Workflow That Stalls Under Load
A publisher routes every asset upload through a custom 'Legal Review' workflow. The workflow has a participant step assigned to a group of 6 reviewers, followed by an OR-split that either publishes or sends back for revision. During a product launch, 1,200 assets were uploaded in two days. Reviewers report their inbox shows hundreds of items, some items appear assigned to people on vacation, and a few assets were published without legal sign-off. The workflow uses a static participant group and default inbox notification. There is no SLA or escalation configured.
1. What caused assets to be published without legal sign-off, and how should the workflow be redesigned?
Read the worked answer
Likely causes of unsigned publishes:
- OR-split misuse. An OR-split with a publish branch can be taken if any branch condition is met; if the publish branch has a weak or missing condition, it can proceed without the review step completing. The split should be an AND or a conditional split that requires the review outcome.
- Participant step with group assignment. A participant step assigned to a group means any member can complete it; combined with a large backlog, someone may complete items without proper review, or the step can be completed by an unintended actor.
- No escalation. Items sat indefinitely; to clear backlog, people may have force-completed or the process may have timed out into a default path.
Redesign:
- Make review a required step: conditional/AND split; publish branch only when review outcome = approved.
- Use assignee selection (dynamic participant chooser) or explicit assignment rather than a broad group, and exclude vacation users.
- Add timeout/escalation on the participant step (escalate to a lead after N hours) so items do not rot.
- Add SLA reporting on workflow instances.
- Consider batching/auto-triage for 1,200 uploads rather than one-by-one review.
Judgement: a workflow that can publish without the required step is a control failure; fix the split logic and assignment before adding capacity.
2. Reviewers say their inbox is unusable with hundreds of items. What should the practitioner recommend for triage and throughput?
Read the worked answer
The inbox is a queue, not a triage tool. Recommendations:
- Filter and assign. Use workflow inbox filters and explicit assignment so each reviewer sees only their items. Dynamic participant chooser can distribute load.
- Prioritize. Add metadata (launch priority) and sort/filter by it; route high-priority assets to a dedicated reviewer or a fast-track path with a lighter check.
- Batch. For 1,200 assets, consider grouping similar assets into a single review task (multi-asset workflow) instead of 1,200 individual instances.
- Escalation + SLA. Timeout steps move stale items to a lead; SLA dashboards show backlog age.
- Capacity. Six reviewers for 1,200 items in two days is ~200 each; that is a staffing/process problem, not just a UI problem. Add reviewers or a tiered review (auto-approve low-risk categories with audit).
Judgement: distinguish a tooling problem (inbox filtering/assignment) from a capacity problem (volume vs reviewers). Both need addressing; neither alone fixes it.