Optimize Workflow Process for Review Markup and Approval

[Michael.Kremp]

A) Purpose

The purpose of this feature request is to establish a review process that is lean, efficient, and user-friendly—both to understand and to submit. Furthermore, by consolidating all documents to be reviewed and approved into a single stack within one module, the process becomes more streamlined and transparent. The review and approval workflow forms a core element of document management within a CAPEX project. Without the optimization of this process capex will lose much efficiencies.

B) Detailed description of the proposal
In the context of the ACC platform construction and plant management, all documents must undergo both a collaboration phase (markup process) and a formal approval process. To support this, an efficient and transparent workflow is required.

C) Today’s setup in ACC to get a document from review process to an approved document:

Within the remark process everyone can adjust and manipulate everyone’s markups or issues.

After review process is done all the markups will be incorporated in a new Version 2 document an updated in ACC on the same file stack as Version 1 .After the Upload of Version 2 is done all

the markups and the issue are still visible.

If you do not delete all markups and issues you need to publish the document to get an approved Version, otherwise you need to delete all the markup and close all issues on version 2.

To publish a document, it must first be submitted for publishing. During this step, the document is “transferred” into the Build module and stored as a file.

Current Challenges:

• The process is not lean: it requires multiple steps and involves manual cleanup.
• Markups and issues can be modified individually by each reviewer, which compromises consistency.
• There is no single source of truth, as files are dispersed within one stack.
• Traceability is limited, since all files are stored in a single location without clear version control

1. D) Idea:

Within the review process, all markups and issues should be editable only by the reviewer who created them. No other reviewer should be able to modify or delete markups made by others. Once the workflow has been finalized, all markups and issues must be locked to ensure that no further changes can be made, not even by the original author.

After the review process is completed, all notations will be incorporated into a new Version 2, which will be uploaded to the same file stack as Version 1. The markups and issues from the previous version are not copied or inherited into Version 2. Instead, the approver can compare the two versions by using the change comparison functionality within the ACC tool.

As the last uploaded Version shows the approved document there is not need of publishing or to delete, close  any remarks or issues.

This idea of the new workflow setup should enable:

• Personal annotations that remain unalterable by third parties.
• Structured task management to ensure a clear, effective, and traceable review process.
• Single point of truth, One stop shop

• Easy executable , transparent workflow and file storage
  
  

General Requirements

• After the review and approval workflow is completed, document attributes should be automatically set. In case of a rejection, these attributes must also be removable or modifiable as needed. The final version of the file must always be stored in the same folder and batch as the originally submitted document, ensuring consistency and traceability.
• In addition, it would be highly beneficial to automatically generate an approval cover sheet once the workflow is finalized. This cover sheet should document the entire approval process, including all approvers. The workflow should remain flexible by allowing reviews to begin with one or multiple reviewers and to apply to one or multiple documents in parallel. Furthermore, the option to add reviewers or approvers during the ongoing approval process would be highly recommended, as this would significantly increase the efficiency and practicality of handling workflows.

The rough requirements for the single objects are described as below:

1. A) Reviewer

1	Reviewer should edit only their own comments	must
2	Reviewer should not allowed to change their comments After review Workflow is finalized	must
3	Reviewer should be addable , deletable, modifiable	must
	ff

1. B) Attributes

1	Attributes should be set, change, deleted during the workflow steps , especially at the end	must
2	Attributes should be customizable	must
	sub.

1. C) Documents

1	Markups should be not copied from old version to new version (should not be inherited)	must
2	Documents need to be stored on the same stack as they original have been stored (Visibility only the newest is seen, but file historical can be visssible)	must
3	Cover page, once document is successfully approved a coversheet should be as a “first or last” page added to the original document. The cover page shows  Workflow specific data and reviewer / approver data, Name and electronical signature	must
4	Workflow comments, not on document (e.g. not markups) if rejected or general comments needed on workflow level	must
5	Workflow comments on document level (e.g. not markups) if on a document level comments needed – one document is approved another rejected	Optional
6	Documents to be stored in one place -  “Single Source of truth	Must
7	Versioning  available	must
8	“Stamps” , “signes “after approval to be on reviewed document	after
	sub.

General

1	Review should see there personal work task out of workflows Independent if a “Role” is linked to a workflow or	must
2	Delegation if someone is out of office	Optional
3	Each Document need to be traceability. E.g. Who  was within the approver process , who signed when	must
4	Overall WF list within a project with all the different information should be exportable for reporting and tracking purpose	must
5	File report :  all Files & metadate& Folder & subfolder .  download in “Excel”	must
	sub.

TX to all who supported me getting this request together , Michael

[judith_Nowack]

Wichtiger Hinweis: Bei jedem Prüf- oder Freigabeprozess muss auf einem Plan das Prüf- bzw. Freigabedatum sowie der Name des Prüfers bzw. Freigebenden eingetragen/gestempelt werden.