Peer Check
Peer Check

Episode 9 · 3 months ago

#9 - Taking a Practical View of Model-Based Definition

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

There’s a lot of talk about Model-Based Definition (MBD), which means there’s also a lot of different opinions out there. It’s one thing to paint a picture of some future vision for a Model-Based Enterprise—but how can you start taking steps today to make MBD practical for your team?

That’s exactly what the Action Engineering team does. Jennifer Herron, Founder and CEO, and Rhiannon Gallagher, Chief Business Psychologist, join Adam Keating to talk all about MBD and what they’ve seen working with organizations to achieve MBD and MBE goals.

In this episode, we discuss:

  • Why bother with MBD at all
  • The challenges of shifting toward MBD
  • How psychological safety impacts manufacturing organizations
  • MBD and supply chain relationships

More information about Jennifer Herron and Rhiannon Gallagher and today’s topics:

To hear this interview and more like it, subscribe to Peer Check! Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or our website—or just search for Peer Check in your favourite podcast player.

Welcome to peer check, a Collab podcast. This is a show for engineering leaders who want to challenge the SAS quo for how design teams work together. You're about to hear a conversation about the ways the engineering world is changing and how top teams are carving a new path forward. Let's do it. Welcome to peer check. I'm your host, Adam Keating, and today we're talking about how and when will mbd take our supply chain? My guest today our Jennifer Herron and Rhanna gallagher from action engineering, who are experts in mbd, MB and almost every heart's realty problem there is in the world. Hobby engineering teams all over the globe figure out. How do you meaning fully make that change? Will take you people first approach. Welcome to the show. Thanks. Thank you. Super excited for beer. So before you can get into you know the nuts and bolts here, Jennifer, what is mbd? Ha? Okay, well, mbd, we have an official definition from asome, which is the American Society for Mechanical Engineers. That definition says it's an annotated model that defines a product with out a drawing. Your first question could be what's an annotated model and there's lots of ambiguity around what that means. We look at mbd or model based definition, rather than model based design, because that's more of a verb. We're looking at model based definition as a now and it's the ability to have d data make a really big impact to a company's bottom line by connecting really typically siloed organizations to communicate better together. So we like to think of it as a noun and really d data that will impact the bottom line. Let me ask you this before we can get into the depths of MVD. Where does MBD fit in the overall Mbe pitture? Like in your perspective? I like the focus on the noun and it being a thing, but where does it fit in the bigger landscape? It's your data, it's the baseline, it's the cornerstone, is the bottom foundation of the building of the MB enterprise. And of course model based enterprise can get defined with many, many, many different aspects and facets, but if you're building products, then that d data is at the core of everything you do. So if it's bad data, going to get bad outputs. Yeah, I've seen it, and as hard as a difficult one to get right, Rhianna, I'm thinking about mbd here. You folks were close with the customer on like the end user experience of why they're doing this. What are people actually shifting towards mbd for? What are the use cases in Jennifer talks a lot about complex parts. Right, parts that are really hard to understand if you're looking through, paging through sixty four pages of a drawing to really get what at what that looks like. So more organic shapes, more aerodynamic shapes, those are things that make a really that make a model sort of sell itself. You know, when people get in and say Oh, they don't have to spend three days worth of meetings trying to understand what's going on, you know they can really have a sense of the shape that they're headed toward right away. And there are some mandates starting to come down, you know, from places like the US. Dod is starting to say, Hey, step it up, you know, it's time to get modern. They say that they don't put a lot of behind it, necessarily right, you know, the sort of put it out. The Universe has stam back and wait and see what happens. So there are some customers, bigger customers like Boeing, for example, that are starting to ask for it. There is this sort of dod mandate that's starting to come up and there's a lot of young people coming into the job market who have grown up on minecraft and are like, what do you mean? You want me to think in a D way? Why would I do that? What you know? So it's it helps...

