Allow ways to keep prior approvals during a review and allow some field edits to not impact approval
Options
Dana Frost
Member Posts: 10
The most common issue with holding a review is that the approves get frustrated when they need to "re-approve" items that have already approved due to minor changes in the item. Often these changes are not important to the review or approval at all.
For example, if a moderator completes a number of very minor layout, spelling, or grammar changes, every users who had already approved that item (did not even notice the spelling mistake) must re-approve that item because it has been modified after the date of their approval.
Additionally, you cannot excluded fields of an item from impacting the approval of the items even if you do not include those fields in the review "Center Reading/List View".
This causes so much churn, it discourages the moderator from republishing fixes until they get all the feedback. And when they do, many people need to "re-approve" and get frustrated.
IDEAS:
- For every review, do not make "prior approvals" based on the modification date of the entire item. It needs to be field based.
- Allow the moderator to decided exactly which fields "require approval" so that if there are status or workflow fields, they will not impact the prior approvals.
- For every edit made during a review, the moderator/editor should be able to make a call whether the change will require "re-approval". That way, only those who have not approved an item will need to approve it while those that already approved it are not required to approve it.
- Approves can still see all "changes" even those that do not require re-approval in the email that gets sent out. The review center should be able to show you a highlighted "diff" view of the version you previously work ed with and the current version.
For example, if a moderator completes a number of very minor layout, spelling, or grammar changes, every users who had already approved that item (did not even notice the spelling mistake) must re-approve that item because it has been modified after the date of their approval.
Additionally, you cannot excluded fields of an item from impacting the approval of the items even if you do not include those fields in the review "Center Reading/List View".
This causes so much churn, it discourages the moderator from republishing fixes until they get all the feedback. And when they do, many people need to "re-approve" and get frustrated.
IDEAS:
- For every review, do not make "prior approvals" based on the modification date of the entire item. It needs to be field based.
- Allow the moderator to decided exactly which fields "require approval" so that if there are status or workflow fields, they will not impact the prior approvals.
- For every edit made during a review, the moderator/editor should be able to make a call whether the change will require "re-approval". That way, only those who have not approved an item will need to approve it while those that already approved it are not required to approve it.
- Approves can still see all "changes" even those that do not require re-approval in the email that gets sent out. The review center should be able to show you a highlighted "diff" view of the version you previously work ed with and the current version.
0
Comments
-
Dana, thanks for sharing this idea and providing so much context around it. I think some processes require the entire item to be reviewed again if anything has changed, but I wouldn't be surprised if the scenario you present is more common. I think the idea of the field-based approval will resonate with others.0
-
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled review center improvement.
Here's a review center improvement:
Allow the review publisher to choose which reviewer needs to re-review
a new publish to Review Center. Currently, ALL of the reviewer approvals are automatically removed when a new publish has
been made to Review center. Unnecessary time is
spent re-requesting and waiting for reviewers to re-approve a publish, even when only a minor
spelling error was corrected.0 -
Hey Nick, thank you for sharing this idea. I think the solution you present makes a lot of sense and am sure other customers would like this ability. I merged it with Dana's Idea because they reflect the same need.0
-
Thanks for the feedback, Kristina.0
-
Maybe a popup could be added that appears before a moderator publishes a new revision that looks something like this. The review moderator may decide if he/she needs everyone to re-review, or just a select individual.
This offers some more flexibility to the moderator that can reduce time in reviews.
0 -
That would be cool! I know our next step with Review Center is enabling relationships to be visible, so hopefully this is something we can consider after that work.0
-
That's also good feedback about Review Center enabling relationships. This was actually something that was mentioned today in our team meeting as a desired Jama feature. I am glad to hear that it is already in process.0
![[Deleted User]](https://us.v-cdn.net/6038113/uploads/avatar/n7EF890B5-D9F7-4291-AA41-A0C4FDD5A3D9.JPG)
