What it takes:
- a fresh start where every part/assembly has to be made from scratch
- an educated and probably very young team in the office AND on the floor
- appropriate hardware
I can’t see it in the near future…
There’s not a whole lot of 2D drawing of parts in a auto assembly plant…because they don’t make any parts. About the only thing made in auto plants these days are the large sheet metal pieces.
I haven’t been directly involved in the Automotive industry for at least five years now, but five years ago every auto supplier I worked with did their PPAP’s, CPK’s etc etc to a 2D drawing. So while those papers may not be on the factory floor you can bet that pretty much every part in that car has a 2D drawing attached to it somewhere.
The level of infrastructure and capital investment necessary to go completely MBD is HUGE! Replacing millions of dollars of equipment so they are MBD compatible while at the same time creating at least some inconvenience and inefficiency in communication when people are involved for no other reason that to “Get rid of using paper”, just isn’t a train many people are going to jump on.
We have spent 100+ years defining and refining communication with 2D drawings. A good drawing provides a WHOLE lot of information to the viewer in a very short period of time. I’ve yet to see a MBD system come anywhere near close to that.
You’re right, of course, about the parts not being made in the assembly plant.
By the way, I’m not trolling here. Just playing the ‘Devil’s Advocate’. Although personally I don’t like paper (environmentalist).
Again you’re right about the HUGE hassle of ‘switching’ to MBD. But that’s not how I’m thinking. I’m thinking about starting up a small part fabrication factory today, starting with a clean slate, would you need to buy a ‘printer’ ?? I don’t think so. Would your young workers have a problem with that? I don’t think so. Would I win more contracts by being able to manufacture at a lower cost? I would think yes, but maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe my mind has been ‘poisoned’ by this video >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ62yNu9meo
You’re going to outprice the competition by not buying a $200 printer?
Of course not, silly. It’s the printer’s power usage that will kill ya.
Speaking of not liking to use paper…allow me to ask…have you tried plastic TP? 
If I’m starting from scratch today…there would be no workers 
I’ve worked in Manufacturing for a while, I’ve owned my own business, I’ve been in positions where I’ve had to manage, hire/Fire people for many years. Without question the biggest pain point in manufacturing in about every possible area is the people.
Right now the problem is that we simply don’t have enough people and without question we don’t have enough quality people regardless of how much you pay.
If I’m starting a new plant, buying all new equipment, creating the product, EVERYTHING from product design to shipping is going to do everything it can to eliminate human involvement.
The problem with this however is that in the long run…well until such time we reach “Star Trek” levels of society with unlimited power and replicators, this direction does nothing but destroy society by continuing to focus purchasing power into the hands of the few.
In contrast to this issue if people would work, try to be excel at their jobs and focus on being more productive when working there would not be such a huge push to get rid of people…says I as I waste time posting on a discussion forum 
You’re going to outprice the competition by getting rid of the thing that needs the printer…the people. When you get to the point you don’t need the printer that pretty much means you don’t have people. 2D drawings are designed for humans that see the world thru a relatively 2D world. Machines can see things in databases, matrix, “1”'s and “0”'s that humans simply can’t. Get rid of the people, get rid of the printer.
The push for “Paperless” when you still have people is pissing in the wind. It’s almost a non cost and when you compare it to the lost time of setting up tablets, zooming, displaying, etc etc etc it’s probably a wash or a loss.
Now when you can get rid of having to to do 2D drawings, get rid of the space needed for people, get rid of the HMI’s, get rid of the safety, get rid of…the printer, because you got rid of the people. Now you’re talking HUGE dollars. Just the safety alone accounts for anywhere from 20-50% of equipment costs these days. That completely goes away when you no longer have people to hurt on the equipment.
I just watched that video and for the most part our sister company follows this same approach but does it for our product lines. The majority of their products are also “Fabrication”.
As I’ve said before I think certain sectors lend itself to a less complex path than others.
When you’re doing fab, for the most part you’re not dealing with the individual part complexity that you are with some other sectors. When you’re cutting plates with a plasma cutter whatever comes off the machine is what you get and in a good portion of the cases what you get is what goes into the assembly. If you’re manufacturing a simple shaft you have a multitude of outcomes for that shaft, what’s the tolerance of the journals? Grinding, Heat treat, Finish, plating?
The same happens when you’re assembling. The possibilities are far greater when you putting a spindle together then when you’re dealing with a structure that is largely almost entirely welded together. Press fit, slip fits, grain direction, thread locking, in process machining and on an on.
Yes I realize that the above is a “General” statement and that fabricated structures can be very complex while machined and assembled assemblies can be very simple. However in general, manufacturing and assembling manufactured assemblies tend to be more complex that fabricated structures. In fact in many cases fabricated structures are part of manufactured assemblies.
I’m also not saying you can’t get to the same place with manufactured assemblies. I’m just saying it’s a factor more difficult and involves a whole lot more upstream equipment, processes etc.
@matt mentioned molds. Molds is another sector that lends itself to MBD. The parts/Surfaces can be extremely complex and extremely difficult to define on paper so the model tends to becomes the “Master”. Many of the other parts tend to become secondary to the mold. MBD then ends up becoming a good fit and a less complex path to follow.
Now a ‘paperless convert’ 
P.S. - You’ve made some very good points, and thanks for all the experiences/insights.
I’m going to ‘step away’ from this debate now - seems to be heading into dystopia territory (not great for my head) - and maybe that was my fault. If that’s the case then I apologize and will try not to do that in future.
