• State Suggested Answer
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 46 subscribers
  • Views 1400 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Project Server: flexible workflows?

Andreas Ljungström

Hello,

in Project Server (PS) the four phases are fixed. AFAIK, you can only change the label of a phase.

Do you have flexible workflow definitions, i.e. being able to add any given number of phases to a workflow on the roadmap?

As a project manager, it would be extremely useful to have full flexibility when defining the workflow. Anything from a one-step translation phase to a multi-step workflow should be possible. It should be possible to delete a workflow step from a workflow definition as well. Preferably even while a process is running.

Thanks,
Andreas
Rate translation
×
Suggest better translation
×
  • 0
    Hi Andreas,

    Thank you for your feedback

    The ability to add/remove phases is loosely without a high priority. When customers start using Project Server they understand and appreciate the flexibility it offers. I.e. just because you have four phases, does not mean you need to use them, as you can "jump over" phases as well as backwards, forwards and re-assignments to mirror more complex flows.

    We often hear that customers appreciate not being forced into a specific workflow with GroupShare, as not every project is the same and things sometimes go wrong and you need to be able to react.

    So it's a topic we are watching, if more and more customers ask for it, we will obviously increase the priority in the roadmap.

    Thanks,
    Luis

    Best regards,
    Luis Lopes | Principal Product Manager | RWS | (twitter) @Luis___Lopes |

  • 0 in reply to Luis Lopes
    Hi Luis,

    thanks for your reply. I agree that not forcing users into a specific workflow is extremely important. That was in fact the point I was trying to make: it should be possible to have anything from a one-phase workflow to a freely definable multi-phase workflow. This is also preferable for reporting options. If you have a pre-defined four-phase WF, as today, and your process in reality does not consist of four steps, then the volumes in the respective phases and the statistics will not reflect the real process.

    Same for jumping back in a workflow - this will mess up the real statistics/volumes, wouldn't you agree? If you go back from Review to Translation, then you are meddling with the real translation volumes. From a reporting perspectives, it would be a lot "cleaner" if you could add linguistic phases to reflect each individual step in process - and report on them individually.

    I really hope that you will not only watch this topic of WF flexibility, but start thinking about putting it higher up on the roadmap. It would be a great selling point for the project server.

    KR,
    Andreas
  • 0 in reply to Andreas Ljungström
    Hi Andreas and Luis

    we agree with Andreas, that Groupshare/Studio need more Workflow customisation, but phases in Studio need tho be then in sync with GS.
    We need 5 or 7 steps in translation process and is impossible to jump back and forth with phases. There are different confirmation levels for each phase (editor setup in studio). My translators then produced some unnecessarily double translations and also false confirmation statistics.

    regards Mitja