cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Obstinate Windchill integration user

DonSenchuk
6-Contributor

Obstinate Windchill integration user

So, I have this user that does everything in his power not to use Windchill integrated with Creo. His claim is that the work he does has to be done outside of Windchill and workspaces. I've asked him (many times now) what it is that he can't do that every other engineer is able to accomplish within a Windchill environment. His boss either buys his arguments or just caves because user has been here for 30 years.

1. He needs to have two sessions open at the same time so he can reference sketches from one model while working on another. This allows him to quickly switch between one window and the next without exiting sketcher and having all the references disappear.

Ok. Multiple sessions are a bad thing. That bit I get. However, I just read something about Creo 3.0 allowing multiple sessions using the same local cache. He's still not convinced but at least he doesn't have an argument other than "I just don't like Windchill". Once we upgrade I will at least have ammunition to shoot down that one.

2. He needs the two sessions to be working in two different working directories. He isn't able to articulate why he needs different working directories for two different parts except when we get to point 3.

So here's the big question regarding the new multiple sessions functionality of Creo 3.0. If two sessions are open can each be working in their own workspace? I have doubts but I'm hoping for at least a resounding answer to this one way or another. The answer will affect how we approach some of the .prt or .asm he modifies.

3. This one is the doozy. He'll be looking at modifying Part 1. To do so, he'll download Part 2 to a folder, use windows to rename it, copy/replace it over to his working directory, then open his assembly thus fooling the assembly into using a different part than it was expecting. Yes, assembly constraints fail but because he's just doing experimental work he doesn't care. BUT, when he sends his newly modified Part 1 over to be incorporated, every assembly using the old Part 1 fails the assembly constraints. Yes, creating dozens of hours of extra work downstream compared to a little extra work on his part. His response is, "not my problem".[1]


What does Creo or Windchill offer that would support this methodology? He refuses to entertain "replace" for, well I'm not really sure. Something about the difficulty of redoing constraints.

...

[1]Yes, I fully understand the staggering level of arrogance on display here. Did I mention the "his boss caves" bit?


This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
15 REPLIES 15

Don,

I don't have any answers for you, BUT two sessions = two licenses of Creo for one user.

Have you used this argument with this user and his boss?

Marco

I've had the argument multiple times. It always boils down to his boss siding with him after the explanation of "I have to do it this way just because I do."

So far two licenses hasn't been an issue. If it comes up I'll force him out of one.

His long lost brother and sister work here!  I have had to deal with a few individuals like that here.  Very similar situation, management with no backbone and the (L)user runs the show....

Enough complaining,  but I struggle with this too.   I don't know if you can approach it from the team player POV or not.  "Hey, you aren't being a very good team member and are causing X amount of rework which is causing the company waste."   If you can put it into some sort of dollar figure, management might listen more...

DonSenchuk
6-Contributor
(To:mdebower)

Yeah, the team player bit is what I'm working toward. His group is different from the 'drawing maintenance' group. I'm working toward a situation where nobody uses his models. If he has a change to make, we just make the change to the existing model. I know it's doubling up on the work, but that's a fair sight better than 20x the number of hours needed after indulging his method.

I was just hoping for a technological solution to present.

Creo 2 M130, Windchill 10.2 M030

I do the same thing of having two sessions open at the same time to quickly reference an existing feature or sketch.  It is quicker/more efficient.  However, when I do that I make sure to work in two different workspaces.  I'll create a temporary one for my reference part.  That covers your first and second points I think.

As for point 3....replace tool?  I don't know what to make of that.

The two sessions thing makes some sense and, with Creo 3.0, it's going to be possible again OOTB. No answer yet on each session using it's own workspace but even without I'm sure we could accommodate what he wants to do.

The 3rd point is the worst. It really is the replace tool without the replace tool. He still has to redo all his constraints but with the replace tool at least the 'evaluate' function is available. I get the distinct impression that he only uses models he created. If someone else created it, then it gets the 'fake out the assembly' method described in point 3. The latest incident involved 4 dimensional changes to the original part, but he still did this method.

Even if you ignore the ease and utility of the replace tool with auto-evaluate, I don't see why the method in point 3 can't be done inside PDM.  It sounded like he's just overwriting the contents of Part 1 with the contents on Part 2.  If that's the case, you can do that in PDM as well.

