Impact 2024: The Industrial Data and AI Conference for and by Users | Nominate Speakers Now for a Ch...
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed - please check out our latest release notes! In this release we have improved our UX, both by adding more clarity between line items, as well as giving the status button more space. Test it out and please provide us with feedback on how it’s working! 😀
Hi @Hud - please check out our latest release notes! Among other things, we have added more space between checklist status options so you avoid clicking the incorrect state. We hope this improves your experience, but please test it out and provide us with feedback 😀
Thanks @Benjamin A Onweni !Do you have any insights to share on why a DEL would rename the time series? Thanks!
👍 Makes sense, thnx! In that use case I would assume they want each step to count towards the “completion”?
Thanks @Satoshi Yamada ! Unfortunately, this is the way this feature is currently designed, but we’ll look into how we can store this when you reload the page.
Thanks @Marcela Young ! Do you know if the “naming convention” referred to for example is identical to the naming convention (tags) in SAP? If that’s the case, one idea could be to incorporate a “drop-down” that the Template builder could choose from instead of having to remember the tag themselves. Or is the “naming convention” a separate document stored somewhere else?
(cc @Nicklas Lind )
Thanks @Benjamin A Onweni ! As discussed in the other thread, we’ll look into what can be done in the manual checklists.
Thanks @ibrahim.alsyed ! As discussed before wrt SAP write-back. Our starting point will be SAP Notifications, but I agree that SAP Work Orders (e.g. close-out operations) are a natural next step to look into after that.
Hi @crgomez13 ! Yes, we are aware of this need and the frustration it causes. Planning to incorporate support for something like a “drop-down” :) Thanks!
It is correct as @masayoshi points out, in the latest release we now also support Time Series that has a “Relationship” to Assets, and not only direct children. In addition, under the “configure InField” button in InField you have the ability to configure which Time Series that are shown by default. Let me know if this fix your issue. Br,Kristoffer
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 @ibrahim.alsyed - thanks for reaching out. Today, you have the ability to create a Template with a Template Item containing a “Measurement Reading” (Time Series). If the Name of the Template Item matches an Asset tag in Cognite Data Fusion the “Asset Link” will be automatically contextualised, meaning that any other consumer/application of Cognite Data Fusion can leverage that Time Series on the Asset. You can see the docs here: https://docs.cognite.com/infield/guides/checklists/checklists_routineroundsHowever, we only support creation of “direct Asset Link” and not “Relationships” today. As you know, we do now support both when it comes to “viewing” Time Series data in InField (based on feedback from your team). In the future we can look into supporting the creation of “Relationships” as well, but I will need to understand a bit more of when you would like to create a “Relationship” instead of a “Direct Link”. I assume that if the Asset has a Relationship to another Asset you might
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed - thanks for reaching out. As discussed in our session in November, we are currently planning to look into surfacing lab & incident data in Q2. In general, if the data is in CDF it should be fine, but we still need some more insights into the data structure and how it is to be used to ensure repeatability. Thanks!
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed - thanks for reaching out! Similar to the “lab and incident data” use case we also want to provide more flexibility in the amount of data that is shown from each source system, such as more fields (tabs) from SAP. This feature has the same underlying InField technical dependencies as the “lab and incident data”, so this is also currently planned for Q2. Thanks!
Hi @Benjamin A Onweni!As Crystal mentions, happy to interact on this topic on Tuesday. Although we want to incorporate this use case and totally understand the need, we are not planning to do it this year. Br,Kristoffer
Hi @Benjamin A Onweni, Thanks for reaching out. Our sign-in flow is connected to the customers Azure Active Directory, so as long as the user is logged out of AAD there should not be a problem when a new user logs into the same device. I know Celanese users experienced some issues with AAD in InField before, is this still the case?(cc @Crystal Connor Richards )
@asgottlieb - thanks for the scenario, this makes a lot of sense. I think ideally we would create the “measurement reading” as a child (direct link) to the instrument tag, since this is the instrument where the measurement is actually coming from. Then there would either need to exist a pre-defined relationship between the instrument tag and DCS tag, that we can “piggy back” on, or we would need to automatically create that logic. Need to think about how to exactly solve it in the team, but the feature request defiantly makes sense.
Hi @Marcela Young - thanks for the feedback! When you are saying “past values from that specific checklist items”, then you are referring to checklist items with measurement readings I assume? So instead of going to the tag overview page and click on the trend, you want the trend (historic values) directly accessible from the checklist? Thanks!
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed ! YES/NO, as well as other types of “custom states” that you might have in the current “paper-based” round/checklists, is something that we will have functionality for. We do not want to implement this on a case-by-case basis (e.g. only doing YES/NO), but rather have a robust and flexible way of doing any “custom state” you need.
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed !As discussed, planning to release functionality to solve this need in the beginning of Q1.
👍 Thanks for the feedback, @Culbreth Dylan Celanese - that makes sense. From your point of view, who should see the archived checklists? Everyone with approver privilege or only the one that approved the specific checklist?
End of Q1 is the current plan
Hi @rsiddha, thanks for reaching out! I believe you are able to apply this filtering when “configuring InField” in fusion.cognite.com In the two boxes in the bottom you can define which SAP metadata field that indicates the “active status” of the work oder, and then add values that indicate non-active ones (e.g. CLSD or TECO) to filter these out.
@Marcela Young - understood, this is what we discussed in our session last week I believe. It makes sense to have functionality to ensure that synthetic tags are created in a standard way, to again make it easier to analyse the data afterwards. Need to do some more exploration to determine how we’ll solve it, but let’s spend some time on it in a deep-dive session early next year.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.