User groups 1

[ctopher]

I have been conducting SolidWorks user group meetings at our company for several months (mtgs every two weeks). The problem is trying to get everyone to take notes, remember, or follow standards that I set up. I am interrupted daily with questions on how we implement SolidWorks.I need to create a form that explains our standards for creating models/dwgs here. It also needs to explain somewhat about PDMWorks. Training shows them most of it, but every company is different on how the software is implemented. Has anyone created any standards for your company? If so, I would like a copy to use as refernece to get me started. thank you

 

[MadMango]

This sounds like a huge task. I'm curious as to what standards you have established for your company so far? There are so many different ways to achieve the same ends in SW, I would think it very difficult to impose many standards.

Comming from product development, I think designers should have the freedom to design parts as required, but knowing file maintenance issues concerning engineering change orders I also have seen the need to create some form of "best practices" so the development group doesn't throw the production group any curve balls. Good example, we started heavy use with configs as few years ago, the production folks weren't up to speed on their use. Configs started to get deleted.

[green]"But what... is it good for?"[/green]
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[ctopher]

Designers here are free to design as they like to a point. Our guidelines for example are (to name a few): All origins to be in the center of the part, if it sits on a table ... origin center/bottom; front of the part is front view; if it has a side connector, connector to the right; if it is a part turned on a lathe, model it as it is on a lathe; all properties of each part/assy/dwg to filled out; each dept has a certain lifecycle status to use in PDMWorks, etc. We have to follow certain guidelines to stay with config control/ISO9000/etc for military and other types of products. If I leave it up to individuals to do as they please (as we did at first), there is no control. I hope I explained OK. thanks

 

[Standing]

ctopher,
I have exactly the same problem. I gave training classes which showed standards and do’s and don’ts. The only thing that I found that works each and every time are macros. I wrote macros that would enter data where ever I could. For example the material called out in the title block. Getting everyone to type in the data the same way every time was insane. Now they pick a button and it is typed in for them. Now my only problem is, if it is not on the list they want it added.


Bradley

 

[ctopher]

I have some macros also, but several users are not motivated to use them. They always find an excuse. I am going to attempt to write a standard to pass thru managment to force the standards on them.

 

[engAlright]

I was involved in creating Solidworks and PDMWorks procedures for our company. There was a big resistance to it initially, as everyone had to get out of their bad old familiar habits. Eventually everyone got on board once they realized that the procedures would save them a lot of headaches (with some friendly wrist slapping along the way!).

Training helps, but training will only stick if there is a written document to back it up. This is particularly important for PDMworks procedures, which for us are more rigid.

I also agree with Bradley about the use of macros. In general, try to make it as easy as possible for people to follow the procedures - set up custom templates, toolbars,options & macros wherever possible.

Also recognize that until there is a "design machine" button in Solidworks (2006 maybe?) no two people will do the same thing exactly the same way. Focus on your "must have" standards and get them done first, then expand as necessary.

 

[ctopher]

thanks engAlright. Is it possible to see a copy to have an idea how you are doing it as reference?
thanks everyone

 

[Standing]

These are the rules I came up with for our company.
PDM Rules to Live by:

1. Get latest parts from PDM.
2. Work only within your working directory.
3. Keep your working directory clean.
4. Take ownership as soon as you know you are going to change, if an ECN is required keep ownership until you give it to Documentation.
5. Do not check out or take ownership unless you are going to change it.
6. Do not take ownership of an assembly and all children.
7. Upon check-in, add short note as to what you did.
8. Release Ownership (if applicable) during check-in not afterwards.
9. Do not add suffices and prefixes to part numbers being checked-in to PDM.
10. Do not check-in junk names; get a part number if it needs to be in PDM.
11. If you are working on projects that are not ready for PDM, create a sub-directory within your working directory for those models. Remember rule number 2.
12. Do not delete relationships and external references.
13. Clean swSolidWorksBackups directory; defrag your C:\ drive as often as needed.


Bradley

 

[ctopher]

Some good advise Bradley, thanks

 

[MadMango]

...speaking of standards for modeling, what are some thoughts about the use of sheet metal features, such as Hems and Edge-Flanges? Do you allow the use of Base-Flanges or not?

Maybe I'm "old school", but I dislike these features in models. You can't mirror them for one, and there's something nice about supressing Process-Bends instead of unsupressing Flat-Patterns that I like.

Question: How far do you take the internally created standards?

[green]"But what... is it good for?"[/green]
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[engAlright]

Personally I like the sheet metal tools, including base flanges - they tell you if there are problems in your part right away (rather than waiting for the classic "Part cannot be unbent" error), they also seem better for performance. I still like the "Insert Bends" method for complex shapes though.

Before I get too far off topic - Bradley's PDM standards are almost exactly the same as ours (except for working in sub-directories - working out of one directory seems less troublesome, as there are no duplicates).

In terms of how far to take the standards - that depends highly on the company and the individuals involved. If you've got a large number of designers working on stuff that at some point must work together, detailed standards are critical. At the same time, you don't want the standards so detailed that they overwhelm, as engineers seem to enjoy a little freedom.