Nintex Ideas

đź‘‹ Use this site to provide feedback and ideas for all Nintex Products. See our post on Nintex Community "Welcome to Nintex Ideas" for more details on Nintex Ideas, how an idea is handled by our product teams and more!


If you have questions about Nintex Ideas, please contact ideas@nintex.com

If you require support, please visit Nintex Customer Central

If you have a sales inquiry, please contact sales@nintex.com

Add a new idea Subscribe
Status Not Planned
Workspace Nintex Process Manager (formerly Promapp)
Categories General
Created by Anthony Kumnick
Created on Nov 22, 2019

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.
  • ADMIN RESPONSE
    Sep 7, 2022
    Thank 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.
  • Attach files
  • Geoff Wainwright
    Reply
    |     Sep 29, 2022

    This is a flaw, Kerry, not really a "scenario to consider".

  • Kerry Hiki
    Reply
    |     Sep 7, 2022
    Thanks for the feedback.
    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.
  • Pamela Lynch
    Reply
    |     Sep 7, 2022
    This is a great idea.
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Sep 7, 2022
    I agree with this suggestion.
    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.
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Sep 7, 2022
    Can someone comment on how this is going? We have had another scenario where while in development the owner and expert were changed as well as the process group. The new owner and expert couldnt see the process and the process wasnt moved to the new group.
    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.
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Sep 7, 2022
    Absolutely I agree that processes should not be auto published on ownership transfer.

    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
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Sep 7, 2022
    the same problem occurs when moving a process from one folder to another.. When you try and move a process the system wants to automatically publish the process