Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
It would be useful if the Change Order process was more configurable. Ie. Be able to remove some of the gates in the process. For example, before we get to the work stage we have to ‘submit’ the change order twice (to Open etc), or we’d like to remove the ‘Checked stage’ for some of our Document categories. This is pretty tiresome that we cannot configur.
I agree that the workflows should be configurable. I currently utilize 4 different change order scenarios. On some I would remove some of the states, others i would add additional states. I would also like to use alias names for the states so that open= CAD and work=ERP.
Completely agree. What do you do with a change order that has been indefinitely put on hold, but is not dead. Right now we have to leave it in Work for.... 6 months? A year? Would be very nice if I could just add a "Deferred" state.
This was a large conversation at AU15 and needs to happen.
This is one example of an area that I need freedom to manipulate the Workflow
This is the current Flow Chart that Autodesk offers.
These are layouts that I may possibly adjust to. The reject situation can be shortened with options, the current “Review” I would reword to Engineering Approval and I need to add in to the flow Production Control and/or Purchasing with options to bypass.
Flexibility is needed for workflows and flow charts. Refer to PLM360...
The non-adjustable workflow may be the reason Vault was not used at my previous company. Their ECO workflow was very complicated with multiple review stages and reject routes to various places in the workflow. There was even multiple routes through the ECO process a part may take depending on where it was in its lifecycle and what type of part it was. A brand new electrical part would need a totally different workflow than an older mechanical part.
While the workflow that comes with Vault works for my current situation, I can see the need for different ones given the different types of document they release.
Having even a little more flexibility in the change order workflow would be a huge improvement and help.
Well it is good to see this somewhat come back to the surface. Over the past 4 years since posting my thoughts about ECO workflows, I have worked with a few companies assisting on process improvements. I am currently in a position to create new strategies for engineering and design processes and again am faced with stagnate options utilizing Autodesk Vault. My ideas have not changed and very much believe that Autodesk Vault team could take hold of the ECO development and enhance the freedom in the ECO process. Let's discuss more at Autodesk University 2019.
This has been a problem so a long time. I've had a company outright drop Vault b/c of it's archaic & convoluted settings. I helped another company through an upgrade and they couldn't believe that they couldn't edit the ECO workflow paths to match their company's needs. My current company just wants to omit the Open State step and combine Review and Approved state and leave that to an admin.
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")