This Group

Wed May 5 12:19:59 EDT 2010

Hi Mike P,

Thank you for pointing out the BestBuiltApps document.   For those of you
who prefer your news delivered right to you - here is an excerpt:

SOA-BPM-2. SAP recommends that ISVs use SAP NetWeaver BPM

for business process modeling. SAP also recommends that ISVs use

the SAP Business Workflow tool for workflows within a pure, ABAP

single-instance application. SAP does not recommend using:

            - SAP Business Connector, which has been retired and

                        replaced with functionality in SAP NetWeaver

            - Workflow Modeler, except for ISV solutions that enhance

                        SAP CRM

            - SAP NetWeaver Business Warehouse process chains

                        (process chains are recommended for loading but not
for

                        workflow)

            -SAP NetWeaver MDM workflow

            - Java ad-hoc workflows

As GNR would say 'We ain't dead yet'...

Sue

----

Susan R. Keohan

SAP Workflow Specialist

Enterprise Applications

Information Services Department

MIT Lincoln Laboratory

244 Wood Street, LI-200

Lexington, MA. 02420

781-981-3561

keohan at LL.MIT.EDU

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Pokraka
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 11:42 AM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: Re: This Group

Hi Mike,

You'll be pleased to know that I don't consider your situation that

peculiar, most of my projects have been great supporters of workflow.

Unfortunately it's a question of commercial incentive for SAP to devote

significant resources to the workflow engine, so it's easy to arrive at

the "if it ain't broke..." conclusion when asking how further development

is going to increase licensing revenue. For that matter, I don't see a

major MM or SD revision coming out any time soon either.

What I do know is that SAP may not place great strategic value on

Workflow, but do still consider it of functional value. Of course if you

mention BOR there'll be contempt because... well you know my opinion on

it. Workflow however remains a recommended technology under SAP's Best

Built Apps initiative, now in it's third iteration

(http://bestbuiltapps.sap.com - page 18-19), and they are committed to

supporting it for a long time.

NetWeaver BPM is not designed as a replacement for workflow, but a

complementary product. NWBPM has breadth and WF had depth. NWBPM still has

significant shortcomings - a lot of them - and some won't ever go away

simply due to the opposing nature of the designs. For this reason I don't

think WF is dead for a long while yet. I see at least 5-10 years of

significant WF development in the majority of organisations. A great many

aren't even using the UWL yet.

What would be great is something in between the two, and one way would be

a shift towards BPMN compliance/compatibility in the ABAP workflow engine.

In theory not a ridiculous undertaking as the SAP-WF design is not too far

off BPMN rules (close enough that I advocate BPMN as a documentation

standard for workflows). As NWBPM is BPMN-based, it would make things a

little more portable between the two engines. In dreamland that would

allow people to design a process independent of either and deploy

different parts of it on whichever engine is most suitable.

Cheers,

Mike

develop it further, because the amount of effort required to impact

=licensing revenue?

On Tue, May 4, 2010 9:45 pm, Madgambler wrote:

> Much as I'd like to agree with you Susan, I see and hear plenty to the

> contrary from SAP's own consultants every day  here in the UK. And it

> disappoints me because I see a lot of untapped potential being

> overlooked because: a) it's considered to be 'old' so it's not being

> taught in Walldorf/Mumbai, b) it's entirely dependent on ABAP to

> function and c) SAP are trying to abandon their traditional Gui for

> Web UI / BOL / GenIL at an alarming rate.

> 

> Granted our situation is a bit peculiar because of the size of the

> system and the (over)dependence on Workflow here but I feel I have to

> regularly defend Workflow as a 'workhorse' on a daily basis. And to be

> honest I'm starting to regard it more and more as an obsolete dead-end

> as that seems to be the overwhelming attitude of anyone coming in from

> the CRM and PI worlds. I don't really believe that it is dead by the

> way but I do think the bell is tolling faintly.

