[Icathian]

I think the issue is that parallel workflow is a bridge too far for the current legal profession. They do sequential and they like it. A tool that makes the sequential workflow better will gain more ground than one that tries to change the process whole hog.

[jimmygrapes]

I have worked on several hundred of these types of contract processes in the last few years, and you are absolutely correct: sequential is where it's at for these situations. I have, however, encountered a few situations where time was an issue so I had two or three different versions out to different parties at the same time, and then merged the proposed changes where possible and sent out alternate versions where the changes differed. That process was... not fun, and could definitely use a more coherent workflow than manual merges or Word's built in merge features.

[fredguth]

The anecdotes told here suggest that most think their work is sequential, while because a lot can happen asynchronously, hell situations happen all the time. Do you agree?

[fredguth]

But the workflow only "looks" sequential, isn't it? In many stories told here a user may have inadvertently revert clauses to old versions and this can be missed. This happens because it is also an asynchronous work.