I was reading an article by Randall Newton, a rather professorish-looking fellow who once made a jab at an upstart CAD user/blogger by depicting the blogger reaching into the world of legitimate writing as an ape touching the finger of God. Everything evolves.
The article was about some of the differences between the approach of Siemens PLM and some of its competitors, in terms of development planning and growth. Siemens prefers a more methodical approach that integrates great ideas like Synchronous Technology over time, where some of the competitors want to turn the market on its ear, redefine terms or move into adjacent, but decreasingly relevant markets.
As someone who has been observing some of these changes from up close for the past several years, I can say that I prefer a method that I can grow with. Just uprooting your process from time to time may have some advantages, but that’s something I will want to do on my schedule, not on someone elses. My tools should be dependable and reliable. Retraining .
The idea of “disruption” as a good thing comes mainly from the consumer goods market, and I don’t think the idea transfers very well to industrial tools. It’s tempting to see software as just software, but there is a grand divide between software for private citizens and software for professional organizations. One of the differences is of course how you handle change.
Synchronous Technology (ST), an approach to mechanical CAD software allowing the two separate disciplines of parametric, constraint-driven design (history) and direct modeling (history-free) to work side by side. The technology was introduced first in Solid Edge
To me, the predictable way in which Siemens PLM has handled change in most of their products is better for businesses that have to make their own plans for the future. “Evolution over Revolution”. So in the same way that the CAD user/blogger mentioned above (me, if you haven’t guessed it by now)has evolved, so it is more natural to allow your tools to evolve as you keep pace with them.
The integration of ST into a history-based 3D modeler has been a methodical process; Siemens PLM has stated over and over how they are not interested in disrupting workflows for the sake of introducing new technology
- GraphicSpeak Blog