Your comments

This would be another added benefit for Novartis.  However, it would need to be dynamic so that if there was a task currently assigned to the Activity Owner that also was updated.

I would prefer option 1. Allowing Project Titles to be blank and having the ability to require a user to provide appropriate information.  They also need to be able to modify their titles within a DCT on a task prior to the review.  Right now, Super Users and System Admins have to do this for them due to domain rights and it incurs an additional Expense with 3rd party support. 

For Option #2 - I NEED this to be added when uploading Attachments.  That's where combining fields and forcing naming conventions would add more value for Novartis.

In the above screen shot it looks like SAAS is missing features that we have today in P10.  We need to have the flexibility to define our own columns in the Project Teams

My required use case is for notifications which are configured and send out through status actions on a task, but agree that base notifications that are issued with Reviews would also be a benefit. 

I'd just add that we would likely want to suppress the original distribution list and be able to target the recipients when re-sending.

Kathy - we also discourage it, however reality is we see it happen.  Suggested functionality is to try to make the process easier for these "real life" scenarios.

However, I fully agree that a feature flag would be helpful to allow customers to have the ability to choose if this feature is useful in their business.

For the base project manager role, users need the ability to mass update the name in this token.  This requires manual updates for thousands of projects when users move into new positions or leave the company.

This would be a great addition and minimize customizations by current customer base.

I would like to have the ability to click a hyperlink within a document from within the annotation viewer.  Currently users have to open the file in the web browser to test if hyperlinks are linking to intended location, which adds step and navigation when reviewing materials

I'd like to understand this item and where it falls on the road map.  This is something that holds tremendous value, and having the ability to copy and paste annotations within a document or between different documents would improve the overall review process and save a significant amount of time.

Is it possible that comments be defaulted to an OPEN status, bypassing the DRAFT status?  When facilitating meetings, users are encouraged to keep their tasks in process, however we find that users are opening their comments in advance of the meeting.  We'd like to be able to configure the tool to allow us to default the system to automatically OPEN comments instead of DRAFT requiring effort to OPEN.