I'm a relatively new CAD/Windchill admin and I've been trying to define a best practice for our team on how to manage tabulated drawings.
Here's a common scenario: an engineer makes a component in some default color, but then later needs to add a second version of that component with a different color. Since there is no change in geometry, there's no need for a new CAD model. Since 99% of the current drawing specifications will apply to the new color design, the engineer wants to reuse the same drawing as well. Typically the engineer will just add a manual table to the existing drawing calling out the different color requirements.
We are using WTParts in Windchill to drive our BOMs, so now I've been getting engineers in the scenario above to create a new WTPart for the new version, and we've also been linking it to the existing CAD model so now the system shows that 1 CAD model is related to those 2 WTParts.
The trouble I face is in revision control. Right now, we maintain only 1 revision on on drawings, and that revision matches the model's revision. Since we are not using MBD, the drawing is our official documentation to our suppliers.
What this means is that if the first part was released at a rev A, the drawing and the component need to be revised to B to add the second color. The second color is initially created at A, but then needs to be immediately revised to B to match the revision on the drawing. It's really easy to mess up this process and get things out of sync. Also, it could indicate to a Supplier that the original component has changed, when really it hasn't (although its drawing has). I really don't want to try to track revisions for individual parts on our drawings, or have revisions for drawings that are independent from the models.
If your company is using tabulated drawings in Windchill, can you share some best practices?
One consideration is always Family Tables. I'm assuming you are using Creo in the Windchill environment. There are various conversations in the group about Family Tables, I would recommend you search for them and review them. I personally do not allow them in our system for various reasons. There are many folks who disagree and you can weigh their reasons and make your own choice on them.
That being said, regardless of the method you generally have a Document (or Drawing) number with various Part No.s attached to it. Thinking of how to manage this, there are a couple of things that come to mind.
1. The fundamental Described by Document contains all the family members and all information to create each member of the family. We keep the revisions matching on all component members and the Described by Document/Drawing of a particular family. Yes, it can be tedious upping a rev on a part when it's family member is added or changed, but that's just how it is in this method.
2. Keep the 'family' members on one Drawing as a Reference, and the Described by can be unique that item. For example all components related to one 'family' Drawing on the Reference tab. Dimensions, materials, etc. All the family parts refer to this document/drawing. Then use a Described by with the particulars for that ONE item, such as color. Then if you update that ONE , there is no need to update the family document because the membership change is just the color for example. Or if you add new members, it's only connected by the Reference document as a family. The various members of the family can be all sorts of revisions and it won't matter.
Just a couple of thoughts. - James