We are all guilty of it. It will take me less time to re-model / re-draw this part than it would be to find it somewhere in the labyrinth of my file store. You laugh because its true... If you haven't done it then somebody else in your company has.
Here's another example - a directory structure that's 17 levels deep (or more). Admit it guys - your directory structures are insanely deep, right? What's the purpose behind the endless folders? It's your search process. Lets see - product line, model year, engineering, Bills parts, WIP, Front End, Green Parts, 000-X, 000-12-X,... Those directory structures are your saved searches, they exist because its your learned logic behind finding and saving the parts and assemblies you are working on. But in my mind its the equivalent of putting your material on the other end of the manufacturing floor instead of within arms reach within a work cell.
Have you ever tried to quantify the amount of time your staff takes navigating through directory structures? Most likely, no. Has your manufacturing floor analyzed the time it takes to gather material for assembly? They better have.
Ask yourself this more general question then - Do you analyze waste to the same degree that the guys in the manufacturing floor do?
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? He would be fired. But why is that same thing - the SAME THING - simply accepted when it comes to finding engineering files for re-use? It's almost like we've thrown our hands up in the air and simply accept waste in many forms within engineering just as the cost of doing business.
I have an opinion (of course) on why waste is acceptable in engineering, but I want to hear yours. Let me know if I'm completely off base here guys...
MFG Engineer to Boss Man "I can buy this new machining center at X million and turn out 5 more parts an hour. ROI = 1 year."
Boss Man - "Way to save the company money MFG! Big new shiny Makino, or Mori on the way, and a fat Christmas bonus to you for keeping an eye on costs."
Engineer to Boss Man - "I want to upgrade to a new Product Data Management solution to help my team organize files, reuse data, and collaborate more effectively."
Boss Man - "We don't have the budget for that, in fact I want you to cut another engineer, and drop your insanely expensive X thousand dollar software subscription"
See the difference? Spending hundreds of thousands or millions on maching centers is easy to justify. It's the perceived value and quantifiable return on investment. We (the collective we here, you and I...) always talk about technology in terms of features and wicked cool renderings, and oh look at that shiny new button isn't that a cool feature. If we looked at the adoption and value of technology in more quantifiable means to the same extend and degree of vigor that manufacturing does, capital expenditures for the procurement of technology are easier to justify.
And it's not just the hard costs either. Imagine buying a new Mori and expecting your machinists to just figure out how to run it on their own. That would NEVER happen and you know it. In order to get the highest return on that investment, the guys running it will have to be trained up on how to run it. Why then is it acceptable to invest in technology for engineers and not train them up on it, rather let them learn it on their own...? Wasteful.
So I ask you... Why is waste acceptable?
Subscribe
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.
Posted by: Claudio Ibarra | 05/26/2011 at 04:47 PM
great article,thank you for sharing
Posted by: crusher | 05/27/2011 at 12:26 AM
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....
Posted by: Scott | 05/27/2011 at 02:38 AM
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.
Posted by: Scott | 05/27/2011 at 02:38 AM
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
Posted by: Steve Robbins | 05/27/2011 at 07:15 AM
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.
Posted by: r | 06/02/2011 at 09:43 AM