Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD May 2008

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 2

Executive Summary 3D CAD changes the way companies design products, with a substantial positive impact on both product development schedules and budgets. Users of 3D CAD report product profit margins that are 21% higher than users of 2D CAD. In addition, 92% of Best-in-Class companies report that the ROI of 3D CAD meets or exceeds their expectations. However, there are issues that must be considered to realize the maximum benefit of 3D. What steps are needed to see the highest ROI on 3D modeling as quickly as possible, and when do they need to be taken? This report provides a roadmap for those companies seeking to make the transition to 3D CAD, including what Best-in-Class companies have done as well as when they did it.

Research Benchmark Aberdeen’s Research Benchmarks provide an indepth and comprehensive look into process, procedure, methodologies, and technologies with best practice identification and actionable recommendations

Best-in-Class Performance Aberdeen used six key performance criteria to identify Best-in-Class performers. Analysis of these measures of product profitability reveals a large gap between Best-in-Class performers and their peers, most notably, they are: •

22% more likely than the Industry Average and nearly twice as likely as Laggards to meet product launch targets

•

50% more likely than the Industry Average to report that productivity loss during the migration to 3D was either within or less than expectations

•

22% more likely than the Industry Average to report that 3D implementation costs were met or lower than had been anticipated

Competitive Maturity Assessment

"The majority of our suppliers are coming on board with 3D now. We can test assemblies in the model state prior to actual assembly. It is much easier for both of us to use a proven solid model versus relying on an individual’s interpretation of a drawing." ~ Steve McKinley Senior Draftsman, Industrial Equipment Manufacturing Amarillo Gear Company

Survey results show that the firms enjoying Best-in-Class performance shared several common steps to transition to 3D CAD tools, including: •

93% more likely than the Industry Average and twice as likely as Laggards to perform an audit of design processes prior to deploying a 3D CAD solution

•

38% more likely than the Industry Average and 93% more likely than Laggards to measure reductions in product development costs as success criteria for an implementation.

•

69% more likely than the Industry Average and 2.2-times as likely as Laggards to purchase new desktops to support a 3D CAD implementation.

Required Actions In addition to the specific recommendations in Chapter Three of this report, to achieve Best-in-Class performance, companies must: © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 3

•

Develop an ongoing training plan that starts within the first three months of installing 3D CAD

•

Identify and promote best modeling practices with documentation, drawing templates, and start parts

•

Invest in the hardware infrastructure to support 3D CAD

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 4

Table of Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 2 Best-in-Class Performance..................................................................................... 2 Competitive Maturity Assessment....................................................................... 2 Required Actions...................................................................................................... 2 Chapter One: Benchmarking the Best-in-Class ..................................................... 6 Business Context ..................................................................................................... 6 Making the Transition to 3D: Is it Worth It? .................................................... 7 Challenges of Implementing 3D CAD................................................................. 9 The Maturity Class Framework..........................................................................10 The Best-in-Class PACE Model ..........................................................................13 Best-in-Class Strategies.........................................................................................13 Chapter Two: Benchmarking Requirements for Success ..................................17 Competitive Assessment......................................................................................17 Timeline of a Best-in-Class CAD Implementation .........................................22 Chapter Three: Required Actions .........................................................................30 Laggard Steps to Success......................................................................................30 Industry Average Steps to Success ....................................................................30 Best-in-Class Steps to Success ............................................................................31 Appendix A: Research Methodology.....................................................................33 Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research............................................................35

Figure Figure 1: Average Number of Parts per Product .................................................. 8 Figure 2: Average Development Cycle per Product............................................. 8 Figure 3: Average Number of Configurations per Product ................................ 9 Figure 4: 3D CAD Implementation Challenges...................................................... 9 Figure 5: Top Five Challenges Using 3D CAD.....................................................10 Figure 6: Top Performers Earn Best-in-Class Status ..........................................11 Figure 7: Best-in-Class Strategic Actions Improving the Use of 3D CAD ....14 Figure 8: Expectations of 3D CAD Implementation...........................................15

Tables Table 1: Top Five Pressures Driving the Use of 3D CAD .................................. 6 Table 2: Top Five Pressures Driving the Use of 2D CAD .................................. 6 Table 3: Top Five Challenges Preventing the Adoption of 3D CAD................ 7 Table 4: Top Five Challenges of using 2D CAD .................................................... 7 Table 5: Best-in-Class Speed Advantages ..............................................................12 Table 6: Time Saved Based on Product Complexity ..........................................12 Table 7: Prototypes Costs Saved Based on Product Complexity ...................12 Table 8: How Product Complexity Was Defined ...............................................13 © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 5

