Lawson approvals my way? What does that even mean and why would I want to do it?
Customizing approvals is changing how workunits route for approvals in Lawson Process Flow and Lawson Process Automation. This post is going to specifically be about S3, but it should apply for Landmark and M3 as well. My company is on Lawson Process Automation, so that’s what will be in the examples, but the same concepts should apply to Process Flow.
Let’s first talk about how Lawson Process Automation (LPA) seeks approvals in the User Action nodes. (The rest of this post will assume that you are familiar with the concept of approvals in Process Flow or LPA. If you’re not, check out the documentation for your product before continuing as it might be confusing otherwise.) User action nodes use what is called “Category Filtering”. First a task is assigned to a user. For that task, a filter category and value are assigned (you can assign multiple categories and values). Next, each User Action in a flow will also have a task (or multiple tasks) assigned to it. Finally, when the workunit is created, it will have a filter category and filter value on it based on data in the source application. The inbasket will use the filter category and filter value from the workunit to display only relevant workunits to the user who is logged in.
Okay, maybe not.
Keep these key words in mind:
- Task = Inbasket. There are several philosophies on how to set these up, but they will basically equate to either the person or the type of approval they are performing. Examples might be Manager or Invoice Approver.
- Filter Category = What kind of information is relevant for this workunit.
- Filter Value = The actual value that will be filtered on for the workunit.
Here is an example setup:
Task: Invoice Approver
Filter Category: ACCTUNIT
Filter Value: 123456
In this scenario, Jdoe would only be able to see workunits in his inbasket that have BOTH the Filter Category of ACCTUNIT and the Filter Value of 123456.
Okay, now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the fun stuff. Ultimately, the problem comes down to the fact that workunits created by the source applications (S3, M3, Landmark) rarely have Filter Categories that are of any use. Case in point, the Invoice Approval service uses Authority code, which has to be keyed at the time of the invoice (or defaulted from some place like Vendor). This creates a bit of an issue for us. With 2000 Managers responsible for their own accounting units, it means that AP would need to actually know which of the 2000 managers needed to approve the invoice. Not gonna happen. In a much larger context, it also limits us to basically one level of approval if we were to actually set up a code for each manager because we wouldn’t be able to route to another level easily like a Vice President. Each VP would need to have the same setup as each of the managers that might escalate to them instead of something that makes sense like Company. I’m not saying it’s impossible, it would just be extremely messy. If I’m a VP and there are three managers that approve for Accounting Units in my company, I would need to have each of their approval codes assigned to me. If the manager happens to also approve for an accounting unit in another company, the VP responsible for that company would also need that Approver code assigned to them. Add in the fact that Approval code is only 3 characters and we’re going to wind up with codes like 0X0 and 1CF that AP would probably never get right.
Truth be told, we don’t really want to get approvals by approval code anyway. How our invoice approval works is: If the invoice is part of a Capital project, then route it to the Project Manager, if it’s for a Service, route it to the manager of the cost center receiving the service. So not only do we NOT want to use Approval Code, we actually want to use different approvals depending on the type of invoice.
The question is, how do we do that? The answer is we modify the Category Filter and value. There are people thinking right now, “Okay, so we need to modify the 4GL of the library that creates the workunit to have the correct Filter Category and Filter Value, right?”. You would be correct, you could do that. If you’re one of those people (or you’re a process flow person in an environment that thinks like that) I feel sorry for you. You’re doing it the hard way. Not only will you have a modified library that you have to be careful of when you apply patches, you have now created extra effort when you want to upgrade. Good for job security, but bad for your business.
Here’s the code to change a workunit to match what I set up for Jdoe above:
oCatKey = "ACCTUNIT"; //Filter category oCatValue = "123456"; //Filter Value
For practical purposes and debugging, we are in the habit of also making calls to update the workunit itself with the correct Filter Category and Filter Value. It makes them easier to find when doing research. The added bonus to dynamically changing the values is that you can change the Filter Category and Filter Value as many times as you need in a flow. Thinking outside the box (we don’t do this) – you could have an Invoice approved by a manager for an accounting unit. You could then change the filtering to company and route to a VP responsible for that company if it’s over a certain dollar amount. In this case, you would only need to set up the number of companies that you have for VPs instead of having to setup all of the accounting units for a company (which you would have to do if you went the 4GL route). You could change it again and send it to a treasury analyst based on the bank account that it would pay out of to make sure that funds were available.
The possibilities are pretty much endless at that point.