Advanced "where used"

[sloworks]

Hi.

Let's say that we have an assy, x. Then we have products a, b and c that are all using x.

X gets an update because of changes in product a. At this point, nobody remembers that also b and c are using x.

B and c are messed up.

There's probably some kind of manual "where used"- command in every PDM...but is there anything more clever? Like automated message that tells you when you hit the Revise-button that "hey dude, do you realize that this affects to b and c too"?

[jcapriotti]

Not sure I've ever encountered a system that "warns" you. There is the "Where-used" tab in PDM. It's the engineer's responsibility to check the impact of the change to each place it's used in.

And also keep in mind that you must also consider multiple level up the where-used tree. Maybe I change holes in a bracket to slots, the where used shows a bracket assembly that simply adds welds studs....then that Bracket weld assy is used in an assembly where its bolting in place to the holes I just changed to slots.....bam...mate errors.

[sloworks]

It's the engineer's responsibility to check

If you can automate something, then do it...always avoid the risk to not remember something.

[jcapriotti]

You could certainly write an add-in that pops up to the engineer a list of the where used items. Maybe you could go a step further and develop a check list program that the engineer must complete before they can submit the models for review. But there is nothing out of the box that does this.....not even in Windchill.

[bnemec]

Not sure I've ever encountered a system that "warns" you. There is the "Where-used" tab in PDM. It's the engineer's responsibility to check the impact of the change to each place it's used in.

And also keep in mind that you must also consider multiple level up the where-used tree. Maybe I change holes in a bracket to slots, the where used shows a bracket assembly that simply adds welds studs....then that Bracket weld assy is used in an assembly where its bolting in place to the holes I just changed to slots.....bam...mate errors.

This mutli level where used gets very complicated if you have assemblies that are not using the latest version anywhere in the tree. You can select to show the where used for "all versions" of the first part, but after that each layer of where used is only for the version shown in the list. The "all versions" option is not recursive.

For example, solution S-077839 has a SQL query to find the true, full, all versions, where used: ListCheckedOutParentsBlockingMoveRename_v2.sql

[sloworks]

You could certainly write an add-in that pops up to the engineer a list of the where used items. Maybe you could go a step further and develop a check list program that the engineer must complete before they can submit the models for review. But there is nothing out of the box that does this.....not even in Windchill.

Yes. Currently working with SW Pro PDM...but never done add-ins for it...well, let's see if I get inspired. 3 different ways to handle this comes into my mind:
A) general version, no filtering, just run "where used" and show result if any
B) like A, but filter the result with product folders...eg. if product R is going to be revised, so only "where used" results if they are not in the same folder. Not perfect, but depends how you use PDM.
C) like A, but use custom properties/attributes to filter result...component X has custom properties that tell that it is used in products A,B and C, if found elsewhere show result

I think A would be good enough...

[sloworks]

This mutli level where used gets very complicated if you have assemblies that are not using the latest version anywhere in the tree. You can select to show the where used for "all versions" of the first part, but after that each layer of where used is only for the version shown in the list. The "all versions" option is not recursive.

For example, solution S-077839 has a SQL query to find the true, full, all versions, where used: ListCheckedOutParentsBlockingMoveRename_v2.sql

Yes, this should be one thing to keep in mind already during the deployment of PDM...how you want to use it -> what features you need

[bnemec]

Yes, this should be one thing to keep in mind already during the deployment of PDM...how you want to use it -> what features you need

Oh my gosh what an understatement!

Trouble is we've had to use it for several years to figure out how to use it; it's the chicken and egg paradox. Nobody at our company had been around a file management system before. All any of us knew was how we use our files and nothing about PDM. VAR knows all about PDM but next to nothing about how we use our files. The two circles of that Ven diagram had so little overlap that it would start an argument about whether zero thickness geometry exists. I wish we would have had someone that knew how we wanted to use it when we were looking at it.

[sloworks]

Oh my gosh what an understatement!

Trouble is we've had to use it for several years to figure out how to use it; it's the chicken and egg paradox. Nobody at our company had been around a file management system before. All any of us knew was how we use our files and nothing about PDM. VAR knows all about PDM but next to nothing about how we use our files. The two circles of that Ven diagram had so little overlap that it would start an argument about whether zero thickness geometry exists. I wish we would have had someone that knew how we wanted to use it when we were looking at it.

It wasnt for you, just very general idea how things SHOULD be in ”perfect” world...to everyone. Seen deployment of SAP, Enovia, SW PDM...never “perfect”. People think differently and who makes the decision...you might end up using system that you hate.

VAR is really important here, they can throw some ideas to you to get things near something sensible. I have seen also that companies share their experiences to help each other’s...and sometimes your boss might just come and say that “ok, system is now installed, start using it”...

Anyway, we should demand the features we need...doing something manually, don’t want that...it’s like giving up.

