What happens once the drawing leaves the designer
By Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director
We’re taught about the importance of sharing at an early age. Of course at that point it’s more about giving. For a design engineer, however, the mandate to share centers around taking. More specifically, taking feedback from all the parties involved so that the final product can be tweaked accordingly to mesh with sales, packaging and production functions.
In order to gain a better understanding of the working dynamic between designers and the latter of those departments mentioned above, Adobe Systems commissioned Harris Interactive Technology Research to perform what has come to be known as the Design Exchange and Collaboration Study on the Manufacturing Industry. This research project, which was sponsored by Adobe, focused on the areas critical to information flow and data exchange between those on the design and production sides. Specific areas of coverage included collaboration, information exchange and information control.
ADVERTISEMENT
Collaboration
 Overall Satisfaction with Information Collaboration: Both design and production respondents identified a displeasure in the way their company shares project information. (Click image for larger view.) |
On a positive note, 98 percent of those responding, which includes both design and production personnel, do collaborate on project information. This happens primarily through e-mail or face-to-face meetings. The primary benefits of this interaction, for both groups, lie in the ability to identify flaws that can negatively impact process efficiency and end-product quality levels. This information, like the obstacles to this process that were identified (which we’ll discuss shortly), is not surprising. However, when one considers that the same challenges were identified by both groups, these findings call for a moment of consideration.
In examining the responses of both groups, they cited the same collection of challenges when it comes to streamlining the collaboration process—a longer than necessary response time and a lack of clarity regarding the changes. This seems alarming for two reasons:
- It seems strange that if both parties recognize the process as inefficient, then why can’t they work together in figuring out a solution that saves time and simplifies feedback?
- Both of these issues can and will have long-term impacts on the competitiveness of their company and the product being developed.
Reducing development times, especially in those extremely competitive, consumer-focused product categories, is essential to company and product success. Additionally, the process seems to be further bogged down by feedback that is unclear or difficult to understand. This lends to extending design and production timelines, and exposing everyone involved to a more difficult operating environment that will have both internal and external ramifications.
Data Exchange
One explanation for the collaboration challenges cited above may be that 71 percent of all respondents said they were not satisfied with CAD review capabilities at their company. Again, both design and production personnel feel that access to CAD software for viewing and commenting on project data is limited, and that the review process has never been clearly defined.
 Information Control Measures: While more designers implement these control measures in obtaining feedback, production personnel seem to keep a much tighter hold on the type of feedback they will allow. (Click image for larger view.) |
This should strike a serious tone with both design personnel and upper management, as those charged with getting a design through the development pipeline and out in the market sooner are, in many cases, limited by the tools being made available to them. This not only makes their jobs more difficult, but impacts the company’s competitiveness in what is becoming a more and more global marketplace.
Supplementing this concept is the fact that only 34 percent of production personnel said they had access to 3-D CAD programs for reviewing product specifications. This could significantly limit their ability to troubleshoot issues and work through problems in the design phase before encountering them on the production floor, where more time and financial resources will be consumed in order to get things right.
After identifying the problems encountered in the collaboration and data exchange processes, respondents were asked about what software capabilities could help alleviate some of these issues. The following were cited by both design and production personnel as features that a software package “must have:”
- The ability to easily share electronic documents, save them and organize multiple document types for a project in one searchable file.
- Appropriate security features.
- The capability to initiate, track and manage the review cycle.
- A way to allow all participants to generate feedback electronically without having to purchase additional software.
- 3-D document data archiving.
- The visibility to see comments from multiple reviewers in a single file/document, exchange precise 3-D CAD geometry in a compact format, and view and navigate 3-D CAD designs without having to purchase a 3-D CAD application.
Control
When sharing design information with a significant number of people, being able to control the way feedback is provided without altering the original design file is vital. This not only prevents time-sapping re-works, but also aids in the management of all the recommendations that have been made. It’s no surprise that while half of all respondents voiced concern about preventing unauthorized changes to documents, those on the design side were, in some cases, more adamant than their cohorts in production. For example, 43 percent of designers surveyed said they place restrictions on the viewing of documents, as opposed to 34 percent of those in production.
 Areas of Improvement Related to Efficiency: How respondents are working to, or would suggest to improve the information exchange process that’s currently in place. (Click image for larger view.) |
Somewhat surprising, however, is that a greater number o