Organizational and managerial aspects of CAD in mechanical

design Ian Black and W. Nigel Shaw

Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Business Organisation, Heriot-Wan University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK

The authors are currently undertaking research in some 38 UK companies to explain the reasons behind the perceived mis-management and ineffectiveness of CAD in current mechanical design environments. This paper describes the key findings from an initial questionnaire survey conducted as part of a pilot

study programme.

Keywords: Computer-aided design, engineering design, design management, design organization

Computer-aided design (CAD) technology and methods have been used within UK manufacturing industry for some considerable time. For all of those companies involved with and utilizing CAD, this involves a signifi- cant capital investment in technology (hardware and software), but more importantly, it represents a commit- ment to the long-term strategic success of the firm in increasingly competitive markets. However, despite (or in spite of) this latter point, there appears to be a failure to use and manage CAD techniques effectively in order to significantly improve the mechanical design process, and subsequently the performance of the business 1'2. This is believed to be a result of two factors

• lack of full exploitation of CAD as a competitive weapon

• the use of CAD as a technological 'f~x', rather than a strategic business tool

In response to these current observations, a research

programme has been embarked upon by the Depart- ments of Mechanical Engineering and Business Orga- nisation at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, which attempts to analyse and explain the reasons behind these factors. The ultimate objective of this research program- me will be to provide a set of guidelines that will assist in the improvement of mechanical design process perform- ance through better management and use of CAD techni- ques.

The initial pilot work consisted of two sequential stages, which were: (i) a questionnaire survey of 38 companies designed to provide general information on CAD and mechanical design (covered by this paper) (ii) detailed field work, involving 7 of the above com- panies, designed to present specific case studies dealing, in depth, with the issues identified from the initial survey (to be completed)

This paper outlines the preliminary analysis of the

96 0142-694X/91/02096-06 © 1991 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd DESIGN STUDIES

Table 1 Company background

% • Major engineering discipline a'b

mechanical 75 electronic 46 electrical 33 other 25

• Type of engineering undertaken a heavy 8 medium 46 light 58

• Type of product manufacture a one-offs 33 small-batch 58 medium-batch 21 volume 29

• Typical product lifespans > 10 yrs 54 5-10 yrs 29 3-5 yrs 8 1-3 yrs 8 < ly r 4

• Typical product development spans a > 10 yrs 0 5-10 yrs 8 3-5 yrs 17 1-3 yrs 67 < ly r 21

a) Some companies gave more than one response b) 'Other' includes optical and electromagnetic engineering, confec- tionery production and furniture manufacture

results of a postal questionnaire survey which asked about a number of issues concerning the impact of CAD on mechanical design practice and performance. The high response rate to this survey (24 companies, 63% of the total survey population) reflects the interest and topicality of the subject matter within design and manu- facturing management. The fact that all of the respon- dents were either directly involved in managing design activity, CAD systems or both give confidence to the weight which can be attached to the survey results. Throughout the paper figures are given as percentages. Rounding may mean that some totals are not exactly 100%. The questionnaire was sent out to all business units in the UK operating the same make of CAD system who were involved both in product design and manufac- ture. It was specifically addressed to design office or CAD system managers.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The initial questionnaire survey was split into five inter- dependent areas: company background; product design practice; CAD justification; CAD implementation and application; and CAD performance. Responses within each of these areas were analysed as outlined in the following pages.

Company background

As seen in Table 1, most companies operate in the

mechanical and electronic engineering field, undertaking principally small-batch manufacture in the light to medium engineering sectors (although a significant num- ber produce 'one-offs'). Around two-thirds of companies (67%) have more than 500 employees. Most companies have and work to a business plan, but only half appear to have a design strategy in that plan. These particular findings are in general agreement with those of the N ED O Design Working Party 3. It is interesting to note that the majority of products manufactured by the respondent business units have a life span of more than 5 years, with most having relatively short development spans of 1-3 years duration - although a significant proportion (21%) say development spans can be less than one year. These findings reinforce the position that manufacturing firms are operating with increasingly short development time-frames, yet the final products are in the market place for a considerable time (greater than 10 years).

Organizational factors

It was found that less than half of respondent firms have a 'design director' (which may be interpreted as a director with direct responsibility for product design in the company). Moving on to organizational aspects, it can be seen from Table 2 that almost 60% of firms have a large number of staff (more than 20) in their design offices. It is interesting to note that two-thirds of respon- dent companies say that production personnel are closely involved in product design. Also, marketing and sales staff are involved in the design of products in about half of those companies surveyed. However, the estimating function is involved in only about one-fifth of firms, and the purchasing function even less so (12%)! It is also worthwhile noting that product design is reputedly car- ried out by multi-disciplinary teams in three-quarters of the firms, and that design procedures are extensively utilized. This apparently shows that some kind of 'for-

Table 2 Organizational factors

% Number of staff in design department > 20 58 16-19 4 11-15 17 6-10 17 1-5 4 0 0 Other departments/personnel closely involved in product design a'b production 67 marketing 58 sales 50 estimating 21 finance 12 purchasing 12 other 8

a) Some companies gave more than one response b) 'Other' included software laboratories

Vol 12 No 2 April 1991 97

Table 3 Produce design practice

% Type of design work undertaken radical new ventures 33 extensive and/or original adaptations of past designs 92 modular/standard ranges and variants 33 Most significant factors in successful product design a,° functionality 62 reliability/maintainability 54 selling price 46 conformance to specification 46 delivery 25 manufacturability 25 appearance 21 unique product attributes 12 other 4

a) Some companies gave more than one response b) 'Other' included customer satisfaction

mal ' method of product design 4 may be in force in most respondent companies.

Product d e s i g n p r a c t i c e

From Table 3 it can be seen that most companies undertake considerable adaptive or variant design work. Several significant factors in successful product design were identified with functionality beng considered the priority factor, followed by reliability/maintainability, conformance to specification and selling price. This indicates that most companies view differentiation strategies 5'6 - a mix of price and non-price factors - as being essential to successful product design.

CAD justification

The findings obtained indicate that a majority of the firms surveyed had thought about the implementation of CAD in a fairly structured way. Most had this as part of their business plan, and nearly all had prepared some kind of justification for investment in the technology, which was performed mainly by in-house personnel. The most typical initial implementation timescale was around 3 years, and the following were identified as being the

Table 4 CAD justification

% • CAD implementation/utilization as part of

business plan 63 Initial justification prepared for CAD 92

• Initial justification performed by in-house personnel 83 external consultants 17

• Initial implementation timescale > 10 yrs 0 5-10 yrs 0 3-5 yrs 17 1-3 yrs 63 < ly r 21

key factors in favour of a firm deciding to adopt CAD technology (i.e. the perceived benefits):

• integration of facilities and data re-use • reduced project lead-times, reduction in errors/

modifications and productivity gains • provide platform for CAM tools and improve aware-

ness about design for manufacture • better optimization of design solutions and increase in

design 'quality'

These factors were considered to be of approximate equivalent importance by all of those firms responding to the original question, and show that there was an opti- mis t i c (and enthusiastic) awareness of the potential of CAD tools and techniques.

CAD implementation and application

Half of respondent companies had access to some kind of CAD capability, whether it be a bureau service, micro- computer system or whatever, before implementation of modern graphics systems. The majority for firms have, as shown in Table 5, under 12 graphics workstations, and the majority use stand-alone configurations as the main component of their CAD system. Centralized host units are also popular, but this is probably a historical legacy from the days of ' turnkey' CAD systems based on a centralized processor. It is worth nothing that over one-third of companies operate their CAD system on

Table 5 CAD implementation and application

% • Number of CAD workstations

>24 8 18-23 8 12-17 16 6-11 29 0-5 37 stand-alone workstations 54 centralized host 46 distributed/clutered hosts 38

• Number of trained CAD operators >20 42 16-19 0 11-15 17 6-10 33 1-5 8 0 0

• CAD manager reports to managing director 4 director 25 senior manager 42 junior manager 12

• Microcomputer software utilised a analysis programs 42 graphics 21 spreadsheets 8 project management 4 word processing 4 in-house generated 4 databases 0

• CAD data electronically re-used by manufacturing 58

a) Some companies gave more than one response

98 DESIGN STUDIES

Table 6 CAD performance

%

• Measure of CAD performance within company a better than expected 12 as expected 63 below expectations 21

• Use of CAD during mechanical design b'c detail draughting 100 assembly draughting 92 generating geometrically-precise layouts in 2D 88 generating geometrically-precise layouts in 3D 33 parametric part generation 33 analysis and simulation (FEA, kinematics, etc.) 29 producing sketch geometry 25 industrial design 17 other 12

• Current main benefits of CAD b'd re-use of information 92 reduced design lead-time 88 better productivity 58 improved product image 50 reduced manufacturing lead-time 46 better analysis and simulation 29 better able to satisfy market needs 12 added value to product 4 other 4 none 0

a) Although these attitudinal responses are less precise than facts, they may reveal key aspects of management's approach to, and the industrial potential of CAD b) Some companies gave more than one response c) 'Other' included sales presentation and literature, NC programming, proposal drawings and flat-plate metal development d) 'Other' included greater accuracy

distributed computing (networks) or clustered proces- sors.

Nearly half of the companies have more than 20 trained CAD workstation operators, and a high percen- tage (83%) claim to have CAD training and awareness available in-house. However, most of this is conducted on an 'as-needed' basis, which indicates that, overall, training has a low priority. Three-quarters of firms say that they use CAD procedures manuals (which ties in roughly with the number having existing design proce- dures), whilst 63% have a manager solely dedicated to CAD in the company. Many companies have other managers who have taken CAD 'under their wing' but are diverse in their responsibilities (e.g. the computer systems manager, or design office manager). In most cases, the CAD manager is, or reports to, a senior manager in the company (although over a quarter of respondent companies said their CAD manager reported to a director). This would appear to indicate that CAD has not quite become of full strategic importance to the company.

Over half of the firms use microcomputer facilities in some way for design work, with most using them as analysis (e.g. for thermal and/or stress work) or graphics

toolkits. Few firms have developed their own micro- computer applications software, or use existing spread- sheet or database packages in design tasks.

Only 58% of companies directly re-use CAD data for their manufacturing activities. This indicates that though integrated, or even linked CAD/CAM systems are not that widespread, for some companies, CAD justification may have been driven by the needs of manufacturing activities 7.

CAD performance

Table 6 demonstrates that for nearly two-thirds of com- panies, CAD appears to be performing as expected, with 12% indicating that it is exceeding expectations. Howev- er, around one-fifth claim CAD to be performing below expectations. It is interesting to compare these figures with the number of companies who had CAD as part of the business plan, and who prepared initial justifications for CAD. Obviously, for some companies, the benefits and potential of CAD technology given in their initial justifications have not materialized. This situation has possibly been the result of certain business, organization- al and technical factors coming into play which have effectively de-motivated personnel about CAD technolo- gy and methods s-~°.

Almost all of the companies in the survey possess and use 2D CAD applications software, as evidenced by the number who perform detail and assembly draughting on their systems. This can be linked to the principal rationale for investing in CAD for design, e.g. increasing drawing office productivity and/or linking with manufac- ture. However, an increasing number of companies are beginning to use 2D (and 3D) software as a pure design layout tool, through the generation of geometrically- precise definitions of mechanical system configurations. Only one-third of companies utilize parametric program- ming techniques, or use thei~ CAD systems for analysis and simulation work. It is suspected that the 25% of firms claiming to use CAD for producing sketch geomet- ry may be using the system to check innovative or original solutions to particular mechanical design prob- lems.

75% of respondent firms state that CAD technology is used in tender/enquiry work, since it enables them to produce more complete proposals in a shorter time frame. Further to this point, the vast majority of users have found that the main benefits of CAD are informa- tion re-use, coupled with reducing design and manufac- turing lead-times, and better productivity. It is interest- ing to note that half of the respondent firms said that CAD gave their products an improved image, but only 12% said it enabled them to better satisfy market needs. This latter point reinforces the authors' conviction that successful product design is primarily independent of CAD technology - it relies on effective product planning and good marketing in order to capture, extend or maintain market niches TM.

Consideration of the current drawbacks and/or limita-

Vol 12 No 2 April 1991 99

tions of CAD reveal that limited productivity gains for one-off or well-established design work is a significant problem. This may be said to be the result of two factors:

• the need to get CAD data (both geometric and attri- bute) absolutely correct for efficient re-use by either manufacturing or design s

• the consequent requirement to define the product form on the CAD system at an early stage in the design process 13

This situation can be aggravated by the lack of available CAD databases holding relevant precedent design data pertinent to established designs, and by the (sometimes drastic) changes needed in procedures and methods of working in order to accommodate integration of facilities and data re-use, and also reduced project lead-times, reduction in errors/modifications and productivity gains. Products which are 'fresh' ventures on the CAD system will probably benefit most, as precedent data will become available in the CAD database which will enable faster design turnaround on later adaptations or variants of these designs TM. It is interesting to note that only 33% of firms utilize parametric programming facilities.

In most cases the recurrent costs of CAD systems, i.e. the cost of operating and maintaining, inhibit their development and use within firms. However, rather surprisingly, financial factors came out overall as the least significant barrier to effective CAD. Technical factors (e.g. software's inability to handle problems) came out top, along with a variety of other mainly organizational issues. In fact, organizational problems were quoted by just over one-third of respondent com- panies as being detrimental to CAD deployment ~°.

Vendor support on software was considered to be satisfactory, whilst support on hardware was stated to be better. Hardly any companies rated support on either software or hardware as poor, so that it would seem that, on the whole, most firms are receiving an adequate post-sales, support service.

