RELATED IDEAS
changing owner expert automatically publishing
There is currently an issue with the system that violates the whole approvals framework.
Whenever someone leaves the organisation or changes role there is no way to bulk transfer a processes still in development to a new resource without the process automatically being published which then bypasses the approvals process. We are a small organisation and have at least one person join and leave a week. To review all of the processes to see if they are ready for publishing would be an administration nightmare.
The system needs to be able to be able handle transfering a process in a development status to the new resource with the same status, and not be automatically published.
Whenever someone leaves the organisation or changes role there is no way to bulk transfer a processes still in development to a new resource without the process automatically being published which then bypasses the approvals process. We are a small organisation and have at least one person join and leave a week. To review all of the processes to see if they are ready for publishing would be an administration nightmare.
The system needs to be able to be able handle transfering a process in a development status to the new resource with the same status, and not be automatically published.
-
ADMIN RESPONSESep 7, 2022Thank you very much for posting your feedback. At this time, we will not be adding this request to the near-term backlog, as we are focused on improving our search and process variation capabilities and delivering sequential approvals. However, we reevaluate requests every quarter and will reach out if priorities change. Please keep the feedback coming as it is critical for our longer-term planning.
This is a flaw, Kerry, not really a "scenario to consider".
This is a great scenario to consider and I agree requiring a publish for ownership transfer isn't ideal if there are changes not ready for publishing.
I've marked this down to look at as part of our delegation of approval changes as the themes are similar, and we'll also monitor voting on this idea from other clients.
The current global publishing when transferring Process Ownership does not make sense, and leads to an incorrect audit trail which suggests the new owner had approved the processes.
This is especially inaccurate if the process is in draft and then we transfer ownership, the process is automatically and approved and published giving the new owner no opportunity to review, approve or decline it.
Its not until the process is published that the new owner/expert can see the process and the process is moved to the new group.
We are now getting these frequently and its becoming time consuming.
This got me into trouble by many process stewards, and I had to restore several processes back to the proper previously published versions. I won't be using this feature again until there is either a configuration item to turn it off or it's changed permanently.
Ivan