-
NPI: A How To Guide for Engineers & Their Leaders
-
Leading from the Front
-
Marcel Tremblay: The Olympic Mindset & Engineering Leadershippopular
-
Anurag Gupta: Framework to Accelerate NPI
-
Kyle Wiens on Why Design Repairability is Good for Business
-
Nathan Ackerman on NPI: Do The Hard Thing First
-
JDM Operational Excellence in NPI
-
Building the Team
-
Quality is Set in Development & Maintained in Production
-
3 Lessons from Tesla’s Former NPI Leader
-
Maik Duwensee: The Future of Hardware Integrity & Reliability
-
Reject Fake NPI Schedules to Ship on Time
-
Leadership Guidance for Failure to Meet Exit Criteria
-
-
Screws & Glue: Getting Stuff Done
-
Choosing the best CAD software for product design
-
Screws vs Glues in Design, Assembly, & Repair
-
Best Practices for Glue in Electronics
-
A Practical Guide to Magnets
-
Inspection 101: Measurements
-
OK2Fly Checklists
-
Developing Your Reliability Test Suite
-
Guide to DOEs (Design of Experiments)
-
Ten Chinese phrases for your next build
-
-
NPI Processes & Workflows
-
-
Production: A Primer for Operations, Quality, & Their Leaders
-
Leading for Scale
-
Proven Strategies for Collaborating with Contract Manufacturers
-
Greg Reichow’s Manufacturing Process Performance Quadrants
-
8D Problem Solving: Sam Bowen Describes the Power of Stopping
-
Cut Costs by Getting Your Engineers in the Field
-
Garrett Bastable on Building Your Own Factory
-
Oracle Supply Chain Leader Mitigates Risk with Better Relationships
-
Brendan Green on Working with Manufacturers
-
Surviving Disaster: A Lesson in Quality from Marcy Alstott
-
-
Ship It!
-
Production Processes & Workflows
-
Failure Analysis Methods for Product Design Engineers: Tools and Techniques
-
-
Thinking Ahead: How to Evaluate New Technologies
-
How to Buy Software (for Hardware Leaders who Usually Don’t)
-
Adopting AI in the Aerospace and Defense Electronics Space
-
Build vs Buy: A Guide to Implementing Smart Manufacturing Technology
-
Leonel Leal on How Engineers Should Frame a Business Case for Innovation
-
Saw through the Buzzwords
-
Managed Cloud vs Self-Hosted Cloud vs On-Premises for Manufacturing Data
-
AOI, Smart AOI, & Beyond: Keyence vs Cognex vs Instrumentalpopular
-
Visual Inspection AI: AWS Lookout, Landing AI, & Instrumental
-
Manual Inspection vs. AI Inspection with Instrumentalpopular
-
Electronics Assembly Automation Tipping Points
-
CTO of ASUS: Systems Integrators for Manufacturing Automation Don't Scale
-
-
ROI-Driven Business Cases & Realized Value
-
-
Webinars and Live Event Recordings
-
Build Better 2024 Sessions On Demand
-
Superpowers for Engineers: Leveraging AI to Accelerate NPI | Build Better 2024
-
The Motorola Way, the Apple Way, and the Next Way | Build Better 2024
-
The Future of Functional Test: Fast, Scalable, Simple | Build Better 2024
-
Build Better 2024 Keynote | The Next Way
-
Principles for a Modern Manufacturing Technology Stack for Defense | Build Better 2024
-
What's Next for America's Critical Supply Chains | Build Better 2024
-
Innovating in Refurbishment, Repair, and Remanufacturing | Build Better 2024
-
Leading from the Front: The Missing Chapter for Hardware Executives | Build Better 2024
-
The Next Way for Reducing NPI Cycles | Build Better 2024
-
The State of Hardware 2025: 1,000 Engineers on Trends, Challenges, and Toolsets | Build Better 2024
-
Scaling Manufacturing: How Zero-to-One Lessons Unlock New Opportunities in Existing Operations | Build Better 2024
-
-
Design for Instrumental - Simple Design Ideas for Engineers to Get the Most from AI in NPI
-
Webinar | Shining Light on the Shadow Factory
-
How to Prepare for Tariffs in 2025: Leaders Share Lessons and Strategies
-
Tactics in Failure Analysis : A fireside chat with Dr. Steven Murray
-
Mechanical Computer-Aided Design (MCAD) programs, or CAD software, are critical for any company designing and building physical products today. The most widely used programs for high-volume consumer products are SolidWorks, Siemens NX, PTC Creo. Several others like Catia and Autodesk Inventor have a solid, if more niche user base. With the latest versions of these software packages costing up to $20,000 per license plus thousands more ongoing maintenance fees per year, choosing the right system for your team can be a big investment. We’ve outlined a few things your team should consider to ensure you choose the best CAD software for your next program.
