Bulk archive/delete of processes

We are in a similar situation and would also like to see this function improved. We are trying to work around the limitations with little results.

We are currently prioritizing this issue for 2H 2019 focus. I will update the status once we know timing.

We would like to add the options:
(1) to provide a comment when requesting archive of a document/process. When a user requires a process to be archived we need to know if it is to be deleted or saved for potential reference by Regulators and Audit at a later date.
(2) to create groups under the Archive folder to store those processes that are archived but are not be deleted would be awesome.

When archiving a process with documents (images, videos etc) attached, the documents are not archived as part of the process. The system forces the removal of outputs, inputs, related processes etc but not documents.

So for a process with lots of screenshots (images) that needs to be archived, we would have to archive the process then go and archive all the screenshots separately.

A check box asking if all attached documents need to be archived as well would be a good enhancement in that case, would save a LOT of valuable time.

To add to Michelle's query around the ability to create a folder structure in the Archive Folder, can we add a filter to the Archive report?

I would like to add to also make it obvious what processes are linked to archived processes and make it easy to remove those processes from the archive process by using a tick box. There has been so many times when we wanted to archive a process but couldn't until we removed all the links to related processes (inputs, outputs etc).

I would also like to add that any documents and images should be archived at the same time, when you archive a process the images and documents still remain in the library. There should be an option to remove all images and documents using a checkbox or at least archive them. Of course the person requesting the archive we need to be 100% certain those documents or images are not used in any other processes before they are removed from the library.

I would like to add having the functionality for a Promaster to bulk archive/delete processes within a group. E.g. We have a Training folder that users can create dummy/test processes in, that I would like to clean up - being able to select and archive and/or delete these processes would make life A LOT easier, and this option looks as though it would also be beneficial for the original post situation.

I would like to be able to capture the last known expert and owner of the process. The archived and deleted items reporting does not have enough visibility. we wanted to reinstate some processes that were archived when a person left and had no way of identifying their processes

We have a whole group, with sub groups that requires archiving. I would like to archive it in one function, not as separate documents or individual processes.

Where there are documents attached a simple check box to tick if it requires archive would be appropriate. In the case where a document is linked to other processes which are not selected for archive, it should default to not archive.

I have had a terrible experience with this over this week and it is a definite design fault in my opinion. Anyone actually documenting would NEVER have put in a 'feature' which does not allow archiving until all linked draft processes are published first. Understand that to unlink processes from the one which is going to be archived is acceptable. I do not want to have to publish any linked processes just to archive the actual process I am working on.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I agree it would be very beneficial to see overall process linkages across an organisation. We don't have this on our roadmap right now but we'll monitor voting on this idea.

Regarding the linkages for archiving - we do have plans to allow archiving without removing the linkages first.

Hi I have asked for a similar report where I can find out which published processes have links to other processes inside them that are 'unpublished'. This was so we could establish a priority for our next set of processes to work on. Your suggestion would cover this if it also included the unpublished process links. Thanks. Helen

Hi, just an update on this request - due to other items on our roadmap moving, improved archive functionality will be delivered much later then expected. Some smaller archiving improvements may be ready this calendar year, but the functionality of being able to archive a process without removing links first won't be until 2021.

Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience and understanding.

As a temporary work around I created a group which is only visible to promasters where i move processes that need to be archived, its not a great solution by any means but at least users cant see them.

ive found it impossible to archive processes with variations, i actually just want to delete them as they were created as a test.

Voted for other Archiving suggestion and should have added my vote to this one instead.

Love this - I am beginning to document the configuration for our annual Compensation and Performance Experience in our Workday HCM for Human Resources - lots of processes are actually repeated at different points in the life cycle...love to conveniently know where they are via push button report! Thanks for suggesting.

Obviously there are rules in place to protect processes from being archived with links connected and to automatically remove those could cause a lot of issues. For us it is rare that the whole group will be archived, usually a small number of individual processes. In saying that \, we have over 1,000 processes linked to the legacy system that could change if we were to change systems and that would be a nightmare to archive.

Would you please add to the archive feature an option to 'keep' or 'delete'. At the moment we are retaining processes in a folder within the group area, so we can retain them for audit or regulation purposes. This also means I need to set permissions on that group within the group to stop those 'retention' processes showing in the search.

At the moment we are changing the titles to include - KEEP or DELETE - this is not ideal but the only way for me to know immediately whether a process should be retained or removed completely.

It would be better practice to provide the option to add those retention processes to a group within the 'Archive' library that doesn't need lock down permissions because they are hidden from search.

We had to archive several groups following an organisation merge and it took my team of 7 a Friday night archiving party plus three of us about another day each to archive everything. Having to remove all of the links makes sense in one way but is effectively deleting the process as you can't restore it to something that makes sense.

Agree with this post. Archiving needs to be improved.
You should be able to archive 'in progress' (unpublished) maps if links in or to other maps have been removed.
I had the situation where to archive one 'in progress' map, I would need to remove the links, then publish 3 'in progress' maps, export an earlier version of 2 of them, archive all 3 maps and then import the 2 maps back again. This is ridiculous.

In addition, remove from 'Review List' when archiving. Right now you get stuck in a loop if you archive before reviewing.