Participants in yesterday’s “The Pros and Cons of History-based and Direct Modeling Paradigms” webinar heard from three leading experts on the strengths and weaknesses of both modeling approaches as well as where each modeling approach shines throughout the product development process. We learned that both tools are useful though some are better suited for particular applications as well as for use in specific phases of the product development process.
While I won’t even attempt to summarize the hour+ webinar, one of the questions during the Q&A at the end revealed some interesting insights on behavioral changes needed by users to effectively switch from the more traditional history-based 3D modeling techniques to direct modeling. Here are some of the responses to this question from our panelists:
Chad Jackson, principal analyst for Lifecycle Insights
“The one change in behavior that has to happen is with history-based approaches, people have to be so careful in how they build up their model so that it can be reused that it can take longer than really required. Or you have people who don’t care and build these really unstable models. Direct modeling tools can make for lazier modeling, and I mean that in a good way. You don’t get paid to build the perfect feature-based 3D model, you get paid to create a great design, document it and pass it on. In that regard, direct modeling can support that approach.”
Dan Staples, vice president, Solid Edge Product Development, Siemens PLM Software
“I think that you need to be open. We often see is that people are either successful or fail at adopting direct modeling tools based on the openness of their mind. If they are so tied into history-based modeling that they can’t open their mind, they are typically not successful. Whereas those that say, ‘This looks interesting. I’m going to try it and going to fail–at least for the first week because it’s so different—-but I’m going to persist.’ You also have to be willing to change your thought process, which is uncomfortable.
For example, when you create a sketch and its extruded and the faces are all there, you really don’t need the sketch anymore but it’s hard to let go of it. It’s kind of like when you first learn to ice skate, you don’t want to let go. Sooner or later, you can let go, because you don’t need the sketch to make changes.”
Brian Thompson, vice president of Creo Product Management, PTC.
“If you’re at a company that has traditionally built its products using a history-based approach, it’s useful to think about adopting direct modeling from the standpoint of a couple of key use cases, certain types of parts that you’ve had trouble with the history-based models. Build the motivation around a business case that you have the opportunity to improve, whether it’s concept design, detailed design, simplication for simulation. So go about learning that new tool with the motivation to be diligent to stick with it. Tell your management that we have the opportunity to improve our efficiencies in concept design, or designing certain parts, or simplifying models for simulation. Learn the tool with the motivation to improve those processes.”
You can watch the entire “The Pros and Cons or History-based and Direct Modeling Paradigms” webinar here.
Home appliances aren’t what they used to be. Consider, for example, washers and dryers. At this week’s PlanetPTC conference, Fred Bellio, CIO of Whirlpool’s Global Product Organization, and Jeff Burk, Director of Whirlpool’s Constellation Program Management Office, described some of the complexities of his company’s Maytag Maxima line of washers and dryers. Washers and dryers from 50 years ago (when my mother was doing the family’s laundry) were mostly mechanical, with an electric drive motor, a timer, and a few switches, solenoids and relays. The Maxima line are about one-third mechanical, one-third electrical/electronic, and one-third software.
The Constellation program provides Whirlpool with a year-by road-map for implementing PLM technology. This year there are projects related to CAD, core PLM, design quality, cost management, product & portfolio management, service, strategic sourcing, and product quality. It’s not a trivial amount of work. (You can look at Whirpool’s PlanetPTC presentation on Constellation 
This week, PRC announced Creo 2.0 and Windchill 10.1. These aren’t big releases in the grand scheme of things, but they are important releases, and show that PTC is working hard to deliver on what it’s promised.
With the new release, PTC is offering the free Creo Sketch app for Apple devices, and Creo Layout for doing 2D layouts as a front-end to 3D design.
With the introduction of Windchill Mobile, PTC is now supporting the iPad and iPhone. The software includes the “shake and break” feature demonstrated at last year’s PlanetPTC Live, in which users can “explode” the diagram of a product assembly by simply shaking their mobile device to see the internal parts in greater detail. I suggested an Etch-a-Sketch function, where turning it upside down and shaking it would erase your project files—but the PTC people told me that Microsoft already had a patent on that function, back from the days of Windows ME.
PTC will soon be releasing Creo 2.0, and, in anticipation of this, invited me (along with three other blogger/editors) to their corporate headquarters for a preview. Unlike a formal release presentation, which would be heavily scripted, our experience was much more extemporaneous. We got to see a good chunk of what’s new, hear about PTC’s underlying goals, and even talk about things we thought they should be doing better.
What to do? How to rationalize these seemingly irreconcilable things? The only reasonable answer is to offer customers what they want. For PTC, this required a new strategy: Offer a range of products sharing a common data model and a common user interface design, and allow users to choose whether they want to use history-based, direct, or any other form of modeling that might come along in the future.
