Skip to main content
D
DonSenchuk12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
July 13, 2016
Question

Change Notice Multiple Paths

  • July 13, 2016
  • 2 replies
  • 6551 views

I'm working on expanding our Change Notice workflow yet again. I have a situation I think will work (or is at least possible) but want to get feedback before going down this path too far.

 

At one stage of the CN workflow, there is a Change Manager role that will choose which downstream departments will get CN tasks for each particular CN. I've set it up using the Routing tab with a 'Manual' routing type. The intent is that the Change Manager can choose between one and four routes using check boxes in the assigned activity.

 

My concern is the AND collector at the tail end of these four routes. If the Change Manager chooses less than the full allotment, will the AND collector stall out the process waiting for the other paths to complete even when those other routes were not chosen by the Change Manager?

 

The other issue involves the Manufacturing-Engineering path (see image). If the Mfg. Eng. ECO Task has not been completed but one of the other paths does complete, will the system know to pause at that AND collector until the 'Synch on CA Complete' is resolved? Or should perhaps that 'Synch' robot be used in place of the AND collector?

 

Of course, I appreciate pointing out any other issues you may see.

 

Reference image:

2 replies

K
kpritchard1-Visitor
1-Visitor
July 13, 2016

Suggest using Change Notice Templates, especially if you have PJL installed and you can use Change Task Sequencing.  Sequencing would allow you to define the Quality Tasks as Level 1, 2, 3... up to 10 levels deep.  Change Notice Templates allow you to create Change Notices with different pre built Tasks.

Alternatively you could make the Choose Participants for ECO Task a Set Up Participants type with a single downstream Task to Create ECO Tasks (Define Implementation Plan) which would accomplish the same thing in a flexible way rather than hard wired.

My gut instinct is that the AND will stall out if all routings are not selected so IMO your concern is well founded.

I'd suggest that instead of Quality ECO Review as an Assigned WF Activity you use the Review of the appropriate Tasks.

Tasks that instruct to create do not guarantee that it will get done.

D
DonSenchuk12-AmethystAuthor
12-Amethyst
July 13, 2016

We don't have PJL, so no Change Task Sequencing. Plus the tasks aren't really in sequence, unless I'm reading you wrong.

I'll look into templates but I'm not hopeful.

One question, can I change the template if I get part way through the CN process and discover that yes, I do need Quality to see this CN whereas when I first created he CN I thought they didn't need to see it at all so I chose a template without Quality being involved in the process at all. (Then there is the problem of how many templates I would need to create. The picture is just a small sample of the overall CN process. The sheer number of variants I'd have to account for much higher than what this little snapshot shows.)

I skipped right past having someone set up individual change tasks for Mfg. Eng. Metallurgy, Purchasing and Quality because of the simplicity of check boxes compared to having someone go through all the steps of creating up to four Change Tasks. Plus two of the change tasks would, literally, be a single Assigned Activity with a Complete Task button.

I currently use Set Up Participants for an earlier CN Assigned Activity. It's cumbersome and clunky for choosing between two participants from a single department. IME, Set Up Participants is so poorly implemented that I'm actually exploring ways to dump it entirely. It makes all the behind-the-curtain work more involved but the ease of use for the users makes up for it.

On the one side the instructions are "Pick the check boxes and then pick Complete Task".

On the other side I have "Pick the Set Up Participants tab, check the box for Marketing Managers (group), Pick the 'Remove Participants' button, Pick the 'Add Participants button, Search for the user name, Pick Ok, Now go back to the Details tab and then pick Complete Task". Granted, I may have it set up less efficiently than is possible but I don't see any part of Set Up Participants competing in simplicity with "Pick box(es) then pick Complete Task".

K
kpritchard1-Visitor
1-Visitor
July 14, 2016

Too bad about the sequencing/PJL... As I read it the CMM Task was sequenced after the Quality Task (is probably also Quality decides if CMM is required)

Use of Templates does not preclude modifications (adding/removing Change Tasks) after the fact, they do streamline the creation of typical implementation plans.  If you have many permutations and combinations then you would have to create and name them and the user(s) would have a large list to select from.

What version are you on?  I think I preferred Set Up Participants in 9.x to 10.2.  I agree that usability could be much improved.

I like what you're doing with the routing though, and I would probably look at doing some code, probably in the complete transition to evaluate the routings and set the participants behind the scenes.

If I had to accomplish this by workflow I would look at a boolean task/process variables for each routing option set in the transition for each routing (I have not tried /tested the multiple non exclusive use case), and using a conditional node on each path to route if true (routing selected) or bypass with an OR node at the tail end of each branch.  This way all paths into your AND node get followed either by functional routing or bypass.  

Also worth noting... if the Manufacturing Engineering routing is not selected the Synch Robot never gets reached so the workflow will stall.

M
mbrock1-Visitor
1-Visitor
September 14, 2018

Little late to this discussion... but why not just setup boolean variables for the tasks if you need to wait at the AND gate for the selected ones to be completed? I.e. boolean task1, task2, task3, task4 that get set based on the selection made, and then use an OR conditional to route either to the corresponding task or straight to the AND gate if it isn't necessary. You wouldn't be using routing options, you'd just display the boolean variables as attributes and then automatically firing to each of the four OR conditionals that essentially say, for example, if(metallurgy) result="Metallurgy"; else result="No"; and the routing from the OR conditionals would go to either the task that's required or to the AND gate. 

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement