See if you can stump the chumps with your SolidWorks questions at our session in SolidWorks World 2010:
Also, if you have files to submit as part of your question, please email your question and files to stumpthechumps@gmail.com.
In a recent article, I expressed concerns about the current state of PDM, especially for SolidWorks. There were particular questions posed regarding the long term outlook for Enterprise PDM. The concern is that Dassault Systemes’ plan for PDM solutions may be different than SolidWorks Corp. If that is the case, the Enterprise PDM may not be viable long term solution.
My worries where not allayed in a recent presentation by Noam Ktalav of Dassault Systemes (DS). He was asked about where Enterprise PDM fits into the DS product offerings. His answer didn’t fully address the question. Instead, he talked about Enovia and its scalability. Needless to say, official word regarding Enterprise PDM from DS is very mixed.
This prompted me to contact SolidWorks Corp for a clearer picture, as least from their perspective. Jeff Ray, CEO of SolidWorks Corp, was able to provide some interesting insights. He exclaimed that statements from DS about Enterprise PDM are mixed. Ray did offer hope that something is being done about this.
[There is a] very intensive effort between SolidWorks and Enovia for a clear road map.
SolidWorks Corp is working hard to lay out a clear plan for its customers. Ray discussed the need for a long term strategy. SolidWorks Corp does not want to force a decision on customers that may eventually lead to a dead end. This would bad for SolidWorks Corp, bad for reputation of individuals who relied on the solutions offered by SolidWorks Corp, and bad for the companies that implemented those solutions. Instead, Ray declared,
We need to give people a scalable answer.
Ray then stated that he wants to optimize the user experience and “hide the plumbing” of the software. He doesn’t want to let technology get in the way of the user experience. He elaborated that users shouldn’t have to be IT experts or even require extensive reliance upon IT departments just to manage their data.
So, a solution that will address Enterprise PDM’s place in the DS universe is coming. As to the when and in what form? Answers will be forthcoming soon.
During my interview with Ray, I also asked about SolidWorks Workgroups PDM (aka PDMWorks). He clarified that development of the application has hit the limits of the technology behind it. It is not worth the effort to continue to extensively develop the application further. He stated that SolidWorks Corp will continue to support Workgroups PDM and any customers that choose to use it, but that the limitations of the application need to be clearly explained.
3Dconnexion recently announced another free software update for the new SpacePilot PRO 3D mouse. The most visible portions of this upgrade include new functions called Model Properties Applet and Intelligent Function Key Notification. Both of these new functions add functionality to the SpacePilot PRO’s LCD. If there ever was a device feature that needs added functionality, it is the LCD on the SpacePilot PRO.
Model Properties Applet
This new applet enables engineers to quickly view supposed key model information on the SpacePilot PRO’s LCD. The claim from 3DConnexion is that this somehow increases productivity and makes things easier for workgroups to collaborate. I’m not sure how this applet makes collaboration easier. The applet just displays fundamental document information on the LCD. It doesn’t transmit this data or pull information from my PDM.
For a drawing, the function is very basic, indeed. The applet tells me that I am looking at a drawing (go figure), and shows the computer network name of the drawing’s author, file size, file creation date, file last saved date, and the computer network name of the last person to save the file. There is nothing particularly “key” or “vital” about any this information. The applet would be far more useful if it allowed the user to modify the information on the display. For example, for me key information from a drawing would be a list of particular custom property names and their values, and the name of the model in the dominant pre-defined view (the view from which the part custom property values are derived).
Slightly more useful information is available for models, including mass, volume, material and density. This same information is displayed for assemblies, though I’m not sure why. Wouldn’t it be more useful to show me the total number of parts in the assembly, or an estimate on how many seconds would be required for a force rebuild (CTRL-Q)? My suggestion to 3DConnexion is to completely dump the file information and add these kind of data for all document types.
Intelligent Function Key Notification
This is a fancy name for the fact that the LCD now displays a quick pop-up window which shows the user which button command they activated. It does this regardless to the applet that is running on the LCD. This way, the user will always have visual confirmation as to which command they just executed. This is a moderately useful function for someone who has just finish mapping their programmable buttons and needs queues to help reinforce the memorization of that mapping. If the user has already memorized their button mapping, this function provides little benefit. For now, I like this function, but I can easily imagine that I will ignore it eventually.
“S” Shortcut key
One bonus for SolidWorks users is that 3DConnexion recently added support for the “S” shortcut key. It can now be added to the programmable buttons directly without having to create a device macro. This function was secretly added to the previous software upgrade for the SpacePilot PRO, but 3DConnexion is now bragging about it. They also stated that this “S” shortcut key support has been added for SpaceExplorer and SpacePilot Speed Keys. My only criticism here is that any key and key-combination should already be supported by the software for these devices. My 1990’s programmable keyboard supports any key combination in its “PF” keys. Why are these not fully supported by 3DConnexion’s 21ST Century product offerings?
Installation
Having just recently updated my SpacePilot PRO drivers and software with this new announced version, I can say that installation was easier this time around. In the past, installation has been a bit of a pain. One problem plaguing the SpacePilot PRO is that its software and drivers need to be the last item installed on your computer. This means that if any supported application is installed after the SpacePilot PRO software, the SpacePilot PRO software needs to be reinstalled afterwards. Crazy, huh? Anyway, this upgrade was pretty painless this time, and I didn’t even lose my programmable key mappings, unlike previous upgrades and re-installs. New 3DConnexion 3D mice shipped in September 2009 will have the new version of the software and drivers included. Otherwise, for Windows, download them from this location here.
As previously mentioned, I attended two focus groups (also called roundtable discussions) this year. These are generally held on Sunday before all the major SolidWorks World activities begin on Monday.
Sheet Metal
The first group I attended was for sheet metal functionality. Though attendence was very light, the number of different methodologies and opinions was high. My own interest in the topic is the problem with being forced to use assemblies to fully document sheet metail parts with inserts. This is an issue because if you start a drawing of a part, you cannot later replace that part with an assembly. So, if you create a sheet metal part with no inserts and then you need to add inserts on some later revision, you are forced to recreate the drawing practically from scratch. This is a horid time and resource sink.
Others in the group talked about using K-factors to determine the material used by the sheet metal part (for flat patterning), while others disregarded K-factors in favor of bend reduction techniques.
One request that seemed to get common acceptance is the idea of creating a table of all the bends of a part with their full characteristics, with the ability to highlight each bend by clicking on it within the table. When this table is on a drawing, it was suggested that details be added to a specific layer.
The session also revealed that some used work arounds to use the SolidWorks model to instruct sheet metal tooling to perform certain actions (either via direct or translated input). Some use alternative features which do not match the final design in order to instruct a tool to produce the feature desired in the final design.
One work around solution did come out of this session. Right now, the material mass number changes from bent state to flattened state. Although this difference is minor, over a large quality of parts, the error multiples and can create issues in part handling. Use a non-configuration custom property to link to the the material property (of a specific configuration?). Use this custom property as the source for the mass regardless of the configuration or part state.
Drawings
A large portion of the drawings discussion revolved around printing and saving issues with Drawings. It seems many people are experiencing similar problems. When saving as a PDF, views randomly disappear. When printing as a PDF, text locations get shifted. Also, changes to parts at lower levels of an assembly may cause errors and view changes in higher level assembly drawings; meaning the the company has to open up all levels of a product’s assemblies to make sure that any change did not affect the drawings in unexpected ways. It seems more people are having these kind of issues that I originally thought. Many of the problems are magnified by use of PDM’s.
The meeting also focused on DimXpert and how to handle its dimensions. One comment is that it should place dimensions per current standards within the model. Another comment noted that datums and feature frames should drive the model.
I voiced my other major concern as well. Symbols from the Gtol.sym library file should be stored within a drawing. Right now, I cannot give native drawings to others outside of my organization because they will not be able to see symbols that we employ. When a symbol is used within a drawing, it should be included in that drawing’s file and not require editing of any other user’s Gtol.sym file.
Previously I discussed there were 2 common data management myths. The first was Windows Explorer is a data management system.
Before I start my second rant let’s come to an agreement that Part Number = File Name. Pure and simple. No more “Bracket” file names. Descriptions for file names is absolutely absurd. How many Brackets does your company make?
