|
Recommendations to the New Boeing
1.
Eliminate Dassault’s Catia 5 PLM and MBE
2.
Eliminate the CIO Position
3.
Put Engineering back in Charge of Engineering
4.
Re-implement the Engineering Standard 5. Bring Back the Drafting Group
| ||
|
Who
am I to recommend anything to a Boeing CEO?
Well, I suppose
someone could have recommended a few things to the last CEO.
Let’s look at the
fired CEO.
Dennis received a
bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering from Iowa State University,
followed by a master's degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from
the University of Washington.
This guy has the
perfect education!!
But he spent his
entire engineering career in the Boeing Military Division.
Commercial
Division is much different in purpose, you are designing aircraft that carry
hundreds of people multiple times a day. The basis of commercial airplane design is redundancy. No one factor will bring down the plane.
That was the
problem with the 737 MAX!
Boeing Employee: 737 Max Is ‘Designed by Clowns…Supervised by Monkeys’Boeing faces $3.9M fine for installing faulty parts on 737 planesFlawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control systemI Would Never Fly Boeing’s New 777X Now for the new Boeing CEO
Dave holds a
bachelor's degree in accounting from Virginia Tech
From his
experience he is not an airplane or aerospace man!
He has co-written
a book “How
Companies Win: Profiting from Demand-Driven Business Models No Matter What
Business You're In”
Boeing builds
airplanes! Profit? Sadly, we live in a profit driven world. Why is Dave
here? "Save the Profit"!! The 737 MAX was poorly designed, many warnings
were ignored and short cuts taken with an “Aerospace Engineer” at the helm
that walked away with $60 million.
My selection would
be a Boeing commercial aircraft engineering professional that has hands on industry experience and success overseeing the building of great commercial airplanes and
other aerospace projects. You can’t create profit you can only create great
products that are in demand.
Why would we want
a commercial airplane man to be CEO?
When I was a young
draftsman at Boeing in the 1960’s the Boeing CEO could come down and sit with me
and we could talk about the drawing.
Does industry
experience matter when selecting a CEO?
Let’s look no
further than Steve Jobs. He was fired and replaced by John Sculley. John
came from 15 years at Pepsico and took over Apple. See how Steve describes
how a CEO’s experience and industry knowledge affects the decisions. I find
this an incredible lesson in the continuing success of creating great
products! I never get tired of watching it. The wisest words for any CEO!
Can a CEO with an accountants mindset be a product CEO?
I am a Boeing
Trained Draftsman.
I will put the
highlights of my career in a nutshell.
1965 I worked
direct at Boeing Twice for a total of a couple of years.
1967 I excelled in
my profession and joined a group of elite engineering professionals,
contract engineers or fondly called Job Shoppers. “Have Drafting Machine
Will Travel”
1982 Introduced to
Computervisions CADDS 4 3D CAD while on contract at Williams Research in Walled Lake, MI, aka
“Willy’s Rocket Shop”
1986 While on
contract in 747 Flight Deck was introduced to PC base 3D CAD CADKEY
1987 Foreseeing
the popularity of the PC and PC based 3D CAD I founded TECH-NET, Inc.
1987 until 2020
TECH-NET supplied PC based 3D CAD/CAM to all the Boeing suppliers and most
of the designers in the NW. I also provide design and drafting services.
Now you know who I
am let’s get started.
Recommendations to the New
Boeing
1.
Eliminate Dassault’s Catia 5 PLM and MBE
PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) In industry, product lifecycle management is the process of managing the entire lifecycle of a product from inception, through engineering design and manufacture, to service and disposal of manufactured products.
I have no idea how this system got picked up by
the Major CAD companies, but it has raised havoc in the
industrial/mechanical engineering industry ever since! PLM is a top down and
engineering is a bottom up process.
Now maybe PLM could be functional for
manufacturing a car like it was introduced in 1985 by
American Motors
(American Motors?) But today it is integrated into the high-end CAD systems
used by many different industry. Dassault is not the only culprit. Boeing had just moved to the PC Base Catia 5 which was basically a clone of the very popular Pro/e system that was developed in 1988 and a quite dated convoluted design system with virtually no transition period. I have found that PLM tries to tie engineering and manufacturing together!
3D MCAD - CAE - CAM Engineering/Manufacturing
Defined
The Pro/e paradigm on which Catia 5 is based is not compatible with aircraft
design. The only constant in aircraft design is it is going to change. This
history-based system is just too overly complicate to do even an easy change
if the part is only marginally complex. It is incredibly Murphy Prone.
The only constant in aircraft
design is Change Is 3D CAD Productivity an Oxymoron? But beyond Catia 5 being the world’s worst 3D CAD system they added PLM to the process making the product much more convoluted by promising a functional PDM (Product Data Management) system under the PLM.
The Worst to Best 3D MCAD Systems Expanded!
Now Dassault convinced Boeing C-Suite to move
to this unproven fiasco, it had to be there because engineering and drafting
would have never approved this “dramatic” of a change in the engineering
system. PLM was now to take control of the documentation. In the beginning the release and revision maintenance was still handled like before, the documentation was created from the 3D model and a print of the AID (Associated Information Document) (drawing) was put into the system like manual or electronic drawings. But PLM was failing to handle the documentation. One of the aspects of Catia 5 was that it had two synchronized files that made up the part and documentation. The 3D model and the AID (electronic drawing). This was more than likely causing a horror show trying to keep the files synchronized, updated and available.
There was a solution on the horizon.
MBE (Model Base Enterprise)
In 1988 we started using the 3D model as a
pattern for CNC, FEA, 3D printing, marketing, Tech docs and many more
purposes. We even considered the 3D annotated drawing in model space, but found it much too complicated
and not user friendly for review and checking.
PLM people decided MBE with a form of 3D
drawing was going to be the new standard engineering document. Not because
it was a viable solution requested by engineering but by the sole excuse it
would only be a single file to maintain, as the drawing was in the past and
easier for PLM to handle!
This is a Bombardier Catia 5 PMI. You have to have the native software/viewer or 3rd party viewer or CAD system. This is the PMI imported into ZW3D
Being a top down only decision they did not
foresee all the problems this would cause. The most devastating was if you
don’t need AIDs (drawings) you don’t need draftsman or document control as we knew
them.
That was the moment the engineering world
changed.
Enter the PMI (Product Manufacturing
Information) While the 3D model was great for CNC it doesn’t give any other information that was usually included on a fully detailed AID. The material, critical dimensions and tolerance, finish, coatings and other specifications. So, it had to be included somewhere so they threw it in the 3D space of the 3D model. No one can think this is anything but idiotic except for those that do not understand the requirements of properly defined engineering documentation. This decision introduced bastardized minimized GD&T! This created new engineering disciplines like the dimensional engineer or the new GD&T guru. The emphasis on GD&T became enormous. Again the poor millennial engineer walk in the door as a lamb to slaughter! He had to learn drafting on the job from those that learned it on the job.?"
Why MBE/MBD/PMI Will FAIL Part II
This has cost Boeing millions if not billions
in errors and slipped schedules and sadly, a tarnish reputation, but it
still continues.
What was the basic cause? Boeing has fallen into a CAD centric engineering environment. In the beginning the data was somewhat compatible with IGES, but with the Pro/e solid modeling paradigm it made the CAD data unique and locked the company into the CAD system. Each CAD system tried to keep the companies dependent on their product and have completely succeeded. Boeing is at the mercy of Dassault as other companies are with PTC, Siemens and Autodesk. The dependence on the CAD system became so important, CAD experience now trumps industry experience.
Compare and Validation Programs? Band-Aids for Self Inflicted Wounds! 32 Years of 3D MCAD Incompatibility
Solutions
Boeing must break its dependence on the CAD
system and move its documentation out of the CAD system and back into a
Boeing managed Document Control System. They need to eliminate the PMI and
move to a 3D Model/AID for the release of the documentation.
