Multi-CAD and PDM: Dead Lock?

by Oleg on February 17, 2012 · 30 comments

This post was provoked by twitter conversation between me, Jonathan Scott of Razorleaf and Brian Roepke of Autodesk. Let me give you a context. During SolidWorks World general session yesterday, Jonathan commented about coming SolidWorks EPDM integration with DraftSight – free CAD software for your DWG files.  I thought, it might be beneficial to have DraftSight integration with Autodesk Vault. However, it appears to be a mistake. Watch that…

This conversation made me think again about what happens in the space of integration of product data management products and design software. Time ago, I posted – Immersive CAD management: is it the CAD / PDM future? Another post related to the same topic was – Back to basics: Multi-CAD and PLM. Last year, I posted CAD, PDM and PLM diversity. What I found common between all these cases is that I can see more and more stable bundles between CAD and PDM systems.

I can see an increased demand for better data-management functionality in CAD systems. The integration of data-management applications increased over the past 2-3 years. Vendors started to think about PDM functionality like revision management and vaulting as a standard function in CAD applications. Dassault V6 took this process even future and introduced CATIA V6 bundled with ENOVIA server.

In my view, CAD-PDM integration played a significant role in the first wave of broad PDM adoption. Multi-CAD support was (and still is) considered as an important function of PDM (and sometimes even PLM) system. To support heterogeneous environment, pure play PDM/PLM vendors must include multi-CAD support. It happened almost to all vendors in PDM/PLM space. On the opposite side, CAD/PDM vendors decided to strength their bundles and prefer to integrate data-management systems only with their own CAD systems. In my view, Multi-CAD integration is a painful issue for pure-play PDM/PLM vendors like Arena, Aras and future others. The complexity of CAD integration with PDM and PLM systems create a significant competitive advantage for CAD vendors to bundle their own PDMs right. At the same time, PDM providers from CAD vendors are less interested to provide support for “non-home-based” CAD systems.

What is my conclusion? I can see a certain dead-lock between the need for multi-CAD PDM systems and interest of CAD/PDM vendors to protect their business. Customers are demanding PDM systems like TeamCenter, Autodesk Vault, SolidWorks EPDM to support Multi-CAD features. However, it looks more and more like a dead-lock. PDM system will be embedded into CAD environment and will become part of the whole design environment. It doesn’t mean new innovative companies won’t try to break this dead-lock. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

[Update]. I keep open conversation with participants of this tweet-chat. You can expect some updates about the topic very soon.

Share

Tagged as: CAD, CAD-PDM Integration, Multi-CAD, PDM

  • bausk

    >It doesn’t mean new innovative companies won’t try to break this dead-lock.

    Oleg, I will surely be sounding amateurish on this, but I think that currently (esp. in the AEC sector) only a non-profit effort has any chance to disrupt the lock-in and incompatibility game.

  • notimportant

    note sure cause see many PDM/PLM claiming they support Multi CAD.
    One thing for sure, One CAD system is only better supported by the same PLM Editor.
    Always possible to make it difficult for other vendors to support competitive CAD Systems.

    But is it really necessary ?? what are the scenarios ?
    How many companies are truly MultiCAD ? ( Automtive Chassis Catia and Engine Pro/E)

    What about support one MULTICAD Option ? that is Space Claim  it is may be the solution ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/gsxr1srad Ryan Reid

    Could a possible solution be a program like Nexus 360 (if as advertised) that is a PLM that communicates to your PDM's (whatever they may be)  and controls them via process control and communication?  I don't think that Nexus is anywhere near that capability yet.  I do think that PLM companies need to think about stopping the war with CAD and starting peace with PDM's.

  • http://twitter.com/broepke Brian Roepke

    Yes Ryan – That's exactly the strategy – We can integrate with any PDM system that has an API available in order to provide that connection.  Many times that's the best strategy – use the best PDM tool for your CAD, and layer PLM over the top.

  • http://twitter.com/broepke Brian Roepke

    Seems a little odd to based a “Multi-CAD” blog and conversation around DraftSight as the focal point. Not sure what you were trying to accomplish? Raise the visibility of the issue of companies with Multi-CAD or?
    Unless I’m not understanding this right (http://www.deelip.com/?p=2475) and (http://www.3ds.com/products/dr… a person has to pay for DraftSight in order to get access to the API. Not the free version? Unless of course the SW guys have special permission… which is totally fine with me.
    As for Multi-CAD in Manufacturing – This is a very big issue. One of the main factors we see is around acquisition. It’s all too common for companies to have different design platforms as well as well as strategies when these companies come together. Of course there are other legit cases to have multiple platforms as well. That’s why we provide integrations with more common tools like SolidWorks and Pro/E / Creo.
    As for AEC – this is commonplace – We made our first step here with our recent release of our plug-in for Microstation.http://labs.autodesk.com/utilities/va…

  • Bpshand

    The company I work for is going the ARAS route for PLM. Aras integrates across several softwares and is not a supplier of CAD software itself. Unlike SolidWorks EPDM, Windchill, Autodesk, Siemens, etc.
     http://www.aras.com

  • http://www.facebook.com/gsxr1srad Ryan Reid

    Thanks Brian - looks like my “Trim the Fat” class paid off at AU.  Time will
    tell how well you guys will incorporate these PDM's into Nexus, I am cautiously
    hoping for the best.  From what i saw though, (considering your relatively new
    software) you guys have a lot of maturing of the product to do and i do need to
    get educated on all of the “Apps” that you guys are coming out
    with. The relative power of those apps will be your selling point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gsxr1srad Ryan Reid

    I would like to plug a program that my vendor Alignex has developed called Alignex express which solves a lot of these problems for PDM with multiple CAD packages.  Granted it is only in EPDM but more thinking like this makes this whole process a lot easier.
    The program converts pro-e, swx, inv and others into whatever other CAD package is required and maintains all of the metadata, updates the converted models as required and has integration with all of the translated packages.  I think that EPDM is an extremely capable PDM and has a bright future as it integrates with V6 or any other PLM like Aras.

  • Pingback: The anatomy of MultiCAD-PDM Integrations

  • Steve Ammann

    Hi Ryan- A very valid option for MCAD tools with associative data structures like SolidWorks is to let the CAD PDM control control the CAD data for revisions and connect that PDM tool to your PLM tool. You should understand the difference between cad model management and item management as well. Check out Zero Wait-States RAPIDconnect product for EPDM to Agile PLM  - Let EPDM manage models and Agile PLM manage items. Adding the item layer to the CAD PDM confuses the engineers and if you don't have a item structure in your PLM tool, well you don't have a PLM tool.  
    http://www.zerowait-state.com/…

  • http://www.facebook.com/gsxr1srad Ryan Reid

    Thanks Steve, I understand
    that Items are a necessary evil in most PDM/PLM integrations, especially with
    MRP's.  This often seems redundant though and does not fit my
    ideal. 

    I prefer to synchronize and
    add metadata to the existing files (Models) without the use of items that often
    require additional workflows and maintenance. 

    EPDM does a lot of what a
    mid to low end PLM system would do and without Items that need to be maintained
    via communication with an outside PLM. 
    When I say seamless I mean “Seamless”, I don’t want extra databases to
    control and maintain.

    I would prefer a PDM built
    into a PLM that has true integration with multiple CAD packages and that can
    update model conversions from one package to the next without input from
    anybody.  You throw advanced PLM
    functionality like project tracking, true ERP integration, project
    control/reporting, factory reporting, state of the art communication, and
    process management on top of your PDM and then you’re just haggling over price
    in my opinion.

     If they are separate then they can’t add any
    mouse clicks to achieve synergy.  I very
    well may be ignorant to Agile PLM’s capabilities but I do get skittish when we
    start talking about items, especially coming from an Autodesk Vault house.

  • Steve Ammann

    I completely understand what you are saying. I attempted to build EPDM into a PLM system and it failed due to lack of Item capability. If you want to know the details, I can be reached at sammann@zerowait-state.com. Don't forget, ECAD and software as part of your product structure, those “items” need to be managed, unless of course you have a completely mechanical product.

  • beyondplm

    alexander, I think, it is true not only in AEC. CAD and PDM systems become more and more connected. From the standpoint of users, it is very important. However, it impact openness.

