Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - If community subscription notifications are filling up your inbox you can set up a daily digest and get all your notifications in a single email. X




Wow - thanks for the many replies... all of them are shown below but here's a short summary:

21 replies
12 ENG managed
3 IT managed
6 mix of ENG & IT

Also, it seems that the greater the number of users then the more likely IT takes over the CAD apps.

Thanks again everyone.


Question: Does your company rely exclusively on the IT department to admin CAD software, especially ProE?

If so, how many ProE users are managed?


Suppose the CAD Admin were in Engineering, but had no input on budget or on operational strategy for the infrastructure supporting the CAD installation. Suppose engineering does not provide any human resources to extend the CAD\PDM\PLM system nor to leverage the installation already made. Suppose Engineering does not back up the CAD Admin on issues critical to implementing best practices.
Suppose that in IT there was input into the budget and input on operational strategy for the infrastructure? Suppose in IT, human resources were made available to extend the CAD\PDM\PLM system and to leverage the installation already made. Discretionary IT funds are budgeted for the CAD Admin to use creatively to improve the overall system. The CAD Admin role was supported and best practices flourish in the organization.

In this organization, where would the CAD Admin role be best empowered to positively affect the organization?

Consider again, the statements above, and exchange IT for Engineering and vice versa. What would be best for this organization?

Suppose that IT and Engineering continuously contend for the resources.... What could help this organization?

The point is IT/Engineering does not matter. What matters if the CAD Administrator role is empowered with tools ( $, people, influence) to fully leverage the organization's investment in advanced CAD technology or is the CAD Administrator role limited by the home department's lack of understanding on how to leverage the investment, does not support the role and cannot even provision $1 for the CAD Admin to use her/his creativity to move the organization to a higher level.

My observation that the more successful organizations have "Engineering Information Systems departments" a hybrid of IT and Engineering, and they are able to excel in both disciplines. In smaller organizations, this may be informal(non-departmental), but it is easy to identify if it exists or not "Is the CAD team empowered with $, human resources and influence to leverage the investment in CAD?"

Isn't strategic support by a corporate executive critical to success? After all who ultimately made the decision to invest in expensive CAD technology such as Pro/E or Windchill? Was it the CAD Administrator? Sure the CAD Administrator was consulted for her/his opinion, but who made the decision to invest?

My observation of this CAD business is that strategic sponsorship is a non-optional necessity to achieve great things with the investment made. Unfortunately most execs seem to behave in a way that suggests they believe they have purchased a Rolls Royce (i.e. we bought the best CAD system money can buy), and since they bought the best, there is nothing more to they can do to leverage this investment other than to pay for ongoing maintenance to keep it running("tip top"). Very few execs see their investment, their decision to invest in advanced CAD technology as an ongoing opportunity create an innovation engine for their organization, that continues to break down internal barriers to excellence within their own respective organizations.

Some organizations, where execs recognize what they have and what they need to do to support their innovation engine, shine as a bright light to us all, showing us what we could become.

Today, leadership is no longer optional.

Business Continuity with Creo: Learn more about it here.