Rally the Troops: Getting Your Team Ready for 3D CAD

By BARB SCHMITZ | Published: NOV 21, 2011

When an organization makes the decision to implement any new technology, it often requires changes in established procedures, processes, and user behavior. Before implementing 3D CAD for the first time, organizations should map out their current design processes, assess the needs of their engineers, and establish the objectives for transitioning to 3D CAD. After evaluating current processes for design, modeling and data management, management should outline the areas of improvement in process, workflow and training requirements.

Organizations also must thoroughly evaluate several critical areas: processes (approaches to implementation), organization (ability to support implementation and the design process), technology (tools to support implementation and the design process), knowledge management (capturing and promoting best practices), and performance management (the ability to measure results).

A great way to maximize your investment in your CAD system is to take advantage of all the training and support services offered by your vendor. No one understands the underlying functionality of your CAD system more than its developer, so making use of its training, often offered at no charge, as well as its support offerings, will speed implementations and help resolve problems faster. This support might be offered directly through the vendor or through a value-added reseller (VAR).

Software vendors have vast amounts of experience deploying, training and optimizing their 3D CAD software at companies representing nearly every industry. Their “lessons learned” through years of experience successfully implementing CAD software and integrating it with existing systems and processes can greatly facilitate customers’ adoption of 3D CAD, as opposed to manufacturers attempting to do their own implementations with little or no such experience.

Transitioning a team of users to 3D CAD takes time, training, and patience, but the potential payoff of faster design cycles and decreased development costs will make the change to 3D well worth it.  Placing trust in your vendor or VAR to help your troops transition to 3D and having a proactive plan in place prior to implementation will help speed training periods, reduce errors, decrease rework, and boost productivity.

Let’s take a look at a few best practices for companies to follow to prepare their teams for 3D CAD implementations.

Training

Enlist outside help. According to the study, Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD by the Aberdeen Group, “best-in-class” companies are 22 times more likely than the Industry Average to send employees to third-party run training programs.

Take advantage of vendor-provided training. Most vendors offer a variety of training options, some at no cost, including traditional classroom training, self-paced online training, and online access to libraries of learning material and tutorials. Managers can enroll engineering teams in on-demand training so they can learn at their own pace.

Keep it simple. When conducting in-house training for updates or new functionality, keep training materials simple and straightforward. Concentrate on simple exercises that are easy enough to understand but demonstrate the concept clearly. Save before-and-after cases of your models or parts so you can easily demonstrate step-by-step.

Timing is everything. If training is done too early, employees forget what they’ve learned before they get a change to use it; if done too late, they become frustrated and bad practices develop.

Organizational Changes

Determine support options. When you purchase 3D CAD software, find out what type of support options are available to your team. Many vendors will provide customers with access to the company’s knowledge base, free webinars, online tutorials, telephone support, 24/7 Web-based technical support, including proactive alerts and access to Tech Tips Webcasts.

Add a dedicated help desk. Having a centralized help center ensures that all issues during implementation are given the appropriate level of visibility and attention.

Establish best practices. Knowledge management is key to identifying and promoting best modeling practices. Creating part and drawing templates, and material, part, and assembly profile libraries speeds up repetitive processes. Make best practices easier to follow by leveraging “start parts” that contain standard company parameters.

Upgrade hardware. CAD management must carefully consider if their hardware infrastructure is adequate for 3D modeling. 3D CAD tools often require network upgrades. The CAD files can be very large and running the 3D CAD applications can consume a large amount of memory so upgrading computers and purchasing high-end graphics cards will greatly increase performance.

Appoint an in-house expert. According to the Aberdeen study, one of the top strategies for improving the use of 3D CAD was to identify an internal technical expert. This ensures that the majority of the staff can get a basic level of training while the expert can complete more in-depth training and become a resource for the remainder of the staff.

Provide central access to data. As more data is created, the need for centralized data storage via data management and product lifecycle management (PLM) systems is essential to ensure all users can access the data they need. Also facilitates version control.

Image by poncнo☭penguιn

Unraveling the Complexity of Today’s Products

By BARB SCHMITZ | Published: NOV 16, 2011

Nearly every product today, from cars and phones to washing machines, contains some sort of embedded computing technology. Customers are increasingly yearning for technology-enabled products. Smart phones, computing tablets, electronic navigation systems, Wi-Fi-enabled TVs, and a slew of other tech-enabled products offer consumers convenience, portability, and personalization at very reasonable prices, thanks to increased competition among manufacturers.

Consider these daunting statistics. Over the past five years, the average number of tech-enabled engine control units in new vehicles has grown from 20 to 80. In the mobile phone industry, the number of IT-based updates per year is approximately 40, double the number from 2000.

As the complexity of products increase, so does the task of developing them. The mounting pressure to cut time to market while also keeping prices low adds to the challenges faced by manufacturers worldwide today.   The growing demand for these tech-heavy products creates a struggle for manufacturers who are trying to keep costs low amid fast-evolving technologies and the continual pressure for product upgrades.

