Workflow productivity
Paul Brown
17/08/2007

When looking at product development software many people simply look at the user interface as a sign of productivity.

Software companies can continue to develop new approaches to user interaction, but that is only a fraction of the real story, true productivity comes from blending a number of factors to give a productivity equation.



It is important to look at the core technology foundation of any product development solution. This starts with the creation of data. Enhancements in core Computer-Aided Design (CAD) modelling tools offer the opportunity to improve the design process. These enhancements have to be focussed on improving productivity by providing engineers tools to create the geometric forms that they need as quickly as possible. As modelling systems mature the emphasis switches from basic geometry creation to advanced options and the ability to handle special cases geometry such as advanced blending, tapering or hollowing. Improving these functions can dramatically increase productivity removing the need for the user to develop "work arounds" to finish his job, but, conversely, if developed without thought for the overall workflow can add complexity to the systems.

However, once again rapid geometry creation is only one part of the story. The product development process relies on design iteration, on change, on evolution of ideas. As such products must have strong approaches to edit geometry. The approach taken inside design systems on the market differs depending on vendor.

The use of parametric design with dimension driven models was seen as a massive increase in productivity when first introduced in the late 80s and early 90s. It has become the norm for design solutions on the market, but, this approach has a number of drawbacks. To work efficiently users have to understand the way the model has been constructed, often described as the feature tree or history. There is no doubt that if the tree is understood, parametric design can often offer efficient editing capabilities.

If for any reason the history tree is not clear, maybe because the model was developed by a different engineer, maybe because the design is reusing old geometry, or maybe because a "clever" engineer used a work around, or quirk in the software to complete his design, it is important to give engineers tools to understand the design, to interrogate the information and to understand the model. But, even this is not enough, in the current global development environment companies are dealing with suppliers and with legacy systems and receiving data that does not have feature history, often this comes from suppliers using standards-based translators such as Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) or Standard for the Exchange of Product (STEP) model data or emerging neutral collaboration standards such as JT (a 3D data format developed by UGS and used for product visualisation). In this case designers need extra tools to modify geometry, directly interacting with the model regardless of feature history. Direct modelling allows engineers to make design changes quicker, but once again this approach has drawbacks, direct modelling adds new design intent which may not be the right approach.

The best result is to marry the two approaches, allowing designers the freedom to work the way they want to giving tools to modify geometry rather than deleting and recreating designs.

The core technology engine also extends to the use of design validation tools. These include technologies such as digital simulation, first pass stress, strain, vibration and mechanism analysis. This allows designers to quickly reject bad ideas and suggest alternatives. The goal has to be to reuse design data into the analysis cycle and shorten the time to get to the right idea. Detailed analysis by specialists may follow, first pass analysis tools are intended to give that initial confidence before continuing. Validation can also extend to linking requirements to design data, checks for tasks such as manufacturability with tools such as wall thickness checking for castings are keys to getting the right design quickly.

Enhancing these core technologies however, can only deliver a limited increase in productivity, especially if the technology is not implemented with a focus on how easy it is for the engineer to learn and use the functionality. Usability is not simply a case of reducing functionality available to a designer, like productivity there are a number of factors to consider. These factors have different levels of importance depending both on the time the user has been using the system and the roll of the user.


When a user is either a casual user or new to the system the discoverability of commands is critical to his productivity, being able to find and do the things he wants to do. However, as the user becomes more experienced or uses the system for longer times, this becomes less of an issue, and the efficiency and capabilities of the system take on a greater level of importance.

The consistency of user interaction remains a constant level of importance throughout the use of the system, having common approaches to things like selection that are used by every command speeds learning and improves productivity.

Enhancing core functionality and improving the usability of the tools delivers an increased level of productivity, but, there is still more improvement that can be found.

For many companies the product data (CAD models, Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) meshes and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) toolpaths) forms a key part of their Intellectual Property. Increasingly companies are looking to maximise their reuse of this historical data. This includes the reuse of existing components and assemblies bringing the value of part standardisation and the comfort of knowing that parts are proven.

Reuse strategies also include the use of design data as the basis for new designs, which of course introduces the challenges of making design changes to existing data as described earlier. But, for many companies reuse strategies also include the reuse of standard processes and knowledge. By using knowledge enabled features a richer level of reuse can be achieved, company standards such as manufacturing rules, or usage characteristics such as loading capacities can be embedded in design features and inherited into the design, these speed the validation process and can improve the efficiency of downstream processes.

The challenge many companies face when implementing reuse strategies is how to manage the information and present it to a designer when it is needed. Customisable reuse libraries embedded in the design software can be used to organise data, these allow companies to publish components, features, knowledge tools, process wizards etc for reuse within both the company and in many cases the extended enterprise.

The strength of these libraries is significantly enhanced when they are powered by a Product Data Management (PDM) solution allowing advanced searching for information. Many companies have looked at the use of classification tools to help in identifying reusable elements. Classification however, brings with it inherent problems particularly when looking at the definition of search terms. Companies are finding that effective reuse strategies involve more than searching for parts that have been assigned keywords. It relies on the ability to quickly and automatically locate parts and assemblies in a large database by providing geometry of a similar part or rough sketch as the search criteria.

To help meet this challenge a new breed of technology is emerging to allow geometry based searching. These tools compare geometry to base information to help seek data independent of part numbers or descriptions. Linking these tools with design systems allows companies to develop rough ideas within their CAD tools and search for existing data within their database.

Using these data organisation tools increases the capacity for reuse and improves productivity in the process, delivering additional benefits including:
- Fewer parts reduce administrative costs
- Finding existing parts quickly reduce engineering costs
- Increasing plant production flexibility and utilisation reduce manufacturing costs
- Fewer parts reduce logistics costs
- Leveraging increased part volume reduces purchasing costs
- Fewer parts reduces inventory costs

It can be seen that to achieve significant enhancements in workflow productivity it is important to combine tools for efficient reuse of data, efficient change and adaptation of design data, with a system that is easy to use and contains leading edge product development technologies.

- Paul Brown is Marketing Director for UGS NX UGS PLM Software.

advertisement