Skip to main content

In addition to "current state," we have started creating “system agnostic” and “future state” maps for process improvement evaluation.  With most maps existing as current state maps, I am concerned about getting further down the road and having staff 1) incorrectly referring to a future state map in search of current state and/or 2) having to navigate and maintain additional folders.

 

Please let us know if you have found a creative solution for this.

 

We are considering a few options:

  • Don’t add folders, simply add “future state” to the end of the title.
  • Adding another item to the unique reference code. 
  • Creating folders at the “top level” of our tree that are intended only for future and system-agnostic maps
  • Creating folders at the “top level” of our tree that are intended only for future and system-agnostic maps and restricting visibility to the folder.

Hey @a1nava - is there a reason you are not using the "in-progress" version of your current state processes to make future state designs?



 



If you used this method, you could avoid creating separate future state maps and simply prototype on your approved and published current state. The in-progress version is not visible to the business unless they have edit rights to that process, so that would solve your visibility problem. Once the in-progress changes are approved and ready to be made available, you simply publish that version and it becomes the new current state. 



 



If for some reason you want to avoid using the in-progress version for your future state design changes, I recommend creating folders that are restricted via permissions to certain approved users. 

Good morning @MattHSpears.  Thank you for your reply.



 



We are currently mapping across departments in preparation for an updated software.  The thorough completion of mapping, selection of a system, and implementation may take 12+ months.  I anticipate edits will be made to the "current state" during that time.  Also, many of our staff will be referring to the minimode links, which tend to show in-progress states (unless users are aware of how to toggle between the in-progress and most recent published).



 



I am leaning towards the restricted folders.  Thank you.



 



- Tony

@a1nava  Thanks Tony - that makes sense to me. Restricted folders are probably your best bet for this use case.



 



FYI - if you share minimode links of published processes (version x.0) then users will only be able to see the latest published version and not the in-progress version. 

Our Payroll area did this and created all the future state maps in a Future state group. They didn't restrict access (we don't use viewing permissions in my organisation), they simply didn't publish the maps, which kept them invisible from most staff. Anyone who was meant to see the maps (which was a limited number of staff) was given Group editor rights.

Reply


View our Community Site Map

Nintex Community Sitemap
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings