ARE GROUPS AND TEAMS THE SAME?

[Ash_Venki]

HOW CAN A GROUP VARY FROM A TEAM IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONALITY & TECHNICALITY?

[RoyCrerar · Accepted solution]

Hi, Groups give you the ability to assign permissions to participants and by adding a user into a group they can be managed collectively. Teams pull in participants with varying responsibilities. 

There  could be a group of mechanical engineers and a group associated with quality/change control. The team calls in one or more mechanical guys and the same for some of the participants of other groups. Not all mechanical guys need to be in the team.

Hope this helps.

[Ash_Venki]

Thanks Roy!

But technically,what's the use of this sorting?

Because for a group, Collectively access Control can be given!

Then,whats the need for a team?

Thanks for the reply.

[RoyCrerar]

Hi,

For example the mechanical guys have permission to do the work. The group is assigned these permissions so that you don't have to edit each mechanical guy you just add them to the group.

The quality guys may have permissions to do something completely different. Not doing the work just reviewing and or approving it. Again  they will be associated with that group to make it easier to assign these permissions.

You need a combination of participants in a team that is a subset of the two (or more) groups. Say possibly 3 mechanical guys and one quality. You may have 100 mechanical guys and 25 Quality guys that don't all need to be involved in that project.

---

@SS_8296425 wrote:

Thanks Roy!

But technically,what's the use of this sorting?

Because for a group, Collectively access Control can be given!

Then,whats the need for a team?

Thanks for the reply.

---

[ChrisPLM]

Hi 

I had the same dilemma years and years ago. This was even more confusing that to me it was clear, I wanted a product centric implementation ie have our products organised by product contexts (all product A data in Context A etc...) and have the team responsible for Products A to work in Context A) etc.. so to me it was obvious to use Team and populate the roles accordingly by the appropriate users. However the consultants did not implement my ACL that way. He put all the users (actually usergroups) into one role MEMBER and then control the authoristion by creating rules for each usergroups.  

I have found it very confusing. This did not provide visibility of who did what.  

A few years later, I changed VAR and they seem to support better my intention to use Team, however, they still wanted to use usergroup to a certain extend. This is where I started to understand why.  To make the admin life easier.

It is a lot easier for an admin to manage the usernames when they are in groups than in Team.

So if you keep the same structure for each context, you can add and remove users from a group and this will cascade in the whole windchill accordingly. if you only put username in roles, you have to go to every single team/context

To date, I am still not that very happy with the whole thing and we should not need to create usergroup.

Anyway, I have learnt to live happy with a mix of usergroups and team usage.

Hope this helps