...to sort of appeal to those younger engineers and to, you know, people who have been on computers their whole lives and using D for most of it, and I love it when they come and demand the serd. I had a conversation with friend of mine WHO's nineteen going into manufacturing engineering, and he was like, why do I need to do lean? Manufacturing? Process flow breakdown and can't we just use this data like some of the stuff we are getting ourselves wrapped around the axle with on on all the process details just doesn't make sense. It's really nice to have a fresher perspective. Just do it. I've got it. I've got a million places I want to go from here. So I want to I want to unpack. I want to unpack for sure why people aren't doing it, because there's lots of lots. There's now a thousand one excuses for why it's not happening, because I think the part that most interesting is it's logical, when you think about it. In this Lens and the Lens is you're building a D model because the thing is going to be three dimensional and all the data is already in there. You only created drawings to communicate, like the drawings of communication. Medium is all it is, the same way a document is. You can patient medium. Same reason, model based systems, engineering is coming into the world to try and make these dynamic models to replace, you know, massive design bases. Is that linked? Absolutely nothing. What do you think are like the couple of top blockers, like tech, people process, like stuck in their ways? Like what are the couple of top things that are holding people back from taking what feels like a very clear reality and making it real? I do you. First, Junifer technology is fine. You do have to figure out how how you're going to use it. So establishing catagnostic processes is a robust strategy because your cat systems may change out, you may use native data, neutral data. We break it down to the data element levels, geometry, annotations, attributes, presentation, states, cat structure, those those data elements can persist in a number of really cool and interesting ways, some of which we know of today, like first article, Inspection Automation, some of which we do not like. Let's give the shop for floor three D Work Instructions, assembly instructions, painting. Rhiannons hung out with with some folks who were really excited about in the painting booth and let's see what happens with with this really interesting, much more dynamic data. But in short, technology is fine, but you do have to wrap your head around how you're going to use it and that does take some set up. But then there's the people, which is the other ninety nine percent of the problem, and that's Rhan and specialty. So that's what I was going to say. I was going to say real and you've been, you know, you made a career and thinking about how people behave and why we, you know, get on the way we do when things seem so clear. What is our problem? I would love to say that I'm innocent, but like I think it myself. You know, I've been places where I've done things where, you know, for five years ago I used to read lawn and drawing on paper and nothink much more of it than that. And then I get into the Colab and someone asked me to do a printer a colab and I was like, we've printed probably three packs of paper total and four and a half years. Yeah, like that's like how will we actually print anything? So I'm curious from the People's Sod Rihanna, what are the key things that are stopping people from doing this? Is A fear? Is it stuck in the ways and generational? What is actually psychology behind people getting stuck here? Yes, part of it is that the engineers there's a value around the new, right, and it's there's actually it is a kind of cognitive bias, you know, the bias toward the new that says that would that if it's newer it's better, and...

...engineers can tend to have that bias. Quality. People tend not to have that bias right, if they're not. Just because something's new doesn't make it compelling for everybody, and I think that's really hard for the engineers that are that are trying to put the stuff in place to understand, like well, why don't you want to do the newest and latest? Because it doesn't feel safe because it isn't using their skill set that they've already got. You know, we talked about motivating people. We talked about mastery, autonomy and purpose. Right, so for engineer sometimes purpose, the purpose of doing the new thing, is enough, but that's not necessarily true for everybody. Got To find something else. And then on mastery. Mastery sort of has two pieces, right. There's the do I get to learn a new skill? That's part of mastery and that's a key part of master if you want to keep people motivated at their jobs, you want to sort of keep on pushing their edges a little bit, but you have to push it with these sort of goldilocks tasks that that are just all outside their comfort zone. Not and now we're going to throw away everything you spent thirty years learning and and and do it in a new way. And so I think sometimes people, People's mastery motivation goes down a lot because they feel like you aren't acknowledging the skills that they already have. People are very proud of being able to take those hundred and twenty pages and assess it and turn it into something d there's magic there, right, and you're almost taking away that magic that they're really, really proud of. And so there is a little bit of generational element, right. The longer that you've been building up that skill set, you know, the more you want to make sure it's acknowledged. But the truth is that they have a whole bunch of other skills that we can acknowledge as we transition them. And so that's a lot of what we talked about, you know. And and what they find is like my painting guys, my painting guys are like just just make me have to talk to engineers less, you know, like it was all about autonomy for them, like I don't want to keep having to ask where, you know what needs to be masked and which surface needs to I don't want to keep having to ask that. I just want to be away with it out. Yeah, and giving them the model gave them the ability to figure it out. So then there autonomy, motivation goes away up, you know, and they're really proud of themselves because they can do it all themselves and they don't have to talk to engineers anymore, which they didn't want to do in the first place. So I actually so I wasn't ask I was just my head was going to very similar people or in the software world as the hardware world. Like humans of the elemental level, they're not that different, but they have in trust, in building engineering type related projects, in solving problems. But the cultures are completely different and I was actually going to ask you a culture, but as you started going deeper there you took me something that I don't think I've ever thought of before. Is the difference. But I think one of the key differences might actually be that in software, the people who would get this new thing, there is no like job security, risk, like really there. It's largely just the next technology and it's important and the isasuring world's different roles like these are different people. There are actually drafters, there are people who are in quality, there are people who are on the production for it's a whole bunch of different actors who have different levels of it. So the engineer who you know doesn't really care for the drawing is cool with pushing it because they don't want to make the drawing. There's other people who actually built their career on that. It's a full shift. It's no longer just like the everyone does. Twenty five percent difference like, for people do five percent different, just less work, and others have to learn a whole new career. Is That directionally correctly? When you were saying this, when, mind exactly when? Thows like I've never thought about it at that level from the roles. But tell him about the psychological safety. Yeah, well, yeah, well, yeah, I mean I think there is an element of psychological safety. Right, you have to we can talk about psychological safety. There's inclusion level safety. In the next level of from that is learner level safety. Are People safe enough to say hey, I don't know how to do that? That's not...

...clear to me. And when you have these great big manufacturing organizations that can feel really insecure to say hey, I don't know how to do that, let alone getting all the way up through the tears. The next one is contributor safety. You know, can I? Can I say, Hey, I think there's a better way to do that. And then the final one is challenger safety. Wait, why are we doing it this way? HMM and so. So different people in different roles also have different levels of psychological safety, and that's part of it. But I think the other part that you're alluding to is that an engineer still working on the same computer at the same desk. You know, the file looks different, the part looks different, same desk, same computer. My paint guys had had never worked on a computer before. They had never had a computer in their part of the factory before because for a whole bunch of really good reasons, right like the idea of having like all those process and chemicals and a computer. And the older you get, the more expensive and fragile computers feel. So they're afraid to break them, they're afraid to touch them. That you know they're worried about them because because in their mind, is a really expensive piece of equipment, and so we have to introduce a computer to them. A lot of times very few companies are doing the digitals, the digitalization step, separate from the D step that we work with. Most of them are taking the D step at the same time that they're taking the digital step. Not all of them. We have some that have said, okay, we're just going to everything's going to go digital and you're going to look at the d drawings digitally as well. But often you're making both of those leaps at the same time and that leap to computers has a whole bunch of baggage for a lot of people that engineers aren't used to, haven't thought about, don't see. Yeah, and Code Force Fed this to a little bit like we saw it. Yeah, that teams that were all on paper and at best in like desktop tools, all started trying to figure out how to, you know, access from a central Repo, how to talk to each other online, how to work from home, and in some ways I think that's one of the best things that ever happened for you know, getting a step in the right direction. And now it's like the next steps a little more ambitious. The next one's like a massive transformation, because you think about what leaders are saying. If you read the top you know innovators and reports about what their goals are. You know automotive companies are saying, we want to go from fifty four and sixty month development windows to sub forty like. That's they've been doing fifty four and sixty four decades and now there's going to cut out two years. You look at how right like, because they if you read, you read the rest of the report, it talks about it in percentages that are like ten right terms of percentages. Is Not cut out two years of work. And I actually spoke to one of the like the top product companies in the world and they're telling me some of their most innovator products take five to six years to build and their goal to get down to one to two years. And I said how like, you can't just expect to make what you're currently doing a little better. That's and a result to maybe like four point five years. You need the are radical change so people folcus on something different, behave differently well, and it has to be a process change and it has to be a team change, because it takes ten years to build a spacecraft. It's hard to think send things to space, but in general takes ten years to build a spacecraft. How do you do that in less time? Will you change what you're doing today? If you're if you're unwilling to change the way you're doing business today, forget about it. You can't just throw in a piece of technology and expect change to occur. It's that's insanity and you can't expect it on a linear scale. I think the best another the other problem. It's Timey Wymy Wibley wobbly. Yeah, they assume they you know they go out and they make these commitments. You know we're going to get it from two years to two months or whatever, but then what they don't take into account is that there's this Jay curve that happens with all new technology where everything slows down for a while and you're in what they called the...

...pit of despair, right like everything sucks for a bit and everything takes longer for a little bit, and they don't build in tolerance for that transition period and then they sort of get to the bottom and give up. You know, if they had hung at hung with it for a little while longer and then and now you can tell that Rhanna and I were in high school in the s because we made a princess, bride and doctor who reference all in one sense. I'm also I also love that you worked in. They didn't build in the tolerance because if you ask them they're going to do with their product, they certainly would. The process or people, they certainly don't. And that seems a little hypocritical in most respects, right, like are we were actually talking about? Internally, tact is getting a lot of love, but the trouble is making these changes because of how long we've been without them. Is that pit of despairs a little deeper? It's the enormous put of despairged software. Yeah, so, yeah, I'm curiously just on that. Like I think people from this. There's a lot of psychology behind this. There is like an understanding needs to happen. There's an emphas on people in process. But why? MBD itself is probably the easier starting point because it's tangible, right, you can picture what it is, you can see it and get it. Why should leaders think about doing this it? What is the actual value? I was I just talked with time to market, but what is the core value that when you talk to someone, people actually latch on and say, okay, I'm willing to go into the pit of despair with you, Jennifer, and hopefully come both around with enough tolerance and bandwidth that we survived? This is the burning question, right, why are we doing this? So we're doing it because it's new and it's cool, I particularly motivating in the long run, and doesn't necessarily prove the business value. In my mind. We do it because we are trying to mathematically define and digitally define the data in a way where we take out the redundancy of manual data reentry. That's probably number one because they're obviously accuracy error errors in that problem and it just it's labor intensive. So that's probably number one to me. Is Reusing the digital data as it makes sense within the organization. But that's kind of a cold, computer based way of looking at things and I think what what Rhann and has discovered when she works with people actually have to use the data is that there's some really interesting things that we weren't really aware of from D navigation. Oh, I can turn the model around. I don't have to look at just the your little flat, stupid orthographic view that you gave me, Adam, that you know you thought was a good view. Yeah, is it the right one? I don't know. And and I think looking at that opportunity of blending the reuse aspects with the reducing overall cognition and improving people's quality of life at their job is is probably the bigger, the bigger, drawing the bigger picture. Now, how you blend all that together into an Roi story is hard. It isn't like the part I think it's heard now, but it's the same thing. I always like. I made this linked in post a while ago about, you know, software developers. If they were outing screenshots of code and downloading in red, loneing it and putting it back into the system and doing that like, they'd all quit. And I think that's fundamentally true. But like twenty years ago or twenty five years of that might not have been seen as worth fixing. But like, can you imagine the pace at which they are? Our whole team equit for sure if I told him I had to do that, because it's just so uneffective. Right. It's it feels foolish, but that's we're doing that on a massive scale. They manufacturing is because it's been heard. There hasn't been technology forever. There's been a whole bunch of blockers. Cloud was...

...not accepted D in the browser as an example. Really is only the last decade that you can really do much with it. So all these things were limitations. But those things aren't true anymore, like not the same situation. And I'm just thinking like specific use case. You mentioned a couple times about supply chain. That's where we see it and most often that people don't want to be cutting drawings for FAB shops that they already have in their cab, Moll, they're fully defined, but the supply chain is struggling to pick it up because they don't have the license, they don't how to view it and interpret whatever it is, and the data isn't as good as they think it is. That's the other because it's not fully defined. The author needs to increase fidelity and process standardization on how they're doing it. So how do we tackle supply chain, Paer, because to me that's where it's going to live or die. If it doesn't work there, you are going to always have to create drawings. There's no other way around it, because someone's got to build the thing at the end. As they can't read or interpret it or they don't want to, they are gonna build it. So how do we fix that? On where do we start on supply chain? I have so many grapes I'm going to let Rhan and take it first. Exactly. I mean part of it, part of it always is psychologically that people get into habits with the processes that they already have and so they don't recognize the inefficiencies like, oh well, yeah, takes sixty four steps, but I always takes sixty four steps. It's like, yeah, but I can show you how it to good takes thirteen steps. What would you do with that spare time? I think part of the case that you make to supply chain is the case that we generally make to quality, which is we know it's your neck on the line, we know that that everybody's making you feel like the bottle neck right, and if we can reduce that redundancy by giving you digital data that's consistent so that you're not spending your entire life typing things in an analyzing type of things, in analyzing and red lining and analyzing, and we can free you up to make your deadlines. You know we can reduce scrap because you're going to get it right the first time, because people are going to understand what they're actually looking at, and that's reducing scrap is a big deal for supply chain, especially in the world in which we apparently live now, right where we have supply chain probablems, getting the right the first time becomes really important, and that, like when Jennifer talks about that first article, inspection efficiencies, like, I know I can make a cute way guy cry, Oh really, Oh did that? Oh that took you three weeks. Huh? Eighty percent times? Yeah, well, yeah, it's it's ironic. I mean I spoke to a team today and they asked me, like relatively like, how fast was their designery process relative to what we see across the industry? Can we work a lot of teams on this? I was like, depends what you're doing, but it ranges from some of our customers doing multipliterations on the same product in the same day to some taking two months between rebs and the complexity of the products not that dissimilar and it's like there's a bit of a disparity there. We do the supply chain in particular. I think that's also true. There's some poplar way ahead a lot that's way behind. I'm curious, from your perspective, like on the the Human Front, talk of the people. Does this change start with the supplier themselves? It feels like there's pressure from the top, like the human side. Does it need to be the supplier psychology first, as it feels like that's where the Rubbert's road and that's I mean that's where it's hardest on so many levels right and it depends on the scale of we say supply chain as if it's this big monolith and everybody's the same size, right, but I mean there's a big difference between the twenty five person mom and pop shops like you're fife hundred percent shops that can crank it out. They have to have, usually more than one customer asking for it, because they're going to have to put computers into their places, they're going to have to train their people up. That's a that's a leap that you're asking for. I think it's great...

...to say that it should start there, but we have to make it feel efficient for them. It has to. It has to. We have to incentivize it and I don't think that the tool, many that the software tool are are doing a great job of incentivizing it yet and really telling that story, because right now there's so much variation in the suppliers, how many customers they have, the customers are asking for it, how much they can take on at a time, whether it's worth losing your business, yeah, just walking away if they can't do models you know well, and it's going to vary tremendously. The ones, the places where we've seen the most success is where the supply chain departments or organizations or managers are involved on the authoring level, so those that are creating the data right at the authoring level. If those supply chain managers get the level of change that's required for the suppliers, then they can start to work within their supply chain contracts conversations and build up trust to shift the change. Because in general suppliers don't trust the data that comes from from the authoring organizations or the engineering department, even if it's an internal situation. And so that trust is already not there because they expect bad data. So then they're already starting to like, you know, manufacture. Yeah, and and and so from a psychological safety perspective that's a problem. And I'll throw something out there for in and. But I mean it's about establishing a core value of trust and then having that respectful collaboration out there. And it could be a mismatch of values if it doesn't work across that procurement chasm, because sometimes it's a chasm and sometimes there's a nice bridge that goes back and forth. If you have a nice bridge, this transition is much simpler. If you are already in kind of a bad trust situation with your suppliers. Then they're going to be like great, you're going to give us another place, a crappy data. Great, I don't care it's D D or forty, you know it's it doesn't matter. I still have to do all these crazy checks and balances and your contracts are fifty pages long. Yeah, but also don't underestimate suppliers. We've also had very small suppliers, yeah, come in and said okay, we're going to start giving you d data, and they'll say, oh, thank goodness, because we've been taking your stupid dud drawings and converting them to D. I mean the other thing to think about is that the more that they start to get into additive manufacturing as suppliers, the more compelling the three D is going to be, because the additive manufacturing is going to drag them into it, whether they're ready for it or not. You know, it's going to just keep moving that it's actually really interesting. Why I look at it, it's not a you said earlier, you know, it's not linear in terms of that process is going to be a pit of despair. I think it's also not linear across suppliers at all, even with the same supply chain because of the size, because of the maturity, because it use case like I think added is a great example of a place where you know there's not a whole lot of value in a drawing and if you're going to ship that's what it's really printed and have a printed. But I think the more we can think that way about manufacturing other things and being really clear, I agree like the software today is like it can do it, but it's not easy and people don't know why and how. And that part hasn't gotten clear yet because every time someone even receive something from us, so we're not even thinking about mbd right now and that level it takes a first second and say why am I what am I doing here now, and what is it going to be? What is the value for me? And I think the second that becomes clear, that's hey, you don't need to download it, you don't need to do much. It's going to walk you through how to build this thing. You have all the information you need need have conversations there. You know I mean all those things. Then people start to say, okay, it's worth the like cognitive load to switch away from because the first few times it's going to be weird, like...

...that's just the short to answer. It's going to be strange, it's going to be uncomfortable. But I want to come back to just a practical step there, because I've seen it be tried multiple ways. You alluded to earlier, like Boeing dood kind of pushing a standard. I think you also just set a second of the opposite, which is like finding that bridge now where the chasm's not so great and building the first relationship almost together to build trust. Yes, which end of that spectrum do you think is going to win this battle? Like, which one is going to be the one that actually makes the change? The ones that come together? Well, yeah, and I think the ones that understand from a psychological standpoint, it's going to come down to the ones that understand where to start the conversation. The one of the biggest mistakes that we see people make is they start with a really complex part that's got a bunch of weldnests on it and takes a lot of machining and a maybe don't start there. Maybe start with assemblies, maybe start with pain and process, start with a start with a part of the process where this is the value add is enormous. The time we've savings is enormous. Don't start with the hard ones. You know. Sometimes like it's going to come down to that. I think I can softward. Yeah, software implotation, we try that, but that's actually practical. On the product level, like to think about where what is the Delta between like difficulty and the highest value, to find the right one that gets the balance of like lowest difficulty highest value, because that's what people remember and we've got a couple of groups we work with that. I think if found that, like they found with their supplier, that they just found a relationship almost code developed what it should feel like set the next supplier doesn't get absolutely surprised by the experience that they're going to get. I think it's, you know, a bit of a young and a Yang here. We're going to have coming down from the top and some supply chains. You got to do this, and then we have the other side. People are going to start demanding that it happens at the company level, at supplier level, because it has is better. But to wrap this all back into it, they mut psychological side. I want to think about just like the future. Here we're talking about things that some companies on like the maturity model, are very infante some who are way ahead. I'm curious, Jennifer, from your perspective. First question is, do you think we will ever get away fully from drawings? Ever, no, because there are some there are some things. Take a schematic for instance, or a Washer that I flat out make more sense and to d. That doesn't mean you don't have a d representation of a Washer, because I absolutely want you to. But why start there? Why would you throw yourself on your sword for something that already works really well into D and You don't have any business value? So, and the reason I say no is that it's just not important to get rid of to d drawings. What's important is it get the value out of the D data as best you can, because I've seen people get time and time again, fle mixed by. Well, we can't make it all completely digital and we can't make it all completely eliminate the to d drawings. I'm like, okay, so you're going to throw out your eighty percent savings because of one part family. That's crazy talk and it's not practical and it's not the way people do business. Yeah, it's a progress over perfection. consolutely set here. And if you look at anything, it's about work in general. If you're ninety percent of the work usually takes fifty percent of the time and the last ten percent always takes fifty percent as well. Right, there's a diminishing return and the last ten percent, which is why most people should just ship the thing away before ninety. Safety and quality, there's a threshold of that. Yeah, works exactly right at the rout...

...there, but in broad strokes, don't things checked off? The last ten percent is kind of useless most times and it doesn't return anything. But I'm going to turn the second question. Do you Rhan, and thinking about mbd, I've seen the spectrum of like drawing only, drawing with model, supporting model, with drawing supporting model only, with obviously fully defined and bed. When do you think we get to the end of that spectrum where it's model predominantly driving manufactory? Are we talking year, ten years, twenty years? And what's your perspective? Your make prediction? What's your call? Oh wait, wait, yeah, it's going to depend on how it frankly depends on how you do those intervening steps. We see way too many people who do the intermeding who think that minimally dimensioned model is sort of an intermediate, intermediate step, and then people don't have the information they need and they get burnt out on models overall and then inside in a we're going to do it, and then it's going to take fifteen years. If you were careful about how you build in those those intervening steps, I think we can get there a lot faster, but it's you can really sabotage yourself. Well at I'll answer. Handing somebody a model they can yes, I'll answer with my future. Protection is we're done already. I've been in my career for twenty six years. I got my bachelor's degree and Mechanical Engineering Twenty six years ago. I never didn't use a model from the get go. Never we're already using the model. What we're doing is a bunch of gyration crazy steps in between because we think we should. Yeah, I respect that. I'M gonna go back to the last part here. You folks were across all different industries. You've seen all different sizes. which vertical a manufacturing do you think is going to get there to the most practical value adding space first, like who is winning this race industry specific wait and see what Jefferen say about this. Was the short story is nobody is winning a race because it's not a race. Now, okay, what? So Watch your perspective. Is someone leading the charge? Is there no urgency around it? I'll watch your take on the shift. The people that are making successes at it or doing it quietly and they're doing it with all a lot of fanfare and they're just getting in the savings and pocketing it. Yeah, there's a lot of that happening. Like people. People do it and they discover how much they're saving and how much they're saving time. They're saving scrap there and and they're not going to tell anybody else that they're doing that. Why give away that secret, you know, like kind of giving somebody their lean profile and saying, see, here's what you need to do, you just need to move this over here. No, it's so funny, though, because it's so screamed out in the public. Yeah, it goes into an ether, like nine times at a tank. That goes into the ether until you imagine and feel it. And you know, I like Microsoft teams, is not quite the same level of transformation, but I feel like that was like not that. The similar chat APPs were a lot around forever before the entire manufacturing world switched to teams because they had to. I can you imagine ask one of them now to go back to I don't even know what they were using. Like I had a company tell me the other day they were on Lotus notes. I was like, Oh my God, Oh, yeah, I know who that is. Yeah, we just fell that, I call it. Get Jennifer on a page or yeah, right, like so, yeah, well, you know, we've had that conversation with them too. You know, we've said, Oh, look at you, you didn't think you could do major transformations. Huh, really, you proved yourself wrong. Yeah, you know. But I think there's also some interesting data coming out about we had worried about change fatigue for a long time and like with all this upheaval, doesn't really make sense to change it now. No right is there, but the incentives for making...

...the supply chain more efficient or so compelling. And actually the psychology is coming out that actually, you know, while people are disrupted, just dropped them a little bit more, they'll be okay. Yeah, so don't be afraid to make this change. At the same time that you've made all these other ones and you know, in the middle of this chaos that we've got. But I have one last question. I agree with that you just said completely. How do you think the currently economic climate plays into that? Do you think teams are still going to invest during this downturn, or is it just going to be the best teams who are most for looking to do it, and the rest of all behind another year or two? Do you think they've invested during this downturn? I'm not sure I see that. I think their trend a doggy paddle and say above water. That's that's what I've seen. Do you think that's gonna like? My Perspective on this and I've been thinking a lot about it because obviously we're in the venture capital world of software building. There is some conservatism that you need to have so that you're being smart about survival, of course, but there's also this part like in some industries there is a race. Maybe MBMVD's not a race, but the electric vehicle industry as an example, that's a race. Like that is a hundred percent of race, and there are certain people that are winning and certain that are not, and you choose to take two years to go a little slower, that Delta becomes a ten year window based on the pace comings are going. I'm like, I'm curious is to see how that turns out like a people really keep pushing through and investing initiatives now, or if it really does kind of slow because they're in covid didn't during covid people actually felt like they kept moving after the first two months of panic, but I don't think that's true for everyone. Yeah, yeah, I think it depends. It depends on on a lot of factors. No, I do know that there was was software purchases and people made a lot of good sufferre purchases in the in the d day to interoperability space. But that's not the same as making a transformation and making process pit change and investing and Training and investing and upskilling, investing in redoing the way you do business. I'm not sure I see anybody reinvesting and redoing the way they do business today to really impact that firefighting of the supply chain crisis. I don't know, Rhan, and what do you think? Do you think people are investing on that? I'm just I'm not convinced it's going to. It's I'm going to talk systems thinking for a second, right. I mean people are people are reacting to an event. Yeah, right. They aren't looking for patterns, they aren't looking for structures, they theyre there inside of sort of in a reaction mode right now. I think that they're probably some who are reacting as in terms of moving toward an innovative thing, feeling like they need to innovate. I think that there's been a lot of a people around who's in charge and sometimes, you know, it takes a new vice president coming in who says, talk to doll, here's my legacy. You know, I think there's probably some of that happening a little bit. Yeah, it's there's just so much uncertainty that it's easier to focus on the very top of the iceberg and not really looking a deeper and and the stuff. To succeed at this stuff, you really have to be willing to look to look after her, and it's a fair point he made to Jennifer. I think there's been decisions to do things, but I've seen the to where it might be very surface level and it's not right to the route actually like that iceberg. Analogy of like you know, we might have chipped a few pieces off top of the Berg, but they're still nine percent below and those types of change didn't happen. I think you're right in saying, as myrsoft teams is a pretty surface level change when you didn't have a chat tool right, like that's not a it is. But I mean it could be that Microsoft teams is the reason. All of a sudden you have...

...computer swing your factory for and that, and then maybe that alone is enough of a separation of introducing the computer introducing the model. You know, like that could happen. Yeah, I actually a million times that. I think Microsoft teams, as much as it feels simple to me, because I've been on slack for almost a decade, I think it was one of the most important things that happen because it's made people talk to each other as maybe will expect better tools and behave digitally in a way that wasn't painful. I think that was the successes, that teams wasn't painful and that was sort of the win. One thing that came back through his whole conversation. I thought was interesting to wrap up on talk lot was psyche usual safety talk a lot it, understand how it works, talk a lot about just thinking about where it's all fits. Use The word trust a couple of times. We talked about building companies, but I can't help but feel like the main thing we're talking about here in the end is trust, whether it's trusting the data, trusting your partner, trusting as worth to change or the process. Like everything you said came back to that and it's such an elemental thing. Yeah, and not talked about enough, but I don't ever talk to an engineer directly about trust. That would be hard because they're staring at each other shoes at the same time. So unless you're looking at it's hard to establish trust. But yeah, yeah, top one. So any trust is hard. I'll be contacting you folks to configure that one out for us. On top of AVD and MB, you'll be now the trust the trust experts as well. Jurnifer Rhan and I really appreciate time today. I think this was an incredible conversation. I think there's a lot left to do and this journey, I think you know just as well as I do, but we're appreciative that have people like you and dissecting this and helping us get there. So thank you so much joining the shows today. Thanks, Adam. We appreciate your fresh eyes. COLLAB is on a mission to accelerate the pace of engineering innovation by giving design teams a better way to work. As an engineering leader, you know it's crucial to empower your team to do their best work. Let Co lab help you achieve your goals with our web based tool that makes it easy to share and review cad files with anyone, so you can focus on the work that batters without missing a beat or a bolt. Learn more at Colab softwarecom. You've been listening to pure check, a Colab podcast. Keep connected with us by subscribing to the show in your favorite podcast player, and please leave a rating on the show. That helps us keep delivering conversations about how the engineering world is changing and how you can challenge the Status Quell. Until next time,.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (15)