# Invitation to users wanting improved workflows **URL:** \ **Category:** News & Announcements\ **Created:** [September 7, 2022, 8:16am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259 "2022-09-07T08:16:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2022, 8:16am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/1 "2022-09-07T08:16:11Z")
We know that the current workflow implementation is simplistic, and given that there are quite a few topics here that relate to workflows, e.g. > [@Proper workflow: States, Transitions, etc](https://community.fibery.io/t/proper-workflow-states-transitions-etc/1626): > > Workflow should consist of States and Transitions. States have Transitions. Transitions have Guards (conditions and permissions) and target States. Transitions can be triggered via a user action (e.g. button) if they have the required permission, or automatically if the condition formula is true. A Role has Permissions on an entity based on the State of the entity. Groups can have roles. Users can have roles, and they can belong to groups (inheriting the roles of the group). > [@Workflow Extension Enhancements for Advanced Dev Teams](https://community.fibery.io/t/workflow-extension-enhancements-for-advanced-dev-teams/1266): > > Hi guys, I really like the fact that in this early phase of Fibery, we already have a concept of “Workflow”, thanks to the extension, that has some nice handling that you don’t see in other Nocode, where generally you have to use a single-select Property in a Field to get Workflow. In Fibery we have an element of Conditional Formatting already built in if you think about it with “done” items both “graying out” on boards, and showing as “strikethrough” when referenced - terrific work with those… > [@Conditional Buttons to transition entities through states](https://community.fibery.io/t/conditional-buttons-to-transition-entities-through-states/451): > > I wasn’t sure if this is should be a question to the community about use of buttons, or a feature request, but what I wanted to talk about was using buttons as a means to easily transition through States. This is a great feature of Jira, and some other tools. What I’d really like to see is to be able to set up workflows so that you are only allowed to move to a certain state if conditions of the current state are met, such as a field that requires a result of a software test, is filled. Also,… …it seems like there are plenty users who would like more sophistication. Without making any promises, I would like to invite users to get in touch if they have specific use cases in mind that cannot currently be achieved in Fibery. This may allow us to develop templates that might be useful, as well as helping us understand what functions/features deserve the highest priority for any ‘native’ implementation. If you’re interested, and have time, please DM me and we can arrange to chat through your needs. ---
**Author:** ![Yuri\_BC](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/yuri_bc/32/8803_2.png) [@Yuri\_BC](https://community.fibery.io/u/Yuri_BC)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2023, 1:03pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/2 "2023-07-04T13:03:49Z")
Thank you! Just wondering of the coming upgrade of the permissions system will include to assign permissions to change workflow states? ---
**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2023, 4:27pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/3 "2023-07-04T16:27:49Z")
The current ‘contributor’ level of permission allows users to have different access depending on whether they are assigned or not, so it is already possible to create workflow setups that allow you to dynamically control who can manipulate an entity based on it’s state. For example, you can write an automation that updates the assignee field based on a state change, and then users who are ‘contributors’ will be enabled/disabled accordingly. The new permissions model will be at least as powerful as the current one. ---
**Author:** ![njyo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/njyo/32/923_2.png) [@njyo](https://community.fibery.io/u/njyo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2023, 8:27am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/4 "2023-07-17T08:27:33Z")
+1 on the conditional buttons to support more workflows 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CDPK](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/cdpk/32/7135_2.png) [@CDPK](https://community.fibery.io/u/CDPK)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2023, 10:01pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/5 "2023-07-17T22:01:40Z")
For us a concrete workflow would be one where we cover both logistics and troubleshooting/returns on a device. I.e. a device can only be in one state, but both are separate flows. (e.g.: logistics: setup → prep → registered → shipped; troubleshooting: return request → incoming → in review → repaired.) Abstractly its the modelling of multiple exclusive statemachines/flows in a single field. ---
**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2023, 10:21pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/6 "2023-07-17T22:21:40Z")
> [@CDPK](#): > > multiple exclusive statemachines/flows in a single field. In your example, is it not satisfied with a single state machine that looks like this: setup → prep → registered → shipped → return request → incoming → in review → repaired → shipped (where the second ‘shipped’ indicates re-entering the flow at the point of the first one, meaning that the troubleshooting states are just basically an optional loop) ? ---
**Author:** ![CDPK](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/cdpk/32/7135_2.png) [@CDPK](https://community.fibery.io/u/CDPK)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2023, 10:26pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/7 "2023-07-22T22:26:19Z")
Well it depends, in our use case any issue on setup / prior to delivery for client could bump the device to the service inbox. So it’s not just a single transition, and the more complex the flow, the more this can happen. A lot can be covered if we could specify transitions in the workflow. ---
**Author:** ![daoud](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/daoud/32/11021_2.png) [@daoud](https://community.fibery.io/u/daoud)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 6:05pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/8 "2025-02-10T18:05:28Z")
This thread is about 18 months old, but I can’t find one more applicable for my question, so here goes… Is it possible to model workflows with conditional decision logic; e.g., ![Fibery Workflow Example 20250210](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/fibery/original/2X/7/734d7edf168f8744f0c3926fa6d2875a757f8804.png) I have added [https://fibery.io/templates/advanced-workflow](https://fibery.io/templates/advanced-workflow) to my Workspace, but can’t quite work out if what I would like to create is possible. These types of workflows are tricky to build without a graphical designer UI to help. This prior post ([Tools to describe business procedures - #5 by mgiammarco](https://community.fibery.io/t/tools-to-describe-business-procedures/1949/5)) asks about design tools whereas I’m asking about how to actually implement a design. ---
