Mike, interesting - thanks for clarification.
Diligence
Whether the person filling in the change task is more diligent than the person filling in the change request is an important point. Also whether change admin or CIB feel it is their responsibility to check, and if necessary edit the affected and resulting objects in the change tasks. At the end of the day somebody has to take responsibility for what is affected and that needs to happen before the resulting revisions are created.
Not revising all affected
It depends if you are using the change "transition" for states changes relating to initial release and obsolescence. You might do it another way, through promotion or custom transition in the lifecycle which is triggered elsewhere. Interested to know if you consider "released" and "obsolete" as change or just find the change transition a convenient way make these state changes happen?
Revisions syncing / manual revision setting
This has been on my mind a bit recently. Consider the following
- What you technically need to revise because you are editing it.
- What you should revise because even though you didn't change it directly it has been "significantly" affected as a CAD dependent of the object you did change.
- What you are told to revise because of policy.
Number 1 - easy.
Number 2 - always down to human judgement. The rule of change interchangeability applies to more than physical parts in the bin.
Number 3 - is an attempt to compensate for poor judgement in number 2 or remove the need for people to thing about it to much. "Lets revise anyway to be on the safe side".
Is number 3 better or worse than number 2 - that's a question?
Does it make any difference on this topic - I would say no. By policy or by good judgement somebody still has to put the right objects in the affected table. This is a separate issue to whether you revise all affected or not.
Regards
Darren