WIP for every part?

[mike miller]

This is a conversation we just had today. Should all parts/items perpetually have one WIP revision on top of all released revisions? I thought it's a less-than-great idea, even though General Motors does it. But there is an upside; it allows you to make clerical changes without forcing a revision or an unrelease to fix a misspelling.

How do the rest of you do this?

[AlexB]

That seems like a workaround to how PDM is intended to work... and we use PDM. It's there to lock down files so people cannot change them. If clerical corrections or other modifications that don't impact the "geometry" of the part are needed then that can be done on the issued versions of files with a relatively strict review.

[jcapriotti]

We have a "Correction" workflow that increments the revision by 0. So we end up with two or more of the same revision letter sometimes. This workflow is only for small model issues that need to be repaired (mates, sketch relations) or to add configurations needed for an assembly. If we had to bump a revision, it would require an ECO and our factory would be mighty upset since they would have to update the revision letter in several of their systems.

[bnemec]

We have a "Correction" workflow that increments the revision by 0. So we end up with two or more of the same revision letter sometimes. This workflow is only for small model issues that need to be repaired (mates, sketch relations) or to add configurations needed for an assembly. If we had to bump a revision, it would require an ECO and our factory would be mighty upset since they would have to update the revision letter in several of their systems.

Yep, we added one to. Abusers will still abuse. But at least there's a trail now.

[JSculley]

We have a "Correction" workflow that increments the revision by 0. So we end up with two or more of the same revision letter sometimes. This workflow is only for small model issues that need to be repaired (mates, sketch relations) or to add configurations needed for an assembly. If we had to bump a revision, it would require an ECO and our factory would be mighty upset since they would have to update the revision letter in several of their systems.

We call it a 'Non-Revision Change'. I drill it into users that it is primarily to make corrections to parts that haven't 'escaped' Engineering (i.e. they haven't hit the shop floor) or for changes that are strictly clerical (misspellings in a note, adding a missing dimension, etc). They are also absolutely necessary if you require your part and drawing to have the same revision. If I change a part to do something like hide a sketch or a plane, it has no impact on anything in the real world. Without a non-revision change, the drawing would have to be revised, and the revision description would be completely meaningless in the context of the drawing.

[mattpeneguy]

We call it a 'Non-Revision Change'. I drill it into users that it is primarily to make corrections to parts that haven't 'escaped' Engineering (i.e. they haven't hit the shop floor) or for changes that are strictly clerical (misspellings in a note, adding a missing dimension, etc). They are also absolutely necessary if you require your part and drawing to have the same revision. If I change a part to do something like hide a sketch or a plane, it has no impact on anything in the real world. Without a non-revision change, the drawing would have to be revised, and the revision description would be completely meaningless in the context of the drawing.

Could you add a X.X stage to track these changes? So for these changes you'd see 0.1, 0.2, etc. That way these fixes are documented in the system and can be recorded. Though from your description it may be more trouble than it is worth.

[JSculley]

Could you add a X.X stage to track these changes? So for these changes you'd see 0.1, 0.2, etc. That way these fixes are documented in the system and can be recorded. Though from your description it may be more trouble than it is worth.

Yes we could, but typically no one cares that much about these minor changes. We can always look at the file history. I train users to always include a comment in the transition dialog when completing the change so that there is a record of what happened, even if it doesn't show up on the drawing document.

[mike miller]

We call it a 'Non-Revision Change'. I drill it into users that it is primarily to make corrections to parts that haven't 'escaped' Engineering (i.e. they haven't hit the shop floor) or for changes that are strictly clerical (misspellings in a note, adding a missing dimension, etc). They are also absolutely necessary if you require your part and drawing to have the same revision. If I change a part to do something like hide a sketch or a plane, it has no impact on anything in the real world. Without a non-revision change, the drawing would have to be revised, and the revision description would be completely meaningless in the context of the drawing.

That's the issue we face. If we make a clerical mistake or forget to fix a mate, it sucks to have to make a new revision. At the same time unrelease can be a scary thing in the hands of some users. Right now I'm considering making a privileged EO workflow that unreleases the target part, goes to the assigned worker's tasklist for completion, and then when approved the part is released again. That way we still have a paper trail and we can build in some safety checks as well.

I thought perpetual WIPs sounds like a sleazy hack, but I wanted to get some input from more experienced folks. Thanks!

[jcapriotti]

@mike miller We don't unrelease anything with our correction workflow. The file moves from the "Release" state to "Correction" which only a small group can access. For the rest of the company they can only pull the "Release state version. Once the correction is done and submitted it goes to a review state then back to Release.