Maybe we can all meet halfway and use ruggedized e-book readers
Change is like molasses…thinking back to how we use to make changes… many, many, many..times I would drive to a shop, sketch in a change, or circle a area, (see attached, stapled!), up the rev and sign/date (add my phone number) and send them a update 1-3 days later.
What was funny here… even after sending “clean” updated drawings,.. my old signed/stapled coffee stained prints were on the shop floor.
yeah,.. and it’s going away to an out of sync ever changing digital world… and shops continue to be caught or out of sync with those systems.
Too many shops or our systems/processes are still tied to paper.
I was asked about doing a drawing recently… I almost laughed thinking about when will this ever end?.. I don’t see this changing in my life,.. there are way too many people who can not or will not change because they don’t know how to change.
Couple thoughts:
I think those salespeople and marketing are barking up the wrong tree. We (designers/engineers) will switch to 3D/MBD when we’re told that is what we must deliver. The people that use our outputs are mostly not tech junkies, they aren’t impressed with tech or fancy tools, they just want clear, unambiguous communication. If they cannot view and read the dimensions/annotations they need by simply double clicking the file then it’s viewed as a waste of their time.
I believe very little that comes from someone trying to sell me something. Marketing has swung so far from delivering a product that fills a demand all the way over to confusing consumers into thinking they need a product that was not developed to fill a demand.
Solved: Use robotic welders that are programmed. Done. Then train your welder to teach the robot. 
Have a visual inspection step that looks for spatter and then another robot to remove spatter. This isn’t crazy talk..
This is not crazy talk but it’s the same type of talk that says “This is a none issue once we have unlimited energy and replicators”. The statement is true the path to get there is not easy and nowhere near close.
All of this stuff takes time, money, training etc and none of it happens over night. Until you’re COMPLETELY on the other side paper is often times the best choice.
I just spent the last three days in training for two of our machining centers. We’ve had them for a decade or more and still aren’t using all their capabilities. If we used this equipment 100% to it’s abilities we’d still be nowhere near “No 2D”
I fully understand and agree…but the US is in an interesting position right now…not necessarily the best position…when it come to manufacturing technology. Industry 4.0 has a very slow adoption rate in the US. I’m afraid the rest of the world is going to kick our manufacturing butt if we don’t decide to edcuate and progress forward.
Here’s an older article take a look at the chart! Should scare every manufacturer in the North America!
https://www.therobotreport.com/top-5-countries-using-industrial-robots-2018/#:~:text=%20China%20remains%20the%20clear%20leader%20and%20has,of%202018%2C%20which%20represent%2074%25%20of%20global%20installations.
First…where have you been The US has been falling behind in Manufacturing since the 80’s when the mentality shifted from manufacturing to “We are going to be a service economy” and “We don’t need manufacturing”. The end result has essentially been a loss of manufacturing jobs and thus a significant decimation of the middle class. Today it’s “go to college” or “Live in a box under a bridge”. The manufacturing jobs are disappearing and it’s exactly those jobs that employed the plethora of people that “Didn’t go to college”.
Second “Slow adoption of industry 4.0” is the same problem as “Getting rid of 2D and paper”. Technology moves WAY faster than the manufacturing equipment. We can design and build a fully automated system with smart infrastructure and is completely paperless. However you’re not going to get a manufacturing company to get rid of their equipment and buy all new equipment unless there is monetary benefit.
I’d guess that my company has 30-40 million dollars worth of manufacturing equipment that would probably cost 60 million to replace. We generally do 25-30 million in sales a year. The “Gain” from being entirely automated and 4.0 compliant and paperless might be what, 10-15%? No company is going to just toss 2-3 years worth of sales of equipment away and take on 2-3 years of sales in dept so they can increase profits by 10-15%. Numbers don’t add up.
So like all things in manufacturing you use the equipment until it has to be replaced, that’s 10,15-25+ years in many cases. So the turn around time on these things are VERY slow due to capital costs.
Other countries, particularly developing countries, don’t have this issue because in many cases they are just starting and thus purchasing new equipment. In another 25-50 years when China is a mature economy, they will be in same boat. “Do I toss this old Industry 4.0 stuff out the window and replace it with Industry 9.1?”
100% agree. Automation only makes senses when it can be delivered with as lower cost or improved quality- repeatability. Most challenges to automation come from the ability to actually quantify the cost of manufacturing a product or a process. There are tools for that too and they have been around for years. Plant Simulation is one such tool. Technomatix Plant Simulation…geez…feel like a sales person…so I’ll stop there.
In my organiziation I have already seen a couple lines replaced with automation- chemical mixing, filling and packaging.
Like you say there needs to be an ROI to the business.
I also don’t want to hijack the thread too.
“Automation Level” is also very dependent on the product. A company who is making a bragillion of something in an assembly line fashion is going to be far more able to move to a high level of automation than a company that does more complex, fewer numbers and is more dependent on highly skilled labor.
I’m in the process of looking throughout our company and looking for “Opportunities” to implement robotics. In this branch where we have anywhere from 120-150 employees, I’ve only found a handful that even makes sense to look at. For the most part we are a large job shop and essentially the next job is almost nothing like the last job, so hard to automate.
Also I wouldn’t say this line of conversation is a hi-jack. The question was “What would it take to get you off 2D?” 2D, paper etc is largely a necessity when there is a large human involvement in the process. In short the answer is “When a process is nearly fully automated you can get rid of 2D and paper”