JimT@F P I Jim you obviously get my point. And Yes I am seriously looking for NEW terms to describe focused interest PROFESSIONAL user groups to accomplish what you refer to in your response. The problem, however, is how to do it safely and build such groups on a public international network such as the internet. IF one could design an embedded transmission system for internet data streams a multiplicity of networks could exist without fear of misuse. My company is revisiting certain proprietay RF designs to see if adaptation is possible. PS new software is always a "B...."
@Ozark Sage, you certainly don't hold back, but I don't blame you.My first impression of this was, "are you KIDDING-?" While designing technical solutions takes a great amount of collaboration from peers and other disciplines, the LAST thing you'd want is an audience while you're working thru a complex layout.I think ChasChas put it well, stating, "I'll show it to you when I'm done".That's my style, too – leave me in peace after the group sessions are concluded.
However, just today, I experienced a scenario that might have me back peddling that stance:I've been a ProE user for 21 years  but recently landed a contract requiring SolidWorks for the first time.I would have saved 2 hours today if the SolidWorks session had a live section where I might have asked an experienced user how to execute a (*&%$#%) Swept & Blended section! Maybe there is a place for an inter-active interface!
For some of us, who still respect privacy and professionalism, and try to avoid marketing types and others that use MOST social networks to build the worlds phone company financials upon frivous use terabytes of bandwidth for no useful purpose.... I say NO to everyone below that even dares to refer to a KNOWLEDGE based interchange of ideas such as DN affords us here as a "social" network. What ever you want to call a web bassed customer service PLSASE DON'T call it a SOCIAL network. I for one wish I was not even in Linked In at this point.
Most of the comments below are are just the beginning of LARGE CASH FLOWS for MARKETEERS and LAWYERS who care about $$$s ONLY. You need only to look at your TV to prove my point and I believe we should all decide juast where public SOCIAL interaction is and is not appropiate to use and exactly how we should codeify different types of use.
Yes, I can see your point, Beth. These tools are coalescing behavior that is already becoming common. Group communication over the Internet is something we've all becoming accustomed to over the past few years. These comments are an example. The tools you display seem designed to determine the focus of contributions and the specific population.
It's nice to see the range of participation and the range of those whose comments and suggestions are brought in.
Many valid comments about companies not divulging IP. In addition there's exposure in the opposite direction. Someone in the public "social circle" provides a great idea. Company implements the idea and it's a huge money-making "win". Person providing the idea sues the company. The Facebook lawsuit and appeals is an example of this. The lawsuits may be groundless but that doesn't prevent exposure.
I do not see this going far. I like the idea but how do you communicate outside your company without breaching company, state, and country policy? How can you insure that who you are talking with is not outside the country? A good majority of industries are still not suited for this environment. I personally don't see this benefiting any one that has proprietary information. The small stuff is what makes a design work so well. A clear understanding of the process, the details, and a good community are key factors. But a lot of the details have been gathered with years of legacy work. Your internal community knows these facts but do you really want to discuss them externally? Engineering businesses live and die on the basis of information control.
The area of social innovation, and particularly for PLM is indeed emerging. I am aware that the initial and primary concern of designers and companies is the protection of their IP and ideation. That is a concern to me also. One thing that those if us who have been engineers and designers for many years have to undertstand is that the notion of collaborative design, social design, and the resulting emergence of knowledge communities is indeed a generational phenomenon. Designers and engineers that have grown up totally immersed in the environment of social media are more apt to be comfortable in a social innovation environment. The idea is that the pool of ideation and creation is vastly larger outside the walls of the company design community. Of course there has to be point in the product development process where things go black. Each engineering/design organization and company has to decide at what point that is. Some will never allow their ideation process to go outside the walls of their company. The up side is simply that design collaboration and knowledge communities will offer an order of magnitude more in exposure to new innovation and ideation.
The Local Motors example highlighted opens up its design process to a broader crowd to develop and refine its IP, but it (meaning the car company) was predicated on the open source business model as one of its key differentiators in its approach to building automobiles.
Most companies won't leverage social capabilities in such a public and open manner. They won't open up designs on Facebook or use Twitter to microblog to each other about all of their design strategies. What I do see happening is Facebook-like and Twitter-like functionality being added to next-generation CAD and PLM platforms. In that way, the extended design groups working on a car or an aircraft can leverage social-type functions to better collaborate and brainstorm within the secure parameters of their traditional design environments.
I suppose a auto manufacturer might post designs for concept cars so consumers could voice their opinions and perhaps check-off "must have" features in new models. But companies that develop other types of products might not want to expose their designs until they have them ready for sale. As an entrepreneur, the last thing I'd want is to tip off competitors about the design work underway at my company. Even if I shared the information with a close group of colleagues I'd still worry the information would "get out."
The "social side" of CAD might seem like a good idea, but only for a few companies.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.