COFES 2012: Design Risk and Information Availability

April 19, 2012

One of the sessions I especially liked during COFES 2012 was a keynote by Richard Riff – The Intersection of Design and Risk. The name of the keynote was the same as a theme of COFES 2012. Here is a snippet from COFES 2012 agenda describing this session:

…we’ll explore the role of risk in design, the impact time-horizon plays, and what actions we can (or should) take in response. Richard’s keynote will extend our understanding of the role of risk in the day-to-day decisions of where and how we allocate engineering resources. We all address risk daily, each in our own way. In design, risk is a consideration in each decision we make. But how and when we think of risk needs to change. Not only do we need to pay attention to our risk horizon (which is much closer than our reward horizon), we also must look for opportunities where risk has not yet participated in the decision process, but should.

Below you can see few pictures from the keynote to give you a feeling of the atmosphere in the room.

In my view, Richard keynote was a brilliant from the engineering side. The main points about risk measurement, assessment of what is the cost of risk and considering a "failure is an option" are fundamental with regards to the complexity of engineering problems every large manufacturing company is facing. One of the interesting slides presented was about why are we wired to err..

Another great summary made by Riff was about ‘why the decision goes bad’. The clear point on people’s ego is an important element that made me think about some potential changes that can help us to improve decisions.

I want to connect three dots – risk, cloud and information availability. Few years ago, technology writer Nicholas G. Carr introduced a topic that raised a lot of discussion in press – "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". Navigate to the following wikipedia link to read more about that. Some new researches in this space actually took an opposite view to Carr. Internet is actually making us smarter. Navigate here to read an article about the research. Here is an important passage, in my view:

The Pew Internet and American Life Project and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center asked nearly 895 technology “stakeholders and critics” about their expectations for the Internet 10 years from now. Making ‘better choices’. In the Pew study, 76% of the respondents said they agree that by 2020, “people’s use of the Internet has enhanced human intelligence; as people are allowed unprecedented access to more information, they become smarter and make better choices. Nicholas Carr was wrong: Google does not make us stupid.”

Another interesting observation from the same article was related to how we will use Net to synthesis information:

“We measure intelligence in a certain way now, and maybe the whole nature of intelligence will be changing 10 years from now,” he said. “It won’t necessarily be how much you can retain, how much your hard drive can hold in your head, but it’ll be the way you can assess information, that you can think critically, that you can synthesize information.”

I wanted to connect the question Richard Riff asked in a context of decision-making and risk with the future perspective of a broader information availability. My take on this simple – our way to make a decision 10 years ago and now will require a complete rethink since we will be able to involve the web / cloud and other information services to make a right decision. The decision-making process will be different since the access to information will become ubiquitous.

What is my conclusion? The question of risk and decision-making is one of the most important questions of the design process. It seems to me, we will make a fundamental shift towards a completely new way in decision-making and risk assessment. Information availability will play a key role in this shift. The way to predict it actually very simple – look on how our life became different as a result of the internet and Google. We are still before this big revolution, but it clearly coming. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


COFES 2012: Quick Summary

April 16, 2012

I was very busy since last Thursday. As you probably know, I was attended COFES 2012. It took all my time from early Thursday until Sunday. COFES is a unique event. You have a chance to speak with many people of the industry, share opinion and check your ideas. From that standpoint, the value of COFES is absolute. Below, I wanted to put few pictures from presentations I’ve seen during COFES 2012. They made me think about some of the future ideas I’m going to share with you on the blog.

This year weather (it was cloudy and cold) provoked many jokes about cloud related discussions. Cloud topic was clearly one of the most important to me. The following picture of Scottsdale Plaza is unusual for April. Few interesting points from the conversation about the cloud.

Another interesting discussion happened during the keynote by Richard Riff. The keynote was about decision and risk. Here are two interesting slides from his presentation. About data and skills ownership:

About the reasons we are taking wrong decisions. Main reason – ego.

Last, but not least. I was impressed by presentation of Ponoko - cool DIY factory. The idea of personal manufacturing is interesting and inspiring a lot of people these days. Ponoko personal factory is an interesting attempt to do so.