All you have to do is have Part 1 checked out to your workspace, but not in memory, and then do a "save a copy"  of Part 2 onto the Part 1 name.  It tells you that the Part 1 name already exists, but you tell it to continue anyway, and then you're done.  Part 1 now has the geometry of Part 2 as well as the Part 2 drawing.  This even works for assemblies, somewhat.

This method would still kill assembly constraints, but it's got to be easier than doing it in Windows.

What about training needs?   Perhaps he sticks to his tried and true methods because he isn't aware of, or comfortable with the replace command and some of the other advanced techniques?

This doesn't sound exactly like the situation, but you never know...

DonSenchuk
6-Contributor
(To:mdebower)

I thought that after the first round of the fight. Now, after having gone over it more than once it's just stubbornness.

Imagine a user that refuses to learn how to use the mouse wheel for zooming and instead picks the icon to zoom. That's this guy.

I know I'm beating on him a lot but it's feeling more and more like there simply isn't a software solution for his method.

I sometimes run 2 sessions to get info from another assembly or "version" of a file, but usually I just do a screen grab, 99% of the time that is all I need to "transfer" that information.

50% of the time I go outside of PDMLink is to fix a mistake someone has made when copying a drawing  and model and they didn't account for all the renames they needed to do. They got a drawing and some of the models renamed but not all of them and now they have a hodge-podge of old/new names and renaming within pdmlink won't fix it because it's referencing both the old and new files now...ughhhh...and they have done too much work to start over. I use the trick of renaming in windows and then renaming again to get all the files and drawings looking at all the right new names. I think some users here use me as a crutch over and over, never paying attention since the repercussion is only that it can always be fixed by "that guy".

The other 50% of my outside of PDMLink is when I need to make a "quick" concept from an existing assembly and I don't have or take the time to duplicate and rename everything because I don't have time to plan out the concept. I just change production stuff. I can't check it in or upload it. I have no backup of the work. I simply just back up my work to my harddrive until I have a chance to "fix" all my mess and oh what a mess it is.  Inevitably before I have a chance to fix my mess the boss needs more changes and I end up with new work on my hard drive that's no longer in PDMlink.

Not sure about the replace command. That is simply one of the best ever improvements. Even if I have to reconnected 100 references to do a replace, it's way better than manually fixing them. Replace is awesome. Everyone should know how to use it. 

That sounds like the incidents I would go outside as well. The only other one I see, and it's become quite rare, is someone skipping too many revisions and I need to save their work but roll back one or more revision levels.

I've worked with that 'not my problem' guy. He gets around. I've also dealt with his boss too many times to count.

Give him his own folder in Windchill and read-only access to the rest. Tell him it's to keep his work safe so others won't mess it up.

Other than that, you can't convince either of them. How do I know? Because his boss hasn't come to you to work through the alternative processes so that the boss can try them on his own. Am I right in guessing his boss refuses to use Creo and Windchill himself (excuse: because he's too busy / no time).

DonSenchuk
6-Contributor
(To:dschenken)

I don't think giving him is own folder will work as he refuses to use Windchill in the first place.

The funny thing is his boss does use Creo and Windchill. He was instrumental in support of both getting CNs up and running and was the Auditor for the process. It's a pretty strange dynamic.

Sounds like I'm just going to have to take steps to have users only use models he sends over as reference.

Ha - I missed the 30 years part. I tried to train a guy who was about to retire, because that was on his yearly goals, to use CADDS IV. The main feature of the system was the tablet and pen. Every time he squeezed the pen to push the select button he would shift the tip of the pen about 1/8th inch, moving well off the target, and the system would make a nasty -beep- sound because the selection failed. The good news is he was -never- going to get time to use the software anyway ($50,000 each terminals) and he retired as planned to sell real-estate in his spare time.

I'm still not understanding where Part2 comes from. And I'm troubled by the idea that an Auditor/ former Auditor is allowing his supplier to provide adulterated substitutes without a waiver.

I'm also a fan of the Workspace Save-As (Not Creo Save-As, not Commonspace Save-As.) Much cooler than Replace for what it does.

When I've shown these guys around here the workspace save-as that you can also simultaneously replace the old part/assy with the new one, it's like the little light comes on and it solves all their problems. I tell them if you start with the top level model/drawing, you can change anything below it with workspace save-as/replace.

My only complaint about workspace save-as is that all files must be uploaded (not checked in) to do the save as. It's really more about my workflow and how I'm mostly a design hacker and a creo hacker, not a thinker, so I don't always do a good job of planning things out before I start making my messes.

Announcements