PCS Follow up Project Preliminary results

PCS NG related questions

37 Participants in the survey

Comparison with PCS Legacy

Comparison with PCS Legacy by expertise

PCS NG vs PCS legacy comments much improved GUI, user can with a small training get used to the new GUI. The interface is better both in the dashboard because the information are complete and in the function of "search". I also like the "label". I did not used the older version of PCS. Improvements are being done The layout is more pleasant to work with however the functionalities have not improved (or getting even worse). I did not used the older version of PCS.

PCS NG vs PCS legacy comments (II) In the old PCS you could change the main searching opinions by making personal filters. You could also search for a specific year and use it every time when PCS is used. The new system doesn't give this opportunity. It's only one option in the filter function. Inbox is missing. You can't look for newer Dossier. It is only shown the last editing, which may perhaps be only a processing. User friendly interface I only worked with the old interface for 3 months and had not so much work on it. So it's impossible to say which one is the better system. The overview of the dossiers (Contents) is better. The overview of the table of Contents (Folder/Labels) should be improved. 9 November 2018

PCS NG vs PCS legacy comments (III) PCS NG needs much more time to work, is slower as we are working in a station. The usability has generally improved reasonably, although I do not see every aspect as an improvement (the dashboard i. e. still remains difficult to work with presently). Certain functions introduced with PCS NG, such as Combined PaP have got a very critical negative impact on us. I really like the more structured navigation in PCS NG, improving visibility on the dossiers massively. I am still missing certain keyboard related functions and shortcuts. The "enter" button behaves differently depending on which menu or field you are in. Help messages are usually not very helpful, "something went wrong, please contact support" - it would at least be nice to get some error code or error text with a timestamp to contact RNE support with a basis. Error prevention has improved, mainly because of a really improved train characteristics copying function. This was the major cause for mistakes in the Legacy system, with NG you can clearly see and choose which operation point is equipped with which data. 9 November 2018

PCS Support comments (IV) Better overview with calendar and paths, main/subsidiaries as differences. BUT: no overview subsidiary in combination with main! The IT platform is clear and after an introduction is also quite understandable. PCS corresponds sure more the current state of technology than the old Legacy. It's better especially due to easy things like: opening more than one tab, use of "enter" key -> that means the usability is better. But there are still things which need to be improved like the process for the pre-allocation in PCS as well as some plausible checks which should be made directly by PCS. more user-friendly. copy function can be improved ==> copy a dossier will delete all the PAP sections of the Original dossier. linking dossiers ==> I was not able to link the created dossiers to each other. An link function exists, but this creates a copy of the dossier (without the PAP sections). 9 November 2018

PCS NG vs PCS legacy comments (V) easier quick search function for dossier search Extended view of traffic lights Dossier list can be personalized "Back" button in the browser The options for customizing the web-Interface PCS NG are more flexible than in PCS Legacy 9 November 2018

Browser compatibility

Navigation (between menus, pages, browser tabs)

Keyboard Usage, shortcuts, etc.

Error prevention

Difficulty to learn the new interface

Design: Typography, graphics, etc.

Comments: Missing Functionalities Cobra, Consistency check of border harmonization (times, calendar). In the search filter, the possibility of select all the field at the same time (eg in the filter "phase" a multiple choice has to be done one by one) Deleting incorrect or closed trains (from displayed list). Possibility to modify trains (dossiers) for timetable change. Now I have to create a new dossier. Automated copying of certain train parameters throughout the dossier (dossier parameters / national parameters/ user parameters /...) If you are in a dossiers (via Folder year 2017 and the Label you choose) then if you will go back, you can only go back via the button "back to all 2017" instead of going back in the same Label of the same year. 9 November 2018

Comments: Missing Functionalities (II) To cancel a dossier (by COSS) once it has been uploaded and not published yet To cancel a dossier (by RU) in case it has some mistakes and RU prefer to submit a new request Possibility to search for paps running through a station that is not border of PaP section but it is in the path of the PaP Email to COSS when a request for RC is submitted (warning) Ergonomic point of view ergonomic rules, right mouse click, map, graphic Functionalities: Business Intelligence, and other (see CR) 9 November 2018

