Or you could turn such jobs down, which we do. We did the math, it wasn't worth the trouble. We have an average of 30 major projects going at any one time. We turn down dozens every year because they aren't a good fit.
Big company thinkin again, and probably correct within that narrow context
Again, perfectly justifiable in the case of GM
It's only effective when there is a balance. We deal with process too, probably to as great or greater degree than any automotive or aerospace company. When your designing critical care medical devices, you better have your ducks in a row, people can die. What we don't do is allow process development (or fixation) interfere with other aspects. This is what I've seen time and again at big companies. You can't have a process until you have answers to a whole bunch of questions
Agreed, they can't (and probably shouldn't) change. As far as the idiot thing, your out of line, and don't know what your taking about. SW is very sophisticated, and can do some amazing things. The difference between SW, and legacy systems like UG, is that SW made the "simple" things simple. The complex things are still complex, it's the nature of the problem. The program can't think for you. These types of problems take as much skill and knowledge as they would in any system. The execution is just more straight forward.
What most legacy systems do is make everything, simple or complex, tedious and convoluted.
Nope, none at all. I did whatever I had to do to get the job done. This involved doing end runs around the "system" many many times. I pissed some people off, but they were the ones clogging the whole mess up. Because I got results, their complaints to the director of engineering were ignored. In fact, I was offered the management of our advanced automation group. I declined (don't like wearing ties)
We had "ALL" of the engineering data on this project. This was the last change before they handed it over to us. There was no functional reason, change the fricken hole!! A no brainer.
Now just "how" do you know that ? In point of fact, It's not. Most of our customers use SW, and this includes some pretty big names. Have you heard of Beckman Instruments. We've been doing concurrent design and "real time" collaboration with our customers for years. And we've been doing it without the massively expensive infrastructure you need to do the same thing with UG
Huh.....
About the same as UG for NT/2000, about a gig. Memory's cheap today
In my experience it is
At least you qualified it with a "rarley", but honest man, you gotta get out more
No comment
There will undoubtably be casualties in this relatively new market. But SW will be there. They may not have a GM, but the total is pretty impressive. It fills a hole in the market that won't go away, and most of the companies that use it don't have the luxury of lumbering along. They have to get stuff done.
Yea.. like UG doesn't have any bugs. The difference here is that SW problems are posted in a public NG for all to see. EDS has chosen to keep both UG and SE hidden safely inside a private, moderated group
Regards
Mark