1. Engineering IT Summary & Recommendations
Extended Lecture Shinshu University · Nagano City, Japan April 22, 2002
Engineering IT Summary & Recommendations
Russell Peak
Senior Researcher
Manufacturing Research Center
Georgia Tech

2. Status - Information Modeling
STEP Express & related techniques provide good representation capability for engineering complexities
XML alone is insufficient (syntax format)
“Challenges to Effective Adoption of the Extensible Markup Language” GAO report,
Need content description provided by Express and existing STEP standards (AP2xx, etc.)
Leverage many man-years of effort invested to create content standards
On synergy: “STEP & XML” - a European Maritime STEP Association (EMSA) white paper,

3. Status - STEP First Release - 1994 Collection
Foundations for engineering IT
Mechanical CAD/geometry-oriented
Successful and in wide-spread use today
Second Release - ~2001 Collection
New richer content (APs)
Finite Element Analysis - AP209
Electronics - AP210
Wiring harnesses/looms - AP212
Construction & process plant industry - AP225, AP227
New implementations:
Database sharing (vs. just file exchange)
The Web - using XML
Emerging vendor support and usage

4. Status - STEP (cont.) Coming capabilities (in-process)
New application areas
Shipbuilding suite of APs
Process Plant pipework
Systems Engineering
New integrated information for manufacturing
Rapid Prototyping for Layered Manufacturing
Product Life Cycle Support
Modular architecture - recognizing common clusters of engineering concepts
Improved interoperability

5. Overall Engineering IT
Emerging emphasis on standards-based engineering frameworks
Combination of standards: ISO STEP, OMG, W3C, …
Dealing with current gaps
Recognize the root causes:
Semantic gaps, associativity gaps, etc.
Fill gap
Obtain or develop tools that fill gap (if possible) or
Setup manual/custom processes to cover gaps
Promote standardization of solutions

6. Standards vs. Competitive Factors for CAD/E/M Vendor
Georgia Tech EIS Lab
Vendor non-core business:
External information models and interfaces
Not a threat, but a valuable capability for customers
Vendor core business:
Tools to create and interact with subsets of these information models
Vendor tool distinguishing factors
Functionality algorithms
Populate, change, view models in innovative ways
Performance algorithms
Do operations faster than competition
User interface
Provide intuitive, valuable interaction mechanisms
Minimize mouse-clicks (required user actions)
Maximize views: “absorbable knowledge density”
CAD/E/M vendors distinguish themselves primarily by how well their algorithms and GUIs operate on a model, not the model itself.
Thus, vendors can view standards-based interfaces to the model not as a threat. Instead such standards expose their tools to a wider array of potential usages and help their customers benefit more from tool investments.
Imagine an appliance that required a specialized plug and electrical outlet to obtain power. Few consumers would be interested due to the extra headaches involved. Appliance support for electrical standards is taken for granted (thus not supporting such standards is a competitive dis-advantage) -- this is where CAD/E/M tools need to be with respect to the models they work on.