After introductions, we begin by emphasizing that management must understand that worldwide competitive product development demands:

	informed executives and engineering managers... fully engaged in the process
	end users aware of their direct and indirect impact on business goals
	end-to-end process optimization
	the linking of Tools, Process, and People

We then firmly "put a stake in the ground" by establishing the fact that dramatic business benefits are available from the strategic deployment of CAD/CAM/CAE. Just some examples (see Assuring Success for more information)...

... lead us to set a goal for our implementation of at least "2x" improvement in our key business goals, e.g. time-to-market, reduced manufacturing cost, improved product quality, whatever. What are some common process characteristics of the companies achieving such dramatic gains?

	CAD/CAM/CAE is used ever-more broadly as the backbone of product development
	on-going investment in people... training and mentoring
	a regular involvement and drive from management
	changes to the process and process milestones/metrics

But this doesn't happen from a tactical implementation of the technologies -- we must attack our business goals with vigor and deploy our product development team strategically, managing our implementation toward these dramatic business benefits. This is far more a management challenge than a technical challenge!

Engineering as a "Cost"

Engineering as a "Strategic Weapon"

One of our first management assignments will be to make a few key process changes. Let's look at the product development process itself, albeit in an over-simplified form. In the traditional (and for most firms still the current) process, we study some concepts, reach a point of "go" on the project, and then "race to the drawing". By this we mean that as soon as we have "enough" information about the design of a part or subassembly -- and invariably this means drawings -- we release the design to either in-house manufacturing or to a tooling vendor. However, when we deploy CAD/CAM/CAE strategically, we must redefine what "release" means. First we involve more departments in the evaluation of more robust concepts. Then we establish metrics that define "release" to be at that point in time when the product/subproduct is "right" -- when we have answered such questions as:

	is the design properly packaged for collision avoidance during operation?
	are tolerances defined to assist inspection and assure desired quality?
	are the piece parts manufacturable with available tools and processes and at a reasonable cost?
	can the product be assembled quickly?
	will the part or subassembly carry the loads without being over- or under-stressed?
	will it dissipate heat efficiently... are the resonant frequencies out of the operating range?
	etc., etc., etc.

Before we present specific observations and recommendations, we briefly review the POA activity that has been conducted:

meeting with CAD/CAM/CAE support group to review the current implementation, based in part on a brief "support questionnaire". meeting with a group of key end users of CAD/CAM/CAE. one-on-one meetings with selected managers from product development, manufacturing, marketing, and supplier-interface, stimulated by completion in advance of the "user and management interview questionnaire".

On this basis we provide our observations on the current implementation of CAD/CAM/CAE. As expected, this is very client-specific, but the following two generalized examples are provided.

Client just starting in 3D CAD/CAM/CAE	Client at Mid-life of 3D CAD/CAM/CAE
Hardware decisions previously had driven software selection instead of vice versa Prior aborted attempt at 3D had under-invested in people formal training period half that required no training for management no budget for on-site mentoring Prior attempt at 3D had operated within same process milestones and metrics Management allowed implementation to run "open loop"	CAD implementation is "deep" but "narrow" Design is well automated based on 3D communication upstream/downstream is not optimal leveraging of 3D data upstream/downstream is not optimal Drawings remain the backbone of the process time lost generating and checking continued source of misinterpretation and error Management not sufficiently involved in the process

At this point we provide a good number of client-specific recommendations on improved implementation of CAD/CAM/CAE. Many of these recommendations can not be provided here as they are clearly confidential to our clients. A portion of such recommendations are, however, rather market-wide process recommendations and are briefly provided here for general consumption.

Use of a Pilot Project

Especially for new implementations of a modern 3D CAD/CAM/CAE system, but also to support process changes in existing mature installations, we often recommend a pilot project to validate and document the new approach. Some characteristics of such a pilot project are:

	conducted in parallel with a production project and off the critical path of that project
	performs a representative "cross section" of the tasks of the production project
	emphasizes breadth of connections to marketing, customers, prototype shop, manufacturing, assembly, and suppliers
	duration usually 3-5 months
	monthly reports (documented as Intranet project site) to quantify benefits and newly understood requirements
	"mock" 3D design reviews involving a broad range of participants
	the pilot project team has as its prime deliverable a "Process Handbook"
	staffed for example with 2 internal people (at least 1 from a project group) and 1 external mentor
	a small bonus compensation program should be considered based on the defined deliverables and the groups ability to create a "path" that will be followed by the rest of the product development staff

Broadening the View of CAD/CAM/CAE

An important issue for both new and existing implementations of 3D CAD/CAM/CAE is to leverage the 3D data "asset" for improved communication throughout the enterprise. Some areas to consider are noted below.

Get Serious about Simulation (CAE)

Most companies do some level of simulation of their products for stress, vibration, heat dissipation, mold filling, and other phenomena. But usually this is done only occasionally and not as an integral part of the product design and release process. With the 3D data "asset" available we now need to make sure that critical analyses are done as a routine part of the process and built into the release milestones. Over time this will mean that we will want to train design engineers to do these routine analyses, guided by either internal or external simulation experts. Our benefit from these simulations will be a reduction (perhaps by 50%) in the number of required physical prototypes.

And the overriding recommendation... Manage the Implementation

Management can not abdicate responsibility for the success of CAD/CAM/CAE. Some key recommendations:

	top executive and engineering managers should have specific "CAD/CAM/CAE Implementation Success" objectives that significantly impact their annual variable compensation.
	management should chair quarterly reviews of implementation progress against plan.
	management should get hands-on training in minimum 3D skills (e.g. being able to spin the 3D model in the CAD system or at least in a 3D-enabled web browser).
	on-going contact should be arranged with peer management at other companies that are successfully implementing CAD/CAM/CAE.
	milestones and metrics must be redefined to align with a continuous optimization of the product development process.

® Copyright © 1996-