What would it take to get you off of 2d?

[matt]

Salesmen have been crowing for decades that new product X will be the one to finally kill 2d drawings. It works for some industries. I rarely make 2D drawings, at least not the detailed ones that I used to make 30+ years ago. For plastic parts, I might have a couple critical dimensions, maybe a surface finish and a note about gates and knit lines. Molds are made largely with CNC equipment, but there is a lot of manual setup and multiple processes.

What would it take to get your company, your product, your industry off of 2D drawings? Do these 3D mbd representations have any chance of flying in mfg and fabrication? Looking for opinions.

[mike miller]

As a preamble, we have fabrication (laser, press brake, sawing, welding), machining, and assembly departments here. I figure that's a pretty fair average for most OEMs.

We currently use 2D drawings for:
-Laser nesting (only BOMs and some very generalized notes about orientation of critical parts).
-Bending
-Saw cutlists (this includes barcoded cells in the cutlist to load programs).
-Welding (BOMs, dimensioned views, and exploded views).
-Machining.
-Assembly (BOMs and exploded views)
-Customer installation drawings

Of all of the above, all could theoretically be done with MBD. The difficulty would getting everyone to actually use it. Using a tablet makes sense in machining where you have highly detailed parts and "highly skilled" people. Using a tablet at a welding table does not make sense. How do you deal with spatter and dirt contamination, gloved hands on a touchscreen, and crusty old guys who would be opposed to it on principle?

In short, I think 2D drawing will always be used in some stations; even if we move to MBD in other areas of production. It's a cost/benefit analysis, and I don't see it winning everywhere.

As a parallel; haven't they been saying the same thing about AutoCAD for nigh on thirty years? And it's STILL so popular that 25% of DSS ads are targeting it by pushing DraftSight.

[zwei]

^{Edit: Added some formatting}

I am assuming the 2D drawing you mean here is a PDF copy of 2D drawing...

Will MBD replace 2D drawing? IMO, no, at least for now.
Will I switch to MBD? Most probably no

True, some company may embrace MBD completely. I had heard some great success story too.

But when you are dealing with lots of vendors/suppliers to fabricate your part, MBD is just a pipe dream...
→I had spoken with some of our supplier about MBD... and the first question that they ask back is... "What is MBD"

Trying to have a "hard copy" of MBD is a problem...
→A lot of people still rely on pen an paper to redline/markup drawing, design review/ FAI, etc
→Printing CAD with MDB is not as easy as printing PDF from my experienec..

Sharing data with MBD is another disaster...
→Native CAD? Someone will complaint about concern about IP even with NDA, and not all supplier using the same CAD system. Heck we even have issue sharing CAD internally sometimes.
→3D PDF? It is really slow (at least for me)
→eDrawing? Try to convince someone to download a viewer for it... ugh...
→eDrawing as *.exe? Some company flag and block exe file and you need to manually convert it to exe
→Html? Same as edrawing exe, require manual conversion
→Step242? Can solidwork export as step242? Wait i need a MBD license? Wait i cant import step242 back to solidwork?

Sometime, it take more time to create a MBD drawing than a 2D drawing..
→3D MBD drawing can get real messy if your model changed (eg: change request) after you create the MBD drawing
→A lot of time minimal dimension 2D drawings (with note saying to refer to CAD) seem to be much easier than trying to figure out a proper MBD

If you are producing your own drawing and fabricating your own part, MBD may have a place... But when you rely on a lot of 3rd party vendor/supplier (molder, sheet metal fabricator, machine shop, etc) to produce your part, a good old fashion 2D drawing with CAD is more suitable

[jcapriotti]

I used to be an advocate years ago for 3D only with some sort of PMI (MBD) but the more I worked with our manufacturing and our field organization, the more I see the need for 2d drawings still. I would add that they need both as seeing the 3d model has it advantages as well. Always seemed like a 2d eDrawings file was a nice compromise as you can view both in the same file (could use some enhancements though).

2D drawings allow you to get a lot of information at a glance. A sheet metal part drawing is a good example. At a glance I can see both the formed and flat views, material, part numbers, etc., all at a glance. With a model only, I need to move the model around, select properties too see material and other info. Just more clicks and fiddling.

Also, the modeling dimensioning in MBD is just poor. Even in drawings I have to create sketch geometry to help place a dimension, not much of an option in the model. I don't think many, if any people use MBD so SolidWorks doesn't get much feedback to improve it. Not to mention they made it an additional module to pay for, whereas 2D drawings are included.

[HerrTick]

What is a 2D drawing? It is a guided tour of a 3D object. It is the conversation you would have with someone who asked you to explain the details of your 3D design.

[CADNurd]

. . . Using a tablet at a welding table does not make sense. How do you deal with spatter and dirt contamination, gloved hands on a touchscreen, and crusty old guys who would be opposed to it on principle?

Good point re. the welding spatter, hadn't thought of that. It triggered an idea in me that "surely every young welder today owns a smartphone, and surely someone has come up with a protective case for such phones - had a google . . . and the answer seems to be "no".

This poor chap ruined a tablet and a smartphone with just a couple of specks of molten metal.

Also ferrous metal dust from grinding and cuttiing operations seems to destroy the speakers of smartphones.

Solve all that and you might be on to something.

[zwei]

On second thought,

How do we ensure the CAD publish as MBD accurately?
I already have enough issue with publishing as PDF (especially with CREO drawing that using its default font, ugh)... thinking about having the software to publish to MBD consistently just... scare me

[Lapuo]

We would need to change chief of production because he is the only one who wont give up on paper.
Everything here is done with 3D model , and only purpose of the drawing is to check dimensions , which never happens anyway

[Glenn Schroeder]

I wouldn't say it won't happen, but I don't think we'll ever get away from 2d drawings, for at least two reasons. One is similar to the situation @mike miller mentioned. Our installations are outside, with some of the components being built in the welding shop. If we issued tablets to the fabrication/construction crew they probably wouldn't last two weeks. Plus, I can't get them to read the drawings now.

The second reason is that we're an accredited testing lab, and we issue a written report for every project. It needs to have drawings as part of the report package.

[Frederick_Law]

What would it take to get your company, your product, your industry off of 2D drawings? Do these 3D mbd representations have any chance of flying in mfg and fabrication? Looking for opinions.

Remove all the people in the company still demand 2D drawing.
I've been sending out frame cut with overall dimension and told to dimension everything. Even vendor don't care.
And the same person will put their "note" on the print so we need to scan it back into the system.

[Ry-guy]

-Welding (BOMs, dimensioned views, and exploded views).
....Using a tablet makes sense in machining where you have highly detailed parts and "highly skilled" people. Using a tablet at a welding table does not make sense. How do you deal with spatter and dirt contamination, gloved hands on a touchscreen, and crusty old guys who would be opposed to it on principle?

My experience with the welders is this:
I moved away from the orthograhic views of weldments (frames for ride-on floor scrubbers and cleaners) which were a bunch of lines packed together to 3D detail views to create my frame weldments drawings. The welding manager bought me lunch! Said it made things so clear they had to do very little communication back to R&D to understand where the welds were going! From that day forward the shop demanded the iso detail views of the drawing for welding.

Technically, we moved away from "2D" to 3D- just that the 3D was printed on paper (2D).

There are business cases where 2D is still preffered and mainly because the 2D formats are easier to understand and "follow". Think P&ID, wire diagrams, HVAC, etc. All these utilize simplified drawing formats for clarity. If the goal of a drawing is for communication...why make it more complex than it needs to be?

MBD does have it purposes and it is at the core of a digital twin. But we can't lose sight of communication!

Just my thoughts!

Ryan

[Ry-guy]

Remove all the people in the company still demand 2D drawing.
I've been sending out frame cut with overall dimension and told to dimension everything. Even vendor don't care.
And the same person will put their "note" on the print so we need to scan it back into the system.

You should look at Vertex Visualiztion..you should be able to get rid of your scan process.

