Preference to Revise New Downstream Branch (Manufacturing View) to match Upstream (Design View)

[BrianSullivan]

We would like a Preference "Set Initial Revision of Downstream Branch to Match Upstream Branch

* Some Customers Migrate into Windchill (CAD and Part Structures)

* Some Customers Start their Windchill Journey with only CAD/Part Structures

* Revisions of EBOMs could be Rev F and the same BOM could exist in MRP System as that Number at Rev F

Then they decide they would like to create MBOMs in Windchill.

MAPSB/BOM Transformer when you create a New Downstream Branch will only create at 1st Revision.

If EBOM was Rev 7 and had 10 Sub Assemblies at different Revisions

If Each was turned into a (New Downstream Branch) in the MBOM they all would reset to Revision A.

You would have to Leave MAPSB/BOM Transfomer - Revise them to the Correct Revision, Update Equivalence and Return to MAPSB/BOM Transformer

While - Yes Many companies are Fine with Number 1108600 Rev F (Design) and 1108600 Rev A (Manufacturing) and Keeping no Rev in the MRP System so that the MBOM can go in.  Other companies get confused using same number and what?  Rev A EBOM is to Rev B MBOM and Rev B EBOM is actually Rev E of MBOM.  Not all customers work that way.

Similarly to CAD-Part Relationship.  Many companies like to keep CAD Drawings and Windchill Parts at Same Revision.  They can set a Preference "Set Revision for Part" and "Store New Parts with CAD Documents" so that CAD Components/Drawings and Windchill (Design View) Parts can have a matching Revision.

We are asking for a continuation of the Logic.  When an EBOM reaches a Point of Development where a Manufacturing BOM is Necessary.  We would like a Preference "Set Initial Revision of Downstream Branch to Match Upstream Branch" which would match Revision and maintain Equivalence.

PTC could also consider on the New Downstream Branch GUI to add Revision, so that a Revision could be select for the Downstream View.

Once Customer is up and running New Models starting Design Rev A and Manufacturing Rev A are generally fine.  This seems to effect customer just beginning to use MPMLink (While having CAD in Windchill for a couple of decades) and that have existing Products in their MRP System.

[BrianSullivan]

Note:

The Preference would need to allow you to Select Name of the Upstream (Example: Design) and the downstream (Example: Manufacturing) since some companies rename and many have further Downstream Plant Views... which generally would not want to match revisions.  Typical usage would be for smaller single plant (1 Windchill) (1 MRP Customers)

[BrianSullivan]

Additional Possible Solutions to Revise in MPMLink

1. Update "Revise Current Link" Capability with Preference to Match Latest Upstream Revision or a New Menu Action with that Capability.

2. Add Set Revision Capability to the "Revise Current Link" Capability

3. Add Layout for "New Downstream Branch" and Allow Revision (revisionPicker) to be added to the GUI for the "New Downstream Branch";  Should allow Revision on the Layout for the MAPSB Structure Transformer Layout which is for "New Downstream Part" It also should let you set Revision, if configured.  No Different that if for a New Part GUI https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS127643

Currently No Solutions for the Use Case:

https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS314633?language=en&posno=2&q=new%20downstream%20branch%20revision&source=search
No API for New Downstream Branch

https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS340412
Request to Set Revise on New Downstream Branch - Not Functionality

[GaryWalling]

Great idea. We also believe that the upstream and downstream parts should be "revision" synchronised. It's currently a pain (and adoption hurdle)  to create the downstream part at rev A and then have to up-rev it to match the upstream part revision. Please add these preferences.

[GaryWalling]

@PTCModerator , hi moderator, how do we get PTC to review and set the status of this to "Acknowledged" ?  Thanks.

[olivierlp]

Thanks, @GaryWalling, for calling our attention here. let me acknowledge this well documented idea from @BrianSullivan. We are acknowledging it as the Community management team. This is not a commitment from the Product team. Other users may comment and vote your idea up.