Process Goverannce Issues: One with "Modeler" role and another where the Process Workflow Stops

[tnichols]

I'm creating a workflow for process review and approval and am having 2 issues.

Overview:

The workflow does the following:

• 3 simultaneous tasks- change process state to "pending QA", email assigned task owners, create multi-assignee task to QA review a process and either provide feedback and reject or approve.
• Upon approval of QA, 3 more simultaneous tasks- change process state to "pending Performance metrics", email modeler to notify of a task, and assign the modeler a task asking them to confirm they've added performance metrics by selecting "yes" OR  state that they don't need any and select "no"
• If they select "no" an email and task are generated that are assigned to the Assurance group.
• Assurance group can either allow the process to move on without metrics, or demand that the modeler add metrics.  WHEN THIS HAPPENS, the workflow emails the modeler to let them know, and RECREATES the task for them to add metrics.

The task recreation to add metrics works fine, but once they add the metrics and select "yes"- the case just ends- it does not continue on to the Assurance team to review the metrics as is defined in the workflow.

NOTE:  If the modeler confirms that the metrics are generated in the first pass at this, then the workflow continues as expected.

Why does the workflow not continue after the modeler completes the performance metrics task the 2nd time?

Issue # 2:  I have used "Modeler" to assign tasks to the modeler and have used it to select who to send emails to, but the "modeler" role that's available to select in Process Governance workflows does not seem to get populated and the task remains unassigned and the email does not fire.  Why?

Oh- one more issue:  Since Modeler didn't work, I assigned the task to "Case / Creator" instead.  That works fine, but the task shows the little dot above it and states that the task is not assigned.  Why does this happen?

[Y4sin · Accepted solution]

Hi TNichols,

Your process stops during the second execution of the activity for the modeler because the next element is a parallel gateway. As you can see, the gateway has three incoming sequence flows (arrows) and expects data from all three before proceeding. In the second execution, only one sequence flow provides input to the gateway. Since the gateway does not recognize that only one input is expected, it waits for all three—resulting in a deadlock. Here you can read more about the topic. 

To avoid this behavior, I recommend removing the parallel gateways and executing the activities sequentially. This approach simplifies loop creation, as intended in your example. Parallel gateways should only be used when there are no additional interactions with the affected process part.

Regarding your second issue: While you correctly assigned tasks using the modeler, this currently acts only as a placeholder without actual data. You have two options to populate the modeler:

1.Create a Modeler Group in your organizational settings and add modelers from your unit. When the task “Add Operational Metric” arises, they can choose to complete it.

2.Assign a Specific Modeler by retrieving information from the model using the SAP Signavio Process Manager API and mapping the user to the respective SAP Signavio Process Governance user. Here are two useful resources to get started with the SPM, SPG). You would use a Java Script action to do so. 

For your third question: It seems that the issue appears only with the Case Creator role. This is likely because not all cases have a designated creator—for example, in automatically started workflow instances. If you select any other role, the red dot should not appear.

I hope this helps.

[tnichols · Accepted solution]

Thank you Y4Sin. This makes sense.

[tnichols · Accepted solution]

oops- meant to type more- This makes sense. Because I'm plugging into 1/3 of the trio of things expecting info from the parallel gateway, I moved the arrow to point to the parallel gateway itself, expecting it to kick off all 3. It fails completely at that point, so my assumption is that parallel gateways can't handle more than one path of input? At any rate, I'm just going to throw out the parallel gateways altogether- to me it makes things more compact and fires them all together, but in reality we're likely talking seconds between actions, so no biggy. thanks for your help!