Skip to main content

Hi,

 

I have three or could be more path in the future doing the same approval. Viewing the same information but different approving body.

Right now I have three groups approving 1one information. Please see snapshot below.

 

below workflow is working already but what I need is to combine the three into 1 path only since all three path are doing the same. (Approve and reject).

I need it because an approving group is increasing every week due to business direction.

 

for your guidance

.12972i784FD669AB88AFE1.jpg

 

Hi,


 


Could you provide us a bit more details about the setup of your workflow (NE Path/Core Path/IN Path)? Seeing from the screenshot, I can only guess that each task is setup to go through a set of business rules (i.e. NE Task is only approved by User 1 and User 2 while Core Path is setup to approve by User 1 and User 3) and this become tedious over time. You also mentioned addtional approvals are being added each week, i'm not quite sure what this means. Are more business logics getting introduced each week? Perhaps, you can break this approval block to a child workflow and call it via IPC event.


Thanks.

 

Basically, we call it parallel approval.

Currently, I have three (3) groups with the same functionality to approve or reject a request.

IN,PS,Core.etc is just a group name.

 

Since all of them are doing the same functionality and they only differ in group I want them to combine into 1 path instead of 3 as shown

in my snapshot. Why, because groups will increase doing the same thing. It could reach 9 groups.

 

Scenario1 - request#1 goes to 3 groups at the same time.

Scenario2 - request#2 goes to 1 and 2 at the same time.

Scenario3 - request#3 goes only to group 2.

 

Hope everything is clear.

 


If I am understanding correctly you should be able to do this with the Recipients rule. Create as many recipient groups as is necessary and then confgure the rule to determine with groups will be assigned the task based upon the request criteria.

 

Something like the following perhaps?

 

 

 


Reply