What are the best practices around the name of the release, release notes, and comments?

S1mon

Naming a release is a bit weird, because like an ECO, it can include a bunch of parts/drawings/assemblies, but if it doesn't include some reference to the main revisions or parts it's confusing to look back on the release names.

Is there a way to get one of these bits to fill in the description column on the drawing revision table?

How does your organization use release comments?

nick_papageorge073

I'm a couple months into releases, so take with a grain of salt:) There are also just two ME's at my company including me. What I did is made a practice document (s) to try a bunch of different release processes. I settled on this naming convention: If the release is parts, I preface it with PRT, 20-xyz, Rev A. If its assemblies, I write ASM, 10-xzy, Rev A. If its a drawing, I write DWG, 20-xyz, Rev A. If its a bunch of parts, I write: PRT, Parts for enclosure, Rev A. Repeat for asm or dwg. The first release in a document usually has many parts bumped up at once. The later releases are usually just one or two parts at a time. I don't mix the 3 types in a single release.

A caveat, I'm releasing in a bottom up method. First parts. Then I put those released parts into the subassy's, in Main of the sub. Then I release the sub. Then I put that released version of the sub in higher level assy's. Then I release the drawings of the individual parts and drawings of the subs separately.

My document structure is parts and subs (per subassy) in one doc. And all 2D that go to those parts and subs in a separate document. Repeat for each subassy on the product. I have a folder in my company called "released 2D drawings".

The whole point is so when you look at the versions and history, I can see at a glance what was a part, asm, or drawing release. In my company, only the engineers are even inside onshape, and the ECO process is spreadsheet based outside of it. We haven't done an ECO yet, but I think when we do, I'll name the releases something like PRT, ECO xyz. ASM, ECO xyz. DWG, ECO xyz.

Another caveat, at prior company's we never released assy's. Only parts/drawings. Assy's were usually internal only and if given to a vendor, it was just reference. At this company we are rev controlling the assy's, and even using them for our operations person to build the ERP system BOM. I actually think I like it. It forces us to make a nice assembly drawing, with exploded view, and BOM table of each subassy. Its also a nice thing to put on your desk wall and say "I made that". ha ha.

mlaflecheCAD

Jumping in here:  Every company will likely have a different process, so these discussions typically lead to debate.  What has worked well for me is this setup:

Name the Release package and the number of the top-level item in the package.  For example:  If the top-level assembly or drawing is numbered ASM-1000-01, the Release Candidate's name would be ECO-1000-01-A representing that top-level item's number and rev level.  I also generally number the part/assembly and drawing so they are the same (unless it is a special drawing for QA, tooling, etc...). 

There are both pluses and minuses, and each company will likely need to examine its internal processes to ensure that this fits.  I use this process because I have a clean slate and no worry about prior vestigial, non-database file management.  And if I need to export uncontrolled parts out of the system, I have a rule that exports with name, rev and apart number to ensure safer file sharing.

I show this in the last What's New livestream from 1.163 starting at 17:45 into the stream https://www.youtube.com/live/dGU0rqIDJZg?feature=share&t=1067

mlaflecheCAD

@nick_papageorge073 I also like your process outlined above.  the Bottom-up approach is sound here and the naming makes it easy to understand.  It really keeps the revision control of your higher-level assemblies buttoned up and shows how change flows clearly.