Changing "Released" CAD Data in PDMLink

Tim,

You have a very good point and the short answer for me is NO.

I would love to say that I can trust my users, but I know from experience that if they can get around something, they will. It's like telling a kid not to get a cookie from the cookie jar. It becomes their mission in life to get that cookie.

Having a system that locks down the correct process is key but not having any flexibility or options on how it does it is what I think can be improved. If you want to keep people out of your car, you can weld the doors shut and weld sheetmetal over the windows. That's a little extreme and a different approach can give you the security you need while making it practical for everyday use.

Windchill currently locks everything down so tight, that you don't have the flexibility to do real world things with your cad data and not cause some drastic revision change in the process.

Here is something that just happened today. We have a released product. QA wants us to provide them a Validation report that compares our Casting to the 3D model. We use Geomagic Qualify and our 3D Laser Scanner for this type of work. We need to add a coordinate system to the 3D model that Geomagic Qualify can use for the purpose of doing the Validation and getting the report back to QA.

Adding a coordinate system does not change the Form, Fit or Function of our product. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with the product we sell, but we are wanting to do some internal studies to make sure our product is the best quality possible. No one can convince me that adding a coordinate system for this purpose should force a Revision change on the product.

Windchill needs more flexibile options for handling this type of everyday work. The people at PTC are sharp individuals and their must be a way to make Windchill secure while giving it some felxibility. I hope they are working on it.

"Too many people walk around like Clark Kent, because they don't realize they can Fly like Superman"

Having read through this thread, I must bemisunderstanding something, so please forgive me if this is the case.

What is it exactly that we're asking the software to do? I ask because the general feel seems a lotlike the complaints are all over the map describing a problem, specifying how to use the software to overcome the problem, then saying the software can't overcome the problem.

The ability to change drawing/model for minor details after it's released -- details like adding a datum axis or changing the color of a single surface for better contrast -- without increasing the revision level? Doesn't that exists with the ability to set up individual accounts or groups or roles to check those released objects out? The Product Manager role springs immediately to mind. It doesn't have to be a system administrator; just pick your most responsible software user and train them when it's okay to do this or not to do it.

If no user is responsible enough with the software and the internal company processes doesn't address this issue, no software is going to change that.

Someone mentioned having the adminmanually set state to allow users to check out, modify, then check in, but that simply gives the user a sort of ad hoc product manager permission, just for those few files instead of for everything within that product. If no user can be trusted (again, no software is going to address this) with product manager permissions and the admin is setting state on individual files, a workflow can be created to change parts to a state that allows modification, then changes them back upon completion. A manager fires off the workflow, it changes state of objects within it, the assignee checks them out, modifies and checks them in, finishes the assignment and the workflow changes the state back to released. This would limit the assignee to only changing those specific files.

What about the ability to track these "less significant" changes? If they're so insignificant that you don't want your vendors requoting a new revision (usually increasing price along the way) or your customers getting confused, just don't track them. If they have to be tracked, iteration history will do that for you. It's also my opinion that if they're significant enough to be tracked, then they're signifcant enough for a drawing/model revision. Revising is how significant changes are tracked.

This is opening another can-o-worms, but hey, why not bring it up? I was previously exposed to a different methodology concerning revisions. If the form, fit or function changes in such a way that the part in question is no longer 100% backward and forward interchangeable, assign a new number. In this way, when the customer says he has P/N 123456, it doesn't matter what revision he receives as replacement, it's always interchangeable. Then revising the drawing for minor changes is irrelevant from that standpoint. Of course this doesn't help with vendors requoting for simple changes like fillet size or other changes that don't affect that forward and backwardinterchangeability.

That tangent aside, what else are we looking for aside from the ability to check out released objects for "less significant" changes? Because that exists within the software as-is, in multiple ways. Since that ability exists, is this boiled down to needing to track these "less significant" changes more easily than viewing the iteration history? Or is it simply a matter where users cannot be trusted, so the admin is doing all this work (and feeling frustrated that users can't simply do this work correctly)?

Don,

You obviously know more about Windchill than me. We don't even have it up and runing yet. Let me be clear in that PTC did find a solution to minor changes and how to control them. The process requires manual intervention and users have shown that they make many mistakes when allowe the feedom to do so. The solution provided to us will require the "Administrator" to bump up the revision level as needed, but the end user can choose to check the product in as a minor revision regardless if they changed the product drastically.

There is a way to make it work, but it opens up room for error which is why we purchased the software to begin with.

Can there be a more intelligent way of having the system provide the flexibility while automating it at the same time? I have no clue and hope someone here can share a solution.

The lack of flexibility that I mentioned in the past is based on breaking automation and control in order to make things work as they should.

Is there an automated way for Windchill to notify me for approval before an end user check's something back into the system as "Released"? If there is, I would love to learn more about it. At least this way the manual process requires approval and can prevent the end user from just checking things in.

Thanks

P.S. I am a veteran Pro/ENGINEER (Creo) user with over 18 years experience. I know almost nothing about Windchill and will start my journey to learn it this year. So any help from the guru's would be great.

"Too many people walk around like Clark Kent, because they don't realize they can Fly like Superman"

Ben,

As the "Administrator" to be. I would not be the person doing the actual work on the model. The Engineers' will. Is there a way to have Windchill 10 request approval from me before a user can check something into the system at the "Release" state?

If so, this would prevent Chaos. My biggest concearn is that the end user can check it in and choose not to notify me that a new Revision letter is required.

Thanks

"Too many people walk around like Clark Kent, because they don't realize they can Fly like Superman"