Skip to Content

Quality Notification QM10 Worklist or Workflow

When SAP was introduced in our UK Plant it was decided that we would trial the use of Workflow in Quality Notifications in order to assess whether to integrate it in all Plants or to continue with the use of Partnerships and the monitoring of tasks through QM10 using variants.

Several years later we are still in a position where the UK Plant uses workflow but the other Plants use Partnership and QM10 because each Plant prefers their own method and hasn't been willing to change. We are now in a position where there is more interaction between the different Plants and the different methods are causing issues so we need to decide which will be used on all sites.

I think that Workflow is an improvement to using QM10 but as I have not had any experience using Partnership and QM10 as a worklist I am struggling to make this case.

I'd like to know the preference of other users outside of my organisation and arguments to back up the preferred method.


Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

3 Answers

  • Best Answer
    Jul 17, 2017 at 08:20 PM

    Great question!

    QM is a strange beast in some respects, sometimes a right pain but also has some really cool features. Status management is very versatile, and together with QM tasks and notifications can make up a whole workflow/process management engine on it's own with many of the same features as workflow.

    So my take on it, having worked on both QM-driven and WF-driven setups:

    QM is great as it's almost entirely config-driven and very flexible, and far quicker to set up. If your processes are mostly within QM and/or require little nonstandard functionality, it's the way to go. If you step outside of what it can do it can get really difficult.

    WF has the bigger upfront implementation effort but is more capable. So instead of configuring task x to be allocated to certain users, you just create the task, set a status and WF takes over. You need to pay particular attention to the handoff points between WF and QM. Once you get it right however, it's way way more extensible into other functions. E.g. I did some work where the processes included FI for budget controls and authorisations, as well as PS (Project Systems).

    So if you intend to go more cross-functional or heavily customised, WF is the way to go, else QM.

    Another important factor to consider is how much WF is in use. If folks already use WF for other stuff (travel, leave requests, purchasing and whatnot), then going the WF route presents a common inbox for all processes, which is convenient. If the majority don't currently use WF then you'll encounter a bit of resistance.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Jul 17, 2017 at 01:35 PM

    Hi Katie,

    I think that asking this question in the workflow group, might not be the right choice. Asking people working in the QM area might be better because they might have used the two methods.

    In general, when there is a possibility to use either a transaction or a workflow the workflow provides more functionality :

    - Tracability

    - Pro activity (the work is send to the actor vs you have to connect to see what you need to do)

    - error monitoring

    -deadline monitoring (if something has not been done for a certain period of time you can react)

    I am sure that others will add goods functionalities that goes with workflow.

    The bad side is maintenance, and conception. Providing a transaction to someone is easy in comparison :-)



    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Jul 19, 2017 at 09:38 AM

    Thank you both for your input. I will also trying asking people in the QM area.


    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded