I’ll get straight to the point. I don’t think there’s ever been a wider gulf between where real simulation engineers are in terms of what they do day to day and how they do it, and the messaging from at least some of the simulation software OEMs. It’s a fight we’ve all got a dog at least snarling from the sidelines in… Just possibly, there are good people on all sides. But one aspect that does nobody any good is the perception of what you could call “simulation TRLs” (Technology Readiness Levels) on non-simulation engineers and beyond.

Pretty early on in the story that was SSA, a company I co-founded, Richard, my erstwhile business partner, and I realised that what we were selling were arguably the world’s best contact algorithms and two material models. In hindsight, you could probably add pre-tensioned bolt sections to that very short list. Beyond that, the pickings were decidedly slim. There were technologies that could be used to fill a room — and here I’m thinking specifically about AM build simulation and XFEM — and those that could be used to fill a sales forecast, however realistic.

(I know marketing types don’t like this, but there’s no challenge to filling a room. I can think of several — very effective — ways to pack a room with engineers. It’s just that they might not buy my simulation code when they get back to the office.)

The fact that interest, commercials, and ultimately adoption are markedly different is probably one of the biggest lessons of my career. And before anyone says “This is Benchmark, it’s not about commercials,” they need to realise that without commercials, what we do is just a hobby. (Thought for another time: why do so many engineers have engineering hobbies?)

This article appeared in the October 2025 Issue of BENCHMARK.