Posted: October 6, 2014
As a company, Xogeny's goal is to find a way to bridge the gap between the technology sector and engineering. The technology sector is a veritable fountain of innovation and progress. On the engineering side, we don't really leverage all of these advancements. As engineers, we live in a world that is like a time capsule containing technology from 20 years ago (or more).
So I've tried to dedicate myself to finding ways to channel innovations I see in the software and IT world into engineering so that engineers can benefit from all the same kinds of advances that we see fueling the growth and innovation in the tech sector.
Of course, I didn't expect all this to be a piece of cake (otherwise we would see more of it). But I initially assumed the hard part would be identifying the engineering problem and pairing it up with the software/technology solution. What I was expecting (and is still mainly true) is that people coming from an engineering background really don't recognize that the solutions coming from the software/technology space actually solve some of the engineering problems they have. For example, many of the advancements that Modelica brings to the world of physical modeling are actually derived from graph theoretical algorithms from the computer science world. But this topic is hardly limited to modeling and simulation, I see it across engineering. As I've pointed out previously with topics like version control, things that are "solved problems" in the software world continue to plague us in the engineering world either because we don't recognize how to apply the technology or we frame the problem is such a way that we make it difficult for ourselves to leverage the solution (or both).
I have been pleasantly surprised so far that most of the people I've talked to on the engineering side have been quite enthusiastic about my ideas around web-based engineering analysis applications and cloud based engineering workflows that combine engineering problems together with software solutions.
But even when I get engineers enthusiastic about how we can modernize engineering software, what has really stymied me is the IT organizations. Now I should say in advance that I recognize many of the challenges faced by modern IT organizations. I was the Global Director of IT for Emmeskay. So I know there are lots of operational details that need to be covered. Obviously, these organizations are constantly working to make sure all the hardware is functioning, that email is working, that viruses aren't spreading and that networks are up. Not to mention, for example, the various regulatory concerns regarding financial controls in publicly traded companies.
But in my discussions with a bunch of people in engineering organizations from different industries, the one thing we all seem to agree on is that there is an organizational issue between the engineering and IT functions. When I speak with engineers, it is almost universally the case that they see IT as an organization that largely rebuffs their requests. In a nutshell, it is (at least from their perspective) an organization whose job is to say "No".
This is not meant as a generalization about all IT organizations. I've seen several very forward looking organizations where IT and engineering work very closely to great effect. But in my experience, those are the exception, not the rule.
This is fascinating when you consider that I'm talking about engineering companies. Their entire value proposition rests on doing engineering work. And yet, that value proposition is in many ways diminished by their inability to leverage innovative ideas.
The bottom line is that you end up with engineering organizations being subservient to IT organizations when, in my opinion, it should really be the other way around. This is actually partly an organizational issue. The organizational part is that IT should have its deliverables set according to the engineering agenda. Of course, part of those deliverables will be functioning infrastructure. Part of them will be related to other essential functions like HR and finance. But some of them should be related to innovation targets set by (forward looking) engineering organizations.
But this is not entirely an organizational issue. There is a deeper issue. And here is where I turn the tables a bit. There are lots of good reasons for IT organizations to say "No". Engineers, left to their own devices, will likely tend to formulate quick and dirty (non-robust) approaches or seek out short-term (short sighted) solutions. Furthermore, they are not necessarily conversant enough in the technologies and approaches to really come up with concrete plans (or hire a consultant like me to help them). So part of the problem is that some fraction of the engineering side need to actually learn about the technologies that are available and the opportunities they afford and be conversant enough to really negotiate with the IT organizations in a knowledgeable way. In a sense, the result of this compartmentalization of engineering and IT is that it creates a communication breakdown where the requirements from the engineering side cannot be properly articulated and any objections from the IT side cannot be credibly challenged.
So my point here is not to point fingers. IT is a complex topic and implementation is hard. It is understandable that requests that further complicate the task are frequently met with a "No". On the other hand, we need to modernize the way we view the role of IT in engineering companies.
As such, I propose the following Engineering IT Manifesto as a way to think about how we move forward from this point. The essential points are:
We cannot deny this fact. The only consequence of denying this is dysfunction. The fundamental thread that runs through all of these points is the counter-productive compartmentalization of IT and Engineering. The first step in addressing that is dismissing the notion that they should be compartmentalized in the first place.
An engineers fluency in IT must go beyond email and spreadsheets. Fortunately, my experience is that the next generation of engineers seem to be more informed and interested in learning about how IT can add value to engineering. But we need to make sure that they are given the chance to explore this and that this exploration is valued by their management. My sense is that most young engineers I know are held back by generations of engineers who want to continue using legacy approaches. This is a lost opportunity of epic proportions, in my opinion.
It seems clear that the power structure in engineering companies needs to reinforce the idea that the engineering groups need to take a more active role in defining the deliverables for the IT organization. This means not just that they have the authority to define deliverables, but that they have the knowledge (as per #1) to do so.
What I often see is engineering organizations who don't want to be "distracted" by IT related issues. They see these issues as somebody else's problem (or at least want them to be). This not only reinforces the compartmentalized approach to IT, it puts them in a frame of mind to "outsource" their IT related issues. Sadly, this often means being coaxed into buying large, monolithic software solutions that do lots of things they don't need and only a few things they do need (poorly, in some cases).
One thing we, as engineers, can learn from the software world is to look for light, modular approaches. We don't want to have to create our own solutions from scratch nor do we want to embrace these monolithic solutions. The "sweet spot" is in composing solutions from "building blocks" that solve specific problems and then putting them together in a way that makes sense for our engineering processes. But this, of course, requires an understanding of how to put the building blocks together (see #1).
The final piece in this puzzle is to make sure that somebody is pushing a vision of the future that capitalizes on emerging technologies to benefit the organization. This vision needs to bring both IT and engineering stakeholders to the table to map these things out. Too often, engineers are content when they have processes that yield the correct mathematical or physical result and overlook the business need for competitiveness. For an engineering organization it is necessary that somebody be aggressively looking out for how to improve the overall efficiency of the organization and capturing value from innovations in the software/IT world.
We need to see this compartmentalization of engineering and IT as a bad thing and take steps to break down these barriers. IT people need to see their role as facilitating engineering innovation and engineers need to be better educated in these topics to help formulate solutions and independently evaluate the merits of different processes or strategies. I think there are many people on both sides who would love to work toward this kind of vision.
Of course, I'm biased. I spend a lot of time thinking about this nexus between engineering and IT. I see so much potential here and yet so little interest in exploiting it. So there is always the chance that much of this is just wishful thinking on my part. But based on conversations with lots of people, I still see this as an issue that could bear a lot of fruit for engineering organizations.
I would love to get feedback on this. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'd love to hear from you (or better yet, help you and your company address these issues). So feel free to contact me or share you comments below.
Posted: June 4, 2014
As mentioned previously,
Xogeny collaborated on the development of an open source package
manager for Modelica. This package manager, called
impact, allows Modelica developers to easily fetch
versions of their favorite libraries whether they are developed by the
Modelica Association or third parties.
Posted: June 2, 2014
I spoke recently at the NAFEMS Americas Conference. This group tends to focus on CAD, FEM and CFD stuff, historically at least. But I was really pleasantly surprised to see a tremendous amount of interest around two themes from my talk.
The first was system simulation. There seems to be a growing interest in the NAFEMS community about system simulation. Obviously, this is an area I'm really interested in. One topic many people were discussing was how to connect system simulation and other types of analysis that incorporated geometry. Since my Ph.D. was in FEM, this is a topic I've thought about quite a bit myself. Coincidentally, I just produced a series of webinars for Dassault Systemes and one of them is on this very topic! If this is a topic you are interested, I encourage you to fill out the form to get access to the video.
