The purpose of this thread is to continue the conversation from the “Special Edition” Leap Virtual User Group on Marketing Workflows & Approvals on July 1, 2020.
Many thanks to everyone who came to our virtual meetup! Special thanks to @Catherine Hayes‚ from The Channel Company for sharing how they transitioned to using Workfront in a new way: work management as a service.
As promised, attached is a PDF of the presentation, and you can watch the recording here.
Do you have any outstanding questions? Anything you didn’t get a chance to ask or that wasn’t discussed? Or have a resource you want to share as a follow-up? Leave a comment below. (Pro Tip: “Like” this thread to be notified as people reply.)
You can find the schedule for all upcoming User Groups on the Events page on Workfront One (one.workfront.com/events). Be sure to also join the @Marketing‚ group to follow conversations on this topic in the future.
Thanks again. If you have any feedback (good or bad), please don’t hesitate to reach out. You can leave a comment below, direct message me here on Workfront One, or send an email to email@example.com.
Topics help categorize Community content and increase your ability to discover relevant content.
There were a few questions about reporting on approval stages in my group. I'm happy to share the approach and text mode we used. Please reach out if you want to connect on this.
Thank you all for the chat today!
I am curious whether there is a way to "Approve" or "Reject" an incoming Request/Issue. As a Traffic Manager, I often receive requests that don't include all details, specs, etc. and would like to be able to "Reject" the request and notify the requester that more information is required.
Does anyone have something similar set up? I appreciate any support.
We use fully automated process to convert incoming requests to projects and assign the PM. In part, this was because we had to build custom request forms external to Workfront, and we don't reject incoming requests (we're using Workfront for product approval).
I'd much rather use configurable routing rules, than the external logic we built to do the project assignment. Anyone have any thoughts on if there are Workfront features we can leverage?
(or should I be writing this up for product enhancement suggestions?)
cc: @Lisa Kastner‚ @Derrick Villanueva‚
Hi @Monika Barnett‚ agreeing with @Mark Wilson‚ here. We set up five queue topics/routing rules and attached an approval process to each. This enables the appropriate stakeholder to approve or reject proposals as needed.
(see screen grab)
Are you able to activate a routing rule based on the user logged in and the routing rule be that persons manager?
I get so many horrible briefs from our marketing managers and have complained to that team leader so we agreed that now every time I get a request from one of her marketing managers, I'm manually reassigning the request to the team leader to review and make sure the brief meets requirements then she manually assigns it back to me to convert and assign to a creative.
Would love a routing rule to include a user wildcard that would trigger the appropriate routing rule ... shooting for the stars or possible? 🙂
I love the idea of automating the routing rule based the person's manager, but I'm not certain that if that is possible currently.
We use an issue-based custom status to trigger an approval process for content-based stakeholders. I wonder if this would fit your use case as well @Aya Elsoukkary‚ ?
Yea, I dont think it exists either. I would have jumped on that immediately otherwise.
I like your idea, I'll give that a shot! Thanks
Aya, the routing rules are pre-defined so they wont change based on the logged-in user.
That said, using an Issue approval process like Catherine mentioned above, could route an approval to the user's manager to review the request before it get's triaged by your traffic coordinator.
There are some other options too that would include creating specific queues by team or requiring a custom field where the requester selects who their manager is. Once submitted, it could appear on a report where managers can review newly submitted requests from their teams. I'd suggest the approval process mentioned above as your ideal option though.
Happy to discuss further if you'd like.
Monika, while formal approvals can be used for requests as Mark and Catherine have suggested, there is a simplified approach that might work in your situation too. Create a new Issue Status and call it something like "Need More Info" that equates to In Progress. When a request comes in that is missing information, change the status to Need More Info and post a comment in the update field of the request to the requester explaining that the request cannot move forward until additional information is provided.
As long as requesters have access to make updates to their request, they can add the additional information and respond to your comment letting you know the data has been added.
This eliminates the need for a approval/rejection process and streamlines the process to keep forward motion going in requests.
@Matthew Broschinsky‚ I really appreciate this advice!
We have approval workflows and routing rules in place, as was suggested above, but the new status would be a great solution for us. It seems like a much simpler way to communicate back to the requester and obtain the missing information.
Thank you for sharing, looking forward to implementing this 😁
When we have requests that are incomplete or just not clear we use the Updates tab. The Updates tab is one of the main reasons I wanted to bring in Workfront. The ability to communicate within the request/project rather than via separate email has been a huge help to us.
Hi Denise. I would be interested to see how you build your project template, to ensure all the necessary data is collected.
@Laura Weller‚ I saw your question on a guide for Kanban, there are a number of pages on Workfront One, but this is a good place to start
Great session content Catherine! Lots of good discussion in the breakout rooms. Looking forward to connecting and seeing the continued dialogue here.