1) Lifecycle management with forced Concurrent engineering
support.
- basic Out of box V6 functionality for concurent engineering is following: (simple scenario)
User A opens part 1 to CATIA V6.
User B opens part 1 to CATIA V6.
User B modifies part 1 in CATIA V6.
User A modifies part 1 in CATIA V6.
User A Propagates (saves) part 1
User B Propagates (saves) part 1 - Fails, because opened part has been modified by other user. Save becomes totally impossible.
==> neither of users gets any warning about other user modifying same part, neither user has no way to see that situation is going to be disaster before propagation fails.
===> is that really any support for lifecycle management or concurrent engineering? Not in my mind. Who has a process that really needs that system works as it does? I mean really - all engineering processes have a need for concurrent engineering, so how about supporting it out of box.
So how this can or should be customized:
- Use of LOCK mechanism should be forced. Only those parts that have been Locked to self should be available for Save/propagate.
- Lock should be clearly visible in CATIA side.
=> this would lead to process where:
User A opens part 1 to CATIA V6 and Locks it.
User B opens part 1 to CATIA V6.
User B modifies part 1 in CATIA V6, but sees that save can not be propagated because User A has locked part.
User A modifies part 1 in CATIA V6.
User A Propagates (saves) part 1
User B doesn't try to Propagate (save) part 1 but contact user A about needed modifications, or when part can be unlocked and changes be propagated.
- basic Out of box V6 functionality for concurent engineering is following: (simple scenario)
User A opens part 1 to CATIA V6.
User B opens part 1 to CATIA V6.
User B modifies part 1 in CATIA V6.
User A modifies part 1 in CATIA V6.
User A Propagates (saves) part 1
User B Propagates (saves) part 1 - Fails, because opened part has been modified by other user. Save becomes totally impossible.
==> neither of users gets any warning about other user modifying same part, neither user has no way to see that situation is going to be disaster before propagation fails.
===> is that really any support for lifecycle management or concurrent engineering? Not in my mind. Who has a process that really needs that system works as it does? I mean really - all engineering processes have a need for concurrent engineering, so how about supporting it out of box.
So how this can or should be customized:
- Use of LOCK mechanism should be forced. Only those parts that have been Locked to self should be available for Save/propagate.
- Lock should be clearly visible in CATIA side.
=> this would lead to process where:
User A opens part 1 to CATIA V6 and Locks it.
User B opens part 1 to CATIA V6.
User B modifies part 1 in CATIA V6, but sees that save can not be propagated because User A has locked part.
User A modifies part 1 in CATIA V6.
User A Propagates (saves) part 1
User B doesn't try to Propagate (save) part 1 but contact user A about needed modifications, or when part can be unlocked and changes be propagated.