your SAP
> account exec to check it out and confirm.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Regards,
> Jocelyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu<mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>
> [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu<mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>] On Behalf
> Of Mike Pokraka
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 7:37 PM
> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> Subject: RE: SAP workflows and BPM
>
> Is it chargeable?
> I was under the impression it's integrated. Unless of course you aren't
> currently running a Java NW system in which case there would be additional
> licensing and other costs to get a Java setup up and running. This could
> turn out quite hefty if all you're after is a single tool.
>
> Additional licenses for process participants who do not currently have
> acces to SAP will also be a factor, but that argument applies to WF as
> well.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
> On Tue, June 1, 2010 4:35 pm, Keohan, Susan - 1140 - MITLL wrote:
>> Good point, Mike, Andy.
>> Perhaps the chargeable component is the most telling thing :)
>>
>> ---
>> 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<mailto:keohan at ll.mit.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu<mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>
>> [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu<mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Catherall, Andy
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:30 AM
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>> Subject: RE: SAP workflows and BPM
>>
>> Further, SAP BPM is a chargable additional component, whereas workflow
>> comes 'free' with every instance of NW.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu<mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>
>> [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu<mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu>] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Mike Pokraka
>> Sent: Tuesday 01 June 2010 16:23
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>> Subject: Re: SAP workflows and BPM
>>
>> Some quick answers:
>>
>> 1) Yes, another major differenc is that NWBPM is fully SOA based
>>
>> NetWeaver BPM is also supposed to be a BPM modelling tool, I'll be kind
>> and just call it inadequate in this regard. Last I heard SAP were doing
>> some work in this area, but for now I'll stick to real BPM tools.
>>
>> 2) I consider them complementary. NWBPM is much better suited to
>> system-independent / cross-system processes - including non-SAP systems.
>> At the same time that leaves a number of (large) gaps in the type of
>> integrated functionality that we sometimes need (e.g. integration with
>> an HR org structure). So whilst both can 'do the job', WF remains king
>> for deep single-system scenarios and NWBPM rules across broad
>> cross-system setups. So it really depends on your landscape.
>>
>> 3) NWBPM is still fairly new, so WF is still very much the dominant
>> product and will be for some time.
>>
>> 4) They are obviously pushing NWBPM quite hard, but it's a long way off
>> before it takes over. WF does useful things that go against the NWBPM
>> design, so I dont' see it going away any time too soon. Completely my
>> own opinion, but I would hope to see some integration/porting tools
>> coming along once NWBPM has matured a bit more and starts to gain
>> straction among mainstream customers.
>>
>> 5) Integrated with NW, you can download a demo version from SDN.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Tue, June 1, 2010 3:31 pm, Will Weiss wrote:
>>> Hi experts,
>>>
>>> I'm familiar with SAP business workflow, but I understand there is a
>>> product called NetWeaver BPM (as appears here
>>>
>> http://www.brsilver.com/2009/01/21/netweaver-bpm-and-saps-bpm-strategy/)
>> .
>>> Here's the differences as I figured out so far (my main source was
>>> SAP's site on it,
>>> http://www.sap.com/platform/netweaver/components/sapnetweaverbpm/index
>>> .epx)
>>> 1) SAP business workflow is ABAP based, Netweaver BPM is Java Based
>>> 2) Model in SAP business workflow is done in SDD, in Netweaver BPM
>>> there's an eclipse plugin, and the model is based on BPMN.
>>>
>>> The main questions that I have are:
>>> 1) Are there any other differences?
>>> 2) Which product is "better" (and what do you call "better" :-) )
>>> 3) How common is Netweaver BPM compared to SAP business workflow?
>>> 4) Is SAP's future in Netweaver BPM or in SAP business workflow?
>>> 5) Which version of Netweaver includes NetWeaver BPM? Is it a basic
>>> component of Netweaver, or an additional product?
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> Will
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu<mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu<mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>
>>
>> The Cadbury Cocoa Partnership is working to secure the future of cocoa
>> farming around the world. Cadbury Dairy Milk bars are now Fairtrade
>> certified in the UK and Ireland. Visit http://www.cadbury.com/ to learn
>> more.
>>
>> Be part of our "Purple Goes Green" commitments and don't print this
>> email.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> This email (including any attachment) is confidential and may contain
>> privileged information and is intended for the use of the individual(s)
>> to
>> whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or receive
>> it
>> in error, you may not use, distribute, disclose or copy any of the
>> information contained within it and it may be unlawful to do so. If you
>> are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning
>> this email to us at
>> mailto:mailerror at cadbury.com<mailto:mailerror at cadbury.com> and destroy
>> all copies.
>> Any views expressed by individuals within this email do not necessarily
>> reflect the views of Cadbury Holdings Ltd or any of its subsidiaries or
>> affiliates. This email does not constitute a binding offer, acceptance,
>> amendment, waiver or other agreement, or create any obligation
>> whatsoever,
>> unless such intention is clearly stated in the body of the email. Whilst
>> we have taken reasonable steps to ensure that this email and any
>> attachments are free from viruses, recipients are advised to subject
>> this
>> email to their own virus checking, in keeping with good computing
>> practice. We accept no liability for any damage sustained as a result of
>> any viruses. Please note that email received by Cadbury Holdings Ltd or
>> its subsidiaries or affiliates may be monitored in accordance with
>> applicable law.
>> This email originates from Cadbury Holdings Ltd ("Cadbury") or Cadbury
>> UK
>> ("Cadbury UK") as the case may be.
>>
>> Cadbury Holdings Ltd: registered in England and Wales, registered no.
>> 52457
>> Registered office address: Cadbury House, Sanderson Road, Uxbridge,
>> Middlesex, UB8 1DH United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1895 615000
>> Fax:+44
>> (0)1895 615001
>>
>> Cadbury UK: a partnership of Cadbury UK Ltd, Trebor Bassett Ltd and The
>> Old Leo Company Ltd. each of which is registered in England and Wales.
>> Principal trading address: Cadbury House, Sanderson Road, Uxbridge,
>> Middlesex, UB8 1DH United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1895 615000
>> Fax:+44
>> (0)1895 615001
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu<mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu<mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu<mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu<mailto: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