Hi,
In the Autodesk University event in London I saw that the default workflow of a change order is the following one (see attachment “As-Is.png”). I was surprised to see customers taking photos of this default workflow at the AU London.
To be sure that we are aligned, the change order is for me, the validation of a modification which is contained in a change request.
In the Autodesk Fusion Lifecycle workflow, we can have only one lock. In the default workflow of the CO, the lock is in the state “Fast Track”.
- Case 1: If the owner submits the CO to the Fast Track, the CO and its content (affected items) are frozen, they can’t be modified. It this what the Autodesk users want because when something is launched to the approval process, we want that the first approver checks the same thing that the last approver also checks, if there are more than one person in the “Fast Track” state.
- Case 2: If the owner submits the CO to the “CCB Review” (because 2 stages are needed), the content is not frozen and can be modified at any time. If we have 2 persons in the “CCB Review”, approver 1 can check and sign a different thing to approver 2. Additionally, the content can be modified in the “Implementation” state after the “CCB Review” state. The configuration is frozen only when the CO is in the “Approve” state. So lot of things can happened between the submit state and the approve state.
I suggest having the following default workflow in the Change Order workspace to avoid mistakes, problems for the Autodesk users (see attachment “To-Be.png”).
With this workflow, we can keep the two different paths:
When the owner submits the CO, people in stage 1 can check the CO and its content. The content is frozen because the lock is on the “CCB Review”.
- If the owner puts people in stage 2 before submitting it to the “CCB Review”, the last person in the “CCB Review” have only the option to send the CO to the “Implementation” stage or reject the CO (condition script).
- If nobody was added at stage 2, the last approver in the “CCB Review” state only has the option to send the CO to the “Approve” stage or reject the CO (condition script).
It is more secure I think. At the beginning of our project we had the default workflow and our experience shows us that some modifications can be done on the items affected in the CO and cause lot of problem.
If you want, I can give you the associated scripts if you want to include the update to FLC. I know that some of default scripts must be modified.
Cheers,
Sylvain
