What I Learned: New Insight on Physical Prototyping

What I learned this week … came from
a visit to the Scottish Maritime Museum, specifically
a lesser known location called The Denny
Tank in Dumbarton, Scotland. The visit was almost accidental
while I was on vacation in the UK, but the lessons learned
was a much better view into the cost of physical prototyping and
testing - but also a greater respect for the need for it.
I will try to share some of the insights I had while visiting the
facility, and apply it to today’s modern product development.

Quick Background and a Chance Encounter
The Denny Tank is what is left of a very large shipbuilding complex
in Dumbarton. A scale model of the former facility makes this test
facility look like a small shed (this was shipbuilding on a very
large scale). But the tank itself is impressive (over 100 yards
long, and 20 feet across as I remember them saying). It is well
preserved in a way that you can really imagine what working there
was like when the operation was in full swing. My kids even got a
chance to work with some tools to shape the wax models they used
for testing, which was fun for them while I was learning as much as
I could from this fascinating place. The funny thing is that we
ended up there because were looking for something to do and on the
GPS it said both “Maritime Museum” and “Tank Museum” and my son is
very interested in military equipment and has been learning about
World War II. But as they told me when we arrived - “different kind
of tank.”

The
First Insight from the Visit - The Cost of Prototyping
So other than showing you my vacation photos (sorry), why should we
care as an industry? What really struck me looking at this facility
is the time, effort, and energy - and of course cost - that
went into the process, the people, and the equipment.
Making the prototypes was very manual, using clay beds to make wax
models, shaping them, and then outfitting them with the appropriate
gear. Then, simulating different wave conditions and drawing the
model through the tank while taking measurements on time, drag, and
other factors. And what if the design changed? They could simply
melt the wax down and create a new prototype from scratch!

I have written about the
cost of physical prototypes in the past, but this was a real
eye opening experience to me. To see this process directly (even if
in a museum) really prompted me to value what computer simulations
can provide. Most people reading this blog, I assume, don’t have
products as complex as an ocean liner. But many companies do
develop physical prototypes to evaluate designs. I don’t think that
prototyping is ready to be relegated to museums, but the
more companies can do to minimize it in their own businesses the
faster and more efficiently they will get products to
market. But of course, they can’t sacrifice product
quality and reliability.

The Second Insight - This is not just
History
Don’t get me wrong, I am serious when I say prototyping is
not ready for the world of museums. This is not just a
history lesson on the way they did things a long time ago. Today,
they use fiberglass instead of clay , but the facility is still
used on occasion. And other test facilities like
the David
Taylor Model Basin in the US are used regularly. Let’s
face it, not everything can be accurately
simulated. As much advancement in simulation technology as
we have made as an industry, there is still no substitute for
understanding the impact in the real world. To demonstrate this,
the tank was used to evaluate new hull designs like bulbous bows. The
museum holds a series of fiberglass bow models that were tested at
the facility, although I don’t know the exact date. The reason is
twofold:

• Some things are very difficult to simulate (including
  complex fluid dynamics)
• Simulations frequently need to be validated by physical
  tests

So as much as we can decry the cost of physical
simulations, they are still valuable and necessary in many
circumstances. The challenge then is how can we
optimize the use of physical prototypes, and
continuously improve their correlation with physical test
results to make better simulations over time. I should
also add that other efforts are in place in companies to
reduce the cost of producing prototypes, which is another area that
has seen some dramatic improvements but a topic for another time
and place.

So that’s what I learned from my chance encounter, I hope you
found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know
about it. I am not an expert on simulation or ship design, but I
hope the insight was useful and I welcome your comments. At least
now you know what industry analysts do when they go on
vacation…