Year of Richard Doyle

This is truly Richard Doyle’s year in the CAD community.  He was honored by his peers and associates at SolidWorks World 2009.  Now, CAD Society announces Richard Doyle is the winner of the 2009 CAD Society Joe Greco Community Award for his achievements in building the SolidWorks community throughout this decade.  Given his tremendous and tireless dedication, these types of accolades are long over due.  Please see Matthew West’s comments and announcement.

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?

Model Based Definition (MBD)

As we move further into the realm of 3D CAD software, something that is still catching on is the idea of driving all specifications directly from the model file, instead of having a separate drawing.  There are various terms for this, but I’ve seen Model Based Definition (MBD) most recently.  I personally am not critical of this idea.  I am critical of moving 100% to this form of documentation without better support from our 3D CAD packages and ASME/ISO standards.

Models are generally considered basic.  All this means is that the tolerance is derived from some “other” specification.  This is normally in the form of associated Geometric Tolerances. To fully define a part in MBD, you’ll need a GD&T scheme, often supplemented by traditionally dimensioning and tolerancing where needed.  The difference is that if drawings are not used, this has to be done within the model itself and then is somehow communicated to the manufacturer.  The task to communicate this information to the manufacturer via the model is harder than it might seem as first glance.  This is due to the myriad of 3D CAD formats and versions now available.  GD&T information may not translate to other formats, such as STEP and IGES. 

Additionally, any information that would’ve appeared on the drawings now has to appear within the model itself.  So, shortcutting the drawing step doesn’t mean one gets to ignore the information that would’ve been included on a drawing. It just means all of that now needs to appear in the model.

With that said, ASME Y14.41 supposedly standardizes this effort.  In my opinion (and yes I’ve read it and “own” a copy), it is lacking right now.

If considering a MBD program, just make sure everyone understands that the model is now the drawing; and that means it will need to be as accurately detailed as the drawing would’ve been; and since this information is now in the model, a method of communication will have to be established with the manufacturer if they don’t have the ability to use the format where the GD&T information resides. 

An alternative is to use the drawing in conjuction with the model, which together provide the complete specification.  In this case, the drawing will still be the primary specification (usually for critical-to-function specifications), but it makes use model to complete the specificaiton.  The model can either be basic, or used with some traditional tolerance.  Where the model is basic, I’ve seen companies place a generic profile feature control frame in the general notes.  This FCF is applied to the model for any dimensions that are unspecified on the drawing.  If such as system is employed, it is important to clearly state this on the drawing to prevent ambiguities.