Regarding 3 and 4, we are working on 2 patches that will fix the behavior you describe. Please file a SR and ask for HF 9.3.4.0.1 to enable Move Schedule (will also allow Templates to have multiple calendars and dependencies to be created between tasks with different calendars). If wanted, please also ask for HF 9.3.4.0.3 to enable editing the calendar of parent activities. The second issue is mostly cosmetic since dates are rolled up, but we do understand that most customers will want to see the Activity in a similar calendar to its children.

For #1, rescheduling can be triggered by several different methods, but does require the App Server to be running. The database upgrade cannot recalculate schedules because that logic is in the App Server, which means the database upgrade utility (AUT) cannot change the dates.

For #2, per all our documentation, the Task calendar controls the schedule. Customers can have Activity Owners and Team Resources with any number of different preferred calendars. In many customers, the Activity Owner, or Project Manager, is not actually the resource working on a Task. The project manager and resource may be in different regions. We chose to enable the most flexibility by allowing the Project Manager to choose the Task Calendar independently from any user Preferred Calendar.

you need to check and review configurations associated with objects.

Please check thoroughly the Criteria of non routable objects like parts and documents and its associated, privilege masks that are mapped with roles.

Basically, all the roles impact will give insight of impact user having those roles

or role mapped to usergroups associated with the impacted users

Also, review for other users who are not restricted.

This will give impact of change to meet you objective.

Change that need to make in configuration are by adding additional conditions by specifying needed life cycle phases other than obsolete in the criteria associated with privilege mask of read and discover privileges in existing roles for the users who do not need access

For those users who need access create separate criteria and map privilege and roles with separate user groups..

This will ensure, your access control of data is in place for all users.

What error do the users see? Is your environment a single-node env or clustered?

EDAConnect supports the PCB development process by making it easy to extract parts information from EDA tools like DXDesigner into to Agile PLM. If you have a specific requirement that you can let me know, we can see how if we have or could develop a solution for this.

Agile provides robust security framework for accessing information. Accessing the information in Agile is provided using roles,privileges, criteria. Agile provided OOTB roles, privileges and criteria for rapid implementation. If they do not match. it provides capability to create new set of privileges, criteria and roles. OOTB roles are assign directly to users. the assigning of roles to users is many to one mapping. many to one mapping indicate the hierarchical nature of User function in PLM. However, Best practice is to leverage usergroup to map the roles and assign the users to usergroup. this helps organization to define clear information model in hierarchical format. End state of information model in hierarchy can be identified either Pyramid way or Inverted Pyramid. This way information access and management can easily maintained.

Can run the report and save it real-time?

This becomes case of Global or regional bom, More centralized for managing CMs. not distributed at site specific. For Managing centralized configurations, Ensure

1) Parameters associated with Manufacturing, Sourcing, Quality and Design are having common stake holders to arrive at Review and Release of ECN. This make sure ECO is effectively implemented and concurrent reviews are done collaboratively.

2) Alternavtive, Make one CM as partner to other CM and drive the change through one CM.

Check out the following resources to see if they help to answer your question:

* “Oracle Agile PLM for the Semiconductor Industry”:http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/agile/agile-for-semiconductor-1868201.pdf

* “EDAConnect for Agile”: http://perceptionsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/EDAConnect.pdf

I think your implementation is based on the relationships you have with your CM. One aspect my start with access to Agile and then Security access to View Objects. Who can view what and, should they View each other?

At a simple level you may choose to have a common BOM with ECO used to manage the content. If an assembly or part needs a revision it needs a revision everywhere. Then, use MCO to address manufacturing issues – either at all locations, or with an individual CM.

9.3.3 has a bug fix for cross domain security setup in weblogic console. If you still want to do this with current version, you must enable global trust between two weblogic domains (Agile Weblogic