PDM "Items" Who is using them and for what?

[bnemec]

I've heard mixed info about "Items" in PDM Pro. I'm assuming some customer had to have this functionality so am curious how they are used. Have any of you used them and ran into caveats or conflicts with other features?

I don't have a complete grasp of them (or anything PDM for that matter) but in my over simplified concept it sounds like they are just like files in PDM, only without the file. They have references, data cards, etc. I've seen mention of items in several places in API and SQL. It appears their base records are kept in the Documents table, Object Type ID = 4 so accessing the data card variables and references would be similar to regular files.

What has me looking at this; we used to try to keep our CAD model assembly structure mostly inline with the manufacturing BOMs. That fell apart several months ago when other departments decided to start drastically restructuring our final assembly BOMs so now our top and second level assemblies are nothing like the MBOMs. They have created new part numbers for "sub kits" that need to be stocked. These other numbers are not just one CAD assembly broken down, they took several second layer assemblies tossed all the parts in a bag and then made new second level assemblies (kits). From a flat bom perspective they are the same, just the top couple layers of the tree view of the BOMs look very different now. We maintain all of our active part numbers with revisions and most of our new top-level products are just copies of existing with a few tweaks or a few new part numbers. So we cannot just assume a one-way flow of BOM data from CAD to MES, we need some way to correlate the BOMs between CAD and MES bidirectionally to be able to define the scope of work for requested changes as well as deciphering the reference numbers we get from Sales for new products.

We are looking into having empty files, or Items, in PDM the represent the sub-assemblies that have been created on the manufacturing BOMs side. Using Custom References in PDM, the empty files or items can be referenced by the top level and reference other empty files or real CAD models. In this way there would be a parallel BOM structure so that we PDM users could see, side by side, the two independent structures.

[JSculley]

Don't use items. Use virtual documents.

[bnemec]

Don't use items. Use virtual documents.

Interesting. Virtual Docs sound like just a blank file. There must be a setting somewhere that prevents them?

Edit: using 2019 SP4, help for that version shows same process to make new one as 2022. System Admin has the option to create.

[JSculley]

Interesting. Virtual Docs sound like just a blank file. There must be a setting somewhere that prevents them?
image.png

I believe it's tied to permissions. Try as full blown admin just to see if it shows up.

[bnemec]

I believe it's tied to permissions. Try as full blown admin just to see if it shows up.

The option shows up if I log into another system with my username. Does not show up on my vault view if I log in as another user, not even for system admin. I suppose somethings corrupt with the vault view on my machine...

[berg_lauritz]

Don't use items. Use virtual documents.

Why? Where is the difference?

[bnemec]

The extension given when creating a Virtual Document does get the correct data card assigned. But I forgot that the Category filters do not use the file extension, instead the filters are by complete file name.

If I want the sld type .cvd files to go in with the rest of the cad data I think adding the highlighted filter to the OR clause will work.

[AlexB]

The extension given when creating a Virtual Document does get the correct data card assigned. But I forgot that the Category filters do not use the file extension, instead the filters are by complete file name.

If I want the sld type .cvd files to go in with the rest of the cad data I think adding the highlighted filter to the OR clause will work.

image.png

This is the same thing I ran into with testing using virtual documents. I had to take the same approach to add some .cvd extensions to the solidworks formats for it to recognize the file and apply it to the workflow and get the correct data card.

[bnemec]

Don't use items. Use virtual documents.

I'm liking this more the more I look at it. I only see a few differences between using VDs vs Item vs a blank text file but the differences favor VDs IMO.

- they can be replaced by a real file later, looks like Items are always items. But an empty text file could also do this.
- can set filters so that these will land in the correct Category (incase VDs are used for types other than .sld% files and should go in different category) This could also be done with text files by doing the same .sldasm.emptyfile double extension trick. But why do this manually with random extensions when the process is already automated.
- VDs have an inherently unique extension type. I have not yet found the way to identify the VDs as different from other Documents, which will be important in our BOM publisher tool and a couple other tasks we have on deck.

[jcapriotti]

Items were never finished. I think I was one of the people who really pushed hard for the concept 10 years ago and was excited when it got added, but it's only about 50% complete and complete useless IMO.

The idea behind it is that an "Item" or "Item Master" or "Part Master" is a container that represents the part. Other supporting documents such as specifications, materials specs, drawings, 3d models, etc. are attached to it. When you build a cad assembly you could trigger it to create a parallel "part" BOM structure which could remain linked or deviate from the CAD structure. Important for us as the CAD structure is different from what Mfg needs (They kit everything).

Since Items didn't pan out and had limited API support, we started down the path of using PDM CVD (Virtual docs) to represent "Parts/Item masters", and the API to automate their creation from the CAD structure. Ultimately our company going to Windchill killed that project. Windchill has this functionality and the ability to create "views" of a BOM for other areas like Mfg, shipping (MBOM, etc).

If we were staying with PDM, I'd say we'd probably look in SolidWorks Manage. Some of its Item (record)/BOM tools look similar to Windchill.

[bnemec]

Items were never finished. I think I was one of the people who really pushed hard for the concept 10 years ago and was excited when it got added, but it's only about 50% complete and complete useless IMO.

The idea behind it is that an "Item" or "Item Master" or "Part Master" is a container that represents the part. Other supporting documents such as specifications, materials specs, drawings, 3d models, etc. are attached to it. When you build a cad assembly you could trigger it to create a parallel "part" BOM structure which could remain linked or deviate from the CAD structure. Important for us as the CAD structure is different from what Mfg needs (They kit everything).

Since Items didn't pan out and had limited API support, we started down the path of using PDM CVD (Virtual docs) to represent "Parts/Item masters", and the API to automate their creation from the CAD structure. Ultimately our company going to Windchill killed that project. Windchill has this functionality and the ability to create "views" of a BOM for other areas like Mfg, shipping (MBOM, etc).

If we were staying with PDM, I'd say we'd probably look in SolidWorks Manage. Some of its Item (record)/BOM tools look similar to Windchill.

Sounds like you wanted bins for stuff. Nice concept, especially for things that would go in multiple bins. At first thought it sounds like that would be trying to solve the same problem as having "copies / links" in various folders. Since PDM seems to call Projects<->Folders and they can have data cards and templates etc. Feels like the slippery slope I have repeatedly found myself on over the past two years of trying to get PDM to do PLM stuff.

[jcapriotti]

Sounds like you wanted bins for stuff. Nice concept, especially for things that would go in multiple bins. At first thought it sounds like that would be trying to solve the same problem as having "copies / links" in various folders. Since PDM seems to call Projects<->Folders and they can have data cards and templates etc. Feels like the slippery slope I have repeatedly found myself on over the past two years of trying to get PDM to do PLM stuff.

In PLM a part/item is an object type, CAD doc is another. Then they join them with some automation. That's what Items were supposed to do, bridge toward PLM functionality. Ultimately died on the vine. Wish I could get my hands on Manage to see how it works there and compares to Windchill. WC does a lot but you pay a price, and very steep price.

[mike miller]

In PLM a part/item is an object type, CAD doc is another. Then they join them with some automation. That's what Items were supposed to do, bridge toward PLM functionality. Ultimately died on the vine. Wish I could get my hands on Manage to see how it works there and compares to Windchill. WC does a lot but you pay a price, and very steep price.

Teamcenter has about 80 different available object types (I didn't actually count). "Item" is used for all CAD files and "Document" is used for general non-CAD data like PDFs, Word docs, spreadsheets, etc., etc. Items can contain Documents but not vise versa.

You can create your own object types as well, along with attribute maps for them and even custom icons. Obviously that is well beyond the range of Rapid Start where we are camping.....

[berg_lauritz]

In PLM a part/item is an object type, CAD doc is another. Then they join them with some automation. That's what Items were supposed to do, bridge toward PLM functionality. Ultimately died on the vine. Wish I could get my hands on Manage to see how it works there and compares to Windchill. WC does a lot but you pay a price, and very steep price.

Ah, that sounds so unfortunate. We are years away from using this properly, but it's good info to have. Is there another software you can recommend if we want to use items? How is the transition between those?

[jcapriotti]

Ah, that sounds so unfortunate. We are years away from using this properly, but it's good info to have. Is there another software you can recommend if we want to use items? How is the transition between those?

I think your options are upgrade to "Manage", or purchase a PLM system and either replace PDM or connect it. I see a number of jobs out there for companies using both PDM with a PLM like Arena, Aras, Agile, SAP.

[Brian-M]

@bnemec It looks like you've explored some creative ideas but have you considered a simple vanilla SolidWorks approach?

Make it all in SolidWorks, it's a known method, and the structure is transparent.
If you don't need anything in some .sldprt then make an empty part that just has metadata. If the kit assemblies don't need to be displayed then drop in all the parts and subs, and don't worry about how it looks, it's just for a BOM.

You might have some actual solidworks parts and subassemblies that end up in the kit BOMs, and that's fine, it makes it more real, and you don't want to recreate something you already have.

You're free to CAD it up in the future, make a drawing, if there is a need.

With virtual docs you'd do what, Paste As Reference? That's much less transparent.

I don't fully understand the details of what you're doing, but just thought I'd share this in case you are over thinking it.

[bnemec]

@bnemec It looks like you've explored some creative ideas but have you considered a simple vanilla SolidWorks approach?

Make it all in SolidWorks, it's a known method, and the structure is transparent.
If you don't need anything in some .sldprt then make an empty part that just has metadata. If the kit assemblies don't need to be displayed then drop in all the parts and subs, and don't worry about how it looks, it's just for a BOM.

You might have some actual solidworks parts and subassemblies that end up in the kit BOMs, and that's fine, it makes it more real, and you don't want to recreate something you already have.

You're free to CAD it up in the future, make a drawing, if there is a need.

With virtual docs you'd do what, Paste As Reference? That's much less transparent.

I don't fully understand the details of what you're doing, but just thought I'd share this in case you are over thinking it.

Oh for sure. We used to try to match the MBOM in Solid Edge best as we could. Assembly structure was therefore dictated by manufacturing process. So what you're saying is what we had.

