Human tasks refer to specific steps or actions within a workflow that requires specific human intervention, decision-making, or input. These tasks are generally integrated into automated workflows to ensure that complex processes can be managed effectively while still taking advantage of automation for repetitive, time-consuming, or mundane tasks.

Human tasks are essential components of a workflow because they:

1. Bring human expertise and judgment into the process: Certain tasks demand human insight, critical thinking, or subjective evaluation, which cannot be effectively automated. Human tasks ensure that the necessary human element is incorporated into the workflow.

2. Facilitate approvals and authorizations: In many business processes, approvals and authorizations from specific individuals or departments are necessary. The workflow system enable human tasks and approvals to be integrated seamlessly into the workflow, ensuring that the process adheres to organizational policies and guidelines.

3. Enhance collaboration and communication: Human tasks can foster collaboration and communication among team members by assigning tasks to specific individuals, prompting them to contribute to the process or review and provide feedback on the work of others.

4. Manage exceptions and contingencies: In cases where an workflow encounters an exception or unforeseen circumstance, a human task can be used to alert relevant personnel, who can then assess the situation and take appropriate action.

5. Provide flexibility and adaptability: As business needs and processes evolve, human tasks allow for the easy adaptation of workflows, making it simple to add, modify, or remove steps that require human involvement.

Human tasks play a vital role in workflow automation by bridging the gap between automation and human expertise. They ensure that processes run smoothly and effectively while still leveraging the benefits of automation for efficiency and productivity gains.

Human Task Core Capabilities

A human task on the Hornbill platform has a significant number of capabilities that cater for various use cases and workflow requirements. By design, Human tasks are flexible in order to provide support and usefulness to the widest range of needs.

Human task core capabilities include:

• Subject and Description
• Due Date
• Time Spent / Billable
• Prioritization
• Categorization
• Start Date / Due Date / Due Duration
• Schedule / Recurring
• Expiry
• Progress
• Assignment & Ownership
• Private Tasks
• Reminders
• And more…

There are two major categories of human task.

Manually Created Human Tasks

A manually created human task, is, as its name would suggest, is a task that is created manually by an individual, in order to assign a task to someone. This can be as simple as you creating a task for yourself, such as a reminder to carry out a specific task at some point in the future. Or, as a team leader, you many want to create a task for someone else to get something done. Manually created tasks are commonly found in all sorts of applications, from stand-alone TODO type tools, or tasks in Microsoft OUtlook, or tasks in project management tools. The Hornbill platform allows you to manually create ans assign tasks to individual users or teams.

Advantages:

• Allows for greater flexibility and customization in defining tasks as and when needed.
• Enables the creation of tasks based on specific requirements or unique situations.
• Facilitates human input and decision-making in task creation.

Disadvantages:

• Will be time-consuming, and even wholely impractical, especially for large projects or workflows with numerous tasks.
• Prone to human errors, such as typos or inconsistencies in task descriptions and assignments.
• Lacks efficiency in handling repetitive tasks (beyond repetitive scheduling) or processes that follow a pattern.

Automatically Created Human Tasks

Automatic task creation, involves the automatic generation of tasks within a workflow or project through predefined rules, triggers, or conditions within an automation system or workflow management tool. This method is typically employed for processes that are repetitive and/or predictable, that are part of a larger, well-defined and specific pattern or sequence of activity.

Advantages:

• Saves time and effort by automating the creation of repetitive or predictable tasks.
• Reduces the likelihood of human errors and inconsistencies in task definitions.
• Streamlines processes and enhances overall productivity and efficiency.

Disadvantages:

• May not be suitable in all cases, for tasks requiring human judgment, customization, or unique input.
• Could lead to rigidity in task creation if the automation rules or conditions are not flexible or adaptable.
• May require initial setup time and effort to configure automation rules, triggers, or conditions.

Automatic Task Creation Origins

Automatic task creation on Hornbill can originate from numerous sources.

Individual applications, for example Project Manager will create and assign human tasks as part of running a project. These tasks are said to “belong” to the project, but are assigned to individual(s) humans for completion.

Hornbill’s workflow orchestration is the primary source of human task generation. Read more about Hornbill Workflow Orchestration. In summary, workflow orchestration is the process of coordinating, organizing, and managing various tasks, resources, and systems within a business process to achieve a desired outcome. It involves automating tasks, sequencing activities, orchestrating human activity, and integrating tools, systems and applications to ensure seamless execution and delivery of the workflow.

One of the primary characteristics of human tasks that originate from workflow orchestration in Hornbill is the notion of ‘Outcomes’. In general terms, human task outcomes refer to the results or consequences that emerge from the completion of tasks requiring human intervention within a workflow. These outcomes are typically characterized by the decisions, actions, or judgments made by individuals while performing their assigned tasks. Human task outcomes play a critical role in shaping the overall progression, flow and outcomes of a workflow. Some common aspects of human task outcomes include:

• Decision-making: Human task outcomes often involve making decisions, such as approvals, rejections, or choosing between multiple options. These decisions can directly impact the subsequent steps in a workflow and determine the final outcome.

• Quality and accuracy: Human task outcomes contribute to the overall quality and accuracy of the process, especially when tasks require subjective evaluations or assessments based on expertise and experience.

• Collaboration and communication: Human task outcomes can facilitate collaboration and communication among team members by providing opportunities to discuss, review, or share feedback on specific tasks or aspects of the workflow.

• Problem-solving and exception handling: Human task outcomes play a vital role in resolving issues or handling exceptions that may arise during a workflow, as they allow for human intervention and assessment of the situation.

• Adaptability and flexibility: Human task outcomes contribute to the adaptability and flexibility of a workflow by enabling adjustments, modifications, or refinements based on individual input, feedback, or changing circumstances, and on a case-by-case basis.

Task Outcome Capabilities

While manually created tasks are either open or complete, automatically created tasks typically have one or more outcomes. In the context of Workflow Orchestration, outcomes are a very important and powerful capability as the outcome of a task can be used to drive the direction and flow of a workflow. There are a number of key capabilities with regards to task outcomes. These are:

• Outcome Options: A human task can provide up to 8 unique outcomes, with a single outcome being selected upon task completion. These outcome choices are typically presented as 1-8 buttons for the user to choose from when completing the task. These outcomes are fully customizable, even down to each individual task if needs be, allowing the individual user completing the task to provide precise and highly relevant completion outcome.

• Required Information: Any task can be configured to capture additional information from the person completing the task. This additional information can be captured using any number of custom fields, text inputs, drop-downs and other form-style input options. Fields can be mandatory or optional, as well as enforce data quality using input validation.

• Outcome-Specific Required Information: You can also require additional information on a per-outcome basis, meaning that each individual outcome can request extra, outcome-specific information. This allows for a more granular approach in gathering data during task completion. Similar to the general task configuration, these outcome-specific fields can be designated as either optional or mandatory, and input validation can be applied to ensure data quality before the task is marked as completed. This feature provides an even more thorough understanding of the outcome-based nuances in the task completion process.

Outcomes and additional information collected can all be used by the workflow orchestrator to drive the flow and direction of the workflow’s onwards path.

Approvals

On the Hornbill platform, an Approval is a special type of human task, specifically tailored to obtain approval or authorization within a workflow orchestration. These differ from general human tasks that are completed by a single individual, Approvals often involve more than one person, can require consensus and can better deal with the complexities of individual availability and authority levels.

Approvals not only possess a more defined set of outcomes but also offer additional functionality to facilitate approval through voting, consensus weighting, or individual authority. This enables a more versatile and adaptive approach to securing approval in various situations.

In simpler use cases where an Approval only requires a single individual (or nominated delegate(s)) to complete, a standard Human Task is simpler to configure and may be perfectly sufficient. This flexibility allows organizations to manage and streamline approval processes within their workflows.

Task Ownership

The ownership of a task is distinct conceptually from the assignment of the task. In the case of a manually created task, for example, a manager creating a task that needs to be done, but will be assigned to one of their team to get done, the manager is said to be “the owner” of the task, while the individual or team who has been “assigned” the responsibility of completing the task is the “assignee” of the task. While it is often the case that the terms are used interchangeably, in Hornbill we would say the “assignee” is “assigned the responsibility” to complete the task, while the owner of the task is typically the task originator.

Task Assignment

Task assignment is a critical capability when working with human tasks as part of a workflow orchestration. On the Hornbill platform, to assign a task means “the responsibility to complete the task” has been “assigned to the individual or team”, this is not the same as being given ownership of the task. In most situations, the specific individual who should complete a task would generally not be known as process design time, or even if they were known, that person could be unavailable (for example on leave or sick) at some point in the future when a human task is created and assigned to them for completion.

Task assignment is flexible, a task can be assigned to:

• An Individual User: Any full user (see User Account Types to read more about account types) can have tasks assigned to them. It should be noted that it’s possible for a user to be a member of more than one Assignment Team and/or Assignment Role. Therefore when assigning a task to an individual user, it may be required that you assign the task to the user, in the context of a specific team or role. Why you might need to do this is discussed in further details below Assignment Context

• A Team: When a team is defined with the Alow Task Assignment option set, you have created an “Assignment Team” making it is possible for a task to be assigned to this team. Each team will have zero, one or more associated users. When associating a user to a team, there are a number of task related controls that can be applied to each user within the context of that team. See (Team User Association & Task Controls)[#Task Assignment & Team/Role Associations].

• Functional Group: When a functional groups is defined with the Alow Task Assignment option set, you have created an “Assignment Group” making it is possible for a task to be assigned to this group of people. Each team will have zero, one or more associated users. When associating a user to a team, there are a number of task related controls that can be applied to each user within the context of that team. See (Team User Association & Task Controls)[#Task Assignment & Team/Role Associations].

