This Group

Wed May 5 18:56:06 EDT 2010

Hi,

I would like all the regular contributors to know that your tips are GOLD.
I copy and hoard them like a mad squirrel.
The archives are great too.

We probably don't say it enough, so on behalf of all the hundreds (or
thousands?) of lurkers: THANK YOU very much.

As for the future of workflow, I was astonished to read the MadGambler's
pessimistic outlook.
Down here in Brisbane, workflow is growing nicely. In our organisation we
are using it more and more, to solve all kinds of problems.

In my opinion, SAP doesn't need to come out with new developments or
revamps for workflow, because it's pretty much complete.

cheers
Paul B

             "Mike Pokraka"                                                
             <wug at workflowconn                                             
             ections.com>                                               To 
             Sent by:                  "SAP Workflow Users' Group"         
             sap-wug-bounces at m         <sap-wug at mit.edu>                   
             it.edu                                                     cc 

                                                                   Subject 
             06/05/2010 01:42          Re: This Group                      
             AM                                                            

             Please respond to                                             
               "SAP Workflow                                               
               Users' Group"                                               
             <sap-wug at mit.edu>                                             

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

******************************************************************************************************************************************************

Only an individual or entity who is intended to be a recipient of this e-mail may access or use the information contained in this e-mail or any of its attachments.  Opinions contained in this e-mail or any of its attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Queensland Treasury.

The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged and the subject of copyright.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Queensland Treasury immediately and erase all copies of the e-mail and the attachments.  Queensland Treasury uses virus scanning software.  However, it is not liable for viruses present in this e-mail or in any attachment.  

******************************************************************************************************************************************************