Re: What is called for is a breakthrough in the product design process

The interesting thing is that back in the late 80's we were saying the same thing. Prior to 1989, CAD, and especially 3D solid modeling, was used as a documentation tool - after the design was complete. The tools of the time did not lend themselves to making geometric changes easily. That obviously changed with parametric, feature based modeling, but we have clearly hit a plateau. PFB CAD systems are poor for taking designs in unplanned directions, and are not built for casual users, especially if those users did not create the original model.

So I believe that the next step function in productivity will come when all participants (not just the CAD experts) in the product development process can work in 3D, even if the model originated in a different CAD system, or if was built in a way that did not lend itself to the changes that are needed.

Cyon Research, Aberdeen, and others have quantified the costs due to the lack of interoperability of 3D CAD systems and models, and of not leveraging the precise 3D models throughout the entire product development chain. We are now on the cusp of the next "breakthrough" in CAD. Expect to see a step function in productivity and efficiencies as a result.

Joe.

Re: What is called for is a breakthrough in the product design process

I don't know what Mr. Seitz's background is, but he certainly seems to have little grasp of what the design process entails. From concept to completion of any designed entity, be it machine, system, or structure, the process is a human one. In times both ancient and modern, artists, engineers and architects (I.E. the 'Designers') have used the tools available to them. Mathematics developed in part as a means to assist the Designer in solving problems, and writing and drawing were the means to express explanation of the creative thought processes and end result (I.E. 'design') of the Designer. The T-square and drawing board were replaced by the drafting machine, which in turn was replaced by CAD systems. Long before 'digital geometry capture' came along, engineers and architects had been using a new tool - the computer - to assist in complex problem solving. My university days in the '60's gave me my first glimpse of a world where computers could be used to assist in the human process of design by enabling far more rapid solution of complex engineering mathematical problems.

If I recall my CAD history correctly, 3D preceded 2D by some years, driven by military aerospace and automotive design requirements. Again, it was a tool to assist in the design process, and initially 3D since engineers think in three dimensions. Early popular CAD systems were 2D, and simply replaced the drawing board. The development of 3D wireframe, surface, and solid modelling geometry-generation tools, along with analysis tools like FEA that could all run at acceptable pace on PC hardware ensured that these powerful tools were made available at reasonable cost to any company desiring to implement them.

They have proved to be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing in the elimination of drudgery in geometry creation (older draftsmen and engineers who drew with pencil and pen can enlighten the younger reader to the absolute, time-murdering drudgery of creating cross-hatching by hand on a drawing board for a complex machine), and a curse in the confusion that arises in the minds of some who think that a computer program is somehow capable of design, or that the design process can be automated in such a way as to eliminate human interaction, or to eliminate the need for design changes that cause redesign, rework, or scrapping of obsoleted stock.

Mr Seitz seems to have confused the use of digital technologies with the design process itself. The process is human, the tools are tools. A CAD, CAM, CAE software product is indeed a tool to assist a human to design. Human knowlege increases, each generation standing on the shoulders of those going before us. Forethought (another human process) can help accomodate design changes at a future date, but cannot eliminate them. Cooperation and good communication between sales, marketing, design and manufacturing arms of a company can anticipate and accomodate both the certainty of design changes down the road and a planned means of dealing with them. But some changes just can't be anticipated. The invention of the transistor doomed tube technology and forced change on an entire industry. Eliminate it? Never. Automate it? The tools help. A breakthrough in how products are designed and produced? The creative individual has used current knowledge, assisted by ingenuity and wisdom, to conceive incremental technological change, punctuated by occasional breakthroughs like the transistor. That's the way design works.

Re: What is called for is a breakthrough in the product design process

My view, CAD has the ability to stretch further and breakthough barriers in the AEC industry. Just a thought, why not create templates for the structure instead of antaquated blueprint mentallity. Steamline the framing info. and put it on a simple exacution tool that unites the building team with the critical data at the most crucial time in building...the layout! . The data is there and templates produce real productivity. See what I mean by going to Accuframesystem.com...then you'll be leverging technology for productivity.

Re: What is called for is a breakthrough in the product design

I suggest that you are all mostly right and a little wrong. A breakthrough in "the elaboration of information punctuated by decision" (as Dave Ullman characterizes design) is certainly needed. However, the focus on process must be augmented with an equivalent focus on product effectiveness, designer learning and ability to address customer problems that exhibit greatly increased extent, variety and ambiguity.

Once we understand how to think about design in new ways then we can do a better job of selecting and evolving designers, then a new generation of computer-based tools.

Re: What is called for is a breakthrough in the product design process

From my perspective, experience, and the documented observations of this phenomenon; I see the tools in the past three decades have shaped how designers think most profoundly. While I am a strong believer, that one can overcome one's bias and blind spots (e.g., the fish are unaware of water argument) it is not without significant effort or realization that the model of the world one carries in one's head needs to change. Businesses are all too aware of this issue now a days as almost every Executive has the words business model on their lips.

During the late 70s and early 80s, I was brought on to an Aerospace corporation to implement and deploy engineering/manufacturing modernization programs. While doing such I observed and documented for my company and the Government programs I was funded by; various aspects with regard to the usage of technology, among them was what was loosely called Human Factors attributes --more psychological than physiological.

One of the curious aspects to this was how difficult it was for those trained on the boards and those being raised on the computer. It was observed that those risen on the boards had over time thought in 3D translated to 2D, projected back into 3D; while those on the later versions of CAD tools thought in 3D, and entered directly. Here was a classic example of a tool shaping how people think. Likewise, a similar story to be told in the area of computer aided process planning.

When we studied –yes there are studies stored away somewhere on this very topic in some government back office—this we found that the tool shaped the thinking process and the thinking process shaped the evolution and refinement of the tool. A viscous circle that continues until someone with fresh eyes breaks the mold. In business during the 60s, 70s, and early 80s everyone knew that software would always be a giveaway or a marginally profitable business. Microsoft changed everyone’s perspective taking huge hunks of revenue from IBM’s misperception.
I look at the field of Engineering with the same perspective as a business. The model of how engineering provides value, its customer sets all are changing. The ecosystem around design and engineering is changing. If one looks, are how engineering is measured and compensated now vs during the space race days; the relative value in a company and society a simple set of questions for Design Software Developers comes to mind. Has the market shrunk so much that it can’t support so many vendors (Slywotzky’s No Profit Zone), Does the business model of Shrink-Wrap S/W and Maintenance have to change, or should Software Developers choose to serve a different set of customers concern with the design process (e.g., Google Sketch and Dassult 3D Shape-it)?

I do not have all the answers but I did see the pattern and direction the design industry was going a decade ago. At that time, I spoke and wrote about it on every venue I could. Now as the product innovation and realization are again posed for another evolution the question for developers is what direction will that take and will they create a new business model that is profitable or will they echo US Steel and LTV experiences in another industry.

Does that mean product performance should be neglected? Certainly not. However, the customer decides what level of product performance is of value and what is “over” engineered. Microsoft has repeatedly had to convince users to upgrade as of late as the Office product was judged rich enough in features.

With so many features and tools, end users became less productive not more “futzing”. The new version Office has now taken a different tack focusing on: organizing, simplify the tools, and better integrating these to make it easier to do the tasks. I would propose fewer features on the surface of CAD products, more integration with the entire design cycle would yield better results. Possibly reengineering or completely building a new platform that works on the entire design cycle in a collaborative manner, rather than attempting to bolt-on collaboration after the fact.