Process Review - Reviewed It vs Publishing Changes
Currently for an 'Out of Date' process:
If no changes are required, the Process owner/expert will go into their "My Reviews" page, click "Reviewed It" and provide a comment like "No changes required".
If changes are required, the Process owner/expert will go into the process, make the necessary changes and get it published. However this still required the Process owner/expert to go back into "My Reviews", click "Reviewed It" and provide a comment (which will be the same comment as the comment left for submit for approval).
Suggestion would be to:
a.) make the review date be (re)calculated from the latest publish date
b.) have the 'Out of Date' process disappear once changes have been made and published (I guess this would happen if a. has been implemented)
Thanks for this suggestion, I can certainly see why this would be valuable. While not on our near term roadmap I have opened for voting and we will continue to monitor.
Henrietta Farr commented
It would be great to have a checkbox option to "Update review date when approved" when publishing a new version (submitting for approval). Publishing to change the process owner/expert or similar changes wouldn't warrant a change to the review date as noted below but is quite annoying having to either manually override the review date (not ideal for new or inexperienced users) or review a process that may have been updated very recently.
Updating on this feedback, not sure if it was implemented or if the feature has always been there and most of us had no idea.
It seems like we can auto push the review date back another x (default value set) months by having 'Explicit Reviews' turned OFF in Admin > Configure > Process Editting > Enable explicit process reviews (Default: On) > OFF
I had no idea until recently.
Noala Degasperis commented
I have often thought it would be appropriate for the review date to be advanced each time a process is re-published. Howeve,r re-publishing isn't always due to changes being made to the process. eg When roles are merged or global process owner/expert changes are made the process is often re-published but the process has not been reviewed, so advancing the review date in these instances isn't appropriate.
I do agree though that it seems onerous for Process Owners and Experts to have maps they've updated in the last 12 months still appear as requiring review.