Submit Your Suggestions for Viewpoint Team

Thanks all.  I am going to merge this idea with Idea MVPM-I-151 "Manually" adjusting the ball in court -- which itself is a Feature that we will take on soon.

This is just a push back , no revision. Thank you for checking into my request.

A Revision # shouldn’t be assigned until the submittal has been sent to engineers for formal review. The instance described here is between submitter and reviwer, not issuer so if/when a submittal requires more information we need to have a direct toggle between responsible parties only. I think VP should add a button on the reviewer page that simply says additional info required. The action for that button would transmit an email to the submitter directly  to obtain additional information. Keep all of the transmitting record history and maintain due dates. Aaron’s message describing current process and desired process is accurate with our request. Revision increments should only be made if ball in court is transferred to engineer.

Aaron:

Our preference is that a Revision NOT be made at this time. If you need revised or additional information from the submitter we would like to send it back to the Submitter so it puts it the ball back in their court and on their "Items Assigned" list with perhaps a new due date but the Approver (A/E) has not yet seen it and should not get a revised sbmtl if they haven't seen the original processed yet. They may think they have missed an original review.

CURRENT:

• Ball is in the court of the Reviewer having been 'Submitted'
• Additional information is needed from Submitter
• Reviewer clicks 'Reject & Revise'  -- which creates a Revision and sends back to the Issuer

DESIRED:

• Rather than sending back to the Issuer, the Revision is created and sent to the Submitter

Questions:

• Is it a Revision that gets created?
• Would it rather be a push back to the Submitter  (versus a formal revision)??
• Other comments?