Re: Workflow performance question

Anson Hidajat — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:59:18 GMT

I'm a little confused what the "wait for" actions are for exactly? Why are they required in option one but not in option two?

If your form requires multiple approvals, there are a couple ways of doing it. When the workflow kicks off you can assign multiple tickets to approvers and then what you get all the necessary approvals you can complete the workflow. If you need a more serial approach, you can assign a ticket to the first approver when that person approves that will create a new ticket and assign that ticket to the second approver and so on. Once it reaches the end, you can complete the workflow. Hope that makes sense.

Workflow performance question

IdeasTree — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:08:30 GMT

Hi All,

I am developing an InfoPath webbrowser form with customized workflow on SharePoint 2007.

I use SharePoint designer to develope the workflow.

Basically, this work flow needs mutiple levels of approval. I have to two options to design the work flow.

Option one, work flow runs each time when the form changed. It does not have "Wait For" in Actions. It checks the value of some fields to decided which action to take. So, Workflow status turns to "complete" just right after the form changed (mostly, approved/rejecgted). When I look at the workflow in progress, it is always 0.

Option two, Work flow only run once for the whole form life cycle, from request to approval. It always uses "Wait For" in Actions for moving to the next step. It results all incomplete forms have "In Progress" workflow status.

From business perspective, the form usually takes more than 2 weeks to be completed if lucky.

I prefer to use option one since I think "In progress" workflows might have side effect on the performance. but not sure.

I appreciate any suggestions and comments.

Thanks,

David