Democratization Of CAD

Joe Lichtenberg left an interesting comment on my earlier post on CAD 2.0. I guess this is the same Joe Lichtenberg, Vice President, Business Development of Eluma, someone who knows a thing or two about Web 2.0. This is what he had to say:

“Yes, Deelip, CAD 2.0 is exactly the right term.

Why?

Web 2.0 is about the “democratization of the Web.” Whereas Web 1.0 was about content being controlled by a relatively small number of content publishers, Web 2.0 is all about enabling everyone to participate. Web 1.0 is worldbookonline.com. Web 2.0 is wikipedia.org, where lots of people can make changes to the entries to make them better.

CAD 2.0 is not only about the next generation of CAD, it’s about the “democratization of CAD.” There are lots of folks that need to work with existing CAD models. Don’t make them learn the equivalent of a complex Content Management System. Give them tools that let them edit CAD models as easily as editing an entry on Wikipedia. And just like the way that the democratization of the Web makes content better, the democratization of CAD will make the products we design better.

CAD 2.0 indeed. This is getting interesting.”

Interesting indeed.

  • ralphg

    I think that the fundamental flaw of Web 2.0 is that it requires people to hold down two jobs:

    1. One where they earn a living for themselves and family.

    2. Another where they earn the living for the Web 2.0 companies through their volunteer work of adding content — the “ultimately we all work for Google, free” concept.

    As much as I admire the whole collaborative feeling to Web 2.0, in the end it’s a hobby, for most poeple.

  • ralphg

    I think that the fundamental flaw of Web 2.0 is that it requires people to hold down two jobs:1. One where they earn a living for themselves and family.2. Another where they earn the living for the Web 2.0 companies through their volunteer work of adding content — the “ultimately we all work for Google, free” concept.As much as I admire the whole collaborative feeling to Web 2.0, in the end it’s a hobby, for most poeple.

  • Deelip Menezes

    Ralph,

    I am not sure whether you are trying to draw an analogy here, but I don’t see that sort of a thing happenning with CAD 2.0. The point of a CAD 2.0 system is not to share 3d data freely with the entire world (like how Google is trying to “build the world in 3D” with their free SketchUp software). Rather the point is to share the 3d data with only those people who you are collaborating with.

    By being able to do so, users will not be working free for the CAD 2.0 vendors or something like that. Instead they will be free from the grip that the vendors have over them.

  • Deelip Menezes

    Ralph,I am not sure whether you are trying to draw an analogy here, but I don’t see that sort of a thing happenning with CAD 2.0. The point of a CAD 2.0 system is not to share 3d data freely with the entire world (like how Google is trying to “build the world in 3D” with their free SketchUp software). Rather the point is to share the 3d data with only those people who you are collaborating with.By being able to do so, users will not be working free for the CAD 2.0 vendors or something like that. Instead they will be free from the grip that the vendors have over them.

  • Anonymous

    I disagree strongly that this is an across the board need. Most people involved in the product development process are not qualified to edit the geometrical data. The design concept is generally complex enough that relationships between parts or the reasons for things being designed intentionally a certan way are not obvious, and allowing a marketing manager for example to change the shape of a part would in most cases result in disaster. If you are talking about meta data, that’s a different issue, but in that case PLM is the tool, not CAD.

    To me democratization of CAD is not about just anyone editing the CAD model, it is possibly more cynically about broadening the CAD market to companies and individuals for whom CAD was previously out of reach financially. Its about money, not altruism.

    I don’t believe that the wikipedia model works in product development. Design by committee is bad enough, I can’t even imagine design by the masses.

    Matt Lombard

  • Anonymous

    I disagree strongly that this is an across the board need. Most people involved in the product development process are not qualified to edit the geometrical data. The design concept is generally complex enough that relationships between parts or the reasons for things being designed intentionally a certan way are not obvious, and allowing a marketing manager for example to change the shape of a part would in most cases result in disaster. If you are talking about meta data, that’s a different issue, but in that case PLM is the tool, not CAD. To me democratization of CAD is not about just anyone editing the CAD model, it is possibly more cynically about broadening the CAD market to companies and individuals for whom CAD was previously out of reach financially. Its about money, not altruism.I don’t believe that the wikipedia model works in product development. Design by committee is bad enough, I can’t even imagine design by the masses. Matt Lombard

  • Deelip Menezes

    Matt,

    If you read my earlier article titled “SpaceClaim – Real or Marketing Strategy?” (http://www.deelip.com/2007/03/spaceclaim-real-or-marketing-strategy.html) posted on 19th March, 2007, you will see that I agree with you 100%. Only people qualified to edit a model should be allowed to do so.

    To me, the democratization of CAD does not mean allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry in a company to edit a 3d model and make of mess of it. Rather this has to do with the smooth flow of easily editable 3d models between people using different CAD systems, whether in the same company or not. People, qualified and authorised to make/recommend design changes or use the design for post processing operations, should have the freedom to use whichever software they wish, and not be restricted to using the same software (and same version too) as was used by the original designer. And this is precisely the freedom associated with this kind of democracy and the CAD 2.0 modeling technique.

    Democratization of CAD, the kind of democracy I am talking about, is not about making more money and broadenning the CAD market. It is about users having the freedom to spend their money where they think fit, not where the vendors compel them to.

    And surely, there can be absolutely nothing wrong with that.

  • Deelip Menezes

    Matt,If you read my earlier article titled “SpaceClaim – Real or Marketing Strategy?” (http://www.deelip.com/2007/03/spaceclaim-real-or-marketing-strategy.html) posted on 19th March, 2007, you will see that I agree with you 100%. Only people qualified to edit a model should be allowed to do so.To me, the democratization of CAD does not mean allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry in a company to edit a 3d model and make of mess of it. Rather this has to do with the smooth flow of easily editable 3d models between people using different CAD systems, whether in the same company or not. People, qualified and authorised to make/recommend design changes or use the design for post processing operations, should have the freedom to use whichever software they wish, and not be restricted to using the same software (and same version too) as was used by the original designer. And this is precisely the freedom associated with this kind of democracy and the CAD 2.0 modeling technique.Democratization of CAD, the kind of democracy I am talking about, is not about making more money and broadenning the CAD market. It is about users having the freedom to spend their money where they think fit, not where the vendors compel them to.And surely, there can be absolutely nothing wrong with that.