We have power users who create great no code solutions. However, creating solutions is not in the user's job description. So when they leave, they are not always replaced with someone who has the same aptitude.
We have some ideas but I am interesting in hearing how other people handle this issue.
This is a just a governance issue.
On some customers, this issue is solved having a helpdesk with those technical skills that a regular user does not have.
On a different governance, all those changes are only made by a specialized support service on that tool.
This last approach is profitable because on that specialized support service , they can work with a set of well known best practices and governance on all your company customizations, and not leave it to the discretion of users.
Every governance direction has pros and cons.
As a partner, these are the situations we have to work on :
- customer lost its NINTEX power user
- customer doesn't want to keep NINTEX skills internally
- customer has some NINTEX skills, but not enough for a specific complex application
- customer still have a NINTEX team but needs to be sure best practices are used
- an IT team has created more and more NINTEX applications, but doesn't know how to manage applications lifecycle
I'm converting this to a discussion from a question as I don't think we're going to have a single correct answer, but rather a number of approaches. No sense marking one "correct" over another, I think. Carry on...
We have the same issue with power users creating great no code solutions and then leaving and not being replaced with someone who has the same aptitude.
We're fortunate enough that we have a dedicated SharePoint staff with Nintex Power Users on the team, so the affected Team can submit a ticket to the SharePoint Team for help. The request is assigned to someone who basically tears apart the workflow and if there aren't notes on the workflow actions they add them, so that in the future it is easier for one of their team members (or if the original team gets a Power User again) to understand how the workflow works and how to tweak it for new requests.
This goes back to the need to document on the workflow and preferably some kind of back up documentation about exactly what the workflow does and why. This has been a running conversation in multiple entries, including the January 2017 Mission and Document Your Workflow - Ideas and Tips from the Nintex Community.
To be honest we don't have this very often (because I find once a workflow is "stable" it is hardly ever revisited - even when the user leaves). So the way we do it is this:
In our company we call this EUC (End user computing)...which is basically frowned upon
Luckily EUC's were an issue before Nintex was introduced. Now as per governance policies we do not allow end users to create any Nintex solution. They always need to go through IT. We have a very competitive SharePoint and Nintex team internally to take care of such requests.
Some benefits of doing it centrally:
1) Best practices are always employed while deploying a solution.
2) Since the same team works on all solutions there is more standardization possible. This makes any new comer pickup things very quickly.
3) No abrupt server performance issues. Our SharePoint admin is almost always consulted when deploying solutions. So no surprise CPU spikes !
If you don't want any users creating workflows, I am surprised you have Nintex. Developers can easily write SharePoint Workflows or custom code. Nintex does make it easier but the real goal of Nintex is to make workflow accessible to everyone.
Gartner and Salesforce have put out a lot about Citizen Development programs.
I will say this will vary from company to company.
We look at Nintex as just another development tool. I agree it provides simplicity and power in the hands of the end users...but hey their "Power App" becomes IT departments headache once it starts failing .
if we assume only 5% of our employees create workflows we will have to face 100s of undocumented "Server busters"!
i've yet to encounter a Nintex workflow that could have a significant impact on our servers. By default, Nintex inserts a pause in every loop that prevents an infinite loop from monopolizing server resources. Plus novice users don't know what a loop is. So they don't use it. Of course, you could also make the loop action unavailable to prevent loops.
Occasionally, we have to troubleshoot workflows.
When workflows malfunction the most common issue is unwanted or incorrect email.
There was a governance talk at InspireX that recommended an appropriate balance of letting trusted users write workflows that are reviewed by IT. This scales much better than IT writing everything.
By by the way, I am a farm and server admin. I also did app dev in C++, Java and .NET for many years. I am 100% behind keeping fully trusted solutions out of the farm. Give me SPAs and the app model any day. I want a stable farm. With a little bit of governance and configuration Nintex is completely safe and provides a huge ROI.
I can tell we see this differently. Do what you think is best for your servers. I wish you all the best.