nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Idea: Option to save Signed multi-doc workflow agreements Separately (instead of Combined)

David_Wieseneck

Currently, when a document is signed and archived, it is saved as a combined PDF to one record type.

Please give us the option to save as different Record Types (depending on the Paper source perhaps?)

This could be similar to how the workflow saves the Draft documents separately.

Ideally the system would tag these documents as related records in the repository.

This would allow for robust reporting.

CleanShot 2022-01-10 at 10.41.58@2x.png CleanShot 2022-01-10 at 10.42.57@2x.png

@max_henkensiefken - What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Status: None

Comments

max_henkensiefken

Hi @David_Wieseneck ,

that's exactly right. I mentioned this to @Wyeth_G the other day. In reality, an end to end business process can include several documents and therefore record types in one workflow and it is not practical to reenter all of the Counterparty details, etc. Also, when these sub-processes happen in parallel, we cannot lookup information from other workflows.

I think a good technical solution for this would be a new question type that allows you to launch a workflow from within another workflow and a mapping process that allows you to pass field values of the sub-workflow(s). Like we have for related record lookups and to create related workflows.

Also, it would be great if we could store different workflow documents as different record types.

Cheers,

Max

David_Wieseneck

Love this idea

@Steven_Yan - please consider this 🙂

Malaika_Roemer

I also support this request. It would be nice to have some flexibility when there are multiple documents submitted in a workflow, during the review, signature, and archiving stage.

Our workaround has been adjusting the documents during the review stage to ensure only what needs to goes for signature is included, prior to adding the signature tags. Then after archiving, we go back into the document, break it out, and manually upload the separate documents to the repository. This last part can be a bit timing consuming because all the metadata needs to be manually added and the records linked.

Lani_Smith

Following as this is something I would like to see. We need to have MSA's and SOW's as separate record types, because they often have different start and end dates, however, we often negotiate them in parallel. It would be nice to be able to have 2 record types in the same workflow. Currently, we negotiate and finalize them under an MSA workflow, and then break out and upload the SOW separately to connect them and add that different metadata which is time consuming.

Michelle_Montano

Following as very similar situation to Lani's. We have an MPA package that includes various schedules depending on Product Segment as well as an Order Form and SOW with different start/end dates.

Peter_Berkowitz

Following this as well – having an easier process to save multiple repository records (for cases where a single workflow contains multiple document types) would be extremely helpful to our team.

Peter_Berkowitz

Hi @cai_gogwilt – curious whether you're able to share any information about product updates that address the requests discussed in this thread. And/or is there more information we can share to help IC understand this use case/need? thank you!

brodriguez

We'd like this too. Currently we bundle SOW #1 as a part of the MSA. But that means SOW #1 goes into the Repository as part of the MSA and its record type. then SOW #2 goes in as SOW record type. the metrics are off, the search net has to be wider to make sure you see SOW #1

Sophia_Song

Hey Community, hear y'all on this thread!

Our team is doing multi-doc research into how you would like to manage these contract families in Ironclad and we'd love to talk with you this week.

You can book time here: Calendly

David_Wieseneck

love it thanks @Sophia_Song !

Jessica_Perri

@Sophia_Song any updates on this?

Christine_List

@Sophia_Song Any updates on this front? It has been asked in multiple ways - we need to be able to archive separate record types from a single workflow! Please!:)

Sharon_Donnigan

@Sophia_Song Adding myself to the list of still-hopefuls who want functionality to apply > 1 Record Type when multiple documents get generated from a single WF. Relatedly, and as @David_Wieseneck originally noted on this thread, Ironclad treats multiple documents generated from a single workflow as separate files throughout Review phase . . . the option to store them in the same manner would go a long way. (Then, in the land of rainbows and unicorns I like to visit, I'd also have the option to archive them as their own unique Record Types.)