Tagging someone in Document/Proof for "inform" only

[SabrinaDi]

Had a request from the marketing team here at Loblaw: is it possible to tag someone during the document approval stage in the tool to just "inform" but not necessarily "approval required". For example, a creative worker will upload a proof for approval required by the the project owner, but would also like to "inform" her own immediate supervisor that the proof has been uploaded. Any ideas? Thanks in advance. Sabrina Di Paolo Senior Manager, Marketing Planning and Integration Loblaw Companies Limited

[Former Community Member]

Heads-up boss: I uploaded a new draft for the 'client.' We're doing this by adding the supervisor as a reviewer. But then the supervisor winds up with a TON of what i called "aged proofs" which are a pain to go through and clean out. (We're still new at this, so I may be overlooking something) Long way of saying: I think you're onto something. William Dodson MaineHealth

[SkyeHa]

The way we would manage this is by having file naming conventions so that you name your file something like... I don't know... filename_boss.pdf. Then you run a document report looking for everything with a filename that contains "boss" (or whatever your keyword is). You can also look for metadata in the project. For example, we could run a document report looking for filename contains "boss" and project Advertising (our custom field) is "yes". Arranged or filtered by upload date, this becomes our boss' record of what advertising stuff we uploaded in the past X days. The report could be auto-emailed out once a (once a day, once a week, once a month...) -skye

[pco88]

Is there an action item for the immediate supervisor? If no and it's just mere letting them know that a document was uploaded for approval, I would suggest just using the "share" function. Designer uploads the document, sends it to the client for approval. Then also shares the document to the project manager, art director to let them know that the client is now looking at it for approval. The cons of this is that PM and Art Director are not notified when the proof is approved but then you asked that they just know that a document was loaded for approval. BTW, this is all about document approvals, not proof approvals. We do have an automatic thread update via api and some programming and a project toggle though if the PM requires that he/she needs to know about all document approvals and that's how we take care of the con. Polly Co

[JohnAl1]

Sabrina, What kind of volume are you looking at daily and weekly and is this a new process that your team is trying to build consistency and then the supervisor will no longer need to be on the proof in, let's say, 2 or 3 months? Some things to keep in mind are that if the volume is too high, then I doubt supervisors will really look at the proofs or even updates, the need is more CYOB rather than training reinforcement and a regular report would suffice. If the volume is lower then you have a higher chance for engagement by the supervisors and a document update that they're tagged in or being added as a Reviewer on the Proof would suffice. If your organization has a low accountability model, meaning the supervisors are accountable for what their direct reports do rather than the direct reports themselves, then I would lean towards the comment tagging being added as a Reviewer on a Proof model. This is also recommended if you have more junior or "green" personnel that you want to closely monitor. If your organization has a high accountability model, meaning the direct reports are accountable for what goes out and the supervisors just need to "be in the loop", then I would recommend going the report route which can be based on custom fields, doc naming conventions, or even Document Folder. Hope this helps, John Albaugh GP PRO