What would you want to learn first

[matt]

If you were switching CAD systems, what would you want to learn about first?

Also, in general do you find it easy or difficult to learn new systems?

[bradb]

Once the hurdle of "I know how to do this function in (insert CAD Software name here), how do I do it in this one" is overcome the steepness of the learning curve lessens. Gotta get the basics down first. And if you don't go into it with an open mind willing to embrace the new system it's going to take longer, and recognize the fact that some systems simply do some things better than others, it all depends on what you are using it for.

Nobody has the silver bullet of CAD systems that does everything perfectly for everybody.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Once the hurdle of "I know how to do this function in (insert CAD Software name here), how do I do it in this one" is overcome the steepness of the learning curve lessens. Gotta get the basics down first. And if you don't go into it with an open mind willing to embrace the new system it's going to take longer, and recognize the fact that some systems simply do some things better than others, it all depends on what you are using it for.

Nobody has the silver bullet of CAD systems that does everything perfectly for everybody.

What he said.

[SPerman]

What I think would be really helpful (but nearly impossible to compile) would be a chart of workflows, or known problems.

For example:

If moving from NX to Solidworks:
- x function doesn't work the way you expect. use function y instead
- There are no coordinate systems, so abandon any workflow based on them.

etc.

[MJuric]

If you were switching CAD systems, what would you want to learn about first?

Also, in general do you find it easy or difficult to learn new systems?

Hmmm....maybe I should have read what everyone else said before I posted....so yeah, so far what everyone else has said

The first thing I would like to learn would be what standard/basic workflow results in the most stable, easily modified for future users models, assemblies and drawings.

I think people will always jump into a new CAD system and attempt to make that CAD system work just like the one you are most familiar with. In my experience this is a road to complete and utter disaster.

If there was a "Guide" to go from CAD system A to CAD system B the first chapter should be "This is what you used to do....this is what you're going to be doing now and why".

Once you get past that everything else just falls into place pretty much as now all you're doing is learning where icons are and what they mean in this CAD package.

[SPerman]

Matt did a much better job of writing down what I was trying to say.

[bnemec]

This response applies to a department of users as apposed to just one or two, where there is no concept of a project rather every file lives on forever and used in many assembly.

The first things I should have learned are things that will require a change in "best practices" or established process flows. Learning these things months or years into a new CAD system means a lot of rework. Reworking models causes cascading rework of assemblies and possibly drawings. If the rework demands too many hours that are not available it is likely the damage caused from wrong paths that were started down in ignorance will not get fixed and forever pollute the dataset.

To establish processes and best practices for a given department/company requires knowing ALL of the checkboxes.

[zwei]

If you were switching CAD systems, what would you want to learn about first?

To be honest, i would prefer to go through the basic/formal training which cover most stuff (at least from interface, sketch up to asm level) at the minimum....
Please dont expect people to learn on the job while still maintaining the same efficiency when they have to figure out even the basic interface

Also, in general do you find it easy or difficult to learn new systems?

I can provide my 2 cents on this...

So... 1.5 year ago, i started a project that use CREO with close to zero experience on using CREO. At the same time, i am already proficient enough in SOLIDWORKS.

The project have a pretty tight schedule.... and you guess it, I do not have much time to go through the training.
I am also too naïve to think that "how hard can it be."..

Let's just say.... learning CREO on the job is not a pleasant experience.
→ Confusing interface, steep learning curve, very bad system colour scheme
→ A lot of "basic" feature/function that SOLIDWORKS has will take like a 10 steps workaround...
→ Help file is full of words and it not helpful (Gosh, have you seen CREO help file on SWEEP?) , not to mention a lot of time google search will not bring you to the help website of the correct system
→ Want to create a auto-numbering note? Do it manually
→ Want to indent your note? Do it manually
→ Want to create multiple tap hole? You need at least 3 feature
→ Want to isolate parts in asm? Hide manually
And many many many more

What happen in the end?
Well, lets just say we end up with a lot of move face, offset face feature
I had been using CREO almost non stop for 1.5 year now and had cursed enough to know my way around...
But whether i like it or not is another story

To sum it up, how easy is it to learn a new cad system? That's depend on your system, whether do you have time to go through a proper training, and how much "past" experience you have with other cad system.

At least for my case, learning CREO is not easy (compared to SOLIDWORKS) and filled with daily cursing

[Tom G]

The first things I should have learned are things that will require a change in "best practices" or established process flows.

I strongly agree with this. Most instruction tells you what to do to use the software, not what you shouldn't do. Avoiding those things is key for successful implementation, one without the hangover realization of, "geez I should / shouldn't have done ___ to everything".

