SAP Business Objects Process Control 10.0 Automated Monitoring Overview PDF

SAP Business Objects Process
Control 10.0 Automated

Monitoring Overview
Applies to:
SAP® Business Objects™ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) Process Control release 10.0. For
more information, visit the Governance, Risk, and Compliance homepage.
Summary
Automated monitoring of business process controls is a key feature of SAP Business Objects Process
Control (PC) 10.0, and a fast-evolving feature category in the market. This document presents an overview
of the monitoring features of PC 10.0, which will help put more detailed user guides in context.
Author: Atul Sudhalkar

Company: Governance, Risk, and Compliance
SAP BusinessObjects Division
Created on: 15 August 2011
Version 1.6
SAP COMMUNITY NETWORK SDN - sdn.sap.com | BPX - bpx.sap.com | BOC - boc.sap.com

© 2011 SAP AG
© 2011 SAP AG
Typographic Conventions Icons
Type Style Description Icon Description
Example Text Words or characters quoted Caution
from the screen. These
include field names, screen Note or Important
titles, pushbuttons labels, Example
menu names, menu paths,
and menu options. Recommendation or Tip
Cross-references to other
documentation
Example text Emphasized words or
phrases in body text, graphic
titles, and table titles
Example text File and directory names and
their paths, messages,
names of variables and
parameters, source text, and
names of installation,
upgrade and database tools.
Example text User entry texts. These are
words or characters that you
enter in the system exactly as
they appear in the
documentation.
<Example Variable user entry. Angle
text> brackets indicate that you
replace these words and
characters with appropriate
entries to make entries in the
system.
EXAMPLE TEXT Keys on the keyboard, for
example, F2 or ENTER.
© 2011 SAP AG
Table of Contents
1. Business Scenario............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The SAP Business Objects GRC Solution ................................................................... 1
1.2 Automated Monitoring .................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Usage: Planning and Testing ....................................................................................... 2
1.4 Usage: Monitoring......................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Audience ....................................................................................................................... 3
2. Background Information ..................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Automated Monitoring Overview .................................................................................. 3
2.2 Queries and Events ...................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Data Sources ................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Business Rules ............................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Architecture................................................................................................................... 6
2.6 The Business Context .................................................................................................. 6
2.7 Planner ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.8 Scheduler ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.9 Event Monitor................................................................................................................ 7
2.10 Legacy Automated Monitoring ...................................................................................... 7
3. Prerequisites ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Systems Installation and Activation .............................................................................. 8
3.2 Post-installation Configurations .................................................................................... 8
3.3 Master -Data Preparation ........................................................................................... 14
4. Monitoring Methods .......................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Data Sources and Business Rules ............................................................................. 15
4.1.1 Design-time .................................................................................................... 15
4.1.2 Runtime .......................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Data Source and Rule Types ..................................................................................... 34
4.2.1 SAP Query Data Sources and Rules ............................................................. 34
4.2.2 Configurable Data Sources and Rules .......................................................... 36
4.2.3 BW Query Data Sources and Rules .............................................................. 45
4.2.4 ABAP Report Data Sources and Rules ......................................................... 46
4.2.5 Netweaver Process Integrator-based Data Sources and Rules .................... 46
4.2.6 Web Services-based Data Sources and Rules.............................................. 47
4.2.7 SoD Data Sources and Rules ........................................................................ 47
4.2.8 Event-driven Data Sources and Rules ........................................................... 48
4.2.9 ABAP Programmed Data Sources and Rules ............................................... 48
5. Further Reading ................................................................................................................. 48
6. Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 50
6.1 Appendix A - Configurable Rule Example .................................................................. 50
6.2 Appendix B - Change Analysis Example .................................................................... 54
6.3 Appendix C: Data Source and Rule Type Summary .................................................. 63
7. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 66
© 2011 SAP AG
8. Copyright .............................................................................................................................. 1
© 2011 SAP AG
SAP Business Objects GRC 10.0 Automated Monitoring Overview
1. Business Scenario
1.1 The SAP Business Objects GRC Solution
Governance, Risk and Compliance Management covers many enterprise-wide perspectives, including
regulatory compliance, risk measurement and mitigation, monitoring to ensure good governance, and
other similar concerns. The assumption is that the basic business processes necessary for running
any business—purchasing, sales, hiring and promotion, etc.—are already in place. SAP
BusinessObjects Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solutions provide an overview of such
processes from a risk and compliance point of view, and help customers measure risks and monitor
compliance.
1.2 Automated Monitoring

This document focuses on one specific aspect of GRC: automated monitoring of backend systems
and processes, part of the Process Control 10.0 application (PC 10). Customers of GRC use
automated monitoring for configurations, master data and transactions; SAP BusinessObjects Process
Control 10.0 (PC 10) provides a range of techniques to address these needs. While particularly well-
suited to monitoring SAP‘s backend applications, PC provides a sound platform for monitoring other
applications as well. Such other applications include ERP and related software suites from other
vendors, but can also include IT management, physical access management, software used for
tracking movement of goods and managing logistics, and so on.
SAP partners also provide products which integrate with SAP GRC products to provide joint solutions
for diverse needs. Many such solutions are showcased on the SAP Ecohub website, and many of
these include automated monitoring with PC.
The following figure depicts how GRC fits into the corporate IT landscape, and into a corporate
governance and compliance strategy.
December 2011 1
Note that, in this view, monitoring is front and center in any effective GRC practice. For example, a
customer can monitor configurations of SAP Sales & Distribution (SD) credit checks to make sure that
even as these are changed during routine maintenance, they remain compliant with company policies
(see the appendix in section ‎6.2 for details). PC 10 automated monitoring capabilities enable such
monitoring of configurations and master data, and also backend transactions. The possible solutions
shown at the top of the picture include content which might involve joint solutions with other SAP
products, partnerships with other software vendors, or a partnership with consulting partners who
provide domain expertise by industry, region, or line-of-business practice.
1.3 Usage: Planning and Testing

In PC 10.0, the Planner helps control owners and testers test the effectiveness of existing controls,
and plan compliance activities over a specified period. Tests of effectiveness can be manual, using
well-understood procedures, but these can also be semi- or fully automated tests. The techniques
described in this document can also be used to perform some controls, and can help control owners
gather information relevant to performing their jobs.
1.4 Usage: Monitoring

Beyond the Auditors‘ perspective in testing controls, there are many situations in which customers
want to ensure that business processes meet their expectations. As explained in this document, PC
December 2011 2
enables customers to capture their expectations of how these controls should be configured, and how
transactions should occur. Correct configurations ensure that business process steps that those
configurations control will always comply with customers‘ intentions; broader transaction monitoring
can then be used to cover those situations where configuration-based controls are not enough, or to
look for fraud at the margins.
In a sense, automated (or semi-automated) monitoring can also help individuals perform the control
function. For instance, a person responsible for reviewing and approving purchases might want to
look at background information on the requester, vendor, pricing trends, etc. before making a decision.
Workflow can route the requisition itself to his or her inbox, but PC automated monitoring can provide
the additional information needed to actually reach good decisions.
1.5 Audience
This document aims to introduce customers and partners to automated monitoring in PC 10.0. The
topic is somewhat technical, so at times this document introduces language and concepts which might
challenge the reader.
In GRC, we call process experts, compliance and risk officers, audit professionals and senior
managers and executives ―business users‖. We use ―functional experts‖ to mean professionals who
know a particular business process well, including knowing the business process steps and
transactions, configurations and master data. The term ―technical experts‖ refers to software
professionals who understand databases, queries, web service configurations, or programming.
―Implementation experts‖ are professionals who know the PC product well—they will be responsible
for installing and configuring it, or upgrading from previous releases. Finally, ―rule designers‖ will be
implementation experts with particular expertise in configuring monitoring rules.
This is an introductory document, which we hope will be useful to all three groups of people. It should
give business users a feel for what sort of monitoring is possible, without requiring them to understand
every section. Functional experts should be able to understand most of this document, and technical
experts will no doubt want more details than we provide here. Section ‎5, Further Reading, gives links
to more detailed documents.
2. Background Information
2.1 Automated Monitoring Overview
To monitor any system in your IT landscape, PC first has to be able to extract data from it. The data
could be anything: configurations, master data, transactions, usage logs, or any structured information
which the monitored system can provide on demand (or which it can proactively send to PC—see
section ‎2.2, Queries and Events). GRC must know the location of the system, how to reach it (the
communication protocol), how to authenticate itself to the remote system (login credentials), where in
the system the data of interest resides, and so on.
December 2011 3
The previous figure graphically depicts the complete process for setting up and using automated
monitoring in PC 10.0. The remainder of this document will focus on only the first step: defining Data
Sources and Business Rules. Along the way, though, features are called out which help tie these
rules into the overall context in which they run, and for that reason you may find it helpful to refer back
to this figure at various points along the way.
2.2 Queries and Events

The monitoring methods available to PC customers fall into one of two broad classes: query-driven or
event-driven. PC initiates query-driven monitoring, typically via the scheduler. This is why some
practitioners also call it schedule-driven monitoring. The common characteristic of these monitoring
methods is that the monitored system is passive—all action is initiated from the PC side. The data
might come from a query, a report, a function invocation, or from any other technical source, but the
semantics are those of a query: PC invokes a particular source (query or otherwise), passes context
parameters to it, and receives back data of a known schema.
December 2011 4
Event-driven monitoring, by contrast, is not initiated by PC. An external system decides when
something is significant enough to be communicated to PC, and initiates data transfer by raising an
event. PC treats such events as data sources much the same as a query-driven data source, and
makes the event details available to business rules for further evaluation. Partners have explored this
interface to help customers monitor and remediate problems such as inappropriate network traffic or
unusual usage patterns in application logs.
2.3 Data Sources

