White Papers & Articles

Here’s a challenge I see quite often while we’re on a client project involving mechanical design or CAD work.  Does this familiar?

Someone is tasked with designing a new sub-assembly or component for an existing product.  As they get underway their work on face value gets the company to a conclusion where the design/ drawing is technically complete. As such, this person is able to check the proverbial box for ‘task completed’ and move on to the next assignment.  While the work may have technically been completed, it often is done in a fashion which causes all sorts of problems down the road for the company, including other employees working on the same project within the same organization as well as their external suppliers. 

How is it someone can complete a design project satisfactory on the surface yet problems arise down the road with that very same design, which had been previously approved?

Answer: the devil is in the details, or lack thereof, to be more specific.

​The reason why companies and or their respective employees experience this is because they aren’t following a formal and documented ‘gold standard’ for their product design practices.  Simply put, they lack discipline with design fundamentals.

As a result of a lack of design standards (and perhaps training) employees are left to decide for themselves how to complete a task which may get them to the finish line but the approach, process and details along the way can have wild variances and interpretations.

While this may be commonplace and old news to many of you reading this article, the reality is the actual practice of designing a product with repeatable ‘gold standards’ is anything but common sense or consistent in the workplace.  When our approach to design is fast and loose we experience the following:

• Design intent isn’t captured
• Formatting and documentation inconsistencies or it’s wrong all together
• Future efforts to utilize the design for other applications can’t be leverage causing rework
• Models can’t be adjusted or revised easily because the initial designer didn’t put enough thought into their work to think ahead about future changes which may need to take place; the design is static rather than being parametrically driven
• Confidence in the model and the overall design is tarnish
• The company losses time and market opportunity which translates into lost revenue and market share attainment

 
When these issues show up it causes companies to reinvest dollars and resources into their work in order to move the project forward to get it to a point of where it can be properly advanced along the product development life cycle.  This reinvestment is unnecessary and a huge time suck.  We see this a lot when a medical device OEM has a contract manufacturer (CM) do some of their design work.  In more times than I can count the work which is produced in this scenario is rough, limited with detail and documentation, almost never parametrically driven, and close to useless in other scenarios.  Don’t fall for the trap of “we just need drawings.”  While that may be the case in the moment, this will almost always cause you more work and funds down the road.

For these reasons it’s vital companies implement a ‘gold standard’ in their design work which their employees and suppliers follow to ensure the work each party is facilitating makes it to the finish line in the same format, intent and approach.  This unification of process increases the likelihood design work is done correctly while also ensuring future usage of said designs doesn’t require additional unnecessary iterations or complete redesigns.
​
If implementing a ‘gold standard’ for your design and product development practices could be a benefit to your team or company, here are some of the key points to consider:

1. Documented processes with consistent templates and forms
2. Develop a systematic way to capture tribal/ legacy knowledge
3. Utilize a centralized database (PLM) for product data storage (tools like UpChain, Arena and Windchill)
   • This will help with traceability and legacy data
4. Developing consistent design techniques like:
   • sketches constrained,
   • design for manufacturing (DFM),
   • simplified features which are in systematic order,
   • building relations to create predictability,
   • organize your feature manager trees,
   • design intent documentation
5. Drive dimension (model dimensions) used in drawing (ease in updating documentation)
6. Implement a system of checks and balances to ensure work is done properly and in accordance with company processes and policies
7. Ensure there are consistent discussion, training and guidance focused on designing with the future in mind

 
Example below: A well laid out Solidworks Assembly Feature Manager Design Tree

​If you, and or your company, lacks a ‘gold standard’ for your product design efforts you are inevitably wasting time and resources.  This also has a direct correlation to a suppliers’ ability to help with outsourced work causing the overall project to be more challenging and lengthier than necessary (prototyping, manufacturing, etc.)  While this isn’t a fun realization there is hope!
 
Here’s how to fix it. 

Start right away by developing a best practice plan.  This will help you and your team form an outline for what design practices and approaches are ideal for your product and technology, which aren’t, etc. From there setup a review plan to provide feedback on all work performed. Once the infrastructure of your new gold standard system is established you’ll want to asses the skills of your team and develop a training program which can be offered to both new and existing employees. 
​​

If you want to speed up your work when designing complex assemblies use the Master Modeling technique to avoid aligning all of the components individually.

Learn more about Square-1's CAD Services HERE.

This full length video showcases the importance of using the sweep and loft functions within Solidworks to create complex shapes.  After the console and or enclosure is complete, split the model up into multiple parts to aide in proper DFM and ease of assembly.

Learn more about Square-1's CAD Services at by clicking HERE

Today's Solidworks quick tips highlights the importance of working smarter, not harder, using the Hole Wizard tool to efficiently design holes within a chassis.

For more information visit: www.sqr1services.com/cad-services.html

Like many things in life there is often more than one way to accomplish a task. This is especially true for those of us who fall in the creative space.  One persons’ approach in the creative development process (drawing, painting, product design, coding, graphical design, underwater basket weaving, etc.) could be quite different from the person sitting next to them yet it’s possible for both people to arrive at the same destination.

Or so we think.

I recently sat down with a good friend of mine, Tim Humphrey, who I’ve had the pleasure working with for several years teaming up to facilitate a variety of product design and drafting projects in the medical device arena.  During our discussion I shared with Tim a frustration I had, and still have, having to do with inconsistencies in people’s design approach. I see this often in product development where the approach one person takes to design a product may on the surface get them to the desired finish line but as a result of their approach it leads to a plethora of unnecessary challenges down the road.

As Tim laughed at me lightheartedly, we found ourselves diving deep into a discussion where in one conversation I found myself both highly intrigued while equally confused and somewhat baffled at the same time.  

Here’s the issue as I see it specific to designing in a product development scenario.

Issue: someone is tasked with designing either a product, sub-assembly or component of a new or existing product.  As such, their design approach gets the company to a conclusion where the design is technically complete allowing the person facilitating the work to check their proverbial work box and move on to the next assignment.  While the work may have technically been completed, it often is done in a fashion which causes all sort of problems down the road for the company, including other employees working on the same project within the same organization as well as their external suppliers. 

How is it someone can complete a design project satisfactory on the surface yet problems arise down the road with that very same design which had been previously approved?

Answer: the devil is in the details, or lack thereof, to be more specific.

Tim and I both agreed on the following.  The reason why companies and or their respective employees  experience this is because they aren’t following a formal and documented ‘gold standard’ for their design practices.  Simply put, they lack discipline with design fundamentals. They don’t have GOLD!  There is also something to be said about training. If your company lacks proper training to ensure the standards are being followed that too can produce similar unwanted results.
As a result of a lack of design standards and training employees are left to decide for themselves how to complete a task which may get them to the finish line but the approach, process and details along the way can have wild variances and interpretations.

While this may be common place and old news to many of you reading this article, the reality is the actual practice of designing a product with repeatable ‘gold standards’ is anything but common sense or consistent in the workplace.  When our approach to design is fast and loose we experience the following:

• Design intent isn’t captured
• Formatting and documentation inconsistencies or it’s wrong all together
• Future efforts to utilize the design for other applications can’t be leverage causing rework
• Models can’t be adjusted or revised easily because the initial designer didn’t put enough thought into their work to think ahead about future changes which may need to take place; the design is static rather than being parametrically driven
• Confidence in the model and the overall design is tarnish
• The company losses time and market opportunity which translates into lost revenue and market share attainment

 
When these issues show up it causes companies to reinvest dollars and resources into their work in order to move the project forward to get it to a point of where it can be properly advanced along the product development life cycle.  This reinvestment is unnecessary and a huge time suck.
For these reasons its vital companies implement a gold standard which their employees and suppliers follow to ensure the work each party is facilitating makes it to the finish line in the same format, intent and approach.  This unification of process increases the likelihood design work is done correctly while also ensuring future usage of said designs doesn’t require additional unnecessary iterations or complete redesigns.

Does your company need to implement a ‘gold standard’ for your design and product development practices?

Implementing a gold standard includes:

1. Documented processes with consistent templates and forms
2. A systematic way to capture tribal/ legacy knowledge
3. Development and maintenance of a centralized database for product data storage (tools like UpChain, Arena and Windchill)
4. Developing consistent design techniques via training (sketches constrained, DFM, simplified features which are in systematic order, building relations to create predictability, organizing feature tree, design intent)
5. Driving dimension (model dimensions) used in drawing (ease in updating documentation)
6. Implementing a system of checks and balances to ensure work is done properly and in accordance with company processes and policies
7. Consistent discussion, training and guidance focused on designing with the future in mind

 
Key Takeaway:
If you and or your company lacks a gold standard for your product design efforts you are inevitably wasting time and resources.  This also has a direct correlation to a suppliers’ ability to help with outsourced work causing the overall project to be more challenging and lengthy than necessary (prototyping, manufacturing, etc.)
 
Action Item:
Got GOLD?  Start right away implementing your gold standards starting with develop a best practice plan.  From there setup a review plan to provide feedback on all work performed. Once infrastructure of your new gold standard system is established you’ll want to asses the skills of your team and develop a training program which can be offered to both new and existing employees. 

​