A month ago I announced to write a series of posts related to the various facets of Model-Based. As I do not want to write a book for a limited audience, I still believe blog posts are an excellent way to share knowledge and experience to a wider audience. Remember PLM is about sharing!
There are three downsides to this approach:
- you have to chunk the information into pieces; my aim is not to exceed 1000 words per post
- Isolated posts can be taken out of context (in a positive or negative way)
- you do not become rich and famous for selling your book
Model-Based ways of working are a hot topic and crucial for a modern digital enterprise. The modern digital enterprise does not exist yet to my knowledge, but the vision is there. Strategic consultancy firms are all active exploring and explaining the potential benefits – I have mentioned McKinsey / Accenture / Capgemini before.
In the domain of PLM, there is a bigger challenge as here we are suffering from the fact that the word “Model” immediately gets associated with a 3D Model. In addition to the 3D CAD Model, there is still a lot of useful legacy data that does not match with the concepts of a digital enterprise. I wrote and spoke about this topic a year ago. Among others at PI 2017 Berlin and you can check this presentation on SlideShare: How digital transformation affects PLM
Back to the various aspects of Model-Based
My first post: Model-Based – an introduction described my intentions what I wanted to explain. I got some interesting feedback and insights from my readers . Some of the people who responded understood that the crucial characteristic of the model-based enterprise is to use models to master a complex environment. Business Models, Mathematical Models, System Models are all part of a model-based enterprise, and none of them have a necessary relation to the 3D CAD model.
Why Model-Based?
Because this is an approach to master complex environments ! If you are studying the concepts for a digital enterprise model, it is complex. Artificial intelligence, predictive actions all need a model to deliver. The interaction and response related to my first blog post did not show any problems – only a positive mindset to further explore. For example, if you read this blog post from Contact, you will see the message came across very well: Model-Based in Model-Based Systems Engineering – what’s up ?
Where the confusion started
My second post: Why Model-Based? The 3D CAD Model was related to model-based, focusing on the various aspects related to the 3D CAD model, without going into all the details. In particular, in the PLM world, there is a lot of discussion around Model-Based Design or Model-Based Definition, where new concepts are discussed to connect engineering and manufacturing in an efficient and modern data-driven way. Lifecycle Insights, Action Engineering, Engineering.com, PTC, Tech-Clarity and many more companies are publishing information related to the model-based engineering phase.
Here is was surprised by Oleg’s blog with his post Model-Based Confusion in 3D CAD and PLM.
If you read his post, you get the impression that the model-based approach is just a marketing issue instead of a significant change towards a digital enterprise. I quote:
Here is the thing… I don’t see much difference between saying PLM-CAD integration sharing data and information for downstream processes and “model-driven” data sharing. It might be a terminology thing, but data is managed by CAD-PLM tools today and accessed by people and other services. This is how things are working today. If model-driven is an approach to replace 2D drawings, I can see it. However, 2D replacement is something that I’ve heard 20 years ago. However, 2D drawings are still massively used by manufacturing companies despite some promises made by CAD vendors long time ago.
I was surprised by the simplicity of this quote. As if CAD vendors are responsible for new ways of working. In particular, automotive and aerospace companies are pushing for a model-based connection between engineering and manufacturing to increase quality, time to market and reduced handling costs. The model-based definition is not just a marketing issue as you can read from benefits reported by Jennifer Herron (Re-use your CAD – the model-based CAD handbook – describing practices and benefits already in 2013) or Tech-Clarity (The How-To Guide for adopting model-based definition – describing practices and benefits – sponsored by SolidWorks)
Oleg’s post unleashed several reactions of people who shared his opinion (read the comments here). They are all confused, t is all about marketing / let’s not change / too complex. Responses you usually hear from a generation that does not feel and understand the new approaches of a digital enterprise. If you are in the field working with multiple customers trying to understand the benefits of model-based definition, you would not worry about terminology – you would try to understand it and make it work.
Model-Based – just marketing?
In his post, Oleg refers to CIMdata’ s explanation of the various aspects of model-based in the context of PLM. Instead of referring to the meaning of the various acronyms, Peter Bilello (CIMdata) presented at the latest PDT conference (Oct 2017 – Gothenburg) an excellent story related to the various aspects of the model-based aspects, actually the whole conference was dedicated to the various aspects of a Model-Based Enterprise illustrates that it is not a vendor marketing issue. You can read my comments from the vendor-neutral conference here: The weekend after PDT Europe 2017 Part 1 and Part 2.