[bnemec]

I strongly agree with this. Most instruction tells you what to do to use the software, not what you shouldn't do. Avoiding those things is key for successful implementation, one without the hangover realization of, "geez I should / shouldn't have done ___ to everything".

agree. What makes this nearly mission impossible for VARs and trainers is that what's best at one place might be forbidden territory at another; can the VAR/trainer dig into every customer's use case well enough to know how to proceed? I really don't know. From what I can see the normal is to show everything that's out there and let the users figure it out, with the option of some cropping.

@matt I like your question, I just wish there wasn't this cyclic redundancy of needing to learn it all and crash a few times before the group of users can determine what exactly to train on.

[CarrieIves]

If possible, having a trainer that is familiar with both the old and new software is very helpful. I had a training class once where the trainer was familiar with both the new and old software. He also was familiar with the company processes and understood what we were trying to accomplish. It was nice to be able to tell him what we were looking for and have him understand.

I really want to know the way not just the how. There are general best practices. Those should be included as part of the training. Many years ago on the Pro/E email list (before they had a forum) someone made the "Commandments of Pro/E". It was funny, but a nice compilation of best practices. And I think it included some contradictory commands because different things worked better for different companies.

[Ry-guy]

What I think would be really helpful (but nearly impossible to compile) would be a chart of workflows, or known problems.

For example:

If moving from NX to Solidworks:
- x function doesn't work the way you expect. use function y instead
- There are no coordinate systems, so abandon any workflow based on them.

etc.

That list should be readily available if there was a proper business analysis done to justify the change in the first place. That's a basic Gap Analysis.

[Ry-guy]

If possible, having a trainer that is familiar with both the old and new software is very helpful. I had a training class once where the trainer was familiar with both the new and old software. He also was familiar with the company processes and understood what we were trying to accomplish. It was nice to be able to tell him what we were looking for and have him understand....

You had one of the "rare birds" in the industry!

Basically, what everyone is looking for is a configurable training. That's something I did for a long time. You take the general training index, ship it to your customer and let them (SMEs and Managers) pick and choose the topics. Then attempt to build a cohesive training plan around the topics.

[bnemec]

You had one of the "rare birds" in the industry!

Basically, what everyone is looking for is a configurable training. That's something I did for a long time. You take the general training index, ship it to your customer and let them (SMEs and Managers) pick and choose the topics. Then attempt to build a cohesive training plan around the topics.

We did that. Problem is we didn't have anyone that already knew Solidworks so we didn't really know how to respond.

[SPerman]

That list should be readily available if there was a proper business analysis done to justify the change in the first place. That's a basic Gap Analysis.

Available from who?

[Ry-guy]

Available from who?

Well, your business analyst of course! :-) Or the person that was responsible for the CAD change decision. They have to justify the cost of the change to the business some how???

[bnemec]

Available from who?

I have yet to meet anyone that has indicated that they would have been able to provide this analysis. Even if the person knew both CAD Systems + PDM they would have needed to spend a couple weeks investigating our use case to know how to apply that experience. What kind of price tag would that look like?

[SPerman]

I'm a one man show. If I had time to do a proper study I probably wouldn't have ended up on Solidworks. But we also would have gone out of business because I don't have the time to do the work that is piled up on my desk now, much less stop everything for a few months to become proficient in SE.

That approach probably works for Boeing, but not so much for the small shop. My cad change decision is based on the fact that SW sucks, SW support sucks, and the one SE var I know (you) tells me it's the best thing going.

[Ry-guy]

I have yet to meet anyone that has indicated that they would have been able to provide this analysis. Even if the person knew both CAD Systems + PDM they would have needed to spend a couple weeks investigating our use case to know how to apply that experience. What kind of price tag would that look like?

Well, your business analyst is not a subject-matter expert- well not normally. The reason for this is because the analyst role is to document how things are done, by whom, using what guidance, what decisions are being made, etc. If you are the subject matter expert (SME) you already have learned decisions making processes that will more than likely get missed- because the decision is second nature. You really need an independent person doing this- asking the very basic questions.

Then you take that information and report on it. That's kinda step 1. Next, the BA will look at the future state (where you want to be) repeat the same process. Step 3 is to do the gap analysis to see what needs to be done to get from point A (current state) to point B (future state). Finally, a report is created; "This is what needs to happen." Once you have your gap analysis you can then start building your solutions to "bridge the gap".

When it comes to switching CAD systems you really should be looking at more than just feature and functionality. You should be looking at your customers of the data you create- the whole PLM thing. You may change your authoring system but if your customers downstream can't use your data what the point of the change? It's all about the big process and how your organization is going to utilize your data. If you want to be a healthy company you really need to look at the big picture of your data. If you are creating your CAD data just for 2D drawings..well..your organization might be left behind. If you are taking your CAD data and enhancing it with meta-data and smart features that downstream tools can use and possibly upstream tools can leverage later (reporting artifacts). Then you are starting to see how important a BA can be to an organization. Honestly, this is all a continuous improvement type of process.

I hope that helps...oh and when it comes to training...have SME write your training is a bad idea too...same reason...they make mental decsions as second nature. That usually doesn't make it into training materials.

Hope this helps!

[Ry-guy]

I'm a one man show. If I had time to do a proper study I probably wouldn't have ended up on Solidworks. But we also would have gone out of business because I don't have the time to do the work that is piled up on my desk now, much less stop everything for a few months to become proficient in SE.

That approach probably works for Boeing, but not so much for the small shop. My cad change decision is based on the fact that SW sucks, SW support sucks, and the one SE var I know (you) tells me it's the best thing going.

I usnderstand. Starting a business can be a challenge and you can't be an expert on all points of business, accounting, regulations, laws, logistics, etc. So you have to rely on what you see other's doing. That's human nature! SW preyed on that fact. That's why they turned the product and its events into "showcases" and entertainment and competitions..all things human nature craves. Create a mediocur product and market the hell out of it. People will buy because "they know someone who has it." But that can last only so long..

I blushed at your comment that I was so influencial in your choice. I was just informing people that there is a "choice" and sometimes the less known tools will get you a whole lot further than the popular choice. And SE is the best thing going for mid-range CAD. NX is really my darling baby...but you really need to do more than just model and document a part for that to be cost effective.

[bnemec]

Well, your business analyst is not a subject-matter expert- well not normally. The reason for this is because the analyst role is to document how things are done, by whom, using what guidance, what decisions are being made, etc. If you are the subject matter expert (SME) you already have learned decisions making processes that will more than likely get missed- because the decision is second nature. You really need an independent person doing this- asking the very basic questions.

Then you take that information and report on it. That's kinda step 1. Next, the BA will look at the future state (where you want to be) repeat the same process. Step 3 is to do the gap analysis to see what needs to be done to get from point A (current state) to point B (future state). Finally, a report is created; "This is what needs to happen." Once you have your gap analysis you can then start building your solutions to "bridge the gap".

When it comes to switching CAD systems you really should be looking at more than just feature and functionality. You should be looking at your customers of the data you create- the whole PLM thing. You may change your authoring system but if your customers downstream can't use your data what the point of the change? It's all about the big process and how your organization is going to utilize your data. If you want to be a healthy company you really need to look at the big picture of your data. If you are creating your CAD data just for 2D drawings..well..your organization might be left behind. If you are taking your CAD data and enhancing it with meta-data and smart features that downstream tools can use and possibly upstream tools can leverage later (reporting artifacts). Then you are starting to see how important a BA can be to an organization. Honestly, this is all a continuous improvement type of process.

I hope that helps...oh and when it comes to training...have SME write your training is a bad idea too...same reason...they make mental decsions as second nature. That usually doesn't make it into training materials.

Hope this helps!

Thanks, that breakdown of it makes much more sense. I can see your point that using SME for steps 1 and 2 and training, that all makes sense. Wouldn't the person doing gap analysis in step 3 need to know details about all the stuff you mentioned in the third paragraph? If not how would they know that a current practice is not supported in the new system? Or even more importantly an engrained work around due to inability in old system is no longer needed in the new system? I believe what you're saying is about 95% missed. To be frank, I don't know see enough value difference between most CAD to justify the cost of changing. IF we would have convinced the exec team that we needed money to fund the gap analysis, AND it was done properly, I'm sure we would still be using Solid Edge and still be looking for a PDM system. So the funds invested in a gap analysis would have likely been well spent.

[SPerman]

I wish I could afford NX. I really miss it.

When I'm get some time, I'm going to start a thread on SE vs. SW pricing. From what I remember, SE looked good at first glance, but once I got all of the features that came with SW professional, it was no longer price competitive. But that was over a year ago and my memory sucks.

[MJuric]

I wish I could afford NX. I really miss it.

When I'm get some time, I'm going to start a thread on SE vs. SW pricing. From what I remember, SE looked good at first glance, but once I got all of the features that came with SW professional, it was no longer price competitive. But that was over a year ago and my memory sucks.

FWIW that is also the impression I walked away with. SE seemed to have a ton of "Modules" that just aren't there with SW. In order to get similar level packages you end up buying many modules in SE.

[jcapriotti]

If you were switching CAD systems, what would you want to learn about first?

Me: Is your software going to the cloud or do you refer to it as platform?
Them: Yes
Me: 'Runs away'

[Frederick_Law]

Start with tutorial if they got one.
Begin with simple models and get used to commands and interface.
Of course will start testing Master Sketch.