Impact 2024: The Industrial Data and AI Conference for and by Users | Nominate Speakers Now for a Ch...
Thanks @asgottlieb & @ibrahim.alsyed ! Great that you enjoy the equipment → parent feature. When it comes to accessing children (and it’s relevant data) I agree that it’s a need that makes a lot of sense. The problem is the potential amount of data and how this is presented in a nice and intuitive way (especially on mobile), such that it’s actually valuable and not just “noise”. There’s probably cases where even “grand-children” data is relevant as well, which will mean an even larger amount of data. Will gather your comments above and reach out to you when we start detailing this out internally. Thanks!
Hi @hescalona - thanks a lot for this feedback. I totally agree with you, we should provide a much clearer message to the user if this is the case. Br,Kristoffer
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed - thanks for the feedback. From InFields point of view, our ambition is to give the maintenance technicians out in the field the data they need to do their job effectively. Data from the CMMS, e.g. SAP, is of course relevant for this, totally agree with you. Today, you have access to SAP work orders, Notifications and Operations through InField, but our plan is to have flexibility to showcase more SAP data types that are relevant for the technicians. Based on our current timeline, this is probably something for later H1, but would be very valuable to sit down with your maintenance technicians to understand what type of SAP data they would need and how they would use it to do their job effectively.
Hi @rsiddha & @Benjamin A Onweni - thanks for the feedback. Having an improved process around creating/editing Templates before pushing the changes to production (ready to be executed on) I very much agree with. We are trying to mitigate some of these challenges now, e.g. what you mention on synthetic tags. I don’t think we’ll solve this with separate environments, but rather with something like a “template lifecycle status”, e.g. draft → production. Will update you when we have more on this. Yes, agree that we can merge these two - @Anita Hæhre, could you do that?
Yes, write-back scenario is also very relevant. From InFields POV, there are two main write-back scenarios to the CMMS we want to have support for. For SAP these are Notifications and Work Orders. As you know, we are looking into Notifications as the first write-back scenario, capturing observations from the field. The case you describe above will be relevant for the second one, the work orders, so let’s have a proper investigation of which fields that are relevant to write-back to (e.g. status, hours, etc.) when we get to that stage. Thanks!
Hi @EViswanathan - thanks for joining in. Ideally, we want to be flexible on what SAP data objects that are presented in InField. Meaning that the customer should be able to configure what SAP data objects that are presented in InField based on what has value for the technician out in the field. Of course the requirement will be that these data objects are liberated and modelled in Cognite Data Fusion. Not entirely sure what you mean by “do we have any defined process that what kind of data to be maintained against equipment”, so please elaborate. Cognite Data Fusion handles the link between SAP data objects (e.g. work orders) and equipment data (asset hierarchy, documents, sensor data, etc.). MoC happens in the source system, while our extractor pipelines ensures that any changes are reflected in Cognite Data Fusion.
Hi @Marcela Young - thanks for the feedback on behalf of Raj. I believe I understand the use case with linking the entire Template to a specific asset rather than each Template Item. We’ll see how this can be solved, but would be very interesting to sit down with Raj in the future to fully understand these type of use cases from a Reliability perspective. Regarding reading QR codes to bring up asset information, this is something InField supports today. Are you referring to a different kind of QR code use case?
Hi @Marcela Young and @rsiddha - thanks for providing this feedback. This is actually something we’ve seen the need for before, and if I understand you correctly this is similar to the feature request here? We are planning to have support for this in the Templates creator, most likely during Q2. (cc @Nicklas Lind ) Br,Kristoffer
Hi @rsiddha - thanks for the feedback :) How I read your feedback is that you need “versioning” on the Templates, is that correct? Should you can always choose to use revert back to an older version of the Template if needed? “Versioning” of Templates is something we’ve been discussing in the team as a valuable feature. Currently we haven’t done too much exploration on it, but we have it on the backlog to do it. Thanks!
Hi @Marcela Young - thanks for your feedback! These are the Templates we discussed relevant for maintenance execution, correct? As discussed, we could defiantly create these Templates today, but we’ll need to do some discovery on how to make surface them in the context of e.g. an equipment or a Work Order that you are executing. But defiantly interesting for InField (cc @Nicklas Lind). Will update you for more insights when we start doing discovery on this. Br,Kristoffer
New→Gathering Interest
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed, thanks for your feedback! Question on the different checklists for each status: are these actually completely different checklist? Or would you have one Template/Checklist with Equipment A, B, C, and if Equipment A is “out of service” the tasks relevant for that equipment would simply change to “N/A” or something?
That is correct @rsiddha, this is the reason for this pop-up warning. Does that make sense @Marcela Young ? What is the main reason for why the AAS Learning Facilitator don’t want to see it?
Hi @Niklas Laufer , thanks for reaching out! From your screenshot it doesn’t look like you are doing anything wrong, but could you potentially attach a screen-recording of exactly what happens after you click “confirm”? Br,Kristoffer
Thanks @Niklas Laufer ! From the video I can’t see that you are doing anything wrong. There might be a bug here, could you please log a ticket at support@cognite.com with the video attached? Br,Kristoffer
Hi @Brendan Buckbee! Thnx for the feedback. On 1) that makes a lot of sense. Will bring it back to the team to see how we can work with “historic limits”. On 2) I think it would be valuable to sit down and show you how we are developing the new version of these “custom labels”, and how we envision to trend/work with the data after it’s captured in the field. I’ll send you a meeting proposal. I’d love to hear from the rest of the community on these topics as well!Br,Kristoffer
Hi @rmaidla!Thnx for the input. We are re-design the way of exploring data in InField, and one key concept of that is the ability to always explore data in the context of what you are working with. This means that you will have the possibility to investigate a datapoint (such as the calculated one you mention above) while setting the setpoint in the Template/Checklist without being taken away from the context. So hopefully as a more “one-stop-shop”. I’ve attached an example below of how this could look like when working with a Checklist, with a numerical reading task, on Desktop. If you are building out a Template and setting “min/max” values you will also be able to have that similar exploration context in the same views as the Template. How does this resonate with the need you describe above? Br,Kristoffer
Yes, talked with @rmaidla and as I understand they are also after that. I think right now, the view above should at least make it easier to keep the limits/setpoint up to date although it’s not automatically updated.Having it automatically updated based on some calculations makes sense to do as well, but I think before we can enable something like that we have to enable a way to keep track of the historic limits, as pointed out by @Brendan Buckbee in the attached hub post. I would assume that when you are analysing the data, and the limit keeps changing, it is important to always know what the limit was in the timeframe where you are analysing the data?
Gathering Interest→Planned for development
Hi @ibrahim.alsyed ! For transparency I’ll just copy-paste what we discussed on email here as well. Interested in hearing the thoughts from the rest of the community on this topic :) The current Templates functionality in InField is largely built towards process operators in the context of doing operator/routine rounds type of work. As part of InField 2.0 we are, as you know, re-designing Templates to enable more flexibility in the tasks you can create and how you schedule them. When creating tasks, one key new component is the ability to create "custom labels". In short, this means that you are not restricted to the simple "ok, not ok", but can define a task as for example "yes, no, etc.". However, you can also create tasks that might be more relevant for e.g. an inspection checklist like "compliant, non-compliant, not available, not applicable". In short, I believe we are already developing functionality that makes it easier to create other types of Templates/Checklists than those
Planned for development→Implemented
Hey @Crystal Connor Richards - just an update on this one. All of these points (1, 2, 3) is solved out-of-the-box with InField v2. Br,Kristoffer
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.