Strategies to Drive Effective Data Exchange
David Prawel, Longview Advisors, Inc.

Few things affect product cost and delivery more than wasted time and re-work caused by bad CAD data. To make matters worse, poor interoperability prevents people from working effectively together and with their supply chains. Having a strong CAD interoperability strategy helps reduce risk and cost, while saving time and money. There are a variety of technical and business factors that affect CAD interoperability. From a technology perspective, there are three main areas to consider: intended use of the data; complexity of the data, and quality requirements.

Technical Considerations for Effective Data Exchange
The first and most important consideration in building an effective interoperability strategy is the intended use of the data. Doug Cheney, senior consultant at ITI TranscenData, agrees that "a clear understanding of which business functions will receive the CAD data and how will it be used is the most important element of a strong interoperability strategy."

"CADfix prepares native CAD models for downstream reuse,
optionally removing detail features to simplify them for simulation."

Product designers will be sharing data with others as they iterate toward their product release. In this case they generally need a "robust" translation that provides as much of the CAD model as possible, including features, history and other critical design elements. For this class of translation, powerful software tools from experienced vendors mentioned in this article can achieve a high percentage of good quality translations. If the transactions are internal to the company, robust translations are usually best. If models are sent outside the company, confidentiality requirements may outweigh robustness requirements, so this also needs to be considered in a good interoperability strategy. Designers may be sharing CAD data with analysis or simulation teams in engineering. These transactions usually require less robustness, for example, perhaps only the geometry, topology and some physical properties of a model. Manufacturing, rapid prototyping and other downstream processes usually require the least robust forms of CAD data, often only the outer surfaces of a model or its geometry. These processes also usually require relatively low precision. These "lean" translations can often be successfully accomplished through industry standards like STEP, IGES or STL.

If you are changing CAD systems or moving a lot of CAD data to a different system for a project, you will need as much of the CAD data as possible. Any data that doesn't translate generally must be re-created in the new system, at great cost. These CAD migration scenarios are well suited to tools that provide feature-based interoperability, for example from Proficiency and other vendors.

"Assembly and part level constraints and features are exchanged parametrically between I-deas NX Series and CATIA V5 using the Proficiency Collaboration Gateway^TM

Complexity of the CAD Data
The complexity of the CAD data is also a very important consideration when developing an interoperability strategy. If the data is 2D, then IGES will suffice. If the model contains 2 ½ dimensional surfaces intended for rapid prototyping or some machining applications, then STL will probably suffice. If the CAD models are fully featured 3D models, then the proprietary CAD formats are probably your best solution, although STEP may also work, depending on considerations mentioned earlier.

If transactions require physical properties, such as mass and surface area, or other information such as metadata, GD&T, annotations, coordinate systems or ERP data (e.g. part ID, pricing), custom services will probably be required. The cost for these services would be evaluated based on the amount of data that has to be translated and standard assessments of return on investment.

"CATIA V5 Manufacturing model showing additional 3D annotations - translated using Theorem Solutions CADverter translation capability"

Some companies have developed powerful tools to help manage interoperability methodology by helping maintain information like CAD system and version for transaction parties, authorized contact information, confirmations, security and the like. For example, Fusion-DX from Datranet and DDX from ProCAEss are good tools for this purpose. These tools can save a lot of time and cost by helping automate a methodology so engineers can spend more time engineering rather than resending CAD data because it went to the wrong email address, or any of the other seemingly countless pitfalls that waste time in data exchange.

Quality Requirements
The third most important technical consideration when building an effective interoperability strategy is the requirement for quality in the end result. In many applications, high quality is essential. In others it's not. There are two common interpretations of quality vis a vis interoperability: robustness and accuracy. As a general rule, quality can be assessed in very simple terms by considering the intended use of the data, as discussed above.

Wolfgang Winstel, managing director at ProCAEss, agrees that data quality is a very important consideration, because rework is so very expensive. In addition, Mr. Winstel suggests, "An unappreciated aspect of quality is methodology. Not only must model accuracy and precision meet requirements, but the model must also be designed correctly, using the customer's design methodology." This is becoming another important aspect of quality as suppliers are more often required to deliver CAD data in accordance with customer design standards. You can expect to see model quality checking tools start to accommodate this trend by checking design methodologies.

Accuracy is another very important consideration. CAD modelers work at different levels of precision. Sometimes translations take place between two models created at the same precision, and sometimes between different levels of precision. It is important to consider both. Decide in advance what the requirements are and make sure the tools chosen are tested adequately in this regard. Healing software is available from numerous vendors to help repair poor quality (primarily accuracy) translations, for example, CADhealer from Theorem Solutions and CADdoctor from Elysium. Another good choice is CADfix from ITI TranscenData, which can repair problems whether or not there are features or parameters.

In many cases, for example in many manufacturing applications, the CAD models provide far more accuracy than the application requires. Higher accuracy may slow performance of the software and cause larger model files than necessary. When building an effective interoperability strategy, keep in mind that high levels of accuracy are not always important.

