Vendor/Customer Sharing

brucebartlett

Once again I am saving files out to dropbox and every time I ask myself why am I doing this, isn't the whole point of cloud CAD to alleviate this? Why can't I just store file's in my Onshape doc and give folk a list of links? or why can't I share an openBOM with links to Onshape drawings and parts?

But every time I come to the conclusion for a number of reasons it's better to just save it out share or link to the files or folders in Dropbox or Google drive. Some of the Onshape issue's include:

• I don't want to share my whole document with the vendor just parts of it. I know I can break it into small docs and share but that's just too much work.
• It comes up in an unfamiliar format which vendors don't get, Dropbox or google drive comes with no questions. (I am sure this will change over time as vendor become trained familiar) 
• I don't want multiple vendors seeing who the other vendors are.
• Drawings are slow to load in Onshape where as a pdf in google drive opens 8x quicker. (I know Onshape are actively working on Improving speed here.)
• No way to view in 3d or download a part independently of the part studio. 
• I am not real keen on sharing my whole document by "anyone with link". 

I'd love to hear other experiences and workflows. Also what Vendors want to see shared for a bid.

emagdalenaC2i

I totally agree with you

• I don't want to share my whole document with the vendor just parts of it. I know I can break it into small docs and share but that's just too much work.

Actually I don't break a document in small docs. I just prefer to create a single new document and duplicate & move tabs or create derived parts from the original document.
So I can create a new document only with the information I want to share with a kind of vendor (like CNC, sheet metal parts, etc.)

• It comes up in an unfamiliar format which vendors don't get, Dropbox or google drive comes with no questions. (I am sure this will change over time as vendor become trained familiar) 

You can share that document with a vendor and include a personal message to explain the tabs of the document, how to export the files, etc.

• I don't want multiple vendors seeing who the other vendors are.

I will love to create a team that let me keep other team members invisible, but right now the best way is to share the document with several Individuals instead of a team

• Drawings are slow to load in Onshape where as a pdf in google drive opens 8x quicker. (I know Onshape are actively working on Improving speed here.)

You can add the PDF as tabs as well

• No way to view in 3d or download a part independently of the part studio. 

You can create a new Part Studio with a derived part from the original document.
Even if you change the original part the derived part will update properly.

• I am not real keen on sharing my whole document by "anyone with link". 

As I mentioned before, rigth now the best way is to share the document with several Individuals instead of a team

philip_thomas

Bruce / Eduardo - this is great feedback and yes, we absolutely will be supporting these workflows.
I am sitting next to the chap that is scoping this functionality and he has asked that all interested parties please submit Feedback tickets so that we can keep an accurate tally and know whom to notify when we complete the work.
Thank you both for your input.

brucebartlett

Thanks, @emagdalenaC2C, you have some good points here to solve these problems but we shouldn't have to go to so much effort to share with a vendor. If we are going to have to move tabs breaking up document structure, copy or derive our documents, it becomes easier just to save out to Dropbox, however, to share by a method other than Onshape just seems wrong when this is what the platform is designed to do. 

One solution may be the ability to tag tabs or folders within a document for a specific share.  

When in dropbox if I share a file the user can not see the rest of my folder, I want a share like this in Onshape which allows only a specific tab and version. 

Dropbox also has these setting you can add when sharing an individually file. 

brucebartlett

philip_thomas said:

Bruce / Eduardo - this is great feedback and yes, we absolutely will be supporting these workflows.
I am sitting next to the chap that is scoping this functionality and he has asked that all interested parties please submit Feedback tickets so that we can keep an accurate tally and know whom to notify when we complete the work.
Thank you both for your input.

Thanks, Philip.  I think I have some ticket running on this already but hope others also get involved in this discussion and add their own tickets so we can get you as much info and use cases as we can, so all bases are covered.   

owen_sparks

philip_thomas said:

...the chap that is scoping this functionality and he has asked that all interested parties please submit Feedback tickets...

Donedefied.  Cheers folks

Owen S.

bruce_williams

So I would like to tag on for knowing how/when this resolves.  My issue is not so much Vendor as Customer sharing and yet I think that is same.

@philip_thomas   You suggested "all interested parties please submit Feedback tickets".  Could you explain when Feedback should be used vs. Improvement Request on the forum?   If we should use Feedback in this case how should it be referenced?  Give a link to this thread?  or something else?

brucebartlett

I haven't raised an improvement request as there are already a few related. see these.

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/5301/an-extra-sharing-option-for-vendors-sub-contractors-with-more-restrictions

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/9155/follow-me-link-with-no-sign-in
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/40288#Comment_40288
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/37532#Comment_37532
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/9036/my-shares-view-for-better-control-on-current-shares
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/8015/share-option-to-hide-feature-tree-when-sharing-view-only

*edit* If you're a pro user you can also raise a ticket with the question mark feedback tool top right.

philip_thomas

@bruce_williams - Good Questions.

An improvement request is a poll of all interested parties. We aggregate this number and use it to help rank the functionality requests.
No specific individual is recorded and we do not reach out to individuals that vote on the IR.
A feedback ticket is available to Pro Users only and we tally these separately - it helps us understand what Pro users are saying they need and helps us filter out those needs from the 'noise'. We also individually tag those accounts - 'THIS person is looking for . . . '. If we have further questions, we may reach out to individuals that submitted like tickets. When we do something that addresses a ticketed issue, we send an email to all Pro users that submitted a like ticket.

As a Pro user, i would def submit tickets for anything you 'need' - feel free to vote on IR's as well.

I hope this helps.

brucebartlett

bruce_williams said:

My issue is not so much Vendor as Customer sharing and yet I think that is same.

 Bruce, Let me update the title.

bruce_williams

@philip_thomas - Thanks, nice explanation.
@brucebartlett - Perfect.  

brucebartlett

I wonder if with the release of Onshape Enterprise we will see some improvements to the Vendor and Customer sharing issues I highlighted in the original post. Like I said I hate saving out to other cloud platforms but it's what I have to do atm to get the job done. 

emagdalenaC2i

There is a Guest User Access in Onshape Enterprise so a company can add other users (external users) to their projects, folders and documents...
But I think that the sharing options are the same

philip_thomas

Gentlemens - yes, Enterprise has some neat capabilities ('Guest' users is just one such example).
That said, we are looking at very specific solutions to this issue - we hear you

brucebartlett

Thanks @philip_thomas much appreciated, sorry to be that squeaking door. 

philip_thomas

Bruce - I am sure that 'door' is far from the worst thing you have been called!

Jolly

Has much changed here since May of 2018? I am going through how best to share with vendors and it seems that when I look through the current Onshape sharing features I still have to copy/derive parts into a new document that is shared with a vendor. I am thinking of having 1 document per vendor that all shared/derived/copied tabs go into and that document is shared as view only (with export) with just them. That way I can easily control what vendor has access to what. I don't like making links public but that's great for onboarding a new vendor until they've created a free account. For new vendors I'd probably also export myself and email them STEP and PDF files initially plus a shared link with a request for them to make a free account to OS.

philip_thomas

@Jolls - yes, deriving or linking into another document works - the main benefit being that if the recipient is shared in as read-only (+export), then they are unable to update the link to any other version/revision.

The alternative is the methodology that we recommend, that ironically is a slightly worse solution for this scenario.
The recommended practice is that when a part or assembly is ready to be revision managed (and therefore likely needed to be shared for quoting or manufacturing purposes), that the part studio (or assembly) be moved to its own document prior to release. The main benefit is that the documents created by this workflow are self-contained. Meaning they contain the release object (the revision), the drawing (if needed) and can be shared as a single share. This workflow is documented extensively in the tech briefings (in the learning center). While this workflow is the recommended best practice, the downside is that the sharee can navigate to other versions/revisions.

That all said, Jolls - your logic is sound.

romeograham

One way that I've been dealing with this:

My example vendors are non-competing (they are each providing different parts for a single assembly) and both are aware of the other party. They both need to see the full assembly for context (I need as much help as I can get from vendors that understand the full scope and can spot mistakes), but only need to make certain parts.

I create a new Document that I share either view / export with the link or direct view only share with their free Onshape accounts. 

In my "working" document, I Release all the parts, subassemblies, and drawings.
Then I export all PDF drawings of the released drawings.

Then, in my shared document, I derive the Released Revision of the top-level assembly, and import all of the PDF drawings (because, as we know, we can't derive drawings yet). As I update individual parts, I release, export, and update the drawings in the shared document (as well as go through the absolute torture of ending up with a new Revision of the Top Level Assembly, which then gets updated in the shared document too).

Then, my two vendors can export the STEP files of the assembly, and download only the PDF drawings they need (which I specify in separate RFQ or PO documents). The new "export a single part even if you have view only access" feature is a really good one for this - since before, vendors had to export the entire assembly each time they needed to export a changed part that I update. This gives me a single shared document that my vendors can access, and that I have to keep updated as I tweak the design over time.

As @brucebartlett and others have so eloquently written for a long time - the Release process (while it shows promise and is much better than what I used to do in SW) is waaaay too much work. Here's hoping that some of the many suggestions are close to implementation.

Thanks
romeo

Ivan_Deetlefs

Hi guys

Seems like this idea has either lost momentum or there is an improvement request that has taken on the momentum. I can't find one though. If I could be pointed in the right direction I would appreciate it.

We are currently in the process of having share documents to multiple vendors for quoting purposes. It pains me that we are having to currently do this via traditional means, i.e. download every pdf or step file we need and email it to every vendor individually. A functionality where you can specify a phantom list under the share menu could simplify this, i.e. vendors can't see the share list and you can simply select which part of a document a vendor may or may not see 

Jake_Rosenfeld

@Ivan_Deetlefs

This is definitely on our radar, but for the time being instead of exporting to a neutral file format, you could derive your parts into a fresh document, or insert your assembly into a fresh document, and then share that document with view permission to your vendors.  Would that help at all?

brucebartlett

Ivan_Deetlefs said:

Hi guys

Seems like this idea has either lost momentum or there is an improvement request that has taken on the momentum. I can't find one though. If I could be pointed in the right direction I would appreciate it.

We are currently in the process of having share documents to multiple vendors for quoting purposes. It pains me that we are having to currently do this via traditional means, i.e. download every pdf or step file we need and email it to every vendor individually. A functionality where you can specify a phantom list under the share menu could simplify this, i.e. vendors can't see the share list and you can simply select which part of a document a vendor may or may not see 

Hi Ivan, thanks for sharing here. There have been some small improvements in this space since my OP but still, needs lots, lots more for it to be really usable. My solution here at the moment is risking using a share link for quoting and turning off after bidding but not ideal. I've dealt with probably close to 100 vendors since using Onshape and normally don't get a positive response, occasionally they will work with the data in Onshape but normally they ask for a known format. It's a constant frustration to me that I still have to export PDFs and step files and excel spreadsheet boms which is very time-consuming and further multiplied if you try to use release management. 

@Jake_Rosenfeld we need better solutions that save time, Onshape has the platform and potential but I really feel you really need to be listening to the user's experience and working to solve these pain points. I am sick of spending all my time on Onshape Data management and little time on designing. There have been so many improvements is other areas which make Onshape a great product but I hope some attention can be given to the important space around data management. 

Jake_Rosenfeld

@brucebartlett

We definitely agree that this is something that needs work, and it is tough to hear about your frustration, especially as we are trying to make a system where data management is as seamless as possible and tied in directly with the modeling.  Thank you for your feedback, as always it is great to know where our customers are feeling pain.

brucebartlett

@Jake_Rosenfeld don't get me wrong I love using Onshape and I am consistently impressed with the level of support and continued innovation. For me its a total joy starting a project in Onshape, building out the part studios, doing the assemblies with the leading edge configurator, creating drawings which now is as good or better than any other package, also being able to use across devices at almost any location, sharing work with customers showing progress, while having zero IT overhead and constant updates  BUT....... I find it a real drag, once I get to the end stages of the project which are both the most high-stress part of the project, by the nature of people wanting the finial BOM, drawings, dxf's, etc but also where Onshape seems to have the least innovations and streamlining for adding metadata, building product structures and sending or sharing with appropriate vendors or departments. Maybe it's me but I have not found any good solutions which are quickly accepted keeping data totally in Onshape and I always find I have to go through the laborious task of exporting everything.  Please take this as positive, I am a happy customer just pushing for more as I see huge potential in this area. 

Frank_Bertucci

Any updates on this? I have a very similar experience as everyone where my typical workflow coming from Solidworks was to save everything out as step, dxf, pdf etc. and share on Dropbox. Definitely not my favorite part of the process but it was the only option.

I see a lot of potential with the release management workflows. Originally I thought the release process was a bit much for a small company like ours, but once you get the hang of it, it’s actually a great way to proof your CAD before publishing. The way drawings and parts get broken out in the folder list view is great, I think the only thing missing is the ability to share each of these so we don’t have to do the export. Like Bruce said, we have multiple vendors involved in a project and they each only need to see the parts they need to produce.

You could share the folder, but then they’ll see all the parts instead of just their parts. The control really needs to be at the component level.

Then the last part of this would be the vendor’s UX. They’d need to be able to login to Onshape and see a relatively organized collection of components and drawings for different companies that have shared with them. Part studios are great for designing, but it really throws vendors for a loop when all they have to go by is the part number.

Seems like it’s 95% there and maybe just a few more tools could make it viable for vendors to access the data directly in Onshape. That would be a game changer.

glen_dewsbury

@Frank_Bertucci
Have you looked at Publications. My experience working with publications in a standard or pro account was very positive. In my current hobby account it doesn't seem to be available.

