Hi all
Morning question: How do you manage a validation cycle in the event of a person's absence?
Because you can put several validators on a document, but how do you inform these other people that the main validator is absent and that it is up to them to validate the document?
Thank you!
Hello
perhaps by using the EPDM mailbox, by sending a message to the group of validators.
Agree with FLOP1.
Don't you have a flow of information in society indicating to the "substitute validators" that in the absence of the "main validator", the task falls to them? What happens if a boss is on leave? He must delegate in a more or less official way to a "sous-chef" or referent, right?
For me it's more company information than a problem related to EPDM.
So the absence status must be managed by the person himself? That is to say that tomorrow I am going on vacation, I have to inform EPDM that I am absent and that a notification or another workflow will be applied?
@Benoit, for the moment no flows created :).
Currently the person sends by email the plan to validate to the person and outlook sends a notification of absence of the other person
I saw a manual message to inform. Otherwise you would have to manage a hierarchical order list :/
For example, we use software to manage time-off requests. When one validator is absent, another validator is assigned by the software to validate the leave requests
On your leave software, is it an automatic action according to everyone's leave, or do you have to intervene at each absence?
If it's a human intervention (configuration) on the software for each absence, you can say that at the level of the EPDM administration you add the substitute in the group of validators.
But it seems "heavy" to me for this kind of action. A simple e-mail for delegation of rights should suffice: "Tartempion, during my holidays from xx to xx, I delegate to you my rights to validate files on EPDM, Sincerely". :)
given that this is EPDM, I think the easiest thing to do is the message to the validator group.
each user must be assigned to 1 or more groups and a message can be sent to all users in the same group (see presentation of my company's EPDM mailbox as an attached file).
EDIT: or as @benoit.lf says, a standard email to the person you are talking about but you have to know them, in big companies, it's not always easy.
@Benoit, it's an automatic action. Since Trucmuch has taken its leave on the software, its validation power is automatically transferred, during this period, to Tartempion which will receive email notifications from the management software.
But with a simple email, how can Tartempion have the rights to validate? He won't have the same permits as Trucmuch? (the famous right click, change of state)
@FLOP1, from what you explain, if Trucmuch goes on leave, he will send an email to all the validation groups? Because if Trucmuch has a responsibility in terms of quality, for example, it will be part of many different workflows, so it will impact many departments (purchasing, design, manufacturing, etc.).
Ps: Thank you Trucmuch and Tartempion for helping us in understanding:)
Trucmuch and Tartempion are not already in the same "VALIDATION" group, even if in normal times it is Trucmuch who validates?
For me, normally, Tartempion already has the validation rights but does not use them.
I don't know of any feature that allows you to directly achieve what you want (which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!), at worst you can embark on a macro type development, but the time to devote to it may be significant "just" for this function. Especially since if Trucmuch forgets to report his absence, the house of cards collapses and all this will have been done for nothing.
Whereas if Trucmuch and Tartenpion have a minimum of communication between them, Tartempion will know that his colleague is on vacation and that he will have to validate EPDM files! No?
agree with @benoit.lf, Trucmuch and Tartempion must certainly be part of the same group.
Obviously, if Trucmuch is dealing with other services, it can also send a message to the groups concerned.
Oh yes, I understand what you mean! Well, in the leave request software, Tartempion does not have validation rights if Trucmuch is not absent.
But I admit that the communication side is a point not to be forgotten ....
I think you're right, it's going to complicate the validation processes for nothing. A PDM tool should first and foremost help the vaiidation process (and revisions, etc...) and not restrict users!