For the last seven weeks, Ralph Grabowski has been writing in upFront.eZine about CAD companies he met up with in his recent tour through Russia.
This week, he writes about NTP Truboprovod. As he explains, in Russian, Truboprovod means “piping systems.” If you’re interested in tools for piping systems engineering, you should read his article. Actually, if you’re interested in how engineering software will affect the business of engineering, you should read the entire series of articles.
Here are some thoughts I had when reading this week’s installment:
The disciplines of engineering and design have often been thought of as being inextricably linked. In practice, what we call “engineering software” is often better described as “design software.”
Yet, what happens when this software matures to the point where engineering and design functions, while still intertwined, are logically separable? It introduces interesting possibilities, and opens up even more interesting questions. Such as: For a large US or European engineering firm, is engineering or design the more core (sustainable and profitable) competency?
Rephrasing a bit, in the context of Ralph’s article: If it’s possible to do engineering in house, yet outsource detail design to Russian engineers using Russian design software for ¼ the cost, why not consider it?
Let me give you a related example: I recently talked to the owner of a steel fabrication company that builds parts for bridges. (I’ll tell you more about him in a later post. He’s an interesting fellow.) In his company, there are three important competencies: project management, steel detailing, and fabrication. He employs about 200 people, including project managers and welders, at his main facility. Yet, he has steel detailing work done at a subsidiary in India.
If you think about this kind of outsourcing, it makes a lot of sense. The company is an AISC certified major bridge fabricator, with fracture-critical endorsement. For reasons of accountability, it simply can’t outsource its welding, and off-shoring it, even to a wholly owned subsidiary, would create insurmountable traceability and scheduling problems. Yet, by using best-in-class software (Tekla Structures, in this case), it can do steel detailing anywhere in the world. India, with its large pool of mechanical engineering graduates and English as a primary language, is a natural choice.
It’s not my intention to get into a detailed discussion of software functionality here. Whether we’re talking about structural design software from Tekla, or piping systems software from Autodesk, Rebis, Intergraph, Bentley, Coade, or NTP Truboprovod is not important.
What is important is whether the software tools used by engineering firms support the distinction between engineering and design–both logically, and through open interoperability.
By the way, if you think this issue has any merit, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