> 

> Start talking about BOR to a CRM Consultant these days and you'll hear

> a guffaw of contempt followed swiftly by a dismissal about it being

> yesterday's tool with a limited future. Mention SBWP to the latest

> breed of Developers and  half won't have a clue the other half won't

> care, prefering to talk instead about the Web UI home page instead.

> 

> Now it could be just me but I really don't see any investment in

> Workflow stuff, just a tacit acceptance that it's hanging around so

> people have to be aware of it and be backwards compatible. The only

> driving force behind Workflow now appears to come from the clients who

> use it and rely on it.

> 

> As with ABAP it seems that SAP aren't dumb, they know they have cash

> cow with Workflow. So it's not like it's going to disappear anytime

> soon. But apart from the massive OO heart bypass we saw from 4.6c to

> ECC 6 little else is on the horizon as far as we know. Perhaps you

> know different?

> 

> Mike GT

> 

> Sent from my iPhone

> 

> On 4 May 2010, at 20:25, "Keohan, Susan - 1140 - MITLL" <keohan at ll.mit.edu

>  > wrote:

> 

>> Hi All,

>> I have seen the decrease in traffic over the past few years.  As a

>> matter of

>> fact, I proposed sunsetting this forum in 2007 - at it's 10-year

>> birthday.

>> At the time, many subscribers asked that the list be kept alive, and

>> so it

>> is.

>> As long as someone sees benefit in it, then it is serving its'

>> purpose.

>> 

>> Perhaps one way to increase traffic and pour more knowledge into the

>> SAP-WUG

>> fountain is to make a commitment to try to answer - say one question

>> a week

>> - even if it's a little time-consuming?  I'll sign up for that.

>> 

>> As for Business Workflow receding and waning as a skill set - I

>> respectfully

>> disagree.  It's true there are new tools and new technologies,  but

>> I still

>> see workflow as the workhorse it is.

>> 

>> Regards,

>> Sue

>> 

>> ----

>> Susan R. Keohan

>> SAP Workflow Specialist

>> Enterprise Applications

>> Information Services Department

>> MIT Lincoln Laboratory

>> 244 Wood Street, LI-200

>> Lexington, MA. 02420

>> 781-981-3561

>> keohan at LL.MIT.EDU

>> 

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On

>> Behalf Of

>> Madgambler

>> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:04 PM

>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group

>> Cc: SAP Workflow Users' Group; sap-wug-request at mit.edu

>> Subject: Re: This Group

>> 

>> Hi,

>> 

>> No point replying to other posts on this thread as the original

>> message is succinct enough to merit a direct response.

>> 

>> I think the attention being paid to this forum is directly

>> proportional to the amount and complexity of Workflow development

>> being carried out and the depth of Workflow development experience in

>> the average subscriber.

>> 

>> Now it could be argued that fewer 'new' Workflow issues being

>> discussed here could mean good or bad things are happening in the real

>> world. From my personal experience it seems more likely that SAP

>> Buisiness Workflow is receding as a tool and waning as a skillset.

>> 

>> Granted it's more immediately accessible to the general Client because

>> it's embedded in the standard offering. But are people pushing the

>> boundaries of what it can do or have we hit them already and that's as

>> far as SAP plan to take it?

>> 

>> These days the juicier Business Process Modelling projects are being

>> done in the Composite Environment (Java) arena and less often in the

>> ABAP stack at all.

>> 

>> So rather than this Forum losing support I would actually argue that

>> Workflow itself has reached a plateau and stopped evolving. Perhaps

>> only for a while...

>> 

>> Regards,

>> 

>> Mike GT

>> 

>> Sent from my iPhone

>> 

>> On 4 May 2010, at 16:48, Nash John <emailtonash at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 

>>> Hi

>>> 

>>> I get the feeling that this group is slowly but steadily loosing its

>>> significance as I don't see members active/willing to get involved

>>> in discussion/help as it used to be 3 to 4 years ago.

>>> 

>>> Thanks

>>> 

>>> Nash

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> 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

> _______________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20100505/bee49504/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5279 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20100505/bee49504/attachment.bin