One of my big goals is to try and extend the reach of simulation to non-expert users. As someone who worked on building complex mathematical models for a long time, I was always frustrated by the lack of "reach" these models had. This was another theme of my talk that seemed to be getting a lot of attention at the conference.
Since I work primarily on web-based applications, I chose to make a presentation that was web-based (using a tool I developed called cadeau, BTW). That means no PowerPoint, no PDF. This presentation was dynamic and included interactive web-applications embedded in it. As such, it wasn't really possible to include it on the USB handed out at the conference. But, because it seemed to be well received and several people asked me about getting a copy, I produced this video that covers all the topics I covered at the conference and a few more:
(A lower-resolution version is available on YouTube as well or at least will be once they are done processing it)
Remember - If you want to keep up on what is going on at Xogeny (blog posts, book updates, etc), don't forget to sign up for the Xogeny mailing list.
Posted: May 21, 2014
I recently sat down with Jeff Waters from Modelon to discuss the importance of standards. I feel there are many lessons that we, as engineers, can learn from the world of software. This is a recurring theme in my work and on the blog. That same thread comes through in this discussion on standards in modeling, simulation and engineering.
Posted: May 12, 2014
During Modelica'2014, I unveiled the very first public release of my new book, "Modelica by Example". Since then, the book has been available on a special site.
"Modelica by Example" started off as a Kickstarter project. As a result of the generous contributions, that project was funded. At the recent Modelica'2014 conference an "Early Access" version of the book was released.
This was a great example of a community driven project to make Modelica more accessible.
The book is distributed under a creative commons license. This means that the contents of the book an be freely redistributed (as long as it is done on a non-commercial basis and the contents of the book are not changed).
I'm also pleased to announce that there are plans for translations of the book into Spanish, Chinese and Italian (and hopefully more languages in the future).
A free HTML version of the book is available at http://book.xogeny.com/. This book can be used by anyone interested in learning Modelica.
I am also producing ePub and PDF versions of the book. These are available for download to those who have purchased a copy of the book. Pricing of the electronic formats is "Pay what you can". The idea here is to make the book affordable for students by allowing them to set their own price. My hope is that other people using the book for professional purposes will pay what they think the book is worth to them.
The free HTML version of the book features "Integrated Browser Simulation". In practice, what this means is that example models from the book can be simulated directly in the browser. This allows readers to adjust parameter values given in the example models to see how the response of the example will change for different parameter values.
We will be using this same technologies in some new products we are currently working on. To learn more, sign up for the Xogeny mailing list and we'll keep you up to date on all the things we are working on.
This version is an "Early Access" version. The book is mostly complete. There are a few unfinished sections that I hope to wrap up soon. But the core material is there so anybody interested in learning Modelica can start now.
The goal of the "Early Access" version is to get this material into the hands of people who can use it as quickly as possible and to collect feedback on the book before publishing a print version of the book.
But today I'm releasing v0.3.0 of the book with the following changes since the initial public beta release (v0.2.0):
unitattribute raised in #59
My goal is to provide a definitive reference for Modelica that is
widely accessible and affordable. Today marks release
I'll be working toward a
1.0 release that we can publish in print
At the book site, you can sign up to be included in the book's mailing list. If you sign up, you'll receive updates whenever new versions of the book are released. You can also purchase the electronic versions of the book as well.
Posted: March 4, 2014
Posted: February 17, 2014
Posted: November 10, 2013
Posted: October 14, 2013
Posted: June 19, 2013
Posted: March 21, 2013
Posted: March 11, 2013
Posted: February 25, 2013
Posted: February 12, 2013
Posted: February 7, 2013
Posted: January 28, 2013
Posted: January 16, 2013
Posted: January 15, 2013
Posted: January 14, 2013
Posted: January 12, 2013
Posted: January 9, 2013
Posted: January 2, 2013
Posted: January 1, 2013
Posted: December 19, 2012
Posted: December 7, 2012
Posted: October 1, 2012