Ryan

[Ry-guy]

Remove all the people in the company still demand 2D drawing.
I've been sending out frame cut with overall dimension and told to dimension everything. Even vendor don't care.
And the same person will put their "note" on the print so we need to scan it back into the system.

You should look at Vertex Visualiztion..you should be able to get rid of your scan process.

Ryan

[Frederick_Law]

You should look at Vertex Visualiztion..you should be able to get rid of your scan process.

Ryan

Better, I fired the boss already

[Tom G]

This one is pretty easy. My boss would have to see someone using this investment in technology to make more money than he does. Then and only then would we enhance the existing status quo of who gets what technology in accordance with tradition and outdated expectations.

There is one alternative. Furthermore, we meet the needs or our clients. Our clients require 2D drawings transmitted for review, as far as I understand it. When they increase their needs, we would meet them or lose out.

[MJuric]

Salesmen have been crowing for decades that new product X will be the one to finally kill 2d drawings. It works for some industries. I rarely make 2D drawings, at least not the detailed ones that I used to make 30+ years ago. For plastic parts, I might have a couple critical dimensions, maybe a surface finish and a note about gates and knit lines. Molds are made largely with CNC equipment, but there is a lot of manual setup and multiple processes.

What would it take to get your company, your product, your industry off of 2D drawings? Do these 3D mbd representations have any chance of flying in mfg and fabrication? Looking for opinions.

The problem with MBD is that in order to take advantage of them you have to have equipment that can take advantage of it and vendors that have equipment that can also take advantage of it.

So for us every machine we have would have to be programmed with CAM and with CAM programmers that understand MBD and tolerance. Beyond that all of our operators, inspectors etc etc would have to have access to the models, be able to get the MBD data and or utilize it.

My company is no where near that. We'd have to have CAD stations at every machine or some way to get the tolerance to the operators. Only about 30% of what we run is even currently programmed in CAM. I don't even think our CMM's are able to inspect based on MBD so the CMM operators would have to pull the information in the model.

Add the above to Routings, paper trails, mark ups and on and on that still is fairly quick and easy to do on paper and we are a LONG, LONG ways from being able to be paperless.

Furthermore many of our vendors are even further away from that goal. You have translation issues where you might/Probably will loose the MBD data.

In the end I think most companies are LONG way off from this.

Some companies sectors are far closer and in essence have been driven to it early. Things like molds and other more complex surface models have relied heavily on the CAD model for years now while others have been much less reliant and support by MBD.

[CADNurd]

Intellectual Property Protection probably plays a part too. 2D drawings are useful in that way, because each worker can be given only the information they need to do their job. Of course the same thing could be achieved by making defeatured 3D models specific to each process.

It's a bit of an outdated idea though when you think about it - what with the arrival of cheap 3D scanning equipment. All a competitor needs to do these days is buy your product, take it to bits, scan all the parts and there they have it.

[MJuric]

It's a bit of an outdated idea though when you think about it - what with the arrival of cheap 3D scanning equipment. All a competitor needs to do these days is buy your product, take it to bits, scan all the parts and there they have it.

This is the fastest way to get a Yugo from a Porche :-)

In fact I think you see this sort of thing all the time. How may "Knock offs" have you seen that are as good of product as the original? Not many. the reason for this is that you can reverse engineer a product and get the general shape and function, but you cant reverse engineer the engineering that went into that product. You can measure a shaft, but you have next to no idea what the tolerance is, finish etc etc is.

By the time you get the general shape of the part, draw that part up, properly design it by looking at materials, finishes, tolerances etc etc etc....you have almost as much time into it as the original designer. Actually, in my experience, in some cases you end up having more time than if you would have just designed it from scratch.

To the contrary MBD gives you all that information for free.

[HerrTick]

Is it really that easy to just scan and copy? Not really. There is plenty that goes into making all but the simplest products beyond the physical shape. Just getting molding processes under control can take Herculean effort.

What about material specs? What about tolerances? Electrical and thermal? Firmware and software?

Go ahead. Have fun with your scan.

[CADNurd]

Worth a mention - there's probably very few 2D drawings fluttering around in a modern car assembly plant, with most of them being almost totally automated. So maybe, I dunno, get rid of all the humans? Then, once that's done, throw out all the printers/photocopiers?

[berg_lauritz]

What it takes:

• a fresh start where every part/assembly has to be made from scratch
• an educated and probably very young team in the office AND on the floor
• appropriate hardware

I can't see it in the near future...

[MJuric]

Worth a mention - there's probably very few 2D drawings fluttering around in a modern car assembly plant, with most of them being almost totally automated. So maybe, I dunno, get rid of all the humans? Then, once that's done, throw out all the printers/photocopiers?

There's not a whole lot of 2D drawing of parts in a auto assembly plant....because they don't make any parts. About the only thing made in auto plants these days are the large sheet metal pieces.

I haven't been directly involved in the Automotive industry for at least five years now, but five years ago every auto supplier I worked with did their PPAP's, CPK's etc etc to a 2D drawing. So while those papers may not be on the factory floor you can bet that pretty much every part in that car has a 2D drawing attached to it somewhere.

The level of infrastructure and capital investment necessary to go completely MBD is HUGE! Replacing millions of dollars of equipment so they are MBD compatible while at the same time creating at least some inconvenience and inefficiency in communication when people are involved for no other reason that to "Get rid of using paper", just isn't a train many people are going to jump on.

We have spent 100+ years defining and refining communication with 2D drawings. A good drawing provides a WHOLE lot of information to the viewer in a very short period of time. I've yet to see a MBD system come anywhere near close to that.

[CADNurd]

There's not a whole lot of 2D drawing of parts in a auto assembly plant....because they don't make any parts. About the only thing made in auto plants these days are the large sheet metal pieces.

I haven't been directly involved in the Automotive industry for at least five years now, but five years ago every auto supplier I worked with did their PPAP's, CPK's etc etc to a 2D drawing. So while those papers may not be on the factory floor you can bet that pretty much every part in that car has a 2D drawing attached to it somewhere.

The level of infrastructure and capital investment necessary to go completely MBD is HUGE! Replacing millions of dollars of equipment so they are MBD compatible while at the same time creating at least some inconvenience and inefficiency in communication when people are involved for no other reason that to "Get rid of using paper", just isn't a train many people are going to jump on.

We have spent 100+ years defining and refining communication with 2D drawings. A good drawing provides a WHOLE lot of information to the viewer in a very short period of time. I've yet to see a MBD system come anywhere near close to that.

You're right, of course, about the parts not being made in the assembly plant.

By the way, I'm not trolling here. Just playing the 'Devil's Advocate'. Although personally I don't like paper (environmentalist).

Again you're right about the HUGE hassle of 'switching' to MBD. But that's not how I'm thinking. I'm thinking about starting up a small part fabrication factory today, starting with a clean slate, would you need to buy a 'printer' ?? I don't think so. Would your young workers have a problem with that? I don't think so. Would I win more contracts by being able to manufacture at a lower cost? I would think yes, but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe my mind has been 'poisoned' by this video >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ62yNu9meo

[SPerman]

You're going to outprice the competition by not buying a $200 printer?

[mike miller]

You're going to outprice the competition by not buying a $200 printer?

Of course not, silly. It's the printer's power usage that will kill ya.

Speaking of not liking to use paper..........allow me to ask..........have you tried plastic TP?

[MJuric]

I'm thinking about starting up a small part fabrication factory today, starting with a clean slate, would you need to buy a 'printer' ?? I don't think so. Would your young workers have a problem with that? I don't think so.

If I'm starting from scratch today....there would be no workers

I've worked in Manufacturing for a while, I've owned my own business, I've been in positions where I've had to manage, hire/Fire people for many years. Without question the biggest pain point in manufacturing in about every possible area is the people.

Right now the problem is that we simply don't have enough people and without question we don't have enough quality people regardless of how much you pay.

If I'm starting a new plant, buying all new equipment, creating the product, EVERYTHING from product design to shipping is going to do everything it can to eliminate human involvement.

The problem with this however is that in the long run...well until such time we reach "Star Trek" levels of society with unlimited power and replicators, this direction does nothing but destroy society by continuing to focus purchasing power into the hands of the few.

In contrast to this issue if people would work, try to be excel at their jobs and focus on being more productive when working there would not be such a huge push to get rid of people....says I as I waste time posting on a discussion forum

[MJuric]

You're going to outprice the competition by not buying a $200 printer?

You're going to outprice the competition by getting rid of the thing that needs the printer....the people. When you get to the point you don't need the printer that pretty much means you don't have people. 2D drawings are designed for humans that see the world thru a relatively 2D world. Machines can see things in databases, matrix, "1"'s and "0"'s that humans simply can't. Get rid of the people, get rid of the printer.

The push for "Paperless" when you still have people is pissing in the wind. It's almost a non cost and when you compare it to the lost time of setting up tablets, zooming, displaying, etc etc etc it's probably a wash or a loss.

Now when you can get rid of having to to do 2D drawings, get rid of the space needed for people, get rid of the HMI's, get rid of the safety, get rid of...the printer, because you got rid of the people. Now you're talking HUGE dollars. Just the safety alone accounts for anywhere from 20-50% of equipment costs these days. That completely goes away when you no longer have people to hurt on the equipment.

[MJuric]

Maybe my mind has been 'poisoned' by this video >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ62yNu9meo

I just watched that video and for the most part our sister company follows this same approach but does it for our product lines. The majority of their products are also "Fabrication".

As I've said before I think certain sectors lend itself to a less complex path than others.

When you're doing fab, for the most part you're not dealing with the individual part complexity that you are with some other sectors. When you're cutting plates with a plasma cutter whatever comes off the machine is what you get and in a good portion of the cases what you get is what goes into the assembly. If you're manufacturing a simple shaft you have a multitude of outcomes for that shaft, what's the tolerance of the journals? Grinding, Heat treat, Finish, plating?

The same happens when you're assembling. The possibilities are far greater when you putting a spindle together then when you're dealing with a structure that is largely almost entirely welded together. Press fit, slip fits, grain direction, thread locking, in process machining and on an on.

Yes I realize that the above is a "General" statement and that fabricated structures can be very complex while machined and assembled assemblies can be very simple. However in general, manufacturing and assembling manufactured assemblies tend to be more complex that fabricated structures. In fact in many cases fabricated structures are part of manufactured assemblies.

I'm also not saying you can't get to the same place with manufactured assemblies. I'm just saying it's a factor more difficult and involves a whole lot more upstream equipment, processes etc.

@matt mentioned molds. Molds is another sector that lends itself to MBD. The parts/Surfaces can be extremely complex and extremely difficult to define on paper so the model tends to becomes the "Master". Many of the other parts tend to become secondary to the mold. MBD then ends up becoming a good fit and a less complex path to follow.

[CADNurd]

. . . MBD then ends up becoming a good fit and a less complex path to follow.

Now a 'paperless convert'

P.S. - You've made some very good points, and thanks for all the experiences/insights.

I'm going to 'step away' from this debate now - seems to be heading into dystopia territory (not great for my head) - and maybe that was my fault. If that's the case then I apologize and will try not to do that in future.

Maybe we can all meet halfway and use ruggedized e-book readers

[zxys001]

Change is like molasses....thinking back to how we use to make changes... many, many, many..times I would drive to a shop, sketch in a change, or circle a area, (see attached, stapled!), up the rev and sign/date (add my phone number) and send them a update 1-3 days later.
What was funny here... even after sending "clean" updated drawings,.. my old signed/stapled coffee stained prints were on the shop floor.
yeah,.. and it's going away to an out of sync ever changing digital world... and shops continue to be caught or out of sync with those systems.
Too many shops or our systems/processes are still tied to paper.
I was asked about doing a drawing recently... I almost laughed thinking about when will this ever end?... I don't see this changing in my life,.. there are way too many people who can not or will not change because they don't know how to change.

