Feature 2 | CAD/CAM
More fundamentally still, the
effort needed to create complicated dependencies between applications is out of all proportion to the actual level of information required by most project users. The overriding reality of information use in the shipbuilding environment is that the majority of users simply need to know only three things: what information should be released by when, what its status is, and whether they can trust it. Implicitly, they also need a very simple means of accessing and viewing it. Te integration challenge is therefore how to guarantee this level of information sharing across the needs of different shipyard users, without arriving at very complex interfaces, and a solution architecture that is difficult and costly to maintain. The second approach, where
applications are not closely coupled but are linked together through some sort of central resource, has much to commend it. It does away with the need for complex and restrictive interrelationships at individual application level, and places the value squarely where it should be – on the information itself. It should be remembered that the shipbuilding environment often involves the use of scores of different applications from different vendors, and without a mechanism to share information between them, processes simply cannot integrate properly. The amount of information being exchanged will grow over the life of the project, so an integration problem that initially seems manageable will quickly become a real project hazard. These two approaches are highly polarised, and,
in reality, the sensible
solution is to be found in the middle ground. In this scenario, the central information resource still does its work of linking applications together, to enable them to share information and to enable conformity to information standards, but it also connects existing clusters of selected close-coupled applications into the overall arrangement. Specialist information flow between applications continues unhindered, while project information that has more enterprise- wide significance can circulate freely. But, much of this sound’s like it refers
38
The many different types of production information should ideally be deliverable from one single source of data, as an integral and automated part of the overall process. This assembly planning application, for example, enables the production engineering personnel to work in parallel with designers.
to non-3D information. So where, then, does this put 3D? Te answer, as we have said many times before, is “right at the heart of the integrated shipyard” – but only on condition that it is integrated into the wider information management picture. The 3D element should not be marginalised because of its implied focus on the design process. On the contrary, some kinds of 3D model have intelligence built into them and so can act as a universal “binder” for all types of associated shipyard project information. In other words, from a bilge pump
represented as part of a 3D model on a screen, say, the user can accomplish “traditional” 3D design tasks, like measuring the clearance between its mounting and the edge of the foundation that it sits on. But, he can also instantly access the datasheets associated with the pump, the purchase order that has been raised to acquire it, the stock and logistics application that shows where in the yard it is being stored, and the sales tender relating to the design in which the pump is being deployed, among many other kinds of (non-3D) information. Any of this information can, in turn,
automatically be fed to any other business or design application, or indeed any user that has need of it. So, for example, a resource planning application can receive vital information about timescales contained in the sales tender. Likewise, the user’s view onto those other applications can incorporate navigation via the 3D model. So, for example, reporting on how many of a specific type of valve have been successfully fitted and how many are still awaiting work can be accomplished simply by clicking on a representation of that type of valve on the 3D model.
Completeness before integration So, integration is a crucial concept in attaining a truly effective shipyard, but let us turn now to design specifics. Can any degree of clever integration make up for a 3D design solution that does not have within it the capability to address and support every key design process in the shipyard? The answer, of course, is no. Aveva
knows this better than most, as it has been through an extensive process of creating a fully integrated shipbuilding solution from
The Naval Architect April 2011
Feature 1
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80