Table 9: The Best-in-Class PACE Framework .....................................................13 Table 10: Competitive Framework - Implementation........................................18 Table 11: Competitive Framework - Training......................................................19 Table 12: Competitive Framework - Performance Measurement ..................20 Table 13: Hardware Investments to Support 3D CAD .....................................20 Table 14: Competitive Framework - Maintenance and Conversion...............21 Table 15: CAD Modules ............................................................................................22 Table 16: Training, Rollout, and Functionality at Less than Three Months...24 Table 17: Training, Rollout, and Functionality at Three to Six Months .........26 Table 18: Training, Rollout, and Functionality at Six to 12 Months ................27 Table 19: Hardware at Less than Three Months.................................................28 Table 20: Hardware at Three to Six Months .......................................................28 Table 21: Hardware - Desktops at Six Months and Beyond ............................29 Table 22: The PACE Framework Key ....................................................................34 Table 23: The Competitive Framework Key........................................................34 Table 24: The Relationship Between PACE and the Competitive Framework .........................................................................................................................................34

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 6

Chapter One: Benchmarking the Best-in-Class Business Context 3D CAD tools claim to provide a variety of benefits to product development, including improved efficiency, more accurate designs, as well as the opportunity to leverage 3D deliverables in new ways throughout the enterprise. In fact, users of 3D CAD report product profit margins that are 21% higher than users of 2D CAD. But what is really driving companies to make the transition to 3D? Aberdeen research participants indicated that it largely comes down to two factors (Table 1). Table 1: Top Five Pressures Driving the Use of 3D CAD Pressures

All Respondents

Shortened product development schedules Demand for increased quality / reliability Increased product complexity Reduced product development budgets Mandated by partners/customers

53% 45% 29% 12% 12%

Fast Facts √ The Best-in-Class are 22% more likely than the Industry Average and nearly twice as likely as Laggards to meet product launch targets √ The Best-in-Class are 50% more likely than the Industry Average to report that productivity loss during the migration to 3D was either within or less than expectations

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Two pressures stand out as the driving the use of 3D CAD: shortened product development schedules (53%) and the demand for quality products (45%). While these two factors were indicated with relatively equal frequency, there is a substantial drop-off to the third pressure, increased product complexity (29%). The final two pressures rounding out the top five, reduced budgets and customer or partner mandates, were only reported by 12% of respondents each. 2D CAD users report these same two top pressures, but with less differentiation (Table 2). In fact, speed falls behind demand for increased quality and was reported by only 37% of 2D users. This suggests that while the use of CAD overall is driven by the same two factors, quality and speed; that shortening product development schedules are making the difference in the adoption of 3D. But how do you make the transition to 3D in a way that allows you to continue to meet tightening schedules? Table 2: Top Five Pressures Driving the Use of 2D CAD Pressures Demand for increased quality / reliability Shortened product development schedules Accelerating product commoditization Increased competition Increased product complexity

All Respondents 51% 37% 20% 18% 16% Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 7

Making the Transition to 3D: Is it Worth It? The top two reasons 2D users indicated for remaining with 2D boil down to not seeing the value in 3D (Table 3). The top reason is that the current process works, so change is unnecessary (40% of respondents). The second factor, reported nearly on par with the first, is that 3D is overkill for their products (38%). However, Aberdeen's analysis found that while these are common perceptions; they may not be accurate. Table 3: Top Five Challenges Preventing the Adoption of 3D CAD Challenges

2D Users

The current process using 2D works, no need to make a change

40%

3D is overkill for our product line

38%

Software cost

30%

Lack resources to train personnel

28%

Training engineers on 3D

24%

Resolving the Challenges of 2D

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Aberdeen asked users of 2D CAD to indicate the challenges they encountered in the use of 2D (Table 4). The top pressures that 2D users reported are driving their use of CAD are shortened product development schedules and the need to improve product quality. The top three challenges these companies report all contribute to speed and product quality issues. Both drawing and interferences errors that make it to the manufacturing floor affect product quality, and the time required to address them inflates budgets and adds additional delays to schedules. Additionally, resolving drafting errors or sharing design details with other departments in formats that are easy to understand adds to non-value added work that keeps engineers away from design work.

