Pay attention to Mother Wikipedia

There are a lot of folks who think that Wikipedia often gets it wrong. I am not one of them. In my experience, especially in tech, it's usually pretty authoritative. For things like politics, I am sure there's bias, but it's usually pretty easily seen.

So, today, I was poking around in the definition of product visualization. It's been recently updated, and one quote really caught my eye:

"People from many disciplines and with varying requirements across an organisation need to view and manipulate product data in different ways. CAD is the traditional tool of the engineer who needs to create and edit the geometry, but others need to see this data or convey information in other ways to that of the engineer" 

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? In short, even the Wikipedia editors realize that the challenge today isn't about CAD, or its penetration in engineering. Instead, it's all about what goes on outside the product development group.

And so, once again, we ask the question: are traditional CAD vendors the right providers to solve this problem? We think not…engineering is their focus, not collaboration and information sharing.

One comment to Pay attention to Mother Wikipedia

  • Chris Williams  says:

    Great post. Clearly wikipedia has it right on this topic. The key to the definition has to do with the word manipulate. Field Service and Assembly people are great examples. For instance does a Field Service person want to view “raw” geometry? I think not. In this case the geometry is need, but it is the back drop or canvase if you will. What they want to see are the procedures they must perform and the geometry supports this, but the value is created by the fact someone has “manipulated” / “defined” / “authored” the procedures. The same is true for a manufcturing Assembly person…

    CW

Leave a reply

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