Moving product from design/prototype directly -> obsolete should not require child components be at equal release level
Title
-
Official comment
Hi David Hallock,
Thank you for your feedback. I completely understand that you want to minimize the time you spend on obsolete items so that you can focus on items in production. We have this process in place so that the children are also changed to obsolete, preventing accidental usage at a later date. Our change orders require items to be all in a prototype or production phase as you have stated. I've created a loom video that shows how to include the children in the same obsolete change order as the parent. I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions to improve this experience even further.
Best,
Sophia -
Hi David Hallock,
Thank you for your feedback. Can you please provide designs or more details for what you are looking for?
Cheers,
Melody
0 -
If there exists a product that never made it to the production phase, all of it's components and the top level will be at a numeric rev. To create a CO that changes the product to obsolete forces all children to be at equal or higher rev level, forcing a rev to a revision that would unnecessarily cause extra hassle and work to produce the traceability of having all children go to A first, only to be obsoleted.
0 -
If a component is used in more than one product, the intent may not be to obsolete all the children, as the children may not be obsolete themselves, only the top level should be. Either way, depending on a use case, parts that are obsolete should not be able to be added to in production parents, a change should not allow a child to become obsolete while still attached to production parts or parents should not force parts to move to obsolete, especially in the instance of a multiple where used link.
2 -
Hi David,
If you plan on using the children in another parent assembly, please remove the children from the current assembly you wish to render obsolete. This will allow you both obsolete the parent and use the children in future assemblies.
Best,
Sophia-1 -
From a user experience perspective, having to clear the BOM of an assembly I move to Obsolete is quite bad I think. An example of why maintaining the structure is useful is so that I could see where I particular part was used in the past and be able to reference how it was used.
4 -
I'm in agreement. Removing parts from a BOM (if they are to be used elsewhere) before obsoleting the assembly feels counter intuitive. Maintaining the BOM of old assemblies is important for record keeping and reference purposes.
3 -
Agreed with the other commenters here- moving to Obsolete doesn't necessarily mean we never have to reference back to what we produced. Clearing out the assembly first just creates more work sending to Obsolete and more work going back to find the data. We pride ourselves on using common parts across assemblies, so this category accounts for over 75% parts in any of our assemblies.
1
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments