Implementing PDMW

I do PDMW implementation professionally, so I guess it's bad business for me to be here giving away the farm. Anyway, there is no point in setting up folders to hold ranges of part numbers. PDMWorks 2006 has a feature that handles this automatically if you want (called "ranges"), but there is no basic need that style of organization addresses unless it is possibly a performance issue (displaying too many docs at a single level). The "we always did this in Windows Explorer" reason is not a reason to keep doing it.

The valid reasons for creating a structure of folders (projects) in PDMW are to allow permissions, and to make things browsable.

The name "project" is kind of unfortunate, since it really doesn't reflect the valid ways some companies use them. Think of them as just folders.

Yes, you could, but why? You could just bulk check them all into the top level and allow PDMW 2006 to handle them with "ranges".

You could, but there is no reason to do it that way. In fact, if you have a decent grasp of basic SW-only file management, you could do it by only checking out the drawing and not even getting copies of the models.

Entirely possible. That's what I usually recommend. It makes things easier to deal with, and you can pull things out of the vault and drop them into an assembly as easily as from the Design Library, the only difference is that there is no thumbnail in the vault.

If you are not using PDMW 2006, you should at least look at it. It's almost a brainless upgrade if you already have 2005 installed, with a couple of exceptions, and if you're planning on using Lifecycle, you really shouldn't use anything prior to 2006. Also, you can use PDMW

2006 with SW 2005 (there are minor licensing issues which can be worked around easily).

Good luck.

Matt Lombard

Matt, Thanks for the info...

Project folders: Bulk Check-in all of our parts/drawing into one project folder, is this correct? With 40,000 files, would this be too much for PDMW?

You mentioned something about letting PDMW handle them with "ranges". A you talking about revisions?

Updating an Assembly: The Drawing title is updated from the custom props of the assembly. Because of this we would have to check-out the whole assembly, correct?

PDMW 2006 We have PDMW 2005 but I haven't installed it. I decided to wait and roll out PDMW with 2006.

Thanks again, Derek

Matt, Thanks for the info...

Project folders: Bulk Check-in all of our parts/drawing into one project folder, is this

correct? With 40,000 files, would this be too much for PDMW?

Updating an Assembly: The Drawing title is updated from the custom props of the assembly. Because of this we would have to check-out the whole assembly, correct?

PDMW 2006 We have PDMW 2005 but I haven't installed it. I decided to wait and roll out PDMW with 2006.

Thanks again, Derek

There are other ways to organize your files other than just by part number. For example, by function, by document type, by department, by project, by product, by customer, etc. You don't have to limit yourself by the limitations of Windows Explorer. You can find things by browsing like you used to do, but most people wind up using the search functions, which are very useful, allowing searches on something other than the file name, such as custom properties, revisions, description, etc.

If you want different groups to have different permissions for different documents, you will need to use some sort of structure, unless you're doing it completely with lifecycle.

For most companies, it is best to have some sort of organization. Organizing by part number doesn't help in any way, except as I said with performance. If all of your documents are essentially the same, but you have 40,000 of them, then that flat scheme might be the one for you.

No, I'm talking about ranges. This is a new function in PDMW 2006. If you're not familiar with this, you should install a test vault and read the documentation, such as it is.

That depends on settings. There is a setting which allows you to change custom properties directly from the PDMW interface without checking anything out. When a drawing inherits something from a model, that can have other implications depending on how you use the software.

Other than that, you will need to check out whatever you are changing, so that would be in this case the assembly file and the drawing file. There is no need to check out the part files unless they are all changing, but you will need to get copies of them.

Little bit OT, is PDMW 2006 supporting configurations? If yes, how?

You can list and search configuration names, and get BOM-type info for assembly configs. If what you mean by "support" is does it treat configurations as separate documents or does it assign rev levels to separate configs, the answer is still "no". I've used systems that did that, and never wound up using that particular function. Some people seem to use it as a single-issue gauge for PDM systems, which puzzles me.

Matt

BOM-type info? Do you mean it reads from the File-Properties-Configuration specific? Can it search also this info or just conf.names?

If what you mean by "support" is does it treat

Well, if we can do something in SW, why should we not able to do it with PDM installed as well...It's limiting the normal way of doing things. What is normal then...that's another story.

You can select a config and see the config specific properties. You can search configuration names. You cannot search values of config specific properties.

I guess I'm not understanding. What is it that you cannot do with PDMWorks but you can do in SW?

Hi Matt, So you had experience with PDMW 2006? Is it ready to be put in production? I'll wait a few months before rolling out SW 2005 but if there are notable improvments in PDMW I'll upgrade the Vault and keep SW 2005.

Thanks

-Marc

If you use lifecycle, PDMW06 is the way to go. I would recommend you set up a test vault. So far I've only done 1 PDMW06 implementation, and the company chose to stay on SW05, which works. There are some minor interface issues, and a registration issue when using that combination, but the PDMW05-06 upgrade took just minutes, and seems to have worked well.

Matt

It seems that with 2006 there's no problem anymore, with older versions it was quite difficult to work with configurations...(for me, File-Properties is not the tool that I want to use with properties)