Deleting again ....

[ocorten-2]

While we are ranting about deleting I would like to bring up another
very frustating mishap in Windchill again.

Deleting objects!

I'm sorry and we've probably beaten this thing to death allready, but
I've got to get this of my chest.

Windchill has at least two rules which makes life for us admins
sometimes very, very frustrating.

1. If an object is used somewhere you can't delete it.
2. If an object has newer iterations you can't delete it.

Here is a use case which I actually had to go through today.

Somebody uploaded and promoted a part accidentally. So now he wants to
delete it again.
These are the steps we had to go through:

1. Find the part and delete it
Doesn't happen, it's used in a allready approved promotion
request
2. Find the promotion request and delete it
3. Find the part again and delete it
Doesn't happen, it's used in an assembly vA.0. The assembly must
not be deleted. Luckily the assembly was still in concept.
4. Checkout the assembly
5. Open it in ProE, Find the suppressed part, Remove it from the
assembly, and save it.
6. Chek the assembly back in creating vA.1 of the assembly

7. Find the part again and delete it
Doesn't happen, vA.0 of the assembly is still there.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could now just find the A.0 version of
the assembly and delete it?
But no, we're not allowed. So we'll use the infamous purge
workaround.
8. Move the assembly to the specially created Purge folder.
9. Run the specially created Purge job for this folder. vA.0 of the
assembly is now deleted.
10. Move the assembly back to it's original folder.

11. Find the part again and delete it
Finally succes.

I know there are workarounds like making the object hidden/unreadable or
renaming it, etc.
But that are workarounds for basic delete functionality.
This was still a simple case: just one part used in one assembly.
Imagine if it was used in much more assemblies ...

To me it is just unacceptable that we have to go through all these loops
to be able to clean our database.
If I want to delete it, and I have the rights to do so, then just let me
do it.Give me warnings about breaking the relationships and then get on
with it.

As soon as PTC has made the upcoming new enhancement process up and
running, I will personally start a campaign on making this functionality
a top 10 priority. But PTC, please spare us the trouble and just bake it
into WC10 while you still can.
By the way, we are not just bashing, we are trying to make this a better
tool for you.



Olaf Corten
CAD/PLM Manager, Besi Competence Center - Other Business Applications
Fico BV, Ratio 6, 6921 RW Duiven, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31 26 3196215
Fax: +31 26 3196200
Mobile: +31 644548554
www.fico.nl

[jfrankovich]

I couldn't agree more...sign me up for the campaign

John Frankovich
GSI Group LLC
www.gsiag.com<">http://www.gsiag.com>

[ptc-169947]

I couldn't agree more. We're still on 3.x with the intent to go to Windchill (just for WF5 and the fact that 3.x is history). I'm really nervous that basic things like duplicate objects, rename, delete, etc that I took for granted in 3.x are going to be a headache.

Stefan

[Cosmo]

I think we should have PTC manage our enhancement requests in Windchill.....this will guarantee that they aren't deleted!!!

Mike -

[BenLoosli]

I have heard that they do manage them in ProjectLink.

Thank you,

Ben H. Loosli

[Cosmo]

Hi Ben,
Yes....I would wager that they do use ProjectLink for this and I would too if I were them. It's actually a great communication and collaboration tool.
I've tried hard to get this tool implemented at my company but the communists in I.T. won't allow it. Or rather, I should say they are forcing me to go through a process that all but guarantees it will never happen.
I would have to create a business case and plan for setting up the server in a way that would allow the proper external access (PTC refers to this as a demilitarized zone). Once I create this business case, it would go through an approval process by our executive team. If approved by them, it would then get prioritized with the other I.T. projects. Once the projects ahead of this one get completed (and assuming that no additional projects get added to the list and prioritized ahead of the server), I would then be able to have the machine set up. This would just get me the server machine with an operating system. Then I would have to go through the implementation of ProjectLink myself or hire someone else to do. The time for this justification can be measured in years at my company.
So in response to I.T........"Yes, I.T......I could go through your Rube Goldberg approval process......or I could make a phone call to NetIdeas and have something up and running within a day or two and completely bypass all of I.T.....I don't even have to let you know I'm doing it!"
Needless to say that everyone in the I.T. org at my company DESPISES me. Luckily, my boss loves this fact and actually put this as a positive remark in my review....he hates I.T.
Mike -