For impact analysis purposes is very important to be able to configure the parameters of your analysis (i.e. define your own rule-sets). Thanks to that you will see only such types of connections you want to see. And if there are too many rules (=rule sets are too wide), you will find out, that everything is connected to everything. The only way to prevent this everything-to-everything scenario, I`d recommend using more specific types of connections whenever it is possible.
For example:
- source-target connections between tables in PDM: mappings
- BPM to PDM: Related Diagrams connection might make sense in some cases
- objects inside EAM: Role association might be appropriate candidate
Only in cases there is no other, more "native" connection available I`d think about extended attribute (Object). And I still think that using Traceability link might be more appropriate for Impact analysis purposes, because it doesn`t show you worthless Extended Composition nodes. See attached example. Process_2 uses extended attributes and Process_3 uses Traceability links. Which one is more simple and readable?
Ondrej
Bluesky| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.