Doubt on Revision process
Hi all,
I was asked by the user about a hipotect (maybe real) situation on asset revision. Look at the scenarios: Scenario 1 Analysts X Architects Y Leader N 1 approve from Analyst X 1 approve from Architect Y 1 approve from Leader N One analyst from Analysts X group gave his vote as Approved, after that this analyst was moved to another group. When one member of Architect and Leader's group will give theirs votes, the reviewer process will reconize the first vote and the asset will be transfered to Approve State? Scenario 2 Analysts X (Analysts Z) Architects Y Leader N 1 approve from Analyst X 1 approve from Architect Y 1 approve from Leader N The same activity as the scenario 1, but instead of move the Analyst to another group, the RAM's Admin changed the Analists group from Analyst X to Analyst Z. |
2 answers
|
I got your thinking, but the user expected to have a clear documentation about which results are got when a sequence of actions is taken.
For example, if an asset which has some votes (not all necessary) and the lifecycle manager changes the lifecycle, all votes should be taken again? It's only a example of just one of possible questions that I'll be asked. Anyway, I'll try to reproduce this scenarios and back with the results. |
Hi,
have you tried these scenarios and see what happens? That would be the simplest thing to do. |
Your answer
Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.