Solution Reviews

Overall, the objective behind Vuuch is the same as it has been for any other collaboration solution provided in the last ten years. If you resolve issues faster, then you can go through more iterations resulting in a better product or you can reach design release faster (or maybe just on time) to keep pace in the schedule. That being said, this solution goes about it in a markedly different way. Here’s what’s advantageous and concerning from my perspective.

This series of posts will cover new product releases, changes in product strategy and acquisitions by engineering software providers affect engineering stakeholders. New posts in this series will be published based on software provider activities. Today’s post goes beyond the news around the launch of PTC’s Creo to analyze and assess the potential advantages, the …

The Potential Advantages and Outstanding Concerns of PTC’s Creo Read More »

I’ve always been extremely curious about PLM deployments in larger enterprises. Based on my experience, larger companies tend to take on PLM to support an internal initiative. And because internal initiatives often widely vary from company to company, the ultimate form that PLM takes within those companies can be completely different from one another.

A couple weeks ago, you watched Dr. Andrew Thomas talk about Energist’s transition to using Synchronous Technology in Solid Edge. As you’ll see below in my interview with Aaron Solet, there are both positives and negatives to learning how to use this new technology.

A few weeks ago, I published a post that focused on the form, fit and function aspect of the product record. In it, I differentiated between artifacts that defined a product’s form and fit like 3D models, diagrams and schematics and artifacts that defined or predicted a product’s function like simulations, analyses and tests. I think this is a pretty good representation of products composed of mechanical, electrical and software components.

As an engineer, you very possibly may have found yourself in the following situation. You’ve prepped for a engineering status meetings. You aggregated your information on slides or maybe a document. As you start to begin to deliver your status, one of the manager singles out one of your calculations and calls it into question. Does it include the latest design changes? Did it come from a paper calculation or an FEA analysis? Has it been validated in the test lab?

This series of posts focuses on the perspectives on executives, managers and staff personnel in the engineering organization. This post specifically features Aaron Solet, a Mechanical Design Engineer from Lanco. It includes video excerpts from an interview I conducted with Andrew at the Siemens PLM Analyst Event in Boston, MA. When it comes to selecting …

Design Engineer Aaron Solet on Lanco’s Selection of Solid Edge for CAD Read More »

Last week, we heard from Dr. Thomas Andrew from Energist on selecting Solid Edge as their CAD and CAE for mechanical design. And as interesting as that interview is, it’s not the end of the story. A couple years after they started using Solid Edge, Siemens PLM introduced Synchronous Technology (wikipedia entry). While there’s always some excite around new technologies and the value they can deliver with their use, there’s also some trepidation around the learning curve and procedural changes to day to day work. During my interview with Dr. Thomas, I asked him how and why they made the transition.

Everyone likes to have a second opinion, right? I see it at many places like LinkedIn where people ask about the use of different software systems and applications. “Have you used system x?” one might ask. “Have you used application c” another might ask. Now of course, I have my own perspectives on engineering software systems and applications that I publish here at this blog. But an overall goal of mine is also to provide a platform to those in the engineering community to be heard. That’s why I conduct video interviews.