Evan on Engineering Software

President Theodore Roosevelt is credited with originating the term "muckraker."  He had a dislike for the pessimism exhibited by some of its practitioners, but, as evidenced from the quote above, taken from his Muckrake Speech of 1906, he still believed the practice to be important.

If you've followed my comments for any time, you probably recognize me as a muckraker.  I investigate and expose societal issues. (And, yes, interoperability, intellectual property, and monopoly are societal issues.)

Some of my common targets are the big CAD vendors: Autodesk, Bentley, Dassault, PTC, and Siemens PLM.  This is because their actions affect literally millions of users, and there is a comparative power imbalance between those companies and their consumers.

Consider, for example, the balance of power between Dassault and Boeing.  Despite billions of dollars being at stake, Boeing's influence with Dassault in getting them to fix interoperability in CATIA  pales in comparison to Dassault's self-interest in frustrating it.

I base this comment upon information from Boeing and Dassault, as well as years of personal research in economics.  If Dassault were to come to me and say "hey, Evan, we don't like what you said," the first thing I'd do is ask them if I was inaccurate, or if I'd unfairly spun the facts. I'd also go back and check my assumptions, and if I found I was wrong or unfair, I'd post a correction, a retraction, or even an apology.

The most likely result from the comment I made above will not be that Dassault calls me or sends me an email.  It might be that some Dassault executives that read it will make a mental note to not talk to me in the future.  This is the problem with muckraking -- it doesn't make you friends in high places.

(Incidentally,  Carl Bass, Autodesk's CEO, has always been willing to talk to me.  His biggest criticism of my comments has been that he thinks I single out Autodesk, when his major competitors, especially Dassault, are doing the same things.  He is probably right.  Yet, the comparitive imbalance in negotiating power between Autodesk and its average customer is far greater than that between its major competitors and their average customers. And Autodesk has compatively more market power in its primary market than its competitors have in theirs.   In any event, I'm sure he'd be happy to see me picking on Dassault.)

Now, you may wonder why I posted this particular screed at this particular time.  It's because I saw a bit of muckraking that offended my sensibilities.  As a committed muckraker, that's pretty hard to do.

Ralph Grabowski, a long time industry pundit (who I've known for maybe 19 years), just posted a piece called Ticked Off At Siemens PLM Software.  In this piece, he talks about a post where blogger Scott Wertel goes-off on Siemens PLM and a local CAD reseller over a misunderstanding on a sales seminar.

Here's the summary of what happened as I understand from Scott:  a Solid Edge reseller scheduled an event (a launch event for Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology).  The reseller sent out email announcements, posted a schedule on the web, and called prospective attendees.  Before the event, the reseller called Scott's company, and was told by the drafting supervisor that no one from his department  was planning to attend. (For a number of reasons, including that they'd already been to a sneak-peek event a couple of months ago.)  Unfortunately, the reseller didn't make the connection that Scott doesn't work in the draftng department.  Scott had received multiple confirmations, including an email two days prior to the event, but when he got to the hotel where the event was supposed to be, he couldn't find it.  Because it had been cancelled.  Because the reseller thought no one was going to be attending.

About a week ago, Scott told me this: "I did get an apology email from the local  UGS representative by the end of the day.  He left all the previous emails chained below it;  I find it rewarding to know that my message exchanged a few hands at corporate UGS before making it back to me.  Hopefully the right people are made aware of the situation and can improve on the process.  That, after all, is the main intent of my rant." (Siemens PLM used to be called UGS.)

As a side note, Scott has long-ago seen Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology.  From my conversations with him, he seems to "get" Synchronous Technology, and recognizes the significant benefits it provides in helping people get their CAD work done faster and easier.  (I think Scott is interested in what works, rather than what's trendy.    He writes about Solid Edge and Alibre, because those are tools that he uses, but he's far from being a fanboy for either of them.)

My opinion is that Scott unfairly blamed Siemens PLM for a mistake made by a reseller (incidentally, I've known the reseller for many years, and I'd guess he was mortified at his oversight.)  I can give Scott some slack, though, because he was venting.  His blog is personal -- he talks about things that are interesting to him, but doesn't hold himself out as a journalist

Ralph, however, is a professional journalist.  When he picked up the story, a week after Scott originally posted it,  he opened it up to tens of thousands of readers.  Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have done any investigation, to get the real story.  His post was fast and loose with what Scott actually said, and included some snide comments about Siemens PLM.

Sigh... I suppose this is like the pot calling the kettle black.  I can't say that I haven't made snide comments in the past, and I can't promise not to make them in the future.  But I can say that I try to own my comments, and step-up to fix things when I screw up.

I respect Ralph, and value what he brings to the CAD industry.  But I think he ought to take the advice of Teddy Roosevelt, and make sure that when he muckrakes, he is absolutely truthful.