Clarity on PLM

I had the chance to talk with … Chris Randles and Blake Courter of SpaceClaim recently to better understand their role in the broader engineering software market. SpaceClaim hase certainly managed to shake things up, from their initial introduction to the market with direct modeling, their tongue in cheek Twitter plugin, and now their demonstration of the potential use of multitouch manipulation in 3D modeling. This is a company that is clearly set out to change the status quo, and has succeeded in doing so. Other than shaking things up, though, where is the unique value that SpaceClaim offers, and why do they believe there is room in a consolidating CAD market for a new entrant?

Some History and Perspective

Stop me if you have heard this one (or better yet, skip to the next section). SpaceClaim has definitely made an impact on the CAD market.  The company splashed onto the scene with a very different message than the major CAD players. They bashed the limitations that parametric modeling brings with it, and offered “direct modeling” as the next generation of 3D CAD modeling. While most will agree that parametric modeling provides significant benefits, they will also agree that it requires training and knowledge about how to model parametrically, and that existing models require an understanding of how the part was modeled in order to change it. And, in some cases, what appears to be a small change to the design may in fact be fundamental change to the steps in which the CAD model was created (known as the “history tree”) and require fundamental model changes.

Suffice it to say, there was a weakness in the armor of the major CAD vendors, and the weakness was tightly embedded in the strength of their parametric modeling capabilities. That gave SpaceClaim a very strong competitive opening to target. Two other companies, CoCreate and Kubotec, also had direct or “history free” modeling capabilities. But SpaceClaim was the first to really exploit the chink in the armor, primarily because they have very strong roots and credentials in the CAD industry. Founder Michael Payne for example was also a founder of PTC, one of the most successful CAD (and now PLM) vendors in the world and SolidWorks, the disruptive technology that brought 3D CAD to the desktop. So these new entrants came with pedigree, experience, and a differentiated message. The results? Whether the incumbant players viewed it as a competitive necessity, were already developing something in parallel, or just reacted to the interest generated by SpaceClaim, the big vendors have responded:

• PTC acquired CoCreate to offer a parallel solution to their flagship CAD offering Pro/Engineer, and since has announced direct modeling capabilities in Pro/E

• Siemens PLM introduced feature-based, history-free modeling called “synchronous technology“

• Dassault Systemes developed CATIA Live Shape with direct modeling as a part of their V6 solution

• Autodesk announced “Fusion Technology” which aims to incorporate the best of both parametric and direct modeling

What do they Offer? A Different Approach to Design

So why is this important? Other than shaking up the market (which they are pretty good at), they are offering a design paradigm with much lower barriers to entry, and much lower barriers to change. Will this replace parametric modeling? It’s not likely in my opinion. There are inherent advantages to both parametric and direct modeling, with parametric modeling offering less flexibility but more power to develop families of similar parts or parts designed for mass customization. What impresses me, though, is that SpaceClaim does not seem intent on just fighting a battle between the two modeling paradigms. Instead, SpaceClaim is focusing on where each should be used, and how direct modeling can open up new business opportunities.

In particular, SpaceClaim is trying to promote earlier 3D modeling by non-CAD-jockeys. They are focusing on the advantages available from early digital, 3D models to help companies validate their designs early in the product development process. Today, this isn’t as easy because engineers frequently have modern-day draftsmen that translate their designs into 3D models. This is not the formula for rapid design and iteration. SpaceClaim, then, is targeting industrial design, conceptual design, and modeling for simulation and analysis. The designers and engineers involved in these functions are not as well trained on CAD, and require solutions that are more efficient and require less upfront investment (in time, training, etc.). The large CAD vendors recognize this, of course, and are working to increase ease of use in addition to offering direct modeling capabilities. But clearly SpaceClaim has a window of opportunity and some real value to offer.

Implications for Manufacturers?

There is a phrase that I like, “Love me, hate me, but don’t ignore me.” I believe SpaceClaim lives that mantra. They have a place in the market, they are not satisfied with the status quo, and they are innovating. Manufacturers should take a look at SpaceClaim, and consider using them either as a main modeling solution if they don’t have an incumbent tool and don’t require parametrics, or more likely as a complementary solution to address more free-flowing design by non-CAD-jockeys.

So that’s what I hear from SpaceClaim, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

What I learned this week … came from a Youtube video by direct modeling (3D CAD) company SpaceClaim. The video is cool from the music to the product, but after their hilarious April Fool’s joke – how serious is this really? Let’s put aside that question – and the question of how ready this technology may be – until I have a chance to talk with them a bit. In the meantime, what I want to discuss is “why we would care if multitouch came to CAD?”

My Initial Thoughts
What the video shows (OK, please just go watch it, it is worth the two-plus minutes it takes and I could never do it justice) is the use of multitouch capabilities in a CAD modeling environment. It is glitzy and fun, but I think packs some real promise. Why would multitouch be appealing? Other than the fact that it looks cool (and hopefully comes with the techno-music built in) – where would we find business value in such an interface? I have written about multitouch in 3D before and its potential to increase engineering efficiency and increase collaboration at some point, but never really considered it as a real modeling interface (other than when watching a movie) in the near term.

So is There Business Value?

I am sure SpaceClaim has their views on this, and I look forward to hearing them. To me, there are two potential avenues to value that spring to mind:

• More natural interface – people work with their hands. Hands are amazing tools that we start to use when we are very young. Our brains are geared for hand-eye coordination. Many of the computer interfaces developed for modeling are electronic analogies for physical manipulations. After all, where did “cut and paste” came from? Particularly in direct modeling, terms like “push” and “pull” are used, which are much more the words we would have used as we grew up modeling in Playdough, clay, sand, or whatever was available to us. Perhaps we can be more creative when we are closer to our naturally learned modeling techniques? Of course, with the power of technology to extend what our hands can do with rapid calculations and visualization capabilities, we should be much more creative than with a physical material (with all of its inherent constraints). For example, I am much better at “cut and paste” online than with my unaided hands because of capabilities like “snap to grid” and a general lack of dexterity.
• More accessible user interface (maybe) – I was just at Six Flags New Jersey with my son yesterday, and they had a multitouch desktop with photographs on it. It’s tucked away in a little lab behind a bunch of rides, but they have a cool hands-on lab. Kids were walking up to this desktop, sliding the pictures around, and with very little instruction resizing and re-ordering them. Why? It fits into their (physical) paradigm of the world. As much as my kids can learn to manipulate an Xbox controller with levers and buttones to simulate a football game, isn’t it easier to pick up a Wii controller with a motion-oriented interface? So perhaps these capabilities will (eventually) open up 3D modeling to a much broader audience? For example, wouldn’t it be great for a non-engineer to be able to show the CAD expert the change they want instead of describe it and watch the engineer interpret the words and try to model it?

Note: I have posted on the Wii contoller as a user interface as well, which combine physical motion with buttons. My guess is that we are not looking at an either-or between these different interfaces, but multiple interfaces (and hybrid interfaces).

Implications for Manufacturers?

The implications for manufacturers are twofold:

• Keep an eye on this technology - let’s find out how real (and how ready) this is. This is something that is worth keeping an eye on. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see this as the primary interface any time soon. There are a lot of complex interactions that are likely hard to make gestures for. Likewise, making them intuitive may not be entirely …well… intuitive. This will take some time for the value to be recognized.
• Keep en eye on this company - let’s face it, these guys are creative and out to change the game. Is this the most compelling next step for 3D modeling software? I am not convinced yet. But, a company with the ability to spot an opportunity like this and start walking down the path is a company worth learning from. And I have to note that the video says it will be available “this Fall,”  and that it appears from the video and the credits that this might go beyond modeling to analysis and simulation. Interesting…

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think. And let’s all wait to hear what SpaceClaim has in mind in regards to making this deliverable product.