Something that people tend to discuss is the need for an audit trail in model authoring tools to facilitate IPD. But I believe it was Wayne Muir (from SCI) countered that point during the Software Vendor panel discussion. He made the case that only lawyers want and benefit from an audit trail. We all need to understand what has changed in the model, but have no need for who did what. These tools enable collaboration; we don’t need to add features that send us back to the traditional litigious process.
On the Autodesk Waltham project, we don’t have any audit trail. We don’t need one (also we couldn't have one even if we wanted one). Because there is trust between all the team members. KlingStubbins trusts that we won’t modify anything without discussion it with them, and we trust that they will notify us of changes they are making, so we can implement them.
I agree with Wayne – it is not about the technology; it’s about the process. Although, as someone else brought up, is that just giving the vendors an excuse not to resolve dysfunction? (Actually, probably not – I don’t believe that vendors want to create less than functional tools that prevent companies from purchasing them.)