Query regarding a particular problem in workflow.

Wed Dec 7 00:03:11 EST 2011

Hi Cheri,
    Thanks for your valuable inputs. I liked the idea of first putting up
all approver entries into Table and later loop around it in workflow, I
thought of adding in table while determining approvers in runtime, but I
feel it will be better to add all in a table initially and loop around it
later.
    Very Thanks, even I am planning to go with second method but before
that I have to do some homework, so as to make sure that everything is fine
with second method.

God Bless.

Regards
Tushar Shinde.
tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Cheri Myers <myersc1 at nku.edu> wrote:

>  I have used method 2 for a couple different workflows now. I like it
> because I have abap code that determines the list of approvers and does all
> of the if statements.  We have some workflows that uses the cost centers
>  owners or grant person responsible as approvers and I find maintaining
> abap code for changes in the list much easier to manage than changing
> workflow. I do one method that creates a table of the approvers needed and
> then have an approval loop that loops through these in order until either
> finished or rejected.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheri Myers****
>
> Northern Kentucky University****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Tushar Shinde [mailto:tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2011 5:49 AM
> *To:* SAP Workflow Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: Query regarding a particular problem in workflow.****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,
> Now, I have prepared all the methods for Agent Determination, but my
> concern is, I can develop the workflow in 2-ways,
>
> 1 - To create a workflow with n-conditions & branches, with agents
> assigned explicitly at all levels, and based on conditions the branches
> will be executed.
>
> 2 - which Rick suggested, wherein, put the approval step in a loop along
> with the agent determination method which will actually contain all complex
> logic to verify necessary conditions and to find the next possible agent in
> desired path and give it back to workflow with incremental counter.
>
> Please suggest me I should follow which way, which one will be performance
> wise and also future maintenance wise better.
> Please let me know your views.
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards
> Tushar Shinde.
> tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com
>
>
> ****
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Rick Bakker <rbakker at gmail.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Hi Tushar,
>
> There is no need to do any forwarding. All you have to do is put your
> rules for deadline escalation into an agent determination method.
>
> You could, for example, set your user decision workitem to expire at
> creation time + 1 day and place it within a loop to re-create itself.
> Also in that loop is a step to call a method which determines who the
> agent(s) should be. The method places those values into a workflow
> container element and that is used by the workitem when it is
> re-created. You could make it more flexible by adding a step to
> specify the next deadline date instead of having it set at 1 day.
>
> The workflow part is straightforward. The agent determination method
> will be complicated, but still just straight ABAP.****
>
>
> regards
> Rick Bakker
> hanabi technology****
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Tushar Shinde <tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Rick,
> >     Thanks for helping me out, Handling escalation at method level
> instead
> > at workflow level, for this I need to use standard FM for forwarding
> > workitem or there are already standard methods for deadline escalation
> using
> > methods.
> >      Rick, if you can provide me some sample doc for understanding
> deadline
> > escalation using methods, it will help me to achieve my purpose.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Tushar Shinde.
> > tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rick Bakker <rbakker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> If deadline/agent determination rules get too complex then the
> >> simplest thing to do is to take it outside of the workflow and put it
> >> in a method. If the minimum escalation date is 1 day then set the
> >> deadline to 1 day and call a method to decide if it really should be
> >> escalated and to whom.
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Rick Bakker
> >> hanabi technology
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Tushar Shinde <
> tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Rick,
> >> >      Agent determination is already done, my concern is how it can be
> >> > handled at workflow level i.e sometimes I need to escalate to next
> agent
> >> > but
> >> > sometimes the escalation should not happen. In same path how can I
> >> > control
> >> > the escalation to happen or not to happen.
> >> > Any inputs for this.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Tushar Shinde.
> >> > tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com
> >> > ts_tushar at yahoo.co.in
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Rick Bakker <rbakker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hello,
> >> >>
> >> >> You will have to build a fairly complex agent determination method
> with
> >> >> ABAP.
> >> >>
> >> >> regards
> >> >> Rick Bakker
> >> >> hanabi technology
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Tushar Shinde
> >> >> <tushar.shinde20 at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Dear Workflow Team,
> >> >> >         I had a scenario to be built up in my existing workflow,
> the
> >> >> > scenario is, my existing workflow is of 2-Levels, wherein now based
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > new requirement I have to achieve the below mentioned purpose.
> >> >> > 1. When workflow triggers, it goes first to Reporting Manager (1st
> >> >> > Level) ->
> >> >> > then to HOD(2nd Level), but now as per new requirement, if say
> today
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > workitem comes in inbox of HOD(2nd Level), and if for next 1-day
> HOD
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > Leave also if HOD is directly reporting to President of company,
> then
> >> >> > only
> >> >> > the workflow should be escalated to HR instead of escalating to
> >> >> > President,
> >> >> > otherwise no need for any escalation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2. But here, the main problem is, the workitem should initially
> goto
> >> >> > HOD
> >> >> > &
> >> >> > should get escalated only after 1-day, if HOD is on Leave only on
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > particular day & only if HOD is direct reporting to President, if
> the
> >> >> > condition are not met than the workitem should not get escalated to
> >> >> > HR
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > President.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 3.Also there is apossibility of 1st Level & 2nd Level are both same
> >> >> > Agents
> >> >> > or Person, in that case I have to built a check at 1st Level also.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > One thing is sure that I have to branch into 2-condition if the
> >> >> > person
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > direct reporting to president than 1st Branch will execute else 2nd
> >> >> > Branch
> >> >> > will execute. Now whatever escalation logic I have to implement is
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > will
> >> >> > be in 1st Branch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hope, I am pretty much clear in explaining my problem. Please let
> me
> >> >> > know
> >> >> > how best I can solve the problem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Happy Weekend.
> >> >> > God Bless.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best Regards
> >> >> > Tushar S.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111207/1f9d4c37/attachment.htm