parallel revision driving in teamcenter plm

GEA Farm Technologies

Implementation for Rapid Product Design

Matthias Ahrens – Technical Solutions Manager

100164 BU Dairy & Farm Equipment – BU Support

2015-03-02

Parallel Revision Driving in Teamcenter

GEA Farm Technologies 2 2015-03-02 / Parallel Revision Driving in Teamcenter / M. Ahrens

• Review approach to shorten concept and design phases

• Adoption of classic methods in PLM suites

• Review implementation of “Revision Rules” in Teamcenter PLM

• Present “Override Folder” option in concurrent design approach

Intention


• Time to market is an increasing criteria.

• Assigning massive, additional resources achieves limits, if data

management layer and processes are operating non efficient!

• Fast fallback scenarios can be realized by driving multiple, alternative

designs in parallel during the early concept and design phases.

• Concurrent design scenarios can help to drive multiple concepts in

parallel to a stage, where the best alternative wins the race.

Abstract

Source: www.slotracinglemans.com


• A lot of disciplines have to be tied together in modern product

development projects (e.g. software, electronics, mechanics).

• Concurrent and agile methods like SCRUM are requesting a total

transparent information backbone.

• Various solution alternatives have to be considered from startup.

• The timestamp, when a final definition for the product structure exists,

moves closer to the final production scenario.

The challenge

Source: www.esa.int

European Space Agency‘s

Concurrent Design Facility

Source: agilefragile.com

Agile methods:

e.g. SCRUM process


• To adopt the classical “morphological matrix” principle in Teamcenter

by using item revisions as representations for the various solution

alternatives.

• Provide the “override folder” option for revision rules to the project

team to manage the product configuration on their own.

• The team can combine various alternatives on their own, regardless

of release status flags.

The idea

Source: edu.volpe.ch


• The intention is to drive multiple alternative design revisions in parallel

in the early stages of the project to shorten the time for iterations.

Parallel revision driving principle


• The main product

structure is defined

by standard items

• The different

alternative solutions

for each module are

stored as revisions

• The team can

reference specific

revisions into

“override folders”

• Various revision

rules exists to run

“What would happen

if …?” scenarios.

Parallel revision driving in detail


• In addition to a default revision rule, which is operating primary on

status flags, a few alternative revision rules are prepared.

• The alternative revision rules are running the same priority order like

the default revision rule with the exception of an “Override Folder”

term in front.

The revision rules

Default Revision Rule

Preset for all user by preference

TC_config_rule_name

Alternative Revision Rule

With a specific “Override Folder” option upfront

Can be selected by users in NX or PSE


• The override folders are defined with global modification access for

every team member.

• The users are able to cut and paste revisions of interest to the

different override folders on their own resp. on project circumstances.

The override folders


• While revisions representing alternatives, the revision rules can be

used to review various combinations of alternatives for the modules.

The usage


• To achieve a proper cycling between the various alternatives

(Revisions) the assembly constraints between the modules should be

assigned to datum coordinates systems, which were copied into all

alternatives upfront.

Hints: Assembly Constraints


• This allows an accurate solving of the constraints, even if there exists

significant geometrical deviations between the alternatives.

Hints: Assembly Constraints


• The revision rules are treating each item on its own independently

from the next higher level sub assembly or any other intermediate

assembly levels!

• As effect the user can simulate “What would happen if …?” scenarios

on the end item level without the need to modify entire sub assembly

structures!

• It is important to train the user base on the various, possible behaviors

of product structure assembling scenarios, if they starts dealing with

revision rules!

Hints: Sub Assemblies


• Instead of coding MRP stages like “Prototype”, “Released to

Experimental” or “Released to Supply Chain” implicitly inside the

revision schema a full alpha or numerical schema without any

sequential constraints should be used!

• MRP stages should be reflect by different options like status flags or

in ERP framework!

Hints: Revision ID coding

X = „Release to experimental“

A = „First release supply chain“

….


• An easy to use status schema and process should be applied, which

offers parallel revision scenario in early project stages!

• As example:

• The PLM status reflects the “Released to ERP” status for drawings only!

• No back coding of plant specific MRP status flags to PLM site.

Hints: Status schema


• In addition to all automatic notification tools and capabilities of modern

PLM and ERP frameworks the team internal communication is the key

to drive projects to success stories!

• For the Parallel Revision Driving method the following information are

essential on internal communications:

• Item ID?

• Revision ID?

• Revision Rule?

Hints: Communication

Revision Rules

RevRule 1 = „Concept combination A“

RevRule 2 = „Concept combination B“

….


• Controlled by Items:

• Advantages:

• Maximum flexibility

• Access control can be handled

totally independent

• Disadvantages:

• Switch of alternatives inside

assembly requires large

maintenance effort (e.g. Assembly

constraints).

• BOM management effort increases

• Possible alternatives are not tied

together

Other option for managing alternatives

• Controlled by Revisions:

• Advantages

• Faster switch between alternatives

inside assemblies by revision rules

• Alternatives are tied together under

one item

• “What would happen if …?” checks

can be accomplished very fast.

• Disadvantages

• Communication about dedicated

revision rules required within the

team

• For coexistence of alternatives a

“Save as new item” is required at

the final end.

versus


Other revision techniques

• Teamcenter offers additional options for configuring structures:

• Occurrence effectivity (Not in use right now)

• Classic Variants (Not in use right now)

• Modular Variants (Not in use right now)

• Baseline (Not in use right now)

• …


• The system landscape of the GEA segment Farm Technologies

consists of a strong SAP backbone, which is utilized to manage and

guide all ERP relevant data and processes.

• To support early product development phases a 4Tier Teamcenter

PLM backbone is in place with a connection to NX as CAD authoring

tool.

• Entire architecture is spawning multiple departments across various

global locations.

The system landscape

SAP T4S Teamcenter

8.3

NX

7.5

Product design: Mainly plant neutral Production execution: plant specific


• In comparison to other processes (e.g. ETO) the GEA Farm

Technologies is running a product development process, which is

starting parallel to the autonomous product execution process.

• The product development process ends with adopting the new

product into the standard catalogue of product offerings.

The process landscape

Product development process

Production execution process

21 2014-01-13 / PLM Implementation at GEA FT / M. Ahrens

parallel revision driving in teamcenter plm

Engineering

parallel revision

alternative revision

default revision rule

ahrens time

concurrent design scenarios

ahrens review approach

alternative designs

best alternative