[bnemec]

It wasnt for you, just very general idea how things SHOULD be in ”perfect” world...to everyone. Seen deployment of SAP, Enovia, SW PDM...never “perfect”. People think differently and who makes the decision...you might end up using system that you hate.

VAR is really important here, they can throw some ideas to you to get things near something sensible. I have seen also that companies share their experiences to help each other’s...and sometimes your boss might just come and say that “ok, system is now installed, start using it”...

Anyway, we should demand the features we need...doing something manually, don’t want that...it’s like giving up.

I didn't take it as a specific comment. I'm too dense for that to work . Apologies for coming across defensive.

Back to your original post about finding the where used. When we asked VAR about the "Mass Where Used Replace/Update" function we got a blank stare. Solid Edge has a tool called Revision Manager where users could manage file references and custom properties all in one shot. It could do a where used search (brute force or indexed when BiDM came along) then could update that list to pull new files or whatever.

Everything I've learned about Solidworks PDM suggests that it is built around "Projects." Where there are parts that all belong in the project folder (may be sub folders for sub systems or whatever) but all the files for a project live in one directory tree along with all their file references. If the same part is used in another similar project, this is where people copy the file to another project (I presume this is where those users have problems with duplicate file names). Any parts that are common across many projects are considered "Standard Parts" or COTS, according to our VAR those parts are not revised. So in this use case the file references are a tree, not a web and since the only common parts are assumed to not be under rev control there's little need for where used updates or impact. Also, the VARs and SW docs all show that a Project is released all at once. The boilerplate PDM user would never release an upper-level file that has a component in WIP, and would never revise a component without revising the assemblies above it. All File Reference Dialogs point to this, Change State, only does top down from a single parent. Move Tree, Copy Tree and Branch, all single top level focus; no way to get to the other top level parents in one action.

PDM is designed to work with files (and their references) all in one project folder, it can be made to work differently but I always get the feeling I'm using a hammer as a screwdriver, or a screwdriver as snap ring pliers.

[mp3-250]

If you want to show a warnIng you can make a dispatch running on a certain state change before the transition, than make it popup a dialog with yes-no button.
a downside is what to do with multiple files selected from explorer: dispatch by default process only the first file, but you can force it on every selection so every file gets its popoup, but as a downside cancel will cancel ALL the selection ans nothing is processed as the status change is canceled for all files in the queue.

[Brian-M]

The original post has some good ideas - it would be cool if PDM had an option to warn us that a changing component has uses - it automatically pulls up a Where Used view. Might also be a bit annoying, depending on how it worked.

On the other hand - this also seems pretty fundamental to the engineering change process, which can take many forms, but it's basically about having more than one person review changes, and check what the changes affect. This is a good practice, there are complexities in manufacturing that go beyond just parent-child component relationships. Judging if a change is interchangeable or not isn't always straightforward.

[Brian-M]

When we asked VAR about the "Mass Where Used Replace/Update" function we got a blank stare. Solid Edge has a tool called Revision Manager where users could manage file references and custom properties all in one shot. It could do a where used search (brute force or indexed when BiDM came along) then could update that list to pull new files or whatever.

This is sorta a tool for this in Solidworks PDM Pro (not sure if included with Standard):
https://help.solidworks.com/2022/englis ... a8e3df#Pg0
Update References. But it's arcane, and doesn't always work the way you'd like.

[bnemec]

This is sorta a tool for this in Solidworks PDM Pro (not sure if included with Standard):
https://help.solidworks.com/2022/englis ... a8e3df#Pg0
Update References. But it's arcane, and doesn't always work the way you'd like.

It's upside down. That tool will change the children refs without opening the parent in Sloworks. Which is nice, but it's a long long way from update where used. If there's a hundred assemblies that need updated you'll be going through them one by one with this tool. Solid Edge Design Manager will allow you to update the where used all at once, even without a vault. We used it all the time when we were in SE and all files were on network drives. I feel that tool played a role in how we had so little problems with >dozen users sharing all the files on network shares.

[Brian-M]

The boilerplate PDM user would never release an upper-level file that has a component in WIP, and would never revise a component without revising the assemblies above it.

A user 'would never revise a component without revising the assemblies above it' -
Big woah on that idea! The whole point of Revision is that it is an interchangeable change. Rev B or rev C should both fit in the assembly. If the PN changes, then it's a non-interchangeable change. This is at the foundation of the industrial revolution. If you buy PN 55123 in 2023, when you buy it in 2024, you expect it to be basically the same part - but the manufacturer may have changed the design in ways they expect don't matter. This is relates to why you shouldn't put component revision levels on an assembly BOM (reference Frank Watts Engineering Documentation Control Handbook).

The assumption should be that any component could be used more than one place, that's good business. But they can still be revised, and branch off into new PN if necessary.

Check out this awesome document for a flowchart that explains interchangeability best: https://www.joergei.de/cm/interchangeab ... ide_en.pdf Page 2 especially.

[bnemec]

A user 'would never revise a component without revising the assemblies above it' -
Big woah on that idea! The whole point of Revision is that it is an interchangeable change. Rev B or rev C should both fit in the assembly. If the PN changes, then it's a non-interchangeable change. This is at the foundation of the industrial revolution. If you buy PN 55123 in 2023, when you buy it in 2024, you expect it to be basically the same part - but the manufacturer may have changed the design in ways they expect don't matter. This is relates to why you shouldn't put component revision levels on an assembly BOM (reference Frank Watts Engineering Documentation Control Handbook).

The assumption should be that any component could be used more than one place, that's good business. But they can still be revised, and branch off into new PN if necessary.

Check out this awesome document for a flowchart that explains interchangeability best: https://www.joergei.de/cm/interchangeab ... ide_en.pdf Page 2 especially.

You might be quoting me out of context, not sure. Key point in that was "Boiler plate" user. ie cookie cutter or ideal scenario in the sterile demo environment type usage. Which as you clarified is far from many industry standard usages.

Now, just because rev C is backwards compatible with rev B doesn't mean that the were used may not need revised as well. If the change is visual the weldment print may need revised, just so the irrelevant details still match the physical parts. It really depends; define "backwards compatible". Is the change BC for the end usage, but causes a change in some intermediate manufacturing step? There may be piece part revisions that require an edit to the weld fixture but the change is nearly unnoticeable after that point. So the weldment is revised to help drive the weld fixture work order. This is all part of the product change management system which most know varies greatly from place to place.

I think we might be in the same bleacher section, arguing from the same point, just saying it differently?

[jcapriotti]

This gets complicated pretty quick and I just don't see an easy "where-used" solution. Here is a common change we see. Holes get changed to slots, at least not for us.

The part change is considered compatible and doesn't warrant a part number change, just revision. However the change from hole to slot usually causes mate errors or unwanted results in the where-used. The engineer will not add any where-used changes to the ECO (In their mind, the part functions fine in real life), but the SolidWorks users have to know what the impact is. Every assembly needs to be opened and checked for 1. Mate errors and fix them, 2. No mate error but part shifted position causing other issues (Interference, etc.).

This gets more complex as the above issues aren't just one level of where-used, they can manifest all the back up at the top level assemblies. There are a number of best practices to minimize these issues that standard training never covers. Even experienced users can struggle with this if they are not familiar with building larger highly configurable assemblies.

[bnemec]

This gets complicated pretty quick and I just don't see an easy "where-used" solution. Here is a common change we see. Holes get changed to slots, at least not for us.
image.png

The part change is considered compatible and doesn't warrant a part number change, just revision. However the change from hole to slot usually causes mate errors or unwanted results in the where-used. The engineer will not add any where-used changes to the ECO (In their mind, the part functions fine in real life), but the SolidWorks users have to know what the impact is. Every assembly needs to be opened and checked for 1. Mate errors and fix them, 2. No mate error but part shifted position causing other issues (Interference, etc.).

This gets more complex as the above issues aren't just one level of where-used, they can manifest all the back up at the top level assemblies. There are a number of best practices to minimize these issues that standard training never covers. Even experienced users can struggle with this if they are not familiar with building larger highly configurable assemblies.

Yes, in CAD the simple hole to slot or round to square hole will cause problems. Can also cause problems in manufacturing side as well. If the part is laser and break the holes could have been used by forming fixture pins. Also by weld fixture pins or assembly positioning fixtures. The holes maybe used to be slots but perhaps allows final assemblies to be put together in a way that does not meet customer fit, form, function and going to holes was a type of "poka-yoke" so now we may need checking or positioning fixtures for final assembly. In a highly vertically integrated company the "revise vs new number" question seldom fits into a flowchart. We have found a list of things to consider or questions to ask works better.

[jcapriotti]

In a highly vertically integrated company the "revise vs new number" question seldom fits into a flowchart. We have found a list of things to consider or questions to ask works better.

Of course the engineers and management lean toward revise as much as possible to avoid the painful "replace", especially if a part has a large where-used. Either way you have to touch the assembly models and check everything. But I've seen too many times over the years where this isn't done and get the common reaction from users "SolidWorks sucks, why are there are always mate errors? It was fine when I save it 6 month ago." Many forget or don't realize that they are not dealing with static files like a PDF or Word file.

[Brian-M]

Ah, I get it now bnemec, sorry I didn't get what you meant by boiler plate user.

[mp3-250]

the whole thing can be summarized as "with 2d drawings we had not to check all the assemblies as our educated guess was always right. even when we were terribly wrong and costed us an eye to fix the mess once in advanced state of manufacturing"

[rodface]

the whole thing can be summarized as "with 2d drawings we had not to check all the assemblies as our educated guess was always right. even when we were terribly wrong and costed us an eye to fix the mess once in advanced state of manufacturing"

Ah yes, the good old days when everything just worked