The question of how to assess the "quality" of translations is too large a topic to cover in this article. Suffice it to say that it is essential to use quality checking tools to assess the robustness and accuracy of translations. Todd Reade, president at Transmagic, suggests that when exchanging CAD files, as a minimum, always "Round-trip, then ZIP", to help reduce errors that occur when saving files in a non-native CAD file format such as IGES or STEP. After you save the file, re-open it in the originating CAD system to verify and validate that the file is usable as expected.

Business Considerations
But in today's competitive landscape, it is impossible (and unwise) to be good at everything. A key component of any strategy is the tools you use for product development. It's best to try to standardize on a core set of tools and processes, and maintain the skills and relationships you need to use and support these tools.

The best approach to building an effective interoperability strategy is to determine your core strategic strengths and form partnerships with experts who understand your products and business processes. Use data exchange automation tools where they work well, and outsource to experts who have the knowledge, experience, and contacts to cost-effectively solve the special cases. Many good tools are available to help with CAD interoperability, but even relatively simple models almost always exhibit small differences that prevent flawless automation. In addition, requirements and products change constantly. So, whichever tools you choose, additional expertise will be needed.

Vinay Wagle, vice president of sales and marketing at CADCAM-e, refers to this approach as the "core chore" strategy. When considering interoperability strategy Mr. Wagle notes that "a company's core strength is its product development and its people. They know the core business, and to develop sufficient expertise in interoperability can be counter-strategic." The goal in the end is to deliver maximum customer value. Consider the experience of your team in CAD data exchange, understand limitations and decide if you want to compensate with training or outside help.

An important business consideration for your interoperability strategy is the business relationship. For example, a more robust translation may be required if a designer is collaborating on a project with a supplier who is developing a quote than if the collaboration is for feedback on the visual aspects of a design. JT format from the JT Open Consortium has become quite popular for visual collaboration, but is not robust enough for most cooperative CAD design work.

Security is another important factor to consider. The technical aspects of data security are generally well understood by most good IT people and will be left to discuss in another article. The simple truth is, many projects live or die by email, a relatively insecure, "brute force" mode of data exchange. Especially smaller companies with smaller IT budgets depend on email to send and receive CAD files. Companies who can afford to purchase and implement a PDM system usually count on their PDM system for security. Data is usually encrypted and password protected. This method works as long as all suppliers also have the same PDM system - an expensive proposition. Furthermore, if the destination application is only view and markup, this is clearly overkill.

The lifecycle of your product will also play a role is determining your best strategy. If a product is in the later stages of its lifecycle, it may not be worth the cost of translating its data.

And finally, it is always important to consider how or if your interoperability strategy fits into your PIM/PDM/PLM/ERP initiative(s). One of the most important keys to efficient interoperability is how users interact with data management systems to get and put data, get approvals to send data, find the correct contact information, and many others key details of a typical transaction.

The best approach to defining your interoperability strategy is a combination of technical and business considerations. Use translation tools for automation, and select a qualified partner to work with you on problematic cases. Take your time in selecting a partner and build a relationship for the long term, so they understand your business. Considering these factors will put you well on your way towards creating a cost-effective strategy that makes excellence in interoperability a reality in your company.

Companies mentioned in this article:
CADCAM-e: www.cadcam-e.com
Elysium : www.elysiuminc.com
ProCAEss: www.procaess.de/html_englisch/index.htm
Datranet: www.datranet.com
Delphi: www.delphi.com/dti/dcce/hm_dpd
JT Open Consortium: www.jtopen.com
Proficiency: www.proficiency.com
ProSTEP: www.prostep.com/en
Theorem Solutions: www.theorem.co.uk
ITI TranscenData: www.transcendata.com
Transmagic: www.transmagic.com

Yantai Raffles Shipyard (YRS) PLM Helps Shipyard Collaborate, Compete On a Global Scale

Overview

• Rework was common because prototyping of custom designs could not keep pace with construction
• CATIA and ENOVIA allow YRS to create a complete virtual model of a vessel before physical work begins
• YRS has streamlined its design process for all vessels, improving Return On Investment (ROI) through lower material costs and improved quality, a competitive advantage.

The best technology for the best ships
Yantai Raffles Shipyard, located in Yantai, China, has long enjoyed one of the world's most competitive pricing structures due to a ready supply of skilled labor. But to be truly competitive with the top global shipyards, YRS needed to be as competitive on quality and delivery capabilities as it has been on price.

"Our customers deserve the best and we are determined to give them the best," said Brian Chang, YRS Chairman and CEO. "This is only possible if we use the best technology on the market to build our ships and that is why we chose IBM PLM solutions."

Global clients, global collaboration
Before YRS adopted IBM PLM, its CAD systems did not support creation of a full, 3D virtual model. Physical prototyping took so long that construction had to begin before the design was complete. Employees and partners often discovered they were working with different versions of the same data. Engineering changes were difficult to propagate throughout the system. Mismatches between related ship systems sometimes remained undetected well into construction, driving up cycle times and costs.

