Category: Editorial

Inch or Metric?

A recent discussion on eng-tips.com has prompted some interesting replies.  The discussion revolves around one individual asking for advice to help in the battle to promote metric at his company, despite push-back from their machine shop, and a lack of concern about the issue from higher-ups who have taken a pragmatic cost related approach. I believe that the responses received may have surprized this individual.

There are some who point out that the cost of switching to metric must be justified and explained to management.  The problem here is that there IS a cost associated with switching from a shop based on inch tooling to a shop based on metric tooling.  Is there savings associated with the switch?  The benefits of switching units of measure are likely limited, unless they are dealing with much more complex issues.  Once a company has a system in place, it is generally not economical to switch it midstream.

Several made the point that if the company is already standardized to inch, then any individuals at that company should adjust their methods accordingly.  This is the same if a person accustomed to inch joins a company that has standardized to metric.

What I personally questioned was the rather strange idea that metric is somehow some sort of default when it comes to making the choice.   The universe doesn’t know the difference between an inch and a millimeter.  For us in the engineering field, it is easier to think in metric than in inch, but what are the real world advantages of one system or another?  Unit of measure is completely arbitrary.  One person who responded to the posting even pointed out the advantages of using hardware from both systems at the same time.

“But the rest of the world is using metric!”  Umm, really? That, by itself, is an arbitrary point.

A counter arbitrary point, the United States of America has the largest economy on the planet by almost 2-fold.  It doesn’t really matter what rest of world does because the U.S. is so big. It’s like saying that the 800lb gorilla in the room should wear jeans just because all the chimps in the room are wearing them.  Maybe the gorilla is happy with his corduroys instead.

To this, there was a response about how the world combined outweighed the U.S. economy, and that the US is not 100% inch.  My point at that time was simple, “…Americans might be surprized by the number of countries that ARE NOT 100% metric, many of which are in Europe. ”

I was surprized by the responses that comment provoked.  There is apparently much less standardization going on around that planet that we’ve been lead to believe by hardcore metric proponents here in the U.S.  I know about the imperial gallon, the pint, and oddities like the metric ton.  However, I didn’t expect responses from the international community stating that there are significant fields and regions where standardization is in the old traditional imperial system and not metric.

The more I explore this topic, the more I’m convinced that it really just doesn’t matter.  Once a choice for a company is made, then they should stick to it.  I’m also learning that some strong proponents of metric here in the U.S. have a tendency to assume metric has greater adoption than what is true in reality.

Terminology: Bill of Material

It’s somewhat humorous to see incorrect word forms.  Some mistakes are from mispronunciation, such as ax for ask or supposably for supposedly.  Others are based on a misunderstanding of the word.  In the field of engineering, one of the most commonly mistaken word-forms is the plural for Bill of Material.

Of course, the term is Bill of Material or Bill of Materials for singular form.  In this case, the words material or materials both refer to the total sum of material that makes up the assembly; they mean the same thing (kind of like flammable or inflammable).  The plural for Bill of Material is Bills of Material, as in multiple bills, not multiple materials.  This is similar to Flights of Fancy, Peas in a Pod, Chariots of Fire, and Dogs of War.  I guess some confusion comes from the abbreviation for multiple Bills of Material, which is commonly BOMs.  It would rather silly to try to pronounce BsOM.

Leveraging the Online Community (Pontiac?)

*Edits to this article are in this color* 

I’m noticing that many companies are starting to get-it when it comes to leveraging online communities.  SolidWorksCorp has been ahead of the game, which is working to their advantage.  This isn’t going unnoticed by others in the 3D CAD industry.   Of course, nor is the idea of leveraging online communities unique to 3D CAD companies. 

PTC recently sent out an email with a survey regarding their plans to improve their presence within the online communities.  Sure, they already have user and corporate blogs, forums and such.  What are they missing?  Well, not being involved with PTC, I’m not going to guess.  Nor am I going to fill out their survey.

What made me think about this is something that happened which is almost completely unrelated to 3D CAD.  My wife and I were recently profiled in G8 version Pontiac Performance.  This is a magazine that is sent out to owners of Pontiac vehicles.  I’m not sure why I, as an owner of an awesome new 2009 G8 GT, would need a magazine full of articles pointing out the greatness of Pontiac cars.  I already get-it.  That’s why I bought the car!  (Maybe they are hoping I will buy another model right away?)  Anyway, the magazine does have its use, and I’m getting to the point soon.  First, if you want to see my profile article, I believe the magazine is carried by Pontiac dealerships.  If you feel so inclined, go in to a dealership and ask to see if they have copies of the G8 version Pontiac Performance Spring 2009 edition.  (It has to be the G8 version of the magazine since it appears they publish different versions of the magazine based on what car you are interested in or already own.) The article is on pages 12 and 13 (pages vary based on the version of the magazine, but its somewhere between page 9 and 14 in most G8 versions).  Then, while you are there, check out the G8.  I’m actually not being sarcastic when I suggest this.

