Hi all,
I am setting up PDM Pro, and configuring my revision components. This is one particular area with which I am less familiar.
I want to create a revision scheme as follows:
P1
P2
P3
[...]
A
B
C
[...]
The idea is that I can run through as many "P" (prototype) numbers as necessary, then jump to the single letter series.
I believe I could do this with a single exhaustive list, but is that the best way to do it?
Thanks!
You could do it as a single list. That way would be less work to setup unless you have instances where a file won't go through all of the Prototype numbers.
For example if you have a part that starts at P1 and is then ready to go on to A you would have to build in some type of allowance to either manually or automatically cycle the file until it gets to A. Or you would have to give the user the ability to modify the revision manually the have a transition the sets the local revision to match the revision variable.
The other option would be to have a workflow with a loop for prototyping and then a transition into a different loop for development that changed the revision to the Alpha component.
If you can skip prototype revisions, I would go for the second option if possible even though it is a little more work up front.
Hi Caleb,
As Paul mentioned, I think you are looking for 2 different revision schemes, one which is P1, P2 etc, then next a simple Alpha revision scheme. Although it's a little hard to comment not knowing your workflow. Refer to the generic workflow below. In the top section you would use the prototype revision scheme. Then when the file moves to the bottom part via the request change transition, the prototype revision is cleared and the alpha scheme is used for that file moving forward. At the relevant transitions you need to specify the correct revision scheme for each in the workflow.
Thank you for the quick response!
The rev. list and manual adjustment makes sense.
As does the added workflow state.
The list seems easier, but the workflow seems more sustainable. (if configured correctly)
I'm assuming that the extra tediousness of editing my workflow is probably the better option?
Alright All,
I took your advice and this is what I have:
![2018-12-19 13_39_08-SOLIDWORKS PDM Administration - [ Workflow - BMP Vault _ Production Workflow].png](https://forum.solidworks.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-921112-452702/2018-12-19+13_39_08-SOLIDWORKS+PDM+Administration+-+%5B+Workflow+-+BMP+Vault+_+Production+Workflow%5D.png)
Let me know if you see any red flags here. Some of these settings are specific to our use case.
The top states will be set with prototype numbers, which will change to standard a, b, c... after moving through the "Make Released" Transition.
I see here logic mistakes.
When for prototyping, you don’t need any management approval. Then going from prototype to Approved management can be skipped totally?
More logical is that after approved prototype design is moving back to “Work In Progress”.
Why there are no approval required? In case of standard component there are more sense to make own workflow for them.
I recommend to add “management approval” as second approval stage. Typically, management approve more quickly when they see that someone else (typically from engineering) is already approved. Also will be less question “why now and not previous case”?
I recommend to go “sample workflow” from @Logan Pegler. This is simple and when your assemblies grow you don’t lose control. Do this change that cut bottom part of tree. This is important when you have mixed new parts and changed parts and you release them together.
And I think personally that there is no sense to split prototype and real design. When proto is made from “real revision” parts when what happens? Depends from your company size I don’t believe that supply chain people care too much what you are doing with your parts. Today when everything is fine with proto, you just create bunch of new files and additional actions to added them “into system” and supplier to make their changes and etc. and remember, when some part are OK and some not, you need to sent them one by one! This grow very fast madness...
Also think. when you doing some proto when you modify existing product. And some of your parts are Released and some in prototype loop. Now imagine, when you see that you need to create new revision of one part. How much you need to move part in workflow?
I fully believe that author of this system are able to handle everything. But make this clear to all team members and keep running...
Anyway - go simple.
Here is and other version. x being our prototype. (2 x versions for two different products. depending on product line specified.)
x going through 001,002,003 etc.
production going through 001, 002, A, A001, A002, A003, B, B001, B002, ETC.
We had the problem of purchasing getting ahold of the prototype or quote drawing and using them for production. so that was the reason for the alpha-numeric.
I also have a preliminary stamp on the prototype drawings.
And we had some migration from the old workgroup pdm and network files.
Support documents area. (office)
You could do it as a single list. That way would be less work to setup unless you have instances where a file won't go through all of the Prototype numbers.
For example if you have a part that starts at P1 and is then ready to go on to A you would have to build in some type of allowance to either manually or automatically cycle the file until it gets to A. Or you would have to give the user the ability to modify the revision manually the have a transition the sets the local revision to match the revision variable.
The other option would be to have a workflow with a loop for prototyping and then a transition into a different loop for development that changed the revision to the Alpha component.
If you can skip prototype revisions, I would go for the second option if possible even though it is a little more work up front.