Letters

Automotive Industries, July, 2003

Frustrated Readers Speak Out About CAD, PDM

To: EDS/UG/PLM Execs and Board Members

It has been an interesting saga for the world of CAD and PDM, with stories and evidence of a cloak and dagger dark side.

Unfortunately, it appears that UG and EDS may qualify as a victim, having been manipulated into a position of future diminishing CAD presence in the world. Toyota, Northrop, Boeing and now Ford Motor are all moving to Catia. Obviously, the supplier communities for these companies are moving also.

Toyota would have been new business. Due to acquisition investment, Ford was not. It appears that the desperate efforts to simply purchase larger CAD market share and attempt to establish a second major automotive OEM user was a failure.

For EDS/UG/PLM the events are unfortunate if the street talk rumors are accurate. Toyota was to have been very seriously considering UG. Rumors suggest it was not the UG/PLM product that was rejected.

In this current business climate, with Wall Street and Washington, DC, pressing for accountability for business ethics, it's time for certain EDS/UG/PLM executives to reconsider their actions surrounding these and future events.

As suppliers, we also now see that some of the new joint venture alliances that GM is establishing with other OEMs are Tier 1 suppliers being executed in CATIA. Some speculate that the future of UG and the infrastructure-plagued IMAN may in fact go the way of CV, SDRC, CADAM, potentially PTC, etc., if EDS is forced to unload UG or IMAN.

Name withheld

To: GM Awareness Line, GM Purchasing Execs and GM Warranty Staff

General Motors has prided itself on quality and in recent years has been driving suppliers for increased quality and at the same time driving down costs. Some of us have gone to great lengths to provide quality parts, at a competitive cost and reduced warranty index. Recently, NAO Product Engineering appears to be disregarding the quality of suppliers and circumventing the proper World Wide Purchasing policies to favor suppliers using EDS Unigraphics CAD software. There appears to exist an obsolete legacy mentality of posturing within the GM IT services and the affiliated engineering integrated supplier management council to only award contracts to certified UG suppliers. This is occurring when a significant amount of the design work is being transferred to outside suppliers and we are providing complete subsystems and modules that can be packaged with tessellated math that does not need to originate from UG. GM leadership had taken bold steps to outsource design, but certain sectors within GM have mandated t he usage of the EDS applications and UG software products--that is part of the core problem. For suppliers to be innovative, creative and price-aggressive while providing quality good means, shedding the burden of the GM software choices.

Contrary to the GM NAO engineering posturing, not only can the translation of CAD designs be successfully used by UG, several other non-EDS/ UG software tools are available and are being used successfully by GM competitors and in some locations even internally by other GM sectors. The EDS and UG products are not mainstream for the automotive industry OEMs or suppliers. Current technology has eradicated the need for original math data creation with a specific CAD system and parts/sub-component packages can easily be validated for design packaging, clearances, fit, function, etc. GM, for a number of years, embarked on a failed proselytization of the automotive industry to UG. With the recent move by Toyota and Ford away from UG to CATIA, UG is basically being used by suppliers to support GM only. We can assure you that all associated investments are being passed back to GM through piece/part costs which is unnecessary from a current technological CAD position. Possibly, GM is concerned that if it abandons UG, t he supplier backlash and potential litigation would be too embarrassing.

Name withheld