SAP CUP workflows with conditions on Risk Analysis

[Former Member]

Hi Experts

i have requirement to build 3 stage WF (manager , role owner and mitigation authority) for additional access requests . The workflow should skip manager if there are no risks . if there are risks , manager has to approve and workflow goes to role owner . Once the role owner approves , the workflow should skip mitigation authority if there are no risks . if there are risks , the request should go to mitigation authority where the mitigation either approve/reject and the workflow ends . Any ideas how i can achieve this . thanks for your help in advance

Regards

Prasad

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

The workflow should skip manager if there are no risks

What do you want the workflow to do once the manager step is skipped? should it end with the user getting provisioned? Please clarify the same.

You can think of a detour with detour conditions as if no SOD violations then the work flow should take a different path with also a configuration setting of Configuration> Risk Analysis> Risk analysis on submission of request--> Yes for detour to work

. if there are risks , manager has to approve and workflow goes to role owner . Once the role owner approves , the workflow should skip mitigation authority if there are no risks

I am not sure what do you mean by once the role owner approves and if no risks then it should skip mitigation authority. As you have mentioned above if there are risks then the request goes to the manager and after his approval it goes to the role owner. Now it is obvious that the same request will have risks (provided the manager doesn't re-mediate or mitigate). So why will there be scenario where role owner doesn't get any risks at his stage.So unless role owner re-mediates(i.e. removes any conflicting roles from the request) the request will always have risks which needs to be mitigated at the mitigation authority stage. Please clarify the roles and responsibilities of each approver!!!

. if there are risks , the request should go to mitigation authority where the mitigation either approve/reject and the work flow ends

You can think of a detour with detour conditions as if no SOD violations then the work flow should take a different path.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

thanks for your reply . i checked out the detour option but i am not able to acheive the requirement . i need to creat a path with stages (Custom Apptover Determinator as No Stage ) to check the SOD violations and detour the path . But the limitation is that i am able to creat a path with one stage only (CAD as No stage)

Regards

Prasad

[koehntopp · Accepted solution]

1. Create a 1 stage path with NO STAGE and automatic risk analysis (alternative: dummy approver with automatic escalation after a few minutes)

2. Create an SoD detour on that stage.

Does that work?

Frank.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Frank

This works , but the least possible time that i can use is 1 hour for escalation . Technically it works , but i have to check the feasibility of the solution in this project . If there are no other requirements about the SLA and Escalation process , i can use this option. I am still thinking of any other options available . Thanks for the Idea . I am still keeping this thread open to get more ideas to achieve the requirement.

Regards

Prasad

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Frank

why i am not able to creat a path with more than one stage and having a stage with No Stage CAD . is this a limitation in CUP or am i missing any configuration ? thanks

Regards

Prasad

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Prasad,

This is working as per design. Once you add no stage to a path, you can not add anymore stages to the path.

Alpesh

[koehntopp · Accepted solution]

As I said: create the stage with a different approver determinator, then switch it after creating the path.

No guarantees for future support, but right now this works

[Former Member]

Hello Prasad,

Totally agreeing to what celestemay17 had stated, I just want to suggest you that in case you have the need to have different processes based on whether there is risk or not (which if I understand is your actual requirement) it would be better you create two paths (or detour) depending on whether there is risk or not. This wil lbe very simple to achieve and less complicated as well, instead of what you have stated - in which you check for risk analysis at many points.

Regards,

Hersh.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/hersh13