Collaborative BPM across Value Chain Evaluation of Approaches
Hi all,
Question: Which approach is easy for modelling Collaborative BPM across value chain A) Centralise, B.) Decentralise, and C) Peer to Peer approach for? What are the pros and cons? What are the other important factors related with each approach?
Explanation of these approaches:
Centralise CBPM: Ownership of Collaborative System is with one Central Organisation and Other Partners Participate in this collaboration through various UI such as portal. Example, Collaboration between the automobile manufacturer and dealer were automobile manufacturer provides portal for dealer to place order, manage its customer and handle warranty and recalls.
Decentralise CBPM: In this approach every partner provides communication technology like Web Services for its Business Partner for collaboration. The ownership is decentralise and more flexible.
Peer-to-Peer CBPM: In ideal condition in this approach every Partner should have the same technology which is developed for handling collaborative Business Processes. In this case the same modelling facility is available across the value chain.
I kindly request you to post your views on this topic as this is related with my dissertation topic.
I welcome your views and guidance.
Regards,
Ganesh Sawant
kRISHNA,
-->Send Step to send the file message with system ACK
By system acknowledgement do you mean by acknowledgement type application or transport?
-->After checking the status ,call the RFC synchronously.. i.e Synch Send Step.
can i call rfc synchronously there after if yes then please let me know logic/reason behind...?
-->But where are you planning to have mapping ?
since in first two steps receive and send i am just picking the file and posting it some other place so no mapping is required but after posting the file i am using a graphical mapping program defined in IR only for mapping sync source message with the BAPi/RFC which is going to be triggered.
but i am getting error related to mapping...
Kindly correct me if i am wrong
Similar Messages
-
Modelling Collaborative BPM across Value Chain Evaluation of Approaches
Question: Which approach is easy for modelling Collaborative BPM across value chain A) Centralise, B.) Decentralise, and C) Peer to Peer approach for? What are the pros and cons? What are the other important factors related with each approach?
Explanation of these approaches:
Centralise CBPM: Ownership of Collaborative System is with one Central Organisation and Other Partners Participate in this collaboration through various UI such as portal. Example, Collaboration between the automobile manufacturer and dealer were auto mobile manufacturer provides portal for dealer to place order, manage its customer and handle warranty and recalls.
Decentralise CBPM: In this approach every partner provides communication technology like Web Services for its Business Partner for collaboration. The ownership is decentralise and more flexible.
Peer-to-Peer CBPM: In ideal condition in this approach every Partner should have the same technology which is developed for handling collaborative Business Processes. In this case the same modelling facility is available across the value chain.
I kindly request you to post your views on this topic as this is related with my dissertation topic.
I welcome your views and guidance.
Regards,
Ganesh SawantkRISHNA,
-->Send Step to send the file message with system ACK
By system acknowledgement do you mean by acknowledgement type application or transport?
-->After checking the status ,call the RFC synchronously.. i.e Synch Send Step.
can i call rfc synchronously there after if yes then please let me know logic/reason behind...?
-->But where are you planning to have mapping ?
since in first two steps receive and send i am just picking the file and posting it some other place so no mapping is required but after posting the file i am using a graphical mapping program defined in IR only for mapping sync source message with the BAPi/RFC which is going to be triggered.
but i am getting error related to mapping...
Kindly correct me if i am wrong -
Collaborative BPM appraoch evaluation
I am doing Masters dissertation in Collaborative BPM. My research topic is the evaluation of three approached for collaborating BPM across value chain.
Explanation of these approaches:
Centralise CBPM: Ownership of Collaborative System is with one Central Organisation and Other Partners Participate in this collaboration through various UI such as portal. Example, Collaboration between the automobile manufacturer and dealer were automobile manufacturer provides portal for dealer to place order, manage its customer and handle warranty and recalls.