• A Role: It is possible to create custom roles, which can be used (if appropriately configured) for the purpose of task assignment.

Assignment Context

To accommodate the dynamic nature of organizations and the varying availability of individuals, task assignment within a workflow can be designed to cater to groups of people instead of solely assigning tasks to specific individuals. There are numerous use cases where assigning tasks to a group of people is beneficial, including the following examples:

• Delegated Final Assignment: This approach is commonly employed when tasks are assigned to a team or functional groups, allowing the team leader or manager to make the final assignment decision based on factors such as availability, priorities, and current situational requirements.

• Self-Assignment: In this scenario, team members can view incoming tasks and “accept” one to work on, effectively self-assigning the task.

• Task Re-Assignment: This allows a team leader, manager, or current assignee to re-assign the task to another team member, either within the same group or in a different group.

Many other situations may call for delegated or self-assignment capabilities. The rules governing who can perform specific actions in relation to assignment are typically set within the grouping container (team, functional group or role) and may be determined on an individual basis. This accommodates the fact that a team of people often consists of individuals who play different roles, such as a manager, team leader, and members in that group.

It is common for an individual user to be a member of multiple assignment teams, functional groups and roles simultaneously. This is where the concept of “context” becomes relevant. If the controls around who can perform specific actions in relation to assignment are determined by a combination of the container and user membership within that container, then for those controls to be logically applied and effective, a task generally needs be assigned to a user “in the context” of an assignment team, functional group or role.

A suitable example of this concept can be found in the case of team assignment. Imagine a task being assigned to the “Development Team” for completion. The business process does not specify a particular member of the Development Team to complete the task; instead, it only requires someone within the team to do so. Upon arrival to the Development Team’s queue, the team leader might be responsible for assigning the task to an individual. However, it would be undesirable for the team leader to assign the task to another team, such as the QA team. In this scenario, the team leader would be presented with limited assignment options, based on the constraints set in the team container and the team leader’s membership within that team. This ensures that task responsibility remains within the appropriate team, while still offering some flexibility in assigning individual team members.

There are many other variations on how task assignment can be applied, so it’s important to grasp the concept in Hornbill that when assigning a task, it’s possible, and quite typical, that the task will be assigned to an individual in the “context” of an assignment team or role.

Team User Association & Task Assignment Controls

When adding a user to a team there are controls that define how that user can interact with tasks assigned to that team.

When a user is being added to an assignment team, each user is given a role within the team they will be associated. Outside of tasks, this membership role serves informational purposes. The following membership roles are possible along with the task actions enabled.

Role User Association & Task Assignment Controls

TODO: … confusing area of the product currently, possibly look to get rid of assignment roles altogether, as they only add an additional layer of complexity for customers to wrap their heads around. We currently have no task options or membership role definable for roles (unlike assignment groups), so something needs to evolve/change (hopefully simplify here)…??

Defining Your Task Assignment Architecture

An essential aspect of defining your task assignment architecture is setting up an appropriate Organizational & Team Structure. A strong correlation exists between lines of responsibility and the way you define your organizational structure, particularly in relation to assignment teams. If you are deploying a specific application, there may well be special consideration needed for thw way in which the Org Structure needs to be defined. In this case, you should refer to documentation for that application to better understand how the Organizational & Team Structure will impact the way the application operates.

Here are some general tips in relation to task assignments for creating your task assignment architecture:

1. Define clear roles and responsibilities: Ensure that each team member has a well-defined role and set of responsibilities within their assignment team. This will help avoid confusion and ensure that tasks are assigned to the most suitable individuals.
2. Align your organizational structure with your assignment strategy: Your organizational structure should reflect the needs of your assignment architecture. Make sure that your teams are organized in a way that supports efficient task assignment and delegation.
3. Create flexible assignment options: Allow for some flexibility in task assignment to accommodate variations in team members’ availability, expertise, and workload. This can help ensure tasks are completed efficiently and on time, even in the face of unforeseen circumstances.
4. Establish a clear escalation path: In the event that a task cannot be completed by the assigned individual or team, have a well-defined escalation path in place to address any bottlenecks or issues that may arise.
5. Monitor and review: Regularly monitor and review your task assignment architecture to identify areas for improvement and optimize task allocation. This can help you maintain a high level of efficiency and effectiveness in your workflows.
6. Communication and collaboration: Encourage open communication and collaboration among team members to ensure that tasks are assigned and completed effectively. This can also help to foster a more positive and productive working environment.
7. Simple is always best: When implementing a new system, it’s easy to be drawn into addressing every edge case, resulting in added complexity. Our recommendation is to maintain simplicity whenever possible. Remember that your organization’s structure is not static and will evolve over time. A simpler implementation will be easier to adapt to future changes, ensuring a more efficient and flexible system.

By following these guidelines, you can create a task assignment architecture for your organization that is efficient, effective, and properly aligned with your organizational structure.