I've done a fair amount of searching to identify opinions & processes, but really haven't found much on showing iterations on drawings. I saw one point (Mike L) for including the full version on a drawing and one (David M) removing all Windchill data from the drawing.
I am interested to hear if anybody has arguments against putting Revision & Iteration on a drawing vs. only the Revision ( Rev. A vs. Rev A.4).
Another issue would also be putting the Lifecycle State on the drawing.
I know a case for only a Revision on a drawing is that I can make iteration changes without a new drawing. If a lifecycle state changes due to workflow and I don't have the iteration or Lifecycle state on that drawing, I do not have to print/publish a new drawing.
If I have a Lifecycle, Iteration or other Windchill attribute on a drawing, I can republish for an update without requiring a CAD Author to make the change. (This can also be managed automagically in a workflow).
Looking forward to some discussion.
I include the revision and the iteration of both the model and the drawing in our title block. It's small enough that most people don't even notice them, but it is exceedingly handy as an administrator when trying to figure out where a particular drawing came from.
Having this information also makes it very easy to know exactly which iteration of a model was is use when the drawing was created. This can be helpful when someone updates a model but fails to update the drawing. Since all our drawings are published 'as stored', the model checked in with the drawing is the one that will be shown on the drawing during publishing, not whatever might be the latest.
On the other hand, I don't include the lifecycle state directly on the Creo drawing. I don't want the contents of the drawing changing between what is checked in (and visible in the Creo file open preview) and what is published in Windchill, and this would happen if state were included. Instead I add approval information to the PDF (Fishbowl add-on) and include state as a watermark in Creo View (since approval information can't as easily be shown and positioned in Creo View.)
We only publish the Revision information on the drawings for the drawing. Our process releases both the drawing and model at the same revision, so no need to track iterations. If a change is needed, the model and drawing must be revised to the next revision. I do have symbol that shows the revision and iteration with the date that is shown on drawings issued for checking and review purposes before the final signoff review. From what I have seen, most of the designers remove that little table and it is not used as management intended.
We use a symbol just outside of the border to pull version and iteration and filename of the model and checkin date of the drawing. These are specifically used to verify the model and the drawing were "checked in" and matches what's in PDMLink prior to release. This helped solve "i forgot to check in" issue.
We use the following in our formats:
In our config.sup we have
We use the Modified on and Lifecycle state in the revision block to show the drawing release status and what date it was last touched.