Interview with Teresa Anania – Part 3

<< Part 2

Deelip: My next question is something that I asked you before in Portland. I am hoping to get a different or more detailed answer this time. What are you plans for Fusion?

Teresa: Fusion, right now, is a technology and we are leveraging it in a lot of different ways. You and I had a good discussion about this and I believe, as does Buzz Kross in Manufacturing, that folks that have CAD geometry that comes from other sources or that are not parametric experts or they are simulation users that don’t want to learn a parametric solid modeler can really benefit from free form modeling. I think there is a place for both. I think the excitement with what we have in Fusion is part of Inventor that actually updates your history. So you really cannot say that parametrics has no place. There is some real importance there. I think you need both in a workflow that involves conceptual design all the way through to manufacturing.

Deelip: So from what you are saying, for modeling it helps to use parametric modeling. But when it comes to analysis and tweaking the model, it may help to use direct modeling. And you have Fusion that helps to plug back the changes into the parametric modeler.

Teresa: Absolutely. But I still think there is a place for Fusion for conceptual design. And there is the other thing. There are millions of engineers that have still not adopted any solid modeler that uses parametric technology. Why is that? There is a resistance there. There is a fear factor. To me, direct modeling is a way to bridge that gap.

Part 4 >>

  • Mook

    ADSK is a CAD company with programming development experience and dealer channels familiar with design, not analysis. The acquisition of Algor and Moldflow are way out of ADSK's core expertise IMO. The analysis product acquisitions may have looked good in theory, but I believe ADSK executives were/are out of their depth in how to deal with these analysis product lines (Algor, Moldflow, Robot) and their associated non-CAD dealers and sales & support personnel. ADSK's dealer channel, most of which cannot handle sales and support beyond Autocad and possibly Inventor.. there's no way they can properly demonstrate and support FEA products.. It's not who they are.. it's a poor fit.

    It's already been established that ADSK's dealer channel was not up to the task to support Revit (a CAD product), putting the burden and costs on ADSK's in-house personnel to demonstrate and support it rather than rely on their traditional dealer channel… When ADSK purchased Robot structural/FEA product to compliment Revit, I believe there was only 1 or 2 dealers in all of N. America who could support it. ADSK cannot leverage their CAD-centric dealer channel with these analysis products. They're separate animals

    Algor and Moldflow will isolate their product lines if they limit their main integration efforts to Inventor. It would be financially punishing to ADSK if they decided not to offer similar integration of their analysis products to non-Autodesk CAD products such as SolidWorks, Catia, etc. If they limit the integration to Inventor, they'll get hammered. If they open their analysis product integration to competitors' CAD products, they lose incentive for their customers to purchase Inventor. I don't see the upside here.

    One additional risk – In small/medium size companies like Algor, Moldflow and Robobat, there are typically only a few key guys which hold things together in each company. Now that ADSK has bought out each of those companies, presumably these key players have their pockets full of buyout $$$, reducing their incentive to work. What happens when they leave? ADSK doesn't have the in-house expertise to fill the gaps when key employees from these analysis-company acquistions leave the company.