So, what is my conclusion? COFES 2012 was the biggest COFES since it was first introduced 13 years ago. I’ve seen many first-time attendees. The strength of the COFES is that you can make it very personal. Your choice – meetings, offline, discussion groups, briefing, keynote presentations and big discussions. I’m always learning something new there. Just my opinion, of course.

Best, Oleg


Electric Design and PLM Roadmap

June 29, 2011

In the early beginning, solutions for manufacturing were focusing primarily on machinery and mechanical design. The historical reason here is simple – mechanical design was a key element of manufacturing for many years. However, the era of ‘mechanical design only’ ends. We can hear more and more about various aspects of combined solutions – Siemens PLM was coming with mechatronics already a couple of years ago. Earlier this month, on PlanetPTC, I’ve heard many stories about software related aspects of product design.

I’ve been reading Design New article yesterday – Mentor Takes a Lifecycle Approach to Electrical Design. It talks about latest Mentor announcement related to the expansion of their Capital electric design platform. This is my favorite passage (actually quote by Martin O’Brien):

The new Capital suite delivers on all of its traditional capabilities in addition to new functionality for designing the architecture and aiding service technicians supporting the finished product in the field. It also encompasses enterprise data management and compliance functionality, serving as a single repository to help manage and support the highly specialized materials and workflows associated with seeing a complex electrical system through each phase of its lifecycle.

Does it mean Electric Design is going to PLM route now? This is an interesting question. In my view, PLM approach is very successful when we deal with complex product development issues. Remember aircraft design, product configuration, etc. These are examples where product lifecycle management presented significant improvement and good results. Electrical design was standing separate long time. The same was for electronic and software. Is it going to change now?

The picture is courtesy of Design News blog.

The complexity of products is the real issue we need to discuss and mention in this context. Everything becomes more complex now. Ford T was a simple car. Nowadays, products become really complex. The integration of various elements is key problem manufacturing are facing these days.

What is my conclusion? I can see Mentor is going down to the road and implementing many features and functions we’ve seen in traditional PLM products. Lifecycle, Technical documentation, multiple functional representations. The word “single repository” mentioned by Mr. O’Brien made me worry a bit. In my view, traditional PLMs found themselves in the “single repository” mouse trap by trying to integrate everything in a single database. The cost and complexity of implementations are growing. Is it something vendors like Mentor can avoid? Learn from other mistakes? Is it possible in software word?

Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg


Design To Manufacturing Process: Bumpy Road?

June 12, 2011

Integration between design and manufacturing is one of the topics that normally hits a lot of discussion in the product development and PLM space. To support this process becomes more and more important in a modern enterprise manufacturing organization. You can ask me why? Let me put is simple – this is one of the most important processes that can drive cost optimization in the companies. Everything a company is making need to be first designed and later manufacturing. If it breaks – nothing can help.

Design to Manufacturing Connection

One of the numbers that always amazed me is what percentage of product cost is defined actually early in the design process. Do you want to guess this number? Well, it is around 70%. I think, this is an amazing number. At the same time, the initial cost planning is something that poorly can be done without getting information about manufacturing, supply and other related elements. Efficient transferring of the information between a design system (CAD, PLM) and manufacturing system (MRP/ERP) is an important element of streamlining of manufacturing processes.

Integration Challenges

Despite the high importance of the integration between design and manufacturing, the reality of many companies shows that few of them can show successfully implemented integrations. There are several reasons for that. The top three, in my view, are as following: 1/ high diversity of engineering and manufacturing processes; 2/dependencies on CAD, PLM, ERP and other home grown systems; and 3/ significant cost of implementation and changes. Each vendor develops his own strategies and relies on multiple technologies and partners to deliver that.

Design to Manufacturing Integration Examples

To illustrate the need and the level of complexity, I decided to pull together few videos that present some elements of integration solutions. The first one is the integration solution between Autodesk Inventor and SAP. The solution developed by Autodesk partner – CIDEON Software.

The next one is the solution developed by CORDYS, Holland based company, which focuses on the development of business process management middleware and tools. What is interesting in this solution is complete Independence of CORDYS from both software vendors manufacturing solution CORDYS integrates.

