科技新聞

第二季

2005/04/12

First cell phone was a true 'brick'

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- "The brick" weighed 2 pounds, offered just a half-hour of talk time for every recharging and sold for $3,995.

Clunky and overpriced?

Not in 1984, when consumers lined up in droves to buy the first cellular phone as soon as it hit the market. And certainly not to Rudy Krolopp, lead designer of the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X.

Krolopp, now 74 and retired, still gets a "warm fuzzy feeling" thinking about the DynaTAC and knowing that "a handful of us did something that was really significant."

This brick took over a decade to get to market.

Krolopp was assigned the project by Martin Cooper, who ran Motorola's research and development effort in wireless and was ultimately dubbed the father of the cell phone by then-CEO Robert Galvin. Both Cooper's and Krolopp's names are on the original patent along with that of John Mitchell, former head of the company's communications division.

"Marty called me to his office one day in December 1972 and said, 'We've got to build a portable cell phone,"' Krolopp recalled. "And I said 'What the hell's a portable cell phone?"'

Talk about short talk time -- Krolopp and his team were given six weeks to come up with a working model.

The urgency was because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was deliberating over whether to allow AT&T to set up a network to provide wireless service in local markets, and the phone company itself was considering making wireless phones. Motorola didn't want to be shut out.

After the meeting with Cooper, Krolopp got together with his design staff and built a conceptual model.

"We sprung it on the engineers one day," he said, recalling their surprise at how small it was at the time. "There were only eight guys in the room. Cooper said 'Anybody who doesn't believe this can be done, leave the room."'

No one did. But it was another 10 years and a total of $100 million in development costs before the phone was officially unveiled in 1983 -- the delay resulting mostly from the need to build towers and infrastructure.

Krolopp says Motorola's new Razr is "really a cut above" anything that was done in the past but still represents only "the tip of the iceberg" of what phone designers will be able to do.

"Oh, would we have loved to do that back then," he said of the Razr's wafer-thin size. "We had the capability to design it but we didn't have the capability to build it. We couldn't get batteries down that small, couldn't get antennas that small, couldn't get key pads to work that way.

"Technology has changed so much."

2005/04/25

(AP) -- Jay Leventhal, who is blind, still fumbles with the tiny controls on his iPod but has given up on the kiosk in his New York office building that lists all the tenants.

For Leventhal, even laundry has become a task requiring the help of a sighted person. The washers he uses now takes smart cards instead of quarters, issuing instructions on a digital screen that he can't read.

As technology has evolved, it's become lighter, smaller and more portable. For most people, that makes it more convenient. For millions of blind and vision-impaired people, it's anything but.

"The biggest barrier for blind people is access to information, and more and more information is being made available through different machines that aren't designed for people who can't see," says Leventhal, editor in chief of AccessWorld: Technology and People with Visual Impairments.

Blind people need a way to communicate with the machines that surround them, he says, from automated tellers to ticketing machines at train stations and airports.

Leventhal and other experts on assistive technology say there's no reason that can't happen. The technology exists in voice chips, image processors, cell phones, cameras and personal digital assistants.

Someone just needs to put it all together.

That's the principle behind the Levar Burton Vision Enhancement Technology Center, a fledgling venture in Morgantown, West Virginia, that will pair the resources of West Virginia University and Georgia Tech with private-sector partners like Motorola Corp.

Levar Burton, who played blind Lt. Geordi La Forge in "Star Trek: The Next Generation," is lending his name and star power to fund-raising efforts for the center.

Though he's not blind, he wore a visor on the set that impaired his vision by 75 percent for nearly 12 hours a day.

The center and its partners will use off-the-shelf technologies like lasers, magnifiers and global positioning systems to develop, test and market products to help people see better. The American Foundation for the Blind, which runs a technology evaluation center in Huntington, West Virginia, will advise the scientists.

Of the 18 million Americans with diabetes, for example, about 5 million are visually impaired.

But when Mark Uslan, director of the Huntington facility and his lab volunteers tested 30 brands of blood glucose monitors, they found only one that was usable -- but it was 10 times larger and 10 times more expensive than the other models tested.

Mainstream companies need to consider the vision-impaired when designing products, Leventhal says.

"There's no reason for someone to have to make an MP3 player that's accessible to blind people when several companies are already making MP3 players," he says.

Though many assistive devices are commercially available for the blind and vision-impaired, each has limitations and nearly all are expensive, produced in small batches by specialized companies. Even a software program that makes a computer talk is nearly $1,000 -- as much as the computer itself.

And with few health insurers willing to pay, sales are too small to justify significant corporate investment.

"That's why we've had to take this avenue," says Dr. Richard "Scott" Hearing, director of the Low Vision Clinic at Jupiter Eye Center in Florida and an adjunct faculty member at WVU. "If there were a lot of money to be made in this, someone would have already done it. ... It's not the cost of the technology that's expensive; it's the cost of adapting it for vision impairment."

A few companies are working on assistive technology, but one of the largest and oldest, Telesensory Corp. of Sunnyvale, California, went bankrupt and closed last month.

Jody Ianuzzi, program coordinator at a blindness training center in Florida, says cost is critical. Some people will find state programs to pay for devices, and others have employers who will buy them as a reasonable workplace accommodation. But for retirees and the under- or unemployed, she says, "one device could break the bank."

Hal Reisiger, president of Enhanced Vision Systems of Huntington Beach, California, says that's why his firm will partner with the Levar Burton Center; new products must be practical for the manufacturer, too.

"We could make flying saucers," he says, "but if people can't afford it, it's not an effective mode of transportation."

Hearing and others aim to keep costs low by designing not only assistive devices but also mainstream products with military and recreational applications.

Burton's Star Trek character is the inspiration for one of the most advanced devices on the market today, a set of goggles called JORDY, or Joint Optical Reflective Display.

It functions like two high-definition television sets, with controls over color, contrast and magnification.

But the JORDY is heavy, offers a limited field of view and lacks image stabilization, so it can cause motion sickness. And it costs about $3,000.

Paul Mogan, a legally blind electronic engineer at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, says JORDY is best suited to stationary tasks like reading. He wants to help create the next incarnation, special sunglasses linked to a wireless computer that can fit on a belt or in a pocket.

With a voice chip, GPS and image processors, the visor could serve as a sort of on-board navigation system for the blind, calling out hazards, announcing nearby shops, even reading signs that say what's on sale.

NASA has a compatible goal: The space agency wants a wearable wireless computer that would help technicians work independently outside a spacecraft.

"NASA has this initiative to go to the moon and Mars, and you're not going to be able to take a ton of crew, so you're going to have to be very efficient in what you're going to do," Mogan says. "All people have to be able to have access to a lot of information."

2005/05/05

ConnectPress's COFES Contest Runner-Up: Innovations That Will Make Your Engineering Life Easier

By Michael Lynch, CEO, Right Hemisphere

By Kim Spinsby

Predicting innovative trends we will see in the next 2-5 years in engineering and manufacturing is an easy task. Most PLM developers are already busy coding the offerings their users will see in two years, and the foundations and architecture are already formed for the next five years.

Several emerging technologies and trends - just beyond the 5 year horizon - are already visible. Others are already viable, and suggest not only improvements to our current tools and processes for design, but major shifts in the way we define and practice design and engineering.

Imagine designing unrestricted to an office, or even a monitor or keyboard, and with all desired information, without excess or overload. Mundane and repetitive tasks will be minimized and true productivity will increase. The only roadblock will be the lagging organizational acceptance of change in social systems and management attitudes. More on this later.

Engineers and their companies are tasked with offering solutions that both solve a specific set of needs and give unique advantages to the consumer. Rarely does this come in the form of radically new concepts. Most of our products come from stretching the known characteristics: something that is larger, smaller, faster, more precise... or that has other performance improvement, price differential, better aesthetics or other bells and whistles. With this understanding, let's take a brief look at trends and innovations.

TREND: Creation Enabler vs. Creator
As we attempt to "design" new solutions with our current suite of tools, we continually search for new processes or functionality that would make us more efficient in completing the path from need to a "product" or solution. Engineers typically are first, collectors and organizers of information, building an information mountain. As we start to form initial concepts to meet requirements, and then redefine them, we find information and its re-use becomes the driving means of productivity. Then we become sculptors, evaluating and discarding all unneeded data, until the remaining solution is simple and elegant.

Observing millennia of history, and several decades personally, I have seen a common trend: what we take for granted today was once a luxury or a skill of a specialist - a "black art" in its day of conception. We engineers are today’s specialists. In the future, the data we collect now will already be collated, configured to allow the consumer to become the product engineer.

The true inventor/designer of all products and services is the consumer. His or her need drives our developments and success. I’ve watched the CAx market develop from the days of computer programmers drawing circles on storage tubes and expect the future to allow consumers to create products by combining characteristics to meet their unique sets of needs.

Engineering in the future will be defined as the process that enables anyone to become the actual designer of all products and processes. It will truly be the customer who intends to use these products or processes. The role of the engineer will change from being a creator to an enabler of the consumer's direct creation. Anyone will be able to quickly pull characteristics from multiple solution components and watch incredible computing power link virtual modular scenarios into unique custom products. Everyone will be using a continually learning, collective intelligence, based on the foundations of AI.

TREND: Moving the User From Proximity to the Computing Core
My personal experience the past few years has been with mostly metal fabricated structures and assemblies, constructed from joining components of formed metals. Initial design constraints are defined by the customers: functions, performance, physical characteristics (size, weight), environment.... Most engineers initially draw from accepted past exercises and experiences, only stretching the current to accommodate the expanded needs. Some of the most practical "innovations" come from observing a desired phenomenon in an unrelated simile, such as applying a concept from cosmetics into an industrial coating - aka "paint."

Since most innovation is often a recombination of modules, AI principles would suggest that the first choice would use qualities and features in a slight variation of an existing combination.

When a designer has chosen a solution (component) for evaluative iteration, and decides to include it in an assembly (utilize electrical characteristics), or package the solution, he needs his chosen characteristics to become quickly available for evaluation.

Envision a suite of tools that transcends all enterprise operations, helping engineers, managers and all members of their companies to offer unique solutions, serving the desire of corporate and individual consumers. Though this is a lofty goal; we must start in the mind of the engineer.

Example: A switch in an assembly. Electrical factors: configuration (spst), performance (amps, voltage, load). Mechanical factors: size, how mounted, environment. If the switch needs to be assembled into a larger assembly, how will it be mounted? Does it come with mounting holes? If yes, this suggests that it will be attached. Then what are the size of the holes, and thickness of the feet? They assume a suggested mounting and that the holes would be standard hardware choices.

What connections need to be made? And what connection conditions are required?

Example: A proposed electrical product. Defined by a function (circuit), and a package. Our mechanical designer starts with a proposed circuit (an electrical assembly) and then attempts to choose the components to satisfy the circuit designer's intent. He queries all known sources available as potential innovations, but weights choices based on past experience of the company or the market. As the specifications are added, the choices are quickly narrowed.

What we need is a process to collect all available solutions, but weight their selection by current experience, use or known failure characteristics. Ultimately, a search engine would browse and pre-select all available choices, all available information; then selectively narrow choices and track the importance of which characteristics were used to narrow the selection. This data would be used to optimize resources in future selections.

At the same time, the perpetual search should be continued, collected, and indexed to meet future needs not yet defined. Any resource idled needs to be sensed and utilized to continue expanding the search and reducing duplicated data and solutions (product differentiation and market definition). Finally, the system should anticipate a resource’s use the next time a similar association is needed – by recognizing a pattern of use.

TREND: Creation Engines vs. Requirements Management
I learned early in my life, as a pilot and engineer, several key concepts. Like life, and business, engineering is a negotiation of compromises. It is:


1) The most acceptable solution currently available, constructed from a process of combining a balance of conflicting needs, by selecting desired traits.

2) There is no such animal as designing a solution that will never fail. Instead we design a solution whose failure is beyond the specified requirements and fails in an expected, predictable manner, avoiding undesired consequences.

A good example of a design process that can be optimized is the process of making an assembly of components. The manufacturer will provide all the characteristics in a representation that allows its virtual inclusion by a designer into an assembly. Initially, this means in a "lightweight," vendor-neutral format that allows a designer to utilize the "solution" in his/her concept. Since I work in an industry that has many different "designers" - electrical, mechanical and "business" - each has a subset of the information they deem important to their role in the design and manufacturing teams.

An electrical designer desires the "solution" (component) to meet performance characteristics. The mechanical designer for the same "solution” (product) needs to meet many physical characteristics as well as connectivity. Since both are "looking" for solutions, they must be able to quickly evaluate a world of potential options and extract their needed piece of data, quickly and efficiently. A solution is currently available through the information delivery of the internet, and selection is aided through "search tools." The first time, this is an effort-consuming task for a designer.

To extract the needed characteristics from an almost infinite offering without being drowned in unneeded information is a challenge. The process translates into what is currently known as requirements management. If we combine this with a learning, collective set of rules (AI), we can optimize the search and selection process, to optimize a very valuable resource... time.

But creativity may find a better solution which falls OUTSIDE the limits of rules we build. What we need is a constant automatic analysis of solutions not chosen, in potentially unique combinations not previously considered. Some simple experiments of this have been undertaken by "creation engines," which automatically iterate potential combinations that would be initially eliminated by rules sections based on previous experience (in the box).

Hardware/Interface Trends
Here I offer a few observations and opinions about how we will relate to our computers in the future.

TREND: Input and Output Devices Getting Smaller, Lighter, Lower or Empowered - and "Further from the Computing Core"
Current: Viewing and projection devices tied to a physical computer.
Future: Common use of projection (heads up) and wireless, lightweight portable (PDA-like) display devices, integrated with eye-tracking and command selection and acceptance devices. Wearable/portable computing takes off via these wireless interface (I/O) devices, further separating users from core computing power, releasing designers from keyboard, mice, desks, and offices.

Current: Spaceball and mice.
Future: Body-mounted, multi-axial wireless devices (6 degrees of freedom (DOF)); a wireless "ball" that you move in three axes, turn in your hand, bring closer or further (zoom), 6 DOF. It would be tied to a 3-dimensional tracking device, measuring all six of its six DOF. This would preferably be passive (unpowered), maybe transponder-based. And later, possibly the wireless ball has the image projected inside it.

These could be teamed with a pair of active image opticals (primitive=glasses) that can be turned to any point of view, zoomed, cut and layered. They would include attributes that can be summoned and queried at will and include eye-tracking and command acceptance devices.

The next wave would include a PDA-like display device that has a pop-up screen to enable holographic display coupled with keyboards. This would then give way to portable and lightweight wireless "chording devices," combined with armature suits; and/or non-invasive myelosensitive interface wristbands that translate small, non-stressed body movements to "input."

Speech Technologies as input: I also see what I once discarded - voice input and searches - as becoming viable and the preferred input device for many transactions. In the past, the thoughts of designers sitting adjacent in shared cubicles, calling out verbal commands to their workstation was horrifying. But as speech technology progresses, starting with the use of "dictation cups" and voice recognition, and continuing with increasing use of AI to anticipate and evaluate functions, this will become more viable.

Process Trends
Trend: Lightweight, "streaming" graphics models can be displayed quickly in simple form (lightweight data), automatically adding anticipated layers of detail or manually providing requested detail.

Trend: Bandwidth increases and the team disperses (elimination of the "team workplace"). As bandwidth increases, I see a general trend for the central "team workplace" to be dispersed. Also, it will become significantly more profitable for design teams to require continuous physical presence (proximity) to other members of the team. Better virtual communication technologies will accelerate this, along with commonly accepted productivity metrics of the design and engineering processes, tied with better methods of tracking competencies. Reward/pay will truly be based on contribution and its measured metrics. It will not be dependent on where the team member chooses to work, but on the significance of the contributions.

A few other innovations I’d like to see:
1) A combined Google and Thomas Registry-like product would search internationally accepted (uniform) standards for describing components or products, specifically for reusable components.

2A) A partial data input or "scan" would compare a physical object by perceived characteristics, and, through AI pattern recognition, would identify the "object" and add it to a collective worldwide database.

2B) An analytical chamber for scanning objects for shape, density and many other functions would have multiple (non-destructive) capabilities, and apply chosen analysis methods based on physical characteristics (super CMM) with X-ray, diffraction, resonance, imaging... for reverse engineering.

3) Bi-directional data sharing between design organizations would allow a collective, neutral, and user-anonymous database. It would be generically encoded and possibly identification key-coded, and collection of the inquiries would be compiled for the sake of accuracy and use of all. Proprietary data would be protected. Anyone designing would get interactive suggestions based on the experience of all, including generalized costs based on batch size, tooling costs, shipping information including packaging and transportation costs, and regulatory constraints, including recycling costs and procedures.

Initially, some of the emerging technologies mentioned in this essay will be disruptive. The most probable and successful early adopters will be those unencumbered by a legacy of forcing new tools to implement or mimic old processes. In a short time, many of these innovations will free us from technical and social restraints, enhancing our personal and collective creativity, and vastly improving productivity. The ultimate effect will be the engineer creating the tools to enable consumers and customers to become the creators.

2005/06/04

Rapid Injection Molding Brings New Possibilities

By Brad Cleveland, president and CEO, The Protomold Company, Inc.

Now more than ever, technological advancements drive the product design process. Increasingly powerful CAD programs allow more complex product designs, which in turn drive the demand for more complex prototypes. At the same time, fast-moving competitive markets require frequent design changes, shorter lead-times, and tighter budgets. In short, prototyping must be faster, better, and less expensive.

While traditional rapid prototyping is still widely used, a growing number of design engineers are turning to rapid injection molding for prototype development. Pioneered by The Protomold Company of Maple Plain MN, rapid injection molding is based on the use of proprietary software technology that automates the process of designing injection molds and a streamlined mold manufacturing process, resulting in fully functional parts while dramatically reducing the time and cost normally associated with conventional injection molding. As acceptance grows, rapid injection molding is changing the way designers think about prototyping in industries like aerospace, appliances, automobiles, electronics, and medical devices.

Different Processes for Different Needs
While rapid prototyping and rapid injection molding both start with a 3-D CAD part model, the actual processes and end results are very different. Rapid prototyping, which includes technologies like stereolithography, selective laser sintering, fused deposition modeling, laminated object manufacturing and three dimensional printing, creates a prototype layer-by-layer to form the end product.(1) Rapid injection molding, on the other hand, uses the familiar process of injecting heated thermoplastics into a metal mold, where the material cools into the desired shape.(2) Unlike rapid prototyping, rapid injection molding produces a fully functional, injection-molded part. The resulting quality difference is so significant that many design engineers who test form and fit using rapid prototyping will still check the functionality of their prototypes using rapid injection molding. Also, while conventional mold-making is very labor intensive, rapid injection molding fully automates this step, typically reducing tooling cost and lead time by two-thirds.

Quantity and Quality Considerations
Rapid prototyping may be an acceptable choice for creating small numbers of prototypes in very short lead times – typically fewer than 10 parts in one to five days. But rapid injection molding can economically deliver 25 to 1,000 production-quality prototypes in 3 to 15 days. When production-quality surface finishes are not required, rapid prototyping may be an acceptable choice, but the “stairstep” surface it leaves on parts is a significant disadvantage, as it keeps parts from fully reproducing the intended design. Rapid injection molding, on the other hand, uses a CNC-machined metal mold to create the part shape, so it can replicate the intended shape much more accurately, just as with conventional injection molded parts. This can greatly increase the value of the prototype to the design engineer.

Furthermore, rapid prototyping is very limited with respect to materials that can be used and often creates prototypes too fragile for rigorous physical testing. Rapid injection molding can utilize a wide range of production-grade resins to manufacture fully functional parts, allowing the design engineer to consider both mechanical properties (e.g. strength, temperature resistance, etc.) and cost when ordering the prototypes. At Protomold, customers can select from hundreds of in-stock resins or provide the material themselves.

Rapid Injection Molding for Design, Testing and Production
Rapid injection molding can be utilized from the earliest stages of product development through bridge tooling and ongoing production. After rapid injection molding is used to create prototypes, it can support the manufacture of 1,000, even 10,000 parts for pilot production or market testing at no additional tooling cost. If high production volumes do justify production steel tooling, rapid injection molding can be used as bridge tooling, to produce fully functional production parts until the steel tool is available. And when production volumes are moderate, rapid injection molding can be a complete, cost-effective production solution.

How Rapid Injection Molding Works
Rapid injection molding is a unique, highly automated method of producing injection molded parts from a 3-D CAD part model. The core technology is proprietary software that automatically converts the part model into toolpaths for CNC milling machines. These in turn produce the mold components that, when assembled and mounted on an injection molding press, produce the desired part. (See Figures 1 and 2. Open the image window above and click on the Forward button to scroll through images).

Although a vast array of geometries can be produced, some limitations in part size and complexity exist due to the highly automated nature of the mold making process. For example, CNC milling results in rounded external part corners. Some high-aspect ratio features, e.g. thin ribs, may not be machinable. And the ability to produce “undercut” part geometry features is limited.

However, adapting part designs to be compatible with rapid injection molding can be very simple. After submitting a 3-D CAD part design via Protomold’s Web site, design engineers receive feedback on part geometry and pricing via ProtoQuote®, Protomold’s Web-based interactive software. ProtoQuote allows designers to change parameters such as the number of cavities, A- and B-side finish levels, and resin, as well as the desired delivery schedule. These changes automatically update the price quote.

The software also provides a rapid injection molding compatibility review, often suggesting changes that will improve moldability or reduce tooling cost. This automatic analysis highlights undercuts, wall thicknesses that could cause fill or sink problems, and areas where draft is required. The system also provides color-coded indications of radii resulting from the mold-milling process and areas where a minimum thickness might be required. If design modifications are indicated, design engineers can consult Protomold’s online design guide or contact the company’s engineering professionals for assistance.

When the order is finalized, the Protomold software automatically generates the mold design, including core and cavity geometries, shutoff surface generation, gate-design layout, and ejector-pin placement. The software then outputs toolpaths to CNC machine cells to manufacture the required mold components.

Discovering the Benefits of Rapid Injection Molding
Trapeze Networks™, a wireless local area networking (WLAN) startup company based in Pleasanton, Calif., recently collaborated with its design firm and Protomold to manufacture a wide range of parts used in the company’s new WLAN Mobility System™ product line. This suite of products shares a system-wide control plane and data plane that delivers secure user mobility, seamless wired and wireless integration, and tools to plan and manage large enterprises — before and after deployment.

The company’s initial plan was to consider a two-step approach to product development. In the first step, the company intended to use “rapid prototypes” to verify form and fit. In the second phase, once the design had been refined and stabilized, it would use a conventional injection-molding process to get working parts and premium-quality prototypes to test functionality. But, on advice of its design-engineering firm, Santa Ana, Calif.-based designsUNLIMITED, Trapeze Networks decided to try an alternative process, using the relatively new technology of rapid injection molding.

Because Trapeze received its rapid injection molded parts in just five days, the company was able to skip the rapid prototyping step of new product design for its Mobility Points™ product and move directly to functional testing and production ramp-up — faster and more cost-effectively than they originally believed possible.

Once the initial testing was completed, Trapeze proceeded with placing a high-volume production tooling order from a current supplier and was quoted an eight-week lead time. After showing this supplier what Protomold accomplished in one week, the company was able to renegotiate the production-tooling lead time to four weeks. During the interim from low-volume to high production, Trapeze was able to use parts made from Protomold to support its production ramp-up while the high-volume tooling was manufactured.

With the ability to obtain accurate, rapid injection molded parts, Trapeze has radically changed its product development cycle.

New Possibilities
Before rapid injection molding, design engineers faced a large gap between the capabilities of rapid prototyping and conventional injection molding. Rapid prototyping parts were fast and relatively cheap, but weren’t “real”. Injection molded prototypes were real parts, but neither cheap nor fast. With rapid injection molding it is now possible to get real parts, real fast and at a real savings. To find out more about rapid injection molding, visit The Protomold Company’s Web site at www.protomold.com.

References
1. Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping, http://home.att.net/~castleisland.

2. Injection Plastic Molding Design Guide, www.engineersedge.com/injection_molding.htm.

2005/06/29

Are We Asking the Right Questions About 3D Viewer Technology? A Higher-Level View of Enterprise Data Assets

The global economy imposes ever-increasing pressures on individual companies. The needs to control manufacturing costs and improve productivity are more critical than ever for success. Manufacturing processes get more difficult outsourcing and partnering introduce multiple levels of complexity for operations management. Efforts to better leverage outside resources have executives trying to find standardized technology and tools, especially when it comes to sharing and accessing vital engineering data assets. The world of digital assets has resulted in the emergence of impressive but confusing choices for critical tools such as 3D viewers.

Emerging technologies invariably follow similar evolutionary patterns. Initially, a breakthrough in one area leads to a variety of competing alternatives, all claiming to be the best. For example, think back to the early days of corporate computing. Several major computer vendors and lots of smaller providers tried to convince potential customers that it was best to select one computing vendor for all of their needs — One vendor with one system architecture, one family of proprietary software solutions, and one support organization that could handle all situations. But the customers soon discovered the truth: choice was not about the selection of a single vendor. Instead, open heterogeneous computing models were adopted as a means to integrate heterogeneous computer platforms within their own organizations, and as a means of communicating with partners and suppliers more effectively.

