Model Based Paradigms P2 – Taxal
ALLAN BEHRENS [00:00:01] Now let’s talk about some of the solutions that are involved and how we go about enabling sort of this model-based paradigm that we’re talking about in 3D. So, Paul. Let’s just go back to basics. So this has been around for a long time. Why haven’t some companies actually employed it? And what do you suggest that we do to actually make it valuable?
PAUL BROWN [00:00:27] I think there’s a mixture of there’s a culture shift that people need to get used to it. The biggest challenge, one of the biggest challenges is people just saying, OK, well, I’m going to take everything I did in the past on a 2D drawing, which was my communication media for other people. For people. And I’m going take all of that information and use it in a 3D world. And that’s one of the first things, because you look at that and you’re not really gaining anything there, all you’re doing is just transferring the media that you had. So that’s one of the biggest pitfalls. And people then start saying, well, Why can’t I do this type of section view and that type of section view, in a drawing on a two day drawing, that type is actually view as perfectly made sense. But in a 3D model, because you have 3D navigation tools to be able to to interrogate those who have ways of getting into the data, you dont need those views. And in fact, when you look at the standards that are out on the market, we are used to having ISO standards for drawings. There are also similar standards for 3D annotation being able to do this model based and a lot of the things that are in the to 2D drawing standards don’t even exist, don’t have a representation in that 3D modelling standard. So that mind shift and getting used to the fact that I’m not trying to replicate everything I did on the drawing in the 3D model, that’s probably one of the biggest cultural barriers that people go through.
ALLAN BEHRENS [00:02:06] Right. And and we are talking about transferring information from sort of design to other parts of the organisation, whether it be subcontractors or internally with its manufacturing or even service and all the sort of processes that are involved in these in these areas. And this is information that comes on the 3D model. So obviously, the representation is no longer drawing’s. It is the 3D model. So how do you distribute that round the organisation? How is it? How does it exist? How people look at it?
PAUL BROWN [00:02:38] Yeah. There are various ways of doing it. I mean, I think you’re right is what you’re transferring affectively the knowledge. I would also point out you picked on a very good point is. It’s all about the downstream use. I mean, what that that’s the thing. The problem with the initial problem we talked about earlier was the interpretation and the ambiguity of the drawing. Well, in this case, we’re taking away the ambiguity, but it’s only really useful if you’re going to do something with it downstream. And so it can be costing it can be quality assurance. It could be manufacturing. It can be all those types of things. So there are various ways, obviously, giving people access to the 3D data using viewing tools, alot of neutral viewings, file formats allow you to interrogate the idea of having this product information as well as the 3D model. In many companies, when they’re looking at doing this, that they create what’s classed at called a technical data package, so that technical data package collects together all the the model views or this 3D annotation and it allows you to put extra documentation, things like word documents, spreadsheets, anything that helps a package. And then I give you that package that you can work with. Then you can interrogate. You can go in using either. For us, it’s our preferred method is JT because obviously we own JT as part seimens. But often people want 3D pdf. Once again, 3D pdf standard viewing format using those types of tools to actually interrogate the data and be able to use that in other applications.
ALLAN BEHRENS [00:04:22] And it’s not just visual information because obviously we all know that, you know, you can make errors in translating, you know one information from one package to another package, this is also about automatic transferral. So things like boundary conditions for engineering analysis or certain manufacturing instructions that could perhaps be automatically passed on to a manufacturing subcontractor, you know, and paint finishes, things like that, you know, which which are set standards, you know. Those are things that potentially could be automated and again or those a bit of effort required up front. The benefits are huge downstream because there’s no mistakes.
