Most of us know time and money are limited in product development. However, digital simulation can help save the day.

Also referred to as digital prototyping or virtual prototyping, digital simulation permits design and development in three weeks when engineers already have the associated hardware and software. Such time savings enable tangible cost savings.

“Digital or virtual prototyping of anything is not exactly computer-aided design (CAD) or computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), but akin to one or both,” says CADalyst. While CAD and CAM help engineers crystallize their idea in detail, digital prototyping represents more the testing of the concept’s basic functionality.

Digital prototyping is not a replacement for physical prototyping. Rather, it is a useful step used with physical prototyping to enable making fewer physical prototypes. Digital prototyping may also minimize some of the tweaking during physical prototyping. After using digital simulation, one pump manufacturer reported it being able to "build and assess a physical prototype within three weeks," says the Aberdeen Group.

These benefits cut time and money from development. Success with digital prototyping can be accomplished by managing at least three concerns. These include 1) using the software with associated software and hardware, 2) assuring users are adequately trained and 3) interfacing with customers to get buy-in or tweak the design to meet previously unforeseen needs.

In its recent Prototyping Strategies: Avoiding the Product Development Crunch report, Aberdeen Group lists the enablers for shorter product development schedules:

• Aesthetic surface modeling;
• 3D scanning hardware;
• 3D printers;
• CAD;
• Computer aided engineering (CAE)/simulation; and
• Computer-aided testing (CAT).

As mentioned above, digital prototyping complements physical prototyping; it does not replace it.

After surveying more than 200 manufacturers about their use of simulation and testing throughout product design and development, Aberdeen found several differences between those who received the highest scores when five key performance indicators were used to distinguish the best-in-class from the laggards:

• The best-in-class group are 2.7 times as likely as the laggards to augment surface modeling with realistic rendering and 3D scanned data with surfaces fitted through them to develop a clearer picture of the design;

• The best-in-class respondents were twice as likely as laggards to take advantage of 3D printers and rapid prototyping to create representative parts and products quickly, in addition to using CAD and CAE tools to assess a product virtually; and

• Best-in-class manufacturers are 1.6 times as likely as the laggards to use digital methods in the testing process to provide guidance on the instrumentation of tests, as well as 1.3 times as likely to digitally review test results to collaboratively find the root cause of product failures.