Life cycles and folders

[gchampoux]

I am trying to determine the best way to implement multiple life cycles in Intralink 9.1.

In Intralink 3.x, the release procedures are assigned to folders, which in turn applies to every file in that folder.
We took advantage of this by placing product designs in some folders, while tooling and process planning files were in other folders, each with their assigned release procedure. Before a user checked-in a file, they simply set the folder, and they were all set.

Ideally, we would like to do the same in Intralink 9.1, but I'm not sure that this is possible.
Using the object initialization rules, I can assign a life cycle to each Product, but can I assign a life cycle to a sub-folder thereof?
If this not possible, what might be a good alternative?

On a related note, how can a user be presented with a list of life-cycles (to choose one from) when the user creates a new CAD document (in Pro/E)? Currently, I see no option for such.
If I create a Document (non-EPM) in a Product, I am prompted for the "Type" which has an associated life-cycle.
Can the same be done with a CAD Document (preferably in the workspace)?
After a CAD Document is created in a workspace, I can bring up its' info and change the life cycle, but this requires too many steps.
And to make it worse, it can only be done to one object at a time. I see no ways to change the life cycle to multiple selected objects.

Gerry

[MikeLockwood]

All Pro/E stuff (CAD Doc's, aka EPM Doc's) are the same Type in Windchill (Intralink 9). Only real way around this is to create in different places - which is not too bad though. Create a bunch of Product contexts, probably with the same lifecycle for all. Then, create some Libraries for tooling, etc. These can have a different lifecycle and the business processes that follow it. Creating separate libraries as needed also eliminates the need for the 2nd point below - when you create in the Tooling Library for example, it will pick up the correct lifecycle. The user's decision shifts from selecting a folder to selecting a Library - but that decision has to be made before creation, not at the time of first check-in.


The lifecycle in each Product / Library is determined by the applicable OIR, inheriting from one level up if not present locally. In other words, the OIR at Site for EPMDocuments assigns a lifecycle everywhere; if there is one at Org, then that over-rides but applies for all Products and Libraries. If there is an OIR in a certain LIbrary, then that over-rides what is at Site and Org.

[ddemay]

For a different business reason, I had to write and I am still finishing a
customization that allows you to select the lifecycle of a CAD document on
checkin in PDMLink. There is an object initialization rule that works for
wtparts and wtdocument called DiscreteSetLifecycleAlgorithm (search
Windchill help) and it shows an example. However, for EPMdocuments, it is
totally 100% ignored. You also cannot soft type CAD documents in 9.x and
below. This changes in Windchill 10.



Good alternative for you is create more products and break up your data
further. Name the product names based on your folder names. Move data out
of the folders into these products and delete the folders. Configure the
type in the OIR of the product.

[gchampoux]

Thanks to Mike & David for confirming that it is not possible to assign a life cycle to a folder and it is not possible to choose a life cycle when a CAD Document is created by Pro/E.
I am a little upset that this functionality has been lost from Intralink 3.x.
PTC said that 9.1 closed the functionality gaps from 3.x.
It appears that this is not true. I wonder what else I will find is missing.

I don't like the idea of being forced to create a completely separate product or library just to support a different life cycle.
In 3.4, we kept all files for a product under a common top-level folder.
This was to best control access/permissions.
Now it appears that in 9.1 I will need to created multiple Intralink Products/contexts for each of our products (engines).
To support our various disciplines, (design tooling, mfg, etc) I will need to increase the number of Intralink Products by at least a factor of 5 to support the different life cycle and domain policies.

I am wondering if there might be an alternative.
All of the life cycles I am using will be identical, except for who the approvers are.
I could use a single, common life cycle for everything if I could assign different approvers based upon which folder the objects reside.

Gerry

[VincentQuesnoit]

Analternative is creating soft types depending on what an object is used for. We created quite a number of them : delivery for delivery documents, manufacturing for manufacturing documents, software for a software component (executable) etc. The numbers have a prefix depending on the soft type.

The drawback is that we have a lot of soft types, and we have to teach people to use the appropriate ones when creating documents or parts. But, usually, a given person uses the same type most of the time, and has to use others from time to time.

We also have one directory per soft type to store the documents/parts in every product or library.

HTH,

Vincent

[MikeLockwood]

Below you say "All of the life cycles I am using will be identical, except for who the approvers are."

So, the good news is that you should be able to use the same lifecycle for ALL your Pro/E data, and you won't have to create a bunch more places to store data.



Terminology is everything here... Very hard to discuss Windchill functionality with Intralink 3.x terminology deeply in mind. Absolutely essential to get the Windchill terminology and defintions right.



- The lifecycle defines states and the ways to get between states.

- Other methods are used for both access control and approvals of state changes / revision changes. There is a lot of flexibility for setting up who needs to approve each particular thing, and all can easily be accomodated with the same lifecycle used for Pro/E data. This can be by folder but other methods are actually far, far better - in fact you should resist the urge to create any folders at all (very hard because we're all used to creating folders).



I had the luxury of being able to study and play with these inter-related concepts for a full 2 years before we migrated from Intralink 3.4 a few years ago, because there were severe problems issues with the migration software that we had to wait to for PTC to resolve. I was able to use that time to thoroughly understand this area, but it's the best puzzle I've ever come across.

