SE Folder Structure?

[ct27gt]

Searched a little and found a few threads, but nothing really specific to this situation. How are your SE files organized?

We are currently in an unmanaged environment. Our workflow is that once something is released to production, all corresponding part files, assembly files, and drawings are set to a read-only "Released" status. Any future revisions are created by doing a "Save As" of the released file. Right now we have project folders with subfolders for various changes within the project. As you can imagine, this creates a spiders web of references to various folders, subfolders, and subfolders within subfolders. I am a fan of a very flat folder structure.

My proposed structure would be Project Folder --> CAD subfolder --> CAD files. There would also be a Rev History folder with older revision drawings so only the most current "Released" revision or in work drawing revision is shown in the CAD folder. I am not quite sure how we would separate old revisions of assemblies and parts. Our revision tracking right now is accomplished by keeping all revisions of the model files for a project in the same folder.

The problem I run into is how do you use an assembly from one project in another project? Then your references reach to a different project folder. Additionally, its harder to separate old revision models at this point, because when you don't know what other released assemblies from other projects might be referencing that sub-assembly, it will cause broken links unless you do a where used on the entire CAD folder.

Unfortunately we don't have intelligent numbering for our projects, so all of our part numbering is accomplished by a running part # log where you just pick the next number in line, so it is impossible to tell where these parts or subassemblies live without going to the listed file location on every drawing.

How have your companies handled their CAD organization for multiple projects and product lines in an unmanaged environment?

 

[bshand]

I think if you are referencing files in new projects that are also referenced in other and/or older projects but are not "standard" or "library" parts which live in dedicated folders you either need to copy everything to the new project and don't have them linked to others - or - at a minumum you need to incorporate PDM whether Insight or something else.

 

[swertel]

There is a tight balance between configuration management and file management in this case. It seems like there may be room for process improvement in order to simplify your situation while still getting the value you expect.

Without going too deeply into Configuration Management, since I don't know what your current naming, numbering, and revision processes are, I recommend a flat file system with no relationships to projects via file management. Use part numbers or other Configuration Management tools for that.

I've attached a screenshot of our unmanaged folder structure. It basically is setup like a managed environment where the status of the file is used to determine folder location. In this manner, not only do you get Solid Edge's file level status, but your IT department can also apply security privileges to each folder to prevent accidental overwriting of released files by those who should only be viewing them.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[ct27gt]

Thank you for all of your input. We specifically deal with multiple product lines of different pumps. Our file naming system consists of "RANDOMPART#_REV_DESCRIPTION". We revision by doing a "File-Save As" of a released revision. We locate files by using the directory shown on the released drawing pdf or the project folder name. We do not have an intelligent part numbering system based on project, instead everybody just picks the next number available in the part # log for their part or assembly design. Trying to convince management not to group files by project is close to an impossible task. I agree with the logic and organization behind all unreleased CAD files in one folder, but then trying to find subassemblies and assemblies for various product lines becomes an absolute nightmare because no specific numbers correspond to that product line. File name description would be the only way to try and find those files.

I think the closest I will be able to get is to put parts/subassemblies we re-use in other assemblies in a standard parts library that is part of the search path after the Solid Edge default locations.

One scenario would be to reserve a block of numbers with a limit that we know we will never exceed (500 part numbers for instance) for each project? Then if you need to use a model from another project, copy it over to the new project folder. Now, based on the numbering scheme, you will at least know where to find the original model and drawing. This still presents a problem with revisioning though. Now you can easily have a bunch of copies of old revisions in the project folder, not knowing whether each is the latest revision.

Perhaps the best way is to have a log showing the relevant top level CAD assembly for each project, then use the method you described Swertel by having an "In-Work","Released","Rev History", and "Standard Parts" folder. That way our "Released" file references are limited to 2 folders. No assemblies in the released folder should be using any old revision parts because they should all have the latest revision, so the search path only needs to be the "Released" folder or the "Standard Parts" folder. We could even have a separate drawings folder with all current revision drawings and a subfolder for old revisions. Changing links of legacy files, however, would present a major problem.

How are your old revisions handled?

 

[bshand]

If you think you may ever incorporate Insight or SESP you should put the rev at the end of the file name: FileName_1.par, for example. My personal prejudice is that PDM is ultimately the only viable way to manage linking and revisioning unless you just don't mind multiple copies of files for reuse in newer projects because without PDM it's practically impossible to manage all the links and rev control. A place where I worked with unmanaged SE files simply archived every project rev in its entirety to a unique project folder with subfolders underneath to hold minor revs that came along before it was done. If the revisions were major enough another folder for the whole project would be made. They always planned to go to a PDM system but I don't think they have even yet.
Another advantage for you is that a PDM makes your "non-intelligent" naming system irrelevant to organization and rev configuration control. I personally don't consider a simple sequential part numbering system unfortunate. I often found it difficult to come up with an intelligent naming system that covered all instances. The place I work now does use intelligent naming and it's not horrible but every project file hase a project number as a prefix which really makes it project specific and can therefore not be used in other projects. Then you have to weigh whether or not and when to make it a standard part/assy. If you do decide to later convert a project file to a standard file the PDM system can easily handle the updates for existing assemblies.

 

[ct27gt]

Thanks, totally agree. I prefer a sequential numbering system as well. At my previous company they probably still use the project based number prefix as you have described. However, once we implemented PDM, it didn't matter anymore because there could only be one copy of the file in the database. I would also prefer to implement PDM, but that obviously is not my decision. Most companies, including my current one, see the price tag and don't even consider it. I am confused at how Solid Edge says implementing Insight is no additional cost? Anyone have any experience implementing it? Does it have version history similar to SolidWorks Enterprise PDM?

 

[bshand]

Insight is included and it's a matter of installing and implementing it. 'Course you need sharepoint and a sequel server so that might cost something if you don't already have them.

 

[ct27gt]

I'm pretty sure we have a SQL server. We are in the process of transferring all of our data to it, as well as creating more manageable ECO forms. Moving away from paper you could say. I will look into. Thank you swertel and bshand for your enlightening responses.