We require the ability to archive or delete many processes or documents at once.

This feature is not planned for in our near term roadmap at this stage, however we'll continue to monitor interest, and update the status of this idea as our plans change.

This feature is not planned for in our near term roadmap at this stage, however we'll continue to monitor interest, and update the status of this idea as our plans change.

This feature is not planned for in our near term roadmap at this stage, however we'll continue to monitor interest, and update the status of this idea as our plans change.

Do we have an ETA for this feature? It is getting harder and harder to manage legacy Promapp processes so system maintenance is not being done.

Yes please!

Provide a tree structure showing an organisations processes and how the are linked to one another, including ones that are not linked. Or at least a report to show process dependencies.

Hi Caroline, you might have to put a support request in for that one as I'm at a loss of what to do for this. just a thought though, did you check your inputs and outputs to make sure it wasn't linked in there (my people tend to link in those areas back to the same process (creating a useless loop) - weird)

Hi Alison,
Thanks for your suggestion, it worked that time! I now have an unpublished process someone created 5 years ago and I cant' archive it, again, because of the dependencies. The process was linked to itself, and even though I removed the link from the process and it disappeared from the dependencies list, when I hit archive I get a message saying it can't be done because there is a dependency (to this same process).
Any idea will be highly appreciated. Thank you!

Hi Carolina, I removed the process in the procedure itself and this removed the process from the dependencies. However, it that didn't work, check the other process that is linked in the dependency, as that process may have this process listed in there - does that make sense??

Hi all, how can I remove a link to a process from 'Dependencies'?
The only options available are 'Allocate as input/output' but when you do that, it is still not removed from the Dependencies.
I deleted the links from all the related processes, but removing the Dependencies seems impossible.
Thank you

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.

Thanks for the suggestion. This isn't on our roadmap right now. But this will be made easier with our archiving improvements which allow archival without removing process links. For now we'll monitor voting on this idea from other clients.

We have a process group named 'Promapp Training' and all practice maps are created in that group during training courses.
Whilst that resolves the having to locate them issue, it'd still be much better if I could bulk delete them rather than individually, so I'm voting for your suggestion :)

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.

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.

Love this - I am beginning to document the configuration for our annual Compensation and Performance Experience in our Workday HCM for Human Resources - lots of processes are actually repeated at different points in the life cycle...love to conveniently know where they are via push button report! Thanks for suggesting.