engineering-matters - Latest Comments

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Allan Behrens — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:51:07 -0000

Hi Chad,

Sure thing...they are old (timeless perhaps?) but nonetheless....

The articles were posted end of 2008 - there were 2 of them. One, where we have been, and the second, where we are going

History of Mechanical Computer Aided Design: Where Have We Been?

www.deskeng.com/articles/aa...

Future of Mechanical Computer Aided Design: Where Are We Going?

www.deskeng.com/articles/aa...

So what does it take to be labeled as a futurologist?

Keep up the good work!

p.s. I'll try and think up an acronym for next we meet - perhaps AVA (Adjacent Value Add)? Wonderfully symmetrical, no?

Re: Granularity vs. Integration: Requirements Management

Chad Jackson — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:44:48 -0000

Great point Christophe. I think there's some real value there for organizations that can deploy it to that level.

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Chad Jackson — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:43:47 -0000

I think for the majority of the market, you are correct. Most are stuck in CAD file management.

I think you're right about the barriers as well. Change is freakin' hard. No matter how you dress it up.

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Chad Jackson — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:38:09 -0000

I think there's another layer to consider here: engineering document management. There are tons of spreadsheets and documents floating around engineering organizations, even today. PDM can manage those in addition to CAD files.

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Chad Jackson — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:36:44 -0000

Allan, all valid points. Thanks for commenting.

I definitely agree that the software providers don't help in showing the difference between PLM and PDM. I think many of them are tired of talking about PDM to be honest.

What's the URL to your article in Desktop Engineering? I would like to have it as reference.

The 'adjacency' space. I like that. It's not a TLA though, so that might cause some issues... just kidding.

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Chad Jackson — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:32:47 -0000

Agreed Vic. I think there is opportunity for new startups in this space to address the problems that Adam outlined. Thanks for commenting!

Re: Granularity vs. Integration: Requirements Management

cschuber — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:06:46 -0000

Hello Chad, great article. In some PLM systems you may also link Requirement to many/any product artifacts. It's also possible to drive the geometry or some KPIs in CAD using Requirement parameters

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Chris Williams — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:00:25 -0000

The hope / plan is that PLM is to be much more than file management, but if you evaluate what most are doing with it you find the majority are doing less than file management, they are doing CAD file management. Of course this was not the plan and of course customers can do much more, and some are, but why are so many stuck in CAD file management?

I think the biggest reason has to do with the potentail value and complexity of process change.

Re: Brave New World: PLM without PDM

beyondplm — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:31:54 -0000

Chad, Sorry, I'm late for discussion here :)... In my view, you are spot-on:

>>>>In my opinion, the key is getting people to the right data.

Best, Oleg

Re: Are Wikis the New Engineering Knowledge Management?

burhop — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:22:52 -0000

Chad, I'm personally a big fan of Wikis and have been involved in several. For me, the ones that hit a critical mass do great but many others flounder after the initial startup.

Rather than the biggest "Con" for an engineering wikis being technological (better capabilities to capture equations, graphics, tables, etc.), the biggest "con" for me is that it can take a lot of effort to get people beyond the early adopters to buy into using a wiki. We have years of past experience using other ways to manage and share data.*

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that the barriers you face in establishing a quality engineering wiki are more organizational then technological.

*I generalized a bit here. I'm sure some organizations have a culture that would allow for easier adoption of Wiki Technology.

Re: Are Wikis the New Engineering Knowledge Management?

John Biver — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:35:37 -0000

Chad,
Interesting article. My company, Eagle Point Software has taken on the initiative of tackling the issues that you brought up. And while your description of how wikis could help we would argue they only cover part of the problem. There is much more to knowledge transfer than can be described in the verbiage of a wiki. Additionally, when it comes to workflow, many organizations need customized knowledge transfer.

I would be curious to have to take a look at what we are doing and get your reactions. If you're interested, let me know and I'll arrange introductions to the architect of our solution.

John Biver
President/CEO
Eagle Point Software Corporation

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Guest — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:17:41 -0000

To put it simply . . .

- PDM is CAD file-centric

- PLM is BOM Part Item-centric.

They both exist to store and manage design data, but in PDM everything pretty much revolves around the CAD file(s), while in PLM the CAD files are just one of many supporting documents that make up the full description of the BOM Part.

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Allan Behrens — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:08:17 -0000

A interesting discussion thread Chad – good stuff!

Re your latter points...

1) PLM IS different to PDM but the disparity on marketing
messages vs. product messaging (and functionality) from some vendors tends to
exacerbate the issue.

2) I for one agree that user experience is of disproportionate
value. That's been proven by many including Apple (of course). I bought my wife
a Sony Clie many, many years ago, and while the device was fantastic it never
made it to the big times (so too Palm)...more because of experiential reasons I’d
suggest than engineering; it was indeed a lovely looking device.