The second, and I know some of you out there are going to kick and scream and even possibly wait for me after my presentation at SolidWorks World to beat me down, is that Smart Part Numbers are indeed smart. Are you kidding me??????
2 Scenarios
Scenario 1: One of my green horn students starts at a company: This is followed by the severely under-defined orientation about the company, maybe even an even further degraded CAD standards orientation. This is if they are lucky. Now they are ready to begin modifying documents for you or even begin a new design for you. But wait, first they must read a 4000 page document on how to create part numbers. If this part is aluminum it starts with an “A” unless the forecast is partly cloudy, then it is “Alum”, so on and so forth. So not only does my scared little green horn have to overcome the company culture but now learn basically a new language for part numbers.
Scenario 2: One of my green horn students starts at a company: This is followed by the severely under-defined orientation about the company, maybe even an even further degraded CAD standards orientation. This is if they are lucky. Now they are ready to begin modifying documents for you or even begin a new design for you. You instruct them to hit a certain button (usually the Save or Ctrl+S) and viola a part number is magically created for them and a window pops up that tells them exactly what information about the file is required; i.e. Description, Material, Hardness Spec, Material Treatment like paint or anodize (otherwise known as finish), project, etc…
In the first scenario most companies will give a new employee about 60 days to comply with company policies. But they will need to anticipate part number screw ups for the next 40 years.
In the second scenario if the employee manages through the 60 – 90 day evaluation period there should be no problem with part number issues.
Let us discuss the idea of the “Smart Part Number”. As I said in my previous rant, every single designer and now I will add, the rest of the organization, has the best way to name files, organize files and for some reason they believe everyone else understands what is happening in their polka dotted world they call a brain. Smart Numbers were probably developed by marketing geniuses. they call it the “Model Mask”. Here is the problem I see. Model Masks will inevitably be require to evolve if a company is truly out to make money. Companies looking to make money will continually strive to define the next innovative product, and if we work on the concept that innovation is the implementation on a new product that enters the market adding new market value then we need to agree that more than likely that parameter has not been defined so we run into 2 situations, innovation is halt because it does not fit the model mask or it is slowed until a new model mask is generated, tested and implemented.
I am throwing out some serious terminology here like Implementation (which assumes that companies are continually refreshing employees on the standards and are continually assessing their performance with measurable matrices), innovation (defined above, but many companies are willing to run the old if it ain’t broke do not fix).
Falling back to the first installment where I discussed increasing productivity to make more money, look at the 2 scenarios discussed earlier and you tell me which one can offer instant productivity out of a green horn, learning/memorizing a 4000 page How to Create a Part Number book or just hit save, the system will tell you what other info is required.
Now how does this tie into PDM systems you ask? Well thank you for asking, I have implemented and maintained about 10 PDM systems for companies and part of my implementation is setting up the system with part number schemes that when you do a Save or Ctrl+S the data management system takes control an doles out the next available serial number. Notice I said serial number. 000000001 -9999999999 are very useful part numbers. With data management one does not have to worry about descriptive part numbers, there are other more powerful ways of finding the file you need without some complicated matrix to sort through.
The power of data management systems are that they inject steroids into your custom properties. Most of these systems resemble the Dewy Decimal System at your local library. As I said before in Scenario 2, during the save a part number is established then a pop up box indicates additional information that your company requires when creating a part number. Custom Properties are the meta data that is included in the file. It is the same exact concept behind Windows Media Player or I-tunes, when you load a CD or download a song the extra data that shows up in the player is the meta data, Song Name, Artist, Genre, etc… Notice that this is search-able in those tools. PDM should be viewed sort of like these tools. The difference is now you will have the ability to log revisions, describe the changes, and have a viewable history without the need for a designer to rename, pack and go and all the other workarounds we modelers have come up with.
Now instead of a model mask matrix you can use search tools similar to Google searching Advanced Search Features. The model mask may be a good tool to develop required fields needed before a save can be completed. Make sure the fields are descriptions of the information that will be inputted into them. Then you can create drop down lists, or fields that are linked to outside databases to ensure the information is entered correctly.
Anyhow, the purpose of this rant was to dethrone the concept of Smart Part Numbers. Much easier to instruct a person to hit the save button than to try to teach them a numbering scheme that will inevitably change or become way to confusing and cumbersome to use.
There will be more to come.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As an instructor at a vocational career college with internships at local design firms, I am constantly amazed at the number of companies using a really good Automated Design package like SolidWorks to make sure their designs work, are manufacturable, and meet the requirements of their customers. (Meeting the requirements is no longer a viable business plan in this global economy, but that is a different topic all together.)
What scares me is that there are still companies out there who believe in 2 data management myths. I will discuss the first one in this post and the second in a soon to follow rant.
The first data management myth: “Windows Explorer is a data management tool.”
Windows Explorer is a rudimentary viewer into a windows file/folder directories. That is it.
People, the models & drawings created in any CAD package at a manufacturing or design firm are the digital records & digital currency that make that company money. Without those documents, how will you manufacture your product that sales and marketing have oversold in too little time? Hmmmm?
3D, History Based, Parametric modelers by nature have a complex set of file relations that no one should every have to figure out.
If you improperly move this file to another directory or Lords of CAD forbid “Rename the file to show the next revision in the part number, the drawing looses connectivity, content and functionality, the assembly opens with errors you have never even heard of. The Yellow and red thing in the feature manager tree are really SolidWorks yelling at you telling you that you royally screwed up!
Then there is the project of updated drawings to new revisions (you know, the I did not thoroughly review my design so now I have to modify the original design so it can actually work.) What do you do now? Make changes to the original document so you have no idea what the previous revision looked like? Copy the document set and make the changes there renaming those files with the new revision in the file name(just the thought of renaming strikes the fear nerve in me). Are you sure that you have triple checked all of the other files that your changed document effects? This process using Windows Explorer is achievable at a costly price. You design time. I thought we were moving into an era of design productivity. This arduous task seems to be light years from being productive.
 As soon as your company adopts a CAD package like SolidWorks it is time to implement Product/Project Data Management. I know, there are some folk out there who are saying things like: “We only have one designer so we do not need it” or “We have a procedure that ensures that file names are correct, blah blah, blah…”.
For the first comment I ask, “Do you want to end up like the Big 3 always asking for bailouts for the people who by your vehicles”. To be successful you need to be in business to make a profit now and into the future. Get these systems up and running immediately so that if (when) your business does grow you do not need to scramble to figure something out now. Every designer has the Greatest directory structure and file naming scheme that everyone will understand. And monkeys fly out of my butt every day. By the way, I have beautiful ocean front property to sell you in the Everglades. What happens when that designer quits?
Many PDM systems are very scalable to accommodate 1 – 100’s of users. These data management systems also allow you to either use an existing directory structure or define an even easier one that will take no time for newbies to learn. Earlier, Matt Lorono wrote a fantastic post about CAD standards, PDM can compliment your CAD standards with naming standards, filing standards, change standards, the list is endless. It will really complete a Great CAD standard. PDM can usually hook into ERP/MRP systems to reduce the number of times a cad jockey has to enter the same information over and over again. Make drawing searches available to everyone company wide. No CAD needed.
The comment about procedures… When is the last time you read your company procedures? A procedure about file naming, directory structure, etc… is about 5 years wasted productivity because as we all know it is so incredibly productive to read those things. We also know that every individual has different ways of bending the procedure to make it work for them. Think about it, there are easily 50 ways to model the part you are in the process of modeling. You are telling me you are going to restrict that to 1 way. What happens when your 1 way inhibits productivity? In the CAD system you set up templates that everyone starts from. You require certain things to be done in the model like no under defined sketches, you can use the Design Checker to check these requirements. With a proper PDM implementation you can set templates that replace the custom properties of a model, then transfer them to a drawing so you only have to enter title block info once. You can set up a behind the scene directory structure that none of your people have to be aware of because once the info is in the PDM system, all of that info can be used to search for things using a Google style search. Setup a fill naming structure that will automatically manage file names for your designers. One less thing for them to worry about screwing up.
Get one of these systems in place now. Most of them cost less then a one year subscription for your 1495 seat of SolidWorks. Complete your CAD standards and become more productive now. Remember, Windows Explorer is not Data management. Is is a portal into the directory structure of your computer which often leads to chaos.
