Jump to content
samwoo

Lifecycle Process Document Manager queries

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I think there may need to be a subsection for all Applications on the forums for Lifecycle Process queries?  Anyway this post is in relation to Document Manager.

  1. Can we have Lifecycle Processes trigger automatically? For example 1 week before the review date?
  2. Can we have the ability to send an email using an email template to the document owner?
  3. Can we have the ability to send an email using an email template to the document owner's manager?
  4. Can we have an Email Templates section in Document Manager for the Lifecycle Processes and have fields relevant to the Document Properties?

Thanks,

Samuel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @samwoo

Thanks for the feedback will have a look at activating document email templates and automating the lifecycle launching and see what we can do, will get bakc to you when have more details

Thanks

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrevorHarris many thanks for getting back so quickly.

The benefits of the Life cycle Process feature is so great, especially for documentstion as as it is extremely important...

Yet because we've never found it easy to get people to review documentation, this will hopefully change all of that by getting the manager involved officially. 

I know that most documentation are owned by someone, however my team (as opposed to a single person) own documents as well.

Could we have the ability to add "organization owner" (for lack of better wording) to a single document, alongside the main "owner" and be able to use this information in Life cycle processes?

Basically it would be If organisation owner is set then set review task(s) to that team, otherwise set it to the owner. 

In terms of the manager, we can still use the "owners" manager to authorise. 

Thanks, 

Samuel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 2:26 PM, samwoo said:

I know that most documentation are owned by someone, however my team (as opposed to a single person) own documents as well.

Could we have the ability to add "organization owner" (for lack of better wording) to a single document, alongside the main "owner" and be able to use this information in Life cycle processes?

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has had a look at my query?

Thanks,

Samuel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@samwoo Sorry for the late response, possibly if we had custom fields on the document (which were available in the lifecycle processes) this could help?.  This is something I would like to add, however I'm not sure we will be able to do it in the next few months

Thanks

Trevor Harris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@samwoo

Thanks for your interest in using these lifecycle workflows.  Conceptually this is a great idea, but during implementation and our own use we have found quite a lot of limitations with what is possible, in the main there is no easy way to implement things like scheduling etc.  In essence, workflows are transactional by nature, and while being able to invoke these ad-hoc on documents that are in a steady state, it really needs some higher order lifecycle management, and many of the things you are asking for is around these limitations, but that would add a whole new level of complexity which would be overkill for documents probably, the effort of setting everything up would probably not be worth the returns unless you were working with 1000's or 10s of 1000's of documents. 

We are looking at how we expand on this concept in the GRC application where the complexity is really justified, we will see what we can learn from that and what is possible to bring back into other apps. 

In the meantime I would strongly recommend not to put too much effort into Lifecycles on documents at this time as this functionality is very likely to change substantially during the course of this year and we might not be able to maintain functional compatibility.  If its too late and people are using it in anger as is, then we will probably need to lock the functionality as-is and branch towards a revised implementation. 

Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...