Mobile worklfow developers need your input

Tue Apr 19 13:21:00 EDT 2011

Hi Ginger,

Late but hopefully not least, I have a slightly different take on Q1:

I don't agree with a 'one size fits all'. If you're sending to multiple
agents you want up-to-dateness. If your approvals are usually to one agent
(who may use substitutes) as many sites do, then speed is definitely
better.
Also, looking at the user experience angle, users are more tolerant of the
occasional blip on a good, fast, responsive system; compared to a system
that is consistently slow. Add a good message to the blips and all is
forgiven: "Sorry, it appears someone has recently picked this item up and
it is no longer available". I find if users understand why something
didn't go as expected they are usually cool with it AS LONG AS THEY LIKE
USING THE PRODUCT. They way you design the workflows (i.e. agents per
woritem) will ultimately determine the frequency of these blips, hence the
customer should be able to configure this at a system level. (Perhaps at
workflow level?). First prize to me would be to automate it: The backend
supplies a flag whether a user has work items with multiple agents and the
UI switches modes accordingly.

Oh, yes and I agree with Q2 consensus. Mandatoryness just leads to lots of
asdfs and fullstops.

Regards,
Mike

On Mon, April 18, 2011 5:05 pm, Gatling, Ginger wrote:
> Hello,
> Thank you to everyone for responding to the mobile questions - I'm
> forwarding all responses to the development team.
>
> Best
> Ginger
> For the latest on EIM follow @SAPBOEIM
> http://twitter.com/SAPBOEIM
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of sap-wug-request at mit.edu
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:48 AM
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Subject: SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35
>
> 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. Executing workitem as external service (Greutter, Markus)
>    2. Re: Mobile worklfow developers need your input! (BPT Consulting)
>    3. Re: Mobile worklfow developers need your input! (Ramki Maley)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:21:36 +0200
> From: "Greutter, Markus" <markus.greutter at sap.com>
> Subject: Executing workitem as external service
> To: "sap-wug at mit.edu" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<5B59ADA813E79E44BFD4269DE6CF0B8A0532B94FDF at DEWDFECCR07.wdf.sap.corp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> a large customer is using an own workflow engine and wants to integrate
> the workflows delivered in our project into it.
>
> Is there a kind of 'state-of-the-art' how we can provide access to our
> workitems to their engine? Is it possible to make the workitems available
> as a executable external service...I presume as a webeservice, that can be
> executed on iphone, ipad and laptop?
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> Best regards,
> Markus
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20110418/d0d3564a/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: BPT Consulting <bptconsulting at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Mobile worklfow developers need your input!
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID: <878.91011.qm at web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Ginger,
> ?
> Item 1:
> Choice B) we want a high success rate with mobile device processing so an
> up-to-date work item list.
> Can?t help but wonder if the number of work items or dynamic columns will
> affect this time period.
> ?
> Item 2:
> Have implemented rejections comments both ways, some clients are adamant
> about requiring comments when rejecting.? For the long term I suggest an
> option of forced or optional comments.
> ?
> Thank you for asking for feedback!
> ?
> Regards,
> Thomas Maue
>
> --- On Fri, 4/15/11, Gatling, Ginger <ginger.gatling at sap.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Gatling, Ginger <ginger.gatling at sap.com>
> Subject: Mobile worklfow developers need your input!
> To: "sap-wug at mit.edu" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Date: Friday, April 15, 2011, 4:25 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello, The mobile development group is looking at some additional ideas
> for workflow on mobile devices and they have the following questions for
> you:
> Item 1:
> If you have to choose only one, what would be more important for you in
> case of a mobile application for approvals when you launch the application
> or bring it back from background after half an hour:
> A)???? See the list of work items as fast as possible, so you can
> immediately try to start working even if some of the items might be
> out-of-date and there is some chance that you run into an error.
> B)????? See an up-to-date list of work items and wait a bit more (2-4
> seconds) for it.
> ?
> ?
> Item 2:
> For user decisions in the inbox, like approvals, the question is around
> rejections.? The plan is to not require comments ? but there will be an
> option to approve/reject.? After selecting reject (for example) the user