Anyway, back to the point.  In the magazine is another article called Car Camaraderie about how online forums are bringing Pontiac drivers together.  They did a whole article about online resources being utilized by Pontiac owners.  As far as I know, none of these resources are directly related to GM.  This move by Pontiac to promote the online community reminded me of the efforts that SolidWorks has already undertaken.   The writer of the Pontiac article understands the Pontiac’s online community well enough to mention the most popular sites for each of their models.  This is just one article in one magazine that doesn’t have public distribution.  It’s a start for them, though.  Sure, OnStar has been online based for awhile now, but that is a paid service.  The act of actually profiling users on several of the forums (even mentioning their user names) is something that is not that common yet.  Like many other old-school companies, they are starting to understand the Information Age, finally.  

SolidWork Corp isn’t a vanguard in how they leverage the online communities, but they are ahead of the curve…with other companies close on their heels.

Brave new world (online)

SolidWorks Corp is doing something well.  They are taking advantage of current and relavent networking technologies, such as Twitter (search #SolidWorks), to promote the software and its users.   In fact, SolidWorks Corp has a substantial online presence.  Some of this is their own doing, some of it by users stepping forward on their own.  There are a multitude of outlets for information and support.  There are forums, blogs, resource sites, networking sites (such as Linkedin and Facebook) .

Even with all this, there are still other interactive online resources.  Who’s checked out the SolidWorks Wikipedia.org article?  I recently made a minor edit to that article.  It can certainly benefit from many more edits.  Or, who’s checked out or contributed to SolidMentor’s Solidwiki?  This is on Ben’s site.  He also has the SolidJott SolidWorks add-in, which is growing rapidly in popularity.  What are your favorite online interactive sites?

Challenges in Transitioning from 2D to 3D

The CAD industry is so far along now that the discussion for many is no longer 2D CAD vs 3D CAD, but methodologies within the 3D CAD (such as direct modelling vs history modelling).  However, the adaption of 3D CAD applications such as SolidWorks is still on-going.  Many companies are still using 2D CAD applications.  Why does it take so long for many companies to make the transition when the benefits of 3D CAD seem to be so apparent?

I think Jeff Ray, CEO of DS SolidWorks Corp, properly identified this problem in an interview for the recent article CAD Tools: Breaking Barriers by Linda L. Bell (NASA Tech Briefs, Jan 2009 issue).  In part, he states that when a company considers making the transition to 3D CAD “the pain of change has to be less than the pain of the status quo.”  3D CAD still needs to be easy to access and use.  It also needs to be robust enough to be a design tool for those users that demand more from their applications.  On speaking about how SolidWorks has answered the need to make this transition easier, Ray states, “our last two releases have included a new user interface [where] the workflow predicts which tools the users will need and makes them readily available.”

Even still, there are many challenges to making the transition.  These involve learning a whole new way of working.  For example, when one draws a square, it doesn’t stay a square.  It can become a cube, rectagular rod or a plate.  It can also become a recess or square hole in another feature. 

Once one gets a grasp on these concepts, setting up the new 3D CAD software to work within the company’s documentation system can seem even more challenging.  This is one area that seems to missed (or at least not implemented fully) by many of the 3D CAD applications.  Having the ability to make drawings isn’t the end of it.  Communication with PLM’s and ERP’s is just as important in many companies. 

As my friend Chris MacCormack has recently pointed out, management of the 3D CAD files themselves must also be addressed.  With one or two users, this matter solves itself with simple use of folders.  However, as departments expand and companies grow, solutions for the raising difficulties change.  Of course, this must also be addressed with 2D CAD applications, but it is a much more complex matter with 3D CAD applications.

Most of us first address these issues with wide-eyed innocence. Upon going through this once, that becomes innocence lost.  To consider the transition from 2D CAD to 3D CAD, all of the above must be taken into consideration, and actually other issues too.  To improperly paraphrase Uncle Ben, with the great power enjoyed with the use of 3D CAD comes great responsibility in how it is used.

Now, it is understood that 3D CAD applications are not useful to all CAD users.  But if the field is mechanical engineering, it is very likely 3D CAD going to be worth the transition from 2D.

Manage Your Data Already!!! the second installment

Previously I discussed there were 2 common data management myths.  The first was Windows Explorer is a data management system.