[bnemec]

Salesmen have been crowing for decades that new product X will be the one to finally kill 2d drawings. It works for some industries. I rarely make 2D drawings, at least not the detailed ones that I used to make 30+ years ago. For plastic parts, I might have a couple critical dimensions, maybe a surface finish and a note about gates and knit lines. Molds are made largely with CNC equipment, but there is a lot of manual setup and multiple processes.

What would it take to get your company, your product, your industry off of 2D drawings? Do these 3D mbd representations have any chance of flying in mfg and fabrication? Looking for opinions.

Couple thoughts:
I think those salespeople and marketing are barking up the wrong tree. We (designers/engineers) will switch to 3D/MBD when we're told that is what we must deliver. The people that use our outputs are mostly not tech junkies, they aren't impressed with tech or fancy tools, they just want clear, unambiguous communication. If they cannot view and read the dimensions/annotations they need by simply double clicking the file then it's viewed as a waste of their time.

I believe very little that comes from someone trying to sell me something. Marketing has swung so far from delivering a product that fills a demand all the way over to confusing consumers into thinking they need a product that was not developed to fill a demand.

[Ry-guy]

Good point re. the welding spatter, hadn't thought of that. It triggered an idea in me that "surely every young welder today owns a smartphone, and surely someone has come up with a protective case for such phones - had a google . . . and the answer seems to be "no".

This poor chap ruined a tablet and a smartphone with just a couple of specks of molten metal.

Also ferrous metal dust from grinding and cuttiing operations seems to destroy the speakers of smartphones.

Solve all that and you might be on to something.

Solved: Use robotic welders that are programmed. Done. Then train your welder to teach the robot. Have a visual inspection step that looks for spatter and then another robot to remove spatter. This isn't crazy talk..

[MJuric]

Solved: Use robotic welders that are programmed. Done. Then train your welder to teach the robot. Have a visual inspection step that looks for spatter and then another robot to remove spatter. This isn't crazy talk..

This is not crazy talk but it's the same type of talk that says "This is a none issue once we have unlimited energy and replicators". The statement is true the path to get there is not easy and nowhere near close.

All of this stuff takes time, money, training etc and none of it happens over night. Until you're COMPLETELY on the other side paper is often times the best choice.

I just spent the last three days in training for two of our machining centers. We've had them for a decade or more and still aren't using all their capabilities. If we used this equipment 100% to it's abilities we'd still be nowhere near "No 2D"

[Ry-guy]

This is not crazy talk but it's the same type of talk that says "This is a none issue once we have unlimited energy and replicators". The statement is true the path to get there is not easy and nowhere near close.

All of this stuff takes time, money, training etc and none of it happens over night. Until you're COMPLETELY on the other side paper is often times the best choice.

I just spent the last three days in training for two of our machining centers. We've had them for a decade or more and still aren't using all their capabilities. If we used this equipment 100% to it's abilities we'd still be nowhere near "No 2D"

I fully understand and agree...but the US is in an interesting position right now...not necessarily the best position...when it come to manufacturing technology. Industry 4.0 has a very slow adoption rate in the US. I'm afraid the rest of the world is going to kick our manufacturing butt if we don't decide to edcuate and progress forward.
Here's an older article take a look at the chart! Should scare every manufacturer in the North America!
https://www.therobotreport.com/top-5-co ... allations.

[MJuric]

I fully understand and agree...but the US is in an interesting position right now...not necessarily the best position...when it come to manufacturing technology. Industry 4.0 has a very slow adoption rate in the US. I'm afraid the rest of the world is going to kick our manufacturing butt if we don't decide to edcuate and progress forward.
Here's an older article take a look at the chart! Should scare every manufacturer in the North America!
https://www.therobotreport.com/top-5-co ... allations.