Decentralise CBPM: In this approach every partner provides communication technology like Web Services for its Business Partner for collaboration. The ownership is decentralise and more flexible
Peer-to-Peer CBPM: In ideal condition in this approach every Partner should have the same technology which is developed for handling collaborative Business Processes. In this case the same modelling facility is available across the value chain.
I found below critical aspects for evaluating these three approaches:
1] Autonomy
2] Collaborative process Modelling
3] Monitoring, Controlling, and Analysis
4] u201CPlug and Playu201D based Platform for Collaboration (Includes Security, Web Service and various adapters for communication and Language Support like Java for easy custom enhancement)
5] Governance
I kindly request you all to post your views about pros and cons for evaluating these approaches from the aforementioned critical aspects.
I welcome your questions and appreciate your valuable guidance.
Thank you ,
Regards,
Ganesh SawantHi there,
I am certainly not an expert, only started last month but lets hope I can be useful.
2/ Install feature pack. Very easy to do that. You just select "exclude previous participant" and he wont be assigned the task.
7/ When you generate the task form there is an "ACTIONS" menu. Amongst the choices there is "Escalate"
Someone with more experience will have to help you through the rest.
Regards,
Yanis -
Preaggregation across value based hierarchy dimension in 11g
Hi All,
I have created a cube with 6 dimensions in olap 11g. One of those six dimensions has only one hierarchy which is value based hierarchy. I have chosen level based aggregation as I know at what levels exactly users are going to query. When I was going through the dimensions to choose levels to preaggregate I noticed there were no options available for my value based hierarchy dimension ( I could see "all" option for the same case in 10g) then I tried to look for definitions of underlying objects just to make sure it will preaggregate data across my value based hierarchy dimension.
I found value set corresponding to my value based hierarchy dimension in <CUBE NAME>SOLVEAGGMAP object , which AWM uses to decide which dimension values to preaggregate but if I do rpr on that value set (rp r<CUBE NAME>SOLVE<DIMENSION NAME>_PVSET) it shows NA so my question is can I pre aggregate across value based hierarchy dimension in olap 11g?
Olap Version: 11.2.0.1
AWM version: 11.2.0.1
ThanksEven if you know exactly which levels your users will query, percent based precompute (e.g. 30%) may still be faster in practice because queries are returned using 'sparse looping' instead of 'dense looping'. This was the single biggest performance advantage of 11g over 10g.
But if you still want to use level based precompute, then you should look at the XML template for the cube (as saved by AWM, for example). In it you should find something called PrecomputeCondition. This defines the set of members that are precomputed. Here is an example I just created using the GLOBAL schema
<PrecomputeCondition>
<![CDATA[
"TIME" LEVELS ("TIME"."MONTH", "TIME".CALENDAR_QUARTER, "TIME".CALENDAR_YEAR),
CHANNEL LEVELS (CHANNEL.TOTAL_CHANNEL, CHANNEL.CHANNEL),
CUSTOMER LEVELS (CUSTOMER.MARKET_SEGMENT, CUSTOMER.REGION, CUSTOMER.SHIP_TO),
PRODUCT LEVELS (PRODUCT.CLASS, PRODUCT.FAMILY, PRODUCT.ITEM)]]>
</PrecomputeCondition>The PrecomputeCondition is also visible through the USER_CUBES view.
SELECT PRECOMPUTE_CONDITION
FROM USER_CUBES
WHERE CUBE_NAME = 'MY_CUBE';You can hand modify this condition in the XML to specify an alternative 'non level based' precompute condition for any dimension. For example, if you define an attribute named 'SHOULD_PRECOMPUTE' on your PRODUCT dimension that is 1 for members to be precomputed and 0 for all others, then you can change the condition as follows.
<PrecomputeCondition>
<![CDATA[
"TIME" LEVELS ("TIME"."MONTH", "TIME".CALENDAR_QUARTER, "TIME".CALENDAR_YEAR),
CHANNEL LEVELS (CHANNEL.TOTAL_CHANNEL, CHANNEL.CHANNEL),
CUSTOMER LEVELS (CUSTOMER.MARKET_SEGMENT, CUSTOMER.REGION, CUSTOMER.SHIP_TO),
PRODUCT WHERE PRODUCT.SHOULD_PRECOMPUTE = 1]]>
</PrecomputeCondition>If you recreate the cube from the XML with this condition, then the PVSET valueset you discovered should contain all dimension members for which the attribute value is 1. This gives you complete control over what is precomputed. Note that AWM doesn't support this form of condition, so it won't show up if you go to the Precompute tab, but it is valid for the server. The PL/SQL below will modify the PrecomputeCondition (for the cube named MYCUBE) without going through AWM.
begin
dbms_cube.import_xml(q'!
<Metadata
Version="1.3"
MinimumDatabaseVersion="11.2.0.2">
<Cube Name="MY_CUBE">
<Organization>
<AWCubeOrganization>
<PrecomputeCondition>
<![CDATA[
"TIME" LEVELS ("TIME"."MONTH","TIME".CALENDAR_QUARTER, "TIME".CALENDAR_YEAR),
CHANNEL LEVELS (CHANNEL.TOTAL_CHANNEL,CHANNEL.CHANNEL),
CUSTOMER LEVELS (CUSTOMER.MARKET_SEGMENT,CUSTOMER.REGION,CUSTOMER.SHIP_TO),
PRODUCT WHERE PRODUCT.SHOULD_PRECOMPUTE = 1]]>
</PrecomputeCondition>
</AWCubeOrganization>
</Organization>
</Cube>
</Metadata>
end;
/ -
Mapping in BPM - set value of collection item
Hello,
is it possible to set value to exact item of collection in mapping step in netweaver BPM?
I need something like set(<collection_variable>,<item_index>,<item_value>) - so exact opposite of GET generic function, which gets specific item from collection.
Is it possible in NW BPM?You dont have to apologize. I didnt meant that as offend.
I appreciate the possibility to discuss that topic with somebody, because discussion itself sometimes shows other perspective to the problem, which can lead to solution
Of course I wrote EJB function to solve that - but I cant believe that it isnt standard solution to that pretty common use case.
I think, that problem lays in very limited implementation of XPath into Netweaver BPM. I will bet my left hand, that in some future SP of BPM will SAP introduce something like this:
myCollection[1]/notificationId = notificationId
which is standard XPath way to do that -
BPM payload value reading problem
Hi all,
In a bpm scenario, I have a switch that checks an element's attribute and another that checks an element's value. In the former case, the TRUE branch gets executed when the condition is satisfied. However, in the latter the condition is NEVER satisfied (even when it should be). Here's an example message. In my BPM, I have one switch that uses <user action="xxxx"> and another that uses <jobCode>.
<ns1:AccessRequestReply xmlns:ns1="xxxxx">
<ns1:AccessReply type="complete">
<ns1:user action="update">
<ns1:jobCode>1234</ns1:jobCode>
</ns1:user>
</ns1:AccessReply>
</ns1:AccessRequestReply>
During runtime, the integration server can read the <user> attribute "action" with no problems. However, it cannot read the <jobCode> element. From sxi_cache I went into the corresponding workflow and loaded a message into the XML object in question. Sure enough, only the attribute "action" got loaded. The <jobCode> element never gets loaded. I verified the XPath expressions were correct.
Any ideas as to what might be causing this?
Thanks,
--jtbHi James,
might this problem be related to a problem with the usage of namespaces? Normally XI does explicitly use namespaces only on root node level. But in your case, all elements are prefixed with namespaces.
Could you simply try to send a message to your integration process, where there is only a namespace prefix on root node level, i.e.:
<ns1:AccessRequestReply xmlns:ns1="xxxxx">
<AccessReply type="complete">
<user action="update">
<jobCode>1234</jobCode>
</user>
<AccessReply>
</ns1:AccessRequestReply>
Best regards
Joachim -
How to show BPM Reporting values in Visual Composer
Hi everybody,
i add a Reporting Activity to my current BPM Process. My purpose is to show the report in Visual composer.