The following video presents TeamCenter 8 integration with Microsoft Dynamics AX developed by Microsoft’s partner To-Increase. This is another example of "a process like" integration between two packages – engineering and manufacturing.

The last examples show a different approach of integration. Dassault 3DLive solution is providing an interesting approach to access manufacturing information from ERP and other systems via the native 3DLive user interface.

What is my conclusion? The space of design to the manufacturing solution is complex and not covered well, in my view. The demand from customers is significant and the same time the requirements are complicated and solution in a most situation needs to be tailored for every customer. Most of the software vendors are talking about design to manufacturing processes and, at the same time, moving integration to partners, service providers and 3rd parties. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


CAD, PLM and Product Cost

February 7, 2011

Cost is important. Period. About 70% of product cost is defined during the design phase. So, to have PLM helping you to predict a product cost and drive it down can be a very important feature and benefit of spending the time to implement your PLM software and set up right processes. However, to get an enterprise view of cost is not a simple task in manufacturing companies. Last year, I wrote – PLM and Enterprise View of Product Cost. Since then, I had few very interesting conversations about a product cost related issues.

Who is working on this?

I wanted to find recent examples of tools (CAD, PDM, PLM) dealing with cost calculations. I found few examples and references of PLM vendors doing “costing work”. Agile, Dassault, Siemens did some work. However, I didn’t find visible public references related to the cost integrations into their product suites. I know two vendors – aPriori and Akoya, focusing on cost issues. I thought, PTC InSight is planning to provide a solution for cost visibility. However, for the moment, more focuses on environmental problems. The following two videos present slightly different aspects of cost calculation.

SolidWorks World 2011 Demo Preview (thanks deelip.com for capturing this video during SolidWorks World 2011) presents future SolidWorks cost calculation capabilities. The important element of this implementation is the level of integration of costing functions into the design environment.

Obviously, SolidWorks’ focus is on part manufacturing-design aspects. SolidWorks solution is not up to solving enterprise cost scenarios.

Then another example comes from aPriory video. aPriory is a company developing Product Cost Management software. Watch the following video to get a glimpse of understanding how stuff works.

This video made me think again about integration with various tools and information related to the cost. This example is more focusing on multiple aspects of product cost and not limited to “design environment” only.

Cost: Important, but NOT transparent

I can hear two voices related to the cost. One – cost is (obviously) important. The ability to control cost is absolute. The enterprise software (in general) and PLM specifically needs to solve the problem of cost analysis and visibility. Second voice says, cost is not transparent in an organization. The transparency of cost is not obvious and there are multiple interests a company to make cost transparent. Part of them is coming from work with suppliers, part of them is coming from manufacturing.

PLM Software Fails, Excel Wins

I can hear “Design for Cost” more and more often. At the same time, I don’t see products in this space demonstrating strong functionality and capabilities to solve costing problems. When talking with customers, I’ve heard about the complexity of the costing problem and inflexibility of solution. Most of the solutions, I’ve seen relies on our “PLM buddy” – Microsoft Excel to solve any problems.

What is my conclusion? I think, costing is another place where MS Excel has huge market dominance. Software vendors slowly, but started to understand the importance of vertical cost integration. The solution in this space is not obvious and requires significant effort in data integration. So far, I’ve seen little activity in this space. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


CAD Data and PLM

October 5, 2010

The following blog article drove my attention yesterday: CAD File Management ≠ PLM. The short blog post published by Peter Schroer of Aras. The summary of this post, in my interpretation, is simple. CAD Files and design represent a small portion of business problems in a manufacturing company. So, when you are going to make your PLM decision, think about a full scope of business problems – not only about CAD data. I specially liked the following passage from Peter’s post:

I’m not saying don’t let the CAD guys use what they want. Let them use their system of choice for CAD file management. That’s no problem – today’s enterprise PLM systems can move data in and out of it easily. But you’ve got bigger business issues than CAD file management, like LEAN, configuration management, workflow processes, quality, compliance, supply chain integration, FMEA, etc.

Peter is referencing deelip stating the following – "CAD geometry is 1/20 of what it takes to produce and maintain a part" and making straight conclusion "If CAD only accounts for 1/20 of your product, don’t let it drive 100% of your decisions."

In my view, the discussion raised by Peter raises a very interesting question. How much attention PLM should allocate to CAD-related problems? How it is important for PLM to be deeply connected to CAD systems and CAD data?

CAD Roots and PLM

PLM, as a software, was born as a natural extension of CAD businesses. It initially started as data management for design and engineering, it grew as an important function to manage product development processes. Connection to CAD (design) data provided an important information to drive product lifecycle in an organization. However, this deep connection, also made a bad service for PLM. On a system level, it created an additional level of complexity and increase product dependencies. On a business level it, some of vendors started to use CAD-PDM/PLM dependencies in order to realize their competitive advantage strategies.

CAD-Rootless PLM?

Is it possible to create a PDM/PLM software disconnected from CAD and design roots? Companies were looking for answers on this question for the last two decade. Many of these companies went out of business or were acquired by CAD or ERP vendors. The idea of focus on product development processes without having deep roots in CAD, seems attractive to people these days too. I can see a kind of renaissance of these ideas influenced by modern technologies (the Internet, SOA, etc.).

Importance of CAD / PLM integrations

However, I can see a problem in a significant disconnection between design and rest of product development processes. The last release of Oracle Agile PLM 9.3.1 announced on Oracle Open World last week, stated the importance of multi-CAD integrations. It represents a clear path for PLM product to stay connected with CAD. In addition, the last paper from CIMData – Ten Questions to Ask PLM solution supplier presented the importance of PLM system ability to stay integrated with multi-CAD and ECAD data.

What is my conclusion? PLM is focusing on solving manufacturing business problems. The key manufacturing problems are related to how to control a product cost and optimize business. When 70% of a product cost defined during the design stage, the reliance on the design data becomes more than important. This is a strong point behind CAD driven PLM decisions. However, if your system becomes locked in the engineering department, you are barely able to drive a complete view on how to control a product cost and optimize business. The connection between design/engineering and rest of the business is the most challenging piece of a successful PLM implementation.

Best, Oleg


PLM And Sustainability: Where Is The Problem?

April 22, 2010

Last week during COFES 2010 I had chance to attend DaS Symposium. This half-day Sustainability Think Tank was fully loaded with presentations and discussions about various issues related to sustainability. You can take a brief look on additional information about DaS Symposium on this link. I have to say that this topic seems to be HOT and vendors are trying to approach it with multiple solutions these days. I just want to mention few – SolidWorks Sustainability Xpress, PTC InSight, Autodesk also made the impressive presentation with a significant emphasize of the digital prototyping role. More about Autodesk Sustainability is here. This is, of course, not a full list of sustainability projects and resources. Another interesting discussion was about US Lifecycle Inventory Database – project that focuses on environmental information.

The meeting at DaS Symposium was moderated by Ken Hall, Director, Sustainable Design Systems, Gensler and Brad Holtz of Cyon Research. I’m sure COFES is going to publish all materials from DaS and we’ll be able to see it more in details. I want to put some initial thoughts related to the sustainability in the context of product lifecycle management. There are two main aspects of sustainable product lifecycle management I’d like to figure out: product information and environmental information.

Product Information is obviously data about all product characteristics, design materials, supplied components, etc. This information is actually what we design with sustainability in mind. The second one is all environmental information related to materials and products. This is the information that needs to be in hands of designer or any other person and/or organization that thinks how to design with sustainability in their minds.

So, how to make our design sustainable? I see it as the main question to ask. My take on this is relatively simple. If want to manage something, we to know how to measure it. So, sustainability need to be measures. Another aspect is how you can estimate your desired product performance and characteristics in the context of sustainability. In order to do so, we need to cross paths some information about a product with environmental characteristics. Knowing today product design environment it seems to me as a not trivial task. In most cases design data is in CAD or other design oriented environment. The real manufacturing or supply data and environmental data are separate.

What is my conclusion today? The whole issue of sustainability seems to me as one big data problem. There are too many pieces of data and lots of intersections. Current products almost cannot do it easily and especially with high changing rate. So, thinking about sustainability, my conclusion is to invest in new data management technologies that can handle data about product and corresponding disciplines (i.e. Lifecycle Inventory Database and other regulatory and environmental data). The problem there is hard. Data belongs to separate organizations and managed in different environments.

Just my thoughts… It will be interesting to hear what is your take on this.
Best, Oleg

Share


Design and Manufacturing: Top Down PLM approach with Treehouse?

October 29, 2009

The new release of SolidWorks Labs Threehouse V2 hit me to think again about Top Down approach and efficient communication between Design/Engineering and Manufacturing.


Background.
SolidWorks Labs released V2 of Treehouse. You can get more information on their website as well as take a look on multiple blog articles about that. My favorite was SolidSmack’s “Full Speed TreeBleed. SolidWorks Treehouse, Not Just a Treehouse“.

Design, Engineering and Manufacturing
Problem of disconnecting between Design/Engineering organization is not new, in my view and exists in many manufacturing organizations. It’s obvious Engineers sees a product they develop very much in the light, of how they build parts/sub-assemblies/assemblies/configurations models. For them this is what make sense. However, from manufacturing side, it always looks different because their structure is driven by assembly process, packaging, supply chain and other factors from a shop floor. Most of the systems today are not providing a good solution for this problem. Those customers that made decent solution in this space built it based on huge customization and service base.

Treehouse, Modular design and Top Down

In my view, Treehouse concept is interesting since it can provide a communication bridge between two worlds: design and engineering/manufacturing. The way to initiate design top-down in SolidWorks is not trivial and Treehouse can be an interesting approach to do so. It can facilitate modular design and ability to create new products and configuration top down initiated from Engineering/Manufacturing space.

What is your opinion on that? Have you had chance to think or implement the top-down approach in your organization? What systems you had in your mind to support it?

Best, Oleg


PLM Prompt: Dynamic Business Application and Design Collaboration

September 9, 2009

During last week, I had chance to discuss PLM, Design and Business Process trends. The core idea behind was about how we can apply business processes in the context of design application and collaboration. I had chance to take a look on Forrester’s Dynamic Business Applications imperative. The idea of processes built for change as well as “context” is very co-sound, in my view, with designer work. Even most of Forrester analyzes were done in the context of MS Office application, I think it can be applied to Design Application as well. The core idea, if I got it right, is to be able to have flexible contextual information to make a business process decisions and this contextual information comes from interactive and visual communication.

forrester-dynamic-business-apps

What do you think about it? Does it make sense to define adaptable contextual design application that has an ability to inject business data?

Best, Oleg


CAD – The Future of Collaborative Modeling

June 8, 2009

We have been talking about collaboration a lot these days. I was thinking about how collaboration can happen with designers. I thought about this from two perspectives: (1) CAD and PLM collaboration development and (2) Collaborative Document and Drawing capabilities. 

CAD and PLM collaboration development

 We have seen product offerings from companies such as Dassault Systemes 3DLive and Siemens PLM. Besides these giants, smaller ISVs also provide multiple 3D collaboration technologies. Dassault Systemes 3D Live and CATIA V6 provides, in my view, an interesting approach where Designers can work together on the same model and assembly. This is probably a good example of CAD/Design collaboration from PLM vendors. I’m sure you can come up with similar examples and will be interested in discussing these as well.

Dassault Systemes 3DLive product

 Collaborative Document and Drawing capabilities

 I found interesting blog article caught my attention:  5 Ways to Create Collaborative Drawings with Friends  - presenting ways to collaborate on creating pictures and other graphic objects. This is very interesting way to collaborate on graphic models online. 

 

scriblink

Online Design Tools

Nice addition to this collection is SolidWorks Labs product, Drawings Now. This is still not as sophisticated as the 3DLive/CATIA option, but is not simply a drawing game such as ScribLink. What is cool is that <SolidWorks Drawings Now> allows you to save 2D drawings on a cloud space. (think about Amazon Web Services or similar)

 

Conclusion:

I think we are moving towards a CAD system that will be able to store information on a cloud almost in the same manner as today’s CAD saves CAD models and Assemblies on your C:\ drive or corporate server. I don’t know how fast it will take for us to get there, but I see it happens more in the near future.

 What is your opinion on this?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers