Razorleaf Corporation » Technical Tips from Razorleaf’s Business Technology Newsletter

Configuring EPDM Dashboard in Office2PDM

Jonathan Scott — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:30:32 +0000

EPDM Dashboard is a very interesting part of the Office2PDM package - it provides a quick look into the status of files in your SolidWorks Enterprise PDM vault. Despite its obvious usefulness, configuring the tool requires a few pieces of information, and following a couple of simple steps. Here are the basics of getting EPDM Dashboard for Office2PDM setup and running. EPDM Dashboard is installed by default with Office2PDM. No separate installation is required. However, because EPDM Dashboard generates reports directly from Microsoft SQL Server database, additional configuration steps are required after installation, in order to configure EPDM Dashboard to connect with your SQL Server database. You must enter the server name of your database as well as provide credentials for accessing the database.

Step 1 - Determine Your EPDM Database Server Name

Log into the SolidWorks Enterprise PDM Administration Tool (typically requires Administrator privileges). Locate the file vault of interest (the one that you want to report against), and select the Properties command from the right-click menu. In the File Vault Properties dialog, take note of the Database Server field - this is your EPDM Database Server Name. The two screenshots below depict this process:

Step 2 - Determine Your SQL Server Credentials

Next, you need an account for your Microsoft SQL Server system that allows you to read data in the database that houses your EPDM information. This will require some discussion with your SQL Server DBA (database administrator) about accounts and authentication modes. For the purposes of this article, let's assume that you'll use integrated authentication (your Windows account provides you access to SQL Server). You can alternatively specify a username and password for your access to Microsoft SQL Server.

Step 3 - Configure EPDM Dashboard

Launch the EPDM Dashboard Options dialog from within Outlook (depicted in the image below). Once the EPDM Dashboard Options dialog is open, be sure that Enable EPDM Dashboard is checked and then set your EPDM Database Server Name, and provide your access information for Microsoft SQL Server (see the image below).

Now you are all set to start accessing EPDM Dashboard from within Microsoft Outlook. If you're still having trouble, contact us.

Searching Tip: Context

Jonathan Scott — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:29:48 +0000

Are you ready to take your search capabilities to the next level? If you’re like many professionals today, you’re inundated by information at work, and sifting Read More...

EPDM and FDA Compliance

Daniel Rohats — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:11:14 +0000

One of the common misconceptions about 21 CFR Part 11 (the body of law that governs medical device makers in the United States) is that there are software packages available that can make companies compliant with the law. Being compliant with these regulations requires that your process be compliant, and even the best software can’t really make you 21 CFR Part 11 compliant. However, software can certainly provide enablers and automation to allow for faster, more efficient, better integrated, and easy-to-use processes. SolidWorks EPDM has some functions and tools built-in to help companies conform to the FDA requirements.

One of the key requirements of 21 CFR Part 11 relates to electronic signatures. Electronic signatures require a double challenge, meaning that the user’s login to an electronic system is not sufficient evidence that they are providing their signature on a record – they need to be challenged a second time, at the moment when they are providing their signature. EPDM provides double challenge signatures through its Workflow tool. When creating a workflow transition, one of the options on the properties window is the check box for Authentication.

When the check box for Authentication is checked, users who attempt to pass documents through this transition will be required to enter their password in order to do so. The password box appears right on the transition dialog box in the lower right corner. If the challenge fails, the transition is not permitted. If successful, the transition continues as expected.

So, by requiring Authentication on specific EPDM workflow transitions, and by assigning specific meanings to those transitions, a 21 CFR Part 11 electronic signature can be obtained. You can see how this is a marriage of process and software capabilities. Some additional features of Enterprise PDM that can aid in regulatory compliance:

Showing specific user groups only the latest released revision of a document: This is done with the combination of Folder and Workflow permissions.
Full History tracking per document: Users can see the full history of a document through the right mouse click History menu command.
Users with the appropriate permissions can retrieve previous released revisions: This feature is also accomplished through workflow and folder permissions. Users can access the other revisions through the right mouse click Get Version menu command.

Other compliancy capabilities can be configured in Enterprise PDM, especially using workflow. For example, CAPA (Corrective And Preventative Action) processes, document approval, and other cGMPs (current Good Manufacturing Practices) can all be modeled using the configurability of Enterprise PDM. To learn more about how EPDM can help enable industrial or governmental regulatory compliance, please contact us.

Selecting or Customizing Variants in TactonWorks

Paul Gimbel — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:00:06 +0000

There are two extremes when driving components in design automation systems: on one end of the spectrum, you can allow users to only select pre-defined components (Configure-to-Order) and on the other end of the spectrum, you can let users create their own parts by driving the dimensions and features of the parts with infinite flexibility (Engineer-to-Order). Which of these models is TactonWorks following with variants? Are we just selecting variants, or are we customizing them, or are we doing both?

TactonWorks lets users select variants and customize those variants as well. When setting up the automation, the author can drive certain features/dimensions with pre-defined values in the associated variant table, or s/he can use a value of “unspecified” on feature values to indicate that they are to be provided by the end user or driven by other constraints.

Let’s take a road bicycle as an example. When selecting brakes for a new bicycle configuration, the user is likely choosing among COTS (Commerical Off The Shelf) components, so they will simply be selecting a variant. However, when driving the overall size of the bicycle to get just the right fit, the system might ask the user to customize the length of the structural members. Of course, certain aspects of the aluminum tube used to construct these structural members would be fixed (or at least pre-defined), take for instance the wall thickness of the tube and perhaps the outside diameter. In the case of these structural members, the user is customizing a variant (perhaps also selecting first – if there are multiple choices for tube OD and wall thickness) because the length would have been left “undefined” and would be infinitely adjustable.

So there you have it. In TactonWorks, you can both select and customize variants in your design. This should provide enough flexibility to keep your TactonWorks applications useful (providing enough guided selections to reduce the number of options) but still powerful (able to model any feasible scenario). If you have questions about TactonWorks variants, about Tacton in general, or about what design automation could be doing for your business, contact us – we’d love to help.

Oracle Database Report for SmarTeam

Steve Dunn — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:15:05 +0000

For those of you running an Oracle database as your repository for SmarTeam, check out this helpful utility. The SmarTeam Database Oracle General Report tool is a collection of plain text files containing batch commands and SQL statements that can generate a detailed HTML report of key Oracle statuses and settings. The tool is available from Dassault’s support site by searching for QA00000002533. The output report from the tool includes information on:

Current server connections
Versions of installed Oracle components
Database file names, locations, and sizes
Database object counts by type and owner
Invalid code objects and indices
Scheduled jobs
General database parameters
NLS parameters
SmarTeam-specific information (DB version and last upgrade date)

In our case, the tool was particularly helpful in troubleshooting an ENOVIA SmarTeam Multi-Site issue. The system was generating “Error No. 23325 – Database contains invalid database objects. Please perform necessary steps to fix them” while trying to initiate the primary site.

Although the error message was accurate, locating the problematic database object was tricky. However, running the SmarTeam Database Oracle General Report was helpful in honing in on the Oracle package that was causing the issue. Please contact us if you need help with or have questions about your SmarTeam Oracle environment, or have questions about this tool. Leave us a comment if you have other techniques to share related to Oracle setup, configuration, or troubleshooting for ENOVIA SmarTeam or other PLM systems.

ENOVIA SmarTeam .NET Problems

Jonathan Scott — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:52:56 +0000

Multiple ENOVIA SmarTeam versions are currently experiencing problems as a result of a series of Microsoft Windows Updates published earlier this year. Specifically, the problems are related to several SmarTeam executables, including SmarTeam Editor, the SmarTeam Workflow Service, and other SmarTeam executables. The core problem is that Microsoft appears to have changed their implementation of some garbage collection code in all versions of the .NET Framework, and this code is fundamental to a number of applications like SmarTeam. Therefore, users (of SmarTeam as well as of other software packages) are experiencing errors and abnormal termination of programs after applying the problematic Windows Updates. The current resolution is not to deploy these Windows Updates while Dassault issues service packs and hot fixes to address the problem.

Identifying the Problem

These problems can be experienced on ENOVIA SmarTeam V5R18, V5R19, and V5R20. It is possible that V5R17 and earlier are impacted, but since those versions are no longer actively supported by Dassault, information on these versions is not tracked/available on the Dassault Systemes support website. The following Windows Update packages (at a minimum) are known to cause the problem:

KB976576 for .NET 2.0
KB977354 for .NET 3.0
KB953595 for .NET 3.5

.NET Framework 4.0 also contains the problem, but 4.0 is not officially certified by Dassault for ENOVIA SmarTeam yet anyway. Although these specific KBs are known to cause the problem, a number of other KBs have been reported as problematic as well. It seems that some later KBs reference the aforementioned KBs as prerequisites, and that other KBs may include the same .NET changes that cause the problem, but just rolled up into a different Windows Update. These KBs are also believed to cause the problem:

KB2418241
KB982524
KB2416473

You can recognize that you are experiencing this problem if you receive this error message: "DDE server Window: SmarTeam.exe Application error"

Tracking the Problem

It appears that responsibility for resolving the problem will rest with application vendors like Dassault, and that Microsoft will not be adjusting/recalling any of these updates. A number of software packages were impacted by these changes (like Intuit's QuickBooks, DocuWare's DocuWare, and Sage's Timberline Office), and none indicate a resolution pending that involves Microsoft. So, the only tracking available for resolutions to this SmarTeam problem is via Dassault, and the following tracking numbers should be helpful in staying abreast of the situation:

QA00000006227
BR10000094968
BR10000096194
APAR HD97824
APAR HD98941

Resolving the Problem

The only confirmed comprehensive solution to the problem currently is to avoid installing Windows Updates that make the problematic changes to the .NET Framework. For many customers, it has been possible to remove the offending Windows Updates to resolve the problem, but this has not been shown to be effective in all cases. Dassault indicates that they have partially resolved the problem in V5R20 Service Pack 4, but that a hotfix on top of this service pack will be required to fully resolve the problem for all customers. Dassault is also working on generic hotfixes for V5R19 SP4 and higher and V5R20 SP2 and higher. Customer-specific hotfixes will be required for those customers using other hotfixes in their environment. Please let us know if you know of other ways to identify problematic Windows Update packages, or have found additional ways to resolve this problem. We recognize that such a fundamental and universal change by Microsoft will take significant time and energy for Dassault to resolve, so please watch out for this problem if it has not impacted you yet - it may be several more weeks before Dassault has permanent solutions for all active customers.

Gotcha with Oracle 11g for SmarTeam

Steve Dunn — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:06:21 +0000

For those of you planning to move to Oracle 11g with SmarTeam V5R20, watch out for this one. With 11g, Oracle has introduced a feature called Deferred Segment Creation. Generally speaking, this is a nice feature because it saves space in exports and eliminates unneeded storage allocation in many databases. It can create problems with ENOVIA SmarTeam, however. This is a quick one, but a very important tip. Deferred Segment Creation in Oracle 11g means that Oracle won’t actually create the tables defined in your schema until the table has at least 1 row (deferring creation of table segments). By default, Deferred Segment Creation is turned on in Oracle 11g. So after creating your SmarTeam database in a brand new Oracle 11g environment, your first export will skip a large number of SmarTeam tables (many SmarTeam tables have 0 rows initially). As you’re probably aware, SmarTeam expects certain tables to be present at all times and without those tables, the software can fail to start or become unstable. So your export would be complete and consistent from an Oracle perspective, but worthless from a SmarTeam perspective. To address this issue, you simply need to turn Deferred Segment creation off with this command:

alter system set deferred_segment_creation=false;

Good luck, and leave us a comment to let us know what other goodies you’ve found in working with Oracle 11g for ENOVIA SmarTeam. You can read more about Deferred Segment Creation here, including a methodology for seeing it in action. Please contact us if we can help you with your Oracle for ENOVIA SmarTeam.

CATIA V5 UUID Uniqueness

Jonathan Scott — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 01:33:57 +0000

Given that UUID stands for Universal Unique Identifier, it may seem strange to talk about uniqueness in this context. But it comes up more often than users might like inside of CATIA V5. It isn't simple to determine the UUID of a CATIA V5 file, nor is it easy to manipulate the value. With a little bit of information though, it isn't too hard to avoid some basic CATIA V5 UUID problems. First, let's dig into how CATIA V5 UUIDs can create challenges. When a large design group is collaborating on a complex design, it is not unreasonable to expect some overlap and duplication of work (particularly if they aren't using PDM). For instance, two different people working on the design might each make a washer of the same size for use in different parts of the design. They could even give the washer the same file name, washer.CATPart, and part number. This isn’t a problem in and of itself (CATIA, unlike some other CAD systems, doesn’t have a problem with file name conflicts within assemblies). However, logical problems quickly creep in. For instance, because the parts’ UUIDs are distinct, CATIA’s BOM analysis tool will treat them as two distinct parts and not count them together when aggregating BOM quantities. Similarly, the shared part number won’t create issues until the user tries to put the two files in the same subassembly (of course this is a different issue, but it comes up in this scenario). Resolving this UUID problem can be simple (replacing one file with another), or it can be complex, depending on how many references are created to the part(s) being replaced. Another problem can arise when data is being transferred in and out of PDM systems or between design partners. In these cases, UUIDs can be accidentally modified when they shouldn't be, and downstream systems or interfacing designs go haywire. So with a basic understanding of the potential problems, let's touch on what is known about UUIDs, and how UUID problems can be avoided. When Dassault creates a Universal Unique Identifier, they mean unique. The UUID is based on IDs assigned to your hardware (namely the MAC address of your network card), timestamps, and other factors. That means there is really no chance of ever duplicating a UUID (MAC addresses are coordinated through a central registry meaning that even this component has some level of uniqueness). But what about purposeful duplication/manipulation of UUIDs (like replacing the UUID of one of the washers in the previous example to resolve the conflict easily)? According to Dassault, UUIDs cannot be set by outside software, although there are utilities (like CAT.COMMANDER) that claim to be able to do just that. Let's focus for a moment on when UUIDs are, and are not, generated.

CATIA V5 UUID Generation Events

File -> New: the created file has a new UUID
File -> New From: the new file has a different UUID from the source file
File -> Save As (New Document option checked): the resulting file has a different UUID from the original file
Insert -> New Part/Product: the created Part/Product has a new UUID

CATIA V5 UUID Events that Maintain Existing UUIDs

File -> Save
File -> Save As (New Document option unchecked)
File -> Save Management
File -> Send to Directory
File -> Save All

This quick list describing when new UUIDs are, and are not, generated can't save you from all UUID-related problems, but it can help you avoid certain mistakes. For instance, performing a Save As (with the New Document option unchecked) with the intent of creating a derivative design (with a new part number) can create problems downstream, particularly if the data will be managed in PDM. So keep your wits about you, and watch out for CATIA V5 UUID problems. If you're experiencing problems with CATIA V5 UUIDs and ENOVIA SmarTeam or ENOVIA V6, or have UUID problems during data exchange, please contact us to see how we can help.

EPDM Document BOMs vs. EPDM Item BOMs

Jonathan Scott — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:00:42 +0000

A lot of people in the SolidWorks Enterprise PDM community were excited when EPDM Item BOMs were introduced, but the EPDM Item Explorer and its related features still cause some confusion about how to use both EPDM Document BOMs and EPDM Item BOMs. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to definitively settle the question of whether to use EPDM Document BOMs, EPDM Item BOMs, or both, in a short article. However, there are some general rules of thumb worth considering in determining whether EPDM Document BOMs or EPDM Item BOMs best fit a company’s business strategy:

CAD Model Accuracy – When CAD models are completely accurate, or very close to accurate (all components modeled, all quantities accurate, assemblies structured properly, etc.), the Enterprise PDM Document BOM functionality is probably sufficient to complete BOMs for the enterprise.
ERP-centric Environments – When ERP is the center of the universe for a company, and therefore a lot of part information is driven from operations back to engineering, Enterprise PDM Item BOM functionality can be a better fit. For example, Engineer-to-Order companies that pre-configure designs using a configurator module in ERP would benefit more from Item BOMs than Document BOMs.
Weldment Support – When SolidWorks weldments are a significant part of designs, EPDM Document BOMs frequently provide better support for downstream functionality (like getting total structural member lengths out to ERP) than EPDM Item BOMs.
Multi-domain Products – When a company’s products are electro-mechanical in nature, and include design data from multiple software applications, Enterprise PDM Item BOM functionality is often a better fit than EPDM Document BOMs due to the ability to create top level BOMs without file associations.
xBOMs Required – When an organization needs to independently (but synchronously) manage separate BOMs, such as EBOMs (Engineering BOMs) and MBOMs (Manufacturing BOMs), the combination of EPDM Document BOMs and EPDM Item BOMs is likely the best fit. When more than two flavors of BOM are required, even this approach can break down however.

Hopefully, these guidelines clear up a bit about when to use EPDM Item BOMs and when to use EPDM Document BOMs. Naturally, there is a lot more to the discussion, and every business’ situation is different. For more information about Enterprise PDM Item BOMs and Enterprise PDM Document BOMs, or to discuss which might be best for you, please contact us.

Swapping Models in SolidWorks

Paul Gimbel — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:11:49 +0000

Design Automation is very powerful when creating unique “same as, but” models for new jobs. But in many cases, people are doing configure-to-order (CTO) just as much as they are doing engineer-to-order (ETO). Configure-to-order means utilizing standard components and using the automation to determine the logic for which component, or which size of a component, to put in an assembly. Configuring an automated design sounds simpler, and in many ways it is, but there are a few things to note and some design automation best practices to follow when planning to swap models in SolidWorks. And these tips apply whether you're using DriveWorks, TactonWorks, or virtually any other design automation tool for SolidWorks. Mechanical Design Automation tools for SolidWorks utilize the standard Replace Component functionality to allow users to swap out a component in the master model for the component of their choice. But the tricky bit with Replace Component is getting SolidWorks to reconstruct the mates on the newly inserted part. We are frequently posed with the question, "how can we make sure that the mates resolve properly?" The key is consistency. All mates, or assembly constraints, have references within the components that are being mated. Whether those are planes, faces, axes, or some other form of hard or reference geometry, SolidWorks records a pointer to them in the definition of the mate. If SolidWorks sees the same reference in the new part, the mate will resolve every time. So the answer is simple. If a user mates to a plane named “Mate Plane” in the master component, and they have a plane named “Mate Plane” in the replacement, the mates will resolve, right? Not so fast!! This is the most common faulty assumption. The name of the reference is a "pretty" name for users. As far as SolidWorks is concerned, that name only exists in the user interface. SolidWorks has its own internal identifier for the geometry reference. If there are two planes in different models that were created differently, at different times, they are almost certain not to have the same internal identifier, regardless of they are named. And they will not resolve when replaced. So the design automation best practice is to always use the same references in every model. Front/Top/Right are always good bets as they are in every model and they always have the same internal identifier. What if models don’t have the Front/Top/Right planes in the same place for each of the models to be swapped? Well, change them. Yes, it could potentially be a lot of work. But consider it a tax for not being able to anticipate the unique CAD modeling needs of design automation. So if you’re designing models now, take the replacement requirements into account. Design everything around your default planes. If that is not possible, for example if you need to mate to an axis, create the reference geometry first. Create a starter part with the reference geometry that you need, then do a File -> Save As to create all of the derivative models. We have yet to meet a component that we could not model with these methods. And the result is 100% bulletproof component replacements. Think your CAD models can’t be made swappable? Drop us a line. We love a challenge.