Currently, words will automatically tag from the glossary which is a feature we love until it doesn't quite make sense for the context of the process.

It would be good if you could un-tag a definition similar to how you can untag a system when a keyword is mentioned within your edit page.

When setting up form fields there is a list of options to choose from for field type. If we could have a number field type that would force numbers only input it would guide users to enter the correct type of information and cut down on fix-ups.

I would like to be able to change an activity in a process into a separate process? So if I already have the activity listed and realise this should actually be a separate process, an option to create a process out of this activity would be awesome.

Currently, feedback cannot be lodged directly against a document, it must be lodged against the process the document is linked to. While I understand the thinking that changes to documents often affects changes to processes, there is also the scenario where one document is linked to multiple processes (possibly owned by different Process Owners). In this scenario, there is a risk that the feedback is lodged against the 'wrong' process resulting in either delays to approval while correct authority is being sorted, or the feedback is approved without proper authority.

Overdue dashboard items for Promaster and Portfolio Managers show only overdue incidents and not overdue actions. If only 2/5 actions in an incident is overdue then the incident will not be reflected on the Promaster / Portfolio Managers Dashboard. Promaster's / Portfolio Managers can currently only overcome this by downloading the excel report to identify the 'real' number of actions overdue. This is inefficient for reporting to senior management and audit committee's.

Currently when a process that uses the ALL STAFF role gets archived all users get notified via their dashboard. This causes unnecessary confusion among users.
Could the notification for archived processes be changed so that only the Process Owner and Process Expert are notified, or if that cannot be done then no notification is sent.

Suggest adding user start date and phone contact to data points collected, and maybe even some open fields which could be used for the specific business needs to further categorise / filter users. Then ensure that this is reportable.

From the System Tab, Select the System Tag and be able to remove the System From Processes, eg: Top. Top is a common word that is used outside the System it is referencing and it would be made simpler if we could deselect the Process it has indexed in.

refer to customer support case "Nintex Support Case #00292307"

if the user wants to show a linked process on the map, there should be a function within the outputs tab to choose "yes" or "no" as to whether the linked process should appear on the map view. At this point, it has to be added in the procedure and also in the output tabs.

I want to be able to manage weblinks from a central location. I have a number of web based platforms in use within our organisation which we attach to processes very regularly. Ideally this would be part of a table where i can manage all regular weblinks.
Extensions of this table could include regex management and system tagging so that a system tag could be attached to the weblink automatically.
Linking from within a process would work in a similar way to document linking where i have the choice of selecting a regular weblink or creating a new weblink.

Refer to Nintex Support Case #00276547.
The Process Name in the Process List Report is concatenated with the Reference Number but in the Out-of-Date Process List Report the Reference number is not included.
Either remove the Reference Number for the Process List Report or included the Reference Number in the Out-of-Date Process List Repaort

When working with variables if you want the 'base' process to be visible to users you have to make an exact copy of it. This makes maintenance difficult as you must remember to never change the 'copy'. If the process truly is a base process, why wouldn't we want it visible to users?

Enable true document control with a check in/out process for editing of revision of documents within document library. Similar to the process for editing processes, a user with edit rights for a document could have a draft revision in process and submit for approval within Promapp. The draft would be "checked out" and visible only to the editor/owner/Promaster (just like the process with processes under draft revision in the PAW module) until approved and published. Much more like a SharePoint process for document control. This would enable Promapp as a standalone document control/editing/approval solution.

In Timeframe, when we indicate 0 minute for Wait Time, an error message appears showcasing 'timeframe information is missing, therefore total times may not be accurate'. This bug needs to be fixed

The wording in the Process change description can be very misleading. As a Promaster when i have approved and Published changes to a process that another user has made it states that the "name of Promaster" has made changes to the Process and includes that description that the user that made the changes had actually written.. Not the promaster.

Within the timeframes for investigations in the Improvements module there is currently a low, medium ad high assignment for investigations....could we add an 'extreme' to allign it with our current risk management framework?

It would be great is we could allow users to submitt processes to the LG promapp site to share processes.

Getting feedback as to the rows which are added would help understanding the outcome of using the upload function.
In Roles upload for example, a result which states 'x number of rows have been updated' it is impossible to know what bit of the data was updated, was it the 'type' or the users.