|
A software entrepreneur named Deelip Menezes recently wrote a paper about CAD 2.0. Whereas CAD 1.0 is about tightly structured processes, proprietary file formats and content creation by highly trained CAD specialists, CAD 2.0 is about enabling all participants in the product development process to easily contribute to the design without requiring adoption of a single CAD tool, or struggling with one of the neutral file formats like STEP. CAD 2.0, claims Deelip, is the best solution to date for solving the thorny problem of collaborating in a heterogeneous multi-CAD world.
Why call it “CAD 2.0?” Because it’s directly analogous to “Web 2.0.” Whereas Web 1.0 was about online content being controlled by a relatively small number of content publishers, Web 2.0 enables everyone to participate. Web 1.0 is worldbookonline.com. Web 2.0 is wikipedia.org, where lots of people can make changes to the entries to rapidly make them better and more complete.
CAD 2.0 is not about the next generation of CAD, it's about the “democratization of CAD.” There are lots of folks that need to work with existing CAD models. Don't make them all learn the equivalent of a complex Content Management System, or javascript, or PHP, or Perl. Instead, give them tools that let them edit CAD models and communicate their ideas as easily as editing an entry on Wikipedia.
The collaboration economy is becoming pervasive in all disciplines, in part because the tools now exist to make it a reality. For example, in the new bestselling book Wikinomics, the authors describe how Boeing is “embracing mass collaboration – handing suppliers control over a large proportion of the thousands of features and components that make up its airplanes in a bid to control costs, improve innovation, and get new planes to market more quickly.” (BTW, if you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it. There is an entire chapter on “The Global Plant Floor.”) In one example, the authors contrast production of the Boeing 777 with the 787. For the 777, the spec that Boeing sent to an electronics supplier was 2500 pages long. For the 787, it was only 20 pages. For the 777, “there wasn’t a lot left to their imagination. We told them exactly what we wanted in excruciating detail,” commented Mike Bair, who heads up the 787 program for Boeing.
What was the result of shortening the spec by a factor of 100? Was the process for the 787 less efficient as a result? Nope, just the opposite. According to Bair, “they know better how their factories run, and to think that we can design a part that not only serves our needs but is also the most efficient for them to produce would be pure guesswork on our part.”
And just like the way that the democratization of the Web makes content better, the democratization of CAD will make the products we design better.
Thanks Deelip. “CAD 2.0” is exactly the right term. I only wish that I thought of it first J.
|