Question for those using View Versions, what are your versioning strategy and procedures?

[avillanueva]

@JeffZemsky tagging Jeff if you want to weigh in from PTC perspective. This is somewhat a config mgmt discussion but also Part revision question. I've always seen Design View as having strong ties and linkages to CAD and we adopted the Manufacturing View to be that MBOM concept where things needed to vary. 99% of the time there is little difference in our instance and most of those differences can be accomplished by breaking build associations in the Design View. 

Currently, there are two paths in managing the Mfg View structure, create a new view version off Design or revise the previous one if it exists. Aside from the obvious which one is more correct, are there other pros/cons to either approach?

What does it mean if the Design View is at rev A and the Mfg View is at rev C? What is the true part rev you are building? We've been operating with rev syncing where CAD, Drawings and Parts share same Rev designator by practice. I can put in controls to extend that to the Mfg View. Is that how others do it? Is the intent to let them vary and not fight it?

Sorry for the lofty questions but coming to a sort of crossroads with our install.

[Dobi]

We just transitioned to using MPMLink for downstream Manufacturing Views. As part of that we connected Windchill to our ERP. It holds manufacturing views of parts that existed in Windchill as engineering views. The initial transition was a bit chaotic since we have eBOMs in Windchill that now didn't have mBOMs in Windchill but also needed to have mBOMs in Windchill that look like what's already in ERP for those parts. 

The thing that turned out to be the most challenging was in fact that manufacturing views that were newly created for engineering views that may have been Rev F+ would now come in as Rev A. 

We looked at passing equivalence link data to better identify what upstream item is representing the manufacturing view and we also looked at rev syncing. Some sort of clear direction is still pending. 

Purely from an environment standpoint, I look at PLM as housing the product definition. Documents that come out of that to downstream systems ought to be accurate for those receiving systems. For some parts, the manufacturing view - with it's different BOM structure, process plans and operations - is ultimately that product definition that goes to ERP, MES and elsewhere.

If we have a drawing in CAD that is Rev F (engineering view part rev synced so also rev F) but the manufacturing view revision that passes to ERP is NOT rev F, then ERP is missing information today. The machine shop may get a work order for Part Rev B (manufacturing view) but the drawing that comes along with it is Part Rev F (engineering view). So far this has been resulting in confusion and at least a second look at "wait, do you want me to make the RevB or RevF?" questions. Those questions slow things down because the documentation out of Windchill - as I'm passing it - is not clear or complete.

I understand the theory of not having to have your eBOM and mBOM revisions be in sync. If the upstream item changes but the downstream view doesn't, why should the downstream view change to match revisions? Same is true the other way around. If I change around my downstream view or make alternate BOMs and processes, the upstream view is not impacted. To then clearly document Windchill data, more information needs to be passed to fully define the views. To me this looks like either rev syncing (not a fan just on principle) or passing equivalence link data (warming up to this idea... but just) so that the context of definition for the manufacturing view exists for the next system or user that consumes the data. 

I'd like to think that this is a "transition" problem for us. We just turned on MPMLink and are working toward adding the manufacturing views to pertinent parts. At some point in the future, the part that gets released in Windchill will be the "full product definition". For some parts, that will be the engineering view as is and for others that will be the manufacturing view or views/alternates. As long as what passes to downstream systems is clear for those systems, it's fine. Time will tell if that is going to be rev syncing, passing equivalence data or somehow else documenting the upstream information for a different rev of downstream view. 

[joe_morton]

I think lofty questions are the best ones for the community 🙂

We don't use MPMLink, but we're on a journey toward "part centricity." The eventual goal, if we can get the business to accept it, is that rev changes should all be interchangeable. Any non-interchangeable change would be a part number change. We are far from achieving this, but this seems like a great use case for that philosophy. If the revs are interchangeable, the only thing you'd want to ensure is that downstream items are updated accordingly when upstream items change. So ideally you'd have an ECN process that enforces mBOM review/update anytime eBOM is revised.

Of course part number changes would have their own challenges. I read elsewhere you can't do a save-as on some of the MPMLink data. That would definitely be a consideration also.