Improved ECO Routing

[#1]

Since we can't customize ECO routing (no the approval lists are NOT sufficient, they are just barely passable), it would be nice if we could get a route to reject back to work from review.

A lot of times we find minor updates during the review process, things that are "acceptable" to the engineering checker, but not acceptable down-stream.

Right now we have to reject the ECO, reopen the ECO, and re-submit to work. This takes 2 people (the rejecter and ECO admin) and 3 operations. We find it either gets delayed because the ECO admin has to get involved, who is usually busy doing his own work, or because the folder gets physically handed off without all the corrosponding electronic steps to get from a->b.

Please please please please please consider updating the ECO routing to make it as flexible and powerful (or more) as you have with the file/folder/project lifecycles. Being able to setup custom (dept.) routing and group level (instead of user) signoffs would get you 95% of the way to having a fantastic ECO system that we could build into a fully electronic 140001 capable tool.

Forum post: Wish - Improve ECO Routing

[#2]

Our company needs to be able to release customer approval required items 'at our risk' to maintain production schedule.  In these cases it is fairly certain the customer wiil agree but we cannot wait to close an item ECO.  We would like to release the item but keep the ECO open to be able to attach a later email or scan, add a comment and update user defined change order properties.  The long lead release process for documents seemed really close.  Items need similar configurability.

[#3]

Hello,

     I agree with this request.  Instead of assigning roles to Vault users, I should be able to assign specific Vault users to their designated states.  For example, assign John Doe to the Work state, rather than give John Doe the role of Responsible Engineer. 

Daniel Hermanson

[#4]

I'm content with the change order workflow (path) but would like more flexibility on the routing roles.

For example, we have many instances where the engineer will create the change order and move it from Create thru open into work and into review. At that point we want the engineering managers to review, approve, and set the effectivity.

Hence I'd like a new role that does not allow someone to set effectivity but allows them to move the change order from Open into Work. This would also mean that the engineering managers would not be overwelmed with emails, as they are now, as they would not be invovled in the change order until it got to the review stage.

[#5]

I agree, we need more flexibility, for example...

 I don't understand why the Change Administrator is the only role that can move the CO into Work and set the effectivity when the item is approved,  I need this split. There are many times that the engineer with initiate the change order and want to move it into Work, complete the changes, and then move it into review. They do NOT need the ability to approve and set the effectivity. I want the engineering managers to be able to approve and set the effectivity but they do NOT need to be involved at any other part of the process. 

[#6]

Some customizability in the eco workflow should be included in a software of this level.

Unfortunately, PLM360 is probably the solution for customizable workflows, but some level of control (or having more than one workflow) should be included in a "professional" level software.