We need to break the associativity of the Pro/e
paradigm at the part level leaving the assemblies for reference. We need to
release the native 3D model and AID together away from the CAD system. We
need to pack the assemblies for reference, breaking all associativity. This
would be stored in an independent archive available to all interested
department, preferably on a cloud-based database. This alone would eliminate
the need for the PLM/MBE overhead! Today, they are trying to maintain massive "LIVE" data. Oh my, what could go wrong?
In a nutshell you eliminate PLM and MBE in the engineering.
The Embedded Title Block! A PLM Solution!
2.
Eliminate the CIO Position
Many of the problems are intertwined at Boeing.
What is PLM really? Just a software package that manages more software
packages. Here is a story from1986 in Boeing 747/767 Flight Deck
I just took a contract in 747 flight deck I
think we were brought on for the 747-400. I was introduced to PC based 3D
CADKEY and I talked my supervisor into letting me do the first observers’
workstation on CADKEY for a test project. It came off with flying colors and
the CADKEY orders jumped.
Soon we had 35 seats of CADKEY with every
draftsman and board design engineer utilizing it. I was incredibly
compatible with the two Catia 2 seats using IGES, which was shocking at the
level of the technology. Supervision was elated at the increased
productivity.
But not all were happy with this PC (Personal
Computer) revolution!
Let me introduce BCS (Boeing Computer Services)
As we all know computers first showed up on
huge mainframes.
“HAL, open the Pod Bay Doors”
Companies were quickly being computerized. Many of the
programs like word processing, accounting, document management, etc were
being computerized and made available with local terminals tied to the
mainframe computers.
The world was good for the computer services.
They were the ones in control of the computerization. With the move to
the computer came power.
Enter IBM and Microsoft!
With the introduction of the Personal Computer
also came a new layman's expertise in computers. The almighty BCS had some
competition.
It was the draftsman that were first put on
CADKEY to design and create the documentation. All the Boeing draftsman took
to 3D CAD design like a duck to water. Many learned not only the CAD system but
the word processors and the spread sheet programs. We would promote playing
games to get them familiar with PC operations.
One day a group of BCS “gestapo”
walked into our
group. Due to my past experience in 3D CAD, our group was far ahead of most.
The BCS folks demanded we not use the provided programming language call
CADL (CADKEY Advanced Design Language). This was an integral part of CADKEY.
It was how we would import specific portions of graphics between files, plus
some sophisticated programming
functions. If you are familiar with AutoCAD it is similar to LISP.
This caused huge problems between BCS and the
Drafting Group that, I believe, continued until BCS now Information Technology
eliminated the complete drafting group at the turn of the century by
renaming draftsman to Engineering Techs and folding them into engineering
and slowly letting them go by attrition. Today, you are required to have a
minimum of a BSME to work in engineering.
Slowly BCS, a service group, now Information
Technology gained more and more power and as I describe above with PLM
they basically took over engineering.
When you take over engineering you basically
take over the company. Information Technology has now move to a C-Suite position call the CIO (Chief Information Officer). Being an InfoTech or IT is like being in a brotherhood or cult. Your allegiance is not to your company but to this hugely influential and powerful group. Now, this tightly knit web of professionals had their own world. They would devise plans on increasing their power.
The CIO is like the CFO. Two positions you
could move back to VP positions. They are both service organizations. It is
funny that Boeing would put an accountant in the CEO position, we all know
bean counters are more concerned with beans than the products, in this case
the "World's Greatest Airplanes".
He who controls the software controls the
world.
Today, we see them promote “software only
solutions”. It is usually software to cure the problems of the earlier
software failed solutions. Trust me it will never stop no matter how
ineffective it is. They create hugely generic names for these programs.
Industry 4.0 IoT (Internet of Things)
PLM
Digital Twin
Digital Thread
And the greatest InfoTech fraud.
Digital Transformation. What is wrong with all these projects they are complete defined, controlled and implemented by the InfoTechs and promoted and supported in each large company by their own “CIO”.
Yes Mr. CEO the fox
is guarding your hen house.
The InfoTechs Motto: The Cash must Flow!
3.
Put Engineering back in Charge of Engineering
As you can see above that PLM and the CIO are
now in charge of engineering through the Dassault Catia 5 PLM/MBE program.
Engineering is now operating under their software and guidelines to make it
easy for them not the engineers.
It is not that these InfoTech dictate how we do
our engineering tasks, they define the tools and processes. We must eliminate as much CAD centricity as we can
Stuck with a CAD software CADKEY or Catia? Boeing’s Billion-Dollar 3D CAD Mistake!
Boeing has stuck with Dassault through some
tough times, first Catia 2 and 3 wireframe, Catia 4 Boolean solids and PC
based Catia 5 Pro/e clone. It is quite interesting, even though Boeing was probably involved with the development of Catia 5, not one person thought about accessing the legacy data of Catia 4. These were two completely incompatible systems. Talking to Catia!! and other Popular 3D CAD Packages IronCAD/Inovate = Catia 4.5 - The Catia 4 and Catia 5 incompatibility Solution
I was instrumental in providing CAD software that could read and write both Catia 4 and Catia 5 programs. I had a Boeing Tech using my software to do Catia 5 and other popular CAD systems conversions to Catia 4 for different commercial division groups. No direct import was possible because Catia 4 had a 34 meg size limitation. He had to import it into my software and break it into usable files. I was very excited that I was finally going to sell IronCAD software into Boeing!
But I bumped into the "Translation Group" manager. My
solution took less than an hour and could be put in the hands of each group, his took two weeks. He had a small
amount of power and decided to ignore my solution. Doing this he blocked the
direct access of every design group easy access to the “native” files of
virtually every major CAD system that were used by their equipment suppliers. Boeing’s relationship with Dassault's Catia is riddled with many of these decisions that have cost billions.
4.
Reimplement the Engineering Standard
So how do we reimplement a workable system.
When Boeing was moving to 3D CAD, the CAD
system just provided standard detailed AIDs that would be plotted on vellum and
release like manual drawings. They would create prints or put them on
microfiche until the introduction of the PDF. But the limitation of the Catia 5 PLM
system demanded some very obscure solutions like MBE/PMI that I described
above. These solutions must be eliminated, and we need to the reevaluate engineering process from the ground up. Paying attention to the past when it was done manually. Manually is not a bad word it is a stable and in stone process. Unlike today with unreliable data all over. All we did was add the 3D model. How in the world did a simple document control system get so convoluted just by computerization?
Sadly, as long as engineering is under the
control of the InfoTechs it will always be a software solution.
Much of engineering is manual. Yes, it can be
digital, but it has a manual solution. Not everything has to be automated.
Automation eliminates much of the human involvement that may be required. Today, we do not have a human (user) and computerized (InfoTech) collaboration. The user is the last to be consulted and we suffer under the user interface that the InfoTech supply. The funny thing today, is that the user is blamed for not understanding the interface as they struggle to work around it.
This is what they are blaming the failure of
the Digital Transformation movement which includes PLM and the other generalized
digital terms.
We put the CAD system and InfoTech back in a
service position under engineering management, and we educate the management. We reevaluate the requirements of engineering by looking
to the incredible Boeing standards of the past.
We move the documentation out of the CAD system
and deliver it to a document controls system that manages a cloud based
“BluePrint Counter”
The Embedded Title Block! A PLM Solution! Engineering will move to being non-CAD centric. Yes, we need Specific CAD systems for some parametric situations, but they are not the basis of our engineering documentation. We will bring back fully detailed AIDs as part of the released engineering and store them with the associated 3D model. The assemblies will be in a accessible format. My 3D CAD solutions are single model or multi-object environments. ZW3D even has integrated AIDs imagine how that would eliminate much of the PDM problems. 3D CAD Single Model Design Environment
The Catia 5 system is based on a very dated CAD
paradigm that was introduced in 1988 by PTC and it is just too convoluted
for airplane design in which the only constant is change. It is another Mr. Murphy’s
playground.
There are other much more productive
interoperable 3D CAD solutions.
