I don't know who wrote the article but I really appreciate the ideas in it.
I tend to organise and name my Karbon process templates by work-type but have found that there is some confusion and colleagues can't find them quickly. The idea of organising them by frequency of tasks hadn't even occurred to me.
How do you guys organise your Karbon templates? Any top tips or suggestions would be much appreciated.
Hi Nancy Thanks very much for your kind words—so glad you found it valuable.
Here’s a link to the article for any other Community members who’d like to take a read.
And personally, I find organising by work-type makes the most sense (keeping in mind that I’m a marketer, not an accounting professional ).
This is a work in progress for us.
If we have templates that are for a specific work flow but differ depend on package for example we have made the workflow type the first part of the title, the team can then search based on workflow or package
But since these usually get pushed through from our proposal platform these are not the templates that the team is not usually looking for.
I am curious how other firms are identifying templates to make them easy to find. I would love to see the option of grouping them when we set up the templates (feature request made). I am thinking about Internal, Client Facing, Training, Vision... - like I said WIP, still thinking this through, we have a lot of templates.
For the underlying description or training on a process that may be stored in our file management system we link that document to the description of the Karbon Work Order or if appropriate right in the task, that way the team can just click on the link rather then after to search any further.
Thanks Victoria, lots of great ideas.
I like to add related forms/documents directly into the templates too.
I'm slowly building up quite a stack of templates which is the goal of course; more templates does make it more challenging to find the correct one quickly though.
I've been organising my templates by work type mostly. I have started grouping processes that involve a common governing body, such as ASIC here in Australia.
or the Tax Office for work outside of standard compliance work
I like your idea about grouping them too.