Comments: Missing Functionalities (III) With PCS Legacy, as we were working in a dossier, the other workers who worked in the same time in the dossier were identified at the top of the screen. These information was very useful: when I saw somebody else in the same PCS Dossier I was working, I very frequently "saved" the dossier. With PCS NG, these visibility of another worker in the PCS dossier doesn't exist. In consequences: many times, especially in the last days before 11/04, when we save the dossier we are working with, all our modifications are lost if some body else has saved before. In fact, we are working in a fog, because we don't know when some body else is working in the same time in the PCS dossier we are working in. it would be a very good thing if PCS NG could show these specificity too. 2. Button "delete dossier" exists now. But isn't efficient in all PCS Dossiers 3 Labels: actually, to modify the name of a label, we have to create a new label, to insert the PCS Dossiers in it, and then to delete the "old" label. Could be better to be able to modify the name of the label. Selection of label filters are very easy: one click on each label we want to see, consult the PCS Dossiers they have. After, when we want to consult another label, we have to click on the label wished, AND click again on all the labels we don't need more. Could be easier with a new button to "unselect" the labels selected before. 4. Common Train parameters. Many problems with common train parameters (weight and length) while these parameters are exceeded. In this case, a message appears, indicating the parameter is exceeded. The only solution is: - in the Common Train parameter of each station: to write the maximum parameter authorized by the PaP, - in the field "Comments" at the top of the PCS Dossier, just above Basic Data and at the top of each common train parameter field: to write the real common train parameters Infrastructure has to take in account to draw really the path. This process isn't good, but is the alone we found to indicate to infrastructure the real common train parameters to take in account. Unfortunately, not all the Infrastructure read these comments. This creates differences from each sides of the borders, will generate many observations. These situation could be easily overcome: - or the control which avoids the exceeding of the common train parameters, only indicates the exceeding, without bloking the PCS Dossier; - or the control which avoids the exceeding of the common train parameters, indicates the exceeding, and autorises this exceeding as the number of locs is more than 1, and then, doesn't blocks the continuity of the PCS Dossier. In fact, when the train will run, it is the responsibility of the RU to pull, to tow the train according with the machines of drive. 9 November 2018

Comments: Missing Functionalities (III) Too many scrolling Drag and Drop Exports improvements Seeing subsidiaries in combination with main or probably other subsidiaries border crossing and so on. Example: country one has to create subsidiary, country two is working with main. No possibility to see the combination nor to choose for "which path is valid in June" Conflict solving tool for C-OSS, Plausible checks by PCS (e.g. activity type and times), and there are still some CRs which are open ;) A correct working link (dossiers) function. A short way to copy a complete dossier inclusive the PAP's. You can create labels, but labels are only visible for 1 user. My colleagues (with own login) cannot see the labels I've created. 9 November 2018

Comments: Missing Functionalities (IV) The history view is not practical to use. I am still looking for a practical field to add comments. I miss that the view I set for a dossier list is not saved or used for other views of dossier lists 9 November 2018

New Enhancements: Dashboard

New Enhancements: Quick Search

New Enhancements: Advanced Search

New Enhancements: Labels

New Enhancements: Filters

Content Management System related questions

Content Management System (CMS) Number of participants in the survey that have checked the CMS areas: Documentation Patch Management Change Request

Usability of the Content Management System

CMS: Quality of the documentation

CMS: Search Engine

CMS: Change Request Content and usage

CMS: Patch Management content

CMS Wish list: Video content

CMS Wish list: Interactive Calendars for meetings

CMS Wish list: Interactive calendars for PCS processes, TT…

CMS Wish list: Agenda and minutes documentation

CMS Wish list: Learning Management System

PCS Support: related questions

Support Usage: Type of survey participants

PCS Support: Support Quality

PCS Support: Response Time

PCS Support: Response Usefulness

PCS Support: Tools

PCS Support: Tools by type of user

Support comments Different experience in" general topics" and "interface issues". Response time and quality on general PCS topics are good to excellent, but user interface is different. We deal with a lot of unsolved questions in the interface business, and received feedback goes from: too general answer; not really to the point; far away from the detailed business case, and feedback missing detailed support how to tackle the issues that we face when we connect our planning tool to the PCS system. Increase the support staff in order to let the technical manager and the functional manager focus on our midterm/long term CR instead of answering to our daily request