"Owners paid more to complete the vessel, the yard lost money and the performance of the vessel was below expectations," Chang said.

Streamlined processes, happier clients
The yard's first 3D design system was a failure, so YRS turned to IBM PLM for complete, digital models of its vessels prior to fabrication. The integrated IBM platform features Dassault Systemes software, including CATIA V5 for collaborative virtual product development and ENOVIA LCA and ENOVIA Portal 3d.com for real-time product data management. ENOVIA Portal 3d.com facilitates viewing all product data, including digital mockups, with a simple Web browser.

"PLM gave us and our customers many ways to pre-visualize our designs," Chang said. "In our business, there are multiple parties involved in every project. It's critical they understand the design. We demand that vendors be involved early. They can better understand the requirements, and making modifications at the digital mockup stage reduces rework later."

The advanced PLM solution has enabled the shipyard to streamline design processes for all of its vessels, from floating storage and off-take ships to oil rigs and luxury yachts. YRS says it has experienced substantial ROI through lower material costs and improved quality, a combined competitive advantage.

PLM customized for shipbuilding
The CATIA V5 solution comes with a full set of shipbuilding-oriented functionalities to meet the company's requirements from concept to detail ship design and production. ENOVIA LCA and ENOVIA 3d.com solutions enable full collaborative product development. They also provide other YRS departments, including marketing and production, access to both design information and engineering data, ensuring that YRS staff, customers, partners and suppliers are able to work together in a real-time virtual product development environment.

"IBM PLM technology gives us a complete 3D digital mockup the first time," Chang said. "The result is much less rework and improved customer satisfaction, together with much less risk and fewer change orders. We have used PLM for a wide variety of projects, and I cannot remember anything that has been very hard for either YRS or IBM to solve. Solutions are always close at hand."

The response from the shipyard's customers has been rewarding. "A major client in the top 30 of the Fortune 500, after reviewing YRS with the intention of approving us to participate in a complex, time-critical project of $1.7 billion U.S. said, 'Your engineering capabilities are certainly adequate… and in fact it is an overkill for our project," Chang remembers. With IBM PLM, YRS is clearly ready to take on any challenge a customer can dream up.

For more information
Contact your IBM Marketing Representative, IBM Business Partner or visit the IBM PLM Web site at: ibm.com/solutions/plm

IBM Product Lifecycle Management Tour Descartes La Defense 52, avenue Gambetta92066 Paris La Defense cedexFrance

RAND Worldwide® Earns Recognition as Best-in-Class Supplier to Royal Canadian Mint

RAND A Technology Corporation, operating as RAND Worldwide ("RAND"), was named Best-in-Class Supplier in 2004 to the Royal Canadian Mint in the category of Computing Solutions. RAND was awarded this recognition at the Royal Canadian Mint's First Annual Vendor Appreciation Event held at their Ottawa Facility. In addition to its 'best-in-class' technology solutions, RAND offers a portfolio of internally developed software products, as well as world-class training, software development, consulting, and implementation services. Companies were evaluated for their adherence to schedule, product quality, serviceability, cost competitiveness and strategic initiative. Among the companies nominated, only thirteen were chosen as Royal Canadian Mint top vendors for 2004. RAND assisted the Royal Canadian Mint in the implementation of a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) solution, supplying teams of experts to provide technical resources, educational programs, and materials.

"The word 'partnership' is thrown around often in the IT industry today," said Neil Hallam, CIO of the Royal Canadian Mint. "With RAND though, it really was a partnership, where together we built a showpiece." "It is an honor to receive this distinction from such a fine organization as the Royal Canadian Mint. The collaboration of our teams implemented an environment enabling the continuous innovations for which the Royal Canadian Mint is world famous," said Joe Oswald, Executive Vice President, RAND Worldwide.

About RAND Worldwide
RAND Worldwide is one of the world's leading providers of professional services and technology to the engineering community and companies looking to improve their competitiveness, productivity and profitability by enhancing key aspects of their Product Lifecycle Management ("PLM") capabilities, including product planning, product development, and product management. As a leading technology independent systems integrator in the world, RAND Worldwide employs approximately 450 people in over 70 sales and client service centers in 16 countries. The Company's corporate head office in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada can be reached at 905-625-2000 or through the Internet at www.rand.com.

About The Royal Canadian Mint
The Royal Canadian Mint, an ISO 9001-2000 certified company, is the Crown Corporation responsible for the minting and distribution of Canada's circulation coins. In operation since 1908, the Royal Canadian Mint is recognized as one of the largest and most versatile mints in the world, offering a wide range of specialized, high quality coinage products, bullion products, gold refining, and related services on an international scale. For more information on the Royal Canadian Mint, its products and services, visit www.mint.ca.

For further information please contact:

Rand Worldwide
Martin Johnston
Tel: 905-625-2000
Fax: 905-625-3378