Move between an edit and update workflow without starting again
under review
M
Melanie Williams
Increased importance.
This is now causing increased issues - as the process to switch between the two has friction points - so colleagues are now NOT Using the 'Edit' workflow incase someone wants to make changes later in the process.
But this has some drawbacks - as the audit trail, and the increase in versions - suggests changes to the file have been made - but they have not.
We then look at the release date on the asset - and this causes process confusion.
Having to make the decision up front on what route to take is now causing significant frustrations.
Could a model be discussed - where you simply enter into a new workflow - and then at the end you select if you
- Edited (controls in place as the iterations would still be draft!)
- Made a minor amend (control file iteration updated AND expiry date remained the same)
- updated - (iteration updated AND expiry date updated)
Bram Timmers
updated the status to
under review
Bram Timmers
In a future cycle (likely 2026 still), we're considering to make the 'Edit this version' journey (significantly) simpler to do & to finalize. Even with the possibility to release those changes without an approval workflow (given the right conditions, of course).
When that is in place, users will have an easy/-ier time, to wrap up their Edit work, release those changes, and continue with creating a new version (with the asset info already adjusted).
In addition, the activity log reflects all activity across all the versions of one asset.
Could you elaborate on the friction point you see remaining for final approvers, please?