bpel4people message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [bpel4people] NEW ISSUE: Priority of a Task and Potential Owner Privilege (1/3)
- From: "Rickayzen, Alan" <alan.rickayzen@sap.com>
- To: "Gerhard Pfau" <GPFAU@de.ibm.com>, "Alireza Farhoush" <alireza@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:55:15 +0200
Hi Gerhard, Alireza,
Priority, in the context of human-task, is about the battle
for resources, hence attention. And sorting/filtering the inbox is the principle
instrument for this (what-should-I-work-on-first).
Agreed? Or have I overseen something?
The clash-of-interests is that a task stakeholder can raise
the priority of their task above the priority of other tasks for which they are
not responsible or even interested in. I'm not against the task stakeholder
doing this, I'm just saying the only neutral people able to juggle priorities
according to what tasks are competing for which resource are the business
administrators and the task owners so they at least need this right as well.
In addition, in the same way as a task owner can suspend a
task after, say, talking to a customer they should also be able to adjust the
priority.
Best regards,
Alan
Rickayzen
Alloy Product Manager
SAP AG
Hasso-Plattner-Ring 1
69190 Walldorf
T +49 / 6227 /
7-45567
M +49 / 160 90820152
E
alan.rickayzen@sap.com
Hi Alireza and Alan,
I agree with Alireza's reasoning for
not allowing potential owner or owners of a human task to change its priority.
The priority defined in WS-HT is the priority of the task as defined by the
modeler, potentially altered by the business administrator or stake holder.
Alan, I also agree that In practice
there will be the need for people to specify sort criteria for ordering the
tasks in their task lists according to their personal needs. Alireza's example
for the potential owners in my mind demonstrates that using the human task
priority field for this is not really possible, at least not without affecting
other people (which I assume we would not want to). Therefore IMO while the
personal sorting scenario is important this is something that should be
addressed separately, preferably on the task list client using mechanisms out of
band for WS-HT.
Best regards,
"Make everything as simple as possible, but
not simpler." - Albert Einstein |
Legal Information:
IBM Deutschland Research & Development
GmbH; Vorsitzender
des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter; Geschäftsführung: Erich Baier; Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Böblingen; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB
243294 |
From:
| "Alireza Farhoush"
<alireza@tibco.com>
|
To:
| <alan.rickayzen@sap.com>
|
Cc:
| <bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Date:
| 04/16/2009 05:22 PM
|
Subject:
| RE: [bpel4people] NEW ISSUE: Priority of
a Task and Potential Owner Privilege (1/3) |
Hi Alan,
I am not sure where the conflict of interest lies. Perhaps you can
elaborate.
The primary concern of Task
Priorities is that tasks are processed according to their envisioned priority as
intended by the task stakeholder/administrator.
In
certain areas, authorization is, and should be, a concern; Table 6.1.5,
‘Operation Authorizations,’ defines the required authorizations.
Also, as I stated earlier, multiple potential
owners of a task may change the priority of a task according to their own work
queue and not to the overall progress of the process; this will affect the
intended assigned priority. Furthermore, a task priority may be low from the
perspective of one potential owner but high from the perspective of another. How
do you reconcile this difference? Limiting the authorization to task
stakeholders or business administrators can prevent potential problems.
Regards.
Alireza
From: Rickayzen,
Alan [mailto:alan.rickayzen@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:19 AM
To: Alireza
Farhoush; bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [bpel4people]
NEW ISSUE: Priority of a Task and Potential Owner Privilege (1/3)
Hi Aliriza,
It seems to me that it there
will be conflicting interests between:
1. business
administrator
2. process stakeholder
3. task owner
4. task stakeholder
5. task stakeholder's boss
juggling different tasks and activities.
In my opinion all should be
able to change the priority since a clash of interests cannot be avoided and
each needs the flexibility.
The whole point of the
priority-change is the transparency that this supports not the authorization so
I'd prefer keeping it as is.
Best regards,
Alan Rickayzen
From: Alireza Farhoush [mailto:alireza@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday 23 February 2009 16:33
To:
bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [bpel4people] NEW ISSUE:
Priority of a Task and Potential Owner Privilege (1/3)
I am following up on the discussion we had during our last meeting.
I have outlined below a change (1/3) to the WS-HumanTask Specification Version
1.1 document that I proposed.
Regards,
Alireza Farhoush
TARGET: WS-HumanTask
Specification Version 1.1 CD02
DESCRIPTION:
In Section 3.1, ‘Generic Human Roles’, in
the 4th paragraph, a statement reads:
“...potential owners
can influence the progress of the task, for example by changing the priority of
the task.”
Shouldn’t changing a task priority be performed only by the
stakeholder or the business administrator? Multiple potential owners could
independently modify the priority as they see fit (and perhaps never acquire a
task).
PROPOSAL:
Limit the privilege
of changing task priority to Task Stakeholder and Business Administrator.
smime.p7s
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]