Site/group-based access for asset + support multiple asset selection per inspection

Hi @jonnyg 

With your first point, I believe it is possible. But you need to add another question to the title page, which the type of response is set to site. This then will only show you the assets for that site, and if set up only specific assets for that site. I would be good through if you can restrict people what assets people say based off of there site, for assets for a site and for group based of off the type of asset.

For your seconded point, being able to have assets another page or section, (Correct me if I am wrong on that), would be great but from what I have spoken to SC about this is that the it would then mean two assets would link to a single inspection and the code doesn’t work for that currently I believe. It would be good if they work on it in the future, since it would say thousand of inspections being made and only need 1 to inspect 5 things.

With regards to your reply on point 1.

Currently unless I am mistaken when an asset is added in assets it can have an addition that includes the site.

So currently I have tried this and added the site the asset is on

Then when I go into users for different sites they all see all the asset irrespective of the site the asset is on.

Therefore if you have a solution for this then please explain in order that I understand and can apply this.

Currently in my org this is an issue that I want to resolve.

Thanks. 

Hi @jonnyg 

I may have miss understood what you are wanting to do.

Are you looking for people to only see assets relating to the site for:

• When they are doing inspections?
• The assets section of SC, where the assets are kept?

Yes 

For both 

Hi @jonnyg 

For People to only see assets relating to the site for when they are doing inspections:

• Each asset need to be assigned to a site
• For the inspection template you need two response type on the title page, first you need site and then asset. (Site needs to be selected before asset)

If they are assigned to a site it will prompt them to select the site they are assigned but they can also override that. 

It will then display the assets for that site, there is an override button which allows them to see all assets. 

For people to only see asserts relating to the site for the assets section in SC:

It is currently not possible to restrict what they can see but they can filter down what they can see by using the filter function, once the site or type has been added to each asset, they can then filter by type and/or site.

Hi @jonnyg 

Thanks for contributing to the community. 

The short answer is 1. site/group based access and 2. multiple assets in an inspection are both not there today, but the good news is neither are oversights. We just haven’t got to them yet and they are high priorities on our roadmap. 

So why did we release it without these features?

We had 500 organisations in our early access program giving us feedback for over a year before we made the product accessible to all customers. We got strong signal from that group that there was sufficient value there to no longer withhold the Assets product from our customer base.

While we’re excited about how well it has been received, we’re certainly not satisfied with where things are today. I don’t think there will ever come a time when we are satisfied. We have one of the largest teams internally in SC working on developing more functionality and things will continue to evolve rapidly in this space. 

Please keep giving us feedback as it is really important and it helps us reshuffle what we work on next. Always happy to jump on a call and chat through what we are working on. 

Cheers,

Duncan

First point: Add a question on the title page with the response type set to 'site' to show assets for that site only. It would be good to restrict asset access based on site and group.

Second point: It would be great to have assets on another page, but currently, the code doesn't work for two assets linking to a single inspection. It would save time and effort in inspections if they can work on it in the future.

@MarkAccounts 
First Point.
Site is there anyway.No issue with that as it underpins things
However most users can still see and amend the asset.I will be looking at the setting for users and group and the relationship with sites.

I would assume that there is a link yet I have not figured out that can be amended to restrict access to users based upon their site and user group.At the moment not quite solved this - but on with it.

Second Point
I think this is correct. It just means more work etc.However - Media and actions can be added for most questions so why not assets?
Longer term this imo will need to be applied for robustness of asset validation, inspection and integrity based upon how critical they are to the org or the site / project related activities.
 

Furthermore.

@Duncan Heuer Having spoken to your technical colleagues in Australia recently - I have took some time out to explain imo where there are potential gaps in SC in conjunction with the overall timelines.

They are all interlinked 

Inspections - Asset - Actions (non-compliance - Gaps) to Training and linking through issues and eLearning.

These are what I would call the fundamentals of what Sc really means for any business when we develop the PLan Do Check Act system and then include the resources of assets and individuals and the core capabilities that are tested against.

Are individuals and groups of personnel…

REACTIVE 

DEPENDENT

INDEPENDENT

INTERDEPENDENT

The above imo is the objective of most companies to better and have continual improvement and a reduction in lagging indicators that most inspections are aimed at identifying.

It is about the overall organisation being transparent and being able to use for example Sc and its associated elements to show not only compliance and improvement but also that the Safety Culture is improving and this can be measured.

The training aspect for Edapps to Sc Training will be a game changer but it is all interlinked with having all this information when stood in a live working areas observing and inspecting.
Seeing what people can and can't do - having information that provides with a realistic real-time overview of what is happening and how we deal with this.

Issues. This will help.- This how can be linked to training and actions as they are both potential gaps.

So my brief off piste ramble is aimed at saying yes i agree SC are going in the right direction but when we start getting there we can monetise this by endorsing the company and its achievements etc by influencing best practice and insurance reductions and rewards.

By having better practical interlocks and safety devices and system that over time prevent the person from using something they are not trained to.

Maybe more important by creating inclusivity where every person does not have to be a paid user but we can have a qr code or tag that links to then in the system.

Hence on a audit y can see information there and then instead of searching else where.

This will make SC and the org effective and drive good behaviour which is proof of a safe and established organisation.

Supply Chain bonus - everyday... 

STAY SAFE - John