Laurie Dieffenbach
My feedback
-
15 votesLaurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
-
15 votes1 comment · Customer Portal & PI Square » On-line Case Creation · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Laurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
"functions" that is...
Laurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
Update 5/12/2020. Since this request was entered, ABB provided an OPC solution for their web inspection system. The customer is satisfied with the data from the OPC server and no longer wishes to pursue the additional messages in the CNI interface.
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
Unlike most of the data sources for which OSIsoft has Interfaces, this one from ABB has been enhanced, with the result that the customer cannot use our Interface to get the data they want from this system. The experience is that the Interface is no longer working.
-
16 votes1 comment · Customer Portal & PI Square » Customer Portal Overall · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Laurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
-
93 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
Here is some further information from a discussion with Stephen Kwan:
I believe the goal of my customers is to “publish” changes to standards across many sites rather than to have continuous synchronization. It seems likely to me that a “publish” operation would be well coordinated, but would make it much easier to deploy standard solutions across an enterprise. The following are questions from Steve and my responses:
• One way sync or two-way sync? Who is the master if there are conflicts in a two-way sync?
o For my customers, it would be one-way sync (or publication, if you will); the “corporate” source would be considered the master in these cases.
• In a one way sync, do we overwrite and delete differences at the destination? If so, what if there were analytics that are generating calculation results? Overwrite them?
o We could lead customers to allow updating of the base templates, while leaving any derived templates alone. That is a best practice we advocate for allowing site customization of standard enterprise templates.
[SK] I would have to disagree with you on this. I can see the use case of a fixed base template and making changes to derived templates. Derived templates have a heavy dependency on the base template, therefore a change in the base template potentially has much higher impact than derived templates. As an example, if the derived template uses Attribute1, but a subsequent update of the base template no longer has Attribute1, what should we do?
• It's likely that source and destination AF structure would have different Data Archives for their PI Point attributes. Would customer demand that this mapping would occur automatically?
o I think the main goal is publishing standard templates and UOMs. So, the tag references shouldn’t be as much of a consideration.
[SK] All templates have attributes and at least one attribute references a PI Point. That’s the reason behind my question.
• In the case of templates, once a PI Point attribute is "locked in" (via Create or Update DR), it would need to be "reset to template" when it's sync from A to B. This resetting would undo any manual changes or overrides. Is that OK?
o I’m not sure I understand the question. Can you “lock in” a tag reference in a template? Isn’t the purpose of a template to be generic?
[SK] Actually this is a behavior of a PI Point Data Reference. As an example, an attribute template may have a configuration of \\%Server%\%Element%.%Attribute%. The % delimits a substitution parameter. When the user instantiate this configuration to actually set it to a PI Point, the configuration is “locked”. You have to do this for AF to automatically create PI Points. When this attribute is pushed out to the site, one of three things may have happened. 1) the configuration was not locked, thus %Server% is dynamic and would be reflective of the server it’s connected to. 2) this was locked and thus no longer dynamic and when it’s pushed out the site, we need to know what to do with it. 3) at the source, this configuration string was overwritten at the instance level and thus “locked” in. If this is pushed out to site (instance, not template), we need to know what to do with it.
• What if there are conflicts with UOM database between source and destination? Who wins?
o In the case of one customer, I think the corporate UOM list would win. I don’t know that all customers care about this so much.
[SK] Ok, so there is danger here because UOM changes unbeknownst to the site is a bad thing. Changes to conversion factors, i.e. custom UOM, could have happened without end users knowing that it has.
• When syncing AFTables, can we assume the login credential to external databases will be the same? What if it's different? What should we do?
o I can’t answer this one. It hasn’t come up for my customers. -
1 voteLaurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
30 votesLaurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
Products are not in alphabetical order so it’s easy to miss what you are looking for
-
5 votes1 comment · PI Integrators » PI Integrator for Business Analytics · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Laurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
Laurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
3 votes0 comments · Customer Portal & PI Square » Customer Portal Overall · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Laurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
-
95 votes9 comments · Customer Portal & PI Square » Customer Portal Overall · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
If the feed on the home page had distinct icons for product releases, that would be helpful.
-
111 votesEVALUATING · 13 comments · Customer Portal & PI Square » Customer Portal Overall · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Laurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
Laurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
43 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
Such a "profile" symbol might also be useful to display data from other array sources, such as waveform and spectra data from a vibration monitoring system. There is currently no way to represent this data in a native PI Vision symbol.
Laurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
We would like to hear from you about the use cases for this request.
Currently, only a “Super User” or an “Admin” can generate a PI Server License file. “Download User” cannot.
“Download User” can download all software and files (including the PI Server exe), but with no ability to generate the required PI Server License file (see this KB Article for details on portal profile permissions: https://customers.osisoft.com/s/knowledgearticle?knowledgeArticleUrl=What-is-a-Customer-Portal-user-profile) .
Without the ability to generate a PI Server license file, the Download User cannot install a new instance of the PI Server. Does that satisfy the request?
Laurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
3 votesLaurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
21 votes1 comment · Customer Portal & PI Square » Customer Portal Overall · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
Note that the user is not provided with guidance, such as a phone number to call Tech Support, while portal access is being granted.
Laurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesLaurie Dieffenbach
supported this idea
·
Laurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
57 votesLaurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesLaurie Dieffenbach
shared this idea
·
-
107 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Laurie Dieffenbach
commented
There should be a quick way to create a table of current specifications for a process (e.g., a paper grade) shown with the current values for those variables. Furthermore, the current value should be highlighted with some kind of conditional formatting if it is outside the ranges specified.
Larger customers are struggling to easily close cases when they need to. As a result, lots of cases get Abandoned when they might otherwise be clearly resolved. In addition, using the link on the email from support to close a case requires a Captcha interaction that is inconvenient. If there was a way to just log in to the Portal to close these cases, that would be an improvement.