u/crowcanyonsoftware

We’re currently looking at migrating a set of legacy Nintex workflows and I’m trying to understand how others in practice handle the discovery phase.

In most environments I’ve seen, the workflows aren’t “clean” exports — they tend to contain years of incremental changes, workarounds, and undocumented business logic. That makes it hard to decide whether to treat migration as a straight lift-and-shift or a redesign effort.

A common approach I’ve read about is:

• Export workflows first
• Review structure/logic complexity
• Categorize into “migrate as-is” vs “needs redesign”
• Then migrate in phases based on risk/complexity

But I’m curious how this works in real environments.

For those who’ve done Nintex (or similar workflow) migrations:

• Do you assess and clean before migrating or during migration?
• How do you handle workflows that technically “work” but are logically messy?
• What usually causes the most delays, tooling, logic complexity, or stakeholder input?

Most Nintex migrations become difficult not because of the platform itself, but because old workflows often contain years of layered fixes and undocumented logic.

The smartest teams usually treat migration as an opportunity to simplify and clean up workflows first, then migrate what still delivers real business value.

Once the unnecessary complexity is removed, the actual transition becomes far more predictable and easier to manage.

I run a small team (around 12 people) and need a basic way for staff to submit support requests instead of using email. I just want something simple that shows open vs. closed requests and sends automatic confirmation emails without complex setup.

What tools are actually easy to use for this?

I’ve been working in IT support for a while and feel like I’ve hit a ceiling with my current role.

I want to move into something with more growth possibly cloud, sysadmin, or a more advanced IT role, but I’m not sure what path is actually worth focusing on next.

For those who’ve been in a similar position, what direction did you take and what helped you move forward?

What skills or steps would you prioritize if you were trying to move beyond the help desk today?

Most Nintex migrations don’t fail because of the migration, they fail because of what you find inside the workflows.

What looks like a simple move is usually years of layered fixes, workarounds, and “temporary” logic that became permanent.

In practice, the real win is treating it as cleanup first, migration second. Once you simplify, the actual move becomes far more predictable and less risky.

We’ve been running most of our internal processes through SharePoint, and over time it turned into a mix of quick fixes, workarounds, and “temporary” workflows that stuck around.

So I spent about 90 days trying to clean things up and automate some of our most common tasks.

Big takeaway: the hardest part wasn’t building workflows, it was figuring out what actually should exist. A lot of time went into removing outdated steps, simplifying processes, and getting clarity on what people really needed.

Once we did that, adoption improved and things started running smoother with fewer missed steps and follow-ups.

It changed how I think about automation, sometimes the real work is cleaning up before you automate anything.

Curious if others had a similar experience when trying to improve internal workflows?

I run a small design studio of 12 people, and right now all internal requests (tech issues, access, random tasks) go into a shared Gmail label.

It’s starting to break down, things get buried, there’s no clarity on what’s still open, and I spend more time digging than actually solving things.

I’m trying to improve the process, not just throw another tool at it. For those who’ve dealt with this, what actually helped you create a clearer, more manageable workflow?

Did you change systems, habits, or both

I’m trying to figure out how realistic it is to land a first role in IT support/help desk starting out fresh. I’ve seen mixed opinions, some say it’s entry level friendly, others say even entry roles expect prior experience now.

Also wondering if a BSc in Mathematics and Computer Science helps or actually makes things harder for entry-level roles, like maybe being overqualified or not aligned with help desk expectations.

For those already in the field, what was your experience getting that first IT role?

Nintex migrations usually look simple on paper… until you actually open the workflows.

What I’ve noticed is the migration itself isn’t the hardest part; it's untangling what’s already there. A lot of workflows end up being layers of old logic, quick fixes, and “temporary” solutions that quietly became permanent over time.

In one migration I worked on, we didn’t even start by moving anything. Most of the effort went into understanding what was still relevant, what was redundant, and what people had been working around for years without touching.

Once we cleaned and simplified things first, the actual migration became much smoother with far fewer surprises.

I'm curious how others handle this, do you lift and shift as-is, or treat it more like a cleanup exercise before moving anything?

I’ve been seeing more conversations around legacy workflow tools reaching end-of-life in SharePoint environments, especially Nintex on-prem setups.

From what I’ve seen, there’s no single approach, it really depends on how long the system’s been in place and how deeply the workflows are embedded in day-to-day operations.

