Check the
documentation
Ask the
Community
Take a look
at
Academy
Cognite
Status
Page
Contact
Cognite Support
On behalf of a DEL (Daily Execution Lead) at Celanese
As a DEL, I want changes made to the template to reflect immediately to the checklist, this functionality will help my team adapt quickly to our agile environment
When creating an interval based checklist template in InField, if you wish to make any changes to that template after it has already been opened/released, the following warning message is given:
" Existing checklists will not be updated if changes are made to the template. These changes will be included in the checklist created in the first calendar week following the template update"
The user is unable to use their updated templates until the next calendar week."
Hi@Kristoffer Knudsen any updates on this.
Hi@Benjamin A Onweni , sorry for the late reply.
Could you provide some examples of why and what would needed to be changed in the Template as you go? Reason for asking is that my impression has been that these Operator Rounds, currently on paper, is quite static in their design and jobs-to-be-done.
Also, what would “immediately” be? the next day or actually immediately?
Our current “one week reflection” is based on the assumption that you have Operator Rounds that you want to do every shift, weekday or day, and that these are quite static. If it’s changed mid-week it will be hard to compare “results” from one day to another, as the underlying Template is not similar.
Hi@Kristoffer Knudsen
There have been a few times in the past when a user forgets a line item on a template, which require changes that are not reflected immediately.
Secondly, during operator rounds when a critical asset is seen near the limits, additional line items are needed to closely monitor the situation.
Hi@Benjamin A Onweni ! Just to update you on this one, in the new version of InField (v2) changes will be reflected the first time you open the Checklist again (don’t need to wait a week).
Br,
Kristoffer
I believe this is already in 2.0 - shouldn’t we change this to implemented?@Kristoffer Knudsen @Anita Hæhre
Nevermind - it already was.