Ironclad

Wish that some of the newer features would be implemented into the older workflows faster (we are just now finding out about some features that have been available for a long time but weren't reflected in our workflows)

- Getting workflows set up to cover possible permutations and outliers was 2 months-long, aggravating experience. The problem lies in that changes to a workflow template will not affect in-flight contracts, so you would have to take the docs out of Ironclad and go through email/Docusign, which cancels the need for Ironclad. Most of the time, you don't discover you need to change a workflow until you are already in the middle of contract negotiations. Some examples: - Our signer was OOO, but we did not set up a backup signer in the workflow template. All of his in-flight contracts had to be restarted or taken down to email and counterparties had to be contacted manually. - An in-flight contract needed to add an addendum page to the packet, and this doc had to be signed by Counterparty. However, we didn't build-in an addendum page possibility into the workflow, so we couldn't get it signed along with existing docs. Had to download all and go through email/Docusign, then re-upload to Ironclad repository.

Ironclad is sometimes hard to find the specific step/message you are looking for. Threading could be better

I see a lot of potential with the application, as for as additional functionality. And when I have offered suggestions to Ironclad, I do feel like they have taken these suggestion and actually implemented them. The only true Con I can think of is a better "audit" trail of the back end (like somewhere to see a date and time stamp of when users are added, removed, given permissions, etc.)

while using on large contract volumes,it occasionally lags in performance