The majority of companies say that they have con- ducted some kind of review or assessment of CAD performance since the initial justification, and notwith- standing the aforementioned cost difficulties, a high proportion are planning further expansion of CAD facili- ties. This would appear to indicate that though the technology of CAD (software and hardware) is relatively expensive to run and maintain, the potential of CAD methods to reduce lead-times and generally increase overall productivity far outweights the financial and other drawbacks identified in the survey. It is also indicative of the commitment to investment in CAD technology that has been adopted by some companies.

FUTURE ISSUES

When asked if there were any other issues that should be raised in connection with CAD practice and perform- ance, a number of respondents (21%) indicated that they

would like to see the following addressed at some time in the near future.

• Universal methods of effective data transfer in order to prevent an 'island of automation' situation

• Much more education and awareness at all levels - from board of directors downwards - in order to emphasise that the benefits of effective CAD have to be viewed on an overall, company-wide basis

• Specific training in design for manufacture related to the use of CAD

• Provision of more robust CAD software • The importance of standard component libraries in

2D/3D to reduce repetitive data input and enhance productivity

• Improved NC programming of 3D geometry

C O N C L U S I O N S

It is too early in the life of the research project to be able to draw any major conclusions. Nevertheless it is possible to highlight the key findings from the survey which are

• Nearly all of the companies surveyed were part of a group or division (92%)

• 50% of firms claimed to have a design strategy as part of their business plan

• 92% of respondent companies undertake extensive and/or original adaptations of past designs

• Functionality is the most significant factor in suc- cessful p roduc t design (62%), with reliability/ maintainability second (54%) and selling price and conformance to specification joint third (46%). Cus- tomer satisfaction was mentioned by only 4% of the sample population

• T h e major i ty of companies (79%) use multi- disciplinary design teams

• Most firms (55%) utilize stand-alone workstations for their CAD system, 46% have a centralized computing resource, whilst 38% use distributed/clustered host processors

• CAD procedures manuals were reputed to be used by 75% of firms

• 62% of companies claim to have a manager who is solely responsible for CAD

• The majority of firms (58%) re-use data electronically from their CAD system to their computer-aided (CAM) manufacturing system(s)

• Nearly two-thirds (62%) of companies say CAD is performing as expected

• All companies surveyed (100%) use CAD tools for detail draughting, 92% use them for assembly draughting and 88% for generating geometrically- precise layouts in 2D. Only 25% of firms use their CAD system for producing sketch geometry.

• 92% of companies claim information re-use to be the main benefit of CAD, 88% said reduced lead-times whilst 58% said better productivity. 4% of firms indicated that it gave added value to their products

100 DESIGN STUDIES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank all of the companies who participated in the initial survey of the pilot project work. They would also like to express their gratitude to the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and the Depar tment of Business Organisation, Heriot-Watt Uni- versity for their financial support.

REFERENCES

1 New, C C and Myers A Managing operations in the UK 1975--85, British Institute of Management (1986)

2 Nichols, J D, 'How customer needs are shaping the "factory of the future" '. Management review, Vol 73, (1984) pp 29, 35

3 National Economic Development Council - design work- ing party. A survey of UK design practice (1985)

4 Cross, N Engineering design methods John Wiley and Sons (1989)

5 Gardiner, P and Rothwell, R Innovation, The Design Council (1985)

6 Rothwell, R, Gardiner, P and Schott, K Design and the economy The Design Council (1983)

10

11

12

13

14

Black, I 'Assuring confident re-use of production drawing information by the NC programming activity' Computer- aided engineering journal Vol 3 No 4 (1986) pp 154-163

Engelke, W D How to integrate CAD~CAM systems: manage- ment and technology, Marcel Dekker (1987)

Black, I 'Golden rules' Computerised manufacturing, June (1988) pp 29-31

Shaw, W N and Macbeth, D K 'Strategy and tactics of managing advanced manufacturing technology' in Lupton, T. (ed.) Proceedings of third international conference in human factors in manufacturing Bedford, IFS Publications (1986)

Hollins, W J and Pug, h, S Successful product design, Butter- worths (1990)

Beitz, W 'Strategies for planning and developing innovative market orientated products'. Proceedings of sixth internation- al conference on engineering design, Harrogate, Mechanical Engineering Publications Limited, Vol 1 (1989) pp 211-227

Cross, J D and Black, I 'Putting the design into mechanic- al CAD - a company methodology'. Design Studies, Vol 9 No 4 (1988) pp 214-218

Black, I and Murray, J L 'Conceptualisation and computer-aided design: an applications perspective'. Pro- ceedings of third international conference: effective CADCAM' 87 London, Mechanical Engineering Publications Limited, (1987) pp 49-56

Vol 12 No 2 April 1991 101