Not a lot of responses to this one. Everyone responded to the Exploder, but here are the responses in one location:
ORIGINAL QUESTION:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTParts can be used to communicate with ERP systems.
WTParts can be use to create new product structures without needing to use Pro/ENGINEER.
WTParts can be used to link CAD data and non-CAD data together.
What do you and your company use WTParts for? I want to get a good idea what these inscrutable objects can be used for. I will post a summary.
For example, do you link product specifications to them? Quotes? What else?
RESPONSE 1:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use it for configuration management and product structures. We create a softtype of the WTPart and add attributes to it. We also used it to link a softtype of a WTDoc that holds the image of a drawing, document, etc. The WTDoc softtype has the same number and version of the WTPart sofftype that it is linked to. The WTPart softtype is what we reference when we do change management of a part and whatever WTDoc softtype is linked to it via the described by link will be affected.
RESPONSE 2:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTParts are linked to CADdocuments. In case of an assembly, we link the assembly, the drawing of the assembly and also the driving skeleton to the same WTPart. In case of a family table, we link the instance, the generic and the drawing of the instance to the corresponding WTPart. Unfortunately, it isn't possible in Windchill 8.0 to create a softtype WTPart from a ProE session, so we are stuck to the root object.
But we do softtype WTParts. Our tools for manufacturing and the tools for assembly have their own softtypes of WTParts. Of course, these people got a special procedure to create their WTParts, and link them to the appropriate CADdocuments.
Another and completely different application for a specific WTPart softtype is a collector for manufacturing documents and WTParts. In this case, the WTPart has nothing to do with any physical object, the trigger to create these WTParts is not CAD. We could have implemented this differently - maybe this thread can bring us some hints -- but we are fairly satisfied with the approach.
Further, we have and use WTProducts 'End Items' (as a softtype of WTParts), and softtypes of WTProducts. One of the WTProduct softtypes is to represent a function in our machine. We develop, produce and sell looms, and looms are fairly complex machines. Someone in the organization built a functional structure of a generic machine, disregarding a specific customer configuration. This generic functional structure is implemented as a hierarchical structure of softtyped end items. The top of this structure is the WTProduct end item. Linked to the leafs of this generic functional structure are the concrete and physical implementations of these functions.
At the moment, we consider to implement a specific customer order as an end item. Any advice? The main reason is to structure the documentation prepared for and sent to the customer. Later, we may use these 'end item orders' also in problem reporting. Less important - at the moment! - is the BOM representing the physical machine delivered, since this is the domain of ERP.
RESPONSE 3:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are customization notes in PTC documentation how to update listeners to handle soft type WTParts from ProE session. Just in case if it helps.
RESPONSE 4:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are in the beginning implementation phase of our Windchill (PDMLink and ProjectLink) system so a few things my change over time.
At the moment we create the WTpart at the same time the CAD data is checked in. That is the WTpart structure is the same than the CAD structure. We are doing so in plan of developing the use of the WTpart.
For us the WTpart represents the product definition and the CAD data only part of this definition. We will therefore add references document and other documentation that make up the full product definition and not only from a BOM point of view.
For instance. A WTpart for a component will have: The model, the 2D drawings (different production drawings for the different production site, customer drawing for customer approval), Engineering datasheets, test reports for validating certain specs.
In other words, everything we need to take the decision to release, should be available in the WTpart to speed up the decision making process.
Later on, we plan to introduce the End Item which will define what we sell to the customer (this include our product with the lubricant (lube specs datasheet), packaging datasheets etc...). Furthermore, as the End Item is what the customer will receive.
It is also what the customer asks for. That is, at the enquiry level (sales) will be able to create in the correct location the End Item at the life cycle state : Customer Enquiry and upload all the information they have, This will kick off a workflow to inform engineering team about the new enquiry and the End Item will move to Development state, put data in the End Item etc... and the End Item will move on to the next state etc... until the release state. We prefer this method to a Project in ProjectLink as we will get a lot of projects and make the system more difficult to manage. A project being a context.
As said, this is the intention but we may end up doing something else as the implementation goes along.
Has anybody followed a similar approach ?
RESPONSE 5:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was curious if you were getting more answers than just those posted to the user forum? I was just about to post the same question as we have recently migrated without WTParts and will soon be adding them, but haven’t yet figured out how to best make use of them.
At the start we were only planning to add spec sheets (vendor sheets) and the released copies (all revs) of the drawing (in our case a PDF file) to WT Parts, but I’m no longer sold that this is the right way to go. Windchill also has the ability to add attachments to a CAD part, so I wonder if anyone has commented on if that might be a better way to go for some of the items that we are considering adding to the WTParts?
Thanks, and looking forward to your summary.
