I read through several of your articles/blogs and found it to be very interesting.  For our company, I’m asking if you could offer a suggestion or better solution to our requirements.  We currently have a seat of Catia V5 to look at .catpart files for quote and I also use it to make paper drawings from the models of parts that we currently make.  787 parts mainly.  This is expensive software as you know, and it’s what were led to believe was the best solution for moving forward in the MBD environment.

Our shop prefers parts lists and paper drawings.  Maybe it’s antiquated thinking, but it still works best for us.  Is ZW3D software a good alternative for getting the required information from a Catia V5 model to make a paper drawing and parts list?  Sometimes we do get an EPL or BEPL with the notes, flag notes, etc extracted out already, but not always.

I’m sure you all well aware of what I’m talking about and asking.  We are a Boeing subcontractor but since being bought by the XXX group, we now do other aerospace work as well, Airbus, Bombardier, etc.  Our parent company is based in France so I’m hoping a move away from Dassault won’t be frowned upon 😊   Any advice or help in a better direction would be much appreciated.  It’s been some time but we used to buy Cadkey from you years ago.

He is not the only one having problems with Boeing PMI.

PLM/MBE/PMI Absurdity!!

Take a look how PMI looks in Redefining 2D/3D.

Free PMI Reader?

Hybrid Modeling and PLM

With Siemens NX (UG) and Pro/E bringing out hybrid modeling modules incorporated into their software, they will be able to import models into the CAD package and use their PLM to maintain the parts and assembles and even modify them.  So now it will not matter what package the parts are created.  This is truly the next step in CAD compatibility.  All packages with have this modeling capability or they will not be in business. I still believe that ZW3D offers the best of both worlds.  ZW3D is the best overall hybrid modeler since it incorporates 2D/3D wireframe, Surfaces and solids in one easy to use 3D space, and is the only fully functional and most affordable Catia translator/modeler and includes PMI.  

Update 8-15-16:

Sadly, this function is not readily available in the design process of the popular packages and has not delivered the potential to standardize 3D CAD modeling.

There is no Universal 3D CAD today!  

So are you ready for PLM?

PDM (PRODUCT DATA MANAGEMENT)

What is PDM?

Product data management is a category of computer software used to control data related to products. PDM creates and manages relations between sets of data that define a product, and store those relationships in a database. It is an important tool in product lifecycle management.

In truth, PDM should be data management inside the CAD system. Only used by trained personnel. This should deliver the final documentation to Document Control. Document Control should not operate in the native CAD system. It should be a external to the CAD system and only maintain the documentation. Sadly, I don't think any of these folks know what they are doing.
  

Update 4-2-15:

I have devised a much better "Engineerign Document Control System" than PLM. PLM has so many Band-Aids on top of Band-Aids with an incredible lack of applicable knowledge of those that are involved assuring it can never be salvaged. Actually PLM should not be involved with engineering at all. So what do we do?

If PLM should exist at all it should be only dealing
with the engineering documentation after it is archived. 

In the article below I  envision a Web page deliverable for each part or assembly. This would be done by a separate Document Control Group, utilizing a standard release package or bundle from engineering. This is nothing more that modifying a template. I, of course, never had the resources to bring this to fruition.

But today we have that solution. 

The Embedded Title Block - A PLM Solution!

Onshape offers that concept and more.

Onshape is by far the most exciting developments that has been introduced to the CAD industry. Today you can have a standard deliverable with the latest information directly accessible to other engineering personnel, purchasing, marketing, manufacturing, tech pubs, etc. and can easily be handle by an outside "Document Control Group" You could have non-engineering personnel maintaining this information, let engineers do their work. You can include a variety of solid model formats including the native file, all detailed documentation in PDF or any other documents or images.
 

Update: 2-4-15

Product Data Management is such a misnomer. As a Senior Design Draftsman we never called our drawings data. That is an InfoTech term. We were creating documents which at Boeing were managed by the Document Control Group. This misunderstanding of what we produce and deliver is what has created the convoluted PLM and MBD and its ugly stepchild the infamous PMI. If the powers to be realized it should be "Part Document Management" we could probably straighten this mess out. The basic building block of any "Product" is the individual parts.

PMI vs AID

Part Design Defined

The Assembly Defined

There is now no effective engineering management!

The Millennial 3D MCAD Engineer

Those that have never designed a part should not be telling engineering how to maintain our assemblies and our revision process. Realize all 3D CAD did was add the 3D model. Effective engineering management has to get back in control of engineering, how they let PLM get in charge shows an incredible lack of understanding of the standard process of the past. We should be delivering "standard" documentation and pass it to a group that maintains and distributes the documents outside of engineering.

There are two data streams in today's engineering process, native CAD and the standard engineering documentation for the outside world. The CAD systems are very difficult to learn and do not lend to casual use. We need a standard document, including the 3D CAD information, packaged in such a way that can be easily duplicated with no special software or training. Today, PLM and MBD have created an industry of 3rd party products that are required to view the native CAD PMI deliverable. Sadly, there is not enough applicable knowledge to straighten this process out. They are adding Band-Aid on top of Band-Aid trying to make it work.

 Quoting Tools: CAD Dimensioning Another Band-Aid for MBE!

Martin Eigner, a professor at the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany (and also an advisor to PLM developer Aras), says

”the complete, fully functional PLM system does not yet exist in the material world” - and it may never achieve a flawless implementation, not even in the most advanced industries like automotive or aerospace."  