Before I start my second rant let’s come to an agreement that Part Number = File Name.  Pure and simple.  No more “Bracket” file names.  Descriptions for file names is absolutely absurd.  How many Brackets does your company make?

The second, and I know some of you out there are going to kick and scream and even possibly wait for me after my presentation at SolidWorks World to beat me down, is that Smart Part Numbers are indeed smart.  Are you kidding me??????

2 Scenarios

Scenario 1:  One of my green horn students starts at a company:  This is followed by the severely under-defined orientation about the company, maybe even an even further degraded CAD standards orientation.  This is if they are lucky.  Now they are ready to begin modifying documents for you or even begin a new design for you.  But wait, first they must read a 4000 page document on how to create part numbers.  If this part is aluminum it starts with an “A” unless the forecast is partly cloudy, then it is “Alum”, so on and so forth.  So not only does my scared little green horn have to overcome the company culture but now learn basically a new language for part numbers.

Scenario 2:  One of my green horn students starts at a company:  This is followed by the severely under-defined orientation about the company, maybe even an even further degraded CAD standards orientation.  This is if they are lucky.  Now they are ready to begin modifying documents for you or even begin a new design for you.  You instruct them to hit a certain button (usually the Save or Ctrl+S) and viola a part number is magically created for them and a window pops up that tells them exactly what information about the file is required; i.e. Description, Material, Hardness Spec, Material Treatment like paint or anodize (otherwise known as finish), project, etc…

In the first scenario most companies will give a new employee about 60 days to comply with company policies.  But they will need to anticipate part number screw ups for the next 40 years.

In the second scenario if the employee manages through the 60  – 90 day evaluation period there should be no problem with part number issues.

Let us discuss the idea of the “Smart Part Number”.  As I said in my previous rant, every single designer and now I will add, the rest of the organization, has the best way to name files, organize files and for some reason they believe everyone else understands what is happening in their polka dotted world they call a brain.  Smart Numbers were probably developed by marketing geniuses.  they call it the “Model Mask”.   Here is the problem I see.  Model Masks will inevitably be require to evolve if a company is truly out to make money.  Companies looking to make money will continually strive to define the next innovative product, and if we work on the concept that innovation is the implementation on a new product that enters the market adding new market value then we need to agree that more than likely that parameter has not been defined so we run into 2 situations, innovation is halt because it does not fit the model mask or it is slowed until a new model mask is generated, tested and implemented.

I am throwing out some serious terminology here like Implementation (which assumes that companies are continually refreshing employees on the standards and are continually assessing their performance with measurable matrices), innovation (defined above, but many companies are willing to run the old if it ain’t broke do not fix).

Falling back to the first installment where I discussed increasing productivity to make more money, look at the 2 scenarios discussed earlier and you tell me which one can offer instant productivity out of a green horn, learning/memorizing a 4000 page How to Create a Part Number  book or just hit save, the system will tell you what other info is required.

Now how does this tie into PDM systems you ask?  Well thank you for asking, I have implemented and maintained about 10 PDM systems for companies and part of my implementation is setting up the system with part number schemes that when you do a Save or Ctrl+S the data management system takes control an doles out the next available serial number.  Notice I said serial number.  000000001 -9999999999 are very useful part numbers.  With data management one does not have to worry about descriptive part numbers, there are other more powerful ways of finding the file you need without some complicated matrix to sort through.

The power of data management systems are that they inject steroids into your custom properties.  Most of these systems resemble the Dewy Decimal System at your local library.  As I said before in Scenario 2, during the save a part number is established then a pop up box indicates additional information that your company requires when creating a part number.  Custom Properties are the meta data that is included in the file.  It is the same exact concept behind Windows Media Player or I-tunes, when you load a CD or download a song the extra data that shows up in the player is the meta data, Song Name, Artist, Genre, etc…  Notice that this is search-able in those tools.  PDM should be viewed sort of like these tools.  The difference is now you will have the ability to log revisions, describe the changes, and have a viewable history without the need for a designer to rename, pack and go and all the other workarounds we modelers have come up with.

Now instead of a model mask matrix you can use search tools similar to Google searching Advanced Search Features.  The model mask may be a good tool to develop required fields needed before a save can be completed.  Make sure the fields are descriptions of the information that will be inputted into them.  Then you can create drop down lists, or fields that are linked to outside databases to ensure the information is entered correctly.

Anyhow, the purpose of this rant was to dethrone the concept of Smart Part Numbers.  Much easier to instruct a person to hit the save button than to try to teach them a numbering scheme that will inevitably change or become way to confusing and cumbersome to use.

There will be more to come.