2-D Versus 3-D - Industry Confronts the Third Dimension

The images and sounds of smokestacks and shrieking factory whistles have by and large disappeared from the American industrial landscape - replaced by sophisticated software and hardware systems that require an equally sophisticated worker to use them. These systems have been responsible for a revolution in manufacturing and are the driving force behind helping introduce products to market quicker. This productivity increase stems from the CAD movement because, when you get right down to it, software is at the root of all manufacturing processes today. Incredibly, many of these companies that have embraced 2-D programs are still a little reluctant to move towards a full-blown 3-D CAD operation.

Many 2-D CAD packages can be too flexible, meaning that 2-D CAD has the ability to "stylize" drawings to the degree that they can easily be misinterpreted. This can be averted somewhat for companies with in-house manufacturing, but with 3-D, CAD users are forced to be more "realistic" in their design process.

The 2-D drawing itself has been around since before the American Revolution and won't be going away anytime soon, so changing from 2-D to 3-D is a watershed event for any company. These reasons for the change must be clearly understood and the results of the change must be anticipated and seen as an opportunity to grow and improve. Any software chosen must directly reflect the needs of the company; the software vendor must be viable and responsive; and the overall implementation of the software must be understood as the most critical - and often overlooked - aspect of a successful transition.

Studies show that more than half of all drawings currently in circulation are on paper or microfilm only. The situation varies from industry to industry, but there are at least two transition phases that CAD is witnessing: the switchover from paper to electronic formats and the phase-in period between 2-D and 3-D CAD. But why aren't more companies doing 3-D and what cultural changes need to be in place before they will finally jump that last hurdle? Is it simply a matter of:

• The still unlearned capabilities of 3-D programs that make management hesitate;
• The fear that many have of changing to full 3-D capabilities;
• A lack of a need among companies to make any changes; or,
• A combination of all three of these factors?

• Being much more protective of working the old way than the new way.
• Users that are measured on a productivity scale that doesn't necessarily recognize many of the benefits of the design process change from 2-D to 3-D.
• Less rejection of drawing detail by manufacturers because the features don't stack up to specifications.

"What are the fears and obstacles to moving to 3-D CAD? Of course the main problem is ourselves, and our fear and anxiety about change," says Mike Evans, director of Cambashi Limited (Cambridge, UK) - a development company. "Going from 2-D to 3-D is a fundamental design process change whereas going from manual to 2-D was simply a change from a real to an electronic drawing board - a skills update. For professionals earning a decent wage, the costs and hardware are really not the issue.''

Most companies using only 2-D CAD are either way behind the times and at serious risk of going out of business because their competitors have already surpassed them; or else they don't see a real need for 3-D. Certain applications do not require full 3-D CAD modeling, but instead can adequately be accomplished by simpler design tools.

For example, one company was considering a move from its 2-D CAD/CAM package to a full 3-D solids modeling and associative manufacturing and software solution. Although an associative variation design package could save the company time and money in its product design tasks, the actual need for change to such a complex system just wasn't there. In this company's situation, 3-D would have been overkill. Its current 2-D package, old and unsupported as it is, still provides functionality that helps the engineers do their day-to-day job.

Cost and fear of change can be real obstacles, especially when it involves changes to a large corporate process. Yet those companies that are being beaten by their competition will, or already have, made the switch to 3-D. It is not the simple purchase of a new 3-D CAD system that is the obstacle as much as it is the implementation of that 3-D CAD system. Very few companies making the switch from 2-D to 3-D realize that in order to take full advantage of the benefits of a modern 3-D CAD package, they also will need to change their way of doing things - their entire modeling and manufacturing process may need to change as well. Without such a change in process, the purchase of an expensive CAD system will be doomed, if not to failure, then certainly to frustration.

"Change in industry is about as easy as quitting cigarettes," says Evans. "There's a lot of management resistance - management always wants benefits in the next quarter - it takes a strong multiyear effort on the part of a company to adhere to change."

Overcoming Obstacles

So the first step is to look within - to understand and be open to new software tools that will change the way a company's day-to-day job is done. Once that need for 3-D is understood, and once the way in which 3-D will be used is agreed upon, choosing appropriate software is a matter of functionality, price and the availability of support from the vendor. Many companies go through a difficult period during implementation of any new software tool. In some cases, productivity will actually go down before it proves to be better than current methods. During this time, support from the vendor is critical. Management, too, must understand that in order to utilize a new tool, changes will need to be made by more than just those individuals who wind up using the software.

"I worked at an automobile company for two years, side by side with the designers and their managers, attempting to show them that just pulling out one CAD system and plugging another in would simply not work," says Mike Morse, technical marketing consultant for SDRC (Eugene, OR) - a software solution company. "Design paradigms need to change, and most importantly, management's perceptions, expectations and functional duties need to change as well. I used to work in a CAM environment and was often asked if it would be better to take a computer guy and teach him how to program parts for manufacturing, or if it would be better to take a machinist off the shop floor and teach him how to use the computer. Without question the machinist would be my first choice. He understands the requirements of manufacturing and will be more efficient at programming a CAM system than would some guy who doesn't know a ball endmill from a tooling ball. In the same way, a designer who works on paper would be much better suited to a 3-D CAD environment than a computer science major just out of college with no design experience."

Making the Move

Personnel also may influence the decision because they have to learn it, understand it and be allowed to figure out how it can best be used. Having the right people in place, or being willed to hire them into a position or a team, is just as important as choosing the right software.

Researching the right package is very important and can make or break a company's time compression issues. Compare software packages that seem to fit the company's needs and pocketbook. Don't rely upon a salesman or slick demos. Have the vendor perform the kinds of functions that will really be used by your company, and have them use real parts and not something made to look good for a demo. Researching the software vendor is equally important.

• Do they have local support personnel?
• Do they have a good hotline phone support? Talk to existing customers to find out about the responsiveness of the vendor.
• What about the quality of the software?
• All CAD systems have bugs, but does the vendor aggressively fix them on a timely basis?
• What about the integration?

"Improvements on software and hardware make 3-D a better deal than ever for many former 2-D users," says Peter Marks, president of Design Insight (Santa Cruz, CA) - a design and development company. "However, there are still cases where 2-D modeling is better suited to the task and is faster-easier-cheaper than 3-D. There also are cases where a perspective or isometric sketch is the most direct tool for conceptualization. I'm an advocate of significantly greater penetration for 3-D CAD, but would feel we had gone astray if penetration approached 100 percent."

Consider the Web

"Getting people to work together in a truly cooperative fashion can be difficult even in the best of times," says Morse. "But multiply that when you're 2-D exclusive - 3-D CAD forces the user to be more realistic."