Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Manualnumbering VS Autonumbering


Re: Manualnumbering VS Autonumbering

Dobry Den Milan

you are more than welcome. I just realized that my last message was empty, not sure what happened there. Surely a user's issue

you wrote:

Some intersting ideas:

- Once you are using a PDM system, you need to change some old habits. One is using dummy part names an then renaming.

Why renaming ? if you start from a template you are prompted to give a name a with a brand new object. Unless you mean that the template as a default name that you need to replace ??

- Otherwise, just ignore the number - it´s only used in Windchill.

This is an approach but this would not be using the tool correctly. Best practice is that PDM Number = ERP Number for instance, so better start with good practice to avoid having to renumber in the future.

As far as I and the PLM Think Tank I work with are concerned, things are/should be kept simple

WTPart Number = EPMDocument Number = ERP Number = CAD filename.ext

WTpart Name = EPMDocument Name = ERP Name/description

- Your part number should also be the same as your drawing number.

Here again, I do not consider this has good practice, If you take PDMLink

A model and a drawing are both EPMDocument and OOTB the system will not let you have both number,  Even if you could, what do you do when you have 2 drawings for the same model ?

Your part/product is represented by the WTPart, so at a minimum the wtpart should have the same number than your item in ERP.

You could have your EPMDocument for the model have a different number but for what reason , really ?  Then come your 2D representation. I purposely call it 2D representation and not 2D drawing as at the end of the day a 2D drawing is only a representation of your 3D model for a given purpose. You could have a need for several representations of your 3D model in 2D. So then how can you give the representations all the same number ?

I have followed the link you provided. I am glad to see that you do not content yourself with this forum only.

There are effectively two schools those who believe speaking/smart/talking/descriptive numbering scheme is the best and the other school which believe that only random/meaningless/sequential numbering scheme is the only good way.

My experience has showed me that generally those in favour of speaking numbers are engineers with a lot of experience in what they do and little in computer system and therefore want to use the system with the "old" way of working.

As Gregory said, Windchill is highly configurable so your number could be automatically generated by the system following rules that create a speaking number. However, you have discovered by yourself the limitation. This speaking number then means nothing when reuse in a different structure....

It is very hard to afford time and money to properly investigate and test all the pros and cons. The good news is that you can have an lean approach of the implementation and consider that your system will be going through a continuous improvement phase for many years. In addition Windchill is very flexible. As a consequence, you could start using Windchill and let your user manually allocate the numbers. You should not delay "too" much an implementation just because of a numbering scheme. Once you start using Windchill and getting other benefits and users more familiar with it, you can revise the numbering scheme.  I have in the past had to renumbered teens of thousands of WTpart, EPMDocument and filename. OK we tested it and prepared for it but it only took a few hours to do. The biggest problem was actually that some drawings were not calling the correct parameters for the Number, so when we made the change, it was not apparent on the drawing so we needed to include an iteration of the drawings to replace the parameter.

All this to say that there is no right or wrong way to go live. Go Live and you can always improve and make changes later. One thing though, whatever is decided for go live must be justifiable otherwise it will be said that it was a bad implementation etc.. When things start to go wrong month after go live, users are quick to blame the system or the implementor.

once again. All the best in your journey to perfection

Maji dobry den

Best regards from Havlíčkův Brod