There were some dialogues on LinkedIn this weekend, and I promised to publish this post first before continuing on the other aspects of a model-based enterprise. Just today Oleg published a secondary post related to this topic: Model-Based marketing in CAD and PLM, where again the tone and blame is to the PLM/CAD vendors, as you can see from his conclusion:
I can see “mode-based” as a new and very interesting wave of marketing in 3D CAD and PLM. However, it is not pure marketing and it has some rational. The rational part of model-based approach is to have information model combined from 3D design and all connected data element. Such model can be used as a foundation for design, engineering, manufacturing, support, maintenance. Pretty much everything we do. It is hard to create such model and it is hard to combine a functional solution from existing packages and products. You should think how to combine multiple CAD systems, PLM platforms and many other things together. It requires standards. It requires from people to change. And it requires changing of status quo. New approaches in data management can change siloed world of 3D CAD and PLM. It is hard, but nothing to do with slides that will bring shiny words “model-base”. Without changing of technology and people, it will remain as a history of marketing
Again it shows the narrow mindset on the future of a model-based enterprise. When it comes to standards I recommend you to register and watch CIMdata’s educational webinar called: Model-Based Enterprise and Standards – you need to register. John MacKrell CIMdata’s chairman gives an excellent overview and status of model-based enterprise initiative. After having studied and digested all the links in this post, I challenge you to make your mind up. The picture below comes from John’s presentation, an illustration where we are with model-based definition currently
Conclusion
The challenge of modern businesses is that too often we conclude too fast on complex issues or we frame new developments because they do not fit our purpose. You know it from politics. Be aware it is also valid in the world of PLM. Innovation and a path to a modern digital enterprise do not come easy – you need to invest and learn all the aspects. To be continued (and I do not have all the answers either)
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 22, 2018 at 11:00 pm
Oleg Shilovitsky
Jos, Great collection of links about Model-based marketing. But, I didn’t find any place in your blog saying “Model-based is…”. However, many explanations about “Why Model-based”?
Oleg I am afraid you haven’t read or digested all the model-based links I provided. Model-based is more about mathematical models than CAD models, however even for CAD models there are significant advantages for business. Currently I am working with 3 companies, using 3 different CAD vendors, all understanding the benefits of model-based for their engineering-manufacturing link. More details will come in my upcoming posts related to MBSE, digital twin, AI and business processes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 23, 2018 at 4:57 am
Jim van Oss
Jos, Great article and interesting subject. For companies to ultimately get this right, they have to pursue singularity with the model or models. Singularity means that any attribute is represented once in the model in both a machine and human readable representation. Drawings or PMI can be rendered as needed, but the human readable notes should be represented in the PLM and/or CAD as attributes and objects. One can consider more than one model depending on the intent of that model (geometric, performance, cost, etc…), but singularity should be practiced across the models.
Thanks Jim, yes singularity is the target and this forces everyone along the lifecycle of the model to think instead of quick and dirty copies leading to complexity. Best regards Jos
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 23, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Maher S.Alrai
Jos,
Great and informative article. However, I see various companies are talking about and want to jump to it, but they are not in any way or shape ready for this significant shift. I visited an aerospace company that is still using hard copies (paper) in their change management processes, CAD work, and e-BOM structure however they are stating that their vision to be in the MBD environment within 18 months. I am not sure its possible (Technology and human factors and leadership sponsorship).
There is a need for preliminary acceptable standards to move to this environment.
Thank you;
Maher
Maher, what a remarkable story to switch to Model-Based Definition for manufacturing within 18 months. Could be possible if you have no legacy and create a total new environment for new program. Still for people 18 months is a short time to understand, learn and practice.
Second point, I notice you are like most PLM/Engineering people focusing on the MBD-part where a CAD model is involved. What I try to explain in this article related to the confusion around Model-Based is that it not only about eliminating 2D as some people might state. Håkan Kardan’s comment to this post might be giving more info too.
Anyway I will be busy in the next 3 to 4 post describing the non-CAD aspects of a model-based enterprise.
Best regards, Jos
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 23, 2018 at 9:05 pm
Håkan Kårdén (@HakanEurostep)
Hi Jos. Great postings (as always) as we need to take this seriously and we need to understand it is much more than CAD models. As you refer to PDT may I suggest this presentations also from PDT but in Paris 2016. This shows part of the complexity we are about to face. http://pdteurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/6a-The-SAVI-project-multidisciplinary-collaboration.pdf
Best Regards,
Håkan
Thanks Håkan for joining the discussion and assisting in explaining a model-based enterprise goes beyond CAD models. Does any reader of this comment have access to the link you provided from the PDT Conference in Paris (I have, I noticed ) ?
Best regards, Jos
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 24, 2018 at 10:15 am
Håkan Kårdén (@HakanEurostep)
Jos, all have access. Presentations from PDT are available to all. See http://www.pdteurope.com For 2018 we are continuing on the topic Washington DC area May 17
Best Regards,
Håkan
Thanks Håkan, and for all these skeptical or eager people in the US who want to learn more – please join the event and discuss among your peers. Best regards – Jos
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 24, 2018 at 2:05 am
Eudes
Good stuff! Thanks Eudes
LikeLiked by 1 person