I agree 100%. CAD is like many other so-called 'automation' tools in that is can amplify the abilities of the person using them. Therefore you need to ask yourself, "who do I wish to 'amplify' in my organization", the entry-level guy who does not yet know the in's and out's of your business, or the fully qualified engineer who can already solve the problem with pencil and paper but who I need to be able to get jobs done faster and more consistently? This was a classic problem back when CAD was first being introduced and many people thought that they could use it to gain another 'engineer' without wasting the time of someone who acould lready do the job.
In fact this happened where I worked when we got our first CAD system. It was to be shared by three departments, one of which was the manufacturing group and since they had already been using a language-based CAM system they knew exactly what to do and they already had people who understood this albeit newer technology so their choice as who to train was a no-brainer. However, the other two department, Chemical Machinery and Food Engineering, this was all new stuff to them. In the case of Chemical Machinery the two people they were to send to that first series of classes was their chief mathematician who had been developing FORTRAN-based analysis programs and second, one of their young draftsmen. In the case of Food Engineering, where I worked, my boss was totally befuddled by what this technology could even do (he had been left out of the decision to purchase the system, but was still expected to pick-up 1/3 the cost) so he decides that he would send two of his mid-level graduate engineers, one electrical and one mechanical (me), both of whom had had close to 10 years experience. The boss figured that between the two of us we could at least be able to see where this system could be used to do the most good since we understand pretty much all our products and procedures. Well it was a fortuitous choice since a year later we were so far ahead of where the chemical guys were with them simply making drawings and trying to use a system that was not yet where it needed to be for real-world analysis (remember we were running 3 seats of software on a 16-bit CPU with 128K of memory). While we looked at all of our different jobs and identified those that could utilize the software as is and then took the programming tools provided and customized the rest of the system to do what we needed for our specialized tasks.
That was why, after seeing what we were able to accomplish is just a few short years, I took that opportunity to move to the CAD vendor since I could see where the potential was for this technology in the future.
Yes, like any tool, when put the hands of a 'craftsman', it's amazing what can be done with it. But put it in the hands of someone who does not know what's what, it can be at best, a waste of money, and at worse, a disaster in the making.
The manufacturing industry learned that one the hard way as well when NC (Numerically Controlled) machinetools started to be installed in machine shops. Companies assumed that they would no longer need trained tool & die makers that they could hire anyone off the street and teach them to simply load the punched-tape into the machine and hit the 'Start' button and sit back and watch the machine do all the work. It took years to undo that mistake, but not before it all but destroyed the master/journeyman/apprentice system in this and other countries.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