Here is a comment from the PLM PDM CAD Network on Linkedin.

Topic: E(E): One Revision to Rule Them All

You can see from the article that there is a huge confusion in the PLM/PDM community. I was made aware of this from the complaints I was getting from my Boeing suppliers. They just ended up working around the PLM and MBE requirements. Boeing has even developed a Producibility Group which actually reviewed the design "after" the final release!! I have watched Ed (the author of the above article) complain and complain about PLM. He is very smart yet he never comes up with any solutions. It is very easy to see why, there are so many problems with this system there is no place to start to fix it. The current PLM experts do not have the understanding of what engineering has to deliver to Manufacturing. None have ever even created a part/assembly and released it to manufacturing.

Here is another reply to one of my comments on the failure of PLM.

Kais Al-Timimi Managing Director at Datamation Limited

"Hi Joe, I think everyone in this discussion agrees with your statement that PLM in its current form will crumble”. Indeed we have been seeing it crumbling already, which is why we had the call for disruption. So, yes, I would like to see PLM to succeed, but not in its current form – this will never happen. The vision for next generation PLM that we should think of it as a “horizontal”, to manage all product information and not just the design. As such it will address all that is wrong with PLM now.

I don’t think a PhD is needed to understand this. Simply to see it from the perspective of the total business, and not just from the design perspective. Furthermore, I don’t think any of the contributors to this discussion disputes the fact that the drawing has been, and continues to be, a convenient way of communicating design intent. But as several contributors have said, what it communicates represents only a fraction of the overall product data. As I said before, and Paul recently, we should see the drawing as a representation, or a snapshot of the design part of product data. As such it represents only one way of communicating design intent."

He adds:

"As I said before, and Paul recently, we should see the drawing as a representation, or a snapshot of the design part of product data. As such it represents only one way of communicating design intent."

Look at this comment. A snap shot? The drawing was the complete definition of the part. For the life of me, I do not know what other information is needed? Can you see the complete lack of understand of the engineering/manufacturing system?

The Space Between Engineering and Manufacturing

Bottomline!

So unless you are interested in looking to your CAD system to run your company on an unworkable non-standard engineering system take a look at these products. You will be wasting your time and money by redefining a proven and workable standard engineering system. There are better ways to maintain your engineering documentation than to hand it over to the CAD system, thereby turning your engineers, designers and drafter into data managers.

Update: 10-16-14

As I was getting ready to post this article I noticed this graphic

This graphic is totally wrong. CAE and team review, at least on the design side, is done before any data is finally released to manufacturing. That is when the final engineering package is delivered to document control. They will make sure it is then available to any of the departments that require the information. At Boeing it is usually planning that creates it's own documentation. Then to purchasing.  

When it is released it it basically out of engineering's hand until the first assembly or installation. After that the documentation is stored away and hopefully will never needed to be seen again.  

"The problem with PLM/PDM is that they are trying to use the native CAD files as a deliverable to those outside engineering. Engineering should have a standard deliverable that can be directly utilized by all of those that need the information: purchasing, engineering and manufacturing and depending on the type of information: marketing, sales and Tech Pubs."

Update 2-4-19

After a conversation with a user of the major software package I know understand a bit more of the problem with keeping the parts/assemblies alive. They reside in an associative environment due the the separate part, assembly and drawings.

So, what "HAS" gone wrong with Engineering? Part III

We haven't made a Drawing Since 3D CAD was Introduced!

The Native 3D CAD file cannot be used
as an Engineering Deliverable!

The Death of PLM

Here is a series of articles on how to utilize data in a variety of forms and purposes.

Leverage Your Engineering Data throughout your Organization! 

Who needs Part Document Management?  

Most of my clients are already using some form of PDM even if it is just in folders in Windows Explorer.  And most of these clients are still smart enough to use AIDs.  The PDF's generated from the AID of the part or assembly is used for quoting, scheduling, manufacturing, procuring, checking, reviewing, planning, refining, cost effect evaluation, new product definition, etc.  This PDF can include all the data necessary to completely design this part or assembly.  No need to have a special viewer since the Adobe reader is available to all.  You can even include a part to view in 3D. The non-engineering folk really don't need the 3DMBD (3D Model Based Definition), they truly only need a drawing and the specifications.

Here is an article that adds a 3rd party solution for a self-created problem.

 Quoting Tools: CAD Dimensioning Another Band-Aid for MBE!

In my viewpoint this is the only thing that is necessary to be delivered outside the design engineering departments.  Yes, we do need to also deliver a 3D model to manufacturing that should match the AID (2D drawing).  Yes, this puts a lot of responsibility on the design engineering group to make sure the AIDs (2D drawings) are kept current, but this is no different from the past.  Many of the manual drawings started out as assembly layouts (non-standard drawings), from which the manual drawings were created. But for some reason, currently this is considered very time consuming expense until the parts start coming in wrong or mistakes are caught by manufacturing.  Project cost over runs, delays, redesign, etc. are the result of not measuring twice and cutting once and, of course, ignoring Murphy!

Please feel free to read  TO DRAW OR NOT TO DRAW.  

Part Document Management is focused on capturing and maintaining information on products and/or services through its development and useful life. Typical information managed in the PDM module include

• Part number

• Part description

• Supplier/vendor

• Vendor part number and description

• Unit of measure

• Cost/price

• Schematic or CAD drawing

• Material data sheets

The Secret of Part Numbers

PDM Advantages: