Confusion with Where-used tab

dguidry · ‎Oct 06, 2015

Our users keep getting confused with what is visible on the where-used tab. The view says "latest" but it is reporting the latest that uses it, which is sometimes an older revision. Most of our engineers are expecting to see latest, as in not expecting to see any where-used assembly that is not the latest version of that assembly. The engineers are tracing parts to end items, which is often 10 levels of assembly. They freak out when they see a part that was removed from an end item and they see the end item on the expanded where-used table.

Any other companies having this trouble? Did you enhance the where-used tab to be either more clearly described or report differently?

ScottPearson · ‎Oct 06, 2015

I have faced similar situations when a no-longer-used part is still listed as being used/required by an assembly. The reason, as I understand it, is this:

Although the CURRENT version of the Assembly no longer uses a given Part, Intralink knows that an EARLIER version of the Assembly DID USE that (now-removed) Part. Thus Intralink preserves the association between the removed Part and the Assembly in case – and here’s the key – one day in the future somebody decides to roll-back the Assembly to the EARLIER version. If that were to be done, then Intralink could properly restore the Assembly to the EARLIER state using the Parts as they existed at that earlier point in time.

One possible solution (untried by me) is to Purge the EARLIER version(s) of the Assembly that use the removed Part.

I think that’s the only way to truly remove the association between the removed Part and Assembly…, thus also allowing for the actual deletion of the removed Part from Intralink, if desired (assuming that Part isn’t used in some other Assembly, Part, Drawing, etc.).

Scott Pearson
Senior Designer

CAD System Administrator

S O U T H W E S T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E^®Space Science and Engineering Division

Space Systems Directorate
Department of Space Engineering
San Antonio, Texas USA

ChrisPLM · ‎Oct 07, 2015

Hi Darren

yes we also had this issue. While the logic is valid. it would help if the table contained more information such as the state of that version shown, and also if it is the latest.

For instance if PART123 was used in ASM456 version B.4 released sometime ago and now ASM456 (revision C) doe snot use PART123

I would expect to see in the Where-Used table of PART123 that it is used in ASM456 (B.4 - Obsolete) Not Latest, that way I know that the latest of ASM456 (ie C) does not use PART123.

Maybe there is a product idea....

In the meanwhile we had to have a report created in Query Builder and it was quite tricky to built. (Sorry, I can't share it).

I would strongly not recommend what Scott is suggesting. I would class this has very bad data management practices...

Best regards

ScottPearson · ‎Oct 07, 2015

I'm not so sure that using Purge and/or Delete are inherently "very bad data management practices" but they are certainly powerful tools and should be used with extreme caution. In fact, we elect never to Purge here. And Delete is very rare. But they can be accomplished safely if well considered beforehand.

Like Chris, I wish the software itself would simply better distinguish which parts are required for the current version and which parts are required for previous versions. That would serve users best.

dguidry · ‎Oct 07, 2015

Well, looks like we have all noticed the same gap. I do understand the logic, just seems like there is a communication gap. I like the idea of a "not latest revision" flag to show, as well as the state and other information being available. I would still like three views, an all versions view, a "most recent using" view (the view currently called "latest"), and a true latest (which only reports where-used branches with all parts being the latest).

I will mention it to a product manager I hope to talk to in the near future. I may also put in a product idea (enhancement request) and see how it fares in the community. Look for that later this week.

ChrisPLM · ‎Oct 07, 2015

Have a look there

Where Used Report - is it the latest?

TomU · ‎Oct 07, 2015

I just did some testing and I've think I've managed to wrap my head around the current behavior. Please correct me if I have something wrong.

Where Used

Relationship Report (extra tab)

ChrisPLM · ‎Oct 08, 2015

Hi Tom,

thanks for those screenshot, It is very informative.

However, this shows that there is currently no easy way to get what, I think, most people would want.

I believe it should be easy to implement what I suggested above. (A Querybuilder report can get it). Not only this would not change the interface of Windchill apart of adding two more column in the existing table but this would give great info in a straighforward way.

I like when PTC introduced the Relationship Report but as you showed, it is complementary to the Where Used or the relationship explorer but once again to have a full picture the user as to open several pages...

Best regards