I’d like a #2 meal with a large side of 3D, please

Today, we want to ask you to consider the downside of ideas like "immersive product development" when these ideas become a kind of code-word for "single-vendor solutions". Or what we'd call single-vendor dependency.

Ideas like IPD are fine…we're all for it. But they are concepts and frameworks. It's the fiduciary responsibility of the evaluators of these concepts to make sure they don't take the easy way out and simply order a "#2 meal, large size, with a diet CAD system" like you would a value meal at a fast food chain.

Implementation of these end-to-end concepts is what's important, and implementing them successfully requires multi-vendor solutions. If you can find anyone who really, truly obtained the real-world "benefits" of supposedly better integration, faster deployment and combined ease of use from a swallow-all-this-at-once vendor, let us know. Those of us with implementation scars know full well that the best integration comes from great products and that those killer products rarely come from a single vendor.

It may be tasty, in the way that all the fat, all the salt and all the cholesterol of a BigMac tastes great. But you know where this kind of technology diet ends up: with Supersize Me systems, outrageous costs, and middlin' to poor technology. In the budding revolution of making 3D design data accesssible by systems and people outside the engineering group, evaluators have a special responsibility to choose wisely.

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.