Parametric vs Direct Modeling
Parametric design is the principle that every feature in a model can be created based on a set of dimensions and constraints to determine the size, shape, and location of that feature. These elements build on top of one another to create a historical model tree that reflects exactly how the model was built. By making conscious premeditated choices of what to place earlier in the model tree, you can instantly change the model by adjusting a few dimensions. SolidWorks and Creo are popular parametric CAD tools, and they have direct modeling modules. It takes time to learn how to use all the tools of these systems and how to set up models to take advantage of parametric design constraints. If you are thrown into an existing project, it can be difficult to understand the design intent of a model tree you didn’t create. Also, updates to a historical feature can break constraints of features further down the model tree, forcing you to spend time figuring out what broke and how to fix it. When working with less experienced designers, easy parameter fixes may be overlooked, and the model tree may grow larger and more complicated. This can slow down the design process by increasing file sizes and rebuild times, making it hard to understand the original design intent.
On the other hand, direct modeling relies on the existing geometry when adding a new feature but carries no history. If you start with a part that has a hole and want to move the hole, you can fill it in and make a new one. The previous designer will be none the wiser and not know how you made the change. There is no model tree to try and edit, just geometry you can manipulate. Imagine a sculptor adding or removing bits of clay to a form. It doesn’t matter what came before, only the resulting shape. Siemens NX is best known for its ability to remove parameters though it can also be used parametrically. Direct Modeling is often easier to understand and a more intuitive way to work. However, it can be frustrating when managing larger assemblies with interfacing features. Also, when changing one component affects another, finding and fixing every affected feature can be time-consuming.
Agility vs Control
While all CAD packages offer the functionality required to build any part, depending on how your team will be structured, how big a budget you have, and how much IT support you have, you may find certain packages better than others. If you are hiring people out of a particular company, they may come with certain biases. For instance, it is well known that Apple engineers religiously use NX while engineers at Amazon use Creo. Many engineers are passionate about their favorite programs and want to take the path of least resistance when starting a new job. This means angling and arguing for their favorite program, and they won't be eager to change.
If you plan to hire contractors to help throughout the project and anticipate a lot of different people touching the models locally and at partner teams abroad, you may want to consider using a parameter-less design tool like Siemens NX. This way, your engineers can quickly model the changes they want to make without worrying about how the model was made. Removing all constraints is a powerful and freeing option that NX does well. This direct modeling approach is also useful in rapid prototyping, where you are looking for an approximate shape.
If, instead, you plan to tightly control the model and hire some experienced senior designers to oversee the project from start to finish, then a parameterized program like SolidWorks or Creo could work better for your team. These programs provide the structure for controlling the design intent even as parameters need to change. If the program is modeled properly in the beginning, a few parameter changes halfway through the program can instantly change the size and shape of the product without significant time spent remodeling internal features that all need to move by 1-2 mm.
Cost vs Features
If you want to save money and are not creating complex assemblies, then tools like SolidWorks or Autodesk Inventor may be more appropriate for your team. These programs offer a more user-friendly interface with clearer descriptions of what each function does. Many universities also teach Solidworks as part of their curriculum. New engineers can get up and running faster without spending days or weeks on training programs or searching online tutorials. Plus, with the money saved, you might be able to invest in more training or other collaboration tools. Tools like Creo and NX offer more functionality in terms of complex surfacing and the ability to handle larger assemblies. They also offer more integrations with their packages but at a cost. These extra modules include simulation tools, PLM services, advanced surfacing tools, and more. While the packages may cost more, the ease of rolling all of the tools into one CAD package can be well worth it if you buy separate software licenses to run those tools anyway.
Selecting a CAD program
Often, selecting a CAD program will fall to the preference of the person initially in charge of the mechanical design team. Experience with a system and the ability to quickly hire others proficient with a system often trump whether one tool is more capable than another. Whatever your program, the three most popular CAD tools will likely suit your needs. We advise lean into cost, functionality, and usability to decide.
SolidWorks | Siemens NX | PTC Creo | |
Primary Mode | Parametric | Direct | Parametric |
Cost | $$ | $$$$ | $$$$ |
User Interface | Easy | Complex | Complex |
Functionality | Medium | High | High |
Things to remember before you make a change:
- There is never a great time to select a new CAD program, as some projects are starting up while others are reaching production. This makes it hard to break clean between one tool and another.
- Maintaining support for legacy files becomes challenging if you no longer support the CAD system that the parts were designed in. Also, the time it takes to migrate data between systems can take longer than you expect.
- You will likely face a lot of grumbling from the users who will need to recreate some files and learn the new system before they will be as competent in the new ecosystem as they were with the previous tool.
- It'll take training and some ramp-up time, but the hurdle of learning a new tool gets smaller with each subsequent program you learn, especially as we see the feature sets of these tools converging to some extent.