We
used 2D CAD sparingly and even less 3D CAD; drawing boards were
the tool of preference. The environment was simple, creative and
fun to work in. PDM, PLM -- what was that? We had electronics,
cables, mechanics, software, design intent, collaboration, part
numbers, drawings, drawing numbers, BOM’s, standard parts,
purchased parts, suppliers, venders, etc. But we nearly starved
of computers. How did we survive? How could we possibly
innovate? How did we ever get a product out the door? Well we
did, and we won several awards while doing it, one for
innovation (many new patents) and one for manufacturability. Not
because of any one individual, but more due to the teamwork and
collaboration that seemed to naturally exist. Our employer had
about 80,000 employees at the time. It was one of those big
companies that are not supposed to be able to innovate. Today
the chances are pretty good that if you click on the Print
button while reading this, the article will be printed on an
inkjet printer. I guess our innovations were substantial and
foundational, since inkjet printing is still a leading
technology today.
I’m not trying to paint a perfect picture of the good old
days. We certainly had our issues. There were paper drawings
strewn all over the place and long rows of cabinets filled with
drawings. It was almost impossible to re-use or leverage old
data. Much knowledge was managed and maintained “upstairs” with
some of the key individuals. Engineering changes were very
time-consuming. We usually went through several prototypes and
often times projects were redefined or even cancelled late in
the process. However, teamwork and collaboration was not a
significant problem. We were able to work as a close team and
get things done. This teamwork was a key element to the
innovation that occurred.
Individual Productivity and the Decline of Teamwork
In engineering and product development our CAD systems were
improving, our computers were getting faster, and we had more of
them in the office. However, while individual productivity
seemed to be improving, teamwork and collaboration started
becoming more challenging. Our design teams were becoming
dispersed. Many of us were spending more time on conference
calls and airplanes. To increase the emerging complexities of
product development, these dispersed teams were also using a
variety of different CAD tools. Data interoperability became a
significant issue. Team members were in different time zones and
in many cases spoke different languages. As these trends
continued, eventually teamwork and collaboration were not so
natural. Innovation, along with our ability to make timely
decisions, became more challenging.
The Business of Innovation
Innovation was still not often considered a key contributor
to the primary business drivers of growth and profit. The focus
remained on manufacturing where results were tangible and
measurable. The improvements that we did make in product
development were often related to individual productivity, but
in some cases we looked at what was bringing success in
manufacturing and attempted to apply the same to product
development. We were quick to think that what worked in
manufacturing should and could work in engineering. We started
pushing the systems, tools and methods from manufacturing into
product development. Managing data and processes were certainly
some of the common methods brought forward. By bringing these
types of capabilities upstream into product development, we
started moving into the realm of what we now call PLM -- Product
Lifecycle Management.
Read more...
The
full article is available for a fee at