　

“Digital data assets remain virtually locked up within separate engineering teams unless an enterprise can create a practical 3D asset pipeline for reaching all of the various downstream users in manufacturing, marketing, sales, and support.”

　

Today, the providers of 3D viewing technology would have us believe that we are faced with a similar need to select a single, superior solution that can meet all needs now and into the future. We can apply what history has taught us, consider what we see happening, and make some educated predictions. In the not-so-distant future, all of the 3D viewing products will provide similar visualization, zoom, pan, annotations, measurements, and other capabilities — all features being demanded by CAD users today. So too will the CAD formats become less and less differentiated, yet still proprietary with respect to each vendor’s viewer application. The 3D viewers and CAD formats will evolve to excel in specialized tasks, to target specific industries, or to set themselves apart in a variety of other ways. Engineering teams will be able to choose the viewers that fit their projects, processes, and user needs. In fact, we are very close to this reality today.

Solving the Real Problem: Adopting an Enterprise-Wide 3D Data Model
What challenges are raised if we avoid the trap of standardizing on a single viewer and its related 3D data format? Engineering organizations today are often geographically dispersed, and multiple viewers are typical within the same company. Outsourced suppliers and partners complicate the situation, inevitably bringing additional 3D formats and tools into the picture. Even if companies succeed at standardizing formats and tools in house, supporting all of the various viewers and 3D data formats poses challenges when working with outsourced suppliers and partners. More serious challenges exist for non-technical users outside of engineering. Digital data assets remain virtually locked up within separate engineering teams unless an enterprise can create a practical 3D asset pipeline for reaching all of the various downstream users in manufacturing, marketing, sales, and support.

Is it possible to create an enterprise 3D data framework that supports numerous 3D data formats and a hodge-podge of non-integrated tools? Digital data management solutions do in fact exist, and can enable all-encompassing 3D data strategies.

Shifting focus from 3D data formats to a 3D data strategy allows digital assets to become an integral part of a product lifecycle management (PLM) strategy. The enterprise 3D data strategy can address engineering visualization needs, and also provide better returns on investments by enabling the application of engineering data throughout the corporate infrastructure.

What should this 3D data strategy look like? Consider the napkin-to-retirement lifespan of any 3D data asset and the many uses for the asset during that period. Many collaborating design teams need the ability to share access to 3D data, and non-engineering organizations would like to use graphics generated by extracting and transforming 3D engineering data into formats that make sense to their team (see Figure 1). By creating a product graphics management (PGM) pipeline, enterprises could gain an open, scalable foundation. A broad range of data formats, authoring tools, and third-party publishing applications could coexist to facilitate the 2D and 3D graphics authoring and publishing process.


　

PGM solutions can streamline the workflows and management of 3D assets throughout every part of the enterprise, and can even extend access of those assets to outsourced partners and customers. Ideally, a PGM solution overcomes some key challenges:

• Automating the transformation and authoring of derivative graphics—The PGM pipeline must provide an efficient engine to help optimize diverse needs of the various graphics publishing processes, streamline graphics transformation and authoring, and provide an efficient way to update these same models on an enterprise scale.

• Managing and viewing multiple data formats—Users must be able to securely and easily search and view the data represented in more than 100 2D/3D graphic formats in a common repository. These formats are generated by a multitude of applications ranging from CAD, CAE, and digital mockup applications, raster/vector illustration software, and audio, video, and motion picture applications.

• Integrating PGM solutions with CAD/PDM and publishing applications—The pipeline must provide an open platform for leveraging existing CAD and PDM investments. Product-related graphics must be accessible using a variety of authoring, collaboration and publishing applications so that companies can accelerate, complement, and extend PLM adoption.

Attributes of a Viable PGM Solution
What are the characteristics of an open PGM solution that can support a range of 3D viewer and asset management technologies and thereby optimally leverage existing 3D data assets?

A viable PGM solution starts with a many-to-many model for the enterprise 3D data workflow. A broad range of imported engineering data formats must be supported, along with the ability to export data in numerous formats suited to the efficient downstream delivery of the assets involving a broad range of tools, applications, and users. Without sacrificing visual quality, the large original engineering files must be reduced down to sizes that won’t overload the enterprise infrastructure, that retain visual accuracy and realism, and that can be accessed and updated in real time.