Unfortunately i don't know how to import the BPM Reporting Activity into VC?
Could anybody help me with a how-to-guide or a detailed description?
Best regards,
SidHi,
Helpful information on this topic:
The whole subtree: Performing Process Analytics
Some quotes from the help.sap.com documentation:
Real-time analytics enables you to report against an operational system without using a BW system. Real-time analytics allows reporting on a subset of both generic process data and process context data. When performing real-time analytics, data is consumed and reports are displayed directly in the Visual Composer of the local system.
Reporting data is provided as DataSources to VC and you use the VC BI Kit to display the data.
Discovering BPM DataSources in Visual Composer:
3. Choose: View -> Task Panel -> Search to search for BPM DataSources. The Search dialog appears.
4. From the Select provider dropdown menu, select BI Data Sources.
5. From the System destination dropdown menu, select BI (Sql) Portal.
...but per my understanding, in order to be able to select "BI Data Sources", because all BPM Data Sources can be accessed from this choice only, you need to have BW, and you need to configure the connection between your BPM and BW??
Also, your own custom BPM Data Sources can be created only with the "Reporting Activity" in NWDS, Process Development perspective??
Similar-helpful thread: Using Visual Composer from NWDS - CE as BI Data Source (BPM tables)
Regards,
David -
BPM: read value of simple container variable in mapping
Hi everybody,
is this possible via UDF?
Regards MarioHi Mario,
maybe you can (mis-)use dynamic attributes of a message: Set a dynamic attribute in a UDF for the message, where you want to set the value. In a later mapping, you can read the attribute again.
Not very nice, I know, but maybe helpful. But you will need a message mapping to set the variable.
Regards,
Torsten -
Approach for Inter Organisational BPM
Hi All,
I am doing Masters Dissertation in Collaborative BPM. My research topic is the evaluation of three approached for collaborating BPM across value chain.
Explanation of these approaches:
Centralise CBPM: Ownership of Collaborative System is with one Central Organisation and Other Partners Participate in this collaboration through various UI such as portal. Example, Collaboration between the automobile manufacturer and dealer were automobile manufacturer provides portal for dealer to place order, manage its customer and handle warranty and recalls.
Decentralise CBPM: In this approach every partner provides communication technology like Web Services for its Business Partner for collaboration. The ownership is decentralise and more flexible
Peer-to-Peer CBPM: In ideal condition in this approach every Partner should have the same technology which is developed for handling collaborative Business Processes. In this case the same modelling facility is available across the value chain.
I found below critical aspects for evaluating these three approaches:
1] Autonomy
2] Collaborative process Modelling
3] Monitoring, Controlling, and Analysis
4] “Plug and Play” based Platform for Collaboration (Includes Security, Web Service and various adapters for communication and Language Support like Java for easy custom enhancement)
5] Governance
I kindly request you all to post your views about pros and cons for evaluating these approaches from the aforementioned critical aspects.
I welcome your questions and appreciate your valuable guidance.
Thank you ,
Regards,
Ganesh SawantPROS:
Using the Webservices you can trigger the BPM Process and pass the values from the web dypro component which will available for the end user and pass it on to the BPM Proess.
We can use EJB as a webservice, where the automated activity in the BPM can output the value based on the logic in the EJB Function. We can manage the automated activity which runs in the back ground of the process as per our logic and returns the value to the next task.
CONS
Using Webservices in the various activity with fewer data is not advisable as it takes longer time to deploy the process. And any change in the data in the webservices requires regularly re importing of the web services. -
What is the effect of standardisation such as BPDM ?
Hi All,
Will standardisation help in collaborating BPM across the value chain?
Does the use of standard modelling notations for designing collaborative processes help in actual implementation of collaborative processes? If not what are the other aspect for modelling and implementing collaborative BPM across value chain?
