I think this is a good idea to help keep your data clean. The only concern is that a requisition might be unreleased during the approval process and you might end up deleting a requisition that someone means to revise and re-release. There are user fields that could be updated or flagged to indicate this scenario and then excluded with a warning sent to the requester that the requisition is unreleased and might get deleted if they don't take action.

This topic was just talked about this week. Looking to build a PF that will un-release / delete the request and send the info back to the requester after a period of time. We use hierarchy of attributes in GL20 for approval process. Sometimes if not updated these req's can sit for weeks.

We don't have an IPA that does it, but our purchasing department will delete unreleased reqs occasionally. One gotcha we run into is with how RQC caches the user experience. If they were "working" on the requisition and then close out of requisition center, when they come back it will try to load it. If that req is deleted, the next time they log in, they receive an error and can't move forward until the rqc cache is cleared on the server for the user.

Scooter,
I would generally support removing outdated or forgotten unreleased documents of most any kind. The timeframe is a bit of a tricky thing. Personally, I would probably look at 30 to 45 days (to more or less make sure it was "forgotten"). The one thing I would say, really two, are that I would make sure there is a written policy to support this process [change] and that whomever is the sponsor over-communicates to the users (and their one-up reports). When I was doing installs and support, some users would build a document over time with multiple lines, others would create multiple requisitions with one to a few lines. As long as they are consistent, I don't really think one way is much more advantageous than the other, but your change could possibly disrupt the former category--causing a bit of angst in the process.
Good luck,
Red

Great feedback and things to consider. Thanks to all!

I agree looking back 30 to 45 days is safer. Thanks for the info.

Part of our Month End closing process is to run reports for open documents. When an open document is found, it can be corrected/closed at that time. This would eliminate having to do it on the back end.
I am not that saavy with Lawson, but I know we cannot have requisitioners start a requisition an keep adding to it daily. It messes up our system. They are taught to enter and release the requisition at one sitting. This greatly reduces open requisitions.

RQ140 will show you unreleased reqs and their dates. I delete headers all the time - but as others have said - in the 30-45 day window. People do periodically ask what happened but it's worth it to keep it uncluttered.