Approval Workflows

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.

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.

For urgent approval needs, it would be extremely helpful to have a way to mark an approval request as 'urgent' (similar to how a task can be marked as 'urgent')

When an invited approver does not wish (or is not in a position) to respond to an approval request, he needs an option to reject the invitation. Ideally, doing so would happen in combination with leaving a short verbatim/comment, to explain why he is rejecting the invitation, or perhaps to mention the person he would suggest inviting instead. Note: rejection is another trigger to the Asset Manager