Add a 5th Role
I work in a very large organization. The default 4 roles is not enough for my organization. We are having to combine roles to keep the number to 4. Given we have a lot of turnovers, we have rookie team members who make mistakes executing processes. The additional 5th role is needed to correct mistakes made by rookies in SmartBear. When I say rookies, it also includes managers and technical leads who have no experience with the document material and can prematurely move the review to the next state when it isn't ready.
required participants to complete review
It would be great if this setting in the roles area could include a selection of 'all the participants with this role' we have a role that is required. However sometimes we need to have 2 (or more) people with this role participate. There is no way to configure the tool to say everyone on the review with this role needs to participate.
ITAR/Export Control
Would like the ability to identify and restrict access to Reviews containing Export/ITAR restricted data. Recommend having the option to identify a Group as ITAR restricted or non-ITAR, which would then activate a corresponding field for each user in the group. User accounts should also allow this property to be selected independently from the group. An "Export Restriction" field would get added to Reviews and when that field has "ITAR" selected, it prevents any users with the non-ITAR property on their account from accessing the review.
Allow Admins to close reviews
Bringing back an old thread - I'd like anyone with Admin privileges to be able to move a review to Completed. We've had several instances where someone has left the company, or is on extended leave, and their roles is required to move a review to completed. On solution is to shuffle roles - while that will allow a review to close, it's "not right". If the author of a document is out sick - yes I can assign the author role to someone else - but now you are fudging the review records in order to get the closure. Later when an auditor comes in we have to give a song and dance as to why the roles in the review don't represent the actual roles the staff members have. We shouldn't need to alter the records to move things forward. The review is more than a record of defects - it's a record of who did what, and we shouldn't need to compromise that to get around a technical glitch.
Not allowing removal of participants without confirmation
I would like to suggest that removing of names can't happen without a confirmation. This is especially true when the removal of the name will allow the review to be completed prematurely. If there was a confirmation screen that popped up that said "Are you sure you want to delete this person even if the review will complete at this time, and in order to re-open the review you will need the assistance of an admin?" We have had several recent examples where a participant was removed from the review before the replacement participant was added, and the review ended prematurely and had to be re-opened by an admin. The proper sequence would be to add the new participant before you delete the old participant. The review would not end in this sequence because the new participant would have to approve of the review before it completed. People do not know that they need to add before they delete. The confirmation screen would not prevent this from happening in all cases, but it is better than not knowing that they will cause problems if they delete first. We are open to other suggestions, if someone has a better way of avoiding the situation.
Ability to disable automatic changes of review progress on Action Items list
Our workflow is such that we want to clearly define when control of a review moves to a different participant. For example, I create a review and annotate it, and then move it to the inspect phase. The review progress then appears in my action items list (and on the system tray window) as "Waiting for comments". However, as soon as the reviewer makes their first comment, it switches back to Perform, which is a nuisance since frequently the reviewer is still working on the review - they may find that a later file answers a question they'd asked, so they go back and delete an earlier comment, or edit one. The result is that I start responding to a comment which then gets updated or deleted by the reviewer, who isn't expecting me to have resumed work on the review since they haven't yet clicked "Wait". It would be nice to have an option whereby Collaborator will leave the review progress as it is until the "Active" participant(s) click "Wait" to wait for further activity. This way, the reviewer can add/edit/delete their comments, approve files etc until they're happy that it's ready to pass back to the author, and only then have the author notified that it's ready for them again. Similarly, when the author then responds to the comments, the same functionality would prevent the reviewer from being asked to respond to the comments until the author had finished writing them. This would not need to prevent participants from participating at any time, as it is very useful to have this ability - it would just prevent one person's changes from causing other participants to be notified and the review progress on their action lists to change.
Log all activities of users and admins in Collaborator
In a Large enterprise there will be multiple admins. To track who has done what, Admin should be able to get the log of all users activities. Like, Disabling and Enabling review templates, Disabling and enabling users or adding users etc. In simple terms a log should be generated for every activity happens in Collaborator through all the ways. ex: GUI, API, Collab client, Thirdpart clients, Commands etc.