PC can pull data from remote backend systems by multiple mechanisms. To keep track of these, rule
designers create objects called Data Sources, which store the information about the actual sources of
data on remote systems which they will invoke when a monitoring rule runs.
Data sources come in many variations (described below), to match the many different types of
information customers might want to extract, from different types of monitored systems. But as PC
Data Sources, they also present a uniform look-and-feel to the rest of PC, so that the variability of the
different types is hidden from the higher levels of the monitoring function.
Section ‎4.2, Data Source and Rule Types, describes all the types of data sources supported in PC
10.0 and their characteristics, and briefly discusses the situations in which each would be suitable.
2.4 Business Rules

Once PC pulls in data from backend systems being monitored, it applies user-specified logic to decide
if there are any problem situations (which PC calls deficiencies). In PC, such user-specified
monitoring logic is stored in Business Rules.
Business rule definitions can be simple (―A one-time vendor should not be used more than once in a
quarter‖) or involve additional calculations, grouping and aggregation (―Total spend on a one-time
vendor must never exceed $10,000‖). Even more complex logic, or specialized user-defined functions
can also be configured in the rule engine.
Section ‎4.2, Data Source and Rule Types, describes how rule characteristics vary depending on data
source types, and the implications of each.
December 2011 5
2.5 Architecture
This document gives a high-level overview of architecture for business users of SAP BusinessObjects
Process Control 10.0.
Section ‎2.1 gave an overview of the end-to-end process of defining monitoring rules and using them in
PC 10.0. But most of this document focuses on the first step: defining data sources and business
rules. That is because the first step is unique to automated monitoring, while the remaining steps are
more about all the other PC functionality.
The following figure is a conceptual diagram of the architecture.
Monitored systems are backend applications such as SAP ERP, CRM, etc. For legal reasons, this
document uses only SAP applications in examples of monitored systems, although PC 10.0 can be--
and is–used to monitor a wide selection of non-SAP backend applications.
Data sources are objects in PC 10.0 which tell PC how to extract data from backend systems being
monitored.
Business rules encode the actual monitoring logic the rule designer wants. A business rule is
designed to work against one data source (although one data source can serve more than one
business rule). That‘s because the rule engine (in which rule designers express their monitoring
intent) needs to know which fields are available for building the rule, and that depends on the data
source being used.
The purpose of a Data Source object in GRC is to know how to talk to an actual data source (such as
a query) in a remote system, and provide the data to associated rules. In ABAP, the standard
mechanism for doing this is by means of an RFC destination , which is defined in the SM59
transaction. There are nine different types of sub-scenarios which have dedicated data sources
supported in PC 10.0, described later in this document.
2.6 The Business Context

Customers use PC 10.0 to perform and test controls, and to monitor configurations and master data
settings. In this document, the term ―monitoring‖ labels all such activities. In PC master data
December 2011 6
structures, such controls are defined in the context of specific business processes and organizational
structures
To enable this, controls are monitored by assigning rules to the local instances of controls. The
business process and organizational unit associations of local controls provide the business context.
PC allows customers to use these environment variables, historically called Organization-Level
System Parameters (OLSP). The idea is that monitoring rules should not assign explicit values to
parameters in the query for company codes, plant codes, purchasing organizations, sales
organizations and the testing period. Instead, PC binds values to most of these parameters from the
context, or OLSP. Test period end dates come from the scheduler.
2.7 Planner
Use of monitoring rules via the planner is similar to their usage through the scheduler, with one
difference: the scheduler allows repeated execution of monitoring rules on a schedule, while the
planner permits only a single execution.
2.8 Scheduler
Monitoring rules can also be used for configuration, master data and transaction monitoring. For
controls which reside in backend systems, PC monitoring can ensure that the control‘s configuration is
correct; for transactions which lack a built-in control, PC can catch improper transactions.
The scheduler allows users to fire rules (strictly, all rules assigned to a control in the context of a
business process, org unit and regulation) on a specified schedule and frequency.
2.9 Event Monitor

The PC Event Monitor is the complement of the Scheduler. As is explained in section ‎4.2.8, Event-
driven Data Sources and Rules, not all data sources are triggered on a PC-specified schedule. PC
provides an event interface, by which external systems can decide when a transaction or combination
happens which needs to be presented to PC for monitoring. In such cases, PC only needs to wait for
such events to be communicated to it via an event interface.
The purpose of the Event Monitor is to allow users to instruct PC which events they want PC to be
prepared to receive via the Event Monitor.
2.10 Legacy Automated Monitoring

The previous release, PC 3.0, had a monitoring engine. More than 150 monitoring rules were
delivered with the product, many of them GRC ABAP reports (see section ‎4.2.9, ABAP Programmed
Data Sources and Rules) deployed on backend ECC systems to be monitored. Many customers
customized these delivered rules, or created their own.
PC 10.0 represents an advance in monitoring capabilities in response to customer demands. To
ensure continuity of functionality for PC 3.0 customers who upgrade to 10.0, and to protect their
investment in any custom rules, PC 10.0 includes a compatibility module which runs PC 3.0 rules
without modification. Any rules present at the time of upgrade from PC 3.0 (SAP-delivered,
customized or customer defined) will continue to work as assigned to controls, and as scheduled.
Furthermore, customers can use the new features in PC 10.0 automated monitoring for creating new
rules even as they continue to use old PC 3.0 rules through the Legacy Automated Monitoring rules
compatibility module. One limitation here is that legacy rules and rules in the new PC 10.0 framework
cannot be assigned to the same control.
December 2011 7
3. Prerequisites
3.1 Systems Installation and Activation
The PC 10.0 installation guide available on SAP Service Marketplace gives details about installation
and configuration of PC 10.0. The rest of this section addresses configurations unique to automated
monitoring.
3.2 Post-installation Configurations

To monitor backend systems, most of the customization work happens in connector configuration.
The following figure depicts the steps needed.

 Creating RFC destinations (called ―connectors‖ in GRC) is standard Netweaver functionality,
accessed via transaction code SM59. With such connectors, you then configure PC to know
which connectors it should use for automated monitoring. The following figure shows the
transaction SPRO in the PC system.
December 2011 8

 Use the path Governance, Risk and Compliance  Common Component Settings 
Integration Framework. The first of the links in the highlighted box, Create Connectors, is a
shortcut to SM59 for creating or maintaining connectors.
 The next link, Maintain Connectors and Connection Types, takes you to the following screen.
December 2011 9

 The three highlighted connector types are of interest in automated monitoring. Local system
connectors are used to integrate with the SAP BusinessObjects Access Control application for
monitoring segregation-of-duty violations (see section ‎4.2.7). Web service connectors are used
for external partner data sources (see section ‎4.2.6). SAP system connectors are used in all
other cases.
 The next step is to define which of the connectors previously defined in SM59 can be used in
monitoring.

 In the system used to capture the screenshot examples, SMEA5_100 is a connector to an ECC
system. Note in particular the third column that lists the name of a connector which is defined in
the monitored system, and which is configured to point back to the GRC system being
configured here. That is, in the highlighted row, SMEA5_100 is a connector in the GRC system,
and it points to an ERP system which is to be monitored. SM2 is a connector on the (remote)
ECC system, which points back at this GRC system. The GRC plug-in in the monitored system
uses this ―source connector‖ to call back with results of monitoring in some situations. For the
December 2011 10
most part, PC users need not be concerned with when such callbacks need to happen (see the
Technical Settings subsection in section ‎4.1.1.2), but it is necessary to complete the
configuration step.
 Next examine the Define Connector Group screen, as shown in the following figure.

 No configuration should be needed here, but it is shown for context. All the connector
configurations for automated monitoring should belong to the configuration group called
Automated Monitoring (shown highlighted).
 Return to the Define Connectors screen, and the system connector used for your monitored
system. In the example, that connector is SMEA5_100, which points to an ECC system.

 Now choose the link Assign Connectors to Connector Groups.

 assign the connector in question to the ―AM‖ connector group.
 Next choose Maintain Connection Settings, as shown in the following figure.
December 2011 11

 A screen displays, asking which Integration Scenario you want.

 Choose ―AM‖ for automated monitoring. the following page displays.
December 2011 12

 The highlighted box shows nine entries called ―sub-scenarios‖—these are different types of data
sources and business rules supported in PC 10.0, and covered in more detail in section ‎4.2,
Data Source and Rule Types. to create a specific data source type (say, ―configurable‖) for a
system to be monitored, the corresponding connector must be ―linked‖ to that sub-scenario.
Select the sub-scenario you want (―configurable‖ in the example), and then choose Scenario-
Connector Link in the left-hand panel, as follows.

 the following screen displays.
December 2011 13

 If the connector you want to use for that scenario is not already in the list for that sub-scenario,
choose New Entries to add it. We recommend the following pattern for convenience.
 System Type  Sub-scenarios to enable for system
connector
 ABAP applications such as ERP,  ABAP Report, SAP Query, Configurable,

CRM, etc. Programmed
 SAP Business Warehouse  BW Query
 Non-SAP system which is web  External Partner (also known as web services,
services enabled or GL-MQT)
 Netweaver Process Integrator (for  PI
connecting to other systems)
 Same GRC system  SoD Integration
 Note that the Event sub-scenario is not in the table. GRC receives events via a special web
services interface (different from the one used by the web services data source type above).
This is handled in more detail in section ‎4.2.8.
3.3 Master -Data Preparation

Before monitoring rules can be scheduled to run, they must be hooked up to the regulations, controls,
and business processes, which are master data for PC.
NOTE: Setting this information up is a prerequisite for using automated monitoring, but it is not
exclusively related to automated monitoring. For more information, see PC documentation (links in
section ‎5, Further Reading).
December 2011 14
4. Monitoring Methods
This section explains the overall process of defining monitoring rules, and implementing them against
backend systems. It discusses in detail the differences between the many supported techniques (sub-
scenarios), and explains when to use them.
The goal of this document is to give only an overview of automated monitoring in PC 10.0, so it omits
the details of design-time activities. This document focuses on explaining the features rather than the
details of the design itself.
4.1 Data Sources and Business Rules

Section ‎1.2 includes a graphic of the overall monitoring process. This section describes in much more
detail the first step in that figure: defining data sources and business rules.
Data Sources in PC 10.0 encapsulate many different ways PC can extract data out of monitored
systems, while still presenting a uniform interface to rule designers who want to filter and manipulate
the data they extract. Business Rules hold the processing logic for such filters, calculations and the
logic to determine if any extracted data represents a problem which control owners need to review or
remedy.
In PC 10.0, many of the key monitoring capabilities come from the wider range of data source types
available to users, and the increased power and sophistication of those types previously available in
PC 3.0. Most of the other advances lie in the flexibility and power of the rule engine used to define
Business Rules. As said previously, the rule engine in PC 10.0 is the Netweaver BRF+ engine, with a
specialized user interface (UI) for routine usage in PC.
4.1.1 Design-time
The overall process of creating data sources and business rules is the same for all the varieties
described in further detail in section ‎4.2. There are, of course, variations but the overall process has a
strong underlying theme.
All design-time user interfaces are located under ―Rule Setup‖ in the top-level toolbar, as highlighted in
the following figure.
The Rule Setup user interface may contain many sections, depending on your role and how it is
configured in your system. The following figure shows only the Continuous Monitoring section, which
may be one of several sections visible to you.
December 2011 15
4.1.1.1 Creating Data Sources

Choose Data Sources in the previous picture. The Data Sources screen displays. The screen lists the
Data Sources previously configured in this system. You can create a new data source by choosing
the Create pushbutton.
A Data Source is defined across three tabs, of which the first two are significant to the functionality
itself. The third tab is purely for documentation and links to outside systems.
Name and Description: The Data Source name should be something descriptive which will help you
to find the data source, and help document its purpose. The description can expand on the name, but
we suggest that the name itself should be constructed to be as useful as possible. Note that like many
data types in Process Control and Risk Management applications, the name itself is not a key field in
December 2011 16
the database sense, and PC does not enforce uniqueness of names. The key for most of these
master data types is a generated number, which is seen in the first figure of section ‎4.1.1.1 as the
column titled Object ID.
Validity Dates: Validity dates determine the range of dates over which data sources, rules, controls,
and so on, can be put to use in monitoring. The ―Valid From‖ field defaults to today‘s date, and the
―Valid To‖ date defaults to infinity (that is,12/31/9999). Validity dates for data sources and rules
interact with other date ranges: for controls, business process definitions, test plans, etc. PC
monitoring works only where these date ranges all overlap. If there is no specific reason to fix the
date range, it is wisest to default the valid-from date to the start of the year, and set the valid-to date to
the year 9999.
Status: Data sources start with the status ―New‖. You can change most attributes of the data source
while it is in this status, but you cannot use it to support rule creation or any other downstream activity.
From ―New‖, a data source can be changed only to ―In Review‖; after review, it can become ―Active‖,
which is the state in which it can be used to create monitoring rules.
Search Terms: These are tags which can help in finding the right data sources, for instance when you
want to update or edit a data source, or you want to find one to reference when creating business
rules. The list of tags available is set up during customizing. You can assign up to five tags for most
master data elements, but they can be chosen only from the drop-down list, which in turn only includes
terms created during customizing.
Use The Object Field tab to define more functionally relevant attributes of the data source.
The ―Sub Scenario‖ dropdown list shows nine options; these are the different types of data sources
available in PC. These are described further in section ‎4.2, Data Source and Rule Types.
From an end-user perspective, the job of a Data Source in GRC is to provide a business-user-friendly
view of technical data sources (such as tables, fields, views, queries, reports, etc.) in monitored
systems. PC helps you do this by allowing you to replace the default descriptions with more
descriptive text. For instance, the following figure shows the vendor master table LFA1 of SAP ERP.
December 2011 17
The highlighted column shown in the following figure is editable, allowing the designer to replace the
default text with something better suited.
Connectors
For most sub-scenarios, you must define a ―main‖ connector that points to the backend system
against which PC will try to validate your definition. The only exceptions are the SoD Integration (see
section ‎4.2.7) and Event (see section ‎4.2.8) sub-scenarios. Note that after you have defined the data
source, you can use that definition to monitor other systems (that is the purpose of additional
connectors). In fact, we recommend that customers create
The following figure shows the Attachments and Links tab.
4.1.1.2 Creating Business Rules

Business rules filter the data stream coming from data sources, and apply user-configured conditions
and calculations against that data to determine if there is a problem which requires attention. In PC
this is called a deficiency.
The nature of the business rule depends strongly on the data source type, which is why the process of
creating a business rule begins with data source selection, as shown in the following figure.
December 2011 18
Unfortunately, this makes it difficult to give a general overview of business rule creation. The following
screenshot shows the full range of power in a business rule, but this range is available only with a few
data source types. Section ‎4.2, Data Source and Rule Types, describes the individual data source
types and their corresponding business rule types.
Basic Information
The name, description, validity dates, status and search terms fields serve exactly the same function
as the corresponding fields in data sources, which were described in ‎4.1.1.1, Creating Data Sources.
The Category and Analysis Type fields are dependent on the data source type, and are addressed in
section ‎4.2, Data Source and Rule Types.
December 2011 19
Data For Analysis
A data source offers several fields for the business rule to use in filtering or finding deficiencies. Since
many business rules might use the same data source (in fact, we recommend that as a good practice),
it is likely that any one business rule might only want to use a few of the fields offered by the data
source. This screen lets you pick the ones of interest, simplifying your downstream tasks.
In the Programmed data source/rule type, this step is skipped, as explained in the following sections.
December 2011 20
Filter Criteria
Of all the business rule fields picked in the previous step, some will be useful mainly in filtering out
data that is not of interest. You should pick such fields as filters, and define filter conditions against
them. This is a standard SAP screen and is common to many applications.
Note: The appearance of the top part of this screenshot above differs from the previous
screenshots in this section. This is because previously created rules were used to
illustrate the remainder of this document. The tabs correspond one-to-one with the steps
in business rule creation, with matching names.
December 2011 21
Deficiency Criteria
A deficiency is a condition which requires human attention. This section of the business rule lets you
define such conditions. There are two main ways to do this: you can treat everything pulled back by
the data source as requiring human review (analysis type Review Required, described below in
section ‎4.2.4, ABAP Report Data Sources and Rules), pick a specific field and define a logical
condition against it (for example, document amount exceeding a set limit). A variation on the latter
would be to define a calculated field deficiency, which represents an arithmetic/logical operation on
any of the available fields. Calculated fields are explained fully in the next section.
For all such deficiency criteria, you can choose a value check or blank check. Blank check restricts
you to say whether a field should be populated or blank. Value check assumes the field has a value,
and allows you to define a wide range of conditions using the usual logical operators such as equal to,
less than, between, and so on.
You can define three conditions, corresponding to three levels of deficiency: low, medium and high.
The Deficiency Description column allows you to configure what to call each deficiency level.
Note that the previous screenshot shows two deficiency criteria. It is possible to have multiple
deficiency criteria, each possibly with their own calculations. The rule interprets these criteria as a
logical inclusive OR: each row of data returned by the data source (and, of course, matching filter
criteria) is evaluated separately by each deficiency criterion. A row of data is judged deficient if any of
the criteria classify it as such.
We recommend that a separate deficiency be defined when there are multiple criteria, each of which
has its own conditions. PC 10.0 reports data rows which match a deficiency condition grouped
together by that deficiency condition, making it easier for control owners to understand the problems
and act upon them. In the previous example, it would have been technically possible to compound the
logical conditions into a single deficiency, but harder for the control owner to subsequently interpret
and act upon.
Conditions and Calculations

Use this tab to define the calculations necessary to compute the value of a ―calculated field‖
deficiency.
December 2011 22
PC 10.0 uses BRF+, the standard Netweaver rule engine, to allow users to define calculations. You
can configure very powerful processing using this rule engine, and the goal was to make it easy to
configure relatively simple rules (calculate an average of two fields, say, or compare two dates), and
yet provide a path to configure more complex rules if needed.
The ―Calculations‖ tab (or corresponding wizard step when creating the rule) allows three types of
calculations: a Field Value calculation, a currency conversion, or grouping and aggregation (as shown
in the following screenshot).
Field Value Calculation

PC 10.0 provides a simplified user interface for relatively simple conditions and calculations, and
advises customers to use the full BRF+ workbench to define more complex calculations. For full
documentation on BRF+ and the BRF+ workbench, consult the Netweaver documentation.
The following screenshot shows the simplified GRC user interface to BRF+ functionality.
December 2011 23
One important restriction is that the definition of a calculated field in the deficiency criteria screen
(above) is one-to-one related to the definition of the calculation itself in the conditions and calculations
tab. This means that any significant computation which requires intermediate variables is too complex
to handle here—it would be necessary to define such complex rules in the BRF+ workbench.
One decision method offered by BRF+ is directly incorporated into the PC rule interface: the decision
table. This is called a ―pattern‖ in the PC 10.0 interface, and is available only for the change log check
category of business rule. The point of using a decision table is to enable multi-field deficiency criteria
via logical combinations. This is easiest to understand with an example—please see section ‎6.2,
Appendix B - Change Analysis Example.
The decision table is standard BRF+ functionality, incorporated into our UI. This is explained more
fully in section ‎4.2.2.1, Change Log Data Sources and Rules.
December 2011 24
Currency Conversion
A key feature of the PC 10PC rule engine is the ability to convert currency amounts. This feature uses
core Netweaver support for currency conversions, and leverages the same underlying currency tables
and features as used in ECC, CRM and other SAP applications.
To use this feature, a deficiency criterion must be of type Amount, and the same must be true of one
of the fields available in the rule.
The following screenshot shows a deficiency field of type Amount. Notice that the deficiency is not
directly one of the rule‘s fields (from the Data for Analysis tab/wizard step); rather, it is a ―calculated
field‖, created by choosing the Calculated Field pushbutton.
December 2011 25
For that deficiency, the next tab (or next step in the creation wizard) lets you define the actual
calculations (as shown in the following figure).
Grouping and Aggregation

The screenshots in the section on Currency Conversion also include grouping and aggregation. The
other deficiency in that example, Total Number of Payments to One-time Vendors, is intended to find
the number of payments made to each one-time vendor, and then apply the configured thresholds to
determine if that violates policies.
December 2011 26
The calculations tab (or wizard step) shows how this is setup.
The grouping is on Vendor number, and the aggregation method used is Count—which simply counts
how many times each vendor (the grouped-by field) appears in payments.
Grouping and Aggregation can also be combined in sequence with other calculation methods. The
deficiency criterion of the previous example looks at the total amount paid to each one-time vendor,
December 2011 27
and it does so by first converting the amount into a standard currency (US Dollars in the example),
and then groups by vendor and totals the (converted) amounts.
Notice that the grouping/aggregation calculation is the second in the sequence, with currency
conversion being first—we want to convert to a single currency before adding.
BRF+ Workbench
To leverage the full power of BRF+, first create a stub PC Business Rule, and use the generated rule
ID (not the name—see section ‎4.1.1.1, Creating Data Sources).
Accessing the BRF+ workbench depends on your system setup (NWBC, Portal, and so on.) For this
document, BRF+ was launched from SAPGUI by using transaction code BRF+. First you must know
the technical ID of the rule you created, which you can see in the following screenshot of the PC
Business Rule finder page. The technical object ID of each rule is displayed in the left-most column.
This technical ID serves as the base, or first part, of the BRF+ rule ID in the BRF+ workbench. The
easiest way to find the corresponding BRF+ rule in the BRF+ workbench is to paste this ID, add the
wildcard character ‗*‘ to it, and then search. In the left-hand panel of the BRF+ workbench screenshot,
there are two BRF+ rules with the same base ID as the PC 10 rule. this is because BRF+ creates new
versions of every such rule each time it is changed. In general, you would want to use the last
version, which would be sequentially the highest number in the list of matching rules.
Having found the rule in BRF+ workbench, you can now enhance it to include any BRF+-supported
logic.
December 2011 28
Note: The above information is provided to enable you to define more powerful
processing rules in BRF+ workbench, as needed. This requires care in design and
implementation. BRF+ is extensible in many ways, and at the extreme end you will
essentially be writing code. Whatever custom processing you define, you must take care
not to change the input and output parameters—those are used in the integration
between PC and BRF+. you must test the custom BRF+ rule to make sure it does what
you want, and that the performance impact is acceptable.
Output Format
This section is common to all business rule/data source types, and arranges the output of any
detected deficiencies in the left-to-right column order specified. You can also hide unwanted columns
here.
December 2011 29
Technical Settings
These primarily affect the execution and performance of monitoring. Most data sources (although not
all) will allow users to cap the maximum amount of data they will process, as a performance
management feature. Since performance can be difficult to predict and manage—too much depends
on the size of tables, network issues, etc.—we strongly advise all customers to test the performance of
any monitoring rules before putting them into production.
Note that most monitoring rules can be run in synchronous or asynchronous mode.
Ad Hoc Query
As you define some types of data sources and business rules, you can run them to test if they are
working correctly. This is useful for configurable business rules and data sources, which are designed
and implemented directly from the PC 10.0 user interface. For programmed, SAP query, ABAP report,
and some other data source and business rule types, ad hoc query is not available, since the key
design and testing activities for those types occur elsewhere, and PC 10.0 mainly reflects the
implementation done elsewhere.
For configurable rules, however, ad hoc queries are very useful indeed. The following screenshots
show two modes of ad hoc query operation: one that collects the data as the data source would, and
another that applies the rule logic to filter the data and then apply deficiency logic.
December 2011 30
Attachments and Links

This part is the same as in Data Sources, described previously.
4.1.1.3 Assigning Rules to Controls

Monitoring rules need to be assigned to local controls. the mechanics of the process are briefly
described here.
The Business Rule Assignment link brings up the following page.
The search widget at the top of this page lets you search for local controls—that is, controls assigned
to a particular organization node. The next step is to select it in the middle part of the screen, by
clicking on its row. You then modify the business rules assigned to it by choosing the Modify
pushbutton, and then choosing the Add pushbutton in the bottom portion of the screen. A screen
displays that allows you to search through Business Rules in the ―Active‖ state, which you can then
assign to the local control. You can also modify existing assignments and maintain frequencies of
monitoring or compliance checks.
Once this assignment step is complete, you will be able to schedule the monitoring rule in the
Automated Monitoring scheduler.
December 2011 31
4.1.2 Runtime
The previous activities described how to set up monitoring rules and associate them with controls.
Aside from ad hoc queries in (some types of) rules and data sources, the Planner and Automated
Monitoring Scheduler provide the only means of running rules.
4.1.2.1 Scheduling
The monitoring scheduler is also on the Rule Setup page introduced in section ‎4.1.1, Design-time,
above. The relevant section looks approximately like the following figure. The exact list of links which
appear in any section depends on the role you have.
Select the Automated Monitoring link. the following screen displays.
Use this page to schedule all schedule-driven rules (once they are assigned to a local control as
described above). The only exception in PC 10.0 is the Event data source and business rule.
The Scheduler page displays all currently scheduled jobs. You can create a new monitoring job by
choosing the Create Job pushbutton, which walks you through the process. The following screenshot
gives an overview.
December 2011 32
The top of the screen shows that scheduling is a 5-step process, and the wizard guides you through it.
The most important thing to note about the scheduler is that you can run jobs as frequently as hourly,
and as infrequently as annually.
4.1.2.2 Monitoring Jobs

Job schedules can be created as shown in the previous section, and schedules, once created, can be
viewed from there as well. But this page focuses on the job itself, rather than the results of any
execution of the job. Results can be seen from the Job Monitor, shown in the following figure.
The results of any job can include sensitive data, and PC 10.0 restricts visibility by users‘ roles. Thus
the ability to see the job monitor does not equate with the ability to look at the detailed results of a job.
December 2011 33
4.2 Data Source and Rule Types

This section describes each of the nine data source and rule types. The goal is to explain the
differences, the unique characteristics of each, and where each will be most useful. This document
does NOT provide step-by-step guidance on how to set up each—that is contained in detailed user
guides published as part of product documentation.
Section ‎6.3, Appendix C: Data Source and Rule Type Summary, summarizes all the subsections
below for a handy reference to data sources and business rules.
4.2.1 SAP Query Data Sources and Rules

SAP Query is a Netweaver query tool. On ABAP backend systems to be monitored, queries
previously defined in the SAP Query UI (SQ01/SQ02) can be invoked from the GRC system via RFC,
and their results gathered and presented to the rule engine in PC 10.0. The following screenshot
shows the transaction SQ01.
The following two screenshots show the relevant sub-scenario for Data Source definitions.
December 2011 34
Conceptually, this is the simplest of the data source types. The remote data source is a query defined
in a well understood query engine, and the results are returned as a result set not unlike what SQL
engines return. Of course, SAP Query runs SAP‘s own OpenSQL. But whether you want to use
either an SAP-delivered query, or define one of your own, the methods are quite widely known.
In defining a data source against a previously-defined SAP Query, the designer has to point to a
particular backend system which is to be monitored. PC looks up the set of available queries in that
backend system (including wildcard searches), looks up the query details, and makes its results
available to the PC 10.0 rule engine.
To create any Business Rule, the first step is always to select the (active) Data Source on which the
rule will operate. Since this fixes the sub-scenario, you do not have to pick the sub-scenario for any
Business Rules—it is always inherited from the Data Source.
For SAP Query Business rules, you can define two categories of business rule, as follows.
December 2011 35
The Exception category means that any data returned by the data source is always considered an
exception. The Analysis Type field decides whether to treat all such exceptions as deficiencies to be
remedied (―Set Deficiency Indicator‖), or as something a human must review to determine if it requires
a remedy.
The other category, ―Value check‖ (not shown), implies that there are deficiency criteria which explicitly
need to be evaluated, and that you will then be expected to configure in the ―Deficiency Criteria‖ and
―Conditions and Calculations‖ steps of the create rule wizard (or the corresponding tabs in a previously
created rule).
‎ , Further Reading)
Further details can be found in the associated user guide (see section 5
4.2.2 Configurable Data Sources and Rules

A configurable data source defines a query against tables in the monitored ABAP backend system
(such as ECC/ERP, SRM, and so on). This differs from the SAP Query data source (described
previously), which merely references the query logic previously configured in SQ01 on the monitored
system. In this case, the GRC user can completely define the query in the GRC UI, on the GRC
system, and have it execute remotely on the monitored system. This has two advantages: you don‘t
need to modify a production backend system to define it, and you can test and update it without
affecting two different systems: GRC and the monitored system.
This section also explains the Change Log option, which tells PC to reconstruct past configuration and
master data settings over the timeframe of the control, and validates all such past and present settings
against the user-configured monitoring rule.
December 2011 36
Having picked the ―Configurable‖ sub-scenario, you next pick a connector to the backend system
against which you want to define the query (see section ‎4.1.1.1). Next, look up the main table for your
query by searching against the list of tables in the monitored (remote) system. As the following
screenshot shows, you can monitor against Transparent tables. You can also use wildcards to search
against table names or descriptions.
Although not shown in the screenshot below, you can also monitor Pool and Cluster tables.
December 2011 37
Having picked the main table, you can next pick related tables to bring in additional information. PC
10.0 looks up the main table‘s relationships to other tables from the monitored system‘s data
dictionary.
December 2011 38
Again, you can use wild cards to search for tables. Note that PC 10.0 already filters the list of tables
to include only those which have related information. The ―Reference‖ or ―Dependent‖ tables option
define the direction of the relationships: dependent tables are those which refer to (as foreign keys)
the key fields of your main table (primary keys), while reference tables are the opposite—they hold the
primary keys to which your main table refers as foreign keys.
You can join multiple related tables together in such a compound data source, with the constraint that
the join conditions are restricted to being equality relationships between like-type fields. For the most
part, it is expected you will join primary keys to foreign keys. PC 10.0 looks up known relationships
from the data dictionary and pre-populates the join conditions area as you go, as shown in the
following figure.
December 2011 39
As suggested in the previous screenshot, it is possible to go beyond relationships explicitly stored in

the data dictionary, by adding or removing join conditions. But all join conditions are constrained to be
equality conditions between fields of the same type.
Joining tables is unavoidable for any system which uses relational databases, of course. But if the
tables being joined are large, the execution of such a query consumes many cycles, and rule
designers have to be careful in what queries they craft here. Many issues impact performance, so
SAP strongly advises customers to test their monitoring rules for performance before deploying into
production. The tool itself restricts rule designers to joining no more than 5 tables in a single data
source (query), and warns the designer as they approach this limit.
Section ‎6.1, Appendix A - Configurable Rule Example, explains the business logic behind the previous
example, and also shows the corresponding business rule definition, including the use of currency
conversion and grouping and aggregation.
Technical Note: Joins as illustrated above are only possible between transparent tables. Pool and
Cluster tables can be monitored individually, but cannot be joined—not to each other, nor to
transparent tables. This sometimes shows up in unexpected ways: for instance, table T685Z is a
pricing table (ERP SD module), with a pair of pricing limit fields. Those fields are currency fields,
which requires a look up of the corresponding reference table. That reference table, unfortunately, is
not a transparent table (it is actually a structure), and so PC cannot monitor the price limit fields of
T685Z—at least, not via the configurable data source/rule type.
4.2.2.1 Change Log Data Sources and Rules

A change log rule is a variation on the configurable rule defined previously, and hence is presented as
a subsection of that type in this document. It is intended to be used for monitoring configuration and
master data tables only.
SAP applications have extensive change-tracking mechanisms for database tables, which guarantee
that all changes are captured, even if they are of very short duration. That is, even if one change is
quickly followed by another, both changes are reliably logged. These mechanisms cover changes
made directly in the system, and also changes transported into the system. This guarantee is very
important for GRC customers, whose primary goal is to ensure that business processes comply with
policies.
Change Log data sources and business rules parse the data in the change logs of configuration and
master data tables, and reconstruct any past settings over the timeframe of the control. So a change
log business rule allows you to check the validity of a configuration or master data setting at any time,
with confidence that all changes made to that setting will be found and tested for correctness. Wrong
configurations are caught, no matter how transiently they were in effect.
Section ‎6.2, Appendix B - Change Analysis Example, shows a detailed example of such a change log
monitoring rule.
Technical note: Configuration changes can be transported in, and are covered by the Basis change
tracking mechanism). Master data can only be changed directly in the system. Configuration and
master data tables have different change tracking mechanisms, and PC 10.0 parses the correct
information for appropriate table types. Master data uses the Change Document mechanism, while
configuration tables rely on DBTABLOG based change tracking.
Performance Impact of Change Logging

Customers often comment that standard IT practice is to turn configuration table logging off globally,
and turning this setting on raises concerns about performance impacts. This is addressed in more
detail in Note 1653464 - Enable Change Log Monitoring by Activating Table Logging. SAP guidance
on this matter has always been that as long as only configuration/customizing tables are being logged,
and a reasonable purging/archiving strategy is used for DBTABLOG, there should not be any
discernible impact on performance or memory of enabling logging in production systems. ECC ships
December 2011 40
with low-volume tables enabled for logging, so enabling such logging is unlikely to degrade
performance.
Finally, recent customer experience suggests that purging (and, optionally, archiving) the DBTABLOG
table about every 13 months provides customers the benefits of PC 10.0 change analysis, without a
sizeable impact on database size.
Change Tracking: Logs versus Polling

In SAP Basis, every time a table is changed, the change is logged in a table as long as (a) logging is
enabled, and (b) the table being changed is marked for logging. This eases the challenge of change
monitoring: instead of ever-more-frequent monitoring to make sure even transient changes are not lost
(―lost‖ in the sense of not showing up on review), customers can feel secure that they will catch every
single change.
Some other products use polling, in which the table in question is queried frequently, and the state is
compared to prior states to detect changes. But it is only half a solution—if polling shows no change,
that‘s fine. If a change does show up, though, you can‘t be sure that more changes did not happen
between two polling snapshots. With polling, you always run the risk that a fraudulent change was
made, then obscured by another change. Basis change logging will miss no change, no matter how
transient.
For customers who are unable to use Basis change logging, PC 10.0 does support a polling-based
fallback option. But we believe that (a) logging changes via Basis functionality does not impose any
significant burden on the monitored system, and (b) frequent polling may adversely impact the system
being monitored.
If Basis monitoring is not enabled, customers must schedule the polling program as a background job
in the monitored system (delivered with the GRC plug-in), choosing a polling frequency which best
balances the need to catch changes against the impact on performance. If Basis change logging is
enabled after polling has been scheduled, the GRC plug-in recognizes the redundancy and stops
polling. The history reconstruction module of PC 10 then looks at polled snapshots as well as the
change log, so as not to miss any known changes regardless of the tracking mechanism.
Definition of Change Log Rules

Change log based rules (whether using Basis logging or GRC polling) can be based on either
―configurable‖ data sources, or ―programmed‖ ones. (Again, we emphasize that the word
―configurable‖ refers to the fact that users can configure the logic of the query, rather than have to
program it in ABAP or SQL.) Such change-log-based rules can be used to monitor either
configurations (via the DBTABLOG functionality mentioned above), or master data (by a different
document master system of tracking changes). The design of this feature shields the rule designer
from the complexities of log analysis; they simply find the right tables and fields to monitor, and the
GRC code tracks down the additional information needed to reconstruct past settings from change
logs.
Once the data source is ready and active, you can define a monitoring Business Rule on it. It is in the
process of defining the rule that the user must indicate that the rule in question is a change log type
rule. Thus, change log rules can only be defined:
 For configuration and master data tables
 Based on either ―configurable‖ or ―programmed‖ type data sources
December 2011 41
The rest of the rule definition is similar to configurable rules, with one exception. For change log rules
based on configurable data source types (but not for programmed data source types), PC 10.0
provides an analysis type of ―pattern‖, which allows users define a multi-field deficiency criterion using
a decision table.
December 2011 42
The decision table is BRF+ functionality, and the following figure incorporates BRF+ widgets to define
the contents of the decision table. Refer to BRF+ documentation for details, but note that multiple
rows in the decision table are treated as clauses to a logical ―OR‖ expression. Columns within such a
row are treated as clauses to a logical ―AND‖ expression. For example, use the letter C to denote the
contents of a single cell in such a decision table, with row and column numbers in the subscript. Thus,
C3,4 would refer to the third row, fourth column. Then the decision table is evaluated as:
(C1,1 AND C1,2 AND C1,3…) OR (C2,1 AND C2,2 AND C2,3) OR …
December 2011 43
Table Handlers
When using change analysis, one additional configuration requires additional explanation. When
interpreting the change log, the GRC backend plug-in needs a handler to interpret the change log
entries. Sometimes more than one table handler is registered for the table in question, and it can be
difficult to determine which handler to use. Sometimes you may have to pick between two or three
handlers to determine which one is appropriate. The correct handler for your situation will be the one
which makes your deficiency fields available for use in change analysis rule.
December 2011 44
‎ , Further Reading).
Further details can be found in the associated user guide (see section 5
4.2.3 BW Query Data Sources and Rules

SAP Netweaver Business Warehouse (BW) has a query tool which you can use to define queries
against BW info objects and info cubes. If you want to monitor your business processes by looking at
data extracted to BW, you can create BW queries. Definition of BW Query data sources is very similar
to SAP Query ones described in section ‎4.2.1, SAP Query Data Sources and Rules.
However, there is one critical difference in the way the BW queries must be set up. Unlike
transactional systems, the whole purpose of data warehouses is to enable users to analyze data
intensively. BW queries can be designed to allow follow-on analytics even after the query returns
results. Automated monitoring cannot use those features, since the recipient of the results in this case
is the GRC product, not directly the user. So the BW query used for PC 10.0 automated monitoring
December 2011 45
must be of a more restricted type. For use with PC 10.0 automated monitoring, BW Queries should be
constructed with the following constraints:
1. BW characteristics of interest must be arranged in the row area in Query Designer. The
characteristics are a list of output fields which will appear as ―data for analysis― in a GRC data
source.
2. BW key figures must be arranged in the columns area in Query Designer.
3. Free characteristics in Query Designer may not be used.
4. Characteristic restrictions should not be used for query filters.
5. Only Single Value and Selection Option variable presentations of query filters should be used.
6. All query filters and selection fields must be optional—GRC monitoring rules do not require
filters to be specified, so the underlying BW query must also make this optional.
7. In Query Designer‘s row area, the result row setting must be Always Suppress.
8. Versions 7.X and 3.X of BW query designers are not supported.
Further details can be found in the associated user guide (see section ‎5, Further Reading).
4.2.4 ABAP Report Data Sources and Rules

