I think in my head I had a different idea on how SUMA worked. So, if you have walked this path before, please let me know where the mine fields are. I understand the part relationships between OEM, Manufacturer and Vendor Parts. We are adding this on to an existing system so I would assume that all my existing 300K parts are all considered OEM parts by that definition right?
Let's take the example of a COTS part like NAS620C10, a milspec washer. This exists in our system currently and called out on BOMs. If I wanted to apply AML to this, it would need to be a MFG part, a different type. Do I need to change the type on all of these existing parts? It does not make much sense to leave the existing part as a OEM part and create a new MFG part linked to it. Can MFG parts be called out directly on BOMs?
This leads me to another observation: Creating Parts just got a whole lot more complicated. Do you then block part creation and leave that for an admin? If users create parts from CAD directly, they will likely create OEM parts which would require type changes to make them MFG parts and correct them.
I am sure I will have more questions so let me know if your able to answer questions offline.
Answering some of my own questions:
This leads me to the following conclusion:
SUMA requires at least two parts to properly manage part sourcing preferences. This is answering a different question than I was expected. I wanted SUMA to direct users in cases of similar parts, to a preferred part. It appears to be directing supply chain to a preferred supplier part. Help me see my use case still fits with SUMA:
An Engineer is designing a fixture and needs a fastener. PartsLink shows them 10 parts in the range they searched on. They should be directed toward preferred parts but these might not be identical parts. It might be a slightly larger fastener so we can gravitate toward fewer size selections.
Take the case of NAS1352N4-10, NAS1352C4-10 and an internally screened version of STDPRTN412. The Engineer may really need a -8 but we would like to use a more common size in -10 and preferably the internally screened version and higher strength (N over C). PartsLink and SUMA should show that STDPRTN412 is preferred over the others.
Now these all exist as OEM buy parts in PDMLink currently. Am I correct in stating that I would need to create a corresponding MFG part for each one to capture sourcing preference? Or worse, convert them all to MFG parts then recreate an OEM part to link them together?
I can see if we had a system of internal numbers for all buy parts but this is not the case currently. Am I missing something?
You've asked a lot of interesting questions that I hope have some responses.
I thought once you created a part, you could not change it's type. Is that really the case?
Does the tool cleanup any orphaned data or does it just change the type?
The reason I ask is I wrote a tools to change type and it does the dB attribute cleanup.
In my use case the target type did not have the same attributes as the source type therefore remove from the dB was appropriate.
But this thread got me thinking a nice enhancement to the tool would be if the target type has attributes of the same type and name as the source type maybe an option keep the values. Hmmmmm
You can change the sub-type but you cannot change the object type.
For example, if you have three sub-types of object type WTDocument can can toggle between the sub-types and even between a sub-type and the top level object type (in this example WTDocument).
But if you do it keep in mind attributes tied to the current sub-type will be lost to the user (not to the dB). If you toggle back the attributes are still there.
This means if you have this situation and you change the sub-type you’ll need to do some dB cleanup or be left orphaned data in the dB.
Hope this helps