Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense Published by: Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense Introduction So in spite of what most say, switching from 2D to 3D is far from a no brainer decision. Today’s business climate doesn’t make it any easier either. You have to develop products on schedule and on budget. Your executives won’t accept excuses about CAD technology changes if it disrupts revenue streams. So when push comes to shove, you have to err on the conservative side. Is it getting old for you? If you’re like most people, the answer is a resounding yes. Today it’s hard to go online, attend a webinar or travel to an event without hearing about the need to switch from 2D to 3D. And while the continuous barrage is annoying, the messages are sometimes way off base. They imply 2D is a dinosaur technology. They imply organizations that use 2D are extreme laggards. And sometimes, they imply organizations can’t stay in business using 2D. So where does that leave you? You know about the technology as well as its advantages and benefits. You’ve had that drilled into your head over the years. What would really help is to get the real story. Not the ones propped up who won’t say anything negative. But the unvarnished truth about what does and doesn’t work. Annoyances and insults aside, this issue actually does merit serious consideration from engineering leaders. Should you dump 2D for the latest in 3D? You’ve heard about some of the resounding successes. Organizations get things done better, faster and cheaper. But you’ve also come across some horror stories along the way too. The learning curve is really steep. There’s some pushback from designers and engineers. The transition is rarely seamless. That’s where this eBook comes into play. Referencing findings from a study titled 2D and 3D CAD Trends in Product Design, it takes a fresh and frank look at how 2D and 3D is being used. And to give you a hint, dropping 2D for 3D isn’t the right answer for every organization. This eBooks makes several references throughout to a survey-based study titled 2D and 3D CAD Trends in Product Design. The study, conducted by PTC, includes responses from over 7,000 individuals in product development organizations and was completed in September 2011. The full set of results is accessible at http://www.ptc.com/go/2d-3d. Subscribe or Follow Chad Jackson is the founding Industry Analyst for Lifecycle Insights and publisher of the blog engineering-matters.com. He investigates and writes about the issues that matter the most to engineering. He can be reached at (512) 284-8080 or at [email protected] 2 Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas developed independently, © 2011 LC-Insights LLC Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense Adding 2D to 3D What Do Most Organizations Do? In contrast, the transition from 2D only to using both 2D and 3D is far less disruptive. That might mean some users that are ready can transition while more hesitant users can maintain their productivity. In this scenario, productivity is rarely threatened. It also means more complex designs can be done in 3D while simpler ones can be completed in 2D. That way, 3D is used where it is needed most. There's little doubt that 3D is widespread. Some 52% of the respondents from the 2D and 3D CAD Trends in Product Design study use 3D only. But did you know that roughly 4 in 10 actually stated that they use 2D and 3D together? So going 3D isn't just about replacing 2D. It can also be about adding 3D to a 2D environment. What’s the difference between the two? Lets take a look. It’s not all positive though. This final operating state means that the advantages of 3D won’t be realized in every aspect of engineering projects. You’ll still see multiple rounds of prototyping and change orders. But at least in a mixed environment, you’ll see less of it. Switching Directly to 3D Transitioning directly from 2D to 3D only can be a high risk and high reward proposition. Learning new concepts such as parametrics and features can be hard, oftentimes leading to a short-term productivity loss as well as cultural pushback. But the organization will start to realize the benefits, such as catching interferences early, performing simulations and quick iterative changes, across the board quickly. Generally, new projects are starting in 3D while ongoing projects are finished in 2D. But the change can be abrupt and sometimes painful. Nearly 4 in 10 use 2D and 3D together Subscribe or Follow 3 Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas developed independently, © 2011 LC-Insights LLC Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense The Good and Bad About 2D Of all the findings from the study, the one that is most surprising is this: nearly half of all organizations use 2D in some form. So despite the stigma associated with 2D, it must provide some serious business advantages to still be used so widely. Myth Busting: There Are Advantages to 2D So what exactly are the advantages of 2D? • If an organization has been using 2D for some time, then they most likely have an abundance of legacy designs in 2D drawings. Obviously there is an advantage in using 2D technology in that regard. • Another consideration is retraining engineering staff. Keeping 2D technology around enables the organization to avoid a big disruption to productivity. • While some organizations have completely switched to using 3D only, few have moved away from 2D engineering drawings as the official deliverable to manufacturing or suppliers. There are legitimate advantages to using 2D The main common benefit associated with 2D is the avoidance of a disruption, whether that is with a collection of legacy designs, the productivity of your employees or working with partners and suppliers. Subscribe or Follow 4 Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas developed independently, © 2011 LC-Insights LLC Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense Accepting Reality: 2D Has Challenges as Well We’ve seen some of the positives of 2D. But all of the negative press around 2D isn’t without merit. There are disadvantages that affect the effectiveness of an engineering organization. • No matter how gifted a user may be in visualizing a design from a spatial perspective, it’s almost impossible to see every single possible clash or interference on a 2D drawing. Inevitably, such missed issues that get downstream turn into change orders, unnecessary scrap and delays. • Another deficiency of 2D lies in its limited ability to allow users to virtually test the form, fit and function of the design. Instead, users turn to paper and spreadsheet calculations that don’t keep up with design changes. As a result, users wait until the end or reproduce the calculations manually. • 2D has longstanding flaws as well Reading an engineering drawing can be difficult, especially for those that aren’t in the engineering organization. Today’s manufacturers are increasingly moving towards enterprise design where manufacturing, service, procurement