ABAP reports are widely used to monitor transactions, configurations, master data, and so on, in SAP
applications. PC 10.0 can use such reports for automated monitoring. PC can run such reports on a
user-defined schedule, bind values (for example, company codes, dates) to report parameters, and
present the results to PC users for review. Use of report variants is supported, but not always needed.
Results are viewable as an image, PDF document, or spreadsheet.
ABAP reports have a range of behaviors, some of which are not suitable for PC 10.0 automated
monitoring. PC 10.0 must invoke ABAP reports remotely, so first of all the report must be able to run
as a background job on the monitored system, and its results must be able to be stored as a spool job.
Secondly, it must not use additional popup screens for user input, after its declared parameters are
bound to values. It is difficult to know which reports qualify under these circumstances, so the PC
team has written a program to help qualify ABAP reports for use in automated monitoring. The how-to
guide for this data source and business rule type describes the qualification program and other details
(see section ‎5, Further Reading).
4.2.5 Netweaver Process Integrator-based Data Sources and

Rules
SAP GRC can monitor non-SAP applications, and the Process Integrator-based data source is one of
several suitable for this purpose.
Netweaver Process Integrator (PI, formerly known as Netweaver XI) is SAP‘s preferred platform for
integrations. PI supports common protocols such as JDBC and ODBC, and customers who have
non-SAP applications in their system landscape can use PI to either query directly against the
underlying databases of these applications via JDBC/ODBC, or even integrate at the code level, if
appropriate.
The Monitoring API

PC 10.0 provides a four-method Monitoring API to integrate with PI, grouped into two design-time
functions and two run-time functions. Design-time functions are useful to rule designers, and run-time
functions are used to execute the rules so defined. This section describes the API at a conceptual
level, although the technical names of implementing functions and proxies may well be different. The
descriptions in this section are also relevant to other data source types described below, as noted
there.
The four methods can conceptually be called GetQueryList, GetSignature, ExecuteQuery and
TestQuery. The first two are the design-time methods.
December 2011 46
GRC calls the remote system via GetQueryList to get a list of queries or other data-retrieval functions
on offer from the remote system for use in monitoring. This list is then displayed to the rule designer
to create GRC data source objects.
Once the rule designer has picked a particular query from the list, GRC calls the GetSignature method
to retrieve meta-data about the input parameters the query expects, and the results it returns. These
are reflected in the data source attributes, and become available for designers to use in defining filter
criteria, deficiencies and output formats.
The TestQuery method is used for ad hoc queries from data sources and business rules, although
note that this method is not always available due to technical reasons.
The ExecuteQuery method is called to actually run the query once scheduled, or executed via the
Planner. The key difference between TestQuery and ExecuteQuery is that TestQuery calls are not
logged or audit-trailed, while all scheduled executions are.
PI Implementation of the Monitoring API

PC 10.0 includes a PI implementation of the Monitoring API described previously. So customers or
partners who want to create PI-based queries (for instance, to query directly from a non-SAP
database via ODBC/JDBC) can define such queries in PI, and use the GRC-supplied implementation
of the Monitoring API to integrate those into PC monitoring rules.
PI rules may use asynchronous communication between PC 10 and PI, which requires a callback
endpoint in PC.
The associated user guide describes how to configure PI-based rules in more detail (see section ‎5,
Further Reading).
4.2.6 Web Services-based Data Sources and Rules

These are also called ―External Partner‖ data sources, since they have historically been used by SAP
PC partners to enable easier monitoring of different backend applications. In the IMG configuration
screens, you will also notice the term ―GL-MQT‖, which again reflects this history. PC 10.0
generalizes to web services what used to be proprietary interfaces for such partners to implement.
This API is the same as described above in section ‎4.2.5, Netweaver Process Integrator-based Data
Sources and Rules, with the exception that the Test method is not available for partners to implement.
The method implementations are, of course, the responsibility of the partner product (or custom
middleware). In web services, it is usual for the implementer of a service to publish a WSDL definition
of the service, to which the caller then adapts. In our case, however, PC 10.0 has a fixed outbound
proxy, and we have published the WSDL which the proxy expects the partner to implement. These
are described in SAP Note 1549031. Further details on this data source/rule type can be found in the
associated user guide (see section ‎5, Further Reading).
4.2.7 SoD Data Sources and Rules

The GRC Access Control 10.0 (AC) solution includes extensive rules covering segregation of duty
conflicts, critical actions & permissions and so on. These rules conform to the rules interface of the
PC automated monitoring framework. Such rules can be run in the context of PC local controls, as
described in section ‎4.1.1.3. One key constraint is that the two GRC products—Process Control and
Access Control—should both be installed in the same system.
AC provides one rule to use with PC 10.0 for monitoring, which takes a fixed set of parameters and
returns a single set of results. This can only be used as-is within PC 10.0.
Further details can be found in the associated user guide (see section ‎5, Further Reading).
December 2011 47
4.2.8 Event-driven Data Sources and Rules

Event-driven data sources and rules are different from all the others in one respect: they are not
initiated by PC on a schedule (or by the PC user). Instead, some external program or agent must
decide when an event has occurred and needs to be communicated to PC for monitoring and
evaluation.
PC provides a web services interface which a partner product can call to raise such events to PC. PC
must first be configured to expect such an event in the so-called Event Registry (part of IMG
customizing), and the configuration includes a description of the event payload, or the contained
attributes and their data types. When actual events are received, PC first validates the payload (XML)
against the registered event meta-data, and only those events with payloads which pass muster are
processed further. The event interface is a synchronous method, and only success or failure is
communicated back.
Details about how to configure these data sources, how to obtain the WSDL for the web service, etc.
can be found in the associated user guide (see section ‎5, Further Reading).
4.2.9 ABAP Programmed Data Sources and Rules

Some monitoring rules might require complex processing beyond the capabilities of the query and rule
engines described in this document. Such situations can be addressed by writing custom ABAP
programs to deploy on the backend system being monitored. Such programs must conform to the
overall design framework prescribed for automated monitoring, and must be registered in the GRC
plug-in for monitored systems. These are very similar to ABAP reports, but since they adhere to a
pattern prescribed by the GRC plug-in, they can be better leveraged by PC for monitoring. To
emphasize this distinction, we call them ABAP Reports for GRC.
Once again, the conceptual framework is the Monitoring API as described above in section ‎4.2.5,
Netweaver Process Integrator-based Data Sources and Rules. Any ABAP report for GRC must
implement (extend) a defined base class, and the programmer must create an entry in a specified
table with the program (class) name, parameters, etc. The necessary classes and tables are part of
the GRC plug-in for Netweaver ABAP systems, which must be installed in the system to be monitored.
PC 10.0 can then look up the relevant ABAP reports for GRC and their meta-data, and provide PC
rule designers with the information they need.
Details about how to write such ABAP reports for GRC, how to register them with the GRC plug-in
(RTA), etc. are found in the associated user guide (see section ‎5, Further Reading).
5. Further Reading
PC 10.0 documentation on SAP Service Marketplace includes an installation guide, operations guide,
migration guide for customers of previous releases, and detailed how-to guides on each of the data
source/rule types. The user guides for different data source types are being written concurrently with
this document, and the links below represent what is available as of this writing (November 2011).
Install Guide - SAP BusinessObjects Process Control 10.0

