Expand my Community achievements bar.

Add the same person twice to a proof review

Avatar

7/27/23

We would like to add the same person to a review route twice in different stages. We have the project owners review proofs in stage 2, but then also need to review again in the last stage after everyone else has reviewed, so they can review other's comments, comment back for clarification or answer any questions.

Why is this feature important to you - Streamlines the process. Currently, the project manager has to reach out to the project owner after the route is complete to confirm there aren't any comments that need to be responded to, and wait for the project owner to reach back out to them when they've had the chance to review again. If they can be added again to the final stage, they will get the automatic email notification that it's their turn again. Once the review is complete, the PM knows it can be routed straight back to the necessary team without any additional steps in the process.

 

27 Comments

Avatar

Ditto on this. We need our associate producers on each stage to wrangle approvals from a very busy team, and having them subscribe to each approval (that they don't even create) is a huge time-drain.


Maybe we can get someone on the WF team to comment on the status of this?

We are currently working on a 12-16 month roadmap through which we want to better connect the WF + Proof integration.


As part of this initiative we want to

- combine document & proof approvals to remove ambiguity

- connect a proof approval directly with a task in Workfront, which will allow you to leverage all the task capabilities you have today directly on the proof e.g. deadlines, reporting, notifications etc.


Once completed, you will be able to add the same recipient to multiple stages

Avatar

Completely agree with the need to allow users to appear in multiple stages of a workflow.


What is the update time estimate for when this will be fixed?


Thanks

Avatar

Level 1

1/22/24

I wondered if anyone has an update on this yet? It doesn't look like it's possible yet but wanted to see if anyone had a workaround?