Add a new idea Subscribe
Status Open for voting
Categories Process Review & Approval
Created by Guest
Created on Nov 11, 2020

RELATED IDEAS

Process reviews should not need to be republished

When processes are up for review they often don't need any changes. At present we are forced to make a minor change (ie. add a space somewhere) just to trigger the approval process to remove the process from the review cycle. This also updates the version which should not be necessary. It would be great to see an option to acknowledge the process has been reviewed and mark it as complete without having to republish.
  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Aug 11, 2025

    The review alert should be sent to all Stakeholders of a process. The owner/expert don't always manage all aspects of a process. If I want the Stakeholders to review it, I have to publish a new version with a note in the Summary that 'No changes are required' and have it go through the approval process again. This is a waste of time and resources which the Nintex tools are supposed to help mitigate.

    Reply
  • Guest
    Sep 7, 2022
    Thanks for the suggestion. This isn't on our near term roadmap, but for now we'll open this up for voting and gauge interest from other clients.
    Reply
  • Guest
    Sep 7, 2022
    Exclude process from the list for Review (automativally make it as reviewed) if process from review list was updated and published again with no need to press "reviewed it" after process is published
    Reply
  • Guest
    Sep 7, 2022
    Currently if you have 'Enable explicit process reviews' set to 'off' you don't see a 'Reviewed it' button in the Reviews tab of your dashboard. Instead you have to edit the process. If no changes are needed then you need to make a minor edit and then undo it. This is time consuming for staff and can cause confusion as this is not mentioned in the help documentation for Review a process.
    It would be heaps better for staff if the 'Reviewed it' option was available when explicit process reviews are set to off too.
    Reply