Recently a storm of changes started happing on the Manufacturing side that we are hopeless to keep up with. The changes have nothing to do with the end product, just the structure of the sub-assemblies (kits) and the order they are put together. The "ERP" system is incapable of supporting what they are doing in it's current configuration so the fallout is instead of containing the assembly line process in the routings they had to change the BOMS as well. So take thousands of sub assemblies at various levels, most of them with multiple where used in hundreds of other assemblies. Take them apart, put them in a bag and shake them up, then put back together based on how they are put together on the line in an attempt to reduce bottle necks and keep the time in each cell about the same. Then as more is learned change it every couple of weeks. That is why we are not keeping our assembly models in sync with manufacturing BOMs, it's a waste of time and money.

As a follow up to using virtual docs or whatever to make this parallel MBOM in PDM; we quit that as soon as we realized what it does to the contains and where used tabs. Yes, seeing the relations in those places is the benefit we had in mind, but it's just too much information. If there were an option for the user to toggle display virtual files on and off then maybe it would still be valid option to have API make the virtual Docs and their references whenever the Manufacturing side is updated. But as it is now it would just obscure the real CAD refs. The company is starting the process of updating the "ERP" system so we'll see where PLM lands in the mix. Not yet sure what we'll do in the mean time.

[Brian-M]

Sounds like a challenge. I didn't see virtual docs saving you much time or complexity. It'd be nice if it was all in PDM, but CAD guys can look at the ERP BOM too.

I've worked places where the CAD BOM was different than the Mfg-BOM in ERP, and it's hard to keep them fully in sync. We would create some extra sldasm if we knew they were making something as a sub. And use Show/Hide/Promote setting on assembly configurations - if you want a sldasm to appear as the individual parts (dissolved only on BOM), vs as a single item. https://help.solidworks.com/2018/Englis ... isplay.htm

Sometimes just handle these changes as you revise an assembly, rather than trying to do a huge change all at once...

www.openbom.com is kinda meant for situations like that, handling multiple versions of the BOM - just an idea for PLM-lite, but a new thing to learn.

[bnemec]

Sounds like a challenge. I didn't see virtual docs saving you much time or complexity. It'd be nice if it was all in PDM, but CAD guys can look at the ERP BOM too.

I've worked places where the CAD BOM was different than the Mfg-BOM in ERP, and it's hard to keep them fully in sync. We would create some extra sldasm if we knew they were making something as a sub. And use Show/Hide/Promote setting on assembly configurations - if you want a sldasm to appear as the individual parts (dissolved only on BOM), vs as a single item. https://help.solidworks.com/2018/Englis ... isplay.htm

Sometimes just handle these changes as you revise an assembly, rather than trying to do a huge change all at once...

www.openbom.com is kinda meant for situations like that, handling multiple versions of the BOM - just an idea for PLM-lite, but a new thing to learn.

Well, the virtual Docs would be maintained automatically in PDM by a standalone API that would receive requests from the ERP side indicating a part number had been created or updated, then go and update the virtual docs in PDM. So in that usage they would serve as "read only" to the users.

We looked at using some of the functionality such as dissolved assemblies but they're not just adding a sub assembly within an existing assembly. For example; if there are four subassemblies as components at the top level, say 1.sldasm through 4.sldasm. They aren't just making more sub assemblies of the components in 1.sldasm. They took some parts from 1, 2 and 3 to make edit:26.sldasm part number 26 other parts from 1, 2 and 4 to make part number 27 then the rest of the parts from 2, 3 and 4 to make par tnumber 28. Part number 1 is kept but as a "junk drawer" of components that didn't belong in their scheme that created 26, 27 and 28. So we have a 1.sldasm and they still have a part number 1 but they are nothing alike. We still have a 2, 3 and 4.sldasm but those part numbers are gone on the MBOM side, most places. And part numbers 26, 27 and 28 do not exist in CAD.

As you said desgin eng can look up stuff in ERP, and we do, we always have. But now once we get to final assembly BOMs its very difficult to compare the two which make product maintenance more time consuming. That's why I was investigating if 26, 27, and 28 objects could exist in the vault with references to ream models and other MBOM objects. This would have helped find the MBOM part numbers in where used and contains.

[Brian-M]

Okay I get it now. Thanks and good luck.

[bnemec]

Okay I get it now. Thanks and good luck.

Thank you for the input. It's great to have another set of eyes and ears to go over it with.

[jcapriotti]

As you said desgin eng can look up stuff in ERP, and we do, we always have. But now once we get to final assembly BOMs its very difficult to compare the two which make product maintenance more time consuming. That's why I was investigating if 26, 27, and 28 objects could exist in the vault with references to ream models and other MBOM objects. This would have helped find the MBOM part numbers in where used and contains.

Supposedly Windchill handles this but we are still finding that the more Manufacturing deviates their BOM from the Engineering design, it creates a very difficult maintenance situation. Also has Mfg creating some of their own assemblies as well.

This is especially tough for us as we don't fully build a product in a factory, we ship components to a job site for assembly. So while engineering is designing a completely assembled product, mfg wants to break it up into a BOM based on how they build, package, and ship it. This amounts to rearranging the BOM in crazy ways.