Regards
Ganesh SawantJust looked up the help text:
You cannot sort a sorted table using the SORT statement. The system always maintains these tables automatically by their sort order. If an internal table is statically recognizable as a sorted table, the SORT statement causes a syntax error. If the table is a generic sorted table, the SORT statement causes a runtime error if the sort key is not the same as an extract of the beginning of the table key, you sort in descending order, or use the AS TEXT addition. In other words, the SORT statement is only allowed for generic internal tables, if it does not violate the internal sort order.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/fc/eb3800358411d1829f0000e829fbfe/frameset.htm -
Autonomy, Governance and Monitoring Inter Organisational BPM
Hi All,
Which technological approach is suitable for implementing Collaborating BPM across the value chain from the point of view of Autonomy, Governance, Security, and Monitoring? What are the benefits of selecting the one approach over the other?
These approaches are Centralise, Decentralise, and Peer-to-Peer.
Explanation of these approaches:
Centralise CBPM: Ownership of Collaborative System is with one Central Organisation and other Partners Participate in this collaboration through use of various UI’s such as portal. Example, Collaboration between the automobile manufacturer and dealer were automobile manufacturer provides portal for dealer to place order, manage its customer and handle warranty and recalls.
Decentralise CBPM: In this approach every partner provides communication technology like Web Services for its Business Partner for collaboration. The ownership is decentralise and more flexible
Peer-to-Peer CBPM: In ideal condition in this approach every Partner should have the same technology which is developed for handling collaborative Business Processes. In this case the same modelling, monitoring, and implementation technology is available across the value chain.
I kindly request your views and appreciate any questions and guidance.
Regards,
Ganesh SawantPROS:
Using the Webservices you can trigger the BPM Process and pass the values from the web dypro component which will available for the end user and pass it on to the BPM Proess.
We can use EJB as a webservice, where the automated activity in the BPM can output the value based on the logic in the EJB Function. We can manage the automated activity which runs in the back ground of the process as per our logic and returns the value to the next task.
CONS
Using Webservices in the various activity with fewer data is not advisable as it takes longer time to deploy the process. And any change in the data in the webservices requires regularly re importing of the web services. -
Autonomy, Governance and Monitoring in Inter Organisational BPM
Which technological approach is suitable for implementing Collaborating BPM across the value chain from the point of view of Autonomy, Governance, Security, and Monitoring? What are the benefits of selecting the one approach over the other?
These approaches are Centralise, Decentralise, and Peer-to-Peer.
Explanation of these approaches:
Centralise CBPM: Ownership of Collaborative System is with one Central Organisation and other Partners Participate in this collaboration through use of various UIu2019s such as portal. Example, Collaboration between the automobile manufacturer and dealer were automobile manufacturer provides portal for dealer to place order, manage its customer and handle warranty and recalls.
Decentralise CBPM: In this approach every partner provides communication technology like Web Services for its Business Partner for collaboration. The ownership is decentralise and more flexible
Peer-to-Peer CBPM: In ideal condition in this approach every Partner should have the same technology which is developed for handling collaborative Business Processes. In this case the same modelling, monitoring, and implementation technology is available across the value chain.
I kindly request your views and appreciate any questions and guidance.
Regards,
Ganesh SawantPROS:
Using the Webservices you can trigger the BPM Process and pass the values from the web dypro component which will available for the end user and pass it on to the BPM Proess.
We can use EJB as a webservice, where the automated activity in the BPM can output the value based on the logic in the EJB Function. We can manage the automated activity which runs in the back ground of the process as per our logic and returns the value to the next task.
CONS
Using Webservices in the various activity with fewer data is not advisable as it takes longer time to deploy the process. And any change in the data in the webservices requires regularly re importing of the web services. -
Challenges in Implementing Inter Organisation BPM
Hi all,
What are the Technical and Business challenges for implementing collaborative BPM across the value chain?
