on Jan 3, 2017What do you think of this PDM idea for this year's Top Ten?
PDM :: I, O, Q, S, X, and Z should be excluded in Revision letter
What do you think of this PDM idea for this year's Top Ten?
PDM :: I, O, Q, S, X, and Z should be excluded in Revision letter
ASME Y14.35
I commonly see I, O, Q and S excluded. X and Z are hit or miss. Not sure there's an easy way to handle this since it is very specific and many organizations don't follow strict guidelines or have legacy issues and data that require varying Rev values.
Hi Matt,
Defining a revision scheme is fairly simple.
If you were going to omit certain letters (typically I, O, S, Z), then I would echo the suggestion of per standard (ANSI, etc).
Joy
It's not a bad idea, but since revision schemes are so company specific, and there already exists the functionality to create a revision scheme as a list, I think this is a bit redundant.
I already have our PDM settings and file custom properties to exclude them.
It might be obvious, but why exclude them may i ask
Letter "I" looks like a one
Letter "O" looks like a zero
Letter "S" looks like a five
Letter "Z" looks like a two
Not sure about "X" but at a previous job we used it to identify Experimental or Prototype Revisions.
I never use any of them.
Our drawing formats say that dimensions are to be interpreted per ASME Y14.5 - 2009, but we refer to no other standards.
We have a vendor who objects to skipping the letters because their ERP system can't handle it. ;-)
I prefer to skip them.
Letter "X" looks like a multiply sign?
Letter "X" looks like a multiple of designator?
Letter "X" looks like a by designator? (.030 X 45°)
Some of ERP systems wont allow them also. There is no point to create revision I drawing in PDM when ERP do not allow use I. Now assume is this revision letter I or I :-)
More general question: What wrong with current "revision list value"?
Custom list allows to sync ERP and PDM revision liste without problems. This half a hour admin work during task setup is nothing...
I like leaving the customizable rev scheme in PDM Pro alone but making SW customizable to match that same rev scheme. My rev scheme I have set up in PDM Pro (which was our standard) doesn't match the characters SW chooses to emiminate or include. Very frustrating that I can't add a rev to my rev block that I can have in PDM. They both should be list driven.
The option to exclude specific characters only. Not forced.
I believe I voted this one down.
It's basic drafting/document practice, and there are specs for this. Don't use the letters if you follow standards.
This should be optional.... Not everyone follows ANSI standards.
Agreed!! There are many things that should be optional. Some of them eventually are made optional such as the Classic colors.
The way Jiun showed it, it would be optional/an addition. It would save time to have the option instead of creating the custom alpha rev scheme.
They don't follow them because they 'are' optional. ;-)
ANSI Metric
In the ANSI Standards manual all of the dimensioning examples use millimeters as the unit of measure.
Just saying you could use the same picture about Metric vs Imperial.
I think it should only be an option, but not just those letters. The software should let the administrator define which characters to exclude. Then, if we want to follow ANSI partially, completely, or not at all, we can all be happy.
As far as X goes, I've seen it used for the initial release "revision" or "no-change revision". Right now, my company uses "-" for the initial release. With that in mind, it might be more important for the revision scheme to allow defining the characters to use and the order, but without having to create every possible revision level like I am doing today.
I am still unclear as to why we have to eliminate any letters (even though we do where I work). So what if "I" looks like a 1 or "O" looks like an 0 or Z looks like a 2 or X looks like the X in .010 X 45. If it is inside a balloon and the person reading the drawing understands that balloons refer to items in a BOM, and it matches an item in that BOM, then they go together regardless of what they look like.
With that being said, I still think the issue is that SW doesn't match PDM. I can customize my PDM rev list to exclude half the alphabet if I want to, but I cannot customize SW to automatically eliminate those letters. When I add a rev to my drawing rev block, I get all letters except the ones SW has chosen for us to eliminate. I need PDM and SW to match. If my PDM allows me to use rev X (not that a drawing should ever get to rev X) then SW should allow me to add rev X. Instead if I get to rev X in my drawing rev table it skips it and the only way to add it correctly it to undo the rev Y that it added, add another row manually by doing an "Insert Row Above" and manually type the rev letter you want. If you let it add Y and don't undo it and just change the Y to an X, the next rev that is added is a Z not the Y again because it thinks Y has already been used.
Hi Jennifer I think the larger problem there is that PDM does not integrate with the revision table functionality in SolidWorks (even though Workgroup does!!)
Having implemented PDM for a number of companies, we came up with a "rolling revision table" where it's driven from the data card and the customer modifies their drawing border/ title block to suit. Not the best solution, but it manages the job
Kind regards
Prasad
So a good suggestion for SWX is to 1. have an option to select letters/numbers to exclude from the revision list (while we are at it from the detail/section cut letter list as well), and 2. to have an option to make the SWX revision and PDM revision synchronize.
Combining letters and numbers in SW revisions would also be nice for going from Development revisions to prodution revisions. I.e. DEV0, DEV1.0, DEV1.1, DEV2.0 for development revisions to A, A.01, B for production revisions. We also start all of our initially released drawings at rev 0 and subsiquent rev's are A, B, C...I have seen from above posts that some use a "-" as their initial revision.
On the topic itself, I don't see this as a valuable feature to sacrifice development time over something else.
It is very easy to for everyone to match their revision list what suits them the best.
Jennifer Ross Mixing letters with numbers, minor + major revisions etc. is already possible to achieve.
You need to setup a revision number with multiple different revision components inside it which you individually increment, decrease or reset depending what you want of your revision number.
Example; [DEV REV][PROD REV][MINOR REV]
[DEV REV]=DEV0-->DEV1-->DEV2...
[PROD REV]=0-->A-->B-->C...
[MINOR REV]=.01-->.02-->.03...
When at dev-phase, you roll the [DEV REV] forward as needed or if it's minor dev-rev roll [MINOR REV] forward to get DEV1.01...DEV1.02. When again incrementing [DEV REV] you always reset the [MINOR REV] back to counter 0 to take minor revisions off.
Entering production (end of approval cycle for example) you reset [DEV REV] & [MINOR REV] to counter 0 and increment [PROD REV] to reveal production revision '0'. When you need minor revision, just increment [MINOR REV] to get revision 0.01...0.02. Next time incrementing [PROD REV] you reset [MINOR REV] counter 0 again and you get next production revision A.
PDM help has a topic on this on more detail: 2017 SOLIDWORKS PDM Help - Example - Creating Revision Numbers with Major and Minor Counters
Ville Makinen I think maybe I was unclear as to what I was saying. I do know that PDM Pro will allow you mix letters and numbers or even abreviations in your rev scheme, I do that where I work. What I was trying to say is that SW rev tables are not customizable to allow you to cross numbers and letters (if you don't tie your PDM rev's to your SW rev table). In SolidWorks I can get A, B, C... or 1, 2, 3 in my SolidWorks rev table but it will not automatically go from numbers to letters nor will it allow me to add DEV1.01 in my rev block automatically. I would have to manually add that rev value to the rev table.
Matthew Lorono I wouldn't vote for this either way.
See there is an inerrant problem with all these "ideas"- they are never looking at a full workflow. In this case it would be more preferable to have EPDM allow you to setup vaults, templates and SW settings based on the initial setup and choosing a specific standard. I would vote for the concept of having EPDM vault generator tool which allows a person to quickly define what standards their company chooses to follow and then have a secondary window the defines several different "common" workflow setups. With this information the vault and template files are setup using the standard templates. Next the tool would allow you to enter or use an xml or spreadsheet to define custom variables and have those all setup. Basically we are asking for better EPDM authoring toolsets that allow for quick vault generation based on recognized standards!
But I can see how this would seriously impact the VARs..you would be taking away all their income! ;-)
This is an idea that SOLIDWORKS developers should not spend any time on. It is simple enough to just NOT include any alpha characters that you do not want to use as revision letters in your Revision number components list. Plus, as we can see already, everyone has their own opinions as to how they should indicate revisions even though (at least in the U.S.) have the ASME standards to provide general guidance.
I do not use PDM in my current company but have in the past.
Where I used it in the past the guidelines were very specific as to follow the ANSI standard.
However, In the company I work for now it is up to us to decide for revisions on drawings, parts, PDM (if we do go there).
I see the best way to make everyone happy is to - First have consistency across ALL packages (SW, PDM Standard, EPDM...) .
Then, as to the conventions - the user should have the ability to decide the following formats:
ANSI (or other) Standards (at least the main ones)
Use All Letters (A-Z)
after Z - second level Letters (AA, AB...) or numbers (A1, A2...)
Letters with exclusions.
Full Customization format (as Jennifer Ross or Ville Makinen said) (use symbols in format) ...
I would agree to using what ever the revision scheme is in pdm. Then no matter what work flow you are in it should use that scheme. Prototype or production.
Choose the standard or modify for users own scheme.
I personally use numbers so not having to skip any and also an infinite supply !!
I wouldn’t mind it as an alternative alpha option or if alpha schemes had an option to skip certain letters that can be chosen. I think we see from here that many people have different preferences. I’ve always skipped U because in certain fonts (stick), it looks identical to V.
However, i always questioned if a file gets that far in a ref scheme.... is it truly meeting it’s original design intent or should it be a new file/part number? ;p
I would also like to see the revision block keep the prototype revision in it after you go to production. When you have two schemes.
I think the option should always be there to have them if there are those out there that need them.
We always just excluded them manually in the settings per ANSI standards.
