How to prevent reuse of "active" components in Windchill 10.1

[RogerEngee]

Hi all, would appreciate your help or comments, if any, on the scenario below which our design team has encountered with Windchill:

Design A model structure

Finished good1.asm A.1 (Assy)

     Model_TEST1.prt A.1 (Comp)

     Model_TEST2.prt B.1 (Comp)

Design B model structure

Finished good2.asm A.1

     Model_TEST3.prt A.1 (saved as from design A model comp w slight modifications)

     Model_TEST4.prt A.1 (saved as from design A model comp w slight modifications)

Latest design

Finished good3.asm A.1

     Model_TEST3.prt A.1 (reuse component from design B)

     Model_TEST4.prt A.1 (reuse component from design B)

Is there anyway to remind user to reuse the components in Design B and ≠ Design A (i.e. without setting the state of compA to Obsolete)

**However, note that Design A & B are both still “active” in the pdt portfolio.

An analogy would be ptc phasing out older SW but still allowing end users though the new version is available.

Thanks in advance,

Roger Ng

(Singapore)

[MikeLockwood]

Don't know of any way in CAD, but one can indicate status like "Preferred" or "Do not Use" on WTParts using Supplier Management.

[RogerEngee]

We're not on supplier management yet (BOM parts are independent - not linked to CAD at the moment)

Can we make use of the "Inactive" state in the lifecycle to achieve the tagging at least? Would that have similar effect as obsolete?

[kdehal]

It sounds like you already have a potential solution.

You can add a new state to your lifecycle for cad files, and train your users to understand that the new state represents objects that should no longer be used by new assemblies.

[RogerEngee]

Thanks all for your comments.

A new state sounds like a good preposition, but may involve changes to existing change management process to enable user driven state changes.

We also need to think about the unintended consequences of allowing people to set state on object components.

Would this block them from performing an EC later on an assy/drw using the "inactive" part?

Would an unknowing user still require/request the "inactive" part to become editable some years later?