PLM has attempted to manage a company’s engineering system, thereby affecting much of the company’s departments and functionality. These PLM systems are based on the company CAD system.

I will focus on Boeing since it has been leading this effort since the release of Catia 5 and I have been directly with the effects it had on the suppliers.

I became a 3D CAD designer in 1982 on Computervision CADDS 4 then in 1986 I was introduced to PC based 3D CADKEY while on contract with Boeing Flight Deck in Everett. They were using Catia 3 at the time. All 3 systems were 3D wireframe design. Both CADDS 4 and Catia were well over $100,000 per seat. CADKEY with a 386 computer and a 19-inch color monitor went for about $10, 000. The PC could also be used for all the other purposes of a PC. I saw the writing on the wall and became a CADKEY dealer in 1987.

Enter the 3D Model as the Sole design Authority

They moved to the PMI (Part Manufacturing Information)

I started getting calls from my customer telling me that Boeing was not sending prints. They didn’t know what to do.

Boeing changed the complete engineering deliverable without informing the suppliers!!

The suppliers were scrambling, many were buying Catia 5 seats to be compatible. They had to at least a seat of Enovia to view the PMI. They were demanding STEP or IGES files as before. If I remember Boeing seemed to keep supporting that. Many tried to work around this situation trying to avoid the added costs.

The suppliers were still using the much more user friendly CADKEY. CADKEY soon added the capability of importing native Catia 5 files. This solved much of the problem. But still had to view the PMI information for tolerancing for inspection.

But soon the suppliers were complaining about corrupt Catia 5 files. Catia 5 produces more corrupt files than any of the other CAD systems.

Boeing solved this by recommending Validation software. This would compare the original Catia 5 file to the file that would go into the CNC. Step or IGES. This would create an 8.5 x 11 report that had to be saved just in case Boeing would come by for inspection. They never have inspected any of the suppliers. This 3rd party software is now required. This just some kind of process that makes someone feel good. Like comparing apples to apples.

This is just one of the many band-aids that Boeing has added to this failed process.

Compare and Validation Programs? Band-Aids for Self Inflicted Wounds!

Let’s look at what this is replacing.

The Standard Drawing.

This was one single document that completely defined the part.

That is all the description necessary.

So why didn’t Boeing keep the drawing? 

 We created what Boeing called the “Flat File” which I have coined the AID (Associated Information Document). These were documents created in the Documentation module as a separate file in Catia and all the Pro/e clones. These were very simple to create. Just attach the dimension to generated views associated to the 3D model. We were using and still are using the same format as the “Standard Drawing” which confused many that started calling these “2D drawings”. A silly redundant moniker that is now standardly used by virtually everyone.

That what was being used with all the other mid-range systems, CADKEY, IronCAD, Solidwork, Solid Edge, Inventor etc.

This PMI concept came out before the PDF was widely in use. Remember they were trying to eliminate the “PRINT”, they were now stuck with the process after all the investment and the promise from Dassault that Catia 5 could handle all the “data management” of engineering documentation.

Sadly, “Data” is an InfoTech word that does not correctly represent the product of engineering that is “Documents”.

The was called “Document Control’ that handled the single document “The Drawing”

But IntoTech or BCS and Dassault with Catia 5 was now in charge of Boeing engineering and the focus quickly move to “Data Management” not the engineering. I believe that these folks never even looked at the existing “Document Control’ system.

Many others thought this was a viable process. The government got involved. Mostly basing the process on small engineering projects where everything could be controlled. Never really understanding that this also had to be coordinated with outside suppliers that did not use the same software.

Today, 20 years after Boeing has had this system in place and all the major programs have started providing PMI functionality there is no standard importer. I call it an importer not a reader because the 3D model is part of this format.

There are a few importers that are available. ZW3D can import them.

But the problem is that each CAD system is in a different level of release. PMI is system sensitive.

There seems to be a STEP format that they can save the PMI, but that is another step (no pun intended). But that does not meet the Boeing standard of the native file still be required. You must read the Boeing native PMI to be compatible. If you use anything else, you must have a validation program even if you have a seat of Catia 5.

I thought you would never ask.

I all has to do with data management!!

Ah, that ‘Data” word.

PLM is based on a Pro/e 3D CAD systems paradigm. All the larger companies have based their engineering on Catia 5, NX or Creo.

These systems have separate parts, assemblies and AID (drawing) files.

These ‘drawings” are associated to the part file. This is a horror show for data management. These two files must go together. These people “think” the deliverable must be the native files. They don’t realize that the engineering deliverable should be files that are not dependent on the 3D CAD system. It should be the 3D model and the AID (drawing) delivered as a PDF. Moving the document control out of the 3D CAD system, which is a poor delivery system forcing those that are interested In the documentation having the system or compatible view. The only reason for this is that the CAD company wants more dependence on their products.

This should be a big “DUH” moment for upper management. Most just ignorantly have Dassault, PTC and Siemens hands in their pockets. Don’t think the midrange programs such as Solidworks, Inventor and Solid Edge have missed this. This process can produce millions in profit for these companies.

The Fox in charge of the Hen house? Of course, this is so blatantly obvious that I figure management in the large companies are getting kickbacks.

Learning 3D Mechanical CAD

But as we come to the end. Only those that have no understanding that the 3D model is nothing but a pattern see it as something that can be used as an authority.

There are other problems with using the 3D model as the authority. If you have a change everything stops until that model is rereleased. This could take a month. Remember they used to trust manufacturing to create the parts from drawings. But the 3D model is sacrosanct. That is the problem. With an AID (drawing) you can have two documents that can be used for inspection and comparison. If there is a small change you can send out an updated PDF and the supplier can make the change.

Yes, much of this would have to be worked out but from a much more flexible and usable basis. Two associated documents, the 3D model and a completely detailed document keeps our old friend Murphy at bay.

We would have to move to more flexible hybrid 3D CAD modeling systems and a standard and certified neutral format that each CAD system would have to meet.

To get any change we are up against some powerful foes.

• The current popular CAD companies that are now trying to work together to unite their forces.

• The MBE cult like protagonists.

• PLM experts that have massive power today.

So, there you go

You can now answer the question.