> will be able to reject or add comments (or cancel).? The question is: Is
> it OK to not force comments on reject, but to make it optional only??
> ?
> So ? please let us know what you think!
> Thanks!
> Ginger ( you can also reach me direct at ginger.gatling at sap.com)
> ?
> ?
> ?
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110418/eea5e041/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:47:46 -0400
> From: Ramki Maley <rmaley at erpworkflow.com>
> Subject: Re: Mobile worklfow developers need your input!
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> Message-ID: <4DAC5D22.6060201 at erpworkflow.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Same as Margaret for me.
>
> Ramki.
>
> On 4/18/11 9:13 AM, Hilsbos, Margaret A wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Manish on item 1.  My first reaction to the question was
>> ?give the user the option?. I think the default should be updated
>> list. Provide a user setting for manual refresh, and something in the
>> help that if the screen takes too long to come up, they can try the
>> manual refresh option.
>>
>> On #2, I agree that most of the time ?comments optional? is fine, and
>> that seems to be overwhelmingly the preferred position. But could it
>> be configurable in the workflow definition? I?ve had users request in
>> some cases that a comment be required for rejection. (Of course the
>> response is that we can force the user to enter something, but we
>> can?t force them to enter a /meaningful/ comment). In any case the
>> comment dialog should always be presented to the user so that they
>> have to make a decision that they don?t want to leave a comment.
>>
>> Thanks for asking!
>>
>> *Margaret Hilsbos*
>>
>> Corporate IT, Day & Zimmermann <http://www.dayzim.com/>
>>
>> (215) 299-5630
>>
>> This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
>> and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any
>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
>> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] *On
>> Behalf Of *Manish Khanna
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 2:13 AM
>> *To:* SAP Workflow Users' Group
>> *Subject:* RE: Mobile worklfow developers need your input!
>>
>> Hi Ginger,
>>
>> Item 1 - Inbox Listing: I will say it depends on the state of
>> application.
>>
>> 1)On *application launch* any user would expect an up-to-date list. So
>> a launch taking 2-4 sec to display would seem normal to the user.
>>
>> 2)On *changing focus*, the expectations could be mixed.
>>
>> a.For some 2-4 sec delay could be annoying; some people do expect fast
>> response time. There might be others who usually have less workload or
>> may be less frequent. For them 30min to 1 hour may not be a justified
>> time period for a forced refresh. So they might be ok with an
>> indicator denoting that the list is not up-to-date. Maybe the
>> ?Refresh? button could be highlighted or flashed (blinked). This would
>> make onus to refresh lie with the user.
>>
>> b.Going a step further on the flexibility, if feasible, an application
>> setting could provide the control to the user - they may choose
>> between forced or a manual refresh option.
>>
>> Item 2  - Optional comments for rejection seems to be fine.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Manish
>>
>> *From:*sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] *On
>> Behalf Of *Gatling, Ginger
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2011 2:56 AM
>> *To:* sap-wug at mit.edu
>> *Subject:* Mobile worklfow developers need your input!
>>
>> Hello, The mobile development group is looking at some additional
>> ideas for workflow on mobile devices and they have the following
>> questions for you:
>>
>> Item 1:
>>
>> If you have to choose only one, what would be more important for you
>> in case of a mobile application for approvals when you launch the
>> application or bring it back from background after half an hour:
>>
>> A)See the list of work items as fast as possible, so you can
>> immediately try to start working even if some of the items might be
>> out-of-date and there is some chance that you run into an error.
>>
>> B)See an up-to-date list of work items and wait a bit more (2-4
>> seconds) for it.
>>
>> Item 2:
>>
>> For user decisions in the inbox, like approvals, the question is
>> around rejections.  The plan is to not require comments ? but there
>> will be an option to approve/reject.  After selecting reject (for
>> example) the user will be able to reject or add comments (or cancel).
>> The question is: Is it OK to not force comments on reject, but to make
>> it optional only?
>>
>> So ? please let us know what you think!
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Ginger ( you can also reach me direct at ginger.gatling at sap.com
>> <mailto:ginger.gatling at sap.com>)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20110418/b7c20630/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
> End of SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35
> ***************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>