It is a sad fact that the UK engineering and manufacturing businesses simply are not as productive as their competitors from the USA and mainland Europe.

Extensive research by the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF), among others, has revealed the size of the productivity gap to be anything up to 40percent*.
The causes of this gap are complex, and manufacturers can be quick to blame a lack of government support, difficulty in recruiting the best people or an extended period of operation in tight markets that make capital investments difficult. Highly productive companies do manage to operate in the UK, but all too often, they are foreign owned. This suggests that a big part of the problem may be more cultural than economic.
Companies striving for improved productivity and best practice across the enterprise must examine every aspect of the business right down to the way the individual designer is working.
Take the use of 3D CAD systems, for example. The advantages of designing in 3D are too numerous to mention - early identification of problems, the ability to analyse designs using FEA or CFD packages and the potential to use rapid prototyping systems or CNC equipment to take time and cost out of the building of prototypes or finished parts are just a few.
Companies can cut design times by 80percent and improve design reuse to realise even bigger productivity improvements over time.

Yet the improvements could go further. Perversely, many UK design engineers spend their days operating sophisticated 3D CAD tools through an operator interface that evolved straight from the flat, 2D world of paper and ink. The origins of today's keyboard and mouse data input devices lie way back in the computer's history. If the problem you are tackling cannot be solved any other way - breaking enemy codes for example - it doesn't matter if programming your computer involves the painstaking process of converting numbers to binary and punching holes in paper tape. But if you are writing a letter or drawing a picture, then the advantages of automation quickly evaporate as the effort involved in getting information into the machine goes up.

Of mice and men

Thankfully, human factors engineers recognised this problem early on and came up with a clever solution. They disguised the powerful new systems as tools people already understood, allowing them to transfer their existing skills into the new environment. The first tool to be borrowed by the engineers for this purpose was, of course, the typewriter.
As the principle of a printing machine in which a button represents each letter is easy to grasp and the skills needed to use it well were widespread, it proved to be an ideal choice.
Of course the typewriter metaphor runs much deeper than the keyboard. Modern computer systems involve 'documents' and 'folders' and the icons used are a constant reminder of the paper-based systems that the machines emulate. Adding a mouse to the mix increases the flexibility of the metaphor, allowing the user to treat the system as a combination of typewriter and pencil. Everyone understands this metaphor - everyone is happy.
Three-dimensional graphics spoil the whole construction. The essence of a 3D CAD system is fundamentally different from that of almost all other computing environments.
The metaphor here is not one of sheets of paper and filing cabinets, but of prototypes and workshops or sculptors' studios. Suddenly the conventional interface tools seem rather odd. Even a simple 3D construction task like building a tower of child's play blocks is difficult if you only have a pen to move them around with. It's also difficult if you have to rely on verbal instructions - try it one day with a blindfolded friend.

Two hands better than one

Luckily, technologies to solve this problem are evolving rapidly. In the US and central Europe, the use of input devices like the SpaceMouse, SpaceBall or SpaceTraveler products from 3Dconnexion is already widespread.
These systems combine clever optoelectronic sensor technology with the mass production technologies already used to flood the world with millions of mice to provide a simple, intuitive way of giving 3D input - a pull, a push or a twist in the appropriate direction sends the right signal to the computer and the model on the screen responds.
When combined with the conventional mouse and keyboard interface, the SpaceMouse has other advantages.
As long as somebody holds the paper in place, operating a pen with one hand tied behind your back is not difficult. Apply the same restrictions in the workshop and most tasks are tricky to complete.
A user with a SpaceMouse in one hand and a conventional mouse in the other can work like a potter putting the finishing touches to a piece - spinning the model into the right position with the 3D controller and working on it with the mouse.
Programmable buttons on the SpaceMouse add extra flexibility by allowing the operator to execute the most commonly used functions of their chosen system without taking their hands from the controls. Users have found that this approach improves their efficiency by 30percent.
Armed with the right input tools, designers and engineers can now finally derive the full benefit from the awesome power of 3D design, and companies will also be able to benefit from dramatic cost and time savings by meeting the productivity challenge head-on.
Once businesses start thinking harder about implementing best practice techniques, right down to how individual operators get the best out of their software, they might start to catch up with their competitors from America and mainland Europe.
In a research project conducted by the Ergonomic Technologies Corporation (ETC) 20 CAD designers were selected from a Fortune 100 manufacturing company. Local muscle activity, wrist posture, finger/hand motions, mouse clicks, as well as perceived comfort ratings and working style preference were collected from the 20 subjects performing four design tasks using both the conventional mouse and function key method and the 3D motion control method.

Results

Local muscle activity: There was a 33percent reduction in average muscle activity for the 3D motion control method compared to the conventional mouse and function key method.
Wrist posture: The 3D motion control method resulted in an overall average of 13.8 degrees of deviation within the flexion/extension plane versus 32.1 degrees of deviation using the function key method, a 57 per cent reduction.
Finger/hand motions and mouse clicks: The number of distinct motions or movements made by the left hand while toggling function keys or manipulating the 3D device was lower with the 3D method. The percentage reduction in left hand motions for the 3D method ranged from 59 per cent for the Assembly task to 73 per cent for the Colours task. The average number of right hand motions or movements was again lower for the 3D motion control method, a reduction of 64 per cent when considering all four tasks.
Perceived comfort: All nine body-comfort metrics were higher for the two-handed style than when using the one-handed style. From the test group of 20 subjects, 18 preferred to use the two-handed method, either exclusively or in conjunction with the mouse and function keys.
Designing with a mouse and keyboard requires numerous repetitive steps, and forces the user to constantly shift back and forth between navigation and selection activities. This significantly slows the design process and can cause discomfort by overloading the user's mouse hand.

In a real-life example, a designer working in SolidWorks used only the mouse and keyboard to fillet four inside edges and chamfer the ends of a shaft hole in a machine casting. Using multiple steps with the mouse, the designer first positioned the model, then selected the first inside edge and applied a fillet. He repeated the process for the second, third and fourth edges. He then re-positioned the model to chamfer one end of a shaft hole in the casting. The casting was then inverted and the same chamfer applied to the other end.
Finally the designer navigated back out from the model to inspect the results. Accomplishing this task with only the mouse and keyboard required 60seconds and 2159mm of mouse cursor movement.
When the user repeated the task armed with a 3Dconnexion motion controller, the amount of mouse movement was vastly reduced.
The designer was able to rotate the model and apply the fillets and chamfers at the same time. He quickly positioned the model at the optimum-viewing angle for each step. Individual tasks become a single continuous workflow.
With a motion controller used in conjunction with a conventional mouse this task was accomplished in 38seconds and required only 1092mm of mouse cursor movement, a significant time saving and a nearly 50 per cent reduction in repetitive mouse movement.

*Catching up with Uncle Sam, The EEF final report on US and UK manufacturing productivity and Bridging the continental divide, The EEF comparative study of EU and UK manufacturing productivity. Both available from the Engineering Employer's Federation. Broadway House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NQ. www.eef.org.uk

Dr Jonathan Ward is an ergonomics expert and former editor of UK-based Engineering magazine. 3Dconnexion is based in Seeseld, Germany www.3Dconnexion.com