Hello guys, i have an issue. i am trying to create a workflow that when the initiator submits the form, it creates a task to lets say a manager, the manager now has the ability to assign different task to other 3 different PMM. 1 of the pmm rejects and the other 2 approve, i want the Manger to be able to assign another task to the pmm who rejected it with out ending the workflow. below is a pic of my design. if you have any question , would be happy to answer asap.
a small view of all
This is a very interesting situation. None of the “task” actions actually allow you to get information on who voted what. The chosen behavior of the action calculates the answer before any output you get. When I built a simplified version of your workflow I couldn't tell which user approved and which rejected, only the sum outcome. One thing that might work but I haven’t actually proven it is to build a for each loop with a collection of users and assign a task one at a time and capture the approve or reject that way. Then you will know who voted what. The issue I see is you can’t assign in parallel so it could take a long time to complete the loop depending on the number of users. Hopefully someone else has a better idea.
To give you a better view of my issue, here is the status flow....
When 2 people are assigned the task, when one person rejects, it does not follow the pattern of the workflow as designed. instead it just stops at the task. ans updates status to Approve. i want when someone rejects that task, i want it to follow the reject pattern of sending a notification on who rejected it and also creating a task to the PM to resend the task back for approval. to the same individuals. Thanks
Based on your question, I would look at using a state machine possible here and having your approvals as part of a different state.
Once the item is submitted it goes to the manager who then assigns it out (this is state one)
State two would be to assign the task and receive the approval/rejections and notify the manager if one of person rejects
State three would be for a new task to be assigned to the person that rejected from state two. (you can carry that through using a workflow variable) If the item is task is rejected again, you would need logic to handle that in that state
State four could then be to close out the item and mark it as approved or rejected.
Hope that helps.
Thanks Eric real quick, in the state 3 process the one with workflow variable, i am having trouble with that, any help you can lend me would be appreciated. how to connect the variable to get the rejected names. as a matter of fact constructing that whole state (3) would be nice.
Hi Eric, this what i constructed and i noticed that the reject outcome for the Assignee approvals is not following the change state that sends it to re-send approval state, that step has refuse to occur for some reason and i was wondering what must have gone wrong?
It seems you should be able to reproduce the issue with a simple state machine with one multi task. Is that correct? If so, can you build a simple state machine wf and post it here? I will try it on my end. Also, are you using SP2010 or SP2013?
Sorry for the delay. I have run a few test and the challenge that I am running into is grabbing the approvers based on the individual task. I have been able to get the task ID and am looking at a easier way to query the task list to grab that response for rejection and bring the name back. My test data isn't that good which may be part of my challenge as well.
Thanks guys, i am using sp2013, hear are the correction i made
what is happening , is that after the state leaves the pm approval state, it goes to the assignee approval state. the flow of when it gets decline is what i want to follow, but what happens is that it keeps looping at that stage . so for example, when the assignee declines the task, it should go back to the pm who then gets to make adjustments and resend it back to the assignee for approval. but what keeps happing is the system keeps repeating the assignee approval state.hope this helps. Thanks