It is time for companies not only reevaluate the engineering process but
look to
more productive CAD tools available today.
5.
Bring Back the Drafting Group
I wrote this article in preparation for this
article. Can Engineering Survive without the Drafting Group?
The Drafting Group was responsible for all the
engineering documentation. Engineering's total purpose is to make available concise, complete and unambiguous documentation to manufacturing.
Today documentation is treated like just
another job for the engineer. The engineer is not a draftsman. Drafting was
an ancient mentored profession of creation of the engineering documentation. I was a specialized
engineering documentation professional. No, it was not a formal profession like an engineer. I am not
sure why. But is a finite body of knowledge and requires an associates
two-year degree. I have a Certificate of Drafting from a Boeing sponsored
course that was 40 hours a week for 12 weeks, 480 hours.
Yet, as Boeing eliminated the drafting group,
they expected the engineer to take up the slack of creating the
documentation. How much training? Maybe one drafting class in college. They
are also required to know the company CAD system.
Product knowledge, proven standards and work force
It is funny to me to see an engineering tout
his CAD and GD&T experience. He is not even a glorified draftsman.
Even as I joke about his situation, we need to
have a group that is responsible for the engineering documentation We need a group that makes sure the documentation provides the correct form, fit and function design, unambiguous and stands alone no matter what form it is in.
Manual/Electronic Drawing
Model/AID
PMI
Br If we leave the documentation in the hands of the 3D CAD engineer we at least need a permanent checking position in the group. These checkers would review the design for form, fit and function and assure the parts/assemblies documentation was complete and could stand alone.
In the past Draftsmen would do a drawing, the checker would
put a red mark if wrong and a yellow mark if correct. And the draftsman
would learn the correct standards from every doing the corrections on the drawing. After a few years he
would become a design draftsman with more product knowledge than most of the
engineers. This process would be applied to the current millennial
engineers, making them much better 3D CAD engineers and at a much faster rate.
We don’t care what they call this group and who
mans it.
This groups sole responsibility is for making available correct
engineering documentation to
a viable document control group.
You cannot short cut engineering documentation! Conclusion I don't even attempt to give the impression that I could design and manufacture an airplane. There is no one that can, engineering, documentation and manufacturing have many different groups and processes. These separate processes have to be coordinated by a defined set of systems where you just plug in the people! I remember working with the contract design draftsman in Detroit while working at Williams International. Most were automotive designers. The best automotive job was to work at GM in the Corvette Division. No one designs a Corvette, you were in the brake group, suspension group, body group, etc. But just working it the "Corvette Division" provided a level of prestige! The same with aerospace, it was NASA. My most exciting job was working on the MMU. I was responsible for the control arms. But again the space program was the cream of the crop!! No, I could never come up with high level design decisions. Most of my designs are based on "How did they do it before". Nor could I do the analysis to assure that the part/assemblies would be strong enough to withstand the required stresses. Or select the materials and many other "engineering" decisions. But I am a drafting professional and can do the most important thing engineering produces.
Correct, concise, complete and unambiguous Documentation is the language of engineering, it is through these documents it defines the dreams of mankind to achieve the most common to the most extraordinary of things. The costs of a non-standard in stoned documentation control system can be catastrophic! Yes, it is time for Boeing and many other manufacturing companies to realize you can not short cut engineering documentation and put a drafting or an engineering documentation and document control group back in place. Please feel free to stop by our website below for a variety of articles on the State of our Industry, interesting articles on 3D CAD Productivity and a few of our projects!
TECH-NET Engineering Services! We sell and support IronCAD and ZW3D Products and
If you are interested in adding professional hybrid modeling capabilities or looking for a new solution to increase your productivity, take some time to download a fully functional 30 day evaluation and play with these packages. Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or would like an on-line presentation. For more information or to download IronCAD or ZW3D Joe Brouwer
|
TECH-NET ASSOCIATES | RENDERING OF THE MONTH | CAD•CAM SERVICES
HARDWARE | TECH TIPS | EMPLOYMENT | CONTACT