PDM - Who the heck needs this stuff anyways?

PDM:

-Is annoying to learn.

-Forces you to work in a way that you have not normally worked.

-Costs money to buy and maintain.

-Usually requires some sort of an expert to maintain.

-Requires extra steps to change documents.

There has been a wave of PDM related question, comments and threads
lately.
This is largely driven by the addition of PDM works to the SolidWorks
professional suite.

So I ask the question:

"WHO THE HECK NEEDS THIS STUFF?"

The answer is:

"ALMOST EVERY ONE"

I have been working with and administering our PDM system (Softech /
WTC's product center 8) with a few users,
mostly engineering, and have come to really appreciate what PDM can do
for an engineering group, let alone a whole company.

The reaction here at the company was/is mixed. Some people hate PDM
and are slow to embrace it, others take to it readily.

But after working with PDM, I have found it to be an indispensable
part of my work.

Running a multiple user / multiple configuration engineering group
without a PDM system is a lot like running a product company without
any MRP system.
Yes, you can do purchasing on ring binders and have lots of planners
to make sure you are not short parts, but you pay with higher labor
costs. With cad you can also jockey multiple file versions, or beg
each other form write permissions when the other guy has the model
locked.
MRP helps you plan and manage your procurement. PDM helps you manager
your product data.

I started my career in 1986 as a tool and die apprentice. The big
push at that time was for companies to use CNC and also to get into
CAD. I was lucky enough to have a chance to design a draw tool which
I accomplished with t-square and drafting board. There was a cad
station available with a not so legitimate copy of AutoCAD 9, which I
took to fervently! I started to learn CAD and so did a few of the
other guys in the shop. We soon abandoned the board and the diazo
machine and within a few years we were doing everything on CAD and
doing all of our wire cutting from CAD shapes.
By the early 90's people expected to do everything in CAD and could
not imagine anything else.

Things progressed and in 1994 I took another job as a tooling designer
and we used anvil-1000 ME. The big push was to implement 2D
parametrics for family of parts, for which they chose CADRA-3. This
worked great and the results were impressive. What a time saver. By
now the idea of parametrics had taken hold. People
wanted to reuse and modulate their geometry. Another step forward.

I moved on quickly and in 1995 landed at another company, again as a
designer. They were using my old favorite - AutoCAD. They were using
their cad data to program their laser and turrets. But on all the
tooling they used cad and paper prints. All the die plates were hand
programmed on at the CNC controller from dimensioned layouts. We saw
this as an area to improve and moved into CAM programming with
smartcam (along with a new 30 x 50 vmc). What a time and quality
improvement! Things were accelerating quickly and eventually we bought
3 seats of SolidWorks in about 1998, which really revolutionized the
speed of flat part development and accuracy. Unfoldable sheet metal
from a single model! Awesome.

I took another job in 2001 as a mech designer. The company had just
purchased and was implementing a PDM system and had Solidworks as
well. This was all new to me and I didn't feel comfortable with it at
all, but I knew that this "was the next wave". The PDM implementation
was bumpy at times and at times thoughts of abandoning it overwhelmed
the mind, but we still persevered. I was lucky enough to be the right
hand man to the to the implementer and when he moved on to a better
job, I was allowed to administer the system.

Over the years I have seen many changes, and at every step of the way,
there are people who pissed and moaned about the new technology,
avoided it, cursed it and did everything in their power to guarantee
that it "was not viable". But still the new way of doing things
prevailed and eventually became the standard way of doing things.

On the other hand are the people who embrace new technology and take
advantage of it - these are the people who usually prosper. Wherever
people started, people eventually came to think "how could you
possibly do that sort of work without that tool?"

The question is "Which do you want to be?"

I too often see people focus on the negative aspects of a new tool and
utterly look past the great benefits that the tool gives.

For me I have seen PDM overcome many problems and offer many
advantages that beset the CAD user, among these:

-Multiple engineers may collaborate in real time without having to ask
the other guy to "load that model read only".
-There is only ever one "master model", not some mess distributed
across many machines or boogered up on the filing system of the week
or lost on some persons c: drive personal folder. No more
"versionitus".
-Trackable history that can be recoverd exactly as released, complete
with cad models.
- No concurrent change to models can happen (i.e. no parallel ECNs
occur on the same part)
-CAD model where-used shows other models effected by a change.
-The ability to do queries and make reports about your cad date.

This stuff rocks. It is the next big leap. Adapt or play catch up
five years from now. Your choice people.

Regards,

SMA

(long rant but lets see the good)

 

Bless you!

 

Yeah, yeah, I know! Dont' they get on your nerves!?! You can't talk to them, can't
explain, can't argue, they're just beyond reason, governed by some knee jerk
reaction to anything new ~ any change has to be worse, they see conspiracies in
everything (can we detect them by just mentioning Roswell and seeing if they go
off on govt conspiracies to cover up flying saucers? just a thought), the
followers of King Ludd. I am completely convinced that they all got through trade
(or whatever) school, completely convinced that it was the last class they'd ever
have to take, that they'd never have to learn another thing their whole lives
because they'd already learned everything worthwhile.

David Janes

: PDM:
:
: -Is annoying to learn.
:
: -Forces you to work in a way that you have not normally worked.
:
: -Costs money to buy and maintain.
:
: -Usually requires some sort of an expert to maintain.
:
: -Requires extra steps to change documents.
:
: There has been a wave of PDM related question, comments and threads
: lately.
: This is largely driven by the addition of PDM works to the SolidWorks
: professional suite.
:
: So I ask the question:
:
: "WHO THE HECK NEEDS THIS STUFF?"
:
: The answer is:
:
: "ALMOST EVERY ONE"
:
: I have been working with and administering our PDM system (Softech /
: WTC's product center 8) with a few users,
: mostly engineering, and have come to really appreciate what PDM can do
: for an engineering group, let alone a whole company.
:
: The reaction here at the company was/is mixed. Some people hate PDM
: and are slow to embrace it, others take to it readily.
:
: But after working with PDM, I have found it to be an indispensable
: part of my work.
:
: Running a multiple user / multiple configuration engineering group
: without a PDM system is a lot like running a product company without
: any MRP system.
: Yes, you can do purchasing on ring binders and have lots of planners
: to make sure you are not short parts, but you pay with higher labor
: costs. With cad you can also jockey multiple file versions, or beg
: each other form write permissions when the other guy has the model
: locked.
: MRP helps you plan and manage your procurement. PDM helps you manager
: your product data.
:
: I started my career in 1986 as a tool and die apprentice. The big
: push at that time was for companies to use CNC and also to get into
: CAD. I was lucky enough to have a chance to design a draw tool which
: I accomplished with t-square and drafting board. There was a cad
: station available with a not so legitimate copy of AutoCAD 9, which I
: took to fervently! I started to learn CAD and so did a few of the
: other guys in the shop. We soon abandoned the board and the diazo
: machine and within a few years we were doing everything on CAD and
: doing all of our wire cutting from CAD shapes.
: By the early 90's people expected to do everything in CAD and could
: not imagine anything else.
:
: Things progressed and in 1994 I took another job as a tooling designer
: and we used anvil-1000 ME. The big push was to implement 2D
: parametrics for family of parts, for which they chose CADRA-3. This
: worked great and the results were impressive. What a time saver. By
: now the idea of parametrics had taken hold. People
: wanted to reuse and modulate their geometry. Another step forward.
:
: I moved on quickly and in 1995 landed at another company, again as a
: designer. They were using my old favorite - AutoCAD. They were using
: their cad data to program their laser and turrets. But on all the
: tooling they used cad and paper prints. All the die plates were hand
: programmed on at the CNC controller from dimensioned layouts. We saw
: this as an area to improve and moved into CAM programming with
: smartcam (along with a new 30 x 50 vmc). What a time and quality
: improvement! Things were accelerating quickly and eventually we bought
: 3 seats of SolidWorks in about 1998, which really revolutionized the
: speed of flat part development and accuracy. Unfoldable sheet metal
: from a single model! Awesome.
:
: I took another job in 2001 as a mech designer. The company had just
: purchased and was implementing a PDM system and had Solidworks as
: well. This was all new to me and I didn't feel comfortable with it at
: all, but I knew that this "was the next wave". The PDM implementation
: was bumpy at times and at times thoughts of abandoning it overwhelmed
: the mind, but we still persevered. I was lucky enough to be the right
: hand man to the to the implementer and when he moved on to a better
: job, I was allowed to administer the system.
:
: Over the years I have seen many changes, and at every step of the way,
: there are people who pissed and moaned about the new technology,
: avoided it, cursed it and did everything in their power to guarantee
: that it "was not viable". But still the new way of doing things
: prevailed and eventually became the standard way of doing things.
:
: On the other hand are the people who embrace new technology and take
: advantage of it - these are the people who usually prosper. Wherever
: people started, people eventually came to think "how could you
: possibly do that sort of work without that tool?"
:
: The question is "Which do you want to be?"
:
: I too often see people focus on the negative aspects of a new tool and
: utterly look past the great benefits that the tool gives.
:
: For me I have seen PDM overcome many problems and offer many
: advantages that beset the CAD user, among these:
:
: -Multiple engineers may collaborate in real time without having to ask
: the other guy to "load that model read only".
: -There is only ever one "master model", not some mess distributed
: across many machines or boogered up on the filing system of the week
: or lost on some persons c: drive personal folder. No more
: "versionitus".
: -Trackable history that can be recoverd exactly as released, complete
: with cad models.
: - No concurrent change to models can happen (i.e. no parallel ECNs
: occur on the same part)
: -CAD model where-used shows other models effected by a change.
: -The ability to do queries and make reports about your cad date.
:
: This stuff rocks. It is the next big leap. Adapt or play catch up
: five years from now. Your choice people.
:
: Regards,
:
: SMA
:
: (long rant but lets see the good)

 

(Sean-Michael Adams) wrote in

....


Great post, Sean. Applies to just about anything new.

matt

 

I fully agree that a pdm system is required to keep full project control,
what I don't agree with, is when a pdm system forces you to work one way and
one way only.
Different countries use different document control systems and this should
be reflected in the software, especially if this software is going to be
sold around the world. If Microsoft only sold windoze... and office in an
American language, they would not be as big as they are today. They saw the
need to stop being "so bloody American" and adapted, they gave their
customers what they wanted.
"You will be assimilated" & "you will comply" are the phrases from the Borg,
but it seems that PDMWorks have adopted these and that you must comply if
you want to use this software! Even Solidworks resellers have written some
pdm software, because PDMWorks is so lacking.
My VAR had a good pdm, but has now stopped supporting it, why?, quote,"
Because of conflicting ethical and financial interests, now that PDMWorks
is now part of Solidworks". Sounds like a thumb's screw to me.

"It's a free world, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion", well it
still is and they still are, in the UK.

 

Hi All,
I'd like to add another perspective to this debate as I sit somewhere
in between the two positions of PDM enthusiast and PDM hater. I have
recently finished working for a couple of years implementing SmarTeam
for a SolidWorks VAR and have mixed opinions on the merits of PDM. I
see PDM as an essential part of the development of 3D CAD management,
but it's far from a mature product currently, and is not working very
rapidly toward that goal. I have dealt with irritating anti
change/progress people also but I don't think that the majority of
complaints regarding PDM on this newsgroup are coming from them. I
think that the complaints come from people who have spent big dollars
based on incorrect/inaccurate/ignorant advice from salespeople.

I am also acutely aware that there is far more to be considered in the
selection of PDM than the technology itself. The company behind the
product is just as important.

On the technology side I see some major issues that need to addressed
internally within SolidWorks before any PDM product is going to work
efficiently. Firstly basic revision management. The thing that
triggers SWX to prompt for a save is the same switch that is used by
SmarTeam to trigger revisioning, for instance, to prompt for a
revision increment. I'm guessing that the dirty flag in the file (the
trigger of change) is a system created by microsoft, and while it's ok
to do a couple of redundant saves on a word document, it's clearly not
ok to do another revision because you have opened a file and looked at
the custom properties.

You can easily see this behaviour: create a dummy file, say a block,
save it and close it, open it again and look at the custom properties,
go to close it and you will be prompted to save the document, SWX
thinks that it has changed. This is not acceptable. For the PDM
package to be efficient this behavior MUST become more intelligent,
otherwise the user needs to be acutely aware of which files have
changed and which files SWX "thinks" have changed when checking in
assemblies etc. Not a very helpful tool otherwise. I suppose the PDM
packages could ask if you meant to change the file when it detects the
change (as SmarTeam does, PDMWorks certainly did not last time I saw
it).

Also the PDM package must be able to disable the "all configuration"
modification option within SolidWorks for proper configuration
management to function. Look at this scenario with configuration
management in SmarTeam:
Check out one configuration while all others remain checked in.
Change a dimension without noticing that "all configurations" is on in
the dialog box.
Go to check in that configuration and SmarTeam tries to check in all
the other configurations because they have changed,
Then SmarTeam asks why you are trying to check in documents that are
not checked out and shits itself.
The PDM package and SWX must become more connected and I'm sure that
it was the recognition of that fact that lead the SWX corp acquiring
PDMWorks. It just needs more time.

Both these situations can be worked around if you know what's going
on, but try explaining to someone who has just spent $100,000+ on a
tool to manage their CAD documents that they now need to know more
about file management than they did without this tool to "help" them.
They have usually bought the PDM package because they were having
trouble in the first place. I guarantee you that the salesperson did
not explain it to them.

Both these problems may have been addressed now. Even if they have
the products were happily being sold as solutions when they were
present.

So getting on to the company side of things, I have only really dealt
with SmatSolutions/SmarTeam so I can only go on those experiences. It
is said that if you have nothing pleasant to say you should not speak
at all, so I will say very little about SmarTeam as a company except,
knowing what I know from dealing directly with them I would NEVER
purchase any product that had anything to do with that company. It
pains me that they are so closely connected with SWX. In the two
years of my supporting SmarTeam the company never admitted to one bug
in the program, although they would subsequently release service packs
that fixed the problems that never existed. I may have been in
contact with a few bad eggs that have negatively coloured my opinion,
but it was consistent enough to make me believe that it was company
policy. This is in total contrast to dealing directly with SWX
support which was always very professional and totally without
bullshit. If you think SWX is making you do their bug checking for
them, buy SmarTeam, you will then think SWX is the epitome of quality
software. The product itself is OK, it's a massive shame about the
company behind it.

