Improve the archiving functionality
We have had a replacement of one of our key legacy systems with many of our processes now irrelevant as a result. The task of cleaning up has proven to be time consuming, frustrating and impossible to do within the application. I appreciate the concern about safely archiving the processes, but not at the cost of losing engagement of our staff with irrelevant processes now residing in our Promapp and being included in searches, reporting and dashboard.
Features that would improve the archiving process from my point of view are:
1. Allowing the user to archive a process while linked to other processes by graceful unlinking while highlighting the gaps
2. Allowing the user to archive a process group with all its processes and links to other processes and documents all at once (instead of each process underneath separately, first having to remove all the links)
3. Allowing the user to choose the method of archiving; either item 1 or item 2 above
4. Removing the ‘To Do’ items from My dashboard when a process is archived (this currently only happens when archived process is permanently deleted)
5. When archiving a process return the user back to where the archived process was stored i.e. to archive the next process in the process group
We have started the requirements for improving the archiving and deleting functionality and will keep you posted on timing but I expect this to land in the current calendar year.
It would be great when a process is archived to be able to keep the information of owner/expert and attached processes without them being active links that could in future need removing.
This way if you ever need to look back on the process you will see exactly how it was at the time of use. It also would cut down on maintenance as you would no longer need to remove the links so often.
Laurie V commented
In addition, remove from 'Review List' when archiving. Right now you get stuck in a loop if you archive before reviewing.
You should be able to archive 'in progress' unpublished maps.
In attempting to archive 'in progress' maps that have not been worked on in 12 months, I have discovered that even when links to other maps have been removed, the map cannot be archived.
All the maps that contained the links have to be published before the map can be archived even if some of them are not ready for publishing (!).
The work around is
Remove all the links
Publish ALL the maps
Export an earlier version of the maps you don't want published
Archive ALL the maps
Import the earlier version of the maps you don't want published
This is not practical.
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.
Henrietta Farr commented
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.
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.
Voted for other Archiving suggestion and should have added my vote to this one instead.
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.
AdminKerry (Admin, Nintex) commented
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.
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.
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 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
Emma White commented
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 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.
Adam Brown commented
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?
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.
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.
We are currently prioritizing this issue for 2H 2019 focus. I will update the status once we know timing.
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.