The current challenges in exchanging Model-Based Definition (MBD) models should not be a reason for manufacturing companies to halt MBD implementation. This is emphasised by Wim Ottenhoff, PLM Business Consultant at Emixa Industry: "We should focus on solutions, not problems." The benefits that hightech value chains can gain from MBD are also significant for suppliers. Implementing MBD requires thorough change management, as manufacturing processes must fundamentally transform. Sjors Hooijen, CEO of Tech2B , confirms that soft skills, as previously discussed with Nienke Vergeer, are just as important as hard skills in such transformation projects.
Wim Ottenhoff has been active in the CAD/CAM and PLM industry throughout his career, working as a CAD/CAM support engineer and later as co-owner of Settels Savenije PLM Services. He has firsthand experience of what it means to be a supplier to hightech OEMs. In both roles, he has witnessed how hightech value chains lose significant time and money due to miscommunication between designers and manufacturers. “A lot of time and money is wasted due to incomplete design information,” Ottenhoff explains, describing one of the ongoing pain points in the manufacturing industry.
According to him, the solution lies in Model-Based Definition (MBD), where 3D models and drawing information are integrated into a single master file. This model serves as the single source of truth for the entire supply chain. The fundamental difference from traditional drawings is that MBD is machine-readable, enabling further automation.
When ASML announced six years ago that it would replace TPDs (Technical Product Documentation) with MBD, Wim Ottenhoff, who was involved in the implementation, expected a relatively swift rollout. After all, MBD offers significant benefits to all stakeholders in the supply chain:
The 3D model, enriched with PMI data, can be used for an increasing number of processes, enabling partial automation of programming.
These benefits should be highly appealing to suppliers who are under growing pressure to increase their output. Yet, in 2024, Ottenhoff observes that the adoption of MBD is progressing much more slowly than anticipated. In addition to technological hurdles—such as limitations in data exchange standards between different CAD/CAM systems—the primary obstacle remains human resistance to change. Implementing Model-Based Definition requires strong change management, which has been underestimated. “MBD must be supported by top management because the real challenge lies in changing processes and workflows,” Ottenhoff stresses.
If a design is flawed for any reason, it must be corrected by the design engineer. MBD, after all, relies on the principle that there can be only one master file. “If the master model isn’t correct, it has to be fixed at the source. But that doesn’t fit within the current way of working,” Ottenhoff notes. Suppliers, after all, need to keep production moving, as they are handling multiple orders simultaneously.
To address this, ASML introduced the “drawing in red” method: suppliers mark required changes in red on the drawing and get approval from an ASML representative. While this ensures suppliers are covered, it disrupts the concept of a single master model. Automated processes, such as programming a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), become impossible. When repeat orders come in, it is assumed that the revised model is used—but there is no guarantee. This highlights the need for a shift in workflow if MBD is to succeed.
The main challenge here is that by the time suppliers provide their feedback, the design engineer is already working on another project and has no time to update the master model.
Another reason for the slow rollout of MBD is the difficulty of exchanging files between different software systems. The new STEP 242 standard is an improvement, but it is not yet a perfect solution. Many suppliers use this as a reason to abandon implementation, arguing that “it doesn’t work anyway.” Ottenhoff sees this as the wrong attitude: “We should focus on solutions, not problems.”
He acknowledges the challenges posed by inconsistent data exchange but insists that software providers must take responsibility for correctly implementing and supporting standards. Currently, software vendors interpret PMI data in different ways, integrating it into their systems inconsistently. While this does create obstacles, Ottenhoff believes companies should start using MBD now to gain experience: “There’s already a lot that can be done. Companies need to start working with what’s available.”
On the design side, several tools are now available to automate the validation of an MBD master model’s quality. These tools make it easier to improve design accuracy. Ottenhoff highlights software from Capvidia , which can validate the consistency of an MBD model, including its geometric and positional tolerances.
By addressing these issues directly in the master model, companies can save significant lead time and costs further down the production process. “Better model quality leads to fewer mistakes, reducing the need for clarification and ultimately saving the supply chain money.”
A common perception in the supply industry is that MBD primarily benefits companies like ASML. However, Ottenhoff is convinced that suppliers can also reap financial rewards. For instance, modern measurement machines can already be programmed almost entirely automatically using MBD models.
Pioneering efforts are already underway. One of ASML’s major suppliers is exploring how MBD can be used to automate sheet metal welding. The welding instructions embedded in the MBD model are interpreted by robot programming software, which then generates control commands for the welding robot. Henk Jörg from TFH technical services is working on similar projects in collaboration with Valk Welding. “There’s promising progress, but it’s still being driven by a few enthusiastic pioneers,” Ottenhoff notes.
Ottenhoff finds this slow adoption frustrating because advancements in software and standards are ongoing. Moreover, ASML’s initiative has sparked interest among other OEMs in the Netherlands, who are now investigating whether they should adopt MBD as well.
MBD is a crucial element of Industry 4.0 and the digitalisation of value chains. Without MBD, digitalization cannot reach its full potential. However, Ottenhoff has become more cautious about predicting when MBD will become the standard. He emphasizes that companies should not let current limitations hold them back:
“If you wait to implement MBD until the industry leaders say it’s fully working, you’ll already be too late.”
Ottenhoff compares MBD’s development to the hype cycle seen with other new technologies, such as 3D printing. “Is MBD the solution to everything? Will it replace all existing processes? No. But its benefits are so significant that companies need to start working with it now. MBD is an enabler for further automation in design and manufacturing.”
Ottenhoff’s key takeaway is that businesses need to change their mindset. He urges companies to explore what they can already achieve with MBD and to start experimenting with a dedicated team of out-of-the-box thinkers.
"Will this lead to fully autonomous factories? Eventually, yes. But the process will look very different," Ottenhoff concludes. "A factory without human intervention is possible, but only if we’re willing to let go of outdated processes."
Automation and digitalisation remain change management challenges.