What critical aspects need be considered for implementing Cross Organisational BPM?
Thank you,
Regards,
Ganesh Sawant
Edited by: ganesh sawant on Jul 16, 2011 8:57 PMPROS:
Using the Webservices you can trigger the BPM Process and pass the values from the web dypro component which will available for the end user and pass it on to the BPM Proess.
We can use EJB as a webservice, where the automated activity in the BPM can output the value based on the logic in the EJB Function. We can manage the automated activity which runs in the back ground of the process as per our logic and returns the value to the next task.
CONS
Using Webservices in the various activity with fewer data is not advisable as it takes longer time to deploy the process. And any change in the data in the webservices requires regularly re importing of the web services. -
Peer-to-Peer approach for Cross Organisation BPM
What are the pros and cons of using Peer-to-Peer based decentralise approach for managing Inter-Organisational BPM?
( Peer-to-Peer CBPM: In ideal condition in this approach every Partner should have the same technology which is developed for handling collaborative Business Processes. In this case the same modelling, monitoring, and implementation technology is available across the value chain. )
What are the challenges and what are the benefits from the aspects like autonomy, governance, security, modelling, monitoring, and process ownership?
Thanks you
Regards
Ganesh Sawant
Edited by: ganesh sawant on Jul 16, 2011 8:45 PMPROS:
Using the Webservices you can trigger the BPM Process and pass the values from the web dypro component which will available for the end user and pass it on to the BPM Proess.
We can use EJB as a webservice, where the automated activity in the BPM can output the value based on the logic in the EJB Function. We can manage the automated activity which runs in the back ground of the process as per our logic and returns the value to the next task.
CONS
Using Webservices in the various activity with fewer data is not advisable as it takes longer time to deploy the process. And any change in the data in the webservices requires regularly re importing of the web services. -
Approach to customize workflow - setting default values of attributes
Hello Friends,
I have a requirement to customize the standard workflow - PO Requisition Approval & PO Create Documents. I want to change the default value of certain attributes in both the workflow.
Generally workflows are customized through process customization (create a new process by copying the main process (which gets called) and customize it under the same 'Item type' ) but if we just need to change the default value of attributes , do we create a new 'Item type' and set the attribute values or any other approach? If we make the change in the seeded workflow , whichever OU use that workflow will see the changes in functionality.
The requirement is very common and even Oracle has mentioned that buisness should set these attributes to suit their business needs.One such attribute is 'Is Automatic Creation Allowed' (Should PO be created from iProc requisition without user intervention)
What is the recommended/best way forward.
Please suggest , thanks !!
Regards,
AmitYou can simply update the wf_item_attributes table.
Set text_default to Y WHERE name = 'CONT_WF_FOR_AC_REL_GEN'
Hope this helps
Sandeep Gandhi
Independent Techno-functional Consultant
Maybe you are looking for
-
New iMAC to Dell 3008 using Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter
I just brought the new iMAC 27" iCore7. Previously I was using old MBP with dual link DVI to DELL 3008 and they did fine. But Today I connect the Dell 3008 to my new iMAC using Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter...They could not work properly.
-
Is anyone have same problem like me, i have bought two iphone 4, but it is strange one iphone 4 can sync with my labtop computer but another iphone 4 can't. I have try to sync the problem iphone with other computer. It will sync. The difference betwe
-
Need to replace/modify an element attribute
Hi, I need to read an XML file and modify the value of an XML element attribute and write the modified element back to the file. This element is two levels deep in the heirarchy, currently i am reading all the children and modifying the value of this
-
IPhoto will no longer import photos from any of my another cameras.
iPhoto will no longer import photos from any of my another cameras after importing photos from my iTouch.
-
Discoverer Viewer : Drilled Type not cmg in Worksheet
Hi, Am on Disciverer : 10.1.2.2 - Discoverer Viewer : Drilled Type not cmg in Worksheet .. Thanks KSVDBA