Hi there. I described the system I use for my work in my last blog. In this post, I would like to explain the results of using the system to improve business.

You can visit here for a description of the system: How the Facebook Posting Task Grows with Members (System Chapter) 

1. Activities to improve the task delivery App

Now, I will introduce some improvement activities in the “App Settings” of the workflow system that I have ever built. I summarized three improvements below.

  1. Misconception between the intention and that of the “Approver”
  2. History of past drafts
  3. Setting automation of Subject more smoothly

1-1. Misconception between the intention and that of the “Approver”

I primarily had to improve the misconception between my intention and that of the “Approver”, because the Approver had a different understanding of the “Completed Description” data item. Although I created it with the intention that the Approver creates a description for a blog that will be posted on Facebook, the Approver misunderstood the rules and usage. The following two points were mainly misunderstood.

  • The alternative proposal was described in “Completed Description”.
  • The member in charge of writing articles was instructed to correct and complete the description by the Approver in the Description section.

When I consulted my supervisor about these points, they replied that the Approver doesn’t seem to understand the rules of this task.

To solve this I took three steps to improve these points as in the following figure.

As shown above, I changed the name of the data item in 3 steps: “Content Posted on Facebook” < “Facebook Post (Final)” < “Completed Description”.

From the phrase “Completed Description” in Step 1, by inserting the word “Facebook” in Step 2 I think it became more concrete and easier to understand what to enter.

Furthermore, in Step 3, I changed it to “Content Posted on Facebook” so that you can recognize that it is to be posted by the Approver. As for conveying business rules to the Approver, I added a comment in the Note section which states “*Please enter only the sentences to be posted on Facebook. (Comments should be entered in Message Column) or just enter “under consideration” if you send the draft back”.

There was a slight improvement in Step 2, but I saw some people write an alternative proposal even when it was sent back. Therefore, in Step 3 I decided to add in the Note that alternative proposals should be entered in Message Column. Consequently, the business rules come to take effect by regularly improving what I have noticed.

1-2. History of past drafts

The “History of past drafts” allows you to view the past submitted drafts when rewriting an article after the “Approver” has sent it back for review.

Let me explain the reason why I created it. It is because I thought the returned proposal might contain a lot of valuable elements for reference that I could use when I was stuck creating a draft.

For a while, each time a draft was sent back I decided to keep a record of the past drafts in the Message Column, but it took time to check it due to other comments in the column.

Then, two questions came to my mind.

  • Wouldn’t it be more convenient to prepare the similar Discussion-type Data item as the Message Column and post the history there?
  • Wouldn’t the risk of forgetting to copy and paste to the Message Column be avoided by handling it automatically?

I consulted with my supervisor after considering these things.

The answer was to use the Service Task (Data Assignment). Service Task (Data Assignment) can automatically update not only the business data with specified values or the evaluation result of an expression but can update multiple data items in one automatic process. Moreover, I recognized that the Discussion-type Data item can not be a target for a Service Task (Data Assignment). The only option was to prepare a String-type Data item instead of the Discussion-type Data item in order that a history of past drafts is automatically saved.

I explained how to set up the Service Task (Data Assignment) in detail in the following URL.

Reference: M227: Auto Executing Data Binding, Arithmetic Operations

Referring to the URL above, I set up the Service Task (Data Assignment) in the Settings window that appears by double-clicking the Task icon.

I have configured the following:

  • The date and time when the draft comment was submitted.
  • Each time a draft is sent back, it is added to the history of past drafts.
  • A new history item always appears at the top of the list.

As a result, the display is as shown above. It facilitated the comparing of a new draft with the “History of past drafts”, and you can delete sentences or add them from a past draft making it easier to correct the new drafts.

1-3. Automatically Setting the Title more smoothly!

Actually, I’ve used the automatic function of the “Service Task (Data Assignment)” for other cases.

I created a system to include Post Date + Content + (Blog title) in the Title by adding the String-type Data item (Blog Title) and setting up the Service Task (Data Assignment).

This system was advised by the Approver. Before then, I would manually type “landing page” as a rough title in the subject. So I didn’t know which blog it was unless I looked at the details, even though I knew the day the content was created.

That made me worried about forgetting to manually input as Post Date + Content + (Blog title), and copy and pasting it could become inconvenient. Therefore, I decided to automate it.

After that, the following benefits were given:

  • There are fewer mistakes or omissions when entering the subject.
  • The subject makes it easier to recognize the time and date that the content was being drafted.
  • I can recognize the contents at first sight because they are set up to be embedded in the subject, and won’t be confused with past blogs when you create a new draft.

That’s a huge achievement. This has made it possible for me to concentrate on thinking about the drafts.

2. Summary

This was my first time to use Questetra BPM Suite and the rules were often not grasped by the Approver and depended on how I defined the name of the data item. In the task of posting a description of the content of blogs on Facebook, I’ve not grasped the standpoint of the Approver yet, but I expect that there are still some improvements to be made that I have not yet encountered.

I realized how subjectively I saw my writing every day, even on other tasks. Through this task of posting a description of the content of blogs on Facebook, I could understand that communication with other people is important during the transfer of tasks.

It was hard work for me to get ideas from the Approver and my supervisor to expand my improved image in App Settings and to think of concrete improvement methods, but I feel that my understanding of Questetra BPM Suite increases little by little. I’m still working on this task. Sometimes I make good drafts, and then the next week I feel the depth of the task.

I think the App will continue to be updated in the future, so I might write a third chapter. In that case, I hope you will read it.

References

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: