Solidworks and configuration Management 1

[mrMikee]

I have worked at two companies that tried to go from 2D CAD to Solidworks. One thing I've noticed is that the Solidworks techs seem to want to make a part number for everything including a drawing and bill of material entry. They explain that Solidworks needs to have a part number for every part (and this does make sense to me) but I don't necessarily see it replacing the bill of materials. In other words, don't use Solidworks to build a master assembly for the purpose of counting nut and bolts. I have tried to promote some ideas concerning simplified bills of materials, reduced levels in bills, modular product design, and a few things I like from lean manufacturing, but with little success. I should point out that the company I work for is a small fabrication job shop that has one product line and a lot of custom build once only installations. Our product is more structural than it is a machine.

The result has been that they look at me like I don't know anything because I use Autocad, and even worse I'm an engineer, and worse yet I'm a structural engineer. If anyone has some input or observations feel free to jump in. This forum has been very quiet lately and this topic may be an interesting discussion from the standpoint that many small companies are probably trying to make the move into solid modeling now.

Regards,
-Mike

 

[ctopher]

Every part and assembly has it's unique P/N. The drawings of the part and assembly match. BOM's do not have their own P/N unless they are there own separate doc. If the BOM is on the face of the dwg, it becomes part of that dwg.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 05
AutoCAD 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[mrMikee]

Hi ctopher,

Thanks for your post. That was fast.

When I talk about the bill of materials I mean the BOM system and item master used by accounting/manufacturing, not the list of parts on the drawing. My concern is that the business system is going to get filled with alot of cut to size parts used in weldments that really could be ignored. In my opinion you don't need to run a job shop the same way as a mass production facility, and you don't necessarily need a part number, part drawing, and work order for everything when you are making weldments.

Hopefully I can get some opinions from others in this type of business.

Regards,
-Mikw

 

[ctopher]

The BOM and IM part numbers should always match somehow to the assembly part number it's used on. I know some accounting/manufacturing depts like to do their own thing, but when comes down to audits, they need to match. The basics about CM, is to have history and easy tracking.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 05
AutoCAD 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[GunT]

The problem you are talking about arises from creating "Weldments as Assemblies". A much better way is to create Weldments as Multibody parts and use SolidWorks Weldment Commands. This will drastically reduce the amount of data management (Of course there are cetain exceptions to this as always).

Regards

 

[mrMikee]

GunT,

I know that we are looking into an addon package for weldments so one way or another we might be addressing this issue. Thanks for the tip.

-Mike

 

[kassemd]

I think we work similar to Mike & frankly Solidworks is making our work more difficult, not easier. We inventory structural pipe, tubing, & ect. by the inch. Solidworks does fine at putting a bunch of that stuff together into a weldment, although I do have issues there too. The biggest problems are:
1. We weld tubing together, then add machined parts & such. Solidworks forces us to model the 'weldment', then create another model to add the machined parts. That 'weldment' has to have some kind of part # or name & I think that is the kind of wasted part numbers Mike is referring to.
For example: One line of equipment calls for a length of tubing to be cut to length, holes to be drilled in it, & machined parts & fittings to be attached. Solidworks makes you create a weldment & give it a name/number that you can then use in an assembly. In the 2D world it's pretty easy to show a view of the cut & drilled tubing, add the parts and fittings in another view, & put it all in one drawing BOM. Solidorks makes you create the 'weldment' to which you can add the drilled holes, but if you put the 'weldment' & the assembly on the same drawing you will get a Weldment Cut List & a BOM with independant balloons.

2. We build semi unique projects. Very seldom are 2 projects identical, but most have a lot of common or similar components to previous projects. The frame may be the same as Project A except for taller legs, & the drum may be the same as Project B. Solidworks will let you reuse the drum model & create a configuration of the frame model, but our print # is the project number & we like to put all the drawings for a project in one drawing file. I know of no way to utilize the drawings previously created in the new project.

Mark

 

[mrMikee]

What prompted my original post was the observation at the company I work at that Solidworks has made many things more difficult. At a previous job I was involved in product simplification, modular designs, simplification of bills of materials, and the reduction of paperwork and workorders in the shop. I implemented a document control system and a CAD drawing check-in/check-out sytem. So far the recommendations I have made at my current employer have been ignored. It has been hard to watch from the sidelines as things spin out of control. The company has no bill of materials outside of the one in Solidworks. If there are some parts needed for a project, they have to be put on a drawing somewhere. It's become a real mess.

So what have I learned in the last 5 months?

I have come to the conclusion that while Solidworks is a powerful tool (as is all solid modelling,) it isn't for everyone or everything. Where I work I estimate that about half of what engineering is doing now could be better done in Autocad, but the proportion would vary for every company. However, the most important lesson I have learned is that the real issue (at least where I work) is not Solidworks (which could be made to work better) but instead the lack of competence of the people implementing the system. It has been forced on engineering by the chief draftsman and the management of the company, with the promise of making everything better. It hasn't. Configuration management, product structure, bills of materials, and management of the shop floor is crucial.

The reason I mention all this is because of my suspicion that this story is unfolding at many other small companies right now. In fact this is the second company I've worked at that has gone through pretty much the same ordeal, and maybe this will help someone.

If there are any comments or suggestions, please jump in.

Regards,
-Mike