Master Guide - SAP BusinessObjects Process Control 10.0
Operations Guide - SAP BusinessObjects Process Control 10.0
PC10 - Configurable Subscenarios for Automated Monitoring
PC10 - SoD Monitoring Subscenario for Continuous Monitoring
PC10 External Partner Integration for Continuous Monitoring
December 2011 48
Security Guide - SAP BusinessObjects Process Control 10.0
December 2011 49
6. Appendices
6.1 Appendix A - Configurable Rule Example
The SAP ERP purchasing process enables customers to define strict rules for how their company
manages purchasing, to prevent fraud, comply with financial regulations, and so on. Specifically for
our example, the creation of vendors is very tightly controlled, with specific criteria which the system
helps purchasing managers to enforce. But for practical reasons, it is sometimes necessary to bypass
such checks, and to enable this, SAP ERP supports the concept of a ―one-time vendor‖. The idea is
that for an exceptional situation, there is a way to bypass the rules and push through a purchase
quickly.
This sets up a conflict: on the one hand, customers need the flexibility that one-time vendor use
permits; on the other hand, like any other freedom, this flexibility can be abused. Some customers
have policies which limit the use of one-time vendors to a set amount limit, or limit the number of times
a one-time vendor can be used. These requirements are ―outside the system‖; that is, they are not
configured into SAP, nor are they enforced preventively. This makes sense, since if preventive rules
could be defined, then one-time vendors would not be needed at all.
PC automated monitoring provides a solution for this. Customers can set up a monitoring rule which
expresses usage limitation guidelines such as frequency of use or amount limits. The following
example illustrates this.
In section ‎4.2.2, we showed how to build a configurable data source. Picking up the narrative from
there, the following screenshot shows a PC Data Source which helps query the relevant information.
This is a configurable data source, meaning that the query logic driving it is defined in the PC system
itself, although it will run against a remote backend system. It is looks up the main vendor table
December 2011 50
(LFA1), and joins it to the financial table BSAK to look up related payments for each vendor. The join
conditions are automatically populated from the data dictionary as the related table is selected.
You then pick the fields from the two tables you wish to examine, in the lower half of the picture above.
In this example, the interesting fields are company code, clearing date, vendor number and amount
(not all of these fields are actually visible in the figure). As noted previously, the data source can (and
probably should) include more fields than the ones you need for one rule—the idea is to share data
sources across multiple rules.
The next step is to define the business rule. The following screenshots show a previously configured
business rule, so this will vary very slightly from your experience in building a new business rule, as
mentioned earlier.
The previous picture shows how you pick the fields of interest for the business rule you are defining,
from the presumably larger set of fields the data source has to offer.
The next step is to define the filter criteria, as shown in the following screenshot.
The company code parameter should be bound to the corresponding OLSP parameter, so that control
owners for particular organizational units automatically see data only for their own unit. In the
previous picture, we show how to only look at payments made to one-time vendors.
The following picture shows the next tab (and also the next step in defining the rule), where you define
the deficiency criteria.
December 2011 51
For the rule shown here, two ―calculated fields‖ were created (see section ‎4.1.1.2, Creating Business
Rules): the first one will hold the total amount paid to each vendor in the test timeframe, and the other
will count the number of payments made to each vendor. The lower half of the figure above shows the
conditions for determining whether there is a low, medium or high deficiency based on the total
amount paid to the vendor. The following screenshot shows the definition of the other deficiency
criterion, based on total number of payments made to a vendor.
Note that the name of the deficiency is descriptive, to help the control owner understand what the data
is showing. The deficiency description in the bottom half is similarly descriptive.
The next step is to actually define the calculations needed for these ―calculated‖ deficiency fields.
Note again that we chose in this example to calculate the deficiency from the fields on offer from the
data source. If you happen to have a data source whose existing fields already offer the deficiency
criteria you need, your task is correspondingly simpler, since you don‘t need a calculated field: you
simply use one of the existing fields to define your low, medium and high deficiency conditions.
As you can see in the previous picture, conditions and calculations are defined separately for each
December 2011 52
calculated deficiency field. For the amount-based deficiency criterion, it makes sense to first define a
currency conversion step, since we want to be able to set the limits in a specific currency while
evaluating payments made in any currency. The next screen shows the definition of the conversion.
In the this figure, we are telling PC to take the amount in one of the data source fields, ―Amount in
document currency‖, and convert it to US dollars as of the fixed date of 17 October 2011. Alternately,
you could use the ―Clearing date‖ field in each such payment by picking the second option (―By date
field‖ above), or relate it to the date of execution of the rule (the date of rule execution, the first of the
month in which the rule is executed, and so on).
The next step is to add up all payments to a single vendor, having first converted to a common
currency. The following figure shows the definition screen for this conversion.
As you can see, we group by the vendor number, and sum up the individual payments to the vendor.
Note that we have checked the box ―Show Detail‖.
skip next to the ―Ad hoc query‖ tab, to show the results. Running the rule in ―data collection‖ mode, we
see the raw data the data source will present to the rule, below.
December 2011 53
The key to note is that there are several one-time vendors used, with more than one payment to many
such vendors. The amount paid to these vendors is also in two different currencies. It so happens
that a particular vendor is always paid in the same currency in the above picture, but that doesn‘t
matter—PC converts each payment, so would be able to handle the same vendor paid in different
currencies as well.
Executing the ad hoc query again in ―apply rule‖ mode, we see the following results.
In This screenshot, The first column, Sequence Number, shows how many distinct rows of data
remain after grouping. In this figure there are four distinct vendors left, so only four rows—those are
the ones with a number in the first column. For those rows (that is, with a number in the first column),
the far right column shows the aggregated value (the sum, in our example) of payments to that
vendor, converted when necessary into US dollars. For those same rows, the second column shows
the level of the deficiency, as per the condition defined three steps earlier.
The remaining rows in the figure (that is, the rows with no number in the first column) are the ―details‖,
showing the individual payments to that vendor which have been grouped and aggregated in the other
rows (that is, the rows with a sequence number in the first column). This corresponds with the ―Show
Detail‖ checkbox mentioned two steps earlier.
The definition and operation of the other deficiency criterion, on the total number of payments to a
one-time vendor, are similar and are not shown.
6.2 Appendix B - Change Analysis Example

Summary
This section describes how Process Control 10.0 reconstructs past configuration and master data
settings of monitored systems, and enables customers to assert their compliance requirements in a
flexible, user-configurable rules engine. The functionality is shown in the context of an actual
customer example, based on the widely-used Sales & Distribution (SD) module of SAP ERP.
December 2011 54
PC 10 releases a major upgrade in automated monitoring of key backend configurations and master
data settings. As before, PC is able to extract and analyze changes to important configurations and
master data (we‘ll just call them ―configurations‖ for convenience). But where PC 3.0 presented each
logged change individually for evaluation (―Is this change of vendor account number a deficiency?‖),
now it can put together all changes which went into effect together, so that customers can make more
meaningful evaluations. This is important, because typical configurations have multiple fields which
can be changed individually; sometimes, the combination of the fields could be the deficiency
candidate.
This becomes clearer with a specific example. The Sales & Distribution module of SAP ERP has a
credit check configuration setting which gives customers lots of flexibility managing credit settings for
their customers. There are many configurations (many tables and fields can be configured), and all of
these interact in many and subtle ways, as is typical in ERP applications. To illustrate the use of PC
10 monitoring, though, we will focus on just one aspect: configuring the credit check types to be
performed for particular categories of customers for specific company codes/sales areas.
The transaction in question is OVA8 in SAP ERP systems:
The user starts by picking the sales category, or creating a new one:
December 2011 55
For our purposes, we just select the first one and choose View Details (or Ctrl+Shift+F2).
The Change View: View for Maintenance of Automatic Credit Control screen displays.
Without entering into the subtleties of Sales & Distribution, ―static‖ checks count outstanding orders,
open or delivered (but not yet paid) against a customer‘s credit limit; document value limits credit
extension to sales upto the configured ―maximum document value‖ limit. Customers report that typical
valid settings are complex combinations of these fields. For instance, the following screenshots are
both valid settings, per one major customer:
December 2011 56
That is, customers can be subject to a static check, or be limited on the maximum amount of a single
sale, but not both. As routine maintenance causes SAP customers to change these settings to match
evolving business strategies, the goal of GRC is to ensure that any deviations from acceptable or valid
combinations can be flagged, without bogging the customer down in a flood of false positives.
Using ―F1Technical Details‖ against the individual fields tells us that these settings are to be found in
the table T691F, with field names CMPAA, CMPAB, and so on.
It is a relatively straightforward matter to look up the tables in question, and define the criteria for
monitoring. The credit check setting is compliant with policies if the following condition is true,
deficient otherwise:
(Static_check = true AND status_block <> TRUE) OR
(Document_value_check = true AND Max_doc_value NOT NULL)
Of course, any real monitoring rule will most likely be even longer, but the above condition is enough
to show that the PC 10.0 rule engine can deal with the type of complexity involved. More clauses
won‘t make the condition any more complicated—just longer.
The real challenge, of course, a simple check like this would go against the current state of the setting,
in table T691F and related views. It tells us nothing about the past. This is never going to be fully
reliable, since the monitoring rule can only be executed a finite number of times—what if the setting
was changed to an invalid one for a short period, and then changed again to something that‘s valid?
What companies need is a way to capture every setting that was ever in effect over the timeframe
being monitored (for example, last quarter, or last year), and apply the monitoring rule against such
reconstructed settings over the whole timeframe. Thus, if the PC 10.0 control to which the monitoring
rule is assigned has a timeframe of FY2010, the rule should reconstruct all SD Credit check
configurations for FY 2010 from the change logs, and apply the monitoring rule against those
reconstructed settings.
SAP Basis provides extensive capabilities for logging changes to such configurations. In transaction
RZ11, we look up parameter ―rec/client‖ (see also SAP Note 1653464 - Enable Change Log
Monitoring by Activating Table Logging).
December 2011 57
Separately, in transaction SE11 we look up the table in question (T691F):
Looking at the technical settings (highlighted button) shows the per-table flag which tells Basis to log
changes.
December 2011 58
With these two settings enabled, the ERP backend will log changes to the table in question, and PC
10.0 can monitor the logs to reconstruct past settings.
The next few screenshots describe how to set up and test a monitoring rule for change log analysis of
SD Credit checks.
Navigate to the Continuous Monitoring section of the Rule Setup screen in PC 10.0.
December 2011 59
Create next a Data Source pointing to the T691F table, in a suitablyprepared ERP backend system.
December 2011 60
run it against the ―SM EA5/100‖ system mentioned previously.
next define a Business Rule monitoring this data source. Again, the following screenshots illustrate
this.
December 2011 61
Note that analysis type of ―pattern‖ here refers to the fact that customers can define a deficiency
criterion which is a pattern over multiple fields, not just the single-field deficiency criterion.
The system then prompts the user to define a handler for the table, and helpfully prompts with
appropriate responses. Finally, the pattern itself (such as the one shown in the example) is shown in
the following figure.
Some people find it more convenient to define/edit the pattern via a spreadsheet, which is a feature
offered in the screen above:
Moving to the ad hoc query tab, we can run the rule or underlying query (data source) in a few
different ways:
December 2011 62
6.3 Appendix C: Data Source and Rule Type

