I would like to know the best practices for achieveing the following -
We are using the Proposal Request Type and there are about 10 Requests associated with it, This spawns a project,all Projects are in Progress as of now, and Time is logged on to these projects( Not Proposals) using Time Management. We would like to modify the workflows(reducing the number of steps to about 50%) and rename the existing Request Type.
My concerns -
1. What are the impacts of renaming the existing Request Types.Is it safe? 2. If we modify the existing workflow and delete the steps, we would loose all numbering(of presant sequences) and have a lot of hanging steps( which seems like a mess).
Would it be a better idea to create new Request Types and corresponding Workflows, and use them, with the add on of maintaining the old ones( for the purpose of loggin time)
We are currently going through the same thing as you so I thought I would put in my 2 cents.
We have decided because of all the changes we need to do, we are going to create new workflows and request types. We are currently reviewing the options of migrating all the projects from the old workflows to the new ones so we do not have to manage both, but we plan to talk with professional services about the logistics first.
I do not believe you can change the name of a request type once it is 'in play'. I do not this is not possible for workflows and workflow steps. We found out the hard way through the migration process.
You cannot delete a workflow step, once it has been used, as long as it is linked to a project still in the system whether is is completed, cancelled or active. The link is still there. You can delete the link to the previous step. You don't want to break the link between the old step and the one it advances to. If you have a project on that step, it will leave it hanging and there is no way to make it active again.
Renumbering the steps is also not a good idea, and again, you will find this when you try to migrate.
Lisabeth, this is all based on what I have experienced and our current knowledge of the system. Hope it helps. If there is anyone that can add more clarity to this that would be great, before we jump into our major enhancement project ourselves.
You can rename the request type, but you also have to make sure that any validations that have SQL referring to it by name in the predicate get updated. This can help:
Select * from KNTA_VALIDATIONS where VALIDATION_SQL like '%[request_type_name]%'
Another place to look for similar code is in Rule SQL. Also any HTML code in custom menus referring to the request type name. And you might need to update the "Project Process Request Type" in your project type settings to the new name as well.
Have you given up yet? ;)
As Carolyn suggests, you cannot do this via migration...you have to manually make the name change to the prod (and Dev) request type. But we have successfully done this ourselves.
On the workflow, if you don't want to start from scratch you can just create your new steps & flow inside the old workflow in parallel and change the starting step when you're ready to use the new steps. This way you can preserve steps you want to keep, etc. You can also create transitions between steps so existing requests "jump" to the next step in your "new" workflow. When all the old requests transition away from the old steps, just disable them.
However, if you're building a less complicated workflow, I think I'd just create a new one and send all new requests there.
Hi, Lizabeth. If you renam the existing Request Types Anything terrible will not occur. If you modify the existing workflow that can be problems. It is better to create new WF. To add a new WF to request it is possible on any step. An obligatory condition for new WF it "Reopen Step". To chnge WF set in request header type "driven process" - editable and visible. Try, should work