Some teams seem to take an incremental approach, replacing workflows piece by piece. Others treat it more as a full redesign effort before moving anything, especially when the existing setup has grown over time with lots of dependencies.

In a lot of cases, the biggest challenge doesn’t seem to be the migration itself, but understanding what’s actually still needed versus what’s just legacy logic that’s been carried forward.

I'm curious how others are approaching it, are you doing gradual replacements or treating it as a full rebuild from the start?

I’ve been working through a few file server, SharePoint migrations (mostly under 1TB), and one thing that keeps coming up is there’s no real standard way people structure things after.

I usually see two patterns:

• Separate sites per department (HR, Finance, etc.) to make permissions easier
• One main site with libraries/folders to keep things consolidated

From what I’ve seen, department-based sites tend to simplify access control, but a single-site setup can be easier to manage long-term depending on how the organisation actually works day to day.

One thing that’s stood out: the real effort isn’t the migration itself, it’s cleaning up years of messy file structures beforehand. If you skip that step, you just carry the chaos over.

Also interesting how often spreadsheets are still being used for basic tracking and approvals, where a more structured approach could probably simplify things.

I'm curious how others handle it, do you lean more toward separating by department or keeping things centralised and relying on permissions/libraries?

InfoPath retirement is coming up, and I’m curious how others are handling it in real environments.

We’re still seeing it used for pretty important forms and workflows, so moving away from it isn’t just a simple swap.

Right now I’m looking at options like Power Apps + Power Automate, SharePoint lists, and other approaches, but each comes with tradeoffs depending on how complex the old forms are.

What’s been interesting is how much of InfoPath isn’t just forms but hidden logic and processes that teams have relied on for years—so the migration feels more like redesign than replacement.

Curious what others have run into:

• What actually worked well for you?
• What turned out harder than expected?
• And did you fully replace InfoPath, or rebuild parts of the process differently?

Would be great to hear real experiences from people who’ve already gone through it.

Most of what I’ve seen isn’t just workflows, it’s years of quick fixes, edge cases, and temporary logic that quietly became permanent.

In one migration I worked on, we barely focused on moving anything at the start. The real work was just figuring out what still mattered, what was outdated, and what people had been working around for years without documenting.

Some flows made total sense. Others had no clear owner or reason anymore.

Once we cleaned that up and simplified things first, the actual migration was way smoother—fewer surprises, less rework, and a much clearer structure going forward.

It really changed how I look at these projects… sometimes the migration is just the final step of a cleanup that should’ve happened earlier.

Curious how others handled it, did you lift-and-shift everything, or use it as a chance to redesign?

Nintex migrations always look simple… until you actually open the workflows.

Most of the time, the hard part isn’t moving them, it’s figuring out what they’ve turned into over the years. A lot start as simple logic and slowly become layers of quick fixes and temporary decisions that stuck.

In one migration I worked on, we barely touched the move at first. We spent most of the time just understanding what was still relevant, what was outdated, and what people had been working around without realizing it.

Once we cleaned that up and simplified things, the actual migration became much easier, with fewer surprises and less rework.

Curious, when you’ve done Nintex migrations, did you lift everything as-is or use it as a chance to redesign the process?

Migrating legacy workflows and forms always looks simpler on paper than it is in reality.

In my experience, most of the pain doesn’t come from the migration itself, but from how complex the old setup already is.

A few things that helped:

• mapping everything first (fields, logic, dependencies) before touching anything
• moving in smaller phases instead of a big bang approach
• testing early and often, not at the end
• simplifying the design instead of copying it 1:1

Curious, if you’ve done a Nintex or InfoPath migration, what ended up being the biggest surprise for you?

We used them heavily for years, at the time, they were a quick win for structured forms, SharePoint integration, and basic workflows.

But over time, maintenance became the hard part. Even small changes took effort, and when the original builder moved on, things got fragile pretty fast.

What stood out for me is how much process debt builds up quietly in tools like this.

Curious, are you still maintaining InfoPath anywhere, or has your team fully moved on?

InfoPath retirement is coming up, and we’re still heavily dependent on it for forms and workflows.

We’re starting to look at replacements like Power Apps, Power Automate, and SharePoint Lists, but it’s not always a straight swap.

Curious, how have others handled this shift? what actually worked well for you, and what turned out harder than expected?

Also interested in how you dealt with the “missing pieces” InfoPath used to handle easily.