Looking for insights on implementing multi-level defect approval workflows that don’t kill team velocity. We need parallel approval paths for different severity levels, conditional routing based on defect attributes, and bulk action capabilities for managers reviewing multiple defects.
Current challenge: our sequential approval process creates bottlenecks. High-severity defects need both technical lead AND product owner sign-off, but they should approve in parallel, not sequence. Medium severity only needs technical lead. Low severity auto-approves.
Also concerned about performance as our defect archive grows. Anyone implemented archive strategies that keep approval workflows fast? Here’s our current workflow structure:
Lisa, Alex - good points. How do you handle bulk actions for managers? Our product owners often have 20-30 defects queued for approval and reviewing each individually is painful.
Don’t forget about workflow timeout handling. For parallel approvals, configure timeout rules that escalate to next-level approvers if primary approvers don’t respond within SLA. We set 48-hour timeouts for high-severity, 5 days for medium. Timeouts prevent workflows from stalling indefinitely when approvers are unavailable.
Parallel workflows are key. Configure your approval-workflows module to trigger multiple approval tasks simultaneously rather than sequentially. For high-severity defects, create two parallel approval branches that both must complete before transition. This cuts approval time roughly in half. We saw velocity improve 40% after switching from sequential to parallel approvals.
On the archive strategy question - critical for workflow performance. We implemented age-based archiving that moves defects older than 2 years to archive storage. Active workflows only query non-archived defects, which keeps approval queries fast. Archive rules run nightly during low-usage windows. Make sure your archive strategy preserves audit trails and allows retrieval when needed for compliance or analysis.