Agent determination/maintenance best practice

Mon Feb 28 20:03:01 EST 2011

Agreed ... and also why rules can be written in NW BRM or BRFPlus and called from either environment as standalone web services.

And yes there is a standard Enterprise Service you can call to find someone's manager ... you can find it on the ES workplace site (try searching on "manager")
Jocelyn

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Pokraka
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:35 AM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: RE: Agent determination/maintenance best practice

Hi Andy,

This is exactly the sort of thing BRFplus is supposed to handle, and it
can easily map something back to your HR system or something like that.
But if the version you have is not capable then I guess a plan B is
required.

Regarding the 'role' concept, I think the swimlane is actually closer to
selected agent. Consider a scenario where two accountants are needed to
post a journal - anyone can do the work and a second one must validate it.
In swimlanes they would be represented as processor and validator. In WF
they are the same 'possible agents'.

A logical step from here is to think of agent determination as a distinct
process step (e.g. in the example above there is business requirement and
logic to ensure a four-eyes principle is adhered to). It's a bit of a gray
area, and I would suggest it's a judgement call depending on the level of
business-relevance, complexity and/or variability of the agent
determination. In my opinion a step with high process-relevance (e.g.
value-based approver) should be modelled as a distinct step in your
process (similar to a rule resolution step in WF), and if it's obvious and
without process impact (e.g. an inventory clerk who enters a package
weight) it can be omitted from your process flow.

Hope that helps,
Mike

On Mon, February 28, 2011 2:43 pm, andy.m.catherall at kraftfoods.com wrote:
> Hi Gijs
>
> As far as I am aware, not easily. Certainly, not as easily as in SAP WF.
> There may be some services exposed in our HR systems (yes, plural, given
> the scope of the BPM flow), but for the sake of this conversation, that
> detail is not really the main thrust of my question.
>
> To a certain degree, I see the "Role" shown in the Swim-Lane as broadly
> being akin to the "Possible Agents" in a workflow step.
> I note that the BPMN level doesn't really consider the logic required to
> get the run-time work item instance to the appropriate "Responsible
> Agents".
> The combination of these too ought to result in the Recipients of the
> task.
>
> In my dealings with our Business Analysts, and in the SAP documents &
> examples I have so far read, there is much less emphasis upon
>
> *         How the agent determination logic is designed, documented and
> developed;
>
> *         How it is subsequently maintained (ie the business processes
> that ensure the determined agents remain correct);
>
> *         What happens if the agent is missing.
> Than SAP WF design has learnt to give.
>
> For example, whereas SAP WF promotes the concept of the Workflow
> Administrator heavily, I've not come across anything similar to this in
> BPM.
>
> Perhaps that's just because I've been looking in the wrong place. Or
> perhaps I've missed the point of "Roles" in a portal/UME environment.
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of Gijs Houtzagers
> Sent: Saturday 26 February 2011 06:53
> To: 'SAP Workflow Users' Group'
> Subject: RE: Agent determination/maintenance best practice
>
> Andy,
> Is it not possible to refer to the object structure in OM from BPM?
>
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of andy.m.catherall at kraftfoods.com
> Sent: vrijdag 25 februari 2011 19:15
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Subject: BPM: Agent determination/maintenance best practice
>
> All
>
> In working with the BPX type individuals who are designing our BPM
> processes in their Pools & Swim-lanes, they of course define steps in the
> flow as being the responsibility of a "Role".
>
> At the high level, this makes sense. To extend the classic "Leave
> request/approval" scenario, we would have
>
>
> a)      The initiator - the employee
>
> b)      The approver  - the manager
>
> This works when describing the process to the business, but is
> insufficient when it comes to actually building the BPM workflow. We also
> need to include the logic to describe which specific manager it should go
> to, for the given initiating employee.
>
> This means that, at development time, tying the step to the UME Role is
> inappropriate and insufficient. If we had one role for "Vacation
> approver", the work item would be delivered to the inbox of far too many
> managers in the firm.
> It is clear that we need a more detailed level of granularity, but it is
> not one we can deliver at the security layer. We could not justify a
> different, unique, role for each manager. It would provide no security
> benefit and would be impossible to administer. How would you ensure that
> you had linked certain employees to the appropriate manager at run time,
> rather than at design time?
>
>
> However in the BPM world, there seem to be limited alternatives.
>
> a)      There's no Org Structure to refer to.
>
> b)      We could tie the step to a custom service to find the right agent.
> However, this adds a degree of development overhead, especially if you
> also are keeping in mind the future maintenance of the agents & (perhaps)
> the logic.
>
> c)       I had hoped we could use Business Rules Management (BRM),
> especially as CE 7.2 provides a web-edit facility for users. However
> apparently, BRM 7.2 will only permit a single result at the moment. Not
> until CE 7.3 can a result-set be returned. Whilst a single result is
> appropriate in my example above, it is insufficient in my real-world
> case...
>
> Then , when it comes to the maintenance of the agent logic, we would want
> to ensure that it was easy to do, and in the most appropriate hands
> (usually, in my experience, that is not IT) so that the logic is kept
> promptly up-to-date with personnel changes. It seems that some maintenance
> screens are necessary here.
>
> So, how have people addressed these requirements in BPM?
> Any references or articles available?
>
> Thanks
> Andy
> ________________________________
>
> This email (including any attachment) is confidential and may contain
> privileged information and is intended for the use of the individual(s) to
> whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or receive it
> in error, you may not use, distribute, disclose or copy any of the
> information contained within it and it may be unlawful to do so. If you
> are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning
> this email to us at mailerror at cadbury.com<mailto:mailerror at cadbury.com>
> and destroy all copies.
>
> Any views expressed by individuals within this email do not necessarily
> reflect the views of Cadbury Holdings Ltd or any of its subsidiaries or
> affiliates. This email does not constitute a binding offer, acceptance,
> amendment, waiver or other agreement, or create any obligation whatsoever,
> unless such intention is clearly stated in the body of the email. Whilst
> we have taken reasonable steps to ensure that this email and any
> attachments are free from viruses, recipients are advised to subject this
> email to their own virus checking, in keeping with good computing
> practice. We accept no liability for any damage sustained as a result of
> any viruses. Please note that email received by Cadbury Holdings Ltd or
> its subsidiaries or affiliates may be monitored in accordance with
> applicable law.
>
> This email originates from Cadbury Holdings Ltd ("Cadbury") or Cadbury UK
> ("Cadbury UK") as the case may be.
>
> Cadbury Holdings Ltd: registered in England and Wales, registered no.
> 52457
> Registered office address: Cadbury House, Sanderson Road, Uxbridge,
> Middlesex, UB8 1DH United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1895 615000 Fax:+44
> (0)1895 615001
>
> Cadbury UK: a partnership of Cadbury UK Ltd, Trebor Bassett Ltd and The
> Old Leo Company Ltd. Ltd each of which is registered in England and Wales.
> Principal trading address: Cadbury House, Sanderson Road, Uxbridge,
> Middlesex, UB8 1DH United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1895 615000 Fax:+44
> (0)1895 615001
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 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