Another option would be to have the ability two create two revision tables. one for prototyping.( maybe off to the side) and a production one. And/or a option to hide the prototype. Each table following the revision scheme you have in pdm.
Two revision tables?? That would really confuse it. There should only be one revision for the drawing.
Chris Saller wrote:
Two revision tables?? That would really confuse it. There should only be one revision for the drawing.
Then there are companies that have different revisions for each sheet.
Yes, I have seen that. I don't agree with it. It's one document with different revisions.
S. Casale wrote:
Then there are companies that have different revisions for each sheet.
My company had that before we migrated to EPDM/PDM Pro. At first, we were like, "what revision does ERP say we are manufacturing to ?" Now, all sheets are the same revision and there is no question . That was an interesting challenge to overcome.
Tom Helsley wrote:
S. Casale wrote:
Then there are companies that have different revisions for each sheet.
My company had that before we migrated to EPDM/PDM Pro. At first, we were like, "what revision does ERP say we are manufacturing to ?" Now, all sheets are the same revision and there is no question . That was an interesting challenge to overcome.
Think of this:
Our drawing revision and our item revisions in ERP (only ERP) may vary. At times a change to items will not require a drawing change.
Engineering Change Control (Myself and my EE co-conspirator) are the ones who control it 100%.
Right. Unless you are using two different revision schemes between drawings and ERP, doesn't that lead to some confusion?
For example:
drawings = letter revisions, ERP = numeric revisions
vs.
drawings = letter revisions, ERP = letter revisions
How do you avoid getting the different revisions confused when you refer to them?
Tom Helsley wrote:
Right. Unless you are using two different revision schemes between drawings and ERP, doesn't that lead to some confusion?
For example:
drawings = letter revisions, ERP = numeric revisions
vs.
drawings = letter revisions, ERP = letter revisions
How do you avoid getting the different revisions confused when you refer to them?
Our revision scheme is such that numeric is interim unofficial or low priority release. Alpha is ECN (standard engineering definition) released for everything from mech dwg's to pwb's and electrical gerber files.
Drawing Spec, ECN information and etc. are captured in the Item Card of our system. So if I open the item card, the drawing definition is another tab within it. We also link the released doc to a published location. Old drawings are moved from the linked folder to an archive folder when superseded or OBS. This in turn breaks the link for the item card revision that may be superseded or OBS. If the part is revised but not the drawing, it's noted in the drawing tab.
We are only 70+ folks (whole company) but, I've built our current Engineering Change process (entirely paperless) to a highly commended (by multiple major aerospace org's) tightly, bound, and puckered "headache" for the green and old people who like to do "whatever-I-want" type engineering (like they are in their garage).
Hmmm, I dunno. We do some of what you described, but the rest sounds too complicated. It sounds like you aren't using PDM, are you?
For my case, it is far simpler to keep the part's ERP revision the same as the drawing revision. We have some flexibility in ERP system that allows changes or corrections without rolling revisions.
We are using PDM, without any of the super nice workflows that have been created.
It's not too complicated.
Although I sure wish I could spent my time specifically working on design. My workflow is = 200%
120% design and engineering
40% doc control (EC and ISO)
40% ERP
I need to add because I didn't address your response all the way. We rarely have the revisions between systems vary, but do so when the workflow doesn't warrant it.
Hypothetical question:
Does a resistor being discontinued by a mfr, which is being replaced by another resistor, warrant a revision of all the other 1,000 assemblies its in? Does this affect the drawing? Do we have time to do that revision work across the board?
Additionally if my users all had the intent or ability to use SW and PDM with higher proficiency this would all be easier.
S. Casale wrote:
Hypothetical question:
Does a resistor being discontinued by a mfr, which is being replaced by another resistor, warrant a revision of all the other 1,000 assemblies its in?
There's no need to revise anything in this case. Purchased parts should have a many to one relationship with part numbers. If a manufacturer drops out or a new one is added, there is no impact on part numbers, drawings or BOMs.
Jim Sculley wrote:
S. Casale wrote:
Hypothetical question:
Does a resistor being discontinued by a mfr, which is being replaced by another resistor, warrant a revision of all the other 1,000 assemblies its in?
There's no need to revise anything in this case. Purchased parts should have a many to one relationship with part numbers. If a manufacturer drops out or a new one is added, there is no impact on part numbers, drawings or BOMs.
For your workflow and requirement perhaps. WE are beholden to the the solder used on every board.
What we do in this case is to put on the print. Or Engineering approved equivalent. then there is no revisions and purchasing only has to get a replacement approve by engineering.
If needed you can create a log of parts used in a spreadsheet format.
Dan Essink wrote:
What we do in this case is to put on the print. Or Engineering approved equivalent. then there is no revisions and purchasing only has to get a replacement approve by engineering.
