MarcL: PLM solutions must be able to substantiate an object in a preliminary form… IOW, objects must be allowed to exist without assigning a permanent object identifier. How does Aras handle this?
Peter Schroer:
Aras Innovator supports this scenario with standard out-of-the-box functionality. OOTB we use the CMII rules for configuration & change management.
All Items / objects move through a lifecycle, and the rules about numbering / naming, which fields are required, what actions are valid, etc changes naturally over the lifecycle. These rules are fully customizable as well.
It’s normal for a CAD model to be named “My Bracket” for the first few revisions, and not re-identified to a formal part number until much later in the innovation / development process.
When items are re-identified, this does not impact the configurations they are linked to. Aras Innovator uses an internal identifier (not end user visible) to maintain configuration structures.
Tags: Architecture, CAD, configuration management, document management, Items, Lifecycle, Objects, Revision & Version
PLM alpha 
April 4, 2012 at 11:25 am |
While I agree with the flexibility in principle, I do not agree with the practice of having items in the PLM environment that do not have a permanent identifier, ie, part or document number. Our engineers felt the same and when as a company decided for the sake of systems downstream that all parts and documents needed numbers, and much worse (so they deemed) unintelligent numbers, they pitched a fit much like the riotous crowd at the end of “Frankenstein”.
That was 10 years ago. The engineers are still able to “play” in the CAD environment and not use permanent identifiers, but once it needs to be a part of the PLM environment, it is identified without any cramping of style.
April 4, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
Hey Brian, so we agree that flexibilty on identification during the work-in-process CAD design phase is important. I understand your point that once in a PLM environment, you don’t want to see Part or Drawing identifiers changing…. this makes sense if you use the PLM for release data management only. I’m a big advocate however for using the same PLM instance for all work-in-process configurations as well. We want to support the earliest collaboration, innovation, back-of-the-envelope processes and data within PLM; using adhoc, flexible, ever-changing rules of engagement…. and then let PLM lifecycle management mature those designs into later rigid processes and protected data configurations.
To support both the innovation work-in-process phase, and the structured released product phase in the same data model requires a unique level of flexibility. This was the point of the original post. In fact, that same flexibility means, that I really don’t care if the customer uses intelligent numbers, sequential numbers, numeric sequences, alphanumeric, or uses Klingon character sets to identity their Parts. Sometimes you need to take the concept of ‘best practice’ and toss it out the window :-) Every company is different and our job is support the differences that make our users competitive.
April 6, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
[…] Sequence generator with business object-specific attributes such as classification, part family, lifecycle state, etc. to create intelligent numbering […]
January 16, 2014 at 11:58 am |
It’s remarkable to visit this website and readin the views of all colleagues about tyis
paragraph, while I amm also eager of getting experience.