Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Improved ECO Routing

Improved ECO Routing

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

28 Comments
dvsmiller9
Advocate

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.

dherman469
Advocate

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

mthomas
Collaborator

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.

ihayesjr
Community Manager
Status changed to: Accepted
 
mthomas
Collaborator

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. 

ihayesjr
Community Manager
Status changed to: Under Review
 
tmoney2007
Collaborator

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.

ihayesjr
Community Manager
Status changed to: Under Review
 
olearya
Alumni
Status changed to: Future Consideration
 
michael.collins
Autodesk

 please consider updating the ECO routing to make it as flexible and powerful (or more) as you have with the file/folder/project lifecycles

 


 

+1

 

Wish I could give this more than 1 kudos.

dvsmiller9
Advocate

@michael.collins: exactly.

 

 The 'or more' could be Doug Redmond's suggestion for incorporating the visual workflow configurator.

 

Lets hope Future Consideration doesn't mean a few years.  I realize developer resources may be strained but there seems to be much demand in the community for this (considering the other Vault Idea threads on ECO routing improvement).

 

cbenner
Mentor

New comment from somehting that came up today.  In review, the Change Requestor, who may also be the Approver.... need to have the ability to add files or records.  Example, my engineer got a PDF file with comments form the customer, would like to reject the change order and have these comments added to the drawings.  But he is unable to add the PDF to the change order.  All he can di is Accept, Reject or add a markup.

 

I believe that (I'm going to use a bad word here) like Adept, the workflows and routings need to be fully customizeable to the Admin.  And not only in 360... some of us will always be Vault users, not 360.

jeamy.baena
Advocate

Totally agree!. Vault Developers a lot of work to do here, when?

Andy.Spivey
Community Manager

In addition, would also like to see the ability to add / remove users from the ECO routing regardless of the state.  

 

Example:

  When an ECO is in the Work State, you cannot edit the routing and assign a new 'Checker' to the routing and remove the current.

volkan.ari
Contributor

Well this feature must be included in Vault. Many companies want to edit the routing specifically to their needs. Therefore we should be able to customize the routing in order to adapt to the routing structure of every company.

MSpahn83HK6
Community Visitor

We would like to see the ECO routing process be updated to have "Unanimous Approval" as a check box on/off added to the Responsible Engineer Role in order to have a multi-level engineer signoff prior to the ECO being moved to the Review State.

 

This would allow a multi-discipline change to require ME, CE, SE, EE, etc. all to submit their portion of the work to be completed prior to a project manager receiving the need for approval notification.

kerrild
Contributor

ECOs have badly been in need of an overhaul for years so I am glad this post has gained some momentum. The Email functionality badly needs looked at, surely there is a smarter simpler way of doing this than the current info produced from Vault. We have actually invested in a bespoke add-in to get the information we put into Vault back out of it in order to distribute to the other departments in the business that need it. Madness.

 

To add my request to the pile. The ability to rename the routing would be greatly appreciated. Smiley Happy I have found a collection of posts asking how to do this going back years but it doesn't look like it has ever been addressed in the Idea Station. I understand why the routing cannot be deleted but the ability to rename would make this function much more useful instead of a growing library of redundant routings that no longer meet business needs. 

 

Kind Regards,

Kerri

Calavetta123
Advocate

For years the company I work for has wanted to create their own ECO workflow but to this date we still can’t. The only option that Autodesk Vault give us is to add a Check State option. I propose that Vault gives us more State options and customizable State name change. See Attachment for example.

mostrowski
Contributor

Looking through the string of comments there are a lot of good ideas here.  Within my organization, we use the change orders exclusively to create or revise all of out engineering documents.  Our current process is to have out engineering team create the change orders then submit to work after they have completed all of the properties, description and attached all files needed for their request.  It has come up many times that it would be really nice to have a way to 'Reject' the change order back tot he engineer from 'Open'.  This way the CAD department can send them back when its not completed or accepted to move on to work.  The last comment in the string from Calavetta123 would be great to have the bottom proposed solution.  I know that would take a bit of programming and changing to do all of that but can this 'Reject' command be added between the 'Create' and 'Open' states?

shawn.payne
Advocate

Please implement this!!!!

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report