46
Assign people to workflow steps
complete
meghscase
For us, it would be much more helpful to assign people to steps in the workflow rather than content items. Pretty please!
Log In
James Peacock
complete
James Peacock
in progress
Hi everyone. Just a quick update to share with you that we're now actively working on this. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback, we're confident that the changes we're working on will be a big improvement.
Changing anything in the app, even when it's an obvious benefit, can cause some anxiety for existing users who are used to working in a certain way. We don't take changing core parts of our app lightly, no matter how small the change.
With that in mind I have put together a help article explaining what will be changing and why, from the workflow dropdown itself to assigning people. We will be informing everyone of the upcoming changes before release.
You can view the help article here:
As always the team is on-hand to answer any questions. Thanks again for everyone's involvement in helping shape this update.
James
James Peacock
Hi everyone. A huge thank you to those of you who have responded to our questionnaire. We've already gathered some great insight, not just confirming some of our thinking, but also forcing us to think differently in certain areas which is what we want.
I have made some changes to the design you saw in the questionnaire and have recorded a 3 minute walkthrough for you to watch:
It'd be great to get some feedback on the changes! As for the results of the questionnaire itself, there are some clear themes:
Workflow assignees should be at an item level rather than a project level, as different items will require default people.
Changing the status without a blue confirmation button different feel "concrete" to some of you. Hopefully the design changes help improve that.
It's almost a 50/50 split between considering an item as complete when it's on the last status, and marking the last status as complete. We'll look into this some more.
Again thank you for your input on this!
James
Justin Kramp
James Peacock: The explanation of choosing a status instead of marking as complete makes sense when we consider steps are not always linear and items may move through steps in different orders. The ability to add a comment when updating a status looks great too.
While our team was looking at this, some people commented that seeing the duration for each status (both since last moved to this status and cumulative) as well as for each assignee would help identify bottlenecks in process or resources.
James Peacock
Justin Kramp: yes, having the ability to view the health metrics of items would be hugely beneficial. There's a whole theme of work around this we want to tackle in the future, including task management and scheduling, but being able to see the duration spent on a workflow status may be a good place to start. Thanks for the feedback.
James Peacock
planned
S
Sara Distin
Ditto, being able to assign people to workflow steps would alleviate a huge pain point in our process.
Angus Edwardson
Angus Edwardson
Merged in a post:
Assign users to workflow statuses.
Chris Charlick
Have a user, or multiple users automatically assigned to a workflow status, and de-assigned when the item progresses (unless assigned to the next status).
This comes up regularly, and the concept of assigning people to items as a whole is often confusing to users.
Important reason: Assigning users to items should be a more valuable feature. It's often not taken advantage of because of the manual effort to do it & the burden to assign at different stages lays with users rather than champions.
Mark Monahan
Agreed. Some staff never create content, they only proof and publish.
Jessica Power
Yes, we also would have much greater use for GC if we could assign users to certain steps - and also to lock down certain steps to users (e.g. publishers, when an item is published, they should be the only ones able to update this status)
Mark Monahan
Indeed. Too many times users click all stages of the workflow and send pages to the end of the workflow. Without reviewing every page it's hard to know what stage the content is at - which is kinda the point of GC!
Load More
→