Workflow Approver Limitation

[DanielCo]

Currently, Workfront Proof will not allow a single individually to appear twice on a Proofing workflow. I have been asked to setup a workflow where the same person appears as a reviewer and approver on the first stage and that last stage. Right now I am planning to instruct the user to run a second proofing workflow on a second proof after they have approved the initial single stage workflow on the initial proof. Any other workarounds I can consider? Thanks! Daniel Cooley Kenall

[BarryBu2]

Dear Daniel, As an partner implementer of Workfront Proof, I get asked this a lot. I have yet to find a genuine case where someone needs to be in a workflow twice. WHY do they need to be in twice? Usually, one of the instances is so they 'know' it's finished or can pass the workflow on again. Having been an approver and reviewer in the first stage, if any changes are made at later stages the proof will start again, so they will see it pass through again. The dashboard and/or views can give real time information of where every proof is up to. If they simply need to 'know' it's finished, or tell someone (e.g. Print department) an alternative is to add a e-mail account just for that purpose to the last stage, and have them notified when all decisions are made. (For the more advanced, if you use folders and the person is the owner of the folder the proof is in, you can create a view that exposes everything they need to know about the proofs in the folder regardless of the active stage). Barry Buchanan Work Management Australia

[DanielCo]

Hi Barry, Thank you for challenging my premise. This is helpful. I am working with a small Marcom dept. There are two marketing managers. For each piece, one of the two works with the designer on the first approval stage. The proof goes through Product and Engineering technical reviews after that. The final review is the head of the MarCom dept. She commonly makes changes at this stage. The head of the MarCom dept is also one of the two marketing managers at the first stage. She wants the ability to review changes made after she last saw the piece and possibly make additional changes. So when the head of MarCom is also the marketing manager on the piece then she ends up in the process twice. I don't feel like it's just so that she knows that it's done she wants to review the changes that are made to ensure the integrity of the piece is maintained. Marketing Manager --> Product Manager --> Engineering --> Head of MarCom Thanks! Daniel Daniel Cooley Kenall

[BarryBu2]

In that case... The inclusion limit is linked to the e-mail address. If you can get a second e-mail that also goes to the head of marketing's inbox, you can include personsName@marcom.com in the first stage, and HeadOfMarketing@marcom.com in the final stage Barry Buchanan Work Management Australia

[OndinaSt]

We have a similar use case in that the same reviewers are on all "stages". We had to make separate workflows with 1 stage only - whomever uploads the next version will select the appropriate workflow when the job is deemed ready to go to the next "stage" of development. Users are added/removed as needed based on what role is required to review as the stages progress. Ondina Sturges Everyday Health Inc