cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Being able to Build "incomplete" BOM from CAD structure, and having a new "Build incomplete" status

Being able to Build "incomplete" BOM from CAD structure, and having a new "Build incomplete" status

When Using the CAD to Part comparator to build eBOM from CAD structure,

and notably when Windchill is set up to allow multi owner links,   it is impossible to build the eBOM as long as all multi owner childs (red exclamation mark icon) are resolved.

 

In some case, the correct WTpart to use is not necessery yet known by the BOM manager, and he wants to build the eBOM as soon as possible , to let the Manufcaturing Engineer start working on mBOM ...

And then come back to complete the full build of eBOM.

 

proposition:

Being able to Build "incomplete" BOM from CAD structure (eg with multi owner childs not resolved),

and having a new "Build incomplete" status on the Parent WTPart  (different than the clock build out of date) that would allow to identify and search BOM needed to be finalized.

 

This new status should be also applied when some childs have the "no entry" icon (eg no associated WTpart), if not explicitely excluded from the Build by the CAD parameter "DO NOT BUILD"

 

GregoryPERASSO_5-1612186573322.png

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Comments
GregoryPERASSO
13-Aquamarine

Hello @JenniferPierron 

your thought ?

Thanks

JenniferPierron
14-Alexandrite

@GregoryPERASSO 

 

Hi Gregory.

So far we don't have a sense of a "partially" up to date Part/CAD structure.  I think we would need to think about this generically outside of just Multi-owner.

 

Can you explain more why "In some case, the correct WTpart to use is not necessery yet known by the BOM manager?"

Is it because you need to take a new Part number and you haven't done so yet?  E.g. one of your organizations will use a component that was originally designed for a different org; therefore, you would need to make a new Part number, because they would need the engraving for that org?   Other?

 

Thanks

Jennifer

 

 

 

 

 

GregoryPERASSO
13-Aquamarine

@JenniferPierron 

 

Agree , it should be generic.  Not only for multiowner.

I was probably not clear  about the "DO NOT BUILD".    The idea from our users is that the BOM should be considered "partially built" if some childs have the "no entry" icon.  Cause that mean that the CAD prt have not yet its associated WTPart,  As today the build process allow to build , even if some "no entry" are there without explicitly exclude them by "DO NOT BUILD" parameter, they can miss a WTpart creation/association ...

 

For the use case:  "In some case, the correct WTpart to use is not necessery yet known by the BOM manager?"

In fact both cases : either to take a new Part number,  or reuse an existing one. 

But the issue is more that CAD Engineers and BOM managers works on the detail design of the Product, driven by inputs and requirements from the Design (aesthetic) and Marketing.  So for example they know that they need a screw .   The screw is already designed in term of 3D mechanical/functionnal aspects.  But they don't have yet the requirement from the Marketing if the screw will be an existing blue, or if they should create a new yellow one...

 

The idea is really to build partially the eBOM as soon as possible to let Manufacturing Engineers start working on MPMLink mBOMs asap. But don't miss not yet "associated" CAD parts.

 

regards 

Gregory