Managing access to proof versions using the Internal to External Review workflow. | Community
Skip to main content
S
ShelbyMa3
Level 2
May 26, 2020
Question

Managing access to proof versions using the Internal to External Review workflow.

  • May 26, 2020
  • 2 replies
  • 478 views

We want to prevent clients from being able to see Proof versions, until they have been reviewed and approved by a project manager. Our current workflow is as follows:

  1. Designer uploads new Proof version
    1. Removes previous reviewers
    2. Assigns Proof ownership to project manager
    3. Shares Proof
  2. Project manager reviews proof
    1. Makes comments if it needs to go back to a designer
    2. Adds reviewers if it is ready for clients to review

The trouble with this workflow is that designers frequently forget step 1.1 and the internal version is shared with clients, creating confusion and friction with our project management team.

Hoping the community has a better solution for how to utilize the Proof Versioning feature between internal and external reviewers.

    This post is no longer active and is closed to new replies. Need help? Start a new post to ask your question.

    2 replies

    K
    KevinQu1
    Level 10
    May 27, 2020

    Your process is similar to ours, only flipped:

    We have the Project Managers manage all routings with the Designer simply providing the PDF to be routed either via email or in the Documents area; but Designers do not themselves start, manage, or participate in PHQ routings.

    The back-n-forth between design and Project Management before formal review with the clients and process departments is done outside Workfront for speed. We only use PHQ for routings that need decisions and sign-offs.

    We find it better not to bog-down design and production with managing PHQ routings and to let the PM manage it so they can make decisions and guide direction before handing back to the designers.

    We also don't use the Versions ability, at least not yet, so every subsequent routing is "new" to avoid confusion. Our deployment is new and while versioning has some serious benefits, the complexity was too much for launch. Although the more I stare at reporting for PHQ, I think the log trail is more clear when routings are stand-alone as well (for legal purposes).

    J
    JillAc
    Level 10
    May 27, 2020

    We use the same process and have had similar problems. It is a training issue to get them to pay attention to removing previous reviewers. It's a pain but eventually they all got used to doing it correctly. We don't reassign proof ownership to the PM, I'm not sure there is a benefit to that, haven't seen any problems with who is the proof owner, it doesn't seem to matter as far as I can tell.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement

    Loading footer...