« Autodesk Manufacturing World Tour 2012 | Main | Honor Veterans by Hiring Them »



Claudio Ibarra

I work for a large international engineering company and I can offer another angle on this grievance.

The "cost" of switching TO Inventor from another, far inferior CAD platform. It's only cheaper to stay with the existing 3D CAD platform if you completely ignore the fact that Inventor can produce quality models in less time and with a gentler learning curve.

If only I could convince my local facility to entertain the idea of moving from our existing 3D CAD platform to Inventor, I would be a hero in the engineering department. Our existing CAD software may have been nice to use in 1993, but it's light years behind Inventor in terms of its power and usability.


great article,thank you for sharing


Fortunately our boss is forward thinking in regard to both machinery for the factory and software/hardware for the design office. Trouble is, training is difficult for our organisation. Simply because if we paid for training with Inventor for the most part they would be taught how to use it from an engineering standpoint, not a woodworking one. Instead the company is reliant a key passionate employees that self train and then pass this knowledge onto the staff. Also the cost of paying for external training is extremely high, at which point once they come back from training we then have to train them further on how to use the software for super yacht interiors. Note: our folder structure is fairly deep and at times we hit the 256 character limit. However, each level replicates the level on the yacht, and the folder names/numbers reflect our part numbering system. As a result even before vault you could find anything just by following the part/folder/drawing number, since they all matched up. Combine this organised logic with the data management and searching capabilities of Vault and....


Trouble is, any system is only as strong as the people who use it. No system, software or level of training can prevent carelessness or oversights. Human beings are a bitch like that.

"What if the person on the assembly line decided that it would be easier to drive to the hardware store to get a fastener because he can't find it in the parts bin?"

I liken this statement more to engineers deciding to model a purchased part, because they can't be arsed to google it and see if the manufacturer has it available to download. On the flipside, there are way too many manufacturers out there who make it very difficult to get models of the parts you want to buy from them but first need to include in their models.

Steve Robbins

I've dealt with this for 15+ years…made it a focus of my career to be honest…and I am still amazed how much upper management doesn't correlate software requirements or needs equivalent to hardware…seems as if you can't physically see it the need to address it lacks…this is evident with the example mentioned in this article.

Thanks Rob for your countless relative thought injections :D


I've almost completed an iLogic automation of producing detail drawings of repeatable-custom parts. Almost as with my limited, self-taught programming I can't figure out few bugs. I have asked my management for training on the subject a number of times, without success. Those parts continue to being calculated by an engineer and drafted in AutoCAD, each time. I am now facing possible layoff as the company is rethinking its commitment to 3D. Yet, they recently had no problem spending money on renewing their subscription to Inventor 2012 - more seats than Inventor users.

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed

  •   Subscribe