If needed you can create a log of parts used in a spreadsheet format.
oh yeah we have our methods.
However we even have a requirement for 3M DP2216.
S. Casale wrote:
Jim Sculley wrote:
S. Casale wrote:
Hypothetical question:
Does a resistor being discontinued by a mfr, which is being replaced by another resistor, warrant a revision of all the other 1,000 assemblies its in?
There's no need to revise anything in this case. Purchased parts should have a many to one relationship with part numbers. If a manufacturer drops out or a new one is added, there is no impact on part numbers, drawings or BOMs.
For your workflow and requirement perhaps. WE are beholden to the the solder used on every board.
You'll have to provide a more concrete example to convince me you aren't making this more difficult than it has to be. If the replacement resistor isn't equivalent in form fit and function (or meets or exceeds whatever spec is deemed appropriate), a new part number would be required. It is NOT a revision to the original part number.
All assemblies where the old part was used would have to be updated with the new number, or at least flagged in some manner so that they could be updated if they were produced again in the future.
Jim Sculley wrote:
S. Casale wrote:
Jim Sculley wrote:
S. Casale wrote:
Hypothetical question:
Does a resistor being discontinued by a mfr, which is being replaced by another resistor, warrant a revision of all the other 1,000 assemblies its in?
There's no need to revise anything in this case. Purchased parts should have a many to one relationship with part numbers. If a manufacturer drops out or a new one is added, there is no impact on part numbers, drawings or BOMs.
For your workflow and requirement perhaps. WE are beholden to the the solder used on every board.
You'll have to provide a more concrete example to convince me you aren't making this more difficult than it has to be. If the replacement resistor isn't equivalent in form fit and function (or meets or exceeds whatever spec is deemed appropriate), a new part number would be required. It is NOT a revision to the original part number.
All assemblies where the old part was used would have to be updated with the new number, or at least flagged in some manner so that they could be updated if they were produced again in the future.
I give you a few exacting reasons we are beholden to what I wrote. It is over complicated? Yes, but this is not my written procedure.
Certain aerospace and customer requirements are at times such that we are specific to lot and vendor control of some of our parts in specific ways they we purchase use them. One example is that we have a part no. we need to use, it can be only purchased in packs of 25 from one vendor. IF we purchase it from another it can only be in packs of 100. 100% traceability - down to the material used in parts.
There are requirements for certain industries that materials can not be purchased from locations of/in conflict. These have to be controlled as well. We've done an eval, and ever single material used in any of our programs is 100% conflict free.
Med devices can have the same requirements. Full traceability.
Doc control is supposed to be done by PDM. I don't touch ERP unless I have to.
At least your percentages add up .
Tom Helsley wrote:
Doc control is supposed to be done by PDM. I don't touch ERP unless I have to.
At least your percentages add up .
I wish we could get PDM to work all of our doc control, but nope
Hold on now. Drawings are documents that support a design. An item in an ERP system is a container of information. They are not the same and (depending on your QMS) don't have to be at the same revision. Which throws in the other interchangeable but not interchangeable aspect- versions vs revisions. Then you have ERP systems that are time based (like SAP) and other ERP systems that aren't. It get's really messy, really fast. Now you look at Bill of Materials..ERP applies a BOM revision to an item revision..getting even uglier! Oh, wicked is the web we weave.
Yes, it gets tangled fast. That's why I opt to keep it as simple as possible.
Dan Essink wrote:
Another option would be to have the ability two create two revision tables. one for prototyping.( maybe off to the side) and a production one. And/or a option to hide the prototype. Each table following the revision scheme you have in pdm.
This isn't difficult to do if you abandon using the SW revision table and just use general tables linked to PDM variables. This is what we did when we moved to EPDM since it didn't understand SW revision tables at the time. This also gives you the ability to use a rolling revision table where you only see the last few revisions on the drawing, saving valuable space on the sheet.
Rolling revision tables... we just hide the oldest rows when we run out of room. But we also manually edit and control everything else in the revision tables.
Oh, and this works well because we don't put approvals in the revision tables anymore either. All PDM approvals for the current revision are in the title block - KISS.
The thing that I was talking about is that I have two different revision schemes in pdm. prototype and production. I would like to have a record of this in the drawing that follows these revision schemes. I don't really want that on the drawing though. This is because we sometimes go through multiple designs first.
Matthew Lorono wrote:
What do you think of this PDM idea for this year's Top Ten?
PDM :: I, O, Q, S, X, and Z should be excluded in Revision letter
This thread has blown my mind.
I voted the idea down.
ASME14.35.... I believe Para 5.2....
Although I've used use X and Z.
Is there some sort of ANSI or other standard for this?
I & O I have always skipped over like they were the thirteenth floor.
Q, S, X, Z I use.
I must admit that I don't typically get to such high letters of revisions. (measure twice, cut once)