Do you enjoy research? No, I’m not talking about the dry make-you-fall-asleep stuff that are published by professors from universities. I’m talking about research that’s relevant to your work life. Statistics and facts that describe what your peers are doing on a day-to-day basis. Well, I admit it. I do. I find that nothing cuts through the opinions, positions and debates like some hard facts. That one of the reasons that I’m currently running the 3D Collaboration and Interoperability study. I’ll use the findings to publish an infographic-based market report at the end of May. Most of the time, I enjoy uncovering some best practices and progress made in the industry. But every study carries some ugly realities with it. And, unfortunately, that’s the case with the 3D Collaboration and Interoperability study. Ready for a couple ugly early findings?
Dealing with Geometry: The Machinist’s Cost of Doing Business?
Deal with it. Are there any other words that cause so much muttering disdain? There are times in product development when you just have to buckle down and find a way around the problem. Yes, your manager admits, it’s probably a waste of your talents. No, your manager says, we can’t return it back to sender.
Clarifying the Confusing Terminology of Drawingless Initiatives
In this industry, terminology is a bear. There are special acronyms and terms with subtle differences that can actually have big implications. And unfortunately, there isn’t a good place to get definitions for them all. A few weeks ago, I launched survey that looks at design data interoperability, model-based enterprise initiatives and the use of 3D outside engineering. Statistics and findings from that survey will be used to publish The State of 3D Collaboration and Interoperability Market Report in May. You can take the survey here to get a complimentary copy of the report. But the exercise of carefully developing the survey made me tease apart the definitions of various terms related to drawingless efforts.
The Best Simulation Toolbox: Integrated Suite or Granular Apps?
Everyone likes a good debate, right? Well, as a co-host for the web show Tech4PD, I have to admit that I am a little biased. The idea behind the web show is that Jim Brown, another Industry Analyst, and I debate various topics about technology that enables product development. Viewer’s votes determine who wins. The loser has to fulfil a consequence. Last month, Jim did a 35 degree polar bear swim. Earlier, I had to shave my head. In the second episode, Jim had to brush his teeth with wasabi.
Does Multi-Physics Make Fools of Us All?
Quite a long time ago, I remember the first time I visited a hard-core simulation analyst’s group. It was at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and I, fresh out of college, was showing them some new simulation technology. There were lots of questions and conversations that day. But first and foremost in my memory, I remember the… well… reverence some of the other engineers had for these simulation analysts. They were the unequivocal experts. Their authority was unquestionable. They were on a pedestal.
Writing about the Business of Simulation on the NAFEMS Blog
Hey folks. For those of you looking for more posts on simulation, I’m happy to announce that I’m going to be a guest contributor at the new NAFEMS blog. My focus will be on the business side of simulation. Basically, you’ll see me posting on how simulation critical functionality translate into organizational capabilities and how …
The PDM Revolution is Upon Us, Brought to you by CAD in the Cloud
I think we can all recognize that one of the most recent wave of disruptions to the CAD industry started with when a number of modeling approaches converged. Direct and Feature-based approaches merged. 3D modeling and 2D sketching got mashed up as well. Today, we have single apps or suites of integrated apps that do it all. And in my opinion, I think there have been significant benefits associated with those changes.
Has PLM Been Misdirected All This Time Around?
Deploying PLM. I know few technical champions that face the prospect of starting a PLM deployment with earnest joy. Mostly, that’s because it can be a long, hard slog. According to posts like this one there are fundamental pieces of PLM that you really need to put in place before you get into more advanced capabilities of PLM. Concurrent Engineering, a PTC reseller and author of the blog post above, is by no means alone. You’ll find such posts on the basics, foundation or fundamentals of PLM all over the place. This view has been in place for years now.
Back in September, Yoann Maingon over at Minerva, an Aras reseller, wrote a blog post that got my attention:Stop Starting PLM from Engineering!!! The gist of the post boils down to this excerpt. Start your implementation’s phase 1 out(side) of engineering and you’ll get live much faster. These people need integrated systems and their processes are more stable then in engineering. As you can see, it’s another traditional perspective on… wait… what?