Working in The PSE 2

[MotleyTool]

The company I started to work for, is somewhat new to NX and teamcenter software. It also appears they have learn some bad habits. One such habit revolves around the PSE. (product structure editor).
They have just about anyone from purchasing to manufacturing adding item revisions to the BOM in the PSE, without ever going into NX or making an UG master. I was taught to always create UG master. So that your BOM in NX matches TcE. This was and still is causing the BOM parts list on the face of the drawing to blow up.
Is my assumption correct? any advice?

-Tony

 

[hudson888]

Tony,

To the extent of my knowledge of the PSE you're correct. That is to say I really only know how to use the PSE insofar as it enables one to interact with NX assemblies. I gather there may be a bit more to it than that, but then there are plenty of things you can do using Teamcenter that go over my head, even after a few years of exposure to it. We prefer to change the content of the assembly ONLY within NX, and not by editing it via the PSE. We only use the PSE to un/lock it precise or to load latest released or latest working, and to create baselines. The good news seems to be that if you alter its structure by using the PSE and don't subsequently open and then save the assembly in NX, then you can always just open NX and then open the Assembly which will give you the original structure and virtually discard your PSE changes. If you prefer that, as opposed to accepting changes that purchasing might like to foist upon you, then it's good news, otherwise you're in danger of losing work.

The system I'm used to has an item master with a dataset item, the NX part file, and a product structure item, under that also, but only if the part is an assembly. Ownership is conferred to only one user at a time via the item master. Meaning that who owns the item master owns everything under it. There are generally a couple of other items under the master sometimes a JT file for VisView, and often a drawing manifestation or an altrep for installed parts. This is true of the GM and Opel systems as well so I've never seen it set up any differently than that. I don't want state with any certainty that it cannot be otherwise, but I had naturally assumed that was just the way it worked.

So to answer your question, if the ownership in your implementation is conferred via the item master then others having the ability to change things probably means that either there is no ownership given to the files, or that everyone is using the one login, (or both). If you have separate logins then you can deal with the ownership crisis in at least two ways that I know of. One is to workflow the files and assign them to your user, who should then possess ownership until they are released. The other is to check out the files manually so that they stay checked out. That will force others to ask before they can save their changes to your item masters.

I won't go any further mainly because I only know just enough to keep myself out of trouble in teamcenter that is properly used and if anything over managed. Should you not know what I'm vaguely talking about I suggest you really get some help with it, and I say so because if you are using it in an out of control way then I fear that you'll wind up in a great big mess that will be very difficult to overcome indeed.

Good Luck with it

Hudson

 

[DavidTolsma]

You don't need a dataset for each line in the PSE. One example is adhesive, liquid, etc. Most of these types are not modeled, and do not require a dataset. NX is perfectly ok with not having all the items in the NX assembly. The other way around also, You can have a component in NX in form of an AltRep for example but not increase the BOM in Teamcenter. This is good for showing different forms of packaging, but NX has some capabilities now that make this less of a need.

There is an option in the Customer defaults to create or not create datasets for these types of parts. Also the PSE has a column that says if this shows up in NX or not. Confusing, but it depends on the companies procedure.

It would be nice to have someone revision the BOM add or remove components, put through a workflow to the Designer to place and update the model appropriately. Any non geometric components would not show up in NX at all even in the not placed dialog.

-Dave Tolsma

http://groups.google.com/group/NX_CAX/

 

[hudson888]

That's true Dave,

But it also depends on how and what you want to do. If for example you still want to have an old fashioned part list on the drawing, then you're probably better to have a very minimal or even empty dataset in order that NX will have an item to call up. There are ways and means to get around that too but it all becomes tied up with doing things by exception rather than the rule, and gets somewhat untidy in the process.

The other problem with adding things to the assembly from the PSE as I see it is that over half the total number of components are likely to be fasteners and other odds and other off the shelf items which will not likely be modeled relative to the absolute co-ordinate system. So if added manually they'll load in the wrong location to later be repositioned. In our way of working at least we would find this anachronistic since we would more usually decide on the basis of studies and layout files where the extra fasteners and other parts would fit, and later drag and drop them into the right place.

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[DavidTolsma]

There is a choice what to do with unplaced components in NX (customer defaults). I would not automatically place components, but instead be available when you select add component and see the un-positioned components.

It all depends on what is the master. If the drawing is the master or the Assembly in NX is the master, and your creating a process drawing then I would have a component for a non geometric part. Most of the time it would probably be a assembly drawing, which only needs parts used not the non geometric type.

-Dave Tolsma

http://groups.google.com/group/NX_CAX/

 

[hudson888]

Again that's true Dave, and I agree having worked in systems where assembly drawings are next to useless or non-existent anyhow. This may shock people I know, but in the automotive industry they draw up supplier deliverables at one end of the scale, and above that there is basically a Bill of Materials with no drawings, while the assembly plant are given illustrations rather than drawings to work to. It is a whole different way of thinking in some respects than what some may identify as the more traditional engineering approach.

Some of what you're referring to maybe I'm not that familiar with. So I just wanted to Post something of a warning to readers who may be looking for guidance as to what practices they can adopt to look before they leap with using the PSE instead of NX to control the assembly content. As that was that the kernel of the original question, my answer would be that unless you understand the consequences it seems safer to me to manage your assemblies using NX where possible. Of course you should also look to control the releasing process and file ownership to that collaboration occurs, via the PSE where applicable, but as a result of consultation rather than just having users clamoring to get their content into the system despite one another. So you see I would always use the PSE in a more sophisticated way provided that the system, including customization, and understanding of it are in place in order that it 'can' be used better.

Going back to the original I kind of suspect, and Tony you can correct me if necessary, that like many people starting out in teamcenter they haven't instituted use of workflow as part of their process because it can be a lot to take on in one hit. The problem with that comes back to who owns the files or "item masters" if we must use the jargon. That is often where the clamoring starts and the anarchy comes from.

You may be looking at problems to do with human nature as much as how the software is used. Nobody likes to ask when they can simply assert their will upon others.If only because asking takes time and effort, so laziness where possible is always the most efficient solution. Therefore the system needs to reflect everybody's role and right to so their job at the appointed juncture in your process. That is what workflow in part sets out to do for you.


Best Regards

Hudson