Part Configuration Management and modification of the tools 2

[LCform]

Hi All

I am facing a problem when we have to modify the tools for a product , I explain :

Imagine that we have 4 types of products to produce, and we use 4 sets of different tooling , where they have some of those toolings in common, let's say the dies are in common, because part of these products have the same diameter.



this die , the 1345, could be used in all of the 4 mentioned types of products, but : it might happen that you have to modify this die ( which in your CAD is unique and has just one code for it ) for one of the articles , what happens is that you should know that you have used this die for all those 4 articles , or even more , and you should know/check that the new modified die is ok for all of those assemblies or you have to give a new code to this die

My question has two parts, one is what is the best way to do a configuration management for such a system, if you have noticed, since the die has an invariant code, the code of the whole assembly includes this code, and that is the bad part, cause if you have to change the die name, means that you should change the name of many many parts in this assembly.

the second part is , is it useful to use softwares that help CAD to manage the PDM ?? or it makes it a huge burden ? if so , is there a better solution ?

 

[KENAT]

1) Sounds like you may have a potentially bad part numbering system, and even worse don't follow that system with your CAD data. Is this correct?

Are you saying that part numbers are always based on what assembly they are used on? Something like for assembly 12345, all parts are 12345-xxx?

This limits your ability to reuse parts - it may be the same part used in multiple places but each time needs a new part number assigned?

2) PDM is generally beneficial.

If you start off with PDM from the beginning, the extra overhead/burden won't really be noticeable and the savings it provides in errors, lost files, broken links... probably pay for themselves handsomely.

However, if you have a lot of files already (tens of thousands in our case) getting that data into a PDM system can be daunting.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[LCform]

Dear KENAT :

thank you for your answer

1- It's the contrary , the assembly contains the name of the die that is invariant, like :
I have the die number 12345, so the assembly name is ASM-12345- and the name of other
Parts is also following the name of the assembly, adding the -p01 ,.. , the only part that does
Not follow this rule is that die.

2- If now we have many many parts already in production site, we can not restart a new numbering system
The bigger problem is what I indicated, that if you have used the die for 4 different assemblies,and if you have to modify that die only
For one of the assemblies, you don't knowIf the modified die is ok for all of the other assemblies. What would you do ?

 

[LCform]

Also I add, we had part of the designs old and on the paper and half on CAD

 

[swertel]

LCform, you seem to have a systemic problem, and not easy to fix via an online forum.

It seems the root cause of the problem is being able to perform an adequate impact analysis. In other words, when I make this change, what other assemblies are impacted. Being able to perform a suitable "where used" search is the first step in this analysis. From your short descriptions above, it appears that this ability is either missing from your process or impossible to do based on your current system. Please clarify if that assumption is wrong.

Without digging deeper into your actual processes, I recommend investigating two possible solutions: make-from drawings and selection set drawings.

For a particular set of dies, you could have a base part number. Any modifications to any of the components would be "made from" that base number, but of course would have their own unique identification.
I don't have a good example on how a selection set drawing would work for you, but the premise is that you start out with a wide band of acceptable requirements and select from that wide band a narrower band that meets your requirements. It's the concept I want you to think about, not the actual application.

We always had a "MASTER SET" of dies. The master set consisted of the lower shoe, upper shoe, guide pins, bushings, and springs. We would create a new assembly with that master set and create new die inserts, punches, and stripper to fit.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[drawoh]

LCform,

Your problem is that you have a series of parts which require common tooling. Common tooling between parts is generally good because it reduces the capital you have tied up in your tooling.

I don't see a software solution to your problem. When someone proposes modifying your part 123-456, you need one or more qualified people to review the functionality and the manufacturing to see what is affected. You can...

[ol]
[li]Make new tooling for part 123-456, thus not affecting the other parts. Your tooling no longer is common. Your "modified" die actually is a new part with a new part number.[/li]
[li]Implement the change on all your parts. The change must not degrade functionality of anything. Now, you can modify your tooling, and keep it common.[/li]
[/ol]

If you change form fit and function of your parts, product or tooling, you should assign new part numbers.

You are modifying your part to improve performance and/or reduce cost. This change results in engineering, and increased tooling cost. This requires some sort of decision by a qualified manager.

--
JHG