This Group

Wed May 5 12:20:50 EDT 2010

Hello Team -

Thanks you all the response. I glad that I was able to invoke a very
useful discussion.

All I was I trying to say was, since being a member of the group for more
than 5 years, and having involved in many discussions before (not that often
these days as I am quite busy, however I make sure I visit the group at
least ones in 2 days), I don't see much topics(issues)  discussed here on a
daily basis and also responses/responders are also very less. I was only
pointing that out and I am glad that most of you have taken that in the
right sense.

I completely the agree that group is very informative, however most of the
informations came from earlier days.

Thanks

Nash

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mike Pokraka
<wug at workflowconnections.com>wrote:

> 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/b825c45c/attachment.htm