Initial Graphics Exchange Specifications Drawings created with Computer-Aided Design Most companies find it difficult to enforce the use of (CAD) tools, which were introduced in the 1960s, a common set of CAD/CAM tools within their organiza- represented tremendous productivity gains over paper tion, much less across (multiple) supply chains and drawings, such as ease to revise and archive. CAD among joint venture partners. Because of the lack of any tools also opened new opportunities, such as enabling common set of tools, a common format for neutral file manufacturing instructions to be derived automatically exchange is needed. Using a neutral standard for and executed directly from the drawing. Nevertheless, as transferring information across systems drastically computer design and manufacturing tools proliferated to reduces the requirements for translators. The cost meet increasingly complex and diverse engineering benefits are suggested by the reduction in necessary needs, so did the formats that each tool used to capture translators shown in Fig. 1. It illustrates that by using a and store product data. While paper drawings can be neutral file exchange, the number of translators marked up by anyone with a pencil, a product model (for N systems) can be reduced from scaling as n (n–1) that cannot be interpreted by the necessary CAD tool to 2n. is useless. For organizations to share designs across In 1979, a series of events catalyzed the CAD vendor various CAD and Computer-Aided Manufacturing and user community to create the first national standard (CAM) tools, their data files must be formatted in a for CAD data exchange, which is documented in the manner that the tool can recognize. This requirement has report Initial Graphics Exchange Specification, Version become increasingly important in an age where large 1.0 [1]. CAD systems were less than ten years old, and manufacturers often form joint ventures to address a only a handful of products had any significant market business opportunity, and where partners in a supply penetration. Even at this early stage, users were over- chain are being called upon to deliver an increasingly whelmed by the inability to share data among these complex array of services. tools and with their own internally developed databases. Fig. 1. Illustration of the benefits of using a neutral file exchange. 246 In September 1979, frustration came to a head at the Boeing supplied the structure of its Computer Integrated two-day Air Force Integrated Computer-Aided Manu- Information Network (CIIN) database. Both GE and facturing (ICAM) Industry Days meeting [2]. On the Boeing contributed their existing translators. A core first day, a representative from General Electric team formed, including representatives from NBS (GE) challenged a panel of CAD vendors, which (Roger Nagel), Boeing (Walt Braithwaite), and GE (Phil included ComputerVision, Applicon, and Gerber, to Kennicott). Team members had worked closely with work together to enable an exchange mechanism. While each of the vendors on internal integration projects. This this need was intuitive from a user’s perspective, prior experience built the expertise and trust needed to this was a very threatening proposition to the CAD craft a solution in a very short time, and neither vendor vendors—who feared that sharing the structure of their felt it gave an unfair advantage to the other. databases publicly would be tantamount to giving away Soon after the ICAM Industry Days, NBS called an their competitive advantage. It would have been easy to open meeting at the National Academy of Sciences gloss over the challenge; after all, the major vendors all (October 10, 1979). Around 200 people attended to had at least token representation on the ANSI (American herald the birth of IGES. There was an atmosphere of National Standards Institute) committee responsible for extraordinary excitement, although not everyone was CAD standards. Instead, the ComputerVision represen- readily supportive. In addition, although it was hotly tative responded with a challenge of his own: if Boeing debated, the name was accepted eventually with the and General Electric (and perhaps others) would con- minor change from “Interim” to “Initial.” tribute the CAD translators they had already developed, After two critical reviews, the IGES team released its the vendors would share their database structures. first draft in 1980, containing geometry, graphical data, What led to this offer was just the right mix of and annotations. The IGES specification was brought to business motivation and intrigue. Large Navy contracts the ANSI Y14.26 committee for standardization. The were looming on the horizon, and no vendor wanted to first version of IGES was adopted as an ANSI standard, look unresponsive to customer requirements. Y14.26M-1981 [3]. In the evening after the panel, several interested IGES successfully met a critical need. The IGES parties gathered and asked themselves if a common publication [1] establishes information structures to be translator was really possible. The room had the right used for the digital representation and communication of mix of people and ideas at the right time. This included product definition data. The specification is concerned an Air Force, Navy, and NASA representative, each with the data required to describe and communicate the willing to fund $25,000 for such an effort. A National essential engineering characteristics of physical objects Bureau of Standards representative, after a call to his such as manufactured products. Such products are boss at home for approval, was willing to champion it as described in terms of their physical shape, dimensions, chair and coordinator. The IGES Organization was and information that further describe or explain the formed by NBS in the spring of 1980. With the funda- product. The processes that generate or utilize the mentals to a common translator decided, conversation product definition data typically include design, engi- turned to a name for this new translation project. A neering analysis, production planning, fabrication, minimalist approach was suggested: material handling, assembly, inspection, marketing, and field service. [4] I – Interim, to suggest that it would not replace The Initial Graphics Exchange Specification is the ANSI’s work U.S. national standard for the exchange of data between G – Graphics, not geometry, to acknowledge that dissimilar CAD systems. The IGES standard, now in its academics may come up with superior mathe- sixth revision, has been expanded to include most con- matical descriptions cepts used in major CAD systems. All major and E – Exchange, to suggest that it would not dictate how most minor non-PC-based CAD systems support some vendors must implement their internal databases version of the IGES standard. Some of the over 1000 PC-based CAD systems (including all of the major S – Specification, not to be as imposing as a standard. ones) include some IGES support. The panel reported on the second day, and the wheels This first edition of IGES [1] served as a landmark to were set in motion to create an “IGES.” Once the panel introduce a change in the way manufacturers thought admitted that a common translation mechanism was about capturing and sharing their information about possible, it was impossible to stop the momentum of the product data. As enhancements to the original version customers’ enthusiasm and expectations. Applicon and continued and IGES became an American National ComputerVision agreed to open up their internal data- Standard, the IGES Specification was routinely in the bases, GE offered its internal database structure, and top best sellers from the National Technical Information 247 Service (NTIS). Records show that through 1988 NTIS Memorial Award. The first author, Roger Nagel, was a sold 2055 copies of IGES 3.0, and through 1991 sold NBS staff member at the time and is now the Harvey 1295 copies of IGES 4.0. This U.S. national standard Wagner Professor of Manufacturing Systems Engineer- was also renowned internationally; it was adopted ing in the Electrical Engineering & Computer Science nationally by Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, Department at Lehigh University. He created Lehigh’s to name a few. IGES was the precursor and provided the Robotics Research Institute, established and directed the technical groundwork to the international standardiza- Manufacturing Systems Engineering Program, and tion effort known as STEP—Standard for the Exchange served as Executive Director of Lehigh’s Iacocca of Product model data. The national and international Institute for Competitiveness Research. While an impact on the development and deployment of product employee of NIST, Nagel was a key member of the data standards in manufacturing has provided economic scientific team developing the Factory Hierarchical benefits to many implementing companies using Control System in the Robotics Group. This work on product data standards for exchanging their data. hierarchical control systems, performed with James Examples of improvement brought about by the use Albus, Tony Barbera, and Gordon Vanderbrug, has been of IGES include [5]: the basis of hundreds of computer-based control systems for automation over the last 20 years. Nagel continues to • Electric Boat Corporation, along with the rest of serve as a technical advisor and consultant to NIST’s the SEAWOLF (the US Navy’s newest attack Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory. submarine) Team, pioneered the use