Summary
The chart below summarizes the different data source types supported, when to use them, and what
options and limitations exist for building rules with them. For reference, the screenshot below shows
the options as they show up in the PC 10 UI.
Rule Category
A rule runs in one of three possible modes, which PC calls its category.
December 2011 63
 Exception category means that all rows of data the rule finds are treated as a problem, without
further analysis.
 Value check means that you intend to define logic in the rule which will be applied to each row
(or groups of rows), which will determine if each row (or group) is a problem.
 Change log check is used to tell PC that it should reconstruct all known past settings from
Basis change logs, document history or PC-polled snapshots of the configuration or master
data table in question. Change log check is available only for Configurable data sources.
Analysis Type
 Changes, Number of changes, and Pattern analysis types are available only for change log
check category. Changes is used when any change is a problem, regardless of the values
involved before and after. Number of changes counts up the number of times a particular
setting changed over the test time period, and allows the user to set numeric thresholds for
deficiencies. Pattern allows you to define deficiency conditions spanning multiple attributes,
and involving compound logical and arithmetic expressions.
 Review required analaysis type goes with the Exception category, and tells PC to create and
route an issue with all the data returned by the data source. PC does not categorize the data
as a deficiency, but instead leaves it to the workflow recipient to manually review and decide
whether there is a deficiency.
 Set deficiency indicator analysis type goes with the Exception category, and tells PC to create
an issue if any data is returned by the data source. PC then sets the deficiency indicator to
low, medium or high, depending on how you configure the rule.
 Monitor value analysis type goes with the Value check category, and tells PC to expect the
user to define a deficiency condition which PC will then use to decide whether any returned
data constitutes a problem.
Num Data Source Usage Category Analysis Type Comments

Type
1 ABAP Report Use to leverage Exception Review The ABAP Report in question
suitable ABAP required must be checked and
Reports registered in the GRC plug-in
already first
available Results cannot be processed
by PC, they are only
presented to the user for
review
2 SoD Use to invoke Exception Set Deficiency Access Control and Process
Integration Access Control Indicator— Control must be installed in
risk analysis in results are set the same system
the context of to one of low,
PC controls medium or
high.
Review
Required—only
manual review
allowed
December 2011 64
3 BW Query Use to invoke Exception Set Def BW Query must be defined in

queries against Indicator BW system first, and must
SAP Business have certain limitations
Warehouse Review (documented in section BW
required Query Data Sources and
Rules‎4.2.3 above)
Value Monitor value
Check
4 Configurable Change Changes Change log rules can really

log only reconstruct past settings
Num of
for one table, although
changes
additional tables can be used
Review for filtering. Transparent,
required pool or cluster tables can be
queried, although pool/cluster
Monitor
tables cannot be part of any
Pattern join.
Value Monitor value

check
5 Event Value Monitor value
check
6 External Exception Set def The BRF+ based rule engine
Partner indicator is not available for rules
based on this data source
Review
type. So only simple
required
deficiency conditions
Value Monitor value (involving single attributes,
check with simple atomic
conditions) can be defined.
7 Process Exception Set def
Integration indicator
Review
required
Value Monitor value
check
8 Programmed Exception Set def
indicator
Review
required
Value Monitor value
check
9 SAP Query Exception Set Def The SAP Query must
Indicator previously be defined in the
December 2011 65
Review backend‘s SQ01/02

required transaction(s).
Value Monitor value

check
7. Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges considerable help from many colleagues. Martin Chen designed
the overall architecture of the automated monitoring features of PC 10.0. Alex Hsu defined much of
the information architecture, and succeeded Martin in architectural oversight. Jackie Wang
implemented a large part of the functionality, and also provided detailed reviews to the author very
promptly. Daniel Chang and Haiyang Yu also provided very useful feedback on the accuracy of the
information presented here, and the draft user guides written by many members of the development
team were sources of very useful information in preparing this document. Michaela Zwinakis and Paul
Davis read the entire document and gave detailed suggestions which have been incorporated into the
final version of this document. Aman Joshi of Price Waterhouse Coopers gave detailed suggestions,
most of which are also incorporated. Jan Gardiner reviewed the draft thoroughly, and gave very
insightful comments; most of her suggestions were incorporated into the published version. Holly
Marrs and Daniel Fowler of Protiviti also gave very helpful feedback.
December 2011 66
8. Copyright
© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express permission of
SAP AG. The information contained herein may be changed without prior notice.
Some software products marketed by SAP AG and its distributors contain proprietary software components of other software
vendors.
Microsoft, Windows, Excel, Outlook, and PowerPoint are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.
IBM, DB2, DB2 Universal Database, System i, System i5, System p, System p5, System x, System z, System z10, System z9,
z10, z9, iSeries, pSeries, xSeries, zSeries, eServer, z/VM, z/OS, i5/OS, S/390, OS/390, OS/400, AS/400, S/390
Parallel Enterprise Server, PowerVM, Power Architecture, POWER6+, POWER6, POWER5+, POWER5,
POWER, OpenPower, PowerPC, BatchPipes, BladeCenter, System Storage, GPFS, HACMP, RETAIN, DB2
Connect, RACF, Redbooks, OS/2, Parallel Sysplex, MVS/ESA, AIX, Intelligent Miner, WebSphere, Netfinity, Tivoli and
Informix are trademarks or registered trademarks of IBM Corporation.
Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, PostScript, and Reader are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Adobe Systems
Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
Oracle is a registered trademark of Oracle Corporation.
UNIX, X/Open, OSF/1, and Motif are registered trademarks of the Open Group.
Citrix, ICA, Program Neighborhood, MetaFrame, WinFrame, VideoFrame, and MultiWin are trademarks or registered
trademarks of Citrix Systems, Inc.
HTML, XML, XHTML and W3C are trademarks or registered trademarks of W3C®, World Wide Web Consortium,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Java is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
JavaScript is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc., used under license for technology invented and implemented by
Netscape.
SAP, R/3, SAP NetWeaver, Duet, PartnerEdge, ByDesign, SAP BusinessObjects Explorer, StreamWork , and
other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or
registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and other countries.
Business Objects and the Business Objects logo, BusinessObjects, Crystal Reports, Crystal Decisions, Web
Intelligence, Xcelsius, and other Business Objects products and services mentioned herein as well as their
respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Business Objects Software Ltd. Business Objects is
an SAP company.
Sybase and Adaptive Server, iAnywhere, Sybase 365, SQL Anywhere, and other Sybase products and services
mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sybase, Inc.
Sybase is an SAP company.
All other product and service names mentioned are the trademarks of their respective companies. Data contained in this
document serves informational purposes only. National product specifications may vary.
These materials are subject to change without notice. These materials are provided by SAP AG and its affiliated companies
("SAP Group") for informational purposes only, without representation or warranty of any kind, and SAP Group shall not be
liable for errors or omissions with respect to the materials. The only warranties for SAP Group products and services are those
that are set forth in the express warranty statements accompanying such products and services, if any. Nothing herein should
be construed as constituting an additional warranty.

SAP Business Objects Process Control 10.0 Automated Monitoring Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAP Business Objects Process Control 10.0 Automated Monitoring Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAP Business Objects Process

Control 10.0 Automated

Author: Atul Sudhalkar

SAP COMMUNITY NETWORK SDN - sdn.sap.com | BPX - bpx.sap.com | BOC - boc.sap.com

SAP COMMUNITY NETWORK SDN - sdn.sap.com | BPX - bpx.sap.com | BOC - boc.sap.com

2. Background Information ..................................................................................................... 3

4. Monitoring Methods .......................................................................................................... 15

5. Further Reading ................................................................................................................. 48

SAP COMMUNITY NETWORK SDN - sdn.sap.com | BPX - bpx.sap.com | BOC - boc.sap.com

SAP COMMUNITY NETWORK SDN - sdn.sap.com | BPX - bpx.sap.com | BOC - boc.sap.com

1.2 Automated Monitoring

1.3 Usage: Planning and Testing

1.4 Usage: Monitoring

2.2 Queries and Events

2.3 Data Sources

2.4 Business Rules

2.6 The Business Context

2.9 Event Monitor

2.10 Legacy Automated Monitoring

3.2 Post-installation Configurations

 ABAP applications such as ERP,  ABAP Report, SAP Query, Configurable,

3.3 Master -Data Preparation

4.1 Data Sources and Business Rules

4.1.1.1 Creating Data Sources

4.1.1.2 Creating Business Rules

Data For Analysis

Conditions and Calculations

Field Value Calculation

Grouping and Aggregation

Attachments and Links

4.1.1.3 Assigning Rules to Controls

The Business Rule Assignment link brings up the following page.

Select the Automated Monitoring link. the following screen displays.

4.1.2.2 Monitoring Jobs

4.2 Data Source and Rule Types

4.2.1 SAP Query Data Sources and Rules

4.2.2 Configurable Data Sources and Rules

As suggested in the previous screenshot, it is possible to go beyond relationships explicitly stored in

4.2.2.1 Change Log Data Sources and Rules

Performance Impact of Change Logging

Change Tracking: Logs versus Polling

Definition of Change Log Rules

4.2.3 BW Query Data Sources and Rules

4.2.4 ABAP Report Data Sources and Rules

4.2.5 Netweaver Process Integrator-based Data Sources and

The Monitoring API

PI Implementation of the Monitoring API

4.2.6 Web Services-based Data Sources and Rules

4.2.7 SoD Data Sources and Rules

4.2.8 Event-driven Data Sources and Rules

4.2.9 ABAP Programmed Data Sources and Rules

Install Guide - SAP BusinessObjects Process Control 10.0

Security Guide - SAP BusinessObjects Process Control 10.0

6.2 Appendix B - Change Analysis Example

Separately, in transaction SE11 we look up the table in question (T691F):

run it against the ―SM EA5/100‖ system mentioned previously.

6.3 Appendix C: Data Source and Rule Type

Num Data Source Usage Category Analysis Type Comments

3 BW Query Use to invoke Exception Set Def BW Query must be defined in

4 Configurable Change Changes Change log rules can really

Value Monitor value

Review backend‘s SQ01/02

Value Monitor value