I reviewed some of the demo videos and other documentation on Workbench prior to installing it, including this helpful blog post by agentrickard:
http://palantir.net/blog/building-workbench-community-approach

However, I have not been able to find any discussion of the relationship between the maestro and revisioning projects, both of which seem to offer similar functionality:

For starters, it would be nice to have a web page that offers a comparative review -- something like the features matrix that appears in agentrickard's blog post. This could at least be helpful in choosing between systems.

I also hope that some kind of division of labor and integration can be worked out between Maestro and Workbench. I think Workbench currently offers a nicer user experience for editorial staff who are trying to USE an already-created workflow. The options for creating a new draft and changing editorial state appear embedded within the content in Workbench, whereas in Maestro editors have to click through from their "dashboard" to the content needed revisions, and then find their way back to the dashboard.

On the other hand, Maestro's graphic workflow editor seems like it has a lot of potential as a tool for defining and administering workflows (as opposed to working within a workflow that has already been defined). It seems to me also that Maestro's approach has potential utility beyond the specific use case of managing editorial workflows. For example, I work on government websites where there is often a need to handle form submissions by routing the submitted forms to one or more responders, and there isn't an easy way to set up the workflows for handling that workflow. (Example: "The job application form first needs to send an email to the manager of the personnel department, who then decides whether or not to conduct an interview and then passes the form on to the office coordinator to actually schedule the interview....")

I think it would be very cool if Maestro could become a tool for setting up website workflows in general, rather than making it a tool only for managing editorial review and approval workflows. If it could be integrated with Workbench for the specific use case of editorial workflows, then Workbench would be focused on its core strength of providing the UX for managing publication states, while freeing Maestro to focus on its greatest strength, namely its graphical editor for creating workflows.

Comments

blainelang’s picture

blainelang CreditAttribution: blainelang commented

We would be very interested in collaborating to integrate workbench with maestro. The one area that I see maestro really helping is with defining advanced moderation workflows and handling notifications. Maestro can support new task types as add on modules and the existing batch_function task type can be custom php code or pre-defined (module supplied) functions that alter content status, access, revision etc. If we wanted to have workbench specific settings and task options that are set at the individual task in the workflow editor, then it's pretty straight forward to create a new task type. Alternatively, we can create new batch functions and use the existing batch_function task type.

Sites could create a simple moderation workflow or complex, workflows specific to any condition such as content type or routing depending on taxonomy. There really is no limit to the flexibility. Included with this then is all the process and workflow moderation built into the maestro engine, moderation task history, task reassignment, escalation, notifications, metrics.

Notifications can be enabled per workflow task and the module has built in reminder notifications (ever x days) and escalation notification (notify @user if @taskowner has not completed task within 10 days). Multiple notification options that can be different for each workflow task if need. Just want a broadcast notification once content is approved - just enable it at the end of the publish content task.

Users don't have to use the task console that maestro provides, tasks can be completed programatically so the main interface for content moderation can still be workbench.

We have had quite a few clients recently asking us about using maestro for content moderation and I always ask them if they have looked at workbench. Often the reason they are looking at maestro is because they feel their situation is more unique.