+2
In Review

Enhancement to "download approval flow" that was recently released

Diana Fournier 5 months ago in Digital Asset Management updated by Eric Teitsma 5 months ago 4

Please open up the "hidden" workflow definition for the new Download Approval Flow to allow us to create rules (or modify output ports?) so if an asset is of type <A> it goes to Team 1, type <B> goes to Team 2.  This is used for global companies like ours where legal teams have different considerations by region.  A business use case would be headshots of an employee from Germany needs to go to the EMEA Legal Team (and only them) where other regular requests would go to a pool of US Legal.  



DAM Orders / Sharing Workflow Configuration

Hi Diana,

Two part answer here.

1) The thought was that you could manage this type of control within the configuration in the DAM instead . You are not limited to only one download action, you can create multiple "download approval actions" on the DAM side.  So the thought process was you could create one "download approval" action that is configured to send the approval to Group A and that action is displayed for the required assets in classification X or Y.  Then create another download approval action that is configured to send the approval to Group B and that action is displayed for the required assets in classification Z.  So you still only have one download approval option on any specific asset and control which one displays on the asset through configuration so that the approvals are routing to the right group.

2) It is on our roadmap to add an option in workflow template configuration (probably a new option in Status Actions but still TBD) that will allow you to generate a "download approval" notification for the assets on a step in the workflow that would go to the user(s) identified.  This would allow customers to develop their own "download approval" workflow processes that could have more complex rules and routing.  This would then allow a customer to configure a "download approval" work request that users could trigger from the menu in the DAM.

However, the thought behind the status action option was for more complicated flows like for example, if you needed two different levels of review for certain assets so the process needs several separate review tasks to be completed or you need also update metadata on the asset during the process, etc.

Even if option 2 was available, to solve your use case above, I would still recommend that you use option 1 to solve for that rather than creating a complex workflow and a work request process.

Let me know if you have questions on this but hopefully you can make option 1 meet your needs now.

Please note the "Region" criteria in my example would be a Custom Field, not Base.  Thank you!