3D Criticality Matrix

[ptc-4415147]

Previous versions of the software from Relex 2011 and earlier had the ability to generate a 3D Criticality Matrix.  The graph function could be rendered from multiple angles, with user selectable transparency, coloring and axes.  The new version of Windchill Quality Solutions (10.0 and newer) with the updated graphing and report engine has elminated this function and now only allows for a very basic two dimensional criticality (risk) matrix.  We recieved many positive comments on the previous three dimensional format in our reports and presentations and now this type of format is expected.  This is especially crucial on any programs that already have reports with this format of criticality matrix that we need to generate an updated analysis on.  The lack of this feature is preventing us from transitioning many projects from Relex 2011 to the latest WQS 10.2, which is faster and has other new functions we'd like to take advantage of. 

[ptc-2749313]

Hi Jesse,

We made a number of enhancements to the Criticality Matrix functionality in WQS 10.2. While it no longer creates a 3-D representation,  Specifically, there is an ability to set the Risk Levels in a user-definable fashion  via the Risk Level support file.  The color coding can be set to match user needs.  And the number of risks that fall into a given cell are summarized into the cell.

The user can set an initial and a resulting risk graph.

This new approach was based on multiple customer input, and i'd like to get your opinion on it once you begin using it.

[ptc-4415147]

Hi Daniel,

While there is added functionality, the summation of modes does not function properly (reference Case C11943078) and instead of summing at the mode level the summation is occurring at the cause or effect levels.   This functionality worked correctly in the previous graphing engine (Relex 2011 and earlier).  This leaves me with having to generate a criticality matrix external to Windchill in Excel.  Once the new functinoality is fixed I'm sure it will work fine for new projects, unfortunately for reports that we need to update which already utilize the existing Relex 2011 3D style graphs this is a major limitation.  Unnecessary changes in any report causes customers to raise questions and cause an unnecessary waste of time.  This is why I request that both formats be made available in the next release of the software.

[ptc-2749313]

Hi Jesse,

I'm glad that you were able to derive value from the old approach to Risk Matrix. 

Unfortunately, other customers did not derive value from it, as it missed several key requirements, listed below.  These are all addressed in the new approach.

(1) it didn't permit for non-linear risk levels.  Most risk matrices have non-linear grids.  examples below.  Because these weren't supported, customers needed to use a mix of User Calculations and Report Calculations to custom-generate a 2D Risk Matrix that met their fundamental risk requirement.  Surprisingly, we found that setting up these Risk Matrices was one of the largest effort portions of deploying FMEA and RIsk across customers. By making this out of the box, we cut about a week out of deploying a Risk system, increased ease of use, ease of management, and improved software performance.

2) We received a number of complaints that the 3D Risk Matrix was too difficult to interpret.  Pretty, but difficult to understand.  If you had a low risk "behind" a high risk, you couldn't see the low risk without editing transparencies

3)  We received complaints that customers missed the 2D risk matrix that is specified in FMEA standards.

4) it didn't address an ability to capture a 3rd dimension in the risk matrix, as is required by functional safety specs such as ISO26262 and IEC61508.

5) it didn't permit flexibility throughout the analysis lifecycle.  Many customers have products that are produced at different production levels.  A low volume product should have a more granular risk matrix (maybe a 3x3) which requires less work to categorize risk.  A high volume product necessitates a more detailed risk matrix (maybe a 10x10).  The old approach didn't allow for flexible risk matrices, or a structured way to designate the appropriate risk approach for a given product.

6) the old approach didn't allow for a clean way of comparing Initial Risk to Resulting Risk.

I'll check into the status of the Case you mentioned.  Thanks