Hello,We are interested to know how many PDMLink customers are enabling associativity between WTParts andEPMDoc structures. If you are using the associativity, what factors drove your decision? If you decided against enabling associativity, what factors drove you away?For companies that are using the associativity:
What are the benefits? Downsides? Changes between 8.0 and 9.0, 9.1? Which configuration options have you employed, i.e. cadxhtmlui.ini options? Customizations?
Some customization examples: - setting auto-associate on check-in to a default value of true rather than the OOTB value of false? - implementing an extension to the DefaultAutoAssociate.class? - Automated creation of WTParts with EPMDocs or vice versa? - Other customizations?
Currently ourPro/I to PDMLink migration plan calls for WTParts to be loaded into the system and associated for<u>all</u> EPMDocs, meaning BOM relevant part numbers as well as _skel.prt , _bobs_bracket.prt, etc. After go-live auto-association will be enabled for all checkins. We are not delighted with thenon BOM relevant WTParts that will inevitably be generated by going this route.The advantage that we see however isthat Pro/E structurespropagatedirectly to Design View versions. At that point we are able tofilter and merge those changes, via a customization,into Engineering View versions which can then be transferred on to SAP. Are there other ways of effecting the linkage between theWTPart side and the EPM side? Cleaner ways?
It seems to us that the promise of PDMLink is that it brings change management (BOM) and design management (CAD) together under a single data model. The obvious implication is that efficiencies can be gained in the interaction of the two data streams. What seems sorely lacking is the roadmap for how BEST to manage thatinteraction, i.e. not what you can do but what you should do.
Summary to follow.
Greg Montgomery Information Technology Analyst 2000 John Deere Run Cary, NC 27513 919-804-2126 <u>mailto:-</u>
Short after we migrated from Intralink to PDMLink, the existence and usage of WTParts was put in discussion as well. It's an extra object you have to administer, a lot of operational problems are caused by wrong association between WTParts and CADdocuments, etc.
It took me some time and persuasion, but after all, we are now glad to have WTParts, along with CADdocuments. CADdocuments are a result of a design process, and are identified to support this process as much as possible. WTParts are one-to-one related to physical articles, and are identified according its ERP-identity.
This is the essence of our motivation to use WTParts.
Hello all,I am still in the process of getting back to some of the respondents. However I did not want to delay the summary any further. I've had some very good responses and offers to discuss.It's obvious that this is very fertile area for discussion and it would be great to hear even more about the way different companies are approaching active linking in PDMLink.Greg Montgomery==============================================Summary: Benefits of CAD-centric: Leverage the CAD Data Faster, immediate BOM maintenance If Active links to CAD Docs are used, you are pretty much forced to use a CAD-centric approach there are more but I am limited on time
Downsides: multi-cad environments and any other situation where there are more than one model that represents a single part number Pro/E assembly does not match ERP BOM in many cases inability to manipulate quantity or membership by the PSE for those objects that have CAD-centric membership definitions you cannot use soft-types or sub-types for WTParts within the CAD workspace without manual downloading first or creating on the server first and then manually associate have to still use the PSE anyway for those BOMs that do not match the CAD BOM the list goes on..... Changes between 8 and 9 - I'm still investigating that
Config options: we basically turned on forcing revs to CAD Docs to be in sync, no custom sub-typing of WTParts, few attributes as possible (performance issues and usage issues), auto numbering for auto associated WTParts - drop extension, revise with passively linked objects, partCentric set to false, etc.
9.0 has improved those options and added more
We're avoiding customizing simply because of many reasons. So we're leveraging best practices in both Pro/E and PDMLink to facilitate our needs. The use of passive links and active links will be leveraged. Manipulation within the PSE is part of our process for those CAD assemblies that do not match the ERP BOM. Just trying to stick to what we have in the system.
I am curious as to the customizations you are planning. It appears that your perspective is more from the IT side as opposed to the CAD side. I would like to know more about the responses you receive concerning customization, any extensions to the DefaultAutoAssociate.class that some may have implemented, and so forth.
How do I change the configuration or set up the configuration of Windchill to allow the following concept:
I need to revise a WTdoc/EPMdoc/WTPart that are at version D.6. When I revise I want Windchill to automatically change to a numeric revision sequence starting at 0.0. I want any alpha based revision sequence no mater what the level A,B,H,Q....to take on a numeric 0.0 revision the next time it is revised and then follow the numeric revision sequence of 0,1,2,3,....