Yes, overseeing complex product design across a multitude of disciplinary dimensions, interfaces, requirements, and testing strategies, can be difficult. And for the longest time, CAD has been a domain that the system engineer could afford to virtually ignore. No longer. The dawn of a multi-domain 3D reality changes the game.
Systems engineering has traditionally soaked in an ocean of disparate and disconnected tools. Among system specification documents, requirements have originated as spreadsheets (with traceability possibly leveraged across some PLM tool), a variety of system content, signal block, and interface diagrams ranging from fine napkins to Visio. CAD has been little more than a footnote in the chaos. Up to now, 3D physical definition has been just another requirements checkbox, rendering CAD an activity to be relegated. But it just doesn't make sense to think that way any more.
System Engineering Legacy
Systems engineering is necessarily focused at a macro level, carefully coordinating a jigsaw puzzle of specialist output into a functional system of systems. Until now, the chief tool to foster that coordination has been block diagrams and a host of specifications, all vigilantly maintained against their driving (and seemingly ever-transforming) requirements. Some of those requirements would of course define physical and interface design constraints, including available volumes, mass limits or other environmental limitations. Without straightforward capability to directly join the system level with 3D product definition, the compromise is often rudimentary.
At best, a control drawing is generated for which the 3D model is merely a means to an end. At worst, sometimes just screenshots hastily pasted into the corresponding spec was enough to get by. The 3D definition -strictly from a systems engineer’s perspective- is secondary, something that might as well be offloaded and outsourced. Might as well offshore it for the trifecta.
The Challenge of Bringing 3D into the Fold
But why? It’s not that systems engineers have some secret disdain for anything that can’t be represented by a System context diagram. Rather, systems engineers aren’t well versed in 3D tools day to day. And why would they? Too busy overseeing the system across multiple domains, there is little time or practical need for a system engineer to become the master of 3D CAD. They have enough to do. And increasing product complexity isn’t doing wonders for available time. Not to mention that until recently the barrier of entry was high – systems engineers couldn’t afford to learn the intricacies to view, understand, and manipulate model information. Thankfully that barrier continues to fall precipitously.
When the V Breaks
Anyone worth their weight in engineering recognizes the “V.” The V represents the classical approach to system development, a philosophy some may think is hopelessly dated, a bygone relic where phase-gate, waterfall models, and drafting boards ruled the earth.
It’s not that the content of the V is unnecessary or excessive. Quite the contrary: it’s more important than ever! What’s happening? Quite clearly, the V is getting forcibly crushed by market forces and product complexity. You could say it’s starting to look like a very thin “T.” Insert your own joke here.
System Engineering Revolutions
Manufacturing innovations such as 3D printing are helping to compress the right side of the V to meet future market challenges. And the left side of the V and all that in-between planning? Yeah, we’re going to have to absolutely crush it, as all the kids say these days. As system complexity drives on, the abstracted system starts to reach a breaking point, where coordinating a system design becomes untenable.
There’s only one answer going forward and if you’re a systems engineering traditionalist, you’re probably not going to like it. Much like the evolution of 3D printing is beginning to close the gap between rapid prototyping and usable production, so too must the design cycle compress. That can only mean one thing, and it’s just not linking between tools, but a push towards something more dramatic. Multi-domain design tools where 3D is at the center and not just something stapled in as an appendix to a spec.
Buckle up, son. It gets bumpy from here.
A Part Number Anthology 
Part numbering. For most engineers, this two-word phrase is all it takes to conjure up especially strong feelings about what it means to be “right”, and what it means to be very, very “wrong.” We've assembled a handful of our part number greatest hits in this eBook anthology.