Also on the reseller level, anyone who posts to this news group and is
a paid employee of a VAR is providing biased information. They have a
vested interest in attacking anyone who complains about the software,
it's despicable and gutless in my opinion. I've seen it on numerous
occasions over the three years I've been watching this newsgroup,
particularly regarding PDM. If you work for a VAR and post to this
newsgroup it should be noted in your posts if the post is not purely
technical assistance. What have you got to hide?

So that's my perspective on PDM and SmarTeam particularly. Knowing
what I know now, I am in the progress of scripting the basic PDM
actions for the company I work for (I still use SWX daily). It will
be cheaper and a far better fit to our organizations workflow.
Currently I would recommend to anyone else to do the same. At the
same time I'll keep my eye on the technology and the problems will get
worked out eventually, at which point I'll swith to a PDM package. I
wont be holding my breath for that day to come.

Cheers
Shane

 

I like your approach, BUT, I wonder if SW ever thought of PDM when they
first created their CAD software? SW seems so PDM unfriendly.

 

Shane,
First let me say I do not work for SmarTeam or any VAR. I read your
post and I can't help but feel bad about your position regarding
SmarTeam (as a company). I have been using SmarTeam since it's
existence in the US (late 90's). I try to work closely with my VAR to
address problems/bugs and I guess I've had the fortunate luck of not
being led around by SmarTeam. Yes they are not exactly the fastest
responding group of software developers, but I have found that their
delays in responding to problems comes from having to contact Israel
for answers. I report a bug/problem, it goes to US Support who in
turn send it to Israel where the waiting game starts. It also helps
to have the right contacts here in the US to push things along. I'm
not going to name names, but I frequently talk to sales and territory
manager, occasionally product developers, etc. here in the US which
help strengthen out relationship.

I agree their integration (ST/SWX) is not as strong as I'd like to see
it. It should be better than it is. Configurations have always been
a pain in ST, but it's not a fully mature software yet either. Hell,
no PDM software is mature by any means. We made the decision very
early on in using ST that we weren't going to store configurations in
ST because it was poor. And this was way back in the v2.X days.

Granted ST might not be the right fit for your company, but there are
others that offer different feature that might benefit your
processes/workflow better. I personally can say ST was a good fit for
my company and I would/have recommended it. Not blindly recommending
it though. I have talked to companies looking at ST and answered
their questions honestly and openly in regards to it's strengths and
weaknesses. After that it's their call.

I wish you luck with scripting your custom PDM software and hope we
see a PDM tool strong enough to tackle all our needs.

Kevin Carpenter
CAD Systems Specialist
Invacare Corp.

 

Shane,

You make some valid points with respect to the state of current PDM
applications. Over zelous sales people promising the world but
delivering nothing but headaches has left a pretty bad taste in most
peoples mouths when it comes to PDMs. Is there any doubt why PDM has
been rebadged as PLM and MRP, MRP II has now been supersized (new and
improved) to ERP.

However, where I'm going to agree to disagree with you is in
recommending people to write their own PDM program.

I am curently tweeking a DBWorks for a client. The out-of the box
program deals with 70-75% of their business process needs (your
company number may vary). The remaining 25-30% is being met by
modifying supplied demo script files to perform the needed functions.
DBWorks has an open API that comes with the $800.00 program (unlike
PDM/Works which costs you an additional 5K for the enterprise version-
note this statement was valid 12 months ago - the last time I checked
with my VAR).

Configuration revsion control, workflow, file locking, released
database, are just a few of the built in capablities.

My point is not to push a particular software package but to
illustrate the following point:

PDM systems like MRP/ERP systems are complicated pieces of software.
There are a multitude of inter-relationships to maintain correctly in
order for them to work. If it was easy we wouldn't be having this
discussion (Its not like I've ever had to negotiate a restocking
charge for thousands of dollars of "wrong" parts that the system
recommended)

However, why re-invent the wheel when you can modify existing software
to "bend" it the way you need to. An 800.00 dollar piece of software
with open architecture (full API) that uses VBscript,
Access/MSDE/SQL/Oracle (your choice), MS access control, non-encrypted
vault, tie it into any ODBC complient database vs. home grown version.

Just another viewpoint from someone who has gone through the same
"issues" you have..........

Len

 

HI Len,
I agree. It's just that I'm now a single user of SolidWorks in the
company I work for so it's not worth the hassle of PDM, much easier to
write a few scripts. If I was in a multi user environment, where
users are working on the same assembly, I'd probably be looking for a
PDM package, just not Maxwell Smart(eam).
Best Regards,
Shane