PAUL BROWN [00:05:03] Absolutely any. Take, for example, I built a structure and the structures welded and then I pass it down into analysis, being able to automatically recognise the welded joints and apply the right conditions that connecting the plates inside of the meshing inside simulation says you get the right simulation results. You’re not relying on somebody understanding that that was a seam weld that runs down there. You’ve got that information. That information is inherent in the model and I’m reusing it in manufacturing, you know, if I’ve got a tolerance on a on a hole, which then requires drilling and reaming or even pilot drill, drill ream being into to suck that information from that tolerance or information without having to have somebody interpret what’s on the model or what’s on the drawing. Being able to to pull those things in. Those are the key to getting value out of moving to this model based environment.
ALLAN BEHRENS [00:06:02] So so how do people get going? What’s this sort of to start you know, what we need to do what the companies need to do.
PAUL BROWN [00:06:10] Well, I think. This may sound kind of counter to what we’ve been talking about is but one thing from experience we know is you cannot or the majority of companies can’t just go. Yesterday we were drawing based. Tomorrow we’re going to be model based and we’re gonna switch over overnight. That’s not that’s not a realistic option. It’s more work. So so it takes planning and often you’ll go through a phase where you’ll go into a point where you’ve got the 3D model and maybe a drawing which has limited annotations as you’ve still got that around, that also that you’re feeding off of the 3D model before you move on. So you do it as a progressive steps rather than that of the big bang approach. It sounds glamorous and it sounds good. In reality, it’s a lot because of the making sure its fits in with your rest, your processes, because this is as I say, the value is about what people do with that data. And it’s other people outside the design organisation that are consuming need to be ready for it. So that’s that’s kind of take it step wise. In many cases, identify one out of your sets of consumers. One group that you want to target first. So if you if if quality assurance is is key to you and you’ve got a group doing things that corporate measuring programming target that group, first you look at how they can consume, make and work on getting that project, working the flow of information and then take the next one, the next one and and try and identify but identify one, which gives you a sensible move and some payback that you can see for the value of doing this this step.
ALLAN BEHRENS [00:08:08] And you can use that payback as reference to the other groups who perhaps, you know, want to say, well, maybe it’s not useful for us. You can say to them, well, look, these people actually use all this benefit. There’s proof positive that will work for you as well.
PAUL BROWN [00:08:21] Exactly. Yeah, exactly. You’ve got to start as I say if you if you try too much, then your problem is you never know. You don’t necessarily get those results. You may do. But there is always a risk of people then looking and you’re just trying to bite off too much. So you’re better off, you know, identifying. This is where I’m going to start. And this is how I’m going to move forward and do it to steady and smooth. At recent conferences that we’ve been having, it’s very interesting whenever we go to our conferences with our users, any session on this topic is full to overflowing. And when I was asking customers, Why is this the case? Or why can can you not get a seat five minutes before the meeting starts? Everyone’s queuing at the door and they said, we all want to do this. And we all want to understand from others how they went about it and also learned from their mistakes.
ALLAN BEHRENS [00:09:21] And, you know, anybody listening to this. I mean, obviously, speak to yourself and your colleagues. You’ve got a vast amount of experience, obviously, in helping companies through this. So, you know, you rely on people that have already been through it and rely on companies that have actually dealt with this and the problems in the past.
PAUL BROWN [00:09:41] Yeah, absolutely. And I think, you know, that every company has its own unique solutions and problems. But we there’s a Common Core about how you can use this information and it applies. I mean, we mentioned earlier about what type of companies it also doesn’t matter the scale and size of your product isn’t the big factor. I mean, we’ve got customers who are designing small products for things that medical industry where they’re making use of the 3D annotation to help with their quality and also making sure they can get validation. But we also have our last conference, we had one of our large shipyard companies who are building a massive complex ships which are multi-year multi projects, and they’re using this approach, drawing less approach to being able to document what goes on that ships.
ALLAN BEHRENS [00:10:42] Great. Well, it’s a fascinating topic and I look forward to some more conversations about the requirements led sort of systems engineering side of model based paradigms. Next time, Paul. So thanks very much for your time. I hope you all found that interesting. I certainly did. We can all learn a lot from these conversations and I look forward to our next conversations Paul, Thank you.
PAUL BROWN [00:11:08] Thank you Allan.