Automated functionality is another hallmark of a best-of-breed PGM solution. An enterprise-wide 3D data platform should include automated abilities for:

• Extracting large data volumes of 3D models from all mainstream engineering applications

• Translating the models into lightweight formats quickly

• Optimizing the models for quality and high-speed delivery, including clean-up functions such as unifying normals, healing meshes, and polygon reduction

• Transforming the data to create high-impact 2D/3D content for multiple uses and users, including modification of lighting effects, colors, textures, and other characteristics of the model, and the introduction of interactivity, animation, and exploded-parts views

• Dynamically updating models as 3D models change

An open solution will also integrate with existing CAD/PDM, content management, and publishing systems, as well as a large number of best-of-breed authoring applications and tools. This strength provides users with maximum leverage of existing 3D assets and minimizing the in-house IT effort required to support the numerous tools and software solutions that take advantage of transformed digital data files.

These combined attributes of a PGM solution — a many-to-many model, automation, integration, and management — solve the data format problems faced by enterprises today. PGM solutions are available that can eliminate the incompatibilities and meet the needs of the downstream users while minimizing the overhead required to manage 3D data assets. Data silos are eliminated, and differences in individual 3D viewers and other tools become non-issues as users are allowed to choose the best tool for their task at hand.

The Payoffs: A New Enterprise Workflow
Technology markets are always looking for ways to streamline engineering processes. Product lifecycle management (PLM) remains a hot topic as companies endeavor to cut operating expenses while speeding products to market. The emergence of PGM solutions and their related lightweight 3D data formats represent an exciting opportunity to enhance and compliment engineering workflows by introducing major PLM advances for the entire enterprise. For the engineering teams, the lightweight data formats enable next-generation visualization such as digital mock-up (DMU) solutions. Real-time design reviews and collaborative work can be carried out from the earliest phases of the design process. Standardized lightweight formats such as Adobe PDF are also enabling extended collaborative abilities.

But the biggest payoffs come from beyond engineering. Many parts of the enterprise benefit from early access to relevant and detailed design information and ease of use that opens engineering data to less-technical users:

• Manufacturing: Bills of materials can be automatically extracted from engineering model files; digital mock-ups can be viewed to begin manufacturing planning earlier in the lifecycle; interactive training of assembly workers can be enhanced by leveraging 3D data (minimizing manual content development).

• Marketing: Non-engineering users can view early product visualizations and provide feedback early in the design phases; marketing collateral can incorporate product visuals extracted automatically from engineering data concurrently with design.

• Technical Publications: Product and manufacturing teams can leverage the 3D data concurrently with the design of the products, speeding the creation of 2D/3D manuals for maintenance and training teams.

• Training: Interactive training materials can be developed from 3D CAD assets. This content can be created concurrently with the design of the products themselves, resulting in reduced time to market for products and services.

• Support and Service: Online content and interactive web-based training can be affordably deployed using existing 3D data assets; updates can be propagated instantly over networks to remote service organizations and in-field customer support teams.

• Collaboration: RFQs, ECOs, marketing materials, technical publications, interactive training, and even design reviews — all containing 3D content — can be shared and reviewed by using the ubiquitous and free publishing viewer, Adobe Reader; inside and outside the enterprise. With the ability to publish 3D data as Adobe PDF files, a standard and secure collaboration and publishing framework becomes a reality across the extended enterprise.

The idea of providing diverse users with the ability for 3D viewing and application of engineering content has inspired discussions of a larger class of solutions sometimes referred to as mock-up, visualization, and 3D publishing (MVP). Whether discussed in terms of MVP or PGM, the benefits of an enterprise-wide 3D graphics pipeline are attracting the interest of many companies that want to formulate strategies for more effectively managing and leveraging digital assets.

The excitement around MVP and PGM solutions stems from the emerging visions of redefined digital asset workflows for today’s enterprises. The new workflows not only streamline the 3D viewing and collaboration tasks for engineering, but also provide downstream users with major productivity boosts resulting from early and constant access to up-to-date, detailed product information. Since the total life cost of any data asset is predominantly related to the support and integration of a product throughout the enterprise, technologies such as PGM solutions that can reduce the cost of 3D content creation by 90% promise rapid returns on investments for digital data assets.

　.....................