<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>question HR Articles that need Legal to Review in Knowledge Management forum</title>
    <link>https://www.servicenow.com/community/knowledge-management-forum/hr-articles-that-need-legal-to-review/m-p/3556388#M258</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If there are certain HR articles that need the legal team to review them (i.e. Leave of Absence) vs. for example, Facilities which does not need a legal review, how would you set that up? I'm thinking the following:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. An HR knowledge base where when the author hits publish, the legal team will get a notification to review and once they approve it will then come to the KM team to review to make sure it meets the style guide/article approval checklist.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Another HR knowledge base where once the author hits publish, it just goes&amp;nbsp;to the KM team to review to make sure it meets the style guide/article approval checklist.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is that the best method? Any other suggestions? I could name them something like HR (with legal review) and HR (No legal review). Something like that. Any suggestions/advice is greatly appreciated.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 13:11:02 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>drosenst2</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-06-09T13:11:02Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>HR Articles that need Legal to Review</title>
      <link>https://www.servicenow.com/community/knowledge-management-forum/hr-articles-that-need-legal-to-review/m-p/3556388#M258</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If there are certain HR articles that need the legal team to review them (i.e. Leave of Absence) vs. for example, Facilities which does not need a legal review, how would you set that up? I'm thinking the following:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. An HR knowledge base where when the author hits publish, the legal team will get a notification to review and once they approve it will then come to the KM team to review to make sure it meets the style guide/article approval checklist.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Another HR knowledge base where once the author hits publish, it just goes&amp;nbsp;to the KM team to review to make sure it meets the style guide/article approval checklist.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is that the best method? Any other suggestions? I could name them something like HR (with legal review) and HR (No legal review). Something like that. Any suggestions/advice is greatly appreciated.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 13:11:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.servicenow.com/community/knowledge-management-forum/hr-articles-that-need-legal-to-review/m-p/3556388#M258</guid>
      <dc:creator>drosenst2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-09T13:11:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HR Articles that need Legal to Review</title>
      <link>https://www.servicenow.com/community/knowledge-management-forum/hr-articles-that-need-legal-to-review/m-p/3556641#M260</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would keep this as a single HR knowledge base unless there is a separate audience, access, ownership, or lifecycle requirement that justifies a second KB.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The publish process is configured at the knowledge-base level, so I would create one custom publish flow for the HR KB and add conditional routing within the flow:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Articles requiring legal review: Legal approval → KM approval → Publish&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;
&lt;P&gt;All other articles: KM approval → Publish&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would recommend using a dedicated field such as &lt;STRONG&gt;Requires legal review&lt;/STRONG&gt; rather than relying solely on category. Categories are helpful for organizing and finding content, but the legal-review requirement may eventually apply to selected articles across multiple categories.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If the Knowledge Management KCS Capabilities plugin is active, the &lt;STRONG&gt;Governance&lt;/STRONG&gt; field may also be worth evaluating. It distinguishes experience-based articles from compliance-based articles, such as policy or legal content that requires tighter control.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Separate KBs would be more appropriate if the articles require genuinely different access controls, contributor groups, owners, or lifecycle rules—not only a different approval path.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 22:58:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.servicenow.com/community/knowledge-management-forum/hr-articles-that-need-legal-to-review/m-p/3556641#M260</guid>
      <dc:creator>MaryG</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-09T22:58:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

