have you ever received any replies ?
If so, would you mind to share them with us ?
I'll apologize for reviving an older post, but I alsocannot findsubstantial documentation or other helpful info on this subject.
Did anyone find informationthat can be shared on utilizing this functionality?
In Reply to Patrick Williams:
Has anyone in the MPMLink community been able to add attributes and values to the ERP Data->ERP Material section of a downstream manufacturing WTPart? I have read the WHC on this topic and enabled the preference but it still isn't working. This is 10.1 F000.
Patrick Williams | Engineering Systems | o: 616.698.3766 | c: 616.947.2110
You are right Casey, It is sometimes good to resicitate old posts.
In 3 years many things have changed. However, I still find very difficult to find information on MPMLink.
I've added some IBas ... but for testing purposes only. We finally do not use the ERP material on production.
Notably cause no iteration history on it.
But carrefull , the actual ERPMaterial is common to the whole "Branch" of WTpart , accros the equivalence links.
I mean that the ERPMaterial is the same intance objecton the Design View, manufacturing View and plant Views
When you revise the Design WTpart. it will create a new version of the ERPMaterial , wich will be visible/editable on all new revsions of your downstream WTparts (according to updated equivalence link)
It symbolize a kind of "SAP Material Master" which is the same for any BOM in the ERP ....
PTC R&D are in work for a quite deep change on the ERPMaterial data model for the future release of Windchill ...
It seems this functionality would suit our purpose.
In some cases we make and buy the same materials.
If we buy, we need to link to the Technical Data Package associated to the correct design view revision. However, If we make, we are using theBOM and Routingassociated with the mfg. view according to their effectivity.
So while we will pass themfg. view to SAP, along with the plant specificBOM and Routing, the actualmfg. view version is somewhat irrelevant in SAP.
In other words, the SAP Material revision controls the data for buy relative to the design view, the BOM/Routing effectivity (production version) controls the data for make relative to the mfg. view.
In the case of ongoing dual sourcing, we would not want to raise questions about the need todisturb existing purchase agreements by reflecting changes to the in-house make process by including the mfg. view revision in the material master.
If anyone is using this model successfully, or sees obvious complications, I would appreciate additional input.
we've got exactly the same case as yours, with some make and/or buy Material
We choose to handle this in our Windchill to SAP interface, without using the ERP material
the most upstream View, generally the design View is sent as "Material Master" with its related Docs, drawings etc ... then it can be used for purchasing
the downstream Views and alternatives mBOM are sent to SAP with only BOM links informations (qty, unit , line number etc ...)
in fact we send 2 kind of messages to SAP:
-Material Master message
so it behavelike a kind of OOTB ERP Material as only upstream part/attributes/version is sent to ERP ..
I have a question for you about Docs.
When you say you send Docs to SAP what does it mean: you send only metadata or also physical files?
you're right . we do not send physical Docs (WTdocs or EPM CAD )
Only metadas, and notably URL to the Windchill content or Creo View Viz
And for some "Industrial Documentation" (We are not yet live with MPM Routings to SAP interface ) we send a dynamic URL, that build on the fly a resulting PDF with watermarks and contents different regarding the ERP Manufacturing order type (Prototype or Production)