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 PM

PROS:
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.

Similar Messages

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 Sawant

PROS:
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.

Process Ownership in Cross Organisation BPM

Hi all,
What are the pros and cons of using Peer-to-Peer based decentralise approach for managing Inter-Organisational BPM?
What are the challenges and what are the benefits from the aspects like autonomy, governance, security, modelling, monitoring, and process ownership?
Regards,
Ganesh Sawant

PROS:
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.

Role of Web Services in cross organisation BPM

What are the pros and cons of using web service based decentralise approach for managing Inter-Organisational BPM? What are the challenges and what are the benefits?
Regards
Ganesh Sawant

PROS:
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 PM

PROS:
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.

Best approach for a cross language application

I am working on a project where we are planning to write the data acquisition code in LabVIEW, but the rest of the application is being written in C# by some developers that are unfamiliar with LabVIEW. I am looking for suggestions for the best architecture for this kind of application.
Traditionally, in my LabVIEW applications that require UI, data aquisition, logging, and analysis, I generate a tiered producer consumer architecture. I usually build a queued event driven producer/consumer, and then create additional consumer loops to handle data as it propogates out of the acquisition loop. In this project, I am basically looking to only create the acquisition loop in LabVIEW, with the rest of the "loops" being generated by the C# guys using .NET 4.0 CLR.
The original plan was to make my loop as I usually would in LabVIEW and build it as a .NET interop. I hadn't really sorted it out yet, but the plan was to basically get configure and start commands from the C# gui (not sure how to replace the queue here), and use some event to get the analysis parts of the program to trigger at appropriate times based on data availability. It's come to my attention that LabVIEW generated .NET interops can not run in 4.0 CLR applications though, so I'm looking for alternatives.
Basically, I'd like to hear about similar applications and what has worked and not worked. I'm particularly interested in good approaches for interprocess communication between LabVIEW and a .NET app, and also any thoughts on triggering actions in the .NET app from the LabVIEW portion (can this be done without the .NET code polling something?).
Thanks!
Chris

Hi Chris,
C. Minnella wrote:I'm particularly interested in good approaches for interprocess communication between LabVIEW and a .NET app, and also any thoughts on triggering actions in the .NET app from the LabVIEW portion (can this be done without the .NET code polling something?).
whenever it comes to communication between windows applications, I don't stop recommending the highly underrated Microsoft Message Queue (MSMQ) infrastructure and in my opinion, it actually screams to be used in your scenario:
1. Let LabVIEW collect the data and place it into a designated data queue.
2. Let C# exe attach to queue and do the data retrieval/evaluation/storage/whatever by OnMessageReceived events.
3. Let C# send control messages to a second queue, that is read by LV.
MSMQ is increadibly easy to use, yet very powerfull and has so many aspects and benefits for interprocess communication, especially between different machines in a LAN - a real pity that it's so little known. Just have a look at the following thread, especially at the tiny LabVIEW example I've placed there: http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/MSMQ-with-Labview/m-p/154334
This could be done better on the LabVIEW side (event based rather than polling), but as you just want to send some configuration and control commands, it's okay like this.
Unfortunately, there are not too many good resources about MSMQ on the web that explain the coding basics well.The MSDN magazine has some great articles if you're somewhat experienced (like http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163920.aspx ). What I found really helpful and gives a great introduction is this book: http://amzn.com/1590593464
Give MSMQ try and have fun with it!
Cheers,
Hans

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 Sawant

PROS:
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 is Inter organisational BPM

Which approach is suitable for maintaining high degree of autonomy in inter organisational BPM?
How it affects the ownership of processes?
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 Sawant

Hi Afzal,
in all the customizing setting of note 308989 are good, then those fields should be filled.
Please check it very carefully.
Please check in customizing of sales order type (transaction VOV8) if the intercompany billing type maintained.
In case of stock tranfer order intercompany (where there is not sales order), run transaction 0VLK, display the delivery type used, and check the order type present in field 'Default Ord.Ty.' (usually it is 'DL').
Then check in VOV8 for this sales order type.
If everything is fine, then it is necessary to debug the delivery creation.
The field LIKP-VKOIV etc. should be filled in program FV50XFLK_LIKP_FUELLEN_IV in intercompany sales; program FV50XFLK_LIKP_FUELLEN_IV_UML in stock transfer order intercompany.
Best regards,
Ivano.

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 Sawant

PROS:
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.

Web Services in Inter Organisation BPM

Hi All,
What are the pros and cons of using web service based decentralise approach for managing Inter-Organisational BPM? What are the challenges and what are the benefits?
Regards,
Ganesh Sawant

PROS:
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.

Best approach for IDOC - JDBC scenario

Hi,
In my scenarion I am creating sales order(ORDERS04) in R/3 system and which need to be replicated in a SQL Server system. I am sending the order to XI as an IDoc and want to use JDBC for sending data to SQL Server. I need to insert data in two tables(header & details). Is it possible without BPM? Or what is the best approach for this?
Thanks,
Sri.

Yes, this is possible without the BPM.
Just create the Corresponding Datatype for the insertion.
if the records to be inserted are different, then there wil be 2 different datatypes ( one for header and one for detail).
Do a mutlimapping, where your Source is mapped into the header and details datatype and then send using the JDBC sender adapter.
For the strucutre of your Datatype for insertion , just check this link,
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/7e/5df96381ec72468a00815dd80f8b63/content.htm
To access any Database from XI, you will have to install the corresponding Driver on your XI server.
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/3867a582-0401-0010-6cbf-9644e49f1a10
Regards,
Bhavesh

Best approach for syndication in Central MDM

MDM 7.1
CE 7.2
ERP 6 EHP4
PI 7.1 EHP1
We are currently developing a custom application using CE/BPM workflow for central maintenance of customer master data. One of the topics under discussion is the right approach for syndication once a record is complete.
[This |http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/60a3118e-3c3e-2d10-d899-ddd0b963beba?quicklink=downloads&overridelayout=true] SAP document on collaborative material master data creation provides one way to achieve this syndication by first calling a web service from BPM to create record in ERP before checking in MDM. While I am personally fine with the approach, some of the other colleagues aren't too keen on issuing synchronous calls from BPM. Rather, they would like to use the syndication engine of MDM to transmit data to downstream systems (currently only SAP ERP) using Idocs. But there is a caveat here. To use syndication, the record has to be checked in.
The problem is that if the record is checked in MDM, it is ready for modification. However, the asynchronous call to ERP using Idocs for creation of customer master might fail for any number of reasons. In this case, the MDM record might need a modification before resubmitting to ERP. In the meantime, since the record was checked in before syndication, someone else might have checked it out, potentially resulting in data quality issues. So to avoid this situation, the developer has decided to take the approach to check in -> syndicate -> check out -> wait for confirmation Idoc -> check in if success. This isn't a clean approach to syndicate but might address the record locking issue.
Another consideration is to design the application with the view that sometime in the future, this master data might have to be syndicated to other SAP and non-SAP systems as well. To ensure syndication to all downstream systems is complete before checking in MDM can be a tricky requirement and might need some complex ccBPM development or evaluating something similar to two-phase commit (might be an overkill). In any case, a best practice approach for keeping downstreams systems in sync with MDM in case of central MDM has to be shared by SAP. So it would be good to have comments of the people who developed the reference application for collaborative material master data creation.
If there are any customers who have come up with a custom solution which works, please do share the experience.
Thanks and regards,
Shehryar

Thanks Ravi. While there are more than one possible solutions to the immediated problem, I am actually looking for a design pattern which SAP recommends or a customer has developed to address the issues related to synchronization of master data in a Central MDM environment.
The idea behind a central master data management function, as you know, is that all participating business systems use the same basic master data being authored in MDM. This data has to be synchronized with all participating systems, rather than just one system. To me, a ccBPM workflow or 2 phase commit design pattern seem to be the solution. But it would be good to know how other customers are addressing the issue of master data synchronization with multiple systems, or SAP's recommendations for this issue.
Regards,
Shehryar

Best approach for IDs mapping..

Hello,
I'd like to ask you for your experiences about classical integration problem: mapping of IDs (materials, partners...)
What is the best approach for integration between SAP and other systems? Can you give me some hints?
Thanx, Peter

Hi Peter,
you have 4 ways to do it:
1. you can do it inside an integration process:
RFC call for checking a table with ID -> ID mappings
(not so good as you have to use integration process)
but very easy to biuld as this is standard
2. table in R/3 and changing the values in a user exit
(you maintaint the data in a table in R/3)
the fastest way (no calls to other programs)
but you have to create user exits and
this is not why you (your client) bought the XI
3. you can use this new RFC API
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.km.cm.docs/library/uuid/801376c6-0501-0010-af8c-cb69aa29941c
which seems to be the best approach
as you don't need BPM for this and it's a standard
4. value mapping tables in XI...
Regards,
michal
Message was edited by: Michal Krawczyk

What's the best approach for handeling about 1300 connections in Oracle.

What's the best approach for handling about 1300 connections in Oracle 9i/10g through a Java application?
1.Using separate schema s for various type users(We can store only relevant data with a particular schema. Then No. of records per table can be reduced by replicating tables but we have to maintain all data with a another schema Then we need update two schema s for a given session.Because we maintain separate scheama for a one user and another schema for all data and then there may be Updating problems)
OR
2. Using single schema for all users.
Note: All users may access the same tables and there may be lot of records than previous case.
What is the Best case.
Please give Your valuable ideas

It is a true but i want a solution from you all.I want you to tell me how to fix my friends car.

F-02 Docment posted for cross company code TAX

Dear Experts ,
Can you please explain me ,
when i posted docment in F-02 for cross company code postings that is Dr for 1150 company code and credit for 5500 company code ,
1] i need to enter tax code is YY is same to both company codes 1150 & 5500
] i need to enter tax jurisdiction code for company code 1150 is 1254693 and company code 5500 is 4525658
when i enter these two Tax jurisdiction code system shows error when i saved error message # FF 744
ERROR MESSAGE BELOW
[ The jurisdiction codes entered on the individual line items have different controls for determinating the cash discount base amount (upper level and ).
This is not allowed within a document.
Procedure
Please correct the entered jurisdiction code (if not correct) or if need be, post the transaction to two single documents.
Can you please help me how i enter postings in F-02
Regards
Bhaskar

Thanks

Peer-to-Peer approach for Cross Organisation BPM

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for