Engineering Method new rev

Good Morning,

We have difficulties keeping our engineering part drawings the same rev as the method in Epicor. Frequently we have changes to a drawing that do not affect the BOO or BOM, but we need and want to have our approved Part Rev Method jive with our drawing (autocad) rev.

For Engineering, the current method of needing to pull details from old rev into new one is a big pain. We have two plants where we do manufacturing of both top level and lower level parts, which makes it even more of a hassle, needing to ensure using Engineering workbench opened on correct site.

Does anyone have a solution they’ve done or thoughts on how best to do this to share?

Thank you!

Just curious, a couple questions

Where you store the AutoCad drawing rev in Epicor.

  • On the part master, Rev sheet - PartRev.DrawNum
  • EngWB, Rev sheet - ECORev.DrawNum
  • set up the CAD drawings as part masters and include their numbers/revs right on the BOMs as materials
  • as attachments, CAD viewer, some other?

Who uses drawing revs and what potential issues when a part rev isn’t the same as the drawing rev?

I’m guessing the practice at your site has been to always match part/dwg and users will assume something is wrong if they don’t? And this results in (extra) maintenance whenever the dwg changes, even if it really does not affect the part/methods?

To get around this dilemma, I’ve seen some sites that ended up “decoupling” the drawing numbers/revs from the part number/revs. e.g. assign unique numbers/revs to the drawings and then reference those in the part master or methods. (Which I prefer but… definitely will not be the most popular with everyone when you ask around).

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your reply.
We store the drawing on the Part record as attachment. We only want the latest revision attached. When we attach we only use the drawing number in the filename (no revision) and it is a visualization file. We run a nightly automated task that copies latest CAD visualization files to the repository that holds our Epicor attachments. We use AutoCad vault for the checking in and out of the drawing and the automatic creation of the visualization file when the drawing gets checked in.

With this method, when a drawing gets bumped up a revision and checked in, Epicor automatically has the most recent approved drawing attached the next day. However, the part revision in Epicor now needs to get bumped up. If a user gets a drawing and the revisions do not match, there is concern about whether it is the latest approved drawing, whether it is the correct drawing (eg sometimes people duplicate parts and forget to remove attached drawing that is not correct) or if something went wrong with nightly automated task… We also have some pdfs of old drawn files attached, and have need for those revisions to jive with Epicor part revision as well. These are few and far between.
It certainly would be easier if the Epicor part revision did not need to match the latest approved drawing revision, but I don’t think the people here will go for that since it has occasionally shown to be erroneous.

Since my original post I’ve been toying with using a DMT w PS script to pull the data (via BAQ export in DMT) and then load it back up via DMT with new rev. It feels a bit brute force, but I think maybe if it can get running smoothly then it could be a viable option. We hope to upgrade within next two years. I’d think that a DMT and PS method should stay feasible…

Please continue to let me know your thoughts and ideas.


Hmmm… now I’m wondering if a BPM could remove attachments when parts are duplicated? (and now that I think about it, there are other things I might like to clear at the same time).

Yes, I personally prefer to “decouple” the part and dwg numbers/revs but if people are aren’t already used to it… good luck trying to convert them.

Possible to query E10/CAD systems and locate only the discrepancies?

1 Like

One way I have seen Drawing Revs handled is to create a new UD Field in the PartRev table called DrawingRev_c. This field is to store the current drawing revision that is used to make the revision of the part. This allows you to update the drawing revision without changing the part revision. This is especially helpful if you have “key drawings” where the drawing is updated many times because the key drawing actually describes many part numbers. At one company, we actually created a new UD Table to store the Drawing Numbers, and then in THAT table, we also stored the current revision of each drawing. This way, when we updated the drawing, we only had to fix it in the one UD Table… then in the PartRev screen (and job traveler) we looked up the drawing number to find out the current drawing revision.

1 Like

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your info on how you’ve seen it done. The “key drawings” functionality with a one to many relationship with parts sounds like it would make it much more palatable to have a separate rev/ud field tracking the Epicor revision. We have one part to one drawing setup… I’ve started down the path of a powershell script for pulling and then reloading the data with new rev. I suspect this’ll be an easier sell than differing rev designations.


Thanks Bruce. I agree, dropping the attachments on duplicate is probably a good idea regardless of direction on this. We also clear out some other data, so why not attachment too?
I have pulled the vault revision data for compare to Epicor and I do plan to get it synced where it is not, via a DMT cleanup. But I still need a means to make it easier for engineering to keep them (drawing rev and method rev) synced, which translates to ease of making new revision on method, as needed.

What engineering would like is to just be able to change Rev.0 to Rev.1 on the Part Rev, when there is no method change associated with drawing rev change… I’d tell them to “suck it up” except they have some sets of parts with same drawing number that only differ in last 4 digitt (matl code) but all methods need updating on single drawing change. It really is kind of nasty. :face_vomiting:.

I guess that’s what we get when we try to maintain two sets of data in two places the same.


I can sympathize, the engineering dept was my home before I got into IT.
The only other idea off the top of my head… if an updateable dashboard could handle needs?

Thanks Bruce ~
I thought oh Updateable DB would be nice. It will not work using normal tools and widgets from the looks of things… no access to PartMtl or PartOpr tables.


Yes, thinking the DMT will be better to start with, especially while you’re still figuring out all the bits.

Hmmm… maybe the EngWorkBench instead of the Part BO?
If an updateable version for your end users will even possible… it will be a “project”

On a related note, here is a link to a topic with some info on the Advanced BPM Option:

1 Like

The entire subject of revision control can get really complicated:

  1. Method of Manufacturing Revision - This is a revision in HOW you make it, and what you make it with.
  2. Part Revision - This is a revision to the actual part itself… changing the Method of Manufacturing revision does not necessarily change the part’s revision… fit/form/function doesnt change just because I make it on a different machine, or if I use pre-cut glass vs sheets of glass that need cut up… BUT if I change the type of glass, it changes both the Method AND the Part Revision.
  3. Customer Part Revision - you might have a customer who has their own part number and their own revision. Their revision might have changed because they matched it to your part.
  4. Drawing Revision - the drawing may have its own revision (as in the case of Key Drawings). the drawing revision is updated, but this doesn’t change the finished part’s revision. Also, there are some cases where one part may have multiple drawings, and some drawings my be at different revisions. Drawing revision 5 might be describing revision B of the part. Revision 6 is to correct some wording on the drawing, but doesn’t update the part.

Where I used to work, we had to match all these up when an order was placed to make sure that the customer Rev matched our Rev, and our Drawing’s rev.

Thanks Tim. That’s an excellent description and I plan to bring this up with our interested parties here. It’s as if you’ve been dealing with this stuff for years. :star_struck: Your insight is greatly appreciated!