I've been up to my eyeballs chasing down people who did not review proofs on time. I'm at the point where I need to keep track of the those who are habitually late and need ideas on how to capture this. Full transparency - I'm not good with creating reports and I'm a "part time" admin. We don't have internal dedicated support.
The way we're currently working is:
Automated workflow and set a deadline.
If someone doesn't "make a decision", in order to lock the proof we were taught to change that person to 'reviewer' from 'reviewer & approver'. Then the entire proof turns green (approved or approved with changes) and it gets locked and it's released back to the designers.
By changing the offenders to reviewer I can't tell who is legitimately a reviewer and who I had to skip to keep the project moving.
If I lock the proof and there are pending decisions, the entire proof says 'pending' and the designers get confused.
Hope I'm making sense and would love to hear some thoughts on how to better mange the process. And BTW - in my way too many years of dealing with proofs it's been the same battle regardless of the company I was at or the system we used. Time to hold folks accountable 😆
Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!
Topics help categorize Community content and increase your ability to discover relevant content.