Responding to external stimuli

[Mike Pokraka]

Hi Jocelyn,

Great news about BPMN 2.0 in NWBPM!

As an aside, an intermediate message event is not the same as a
non-interrupting event. They were introduced in BPMN 2.0, and are linked
to a task (think terminating event) or a subprocess, but do not stop the
task in progress if the event is received but spawn an additional branch
instead.

Regards,
Mike


On Thu, March 3, 2011 10:59 pm, Dart, Jocelyn wrote:
> Hi Mike/Andy -  NW BPM 7.2 supports the intermediate message event
> concept.
>
> BPMN 2.0 standard in NW BPM is coming soon.
> Regards,
> 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 3:19 AM
> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> Subject: RE: Responding to external stimuli
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> With my non-SAP BPM(*) hat on this is still a straightforward message flow
> to your process engine. In other words your 'wait' step would kick into
> action whenever the relevant message is received - in practice this would
> be a service call to the BPM Engine by whatever app is raising the event.
> I don't know the exact capabilities of the latest NetWeaver BPM, but if
> fully BPMN compliant then it should handle this without too much fuss.
>
> For a nice example of how this works in a BPMN model, have a look at:
> http://tynerblain.com/blog/2006/09/04/bpmn-intermediate-cancel/
> Hmm, I notice this doesn't render images at my current location since
> they're linked off the main site, so you may need to look at this at home
> or on your smartphone if it doesn't load for you.
>
> As an aside, the new BPMN 2.0 standard (not yet implemented by
> NWBPM)introduces the concept of non-interrupting events which is really
> useful and closer to the wait fork constructs we're used to building in
> our workflows.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
> (*) Don't you hate a product that's called the same as the practice?
> Devious marketing by SAP no doubt to make it painful to distinguish
> whether talking about NetWeaver BPM the product or proper "business" BPM
> as an activity.
>
>
> On Mon, February 28, 2011 2:57 pm, andy.m.catherall at kraftfoods.com wrote:
>> Thanks, Mike
>>
>> I am pleased that the basic principles continue to remain valid. Still
>> keeping non-SAP for moment, but starting to explore a theoretical
>> practical SOA example for a moment:
>>
>>
>> We build a workflow with two parallel paths.... one representing the
>> 'main
>> activity', one representing the 'wait-for-event' so that the main flow
>> responds appropriately to something the process cares about  (a
>> disturbance in the force, for example).
>>
>> One of our systems - separate to that running the BPM workflow - notices
>> that disturbance.
>>
>> How do we get that event into the process at runtime? I am struggling to
>> work out where services would be necessary; what calls what; what
>> unique-keys the listener would use etc.?
>>
>> I take it we would have to get our Jedi to call a service on our Portal?
>> Or on the BPM? I would hope that this was a standard (ie existing)
>> service
>> to handle events. This service will then create the event that our
>> workflow will respond to using a key of some sort?
>>
>> If anyone has any experience or documentation links on this, I would be
>> very grateful]
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
>> Of Mike Pokraka
>> Sent: Monday 28 February 2011 11:32
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>> Subject: Re: BPM: 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
>> ________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>