I am trying to understand how should the work flow be -
Currently, we have setup as follows:
- 1st review holds approval/ reject when it's "completed". However, when it's rejected, it moves back to "in progress". changes required by sponsor will be input here in comments
- when changes are made, "changes" is done, it's "completed"
- 2nd review email draft will hold approval/rejects again when it's "completed"*.
Realised that if it is approved here, 1st review will still be stuck in progress
Realised that if it is approved here, even if 11st review is in "completed - waiting for approval", it will still be stuck in completed.
*2nd review is added manually if there's a need to update on changes. this does not carry any predecessor.
Qn: How can I overcome the issues in the bullet points in 2nd review (or more reviews)? Yi Jing Goh Thermo Fisher
Topics help categorize Community content and increase your ability to discover relevant content.
Question: Why is the approval on the task and not the email itself? We use the approval functionality included with Proof, but I know some people also use the document approval from Workfront as well. By having the document at the project level, you can have a dozen different versions if needed and it won't affect any of your tasks. Now, the thing we always debate on here is should the Project Owner put in tasks for every version or not. Some people do so that they can easily look at the schedule and see there were 12 rounds of review for that project. At FCB, we just have one task for the review and we "route to clean". If it takes us 12 times to get to clean, it does and then after that, the Project Owner marks the Internal Review task complete and we move on to the Client Review. (I use a document version report for them to keep track of how many versions something took so if it is a number like 12 we can investigate what is going on.) Anthony Imgrund FCB
There are a few approvals that I/We are aware of and is thinking of the best method to get sponsor to do approvals too since there are so many ways to go about it.
Having read through what you've mentioned about the project/task reviews, I presume it is safe to say that it's based on preference and how we would like to go about it? If we are doing only one task, this would mean that the timeline & hours would be lumped together instead of small breakdowns - right?
Yi Jing Goh Thermo Fisher
I think if you want to keep this workflow intact, you might investigate using a custom status as a halfway point. Instead of review 1 holding an approval on Complete, maybe it should hold an approval on a custom status called "Ready for review", which is equivalent to a "complete". * if the review actually gets approved then it ends on "ready for review" -- not super ideal, but if it's equivalent to complete, it can be ignored. * once changes are made, it appears from your description that you actually want it to be completed. In which case, it can move to Complete, which is a status that IS complete, and doesn't hold any approvals. Alternatively, you could create a custom status called "Changes made" which equates to Complete, but doesn't hold an approval. For this option: * if the review gets approved, it ends on Complete. * if the review doesn't get approved, and changes get made, the task ends on Changes Made which equates to complete but holds no approvals. * Additional curiosity: potentially you can count the number of tasks that ended on Changes Made to figure out how many times you had to make changes? Caveat: at some point, the user assigned to review 1 task needs to remember to change over to the custom status rather than hit "I'm done". This can annoy certain users. So... it's definitely something they need to buy in to. -skye
We did a similar approach, created custom status to signify the understanding and that status is mentioned and approved in the procedure (document). With regards, Kundan. Kundan Kumar KGON - (Kverneland Group Operations Norway AS)