More help on this subject on the side if you like...

[RussPratt]

Mike is correct, the terminology is everything, and you have to back out of thinking of Pro/I 3.x solutions and think in terms of 9.x solutions. If configured correctly it is not the lifecycle that controls the review/release process. That is managed by the Promotion object.

You want different Reviewers/Approvers based on the folder. That is another way of saying, I have different key business rules that apply to CAD documents based on where I store them. In 9.x, that type of "location differentiation" is generally best handled by using different Products & Libraries than by different folders. That said, the promotion object workflow could be modified to incorporate logic that looks to folder location, but it might not be as clean and simple as you would like.

It is all too common, and unfortunately erroneous, to think only in terms of the data objects when designing the "location" aspect of a solution. Location also includes, People and Process (Business Rules), The intersection of all three should be considered when determining your solution location strategy.

Russ

[gchampoux]

You are all correct that I am dealing with both terminology and methodology changes.
It is often challenging and confusing, and PTC's documentation does not do a good job.

I agree that the promotion object should be my focus.
And when I state that I want life cycles with different approvers, I am referring to the life cycle of the promotion object, not the CAD Documents.
All of my CAD Documents will use the same life cycle.
I should have been more clear about that.
However, when promoting, I need a promotion that has different principals for the approvers.
I would like this to be based upon the sub-folder where the CAD Documents reside, which is how it was done in 3.4.

If this is not possible/practical, I'm open to alternatives.
What I would like to avoid is having a multitude of Product contexts just to have different principals in the team.
If I could have different pricipals (for the team rolls) for each sub-folder, that would totally address my need.
A couple fo people have implied that this is possible, but I have not been able to find a way to impliment such.

You suggest modifying the workflow for the promotion object.
However, in Windchill Intralink, workflows cannot be created or modified.
I have to use the predefined workflows that are supplied by PTC.
It appears that the only one that would be appropriate is "Promotion Request Approval Process".
It appears that none of the OOTB life cycles use this workflow.
I also found it odd that the OOTB life cycle "Promotion Request" does no use any workflows at all.

Gerry

[MikeLockwood]

Very nicely stated.

[sdrzewiczewski]

Russel, unfortunately in Intralink 9.x you cannot create or modify Workflows like you can in PDMLink. There are ways around it, but it is not supported and a violation of the licensing of the software.

So for the described problem, different Products/Libraries is the only option with different approvers in the Promotion Approvers role and reviewers in the Promotion Reviewers role.

Steve D.

In Reply to Russell Pratt:

Mike is correct, the terminology is everything, and you have to back out of thinking of Pro/I 3.x solutions and think in terms of 9.x solutions. If configured correctly it is not the lifecycle that controls the review/release process. That is managed by the Promotion object.

You want different Reviewers/Approvers based on the folder. That is another way of saying, I have different key business rules that apply to CAD documents based on where I store them. In 9.x, that type of "location differentiation" is generally best handled by using different Products & Libraries than by different folders. That said, the promotion object workflow could be modified to incorporate logic that looks to folder location, but it might not be as clean and simple as you would like.

It is all too common, and unfortunately erroneous, to think only in terms of the data objects when designing the "location" aspect of a solution. Location also includes, People and Process (Business Rules), The intersection of all three should be considered when determining your solution location strategy.

Russ

[sdrzewiczewski]

Gerry, I believe that you have to define for the states which Workflow you want it to use. This is done at the Site > Utilities menu under Promotion Preference Manager in 9.1

Steve D.

In Reply to Gerry Champoux:

...
You suggest modifying the workflow for the promotion object.
However, in Windchill Intralink, workflows cannot be created or modified.
I have to use the predefined workflows that are supplied by PTC.
It appears that the only one that would be appropriate is "Promotion Request Approval Process".
It appears that none of the OOTB life cycles use this workflow.
I also found it odd that the OOTB life cycle "Promotion Request" does no use any workflows at all.

Gerry

[gchampoux]

Thanks again to all that replied. I also had to get PTC support involved.
To say that the documentation is confusing and contradictory would be an understatement.

In short; In Intralink 9.1, it is not possible to assign a workflow to a Promotion Notice based upon the sub-folder where promotable objects reside.
(Intralink 3.4 allowed release procedures to be assigned to any folder.)

Some other things that were confirmed/discovered:

• If a workflow is assigned to a phase/gate of any lifecycle, that workflow is ignored when a Documents or CAD Documents are promoted.
• Instead, the workflows selected in the <u>Promotion Preference Manager</u> (under Utilities) will be used, which are defined by context only.
• Unlike PDMLink, Intralink 9.1 does not allow creation or modification of workflows. Only OOTB workflows can be used.
• "Promotion Request Approval Process" is the only applicable workflow for a promotion that require approvers.
• During promotion, the user is prompted for the workflow, even if only one is available.
• When a promotion is created, the user is always prompted to add additional team roles as approvers or reviewers, even if they are already defined in the team. Although some people might find this useful, not everyone would want this behavior, which cannot be disabled.
  

PTC has previously claimed that Intralink 9.1 closes all the functionality gaps from Intralink 3.4.
The above indicates otherwise.

[MikeLockwood]

It's also extremely misleading that it's named "Promotion" (with the actual action that the user sees named "Promote."

It should be "New State Change Request."