  • beyondplm

    Ryan, thanks for sharing your experience. I never heard about Alignex. However, batch translation process (I hope understand you well) seems to me suboptimal. People like an interactive way. Btw, I agree – EPDM is capable. Mostly because an extreme simplicity. Just my opinion. Oleg

  • beyondplm

    What PDM system your company is using? Are you using Aras as PDM system too? What CAD package you use?

  • beyondplm

    Brian, sorry for late reply. My main point is that customers are looking for multi-CAD. At the same time, vendors are not always capable to make multiCAD in a perfect way. This is the reality. IMHO.

  • beyondplm

    Ryan, as you imagine, PDM-PLM integration becomes a key issue in this architecture. Today it is quite complicated and not done by many companies.

  • beyondplm

    Most of “connectivity” and “integration” are build on top of the “mapping” idea. Doc to Item or Item to Item is a very complicated mapping paradigm. This is the main reason why these integrations are not functioning already many years in a stable way. Oleg

  • beyondplm

    Steve, What was your problem to build it without Item? Complicated mapping requirements? Thanks, Oleg

  • beyondplm

    You are right. CAD and PDM package from the same vendor have the ability to be integrated the best. What about CADs that have no PDM (i.e SpaceClaim)?

  • http://www.facebook.com/gsxr1srad Ryan Reid

    I completely agree that traditional batch translating is not the ideal.  From what i have seen in use with this Alignexpress could be a difference comparable between PDM and PLM in its intelligence. This actually automates the translation into the other cad package and is controlled by EPDM.  The main point of the software in my opinion is that you can go to EPDM, open an assy in two cad packages, and be assured that you are getting the correct geometry, metadata and status.  you would be updated in any CAD package when transated files are changed and be aware of the controlling CAD package.  it seems pretty nice and looks to achieve what i am looking for in my company which is a CAD neutral engineering department.  This makes software choices such as tech-pubs, CMM, and misc post-CAD related software much more flexible from a companies standpoint. This also allows for engineers to work as efficiently as possible by using the tool that they are most efficient with. yes this does increase training but I will take spending money on training over dealing with limitations of software every day of the week.

    I have tried to find similar solutions from some of the top vendors of other PLM's with no luck yet but some of them are still getting back to me. This makes me think that Alignex  has something special here.

    FYI I am a CAD Admin in an Inventor house with a few seats of SWX looking to make some dramatic improvements. Please let me know if any of you think that i am way off base here.

  • beyondplm

    Ryan, Appreciate your words, thank you! I think, interactive work with the ability to influence and alter a final decision is a right thing to go. I'd love to see how it operates. Is there any public video that shows Alignexpress work? I didn't find any… Best, Oleg 

  • http://www.facebook.com/gsxr1srad Ryan Reid

    rber@alignex.com will be able to give you more information.  They dont have any specific avi's up yet other than testominials but i am sure that he can help you out with something.

  • beyondplm

    Thanks! I will follow up 

  • Pingback: Multi-CAD & PDM integration: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

  • PLMGuest

    Many companies are truly multi-CAD for one reason or another and if you can't support multi-CAD your PDM/PLM solution will get removed from consideration.  The “BIG Three” CAD centric PLM vendors support multi-CAD environments very well.  Those “Big Three” are PTC, Siemens, and Dassault Systemes.

  • PLMGuest

    Brian,  Autodesk has not done a very good job in getting information about their support for multi-CAD environments out to the various PLM spaces.  PLM360 shows a video with no details about this level of support and the Autodesk Vault places a heavy emphasis on Autodesk products.  Can you point us to some material around multi-CAD support through Autodesk's products?

  • beyondplm

    Thanks for the comment! Yes, all big-3 are stating to support multi-CAD. However, the priority will be always for “home-grown-CAD”… isn't it? 

  • beyondplm

    I think, there are few links in the blog. I'm sure Brian will be able to provide more… 

  • Dan Harlan

    I have to agree with Ryan on this. The idea of having a PDM system for each CAD application and then attempting to have them all integrated to a single PLM is… not a good thing. A single enterprise integration is costly enough to implment and maintain. But doing 3 or 4 of them?

Previous post:

Next post: