Идеи
PC-DMIS Protect - should have more "user" level access compared to current only 2 - programmer and operator
This is VOC from APAC PC-DMIS User's seminar which I want to strongly support.
Actually, The user’s are looking for 3 different roles or assignment’s or may be more in some case's . Always, It cannot be ONLY 2 roles in the companies like Protect support as now -
There are many companies who have multiple level of access for "programming the part" and "approval". They have clear distinguished flow chart or process that guide's the entire work flow before a MR is approved or passed to approved or "certify" status.
The typical work flow in a company is as below:-
- When I work for a company for 12 years, we do have similar approval systems.
1 – Programmer role – “Administrator” who will program the part and won’t certify - He should not press certify button or should not have access to do Certify or press Certify button. The Certify button must be greyed out for him.
2- Certification “”authorizer”” or Metrology Manager – This is “High level administrator” who wont normally program, but who will have the power to "Certify" the program after revisions and of course make revision approval' s -
He should have both "Program creation" and "Certify authorization" permissions. He is the Big Boss of certification in one word. He will be in a position to press Certify Button after Programmer finished programming the part. This is the very normal in many companies where the programmer is sitting somewhere and just pass the program after initial draft or just modify it after 1st or 2nd revision. During FAIR qualification or PPAP approval there are so many changes that can happen in a program which must be approved ONLY by certify authorizer or Big boss of Metrology. This scenario is not designed in current Protect model.
3 – Operator – Executor of the MR - Just he has the permission to open the program and run it. Operator mode as now.
After the programmer or low level admin is done with creating MR – the next level administrator or high level manager should be notified about the creation task and should be in a position to Certify. The first level programmer who himself is a admin, but should not have authorization to certify expect MR creation. The 2nd level certification authorizer should be the one who should certify the program. This was very widely asked by many company manager’s.
Сервис поддержки клиентов работает на платформе UserEcho
Hi Prasanna,
Thanks for inviting the vote from us.
It is indeed correct that we’re looking at a authorized person who is usually the superior of the programmer to certify a new/ revise program. Usually the programmer has to attach a copy of GR&R report to prove that this newly created/ revised program has been verified in fulfilling the defined MSA requirement before it can be released to operator.
One clarification to you, during FAIR and PPAP time the programmer is allow to modify the program until the last program has passed the MSA/ GR&R requirement. The superior of programmer is not required to certify the program after each modify steps. The certification should be done at the last modified program which use for complete the measurement for FAIR/PPAP sample, and so the program is frozen now.
Dear Marc, Once after the FAIR, PPAP abd approval, by CERTIFY authorizer, further changes in program must require CERTIFY authorizer approval again. These can be new tolerance changes, nominal shift, program logic to reduce time in future stages etc.
Yes, Till CERTIFY stage any modifications from the programmer will not go to authorizer of certification. This is till you realuze GRR, or aby form of MSA.
KAI - Korean Aerospace Industries.
Protect license is important for us with multiple level access for administrator's.
Ex: KAI send part programs to Subcontractors or Vendors.
KAI only should authorize the programs.
Program creation will be done by Vendors. So, authorization responsibility should be clearly differentiated between adminstrator's.
Looking for this development soon.
Will be delivered in PC-DMIS 2020 R1
I strongly believe that a fourth user level should be added, this level should be assigned to skillful CMM Inspectors that are above an operators level of expertise but not a programmer and can support the shop floor by trouble shooting errors that PC-DMIS loves to suddenly come up with. this level of user can be limited to not change the inspection features, tolerances and logic.
for example: many times have programs that have been used for more than 2 or 3 years without any errors & suddenly like to come up with issues and even after Hexagon looking at the program and software settings and found nothing wrong with either the program decides to change a move command xyz location or have the retrieve distance adjusted after a hit increased or other weird errors/crashes.
this operator may have the access to modify a move command or enter a new move command or maybe change a probe to a different size, we had a program that worked better with a smaller probe but programmer was not available for a few days so production was placed on hold.