Frank_Bertucci

@glen_dewsbury
We've used publications for both internal and external design reviews where they are great way to share focused information.

However, for fabricators as well as our own internal manufacturing team, they really only want to see the component information and get confused by the part studio approach. If a fabricator is confused that usually leads to a costly mistake and design getting the blame. Like @brucebartlett we are maintaining external Dropbox libraries as well as an internal drive (the "source of truth") that creates many duplicate CAD files that all have to be updated when there is a design change. It would be great to replace both with Onshape and let vendors export as needed. I know this is what PLM software like arena is for, but it feels like Onshape is pretty close on it's own and it would be really powerful to knock it all out through the release process.

jonathan_b

Having gone through an initial release with 4 solid engineers and a top level assembly with 40 parts and 6 assemblies -- we are feeling the pain of the release management and data sharing process. I think what @Frank_Bertucci suggested aligns really well with our experience. Onshape needs a component-focused view of data. The 'list view' is the barest of starts, especially since it is restricted to viewing contents of folders, not company wide components. One specific example that I find extremely relevant here, is locating the drawing of a part in an assembly. In SW I used an assembly for this, because it 'linked' those together. The fact that you need to use 'where used' to hunt down a component drawing is really counter-intuitive, and hard to use.

While we have accomplished pretty impressive design feats with the collaborative and highly flexible design/workspace within our team, the farther we go in the product life cycle process the more painful and counter-intuitive Onshape seems to get. When you add branches, versions, and workspaces the amount of situational specific knowledge a user needs to have to arrive at the 'right' version or part is not practical.

To build on Franks thoughts, I would suggest a top level or BOM view, where data belonging to an assembly (including respective component drawings) can be viewed all together in its "released" or controlled state, without ever having to go to the part studio/document. Every time I go to share stuff with a vendor I have the same hesitation shared with OP on how I would possibly explain where things are, and how to get to the right version of a part. I agree that tab-out and detangling designs into 1 part per document is a viable path -- but for some designs that are inherently multi-bodied solids it just doesn't work, and even when there is only one part per document there is still confusion on which branch, which version, which tab coming from more novice users (and especially vendors).

As a summary, I feel there is a need to clearly view and interrogate a released or finalized version of an assembly/design that is outside the context of a document. Basically, a view that does not allow a user to see all of the 'other' data and history that gets associated with a design, that is important to the designer but confusing to most downstream users.

S1mon

@jonathan_b

I very much agree. There are so many things that Onshape got right, and then it starts to fall apart when you try to manage complexity. 

jonathan_b said:

While we have accomplished pretty impressive design feats with the collaborative and highly flexible design/workspace within our team, the farther we go in the product life cycle process the more painful and counter-intuitive Onshape seems to get. When you add branches, versions, and workspaces the amount of situational specific knowledge a user needs to have to arrive at the 'right' version or part is not practical.

There have been several attempts to help these challenges (publications, list view, where used), but as you say, each one has its own shortcomings. Part of the challenge is that so many of the demos/training are of such basic product data structures where all the parts are in a single assembly in the same document. There really needs to be much more testing, development and training based on the actual level of document complexity in the real world of manufacturing. 

List view only traverses a single folder, and it can't show the relation between a drawing and part. Where used is only so useful if all the versioning isn't dialed in. Publications are nice in theory, but they require a lot of manual organization to create. The connection between a part number and a part name/body is also tenuous at times. It feels like there are a few missing puzzle pieces, but we're so close.

I'm currently helping a company which has been using Onshape for 4 years to clean up their database. We're also looking at Arena for PLM. Arena is great, and it solves problems that Onshape should never manage (e.g. EE BOMs with reference designators and multiple approved vendors/materials per part), but it shouldn't been necessary to manage mechanical BOMs and releases.

PeteYodis

@S1mon and @jonathan_b List views has more room to run and structure view will be like the other side of that coin (working on it) where related drawings are shown.  Structure view will present your latest released products in a much more natural and intuitive way - where you will be able to navigate the levels of your product and browse to find what you are looking for.  Recursive views (views looking within all subfolders)  are a natural fit for both list and structure views and still remains on us to deliver.  Where used is not meant as an easy consumption type view - it's meant to be used as a part of impact analysis when considering ramifications of changes to your products.

I wouldn't expect Arena to be the answer here either. 

We'll have more to do in list and structure views than what's mentioned here -  but this is really the start of component based views that make more sense and are document agnostic.   Non-cad consumers of the information would expect to see and interact with views like this as opposed to only monolithic documents.