and other considerations influence design decisions. What’s the common theme here? An engineering 2D drawing isn’t the best representation for many activities in product development. Subscribe or Follow 5 Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas developed independently, © 2011 LC-Insights LLC Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense Refresher on The Technical Advantages of 3D Augmenting 2D with 3D So far, we’ve highlighted the fact that many organizations are adding 3D to an existing 2D environment. But what does that picture look like? Findings from the study offer some perspectives. The Reasons and Non-Reasons for Moving to 3D To start, it makes sense to ask why organizations are even moving to 3D at all. Some recent talk has hinted that some of the motivation might be cultural. More specifically that employees and customers would rather work in 3D and furthermore, that competitors were using 3D. Findings from the study found that few organizations felt that sort of pressure to move to 3D. Instead, the prime motivation is old school. It’s all about technical capabilities and the advantages they provide to the organization. What exact advantages does 3D provide when added alongside 2D? Don’t worry. Findings from the study show that 73% of the respondents have already considered 3D. So no exhaustive explanation extolling the virtues of 3D is coming next. But it is a worthwhile exercise to list them as a refresher. • Quick and easy iterative design exploration • Associative engineering drawings, illustrations and other deliverables • Analyses to catch interferences and clashes • Model ready for calculations and simulations • Unambiguous definition that can be used for feedback by many non-engineering organizations Percent (%) of respondents citing the following reasons to move to 3D: Subscribe or Follow 6 Wanted technology not available in 2D 39% Employees wanted to use 3D 16% Clients wanted us to work in 3D 14% Competitors use 3D 12% Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas developed independently, © 2011 LC-Insights LLC Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense Widespread Realized Business Benefits of 3D While there may be minimal need to review the technical advantages that 3D provides, it is important to understand the impact it can have on the operations of an engineering organization. • Need fewer physical prototypes: This traditional value proposition is simple: test your designs virtually so you can reduce the number of rounds of physical prototyping. The idea is you learn things virtually, where they are relatively inexpensive, instead of physically. • Need fewer engineering change orders: The concept here is similar to that of needing fewer physical prototypes. Only in this case you use virtual testing to catch issues that would have eventually become change orders. • More people / roles can participate in design review: While this advantage isn’t as longstanding as the first two, it’s still of great value. 3D models require little interpretation compared to 2D engineering drawings. As a result, more people in engineering and non-engineering organizations can review and provide feedback on the design. • Need fewer review meetings: Engineering project management meetings traditionally have been used to identify and resolve issues related to the design. Part of necessity of that effort was because of the ambiguity of 2D engineering drawings. Unambiguous 3D models make design flaws and issues evident far before people ever enter a project management meeting. Subscribe or Follow In summary, what you see in these findings is a punch list of the business benefits an organization can realize by adding 3D to 2D. It’s about avoiding non-value add time sink activities like multiple rounds of physical prototypes, change orders and review meetings. But it’s also about saving budgetary dollars as well. It takes money to build physical prototypes and studies have shown there is a cost associated with executing each change order. Ultimately, the gains positively affect the development schedule and the engineering budget. Capabilities of 3D translate into business benefits 7 Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas developed independently, © 2011 LC-Insights LLC Dropping 2D for 3D: Why It Doesn’t Always Make Sense Add 3D to Fill the Gaps of 2D Summary and Conclusion According to the study, the reasons organizations are adding 3D is clear: it’s all about the technical advantages of the technology and not about the cultural pressure from employees or business pressures from customers or competitors. The technical advantages include quicker design exploration, associative deliverables, models ready for analyses, calculations and simulations as well as definitions that can be used by non-engineering organizations. Furthermore, there are benefits you can realize by adding 3D to a 2D environment including: reduced rounds of prototyping, fewer change orders, more participation in design reviews and fewer review meetings overall. Over a couple decades, the incessant chant in the industry has been simple: drop 2D for 3D. As it turns out, per findings from the 2D and 3D CAD Trends in Product Design study, not everyone is following that mantra. In fact, over 4 in 10 organizations are using 2D and 3D together in their engineering operations. And for engineering leaders that are risk adverse when it comes to organizational productivity, it’s a very viable and attractive alternative. There Are Advantages and Disadvantages to 2D Ever since 3D technology was introduced, a negative stigma has slowly but surely been built around 2D over the years. But despite the negative press, findings from the study show that 2D delivers real business value by mitigating potential disruptions to the organization’s productivity. It lets teams work with collections of legacy 2D designs, avoid steep learning curves for longstanding 2D users and provide continuity in terms of working with partners and suppliers. Final Thoughts Traditionally, replacing 2D with 3D has been a high risk and high reward proposition. But the study shows that many organizations have achieved a more favorable outcome by simply adding 3D to their existing 2D environment. Some of the benefits of 3D can be realized without disrupting the entire organization’s productivity and maintaining coexistence with your current 2D environment. The negative press, however, is not completely without merit. It is not easy to visualize interferences and clashes on engineering 2D drawings. They limit an organization’s ability to virtually test a design’s form, fit and function through simulations. And it is difficult for non-engineers to interpret engineering drawings for their own purposes or to provide feedback on the design. Subscribe or Follow For more information on the 2D and 3D CAD Trends in Product Design study and other tools, visit http://www.ptc.com/go/2d-3d. 8 Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas developed independently, © 2011 LC-Insights LLC