Multiple approvers

[KassandraDi]

Hello, I have a process where I need 9 people to approve something. If one person rejects it, I want it to send an issue, but if someone else approves, I want to keep their approval. Basically if 1 or 2 people out of the 9 need to reject 5 times before they approve, I don't want the other 7-8 people to have to approve 5 times in a row. I want their approval to "stick" and just the rejects to get rerouted for approval over and over until approved. Is there a way to do this, or do I basically have to make the approvals as plain tasks, so create 9 individual tasks called "Jody approve" "Stacy approve" etc. every time I want an approval? Thanks, Kassandra Kassandra DiPietro Optum

[CalvinFold]

If 7 people approve and 2 reject, and a change is made to accommodate the 2 rejected, wouldn't the other 7 people need to see it again to re-approve it with the change? Kevin Quosig

[JillAc]

Hi Kevin Not my topic, but I'm going to jump in. I have scenarios where everyone doesn't need to approve a change. For example, imagine a catalog with sections of shoes, suits, dresses and jewelry. Each section is "owned" by a different approver – the product manager for each department. If the shoe person makes a change, the suit person doesn't need to see it. Just my two cents. Jill

[SamanthaWi1]

totally agree with Kevin. What if the people needing changes end up changing something that affects a person that 100% approved the proof. So this happens with our proofing a lot. When i train the people that will be getting the proof I stress to them that they will not be removed from proofing after they have 100% approved a proof, in case someone else changes something that they felt was right. HOWEVER, the designer uploading the changed versions has the option to change the person that approved 100% to just be a reviewer instead of a reviewer/approver. This means that they can see the new version of the proof (if they choose to open) but will not hold up a deadline for the others who wanted the changes. It wold be incumbent for them to check the proof again if they have reason to believe changes could happen to their approval pieces. In the end, the approver's of proofs should be thankful that your team is concerned enough to share all changes with them each and every time. Better too many eyes on a project than not enough. Samantha Williams GameStop Corp.

[CalvinFold]

Jill, you make a valid case; makes perfect sense. I would think that would be confusing as heck to track, but makes sense on the "why to do it that way." In such an instance, we'd probably break it into multiple routings rather than try to have such a sub-segmented routing. Would make accountability easier to track. But we're in a fairly regulatory/legal/accountability heavy environment too. Kevin Quosig

[AnnaDe]

Kassandra, I am glad you asked this question. I am in the process of adding the approvers to our proofing process and this exact situation came up. My solution (which we are testing and not sure if it is the right solution yet) is to not have anyone reject a proof even if they have questions. But to have everyone add comments to the PDF and documents right in Workfront. Then after all the proofers look at it I have one person who is the final approver to the proof. This person collects all the information on the proof and can either approve or reject that proof. That way it keeps the proofs moving forward and not doubling up on any edits. Our process is to have everyone look at the proof again after this. We actually have three proof tasks for routing proofs to make sure things don't get missed or edited without final approval. And that last person who looks at the proof is the one who deciders if someone who approved would need to see the proof again with the edits. Again, we are just testing right now to see if this resolves the issue you bring forward. Hope this helps. Anna Anna Deike Gustavus Adolphus College