Approval Workflows

There is a need to send an action to a mailbox / team. But instead of sending an email to everyone in the 'group' - one person on the team takes responsibility to assign the 'task' to an individual. ability for mailbox owner to send onto a person (reasign functionality) ability to see who actually picked up the approval/task - and it to show on the response (as an audit trail) currently relies on someone actively adding a comment, and remembering to do it if been to team before, someway to easily highlight who looked at it previously

So that you can see a clear summary of approval ask - if it was approved, rejected, cancelled - and any comments/reasons why is viewable right there. Without the need to navigate off to the comments panel.

We need a way to be able to change a release date on an asset, after you've set it - without the need to workflow it again. Example - you schedule the release of an asset - say set it to 01/05, however say there is an issue with the project I am working on, and I either need to release the asset sooner or push out the release date. I cannot change the date without work flowing it? In general Work flowing items for every change is a key friction point. It takes resource of min two people (as needs a final approver - we need to avoid people approving their own assets - to give us robust controls) And can not therefore be a one and done action (needs people to go back and forth to action the update and any next steps).

At the end of the asset‑creation workflow, users are required to select whether an amend is Major or Minor. This classification is frequently selected incorrectly, resulting in process errors connected with risk‑related non‑compliance. We need to remove the term 'major' - as this is misleading people. It's just a 'normal update'. We urgently need to remove the word “Major” from the amend options. This terminology reduces ambiguity and drives correct behaviour. It may also benefit from reviewing the the copy that sits below the titeling.

If a user chooses to skip the stakeholder approval stage. But later decides it does need a stakeholder. Or the final approval fails the job asking for a Stakeholder to review and approve it. There is currently no way to undo the 'skip'. Also see other suggestion - is the skip button really needed??

If the asset owner does not need to send to stakeholders - the need to press a button - is an unnecessary step. By simply leaving blank - and going direct to final approval - provides the necessary information that the asset manager has decided that there is no need for stakeholder. This may also solve the issue around un skipping a skipped stage.

We need to be able to see the historical details of a job - and how it came to it's final iteration. See who asked for a changes (which could later be being challenged), or maybe someone one asked for an amend and it's not been made. Was a change maybe made to the wrong place - now making the items wrong? If an approval was done on an earlier iteration - QS/risk ned to be able to see that amends made on a later iteration before being made live - are not material on earlier approvals. Being able to see the full history of comments and iterations - help with investigation, QS and risk mitigation - particularly in a regulated financial service environment.

Ability to have two versions in 'create new version' work on the same asset at the same time. This is needed to enable minor amends to happen while bigger updates happen. Where someone may be working on a bigger longer term project, but we need to make a small amend in the interim for example we may just need to fix a broken URL. We have a temp workaround - but it's not ideal, and we need a proper solution.

Ability to schedule withdrawals or some sort of auto scrap when a new version is made available (with an override if there needs to be two available at the same time ie using up print). Useful if scheduling an updated asset to go live at a set date ie tax year end, or launch of a project/new feature. And you could schedule the withdrawal as that same time instead of diary dating a reminder then having to go back into the job to finalise the admin (which may get forgotten). Keen to promote a 'one and done' approach as opposed to revising admin tasks.

In some regulated industries, skipping a certain approval step is okay, as long as there's a justifiable reason for it. We're currently not capturing any motivation for skipping a step - which makes reading the activity log (in this particular situation a speculative excercise to understand the WHY behind the skip. Suggestion: to offer a way to leave a short motivation, when skipping an approval step.