SolidWorks for Design and Manufacturing

[jdg268]

Our company is wresting with how to integrate SolidWorks into our design and manufacturing departments.

In a purely theoretical world, design engineering would like to have a flat BOM, where a number of parts are placed into a final assembly.

On the other hand, manufacturing would like to have many subassembly models/drawings, so they can break up different operations according to how the final assembly is actually built. Manufacturing will build the same models design engineering constructs, they just get their by a different path.


Thus the struggle between the two departments. Manufacturing in turn wants drawings that design engineering does not want to make, (these drawings don't fit the "theoretical" build, and design does not want to make revision changes based on process changes.

We've thought of letting design engineering make models, then letting manufacturing alter the models to create their own drawings. Conversely, manufacturing could make a copy of design engineering's models, and alter them however they wish.
Yet, both concepts have many advantages and flaws.

I'm curious to know of anyone else's approach to this issues, and what sort of success/failures you had.

Thanks in advance!

John Graham CSWP

Mechanical Design Engineer

 

[wes616]

The idea of someone "changing" enigneering data is NOT A GOOD IDEA!

It sounds like your manufacturing dept has a planning issue, not a design issue. You deliver the drawings of the final assy, and the drawings of the parts, and the planners are supposed to figure out how to get from A to D, even if that requres them to stop and make B and C first.

What kind of product do you make (environment do you work in)? Maybe that would spark some more ideas.

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

 

[ctopher]

I 100% agree with Wes.
Models should be created the way they are to be manufactured and assembled.
This has been a problem for years. A lot of engineers are too lazy to do dwgs or learn configuration management. This is why some companies still use drafters/designers.
Set up a system to control the drawings from concept to manuafacturing released dwgs, and a paper (or electronic) trail to keep track of changes.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[jdg268]

Thanks Wes,
We make electric motors.
I completely agree about sharing. I am one of the strongest advocates of manufacturing not having access to design models.

Manufacturing is trying to figure out how to get from A to D, while minimizing the work required to do so.

They can take design models and make a copy for their own use. They can easiy construct models B and C in doing so. However, when design makes a revision change, they will have to update their model just as design did. This is double work when looking at the big picture of company savings.




John Graham CSWP

Mechanical Design Engineer

 

[jdg268]

Thanks Chris, I appreciate your input.
The problem our design department has with making drawings according to the manufacturing change is that manufacturing processes tend to change often.

For example, we make finished shafts. Design engineering generates only 1 drawing. Manufacturing requires two operations (rough turning/lathe features, then grinding to final OD). They like to have two drawings, b/c these operations are done in different places. However, their processes can change--maybe by getting a machine that can do both. So our documentation changes. Design eng. is wanting to get away from this scenario.

John Graham CSWP

Mechanical Design Engineer

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Unless the designers are fully fluent in the manufacturing processes & abilities, "Manufacturing" advice should be sought during the design verification stage, i.e. before the design is finalised & released for manufacture.

There are very few in design, draughting or manufacturing who know every aspect of all the processes involved. Sometimes a small & simple change in design can drastically simplify the making of the part, without losing design intent.

​

Helpful SW websites faq559-520​

How to find answers ... faq559-1091​

SW2006-SP5 Basic ... No PDM​

 

[wes616]

JDG,

You are up against an age old problem.

Simply understand that you are responsible for the product definition. Therefor if you are designing a shaft, as long as the final dia and surface finish are within the product definition, and inspection will buy off on it, then you have done your part. It doesn't matter how the part is made.

As you said, their processes change often. It is up to them to define how they make a part. KEEP IT SEPERATE.

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

 

[drawoh]

jdg268,

One of the rules for Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) is to design modular assemblies. Your subassemblies should be well defined, and thought through ahead of time. This means that you should define at least some of those sub-assemblies. Also, I don't like looking at large parts lists.

I agree with wes616, however, you should not forget that manufacturing will get its job done, whether or not you co-operate with them. If you bend a little, they will keep using your drawings. If they create their own document tree or they seize control of your drawings, you are out of the loop.

JHG

 

[griffengm]

jdg268,
Common problem with no common answer.
We address it in several ways mostly by some simple questions:
Is the subassembly likely to be sold as a repair/replacement part?
Which features are sufficiently critical that they should be measured/tested in an interim step?
How far apart (distance or time) are consecutive operations?
Which method will result in the fewest mistakes for a given product?
How many levels of parts are coming together and how permanently(screws vs weld)?
Differing operations and flow paths are addressed in routers and work sheets.
In the past we tried a system of two different document trees but decided that duplicating efforts was much less cost effective than working out the tree by negotiation during the design process.
Hope this helps.

Griffy

 

[Finethread]

I don't know if you are using a PDM/PLM system, but one way to manage this is to relate "as manufactured" to "as designed" parts, assemblies, drawings etc. The advantage to this is that when changes are made to the "as designed", it's easy to see that there are associated items that may need changing as well. I have personally had a discussion with SolidWorks about leveraging exisiting data for manufacturing. It is an on-going opportunity for improvement.