First....where have you been The US has been falling behind in Manufacturing since the 80's when the mentality shifted from manufacturing to "We are going to be a service economy" and "We don't need manufacturing". The end result has essentially been a loss of manufacturing jobs and thus a significant decimation of the middle class. Today it's "go to college" or "Live in a box under a bridge". The manufacturing jobs are disappearing and it's exactly those jobs that employed the plethora of people that "Didn't go to college".

Second "Slow adoption of industry 4.0" is the same problem as "Getting rid of 2D and paper". Technology moves WAY faster than the manufacturing equipment. We can design and build a fully automated system with smart infrastructure and is completely paperless. However you're not going to get a manufacturing company to get rid of their equipment and buy all new equipment unless there is monetary benefit.

I'd guess that my company has 30-40 million dollars worth of manufacturing equipment that would probably cost 60 million to replace. We generally do 25-30 million in sales a year. The "Gain" from being entirely automated and 4.0 compliant and paperless might be what, 10-15%? No company is going to just toss 2-3 years worth of sales of equipment away and take on 2-3 years of sales in dept so they can increase profits by 10-15%. Numbers don't add up.

So like all things in manufacturing you use the equipment until it has to be replaced, that's 10,15-25+ years in many cases. So the turn around time on these things are VERY slow due to capital costs.

Other countries, particularly developing countries, don't have this issue because in many cases they are just starting and thus purchasing new equipment. In another 25-50 years when China is a mature economy, they will be in same boat. "Do I toss this old Industry 4.0 stuff out the window and replace it with Industry 9.1?"

[Ry-guy]

....Technology moves WAY faster than the manufacturing equipment. We can design and build a fully automated system with smart infrastructure and is completely paperless. However you're not going to get a manufacturing company to get rid of their equipment and buy all new equipment unless there is monetary benefit.

I'd guess that my company has 30-40 million dollars worth of manufacturing equipment that would probably cost 60 million to replace. We generally do 25-30 million in sales a year. The "Gain" from being entirely automated and 4.0 compliant and paperless might be what, 10-15%? No company is going to just toss 2-3 years worth of sales of equipment away and take on 2-3 years of sales in dept so they can increase profits by 10-15%. Numbers don't add up.

So like all things in manufacturing you use the equipment until it has to be replaced, that's 10,15-25+ years in many cases. So the turn around time on these things are VERY slow due to capital costs.

100% agree. Automation only makes senses when it can be delivered with as lower cost or improved quality- repeatability. Most challenges to automation come from the ability to actually quantify the cost of manufacturing a product or a process. There are tools for that too and they have been around for years. Plant Simulation is one such tool. Technomatix Plant Simulation...geez...feel like a sales person...so I'll stop there.

In my organiziation I have already seen a couple lines replaced with automation- chemical mixing, filling and packaging.
Like you say there needs to be an ROI to the business.

I also don't want to hijack the thread too.

[MJuric]

100% agree. Automation only makes senses when it can be delivered with as lower cost or improved quality- repeatability. Most challenges to automation come from the ability to actually quantify the cost of manufacturing a product or a process. There are tools for that too and they have been around for years. Plant Simulation is one such tool. Technomatix Plant Simulation...geez...feel like a sales person...so I'll stop there.

In my organiziation I have already seen a couple lines replaced with automation- chemical mixing, filling and packaging.
Like you say there needs to be an ROI to the business.

I also don't want to hijack the thread too.

"Automation Level" is also very dependent on the product. A company who is making a bragillion of something in an assembly line fashion is going to be far more able to move to a high level of automation than a company that does more complex, fewer numbers and is more dependent on highly skilled labor.

I'm in the process of looking throughout our company and looking for "Opportunities" to implement robotics. In this branch where we have anywhere from 120-150 employees, I've only found a handful that even makes sense to look at. For the most part we are a large job shop and essentially the next job is almost nothing like the last job, so hard to automate.

Also I wouldn't say this line of conversation is a hi-jack. The question was "What would it take to get you off 2D?" 2D, paper etc is largely a necessity when there is a large human involvement in the process. In short the answer is "When a process is nearly fully automated you can get rid of 2D and paper"