Greetings! Has anyone here successfully implemented their specific company's project #s into WF (without having to manually enter them and without using WF's job #s)? We have to use our company's specific job #s, so using WF's wouldn't help us. And my understanding is that WF doesn't have a way for companies to easily program their own job #s (without hiring a software consultant). If I could figure this out this would be a HUGE WIN for me :). TIA for your help. Emily Hausman Tri-County Metro Trnsp Dst Ore
Hi Emily, I am brand new to Workfront, but my company is looking for something similar. I haven't found an easy answer yet, but I did find this idea (below) here on the community site which may be similar, and is nearing the 45 upvotes needed to be considered by Workfront.
"https://support.workfront.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115001218447-autonumber-field-docket-numbers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="x_OWAAutoLink" id="LPlnk24339">https://support.workfront.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115001218447-autonumber-field-docket-numbers
Cheers, -Justin Justin White Quality Bicycle Products
We are in the beginning stages of implementation and I await an answer on this subject too. Our company really needs to follow our current nomenclature for project numbering and I struggle to understand how this program does not offer a custom job numbering function. Michelle Pire Creative Project Manager email: mpire @nicopure.com tel: 888.270.2449 x7502 "https://www.facebook.com/halocigs" target="new"> "https://twitter.com/HaloCigs" target="new"> "https://plus.google.com/+Halocigs/posts" target="new"> "https://www.youtube.com/user/haloecig" target="new"> "https://www.instagram.com/haloecigs/" target="new"> "https://www.pinterest.com/halocigs/" target="new"> ------Original Message------ Greetings! Has anyone here successfully implemented their specific company's project #s into WF (without having to manually enter them and without using WF's job #s)? We have to use our company's specific job #s, so using WF's wouldn't help us. And my understanding is that WF doesn't have a way for companies to easily program their own job #s (without hiring a software consultant). If I could figure this out this would be a HUGE WIN for me :). TIA for your help.‚Äö√Ñ√£‚Äö√Ñ√£‚Äö√Ñ√£‚Äö√Ñ√£‚Äö√Ñ√£ Emily Hausman Tri-County Metro Trnsp Dst Ore
Current Choices A) Use the Reference Number B) Use a custom calculation based on the Reference Number or other data (Such as FY18-(Reference Number-First Number of the Year)) C) Create a manual step to insert a number from another system D) Use an API Call/Workfront Fusion/CapabilitySource Connect to insert/create a number E) Upvote the idea exchange to get an easy to increment number included in the system Interesting History - When I first started with AtTask each object did have it's own set of incrementing Reference Numbers and customers were screaming because 999 could refer to an Issue, Task, Project and a Document and wasn't unique. Thus the switch to one set of incrementing numbers for everything. Which I've heard constant screaming about ever sense. -- Melinda Layten, Senior Consultant Work Management Improvement Enterprise Integration CapabilitySource - 2018 Workfront Services Implementation Partner of the Year Phone: (484) 505-6855 site: www.capabilitysource.com email: firstname.lastname@example.org - we simplify your work so you can run your business -
We grappled with this to some extent when we migrated to Workfront, as well. There was pushback from some stakeholders because our old project numbering scheme carried additional information about the project, rather than simply acting as a unique identifier. Before the transition, we spec'd out which information was needed (e.g., Portfolio, Project Type, Line of Business, etc.) and captured those in separate project-level custom fields in Workfront. For any situation that required a project to display the "old-style" project number, we could mimic it through reporting by converting those custom fields into the appropriate number codes. (The old-style numbers were mostly used by the executives at a high level, so handling it through reporting was sufficient for our needs.) ~Eric Eric Manning Language Line Translation Solutions