Improved ECO Routing

[ihayesjr]

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

[Anonymous]

ECO needs following improvement and should be flexible to meet all sort of industries instead of just manufacturing.

ECO as-is is not suitable for Process and Utility Industries where P&ID, General Arrangement and ISO requires multi-discipline review and approval. It should be similar to Bentley's ProjectWise.

1. Reviewer should be able to review and approve/reject individual drawing in the ECO so that all remaining drawings don't get stuck and go through review cycle again because of 1 or 2 which had a mark-up/comments.

2. Once all REVIEWER have finished review and approved any drawing in ECO, that drawing should advance for approval by manager, and manager should be able to review and reject. IN process Industry, Mechanical, Process and Control Manager - all three need to approve. ECO should accommodate it.

At minimum -

1. ECO should allow each reviewer to APPROVE/REJECT ECO and email should be send to originator/administrator of ECO.

2. Approving Manager should receive an email when all reviewer has approved, and he/she should be able to approve/reject ECO for further corrections.

[jeamy.baena]

8+ years and counting...🤔

[jose_oltra]

Furthermore, there should be a unanimous "submit to work".

If a ECO involves several departments, we want all of them to somehow approve the "Ok, lets do it, send to work".

Today we don't have that , and we can spend tons of work hours, and later get a NO PASS.

If we involve people earlier on the process , we may save that useless effort.

Thanks!

[kerrild]

@ihayesjr is there any news on this? Is it likely to be included in any future development? 

[ihayesjr]

@kerrild 

Future Consideration: While we’re generally a fan of these ideas, the timing isn’t quite right for development consideration. As such, they are being put on the back burner to be re-visited at a later date. Please continue to comment and add your support.

How to Post to the Idea Boards – Collaborate! - Autodesk Community - Community Topics

[Payne_S]

We still need this. If we could customize the routing that would be AWESOME

[kerrild]

Totally agree.
Change Orders are such an important part of all businesses and are regularly parts of QA audits, yet this area is massively overlooked by Autodesk. It really needs to be bumped up the priority list by the Autodesk Development team.

[ajayA334A]

If the ECO lifecycle could be customized to the needs of the user, and not have to always follow the standard path, it would be very useful. This would assist greatly in the customization of Vault to the users' needs.