Reviews

[LauraFa]

We are trying to figure out a more efficient process for reviewing and approving text copy before the design phase begins.  Our writers currently send the client the Word document via email to be reviewed for typos or edits. They do not like using WF proofs because there is no way to accept edits like they can using tracking in Word. They feel the WF proof is too cumbersome to use if multiple rounds of copy edits are needed. I can understand that, but because of this, we have no way of tracking the time of the review or the progress of the project until the editor uploads the final approved copy.  Does anyone have a more efficient process for reviewing copy within the WF platform?

[skyehansen]

I think it's important to understand that the use of Proof is as a review-only tool. Most teams who use this functionality do so, because they wish to be the only ones editing their work.

I would recommend you investigate using a file management system that allows everyone to edit the uploaded file equally, AND can be linked to with Workfront, such as sharepoint, onedrive, box, google drive, or whatever else Workfront links to (disclaimer: I don't know which ones allow editing. I think drive, sharepoint and onedrive all do). You can then link to the doc in your Workfront documents section as normal, and assign your work around the link rather than an uploaded file.

[LauraFa]

Thank you for your feedback, Skye. Yes, we understand that the proof is a review-only scenario. Currently, we use it to show our clients the final deliverable in design format and allow them to mark up changes they would like made. For example, a pocket folder with a stitched 4pg. The review has a scheduled amount of time that is tracked to make sure the project's schedule is on time. But before the pocket folder can be designed, the copy needs to be approved. The resolve you offered doesn't allow for tracking time which is the issue I am working to resolve. 

Is there anyone using WF as a marketing management tool? If so, what is your process to track time for your editorial team reviews?

Thanks!

[skyehansen]

I'm unclear - how have you been tracking time in Proof? We usually assign a task that signifies the period of review, e.g. internal review is on Thursday, and we have planned that 3 people will take 4 hours to do this.

[LauraFa]

We track time both in the project's schedule as well as in the review itself. we also use the task to signify the period of review - internal and then once approved the review moves to the client.  We have the review templates set up to give each phase a certain number of days to complete the review before it is considered late. The allotted amount of days in the review templates aligns with the size of project.  We set it up like this because we are a hospital system with several hospitals and reviews sometimes get behind. WF automatically sends a notification to the stakeholders in the review when the review is late. If we do not hear back, we suspend the project. Does that make sense? It works somewhat well for us, but we are always looking for ways to improve our processes.

[KellieGardner]

I would suggest using tasks for review and approvals and whomever is "emailing" the document for approval should be marking that task as in progress and then complete to coincide with the send and approve dates. The users can also log time against said tasks to get the information. 

[LauraFa]

Hi Kellie, Thank you for the feedback. It sounds like we are in line with your suggestion.  Now to just get those users to mark their task's progress and completion - LOL!  

Thanks!