With the upcomming release in Autumn, we will implement the following set of features for both Manufacturing and Site Progress Item:

In the definition of the activities (Manufacturing Types and Site Progress Item Types) we will add one new setting: Skippable.

This defines, if any activity should be skippable by the user.

The user will then see an option called Skip in his list, only for the configured activities with Skippable activated.

If Skip is clicked, the activity will be marked as finished, but skipped. This means, the percentage will be included in the progress. So it behaves exactly like the activity would be finished, but the skip information will show everyone it was not performed.

We understand the whish for a redistribution of progress, but it is not feasible for us at this stage.

In our business context, the meaning of the “Skip action” is equivalent to marking a progress activity as "Not Applicable".

This approach helps avoid creating and maintaining multiple manufacturing types or site progress types that differ only because of a few exceptional activities. Instead, a common manufacturing/site process can be reused while managing occasional exceptions at activity level.

Today, when a progress activity item is not applicable, users manually enter "Not Applicable" in the activity comment field and then mark the activity as completed according to its input type (e.g., percentage, Yes/No, or value-based input).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, this leads to activities being marked as completed even though they were not applicable, distorting the overall progress calculation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed solution:

the Skip functionality could be implemented as a simple "Not Applicable" or "Skipped" checkbox column available on every progress activity row, regardless of the input type (percentage, Yes/No, or value-based).

When selected, the activity would be excluded from progress calculations and clearly identified as not applicable rather than completed.

Regarding the progress calculation, the 100% can still be achieved through a proportional redistribution of the weights across the remaining applicable activities.

The formula would be as follows:

Adjusted Weight (i) = Original Weight (i) / Σ(Original Weights of non-skipped activities)

Overall Progress = Σ (Adjusted Weight (i) × Progress (i))

Example:

Activity Weight Progress

1 50% skipped

2 20% 100%

3 10% 80%

4 10% 0%

5 10% 0%

Total Weight of Non-Skipped Activities: 20% + 10% + 10% + 10% = 50%

Weight Redistribution

Activity 2 → 20% / 50% = 0.40 (40%)

Activity 3 → 10% / 50% = 0.20 (20%)

Activity 4 → 10% / 50% = 0.20 (20%)

Activity 5 → 10% / 50% = 0.20 (20%)

Final Progress Calculation

Progress = (0.40 × 1.00) + (0.20 × 0.80) + (0.20 × 0.00) + (0.20 × 0.00) = 0.40 + 0.16 + 0 + 0 = 0.56 → 56%

In this way:

• skipped activities are simply excluded from the denominator

• the remaining activities are proportionally redistributed

• the total still reaches 100%

This keeps the logic simple while ensuring a more accurate representation of progress.

Internally, we discussed this topic further and came up with an additional idea. Instead of a skip button, we could introduce an input type called "List", where the available options can be customized.

For example, I could add "In Review" to the existing Yes/No/Skip options and define the corresponding progress values individually.

The option of value is DEFINITELY to introduce the new Input Type for Activities called "Yes/No/Skip" or, alternatively, "Yes / No / Not Applicable" as it is custom in International Construction of Plants.

Daniele Brandolin The solution we currently have in mind would work for Site Progress Items and Manufacturing Items alike.

We are still not sure if the new solution should work out of the box for all activities (Yes/No, Quantity and Progress Input Types), which means users can basically skip all activities.

OR if we should introduce a new Input Type for Activities called "Yes/No/Skip" to limit users to only skip specific activities.

Any input to this topic would be highly appreciated!

I believe this is a valuable enhancement and aligns well with feedback received from our organization. This functionality would be beneficial not only for the Site Progress module, but also for the Manufacturing module, where similar scenarios can occur and require the same level of flexibility.

I think this is a good idea. Indeed, we also have the problem that we must, per se, list all activities as checklines that normally occur. However, not all items really need all activities that could possibly occur, e.g. we have a structural steel module that may be installed on to of another steel structure or, alterntively, on a concrete foundations. In all cases, our checkline #9 reads: "Steel module correctly grouted, if applicable". Here a skpi button is what we need.

We must, however, make clear what happens with the partial progress of that line. Basically, 2 options exist: firstly, the skipped progress weight will be distributed onto all other activities, secondly, the skipped progress weight will simply be credited as if the activity was done. IN our view, the second option is easier, mathematically simpler, and preferrable.