Responding to external stimuli

[Dart, Jocelyn]

Ah.... sorry doing the messages in the wrong order......

Just to confirm you DON'T need PI to do an intermediate message event, however there are some advantages to using PI - such as putting guaranteed delivery around the message. 
Regards,
Jocelyn

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Pokraka
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:32 PM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: Re: Responding to external stimuli

Hi Andy,

I am surprised at the reactions you got, as this is certainly not a novel
construct. As we all know it's been around in SAP Workflow from way back
when.

In fact, this type of event-driven nature is one of the strengths of the
BPMN standard upon which NetWeaver BPM is based; this is one area where
UML falls short (and possibly why your colleagues are not familiar with
it?). I haven't delved deep enough into NWBPM to know on a practical
level, but if we step back from anything SAP for a moment then modelling
an exception such as you describe using BPMN is simply a message from a
party external to the process that is caught and handled as appropriate.
You could either have a parallel branch or you could make the entire
process segment which depends on the event a subprocess with an exception.
Exact details depend on the modelling software you use.

A slight twist to the story is that the message sender could be a party
that also participates in the process and thus fulfils multiple roles both
internal and external to the process. i.e. in BPMN terms they would appear
as a lane and a pool.

Hope that helps,
Mike


On Fri, February 25, 2011 6:33 pm, andy.m.catherall at kraftfoods.com wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> Final question (for today, I promise!)
>
>
> We are developing a process that cuts across a number of ECC systems and
> also SAP MDM. We are using NW CE 7.2.
>
> I note that the process designs (pools/swim lanes) describe the core
> processes well. But in my humble opinion, the ones I have seen are lacking
> a vital feature.
>
> They do not model any responses to external stimuli. For example, what
> should the workflow do if the data [equivalent of Business Object] is
> changed or deleted by a non-workflow entity?
>
> I have challenged my colleagues and some consultants on this, and was
> surprised to discover that
>
> a)      This was a new concept to them. The idea of putting an
> event-handler in parallel with the main process flow was an entirely novel
> construct. (Does this indicate that it should be done at the header, as in
> ECC style workflows?)
>
> b)      The technical practicality of preparing the workflow to respond to
> events appears to actually be quite complicated. In CE 7.2, we appear to
> be able to make use of "Intermediate Messages", but there are
> challenges... A colleague is adamant that we have to make development
> changes to PI to get some data back to BPM...
>
> In my experience, having workflows that do not respond to the fluctuations
> in the systems in which they operate causes all sorts of problems. At
> best, we 'just' have orphaned work items or confused users; at worst, we
> might be causing subtle data-inaccuracy as we over-write details that were
> changed by someone else already.
>
> So, my question is:
>
> How have are BPM workflows supposed to be designed to ensure that they are
> responsive to the environments in which they operate?
>
> Many 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