Possible Workflow improvements
-
We are wondering how and if it is possible to get a number of changes implemented, and if other users have had similar ideas
1. change the actor of an action after the workflow has started
So, the problem is that people are on holiday or on a business travel, but the author of the workflow did not know that at the time of the start. What to do if you do not want and indeed should not delete the whole workflow and cannot wait for the original actor to come back?
2. skip a step after the workflow has started
In a similar situation it may be possible to skip a validation step if that person is absent. How can we cleanly conclude the workflow - not deleting anything - but without the specific review or validation step involving X (with a justification)?
3. Confidential workflows and requestor versus workflow manager
How could we handle that a person requests for example a specific service from HR , submits a form/document for that purpose, but we ensure he does not see the intermediate steps that may include confidential details in the draft answer until that answer is finished?
I see an option here with two separate workflows, one started and managed between the requestor and the service, and another internal within the service.
4. Confidential workflows and assistants
Managers with the responsibility to sign off documents within a workflow may for day to day work depend on an assistant; or the assistant will be the one to know that Manager X is travelling without access to GoFAST for the next ten days.
In existing paper workflows and in other specific HR software we are using, the assistants may get or see the closed confidential envelope or a notification and will be able to either reach/alarm Manager X about a workflow with deadline or give feedback to the service about Manager X's unavailability.
Could we imagine a role within a GoFAST workflow who sees the workflow but not the associated documents?
-
Hello ;
We are very interrested by this improvements
About confidential workflow, i suppose that one solution is to create a space with just two person , but this is not really efficient. The possibility of created confidential workflow seems to be a good idea.
Sylvain Roux
INSA Lyon -
Hello @aclassen,
We are sorry for de late!
Some of these requests are not so easy to design for the standard workflow.
We have started to analyze and will back as soon as possible with propositions.It seems to me that you are in contact with our team for the modeling of a specific workflow. Do not hesitate to come back to our support for any questions on this subject (Yelena is currently on leave, but I am available to move forward on the subject).
Best regards
-
Hello @Sylvain-Roux
Indeed, that would not be a good idea I think, because too heavy to manage/understand for the users.
Regarding confidentiality, it is quite logical that only users assigned in the workflow can see the history (although this can also be useful for others who have access to the concerned document).
We have listed this request and will study the use cases to propose a relevant evolution.
-
Hello,
We would be interested for that feature.
In our case it would be more generic : Being able to modify an in-process workflow.Thank you.
-
2. skip a step after the workflow has started
In a similar situation it may be possible to skip a validation step if that person is absent. How can we cleanly conclude the workflow - not deleting anything - but without the specific review or validation step involving X (with a justification)?
We would be very interested by this feature. For example : set a duetime in the workflow for each action and if someone is absent (pass the due date) pass to another or send a notification.
-
@Axel-P - I am in favour of that one,
One workaround for this could also be to either A. give a task step (validation) to a group of users /userlist, and if one of them validates, it is good,
Or - B., same as A., you add somebody (like yourself) (temporarily) to the userlist after the workflow has already started.Does that invalidate the validation or signature process?
I would say no, In the end, if for example a signature is required, the question if anybody accepts the signature goes beyond the actual workflow; if the validation by somebody stepping in, is accepted by the person doing the signature, depends on the process and the reality of the organisation using the process.
