We are in he process of implementing the Supplier Management module and one question we've been going back and forth on is where do we put the Supplier Parts.
Originally I was thinking that they would be in the same container that the OEM part was in. But after thinking about it, we have several cases where there may be OEM parts that use the same Supplier Part and live in different contexts. Of course we'd love to avoid that situation from happening but the data we have is the data we're stuck with and all we can do is hope to prevent it from getting worse.
What we are thinking right now is having one library for just Supplier Parts. This works well with COTS parts, but from a security standpoint if we use Supplier parts for our custom parts then we may have to think about more control.
Love to hear how others have this setup and pros and cons to the current method.
Today in production we have 4 pairs of attributes for manufacturer and manufacturer part number. This will give us a lot more power, but will also add more time to inputting the information. So I want to make sure that whatever we come up with it doesn't add to much more additional overhead that starts to outweigh all the benefits that we will be getting from SUMA.
We use SUMA. We have all of our "Manufacturer Part" parts in an "Engineering Standard" library. Those parts are managed by a separate set of authors and library managers than other parts. They have different access control rules than other parts. We do not use "Vendor Part" parts at all.
Our "Suppliers" are only in the system to indicate what "Manufacturer Part" parts those suppliers make. We do not do any management of supplier states, supplier part lifecycle states, or preferred part status, or even try to track Supplier addresses (those are maintained in our ERP system). In Windchill, we only link our "Suppliers" to their "Manufacturer Part" parts that we then link to our "Solar Part" parts so we know what manufacturers and manufacturer part numbers supply our standard purchased parts.