We successfully implemented an automated MCO workflow that reduced our approval cycle time from 8 days to 2.5 days. Our manufacturing change orders were bottlenecked by sequential manual approvals across engineering, quality, and manufacturing teams.
The solution involved redesigning the workflow with automated participant assignment based on affected part categories and implementing parallel review tasks for non-dependent approvals. We configured dynamic routing rules that automatically assign reviewers based on part classification metadata, eliminating the need for manual coordinator intervention.
Key improvements included parallel approval paths for quality and manufacturing reviews (previously sequential), automatic escalation after 24 hours, and smart skip logic for non-applicable review stages. The workflow now handles 85% of MCOs without manual routing decisions.
For organizations still using manual MCO routing, I’m sharing our implementation approach and lessons learned.
We used standard Windchill workflow with custom expressions for routing logic. Parallel tasks work well for truly independent reviews like quality inspection criteria versus manufacturing feasibility assessment. For dependent reviews, we maintained sequential flow.
One challenge was handling conditional dependencies. For example, if quality flags a material compliance issue, manufacturing review should wait. We solved this with a checkpoint task that evaluates parallel review outcomes and either proceeds or loops back for additional sequential review when conflicts are detected.
This is exactly what we need. Our MCO process takes 10-12 days on average. How did you handle the dynamic participant assignment? We have over 200 engineers across different product lines and manually selecting reviewers is our biggest time sink. Did you use role-based assignment or something more sophisticated?
Great question. We actually track rejection rates and rework as quality metrics. Post-implementation, our rejection rate stayed flat at 12% and rework decreased by 18%, likely because reviewers receive more targeted MCOs relevant to their expertise.
For escalation, we do differentiate. High-risk MCOs (affecting safety or regulatory compliance) have 48-hour review windows. Standard changes use 24 hours. Low-risk changes have 16-hour windows. The risk classification comes from the part attributes I mentioned earlier, so escalation timing is automatically set based on affected parts.
We implemented a hybrid approach combining role-based and attribute-based assignment. Parts have classification attributes like product_line, component_type, and risk_level. The workflow reads these attributes and queries team membership dynamically.
For example, if an MCO affects parts with product_line=PowerTools and component_type=Motor, the workflow automatically assigns the PowerTools motor design team lead and relevant quality engineer. We maintain team rosters in Windchill organizational structures rather than hardcoding in workflow logic.
The key was creating a mapping table in the database that links part attributes to review teams. This makes it maintainable without modifying workflow definitions.
Impressive results. What workflow tool did you use for parallel task implementation? Standard Windchill workflow or custom routing? We’re on 12.0 CPS05 as well and considering similar optimization. Did you encounter any issues with parallel approvals where one reviewer needs to see another’s comments before deciding?
Have you measured the impact on approval quality? Sometimes faster processes lead to rushed reviews. Also curious about your escalation strategy - 24 hours seems aggressive for complex MCOs. Do you differentiate escalation timing based on change complexity or impact?