Using Records Management Solutions To Handle WebCenter Content Requirements


Using Records Management Solutions To Handle WebCenter Content Requirements

By: Brandon Prasnicki | Technical Architect

Oftentimes there are requirements customers have that have the feel of customizations, but actually can be handled by out of the box functionality with Records Management (or in the simplest WCC form this feature can be referred to as ‘Retention Management’) functionality. Oracle WCC has a records management solution that has features that are obvious (disposition, audit, metadata history, etc.), but it also has some features that may be useful for core WCC requirements that might otherwise be costly customizations. Here is a list of a few of three of these common requirements:

  1. Global updates via the UI
    1. WebCenter Content Management solution (with records management disabled): can do this with folder propagation and archiver but anything query based via the UI is a customization
    2. Retention Management solution: A Global Updates submenu within the main Records menu is available when the appropriate RM rights are assigned
  2. Security Restriction based on Revision, Metadata updates and Delete
    1. WebCenter Content Management solution (with records management disabled): there would need to be some custom component that would hook into service to see if user had a role that allowed revisioning and/or metadata updates to restrict beyond normal RW access. Also a UI customization to disable the checkout/check-in would be needed.
    2. Retention Management solution: RM restriction flags can be set on the definition of a category, and when content is assigned to this category via metadata, the restrictions are in place. Then the appropriate RM rights can be assigned to these users with special permission to perform these functions. *Note that records categories don’t need to have disposition assigned, and categories can be assigned by deriving the xCategoryID field with a profile rule.
  1. Review
    1. WebCenter Content Management solution (with records management disabled): Some customization to trigger a scheduled event based on a review date and query, or some basic workflow needs to be manually generated
    2. Retention Management solution: There is out of the box functionality that marks an item ‘vital’ and users responsible to do the review are emailed assigned to do the review with a review action.


  1. Global updates

Global updates is an out of the box feature available in records management for users that have the ‘search and update’ and ‘no security’ RMA right.

retention management 1

When RMA rights of ‘Search and update’ and ‘No Security’ are assigned to a role, these users will see a new records menu item called ‘Global Updates’ where they can use a query based form to update values en masse.

retention management 2

When building the query, you can preview the results and even schedule the run if it is a large job.

retention management 3

  1. Security Restrictions

When creating a retention category, the following security restrictions are available:

retention management 4

The restrictions can be defined as follows:

  1. Restrict Revisions: All content in this category cannot be revisioned by users whom do not have the RMA Right of Record.Revise (even if they have WCC write access).
  2. Restrict Deletes: All content in this category cannot be deleted by users whom do not have the RMA Right of Record.Delete (even if they have WCC delete access and are author).
  3. Restrict Edits: All content in this category cannot have the metadata updated by users whom do not have the RMA Right of Record.Edit (even if they have WCC write access).
  4. Transfer or Accession to NARA (AKA ‘permanent’): No revisions, deletes, edits are allowed even for users with these RMA rights.

retention management 5

         3. Review

When the Records management solution is leveraged (Retention Management is enabled), there are new fields on the form that are available. Simply check the vital flag and fill out the reviewer and period information, and this user will get an email to review the item!

retention management 6

TekStream is ready to show you all the features that are available for your retention management and records management solution needs! Please fill out the form below for a demonstration!

[pardot-form id=”13891″ title=”Blog-BrandonPrasnicki-RecordsManagementSolutions”]

BPM Document Integration with Content Management Framework Folders

Business process management

BPM Document Integration with Content Management Framework Folders

By: John Schleicher | Sr. Technical Architect

Oracle BPM (workflow) of both BPMN and BPEL flavors offers document integration as basic functionality as well it should. Human workflow is inherently tied to documents that support the activity in question. To provide this capability workflow accommodates documentation (aka attachments) in task based schemas and within the User Interface forms that support it. Workflow programs can pass documentation to tasks by carrying them in the schema as files or URL references. The BPM form documentation component then exposes those documents for viewing and allows for the addition and deletion of the same.

The default storage of the documents is made within the underlying workflow database schema but administrators can configure the workflow engine to leverage the content management data store as an alternate location. Information about this can be found in the SOA Administrator’s guide and numerous blogs.

The content storage alternative offers storage improvements over the original configuration but still is fairly limited in ability as compared to interacting with documentation within the content system itself. Though the ability to view existing documents, add or delete documents and define a few optional criteria exists with the BPM based user interface, more sophisticated elements of content such as managing revisions or viewing history are not available. You can also search for content documents and attach them to the workflow through the BPM attachments UI component. This may offer some integration but ultimately requires the users to be accessing both content and BPM interfaces in a fairly disjoint fashion to be somewhat effective. Shouldn’t there be a more effective mechanism?

When faced with a requirement to migrate a manual workflow system based on file folders the answer became obvious. If the workflow documentation was segregated into logical folders within content (basically into framework folders) then workflow could access the content UI based on that workflow associated folder. So instead of using the existing BPM document component, the URL specifying the framework folder was substituted as a go button or link in the BPM form which would render the content UI for that folder with the document listing. Adding new documents can likewise be provided by another go button tying it to the Add capability of the content URL so the users can click a button, add a title, browse and upload a document to the folder and workflow.

There was initially some concern over the lack of a document listing on the BPM form. The concern was easily allayed however by the common activity of separating the tabbed content document listing from the BPM form and simultaneously displaying it on a dual monitor system. Power users have ready access to the document listing with this configuration (as shown in the below diagram). Also the separation of the listing offers more real estate for the rest of the form. For my case I extended the comments component into the vacated space formerly reserved for the list of documents.

There are other benefits to leveraging the content UI straight from workflow. The first of course is the ability to leverage document versioning. Secondly, document access beyond the workflow lifespan is easily possible, as well as applying search metadata against the folders and documents to allow non-workflow association to be realized. For the out of the box workflow/content integration when workflow is complete, how do you get to those documents? For the direct integration outlined here, you are already creating the folder, so you can also apply some metadata for searching folder contents and you have the ability to find workflow documentation well beyond the life of the workflow.

This new configuration has some coordination required between workflow assignees and content roles. Workflow users require sufficient privileges to view, add/delete, and update content. This administration is simple enough and can be tied to the framework folder that is associated with the root element for the workflow activity.

So what could be classified as a drawback? For one, the simplistic ingestion of documents into the storage requires a bit more programming. The workflow system (whether BPMN or BPEL) must now leverage the UNIVERSAL_CREATE mechanism of content’s GenericSoapPort webservice to create logical folders for the workflow and then create/upload any documents coming into the workflow. The logical folders must be oriented around a unique key to be able to reference the folder throughout the workflow as the form must provide the specific folder’s URL for access of documentation. Also applying metadata for post workflow searches is a small overhead as well. So ultimately this is a little more complicated than the original but not prohibitively so.

So I have outlined a relatively straightforward integration of Oracle BPM and Content storage for workflow documentation. If your BPM project is aligned on folders or another logical key it may be an option for your documentation access.

BPM Workflow tab adjacent to Content Framework Folder Listing

BPM Workflow

Have more questions? Contact TekStream today!

[pardot-form id=”13871″ title=”blog-BPMDocumentIntegration-johnschleicher”]


Tips and Tricks for Improving Supplier Extraction with Inspyrus Invoice Automation

Tips and Tricks for Inspyrus

Tips and Tricks for Improving Supplier Extraction with Inspyrus Invoice Automation

By: Karla Broadrick | Technical Architect

The Inspyrus Invoice Automation solution utilizes WebCenter Forms Recognition (WFR) to identify the supplier on an invoice. WFR extracts the supplier by identifying all of the addresses on the invoice image. It then uses a fuzzy matching algorithm to compare the addresses on the invoice to those in the supplier pool generated from the ERP vendor data.

If WFR is able to confidentially identify the vendor associated with the invoice, it will be identified in the Inspyrus UI with no further verification needed by the end user. If, however, WFR is not confident it has identified the correct vendor, the end user will be required to review and validate or correct the chosen vendor in the Inspyrus UI.

In many years of implementing this tool, supplier extraction is consistently one of the most common reasons an invoice must be corrected. Fortunately, there is usually an explanation for the issue that can be resolved. In this article, we explore tips and tricks to diagnose and correct supplier extraction failures.

1. Poor Image quality

Image quality is critical to successful extraction of any field in WFR. If the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) fails to recognize the text of the vendor address correctly, this can cause the supplier to not be recognized. Image quality issues can usually be addressed by enforcing the following guidelines for images: images should be 300 dpi, black and white (not greyscale). They should be original images (not copies of previously printed images or electronically printed images). They should contain little to no handwriting.

2. Duplicate Supplier Addresses

In the ERP, there are multiple entries of the same address across different suppliers, supplier sites, and/or operating units. WFR is unable to distinguish which address is the “correct” one since all addresses are the same. All addresses are assigned the same confidence level and they system is unable to determine which should be chosen. In this case, supplier maintenance is needed to clean up supplier sites. Each supplier site should be a unique pay site address. Additionally, determining the operating unit at the point of ingestion can help with this issue.

3. Supplier Addresses too similar to the invoice Bill To or Ship To address

Typically the Bill To and Ship To addresses on an invoice are internal addresses. These are required to be excluded from the supplier pool that is used to processed general invoices. The query to the WFR view xx_ofr_suppliers_v should be modified so that ONLY external suppliers are included. Typically this is done by filtering on the vendor type and excluding those with a type of “Internal”. However, any criteria can be defined in the view. Often, supplier maintenance is needed to correctly categorize internal suppliers as such.

If Intercompany invoices are processed this will require additional configuration so that they are properly recognized.

4. ERP supplier address does not match the address on the invoice

The supplier address in the ERP system does not match any of the addresses listed by the vendor on the invoice (either in the header or the Remit To address). The best way to address this is to correct the address for the vendor in the ERP system so that it accurately reflects the invoice.

5. Remit to address is outside the address zone

This problem can be the most difficult to resolve.

OOTB, WFR only looks at vendor addresses on the first page of the image. This cannot be changed, it is mandatory that the vendor address must be on the first page of the document. This means that the first page of the image must be the first page of the invoice. Any supporting documents such as shipping documents, etc should be (if at all possible) attached to the record directly in Inspyrus instead of emailed in with the invoice image. If they must be included in the same image as the invoice, they should be placed after the invoice.

In addition to the first page requirement, WFR only looks at preconfigured zones of the first page to identify the vendor address. It does not look at the entire page. OOTB, WFR looks at the top 25% and bottom 20% of the page. While it is possible to modify this zone, it is advised to do so with extreme caution. Changing these recommended settings can have unintended side effects across the larger sampling of vendor invoices.

6. Supplier name found in the ERP database is very different from that found on the invoice

The vendor extraction performs a “fuzzy match” against name and address information found in the ERP database against what is found on the invoice. However, if the supplier name is drastically different this can cause the extraction to fail to have enough confidence to extract a valid match. Updating the supplier name in the ERP to match the invoice should resolve this issue.

Learn more about Invoice Automation in the Cloud for Oracle ERP by signing up to attend a 30 minute TekTalk webinar hosted by TekStream Wednesday June 21st at 1:00 EST.

Having trouble identifying the cause of your supplier extraction issues? Contact TekStream for assistance.

[pardot-form id=”13841″ title=”Supplier Extraction with Inspyrus – Karla”]