Skip to main content
P
ptc-2635741-Visitor
1-Visitor
October 7, 2008
Question

Check-out configuration preferences

  • October 7, 2008
  • 7 replies
  • 2210 views

What is the prefered default check-out configuration: As-Stored or Latest?

What are the pros and cons of each?

Thank you

    7 replies

    B
    ben_loosli1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    October 7, 2008
    Each method has its use.

    For work in progress, you want Latest.
    To see what the design looked like at rev A (now at C), use As-Stored.


    Ben Loosli
    Sr IS Technologist
    Engineering Automation Systems
    L-3 Communications/Integrated Systems
    Waco, TX 76715

    254-867-4069
    -


    L
    ldutoit10-Marble
    10-Marble
    September 9, 2014

    How do you ensure the 'As stored' versions of these higher level parent assemblies reflect the correct parent revision model if lower level part model changed a revision. Changing a revision on child model does not neccesary force higher level parent models to be revised and checked out too. To get correct As stored revision model it seems that the parent level assemblies will have to be at least revised, regenerated in Creo and checked back in and then be promoted in Windchill to a Released state again?This seems to be a revision tumbling ladder effect onto all parent assemblies where the child model is used. This is time consuming. According to CMII principles it should only be neccesary to revise to point where interchageability is restored? Doing revision tumbling on all higher level 'where used' Released parent assemblies if form,fit and function was not jeopordized in an effort to get the 'As Strored' parent models right is an adminstrative burden. For full explanation refer to my discussion on this forum (http://portal.ptcuser.org/p/fo/st/topic=16&post=127791#p127791). Any reply on possible solution will be much appreciated. Thanks

    D
    DonSenchuk12-Amethyst
    12-Amethyst
    September 10, 2014
    Simply put, you don't do anything to the next level up (the parent model). Because a revision shouldn't affect form, fit or function you set your system so it always pulls the latest version (for product design) or latest released version (for other departments). If the revision does affect form, fit or function it's not a revision; it's a new number. That is what the CMII principle is really getting at. This is done to ensure that anyone pulling any stock from the shelf (new, old or older) can still use it normally.
    T
    23-Emerald IV
    TomU23-Emerald IV
    23-Emerald IV
    September 10, 2014
    Nice in theory, but practically what do you do when your company doesn't work this way (and refuses to change)? How do we make sure all affected upper level assemblies and drawings are updated without having a designer manually read the 'where used' list and then go one by one through every affected object (hundreds of them)?
    D
    DanGlenn1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    September 10, 2014



    In Reply to Lourens du Toit:



    How do you ensure the 'As stored' versions of these higher level parent assemblies reflect the correct parent revision model if lower level part model changed a revision.



    They don't. The "correct" as-stored model of the assembly is with the older revisions of the parts it was stored with. Also, As-Stored is a downward looking used-on config spec, not an upward looking where-used spec. There is no reflection of the correct parent.


    Simply put, CMII is referring to parts and products, not models of parts and products. The Creo models cannot adhere to these rules without significant extra effort as you point out. There is also a greater level of difficulty: Creo detail parts and their interchangeability in their respective assemblies are not only Revison dependent, they are iteration dependent.


    When a detail part is modified for any reason, there is no guarantee it's references are still in tact to regenerate in any of its next higher assemblies. It is for this reason it's critical to maintain a good "As-Stored" configuration spec for any assembly (or part-drawing relationship for that matter.) It's unrealistic to think the assembly model will match the assembly on the shop floor down to the Revision of all its components. We don't even know what therevision mix is onthe shop floor, nor do we care. For that reason, the last regenerated version of the assembly (which is it's latest released revision) should be adequate for most engineering & planningpurposes of that assembly if no engineering changehas caused it to revise. The detail parts will always be operated on with their latest revisions separately.


    When a higher level assembly is revised, then it's time to bring in all the latest detail models and start resolving conflicts and regen failures and create the new latest version of the regenerated assembly. This is when we find out how much our training, modeling standards, model check policies, robustness of our new Creo versions, and all the other governance we've put in place has really been worth it. There are a number of other strategies companies use to mitigate this, but they seldom justify the continuous upfront effort when the Configuration Management of the physicalassembly doesn't demand it.


    Dan Glenn
    Solar Turbines Incorporated

    D
    DonSenchuk12-Amethyst
    12-Amethyst
    September 10, 2014
    If it were me I'd, and I cared to put the effort into it, I'd find a customer that really wanted Rev A of a part 1234 but didn't know that so he simply ordered part 1234. When he received part 1234, because the form, fit or function changed and it was no longer backward compatible, it caused all sorts of problems. Then find all the customers that happened to. Then find which suddenly and mysteriously became former customers due to the disruption this caused.

    If I didn't want to put in the effort, I'd simply file that away in the old gray matter for a time when it does come back to bite them in the ass. Then I'd point out that if they had just followed my suggestion to issue new part numbers on FFF changes this would never have happened.

    Or, accept that the company will need to hire people just to go through every affected upper level assembly and make sure everything is up to date and compatible with the newly designed part. Then, if it's no longer compatible, figure out how to document Assembly 999 needs part 1234 Rev A but Assembly 8888 needs the same part number at Rev B, 7777 at Rev C, 6666 at Rev D, and so on and so forth. In the end, they'll come to the same conclusion that FFF is a new part number.

    I say this because the only alternative to issuing a new part number is to include the revision as part of the part number. And once they include the revision in the part number, they're essentially creating a new part number due to form, fit or function changing. When Part 1234 changes FFF whether it gets a whole new number (3344) or becomes 1234D is irrelevant; it's a new part number either way because 1234D is a different unique identifier than 1234.
    L
    lbalthazor-21-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    September 12, 2014



    In Reply to Dan Glenn:



    "When a higher level assembly is revised, then it's time to bring in all the latest detail models and start resolving conflicts and regen failures and create the new latest version of the regenerated assembly."



    Question for Dan - Say for example, that assembly 1 does not have a revision changebut has a regen failuredue to a revised part. Now, I need to use assembly 1 in anew assembly that I am creating. Would you use the "As-Stored" (last regenerated version) of assembly 1or go thru a process to resolve the failures caused by the part and create a new "Latest" version of the regenerated assembly 1?


    Thank you in advance,

    Lee Balthazor

    Graco Inc
    Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement