Skip to Main Content
Digital Business Automation Ideas

This is an IBM Automation portal for Digital Business Automation products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Please use the following category to raise ideas for these offerings for all environments (traditional on premises, containers, on cloud):
  • Cloud Pak for Business Automation - including Business Automation Studio and App Designer, Business Automation Insights

  • Business Automation Workflow (BAW) - including BAW, Business Process Manager, Workstream Services, Business Performance Center, Advanced Case Management

  • Content Services - FileNet Content Manager

  • Content Services - Content Manager OnDemand

  • Content Services - Daeja Virtual Viewer

  • Content Services - Navigator

  • Content Services - Content Collector for Email, Sharepoint, Files

  • Content Services - Content Collector for SAP

  • Content Services - Enterprise Records

  • Content Services - Content Manager (CM8)

  • Datacap

  • Automation Document Processing

  • Automation Decision Services (ADS)

  • Operational Decision Manager

  • Robotic Process Automation

  • Robotic Process Automation with Automation Anywhere

  • Blueworks Live

  • Business Automation Manager Open Edition

  • IBM Process Mining

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Jan 29, 2024

Sweep Frameworkt - Introduce a new SystemField like "SweepStatisticLastModifiedDate" instead of using "DateLastModified" for just statistic updates

We discovered by chance that the DateLastModified of a Policy Controlled Sweeps states that the last change on that object was made on a public holiday, where nobody was working.

Policy-controlled sweeps keeps also the corresponding statistics. We discoverd that the DateLastModified matches the defined run time for the configured schedules in the policy-controlled sweep. We must therefore assume that the DateLastModified is adjusted with each run and the resulting update of the statistics. The LastModifier remains the one that effectively last changed something on the object of the policy-controlled sweep itself.

As a rule, DateLastModified and LastModifier are perceived by auditers as a coherent pair. For the auditor, it therefore states that the user named under LastModifier has changed something on this object at the said time in accordance with DateLastModified.

The LastModifier for example can therefore contain a ID of a former employee, but the DateLastModified is adjusted on an ongoing basis. In my view, this represents a state that is not correct and will hardly be understood in the context of an audit. Especially as nothing is changed in the object itself, only the statistics are updated. In terms of terminology i think this behavior is not correct. In the context of an audit, the legitimate question could arise as to why a user has made changes to an object in production outside of a defined maintenance window. Especially when the User stored under last modifier has left the company meahnwhile.

To be fair, it will not often happens that PolicySweeps will be in scope of an audit, but its allthoutgh possible and could have serious consequences for the client in the context of such an audit.

Of course, this can probably also be made clear to an auditor with appropriate explanations. But this is usually associated with additional effort because audits require evidence-based facts. It is not enough to tell the auditor that only the statistics have been updated and the last modifier has nothing to do with it. An auditor/revisor will not understand why the LastModifier is not related to DateLastModified, especially if the ID of the LastModifier is a former employee and DateLastModifed is more recent than the date on which the employee left the company.

It is certainly debatable whether the updating of the statistics should led to a change in the DateLastModifed field. From my point of view and from a audit perspective, I consider this terminology to be incorrect and would suggest to introduce a new SystemField like "SweepStatisticLastModifiedDate" to cover statistic updates, instead of updating the DateLastModified field.

Or subsequently the LastModifier is also updated during a statistics update, ideally with the owner of the sweep. I don't think this is correct terminology either, but at least it would be consistent.

Idea priority Low
  • Admin
    MATT Vest
    Feb 27, 2024

    Recommendation is to enable 'update event' auditing on the sweep policy object rather than the last modified date and user. The reason is, if multiple updates are made, you’ll only see the last update if you’re only looking at those two properties.