Why are we still shy of Synchronous?

After coming back from SEU12, excited for the launch of ST5, meeting new friends and connecting with old friends, I had one thing on my mind that still kind of shocked me. The adoption of current users to using Synchronous Technology.

With the type of crowd at SEU12, I was sure it wasn’t shyness when the small amount of hands went up when the question was asked “Who uses Synchronous Technology?”

So with this I created 2 polls for my own peace of mine to find out what is it that is missing and if Siemens could do anything to accelerate the adoption in current license user base.

and the second poll…

Let me know in your comments if there is something I missed in the questions and I’ll see if I can add them quickly.

Posted on June 23, 2012, in General and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. The reason we haven’t switched to synchronous yes is because we didn’t know how to automate synchronous models. At Developer Day we learned some techniques that will help us to get over this hurdle and we start using synchronous soon.

  2. We decided when ST3 came out to make the leap to synchronous. I brought in a trainer and we got 19 people trained. It’s been 14 months since the training and I’d have to say it was a waste. No one picked up on it. I’d like to get a few people fluent on synchnonous, since we have so much non native Solid Edge files. I have big hopes on better tutorials in ST5 that will help us figure this all out.

    • That’s a pity. There is a certain train of thought for synchronous that is quite opposite to ordered. Unfortunately when you are in the work environment you don’t get the chance to be able to practice much what with work getting in the way so I think a more structured approach to training from ordered to synchronous is completely different to teaching a new user synchronous from scratch. Let’s see what happens in the future with focused training tutorials from Siemens.

    • Sorry to hear that happened. You get “information” in most training courses. It’s the real life where you “learning”….and that mostly comes from failing and figuring out how to get out the mess you are in.

      Was there any support mechanisms in place for your users after the training?

  3. I would recomend more tutorials about Live Rules. I think that could be helpful

    • Yes, that has been a complaint in the past regarding live rules feedback. Just hold on a month and wait until you see what they have done with live rules in ST5. It is quite amazing.

  4. Last Thursday we had a live tutorial on What’s New in ST5 – the first thing demonstrated is Live Rules if you want to check it out: – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue54DtVbN9c&list=UUrCUU00XH-uZYp3saYMQmqg&index=0&feature=plcp

    We also have a very recent tutorial available on Live Rules and Exploded Views – this one is in ST4 – you can watch it on our YouTube channel – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSfgK0cz_sE&list=UUrCUU00XH-uZYp3saYMQmqg&index=5&feature=plcp

  5. The answer to the ST adoption is fairly easy. ST introduces both a technology and business change. Simple answer but the solutions to those changes aren’t easy!

    Think about it. You are asking users that have been using history-based design systems for over 15+ years now to make some serious changes- not only in the way they think about constructing “their designs” but also the way they “manage” those changes. This is a HUGE paradigm switch and takes time to get “comfortable” with the “loss of control” over “my” design!

    Here’s a simple example. I work with sheet metal parts all the time. I make my base extrude and put a couple of flanges on my sides. The thought process for me as the “history-based” designer in a parametric world says that I have to do a couple things.
    1) create a 2D sketch and apply “my” dimensions so that I get “my” parametric setup.
    2) I then allow my flanges to read the thickness of my base and apply my sheetmetal flanges
    3) I then set “my” parameters of “my” flanges to the same value or tie them together so that they move together.

    There my design is done. A nice little package that allows me to control the size and shape of my smd part with parametric.

    With ST I do the following:
    1) Create my base with a 2D sketch extrude to my thickness (sketch is no longer required). First step in “loss of control”.
    2) Create my flange and drag it or insert a value for the height. Accept the value and it makes my flange (no value is saved) I’ve lost more “control” over “my” design.
    3) I create my other flange and select the height of the first flange.

    I’m shaking in my boots at this point. I have “lost control” over my design! How am I going to make the changes I need to later?

    See, ST gives me control of “my” design when I only need control! That’s the beauty. I don’t have to think about how to control my design with parameters when I don’t really need them to create my design. But I can come back later and apply “parameters” to the ones I need if I need them or to simply grab and move what I need!

    I’m free of the burden and free of the “controls”. It’s this loss of control that scares the designer and engineer to death! But I have to accept that fact that control is there when I need it!

    OK…I’m a old U2 fan so here we go!

    ” You (ST) broke the bonds and you
    Loosened the chains (ECO’s)
    Carried the cross (made it easy)
    Of all my shame (parameters)
    All my shame
    You know I believe it” (Go ST!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: