The process is
Author
Peer Reviewer makes sure content is correct
Manager makes sure it is what the organisation should be saying
There are between 4 to 6 people in each author/peer review group and 2 people in each managers group.
The workflow I am looking at implementing is two stages:
2 people from author/peer group must approve, then
1 manager must approve.
Works fairly well except when A edits and applies for approval:
"Asset Changes Approved" email goes to B, C, D & E
followed a minute later by
"Workflow Approval Required" email goes to B,C, D & E
when B approves A work an
"Asset Changes Approved" email goes to A, C, D & E
Is there any way to not send the first of those three emails? Because the current three will confuse people.
Or is there a better way to do workflow in this case?
The - author - peer reviewer - manager - process is fixed.
The author/peer group are based around subject expertise, so A can review B, C and D work on an authoritative basis as B could to A, C & D.
Ideas, Suggestions?
Do all have access to a group email address? You could create a dummy user account in the CMS to be in all stages of the workflow and set its email address to a group inbox. Then get everybody to configure their email packages to ignore the CMS emails…that way only one set of emails ends up in an inbox and individuals can maintain them from there.
Also have a look at making some form of dashboard pages for all the staff to use. Using asset listers you can display only items with the correct status that they need to deal with (eg managers probably don't need to see anything in Under Construction).
Ended going with a 3 step workflow process and limiting the emails sent via "Messaging Service Configuration"
Process goes:
Editor changes page and applies for approval
(this is first stage, which only needs one member of author/peer review group to approve, so it is now complete and fires off an email to all members of the author/peer review group)
The editor then goes to the workflow screen, enters the reason for then changes and applies for approval. Then a peer reviewer should have a look at the content and hopefully approve. ( this completes the second stage, which needs two members of author/peer review group to approve, now it fires off an email to all members of the manager group).
A manger then checks the work and approves (the third and final stage, one member of the manager group, must approve. This them triggers an event to make the asset live and a email to the author/peer review group to let them know the asset is live.)
Should work a lot better, with only one email per approval stage. Disadvantage is 2nd manager or peer reviewer does not know task completed.