**Author:** ![Matt\_Blais](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/matt_blais/32/1464_2.png) [@Matt\_Blais](https://community.fibery.io/u/Matt_Blais)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 7:11pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/9 "2025-02-10T19:11:46Z")
Building a general-purpose, open-ended flow system like this in Fibery is technically _possible_, but not really _practical_. I have in fact done it, but it required so much complexity, abstraction, workarounds, compromises, etc. that I ended up with a system that was cumbersome, brittle and difficult to use. 🙁 ---
**Author:** ![Renato\_Carvalho](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/renato_carvalho/32/11001_2.png) [@Renato\_Carvalho](https://community.fibery.io/u/Renato_Carvalho)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 10:26pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/10 "2025-02-10T22:26:43Z")
I’d like to highlight [Pipefy’s](https://www.pipefy.com/workflow-automation-software/) workflow management as a strong reference point. ![Employee-Onboarding-2](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/fibery/original/2X/0/0d629e7b91f625a0cfc395b09ae1a517579c9001.webp) While their interface and performance could be modernized 👴, their process workflow implementation is excellent. We can visually see the entire process in a board like view, we can have conditional fields and conditional steps, required fields and automations to assign different owners depending on the task, as well as features to establish specific SLAs for each step. I notice Fibery is making positive strides in this direction with recent feature releases like Custom Views, Required Fields, Groups, and Group Permissions. These additions create potential for: - Implementing step-specific views that adapt based on the process stage - Configuring different required fields for each workflow step - Automating team and individual assignments based on process stages These capabilities would significantly enhance our workflow management, allowing for more structured and efficient processes while maintaining flexibility. It would be valuable to consider incorporating similar workflow capabilities into our community platform. ---
**Author:** ![B\_Sp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e8c25b/32.png) [@B\_Sp](https://community.fibery.io/u/B_Sp)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 1:48am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/11 "2025-02-11T01:48:43Z")
Yes agreed something like what Pipefy does would be very useful in Fibery! ---
**Author:** ![Lee\_Denny](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/lee_denny/32/8158_2.png) [@Lee\_Denny](https://community.fibery.io/u/Lee_Denny)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 10:02pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/12 "2025-02-11T22:02:04Z")
This suggestion sounds really useful ---
**Author:** ![gb\_carbone](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/gb_carbone/32/5345_2.png) [@gb\_carbone](https://community.fibery.io/u/gb_carbone)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2025, 7:16pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/13 "2025-03-05T19:16:30Z")
I haven’t read all replies but count me in as someone who thinks this needs immediate attention. I’ll be happy to provide feedback in any way needed. Just not too sure of what is wanted and where/with whom this should be done. ---
**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2025, 8:43pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/14 "2025-03-05T20:43:22Z")
For those who are interested, it is possible to combine [self-relations](https://the.fibery.io/@public/User_Guide/Guide/Self-relations-328), [required fields](https://the.fibery.io/@public/User_Guide/Guide/Required-fields-393) and dynamic [relation filters](https://the.fibery.io/@public/User_Guide/Guide/Relation-Filters-and-Sorts-177) to create workflows with constrained transitions. To do so, you should create a database of states, and establish a many-to-many self relation, so that you can define for each state, the possible ‘next states’ (and by implication, the ‘previous states’). ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/fibery/original/2X/c/c17e587073a8efad099b603214c1b35efd85a43e.png) Then, for the database which needs the workflow, create a many-to-one relation to the state database, and ensure that it is a required field: ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/fibery/original/2X/8/829d4529d5609f6e5274dccb3b9b1999e2c25d07.png) Once this is set up, you can set up a relation filter on the state field so that the only suggested options are those states whose previous states includes the current state (i.e. show only the states which are the possible next states): ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/fibery/original/2X/3/3ca6eb9f400d90c988875fd1964c9685e8fd3180.png) With this all done, whenever a user is selected a state, the options will be limited to the ‘next states’ as defined in your state database: ![firefox_kd7GppLHwt](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/fibery/original/2X/c/c3a305760ea50f6793585d265a12d97d3a2b3924.gif) Feel free to set the [icon](https://the.fibery.io/@public/User_Guide/Guide/Icon-Field-193) for each entity in the state db to make things prettier 😉 * * * Point to note: relation filters only apply to changes made via the drop down, so if you have a board view with states as columns, there is no restriction on what states a user can drag and drop the items between. ---
**Author:** ![jean1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/jean1/32/1669_2.png) [@jean1](https://community.fibery.io/u/jean1)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2025, 7:16am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/15 "2025-03-06T07:16:11Z")
I’d like to chime in with [https://bpmn.io/](https://bpmn.io/) ([GitHub - bpmn-io/bpmn-js: A BPMN 2.0 rendering toolkit and web modeler.](https://github.com/bpmn-io/bpmn-js)). Basing workflows on a proven standard would be awesome for tapping into existing knowledge and tooling. ---
**Author:** ![mkervo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/mkervo/32/11450_2.png) [@mkervo](https://community.fibery.io/u/mkervo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2025, 8:12am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/invitation-to-users-wanting-improved-workflows/3259/16 "2025-05-31T08:12:36Z")
+1 for BPMN ! We are currently modeling a lot of our business process using bpmn. it would be great to have the process steps as entities somehow. And someday maybe, this process run/execution hosted and tracked within fibery.. 😉 Right now the solution I see, could be to: - use the basic shapes (which are “close” to the BPMN notation standards) - Insert the entity manually within each symbol Processes & steps are some data businesses are struggling with. Right now it doesn’t fit really well within fibery, or maybe I didn’t see how. Btw, this is also an argument in favor of the “graph view” I’ve seen mentioned 🙂