I look back at my 2008 article in Desktop Engineering and
the conclusion (and much of the content) still stands…I quote

“The future software
environment ... will be seamless, and the complexities of the software will be
hidden from the user while being replaced with environments that play to the
emerging generations’ preferences.”

While the article doesn’t directly state reference to PLM my
general experiential sentiments map to it.

3) Data is critical to manufacturing companies and it’s said
that whatever software ‘holds’ that data then has an undue influence over the customer's re-use (or migration of it). That’s unfortunate for the customer.

I also agree that (new) entrants need be very risk aware, in many
cases this will mean providing continuity (notably without disruption to
current data assets) while making advantage of their ‘new’ value add. Autodesk’s
view (in my latest blog post…sorry for the blatant plug) on the need for adjacency
of their solution plays well to this. I’d argue that much opportunity for (new)
players in the PLM space will be to take advantage of ‘adjacency’ as this reduces
the risk for companies with existing PLM and PDM installations. inforbix and
others play in this ‘adjacent’ world too, of course. Interestingly I’ll also
predict that IBM with their forthcoming RELM solutions will also be seen as
part of the adjacency affray…

p.s. On the topic of Google…. Their search engine doesn’t
change native web data but certainly provides an immense amount of value
add to users, not so? Tada – another example of adjacent value add!

Re: PLM is Just Data Management… Whatever Dude?

Vic — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:47:32 -0000

Chad, thanks for the great post. With regards to your comment: "While I believe Adam is right in calling on PLM Software Providers to improve the PDM experience, perhaps even like the interaction with Google, there is little financial incentive for them to do so. They have already sold PDM into the vast majority of their customers. Where’s the upside?" I don't think the concern in people's (i.e. customers') mind today is about PDM or PLM or their purveyors. It's about having better access to their data and extracting more value from it. I feel the incentive is more with users than with vendors to find tools capable of helping expose data trapped/locked/hidden/whatever within PLM/PDM systems. It's why, for example, Inforbix is seeing growing interest helping people get more out of their PDM/PLM systems. Inforbix recently posted an article inspired by Adam's post that buttresses your article: http://www.inforbix.com/wil.... Best, Vic

Re: Are Wikis the New Engineering Knowledge Management?

Chad Jackson — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:38:05 -0000

Thanks Oleg. Great points and posts. I need to catch up with the folks at Vuuch to get an update. I know they changed a lot in their latest versions.

Re: Are Wikis the New Engineering Knowledge Management?

Chad Jackson — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:37:21 -0000

Thanks Paul. Good example.

I think its funny. I haven't heard about the widespread use of a wiki as engineering knowledge management. At least not nearly as much as CAD, PLM or other similar softwares. Mainly, I think that's probably because there's no marketing push behind it like there is from these software providers.

Re: Are Wikis the New Engineering Knowledge Management?

$16310727 — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:11:05 -0000

I recall a case study of UK architects Feilden Clegg Bradley using a Wiki for knowledge management in the early 2000s. Previously, lots of information about projects and about the materials and products used on projects tended to sit in individual architects' heads (and in their notebooks and computer hard-drives). If and when they left the practice, that information was often lost, so FCB began to encourage its staff to record information on a wiki so that it could be easily accessed by other members of the team at any time. Non-project specific data could also be easily discussed and updated.

Re: Are Wikis the New Engineering Knowledge Management?

beyondplm — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:05:38 -0000

Chad, great article! In the past I pushed some ideas around related to usage of wikis and wiki-engines. I think, Vuuch was the closest take on wiki-like technology with the idea of "design discussions".

Just for reference some of my posts from 2009.

Use Wiki for Change Management - Revised!
http://plmtwine.com/2009/02...

Virtual CCB Idea - how to use Wiki for PLM?
http://plmtwine.com/2008/12...

Best, Oleg

Re: The Importance of People Skills for Engineers

Metal man — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:21:45 -0000

I've spent over 30 years in the manufacturing sector, and I can honestly say that the vast majority of engineers I've encountered have the human relations skills of a dishrag! The new "young" graduate engineers, especially, are incredibly disrespectful of seasoned and skilled manufacturing people (e.g. machinists, tool & die makers/mold makers, welders, millwrights, maintenance mechanics, etc). Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were both machinists. Other great inventors and innovators were skilled craftsmen, NOT ENGINEERS!
I'd also like to set the record straight on engineers being highly intelligent or supposedly having problem solving skills. Many enginers lack practical knowledge of manufacturing processes and materials, but are schooled in computers, high powered math and science, and CAD. Most have no desire to learn and develope practical skills. Still yet, most engineers I've encountered (and sadly, that's more than I care to remember) couldn't pour it out of a boot if you wrote the instructions on the heel!
My late father was a journeyman tool & die maker, and late in his career he became a non-degreed Manufacturing Engineer. Like me, he took abuse and disrespect from most engineers he worked with, even though he had 2 patents, awards, and practical experience beyond any engineer. Towards the end of his career he told me something he noticed in most of the young engineers coming out of engineering schools. My father was accountable to develope tooling, jigs & fixtures, and specialized machinery for manufacturing processes. These products had to be built from conception, to prototyype, and had to be ready to hit production. Today's young engineers (and as with my late father, I've seen this time and time again) draw up chaotic designs on Auto Cad and then hand it to production and tell them "you make it work". No accountability! Further, most of these "young" engineers don't have an original idea in their heads, but are very adept at copying other's ideas, cutting and pasting, etc. and then claim it as theri own. I think its safe to say that most of the Generation Y folks are this way!

Re: Can SDM Be Effective without CAD PDM?

Muthukrishnan — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:27:27 -0000

That was a brief brush-up of the process. Thanks Chad. And Keith that was a timely mention of the missing piece in the link.

Re: Multiple Intelligences and the Engineer

Rajni Jauhari — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:55:32 -0000

naturalistic intelligence is relevant because an engineer should be able to observe patterns in nature so that he can relate it to his work too.

Re: Agile Development for Mechatronics Products?

Rico Tomasi — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:53:24 -0000

We are currently working to adapt Agile methods to mech and electrical aspects of new product development. I'd be very interested in hearing about lessons learned from others who've made the leap!

Re: Closing the Loop on Engineering Notebooks

George Hielscher — Thu, 31 May 2012 22:36:17 -0000

Chad, thank you for pulling all these ideas together. It's a long list of things we need, and I agree completely that we need every one of those things.

It's interesting that I have been considering the same list of capabilities (more or less) over the last few weeks, except with the engineer and his "notebook" playing non-speaking roles. I have been researching and thinking about the concepts of Cloud Computing (SaaS), PLM (on the Cloud), CAD on the Cloud, and what Cloud applications will look like in the future. I think your list is other side of the same coin as what a lot of PLM visionaries are developing in these fields.

To me, PLM is about the data - a "PLM Database", which is a virtual mega database that probably is implemented by multiple application databases with links between them. The PLM Database is accessed by the kinds of applications that we have now (CAD, PDM, CAE, ERP, SCM, ...), except that they will run partly or mostly on the Cloud. Daista Software is developing the Daista uIP (universal Integration Platform), which is this "PLM Database" that I described.

After this unified "PLM Database" (on the Cloud), the next biggest hurdle will be to get CAD on the Cloud. The CAD models (files) will need to split up to fit with the PLM data, and to optimize loading of the selected portions of the CAD data. CATIA V6 already splits the models in this way, and Solidworks V6 will probably be the same. I would guess that the other PLM CAD vendors have already moved toward this goal.

As you said, we will always need to be frugal with internet bandwidth. The CAD applications will need to be split between the cloud and the user's device (workstation, notebook or tablet) to minimize the data transferred when we view or edit the model. Some of the CAD application will work best when executed in the Cloud, and other parts of the CAD application will need to run on the user's device. The CAD app that runs on the user's device will not be as simple as a web browser when they are optimized this way (and CAD applications that run in a standard browser will have performance problems and awkward user interfaces).

Your example of Evernote is a good model for CAD on the Cloud, working with a small set of data at one time, and keeping the data constantly updated on the Cloud (without explicit Save commands). Being able to use multiple devices concurrently, with the same model data, make edits on either or both devices, and merge the edits automatically will be essential to the success of CAD on the Cloud.

I applaud your vision of the future, and I hope we are already moving there. Thanks for helping to push the vendor and providers.

Re: Digital Sketching and the Engineering Notebook

James Self — Mon, 14 May 2012 11:16:12 -0000

Many thanks for your words on my post on Core77. I'm becoming more interested in the ways in which designers from different backgrounds, including more, how to put it, 'engineering' orientated designers, approach and employ designerly tools.
James.

Re: Can SDM Be Effective without CAD PDM?

Keith Meintjes — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:09:42 -0000

Chad,

What you say is sort of true for a single component, but for most cases you have oversimplified (or understated) the problem.

In a PDM system, parts are organized into assemblies, and then these assemblies exist in a tree-like organization of systems and subsystems, the product structure. There is usually not a single item in the CAD PDM product structure that maps precisely to what is needed for a CAE model.

The first task is, often, to build a CAE configuration, or BOM, that specifies the required CAD information. As a further complication, this BOM depends on the CAE discipline: Structures, thermal, aero, etc.

Managing the relation of these CAE BOMS to the PDM product structure is a complex task, and is one of the reasons a generic PDM system cannot easily be applied to manage CAE data. This all occurs before your first step, the abstraction of CAD into a CAE representation.