Traditional product development was driven largely by hardware considerations. Today’s complex products are dependent upon the effective integration of multiple hardware and software components. Software design involves strings of code that are pieced together in interconnected layers. The IT architecture underlying new product designs today, therefore, is much more complex. In products that are controlled by on-board microprocessors, sensors and processors guide their function, not mechanical components.

Manufacturers accustomed to managing the development of their hardware need to learn new processes and metrics for managing the development of software. Hardware typically involves much less uncertainty about how the components of a system work together: something connects or it doesn’t. Software development involves shades of gray. Because embedded development requires expertise in software and in hardware engineering and physics, best practice includes the use of cross-functional teams of experts and development methodologies that apply common models and simulation tools.

Successfully developing these tech-enabled, complex products requires an integrated approach that addresses a number of important characteristics. The architecture should be modular in nature, allowing sections to be stored and applied in different or future products. It should be built on standards, providing for easier integration, and be configurable so one system can meet many different customer requirements. Finally, it should be updatable, allowing new features and functions to added without having to discard large parts of previous releases.

Product development teams creating complex products should continually look for ways to simplify designs. Ask if a certain desired feature is something that customers would use regularly. If not, consider leaving it out. If the design seems overly complex, teams should not be afraid to start over and determine if the design can be streamlined to reduce its complexity. This not only decreases developments costs and design cycle time, but can also reduce the complexity of using the product. If a product is too complex and the learning curve is to high, adoption will be low.

Efficient and effective collaboration among those tasked with developing these complex products—engineering, marketing, concept design, and others—is critically important. This interaction helps IT-and engineering development teams balance what the market demands in a feature set against what the business side requires in costs and cycle times—and keeping it all within the realm of what’s technically possible.

Close collaboration also helps to anticipate where design changes might occur since changes made to one portion of complex multi-dimensional designs have ripple effects that can affect adjacent portions. Carefully and collaboratively organizing the architecture of these designs is vital to isolating the effects of design changes. By involving all those who are likely to initiate changes in the design—sales, marketing, purchasing, Quality, manufacturing, and engineering—you can help predict where those design changes will occur and design the underlying product architecture accordingly.

Because of the great complexity involved in the design of these tech-enabled products, the implementation of a product lifecycle management (PLM) system is vital. PLM systems help organizations by managing the interdependencies of these various subsystems (software and hardware) on each other, facilitating the collaboration between the multiple disciplines involved in the design, and tracking the change process.

Image  by Tom Held

FOX Sports: Every second counts at Penske Racing

By ADMIN | Published: DEC 27, 2011

“According to Pickett, PTC’s Windchill product lifecycle management(PLM) software helps the team and third-party collaborators work together to manage the engineering process from concept to completion. Whether work is being done in machine shops, at Penske’s Mooresville, North Carolina, racing facility, or at tracks around the country, theweb-based business collaboration software helps Penske Racing manage, develop, and deliver the products created to enhance the team’s performance. Another digital tool the team uses is PTC’s Creo computer-aided design (CAD) software, which just happens to work very well with Windchill…”

Read the full article here.

ArnoldIT: PLM Takes the Checkered Flag

By ADMIN | Published: JAN 24, 2012

“Penske Racing uses Parametric Technology Corporation’s (PTC) Windchill PLM software along with CreoCAD software to help “the team and third-party collaborators work together to manage the engineering process from concept to completion.”  PLM is important to them because ’Whether work is being done in machine shops, at Penske’s Mooresville, North Carolina, racing facility, or at tracks around the country, the web-based business collaboration software helps Penske Racing manage, develop, and deliver the products created to enhance the team’s performance.”

Read the full article here.

CAD Market Grows, Expands in New Directions

By BARB SCHMITZ | Published: MAR 5, 2012

According to the 2012 CAD Report conducted by Jon Peddie Research (JPR), things are finally looking up for the worldwide CAD market. After weathering consecutive years of recession, the report says the CAD market has proven to be dynamic and is now expanding in new directions.  Let’s take a look at some of the important trends affecting the growth of the CAD market.

Growth resumes. After the recessionary market slowdown in 2008-2009, it seems that all markets are picking up, especially in Asia, India, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.

Uncertainty lingers. In the near term, JPR projects slow growth in several markets as economic uncertainty in the U.S. and Europe thwart the recovery. Market hit the hardest will be the AEC market

New platform, distribution models boost market. New opportunities opened up by cloud computing, apps and tablets give CAD vendors an opening to provide high-volume, low-cost, consumer-like apps along with new ways to offer boutique services to valued subscription customers.

Lean companies begin retooling. As leaner and more efficient organizations begin the rebuild process after years of recession, they will look for ways to retool their business to improve operating efficiencies.

According to the 2012 CAD Report, the CAD market grew from $6 billion in 2010 to an estimated $7 billion in 2011. The report takes a look at both 2D and 3D CAD. Though the use of 3D CAD has grown, the reports shows that in 2010, CAD revenues were split with 60% of revenues accrued from the sale of 3D tools, and 40% from 2D tools.  The report shows that there were several new entrants in the market that have a strong focus on 2D CAD. The overall market for 2D CAD tools was $2 billion in 2010.

The 3D CAD market, however, has recovered faster from the recession, which affected the CAD market most dramatically in 2008-2009. The report says that 2010 saw a good recovery in the CAD market, but 2011 has seen a slowdown in response to current economic trends. The market in Asia and emerging markets is growing at a faster pace than the Western markets. Growth in the Americas will be driven by Latin America, especially Brazil, but also other Latin American countries including Chile, Peru, and Columbia. This shift is happening rapidly.

Looking ahead, the report projects that the return to growth in the CAD software market is likely to slow in through 2013, as problems in the U.S. and European economies hold back growth. Growth, however, will continue in China, India, and other emerging markets. JPR predicts that growth in the overall CAD market will pick up after 2012.

Among the various CAD markets, the manufacturing segment is poised to return to growth relatively quickly, thanks to emerging markets and hard work on the part of manufacturing companies to recover efficiencies. Data from EuroStat, the Directorate-General of the European Commission, shows manufacturing to be on the upswing, and in fact, did not turn down as sharply in Europe as it did in the U.S.

Several other trends, including the increase in cloud computing platforms and the growth in tablet computing, will all have positive effects on the market as it opens up more avenues for revenue. The report includes a list of CAD-related software that has been ported to tablets and predicts the number of these apps will only increase.

The 80-Page 2010 CAD Report, which also includes a forecast for the CAD industry between 2012-2016, can be purchased through the JPR web site for $5,000 with a 10% discount to subscribers to JPR’s bi-weekly industry report, TechWatch.

Warning! Engineers Escape Cubicles to Interact With Other Departments

By PETER SUTTON | Published: DECEMBER 8, 2011

“Throw it over the wall!”

Whether or not we want to admit this collectively, you hear a lot of that in the product development world. In many cases this is related to an inability to effectively communicate with each other through our systems or due to bad processes inhibiting face-to-face interaction. Either way, tearing down these “walls” to enable communication creates tremendous value for organizations.

Imagine for a minute an organization where designers pass information between groups seamlessly, where feedback from manufacturing, field service, customers, and sales and marketing is easily accessible to engineering. Someplace where hand-offs between (and even within) groups no longer includes “throwing it over the wall” and hoping for the best.   What do you think this would look like?

For one organization I recently spoke with, it looks like success…

The aerospace and defense company I spoke with, let’s call them company “A&D,” had a “robust” process for design and manufacturing. I say “robust” because this process was propped up on multiple independent systems, lacking interoperability, that forced constant hand-offs and recreation of work. Their self inflicted process was stifling efficiency and innovation at every turn.

A&D knew they had to change so they started with a reevaluation of design. “We had to start with technology [design]. If we couldn’t design the products our customers required and get them produced on schedule, no amount of downstream efficiency would help us.”

When asked if the ERP system was part of the problem I was told, “Sure, it was a problem too, but frankly it was second fiddle when it came down to the real issue. Our inability to get through the design process effectively was killing us, we just didn’t see it.”

A&D started by looking at its various processes and standalone design systems. These different groups, with their various systems, were all walled off from one another. A&D decided to knock down those walls and made the tough decision to implement sweeping change. As they told me, “You don’t decide the pull the rug out from under thousands of people [and how they do their jobs] unless you have a serious problem.”

A&D selected a unified platform approach where the design team could now pass information step-to-step without the need to constantly recreate work. Simultaneously, it redesigned its human processes to take advantage of the new platform. When both were implemented the net result was a dramatic reduction in design cycle times. And with platform consolidation (and integration) in other areas (including new PLM & ERP systems), the door was opened for feedback to begin flowing back to the design process (marrying the eBOM and mBOM). The net result?

“Quality… quality and profits. Once we fixed the problems in design, every little change stopped being a mountain of work. We make rapid adjustments now, you know, parts breaking in the field, manufacturing finding better ways to run wiring, whatever. Our people feel enabled to get it done and they do it, plain and simple.”

And organizationally, the change created transparency into the design process. Before, other groups didn’t know how to penetrate the layers and navigate the various subgroups. With its revamped design process, supported by a single, unified platform, manufacturing, maintenance, sales and marketing now have clear lines of communication into the design group, facilitating the flow of information out of and back to engineering.

Over the years A&D had allowed itself to build up internal walls, stifling communications and creating unnecessary barriers to success. While breaking down these walls was required for its continued survival, it wasn’t easy. So the next question is…

How does your process look? Share your stories with us and help others to overcome similar obstacles.