"Find someone that has examples and doesn’t just talk the lingo. We called him or her the 'Champion of 3D.' Migrate to 3D in planned out steps. Decide if you actually need 3D. If you are making flat panes of glass, perhaps you don't need it. A lot of users also do 3D as a hobby and don't see it as 'just work.'" ~ Richard Donato Mechanical Engineer and CAD Manager Atlas MTS

Interestingly, these challenges are all issues that are resolved by the use of 3D. In fact, these challenges fell at the bottom of the list of challenges cited by 3D CAD users. For example, only 12% of 3D users indicated that time spent fixing drafting errors was a challenge involved in their use of CAD, the number one challenge with 2D. Only 7% of 3D users reported that drawing errors was a concern, which can be compared to 23% of 2D users. Table 4: Top Five Challenges of using 2D CAD Challenges

2D Users

Time spent fixing drafting errors

26%

Drawing errors(inconsistent information in drawings views)

23%

Unable to detect interferences

23%

Sharing information with other departments

23%

Time to create new drawings

19% Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 8

Is 3D Overkill? The second most common factor 2D users report preventing them from transitioning to 3D is that 3D tools are unnecessary to design their products. While this clearly makes sense for very simple products, Aberdeen found that the idea that 3D is overkill may be more of a perception than a reality. Aberdeen found no evidence that 2D users are designing less complicated products. Instead, findings indicate that products designed in 2D are often just as complex as those designed in 3D (Figures 13). While products with fewer than 50 parts are slightly more common among users of 2D, their products are just as likely to fall between the 50 and 1,000 range as those of 3D users. When it comes to product development cycles, 67% of 3D users and 77% of 2D users indicate having development cycles that last between one week and one year, and only 14% more 3D users indicate having development cycles that are longer than a year. The difference shrinks further when considering product configurations, with 3D users just as likely as 2D users to indicate fewer than 50 configurations per product on average (72% 3D users compared to 73% 2D users). Figure 1: Average Number of Parts per Product 38% 37%

40%

27% 20%

20% 13%

12%

20%

17%

6% 0%

0% Less than 10 Betw een 10 Betw een 50 and 50 and 1,000

Betw een 1,000 and 10,000

3D Users

Betw een 10,000 and 100,000

4%

6%

Over 100,000

2D Users

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Figure 2: Average Development Cycle per Product 50%

43%

42% 33%

26% 25% 4%

25% 13%

9%

2% 2%

0% Less than a w eek

1%

0%

Betw een 1 Betw een 3 Betw een 1 Betw een 5 More than 20 w eek and 3 months and 1 year and 5 and 20 years years months year years 3D Users

2D Users

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 9

Figure 3: Average Number of Configurations per Product 50%

43% 43% 29% 30% 19%

25%

11%

6%

12% 1% 2%

2% 2%

Betw een 10,000 and 100,000

Over 100,000

0% Less than 10 Betw een 10 Betw een 50 and 50 and 1,000

Betw een 1,000 and 10,000

3D Users

2D Users

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Challenges of Implementing 3D CAD If the perceived challenges that prevent companies from adopting 3D differ from reality, what are the challenges that companies actually face when using 3D? Aberdeen isolated the challenges of implementing and using 3D reported by those companies that first implemented 3D six or more years ago, two to five years ago, and that started implementing less than two years ago (Figures 4 and 5).

Implementation Challenges Cultural resistance to change was reported as the top challenge to the implementation of 3D CAD, although this becomes less of a challenge the longer 3D CAD has been in place. Instead, the top challenge for those who have had it in place for more than 2 years is cost. This is less of a challenge among newer implementations because both the costs of 3D CAD and supporting hardware have been driven down.

"The challenging part is just getting the older paperoriented people to realize that the model is more than just a pretty picture. Management seems to be skeptical of the 3D models until you prove the benefits." ~ Steve McKinley Senior Draftsman, Industrial Equipment Manufacturing Amarillo Gear Company

Figure 4: 3D CAD Implementation Challenges 40%

39% 36%

35%

38% 38% 31%

35% 30%

28% 27%

30% 23% 22% 20%

20%

17%

0% Cultural changes required (resistance to change)

Softw are cost

< 2 years

Training Lack resources engineers on 3D to train personnel

2 to 5 years

Leveraging legacy 2D draw ing data

6 to 10 years

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Training is also a major challenge, but again becomes less of an issue the longer 3D CAD has been in place. Leveraging existing 2D CAD is the © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 10

biggest issue for those companies that have implemented 3D two to five years ago. This makes sense because those that have implemented 3D CAD recently are more focused on training and those that implemented it more than five years ago have already converted what they needed.

Use Challenges The time required to create new models is the top use challenge reported by those new to 3D CAD. This makes sense with time reported as the top pressure by 3D CAD users. However, this becomes less of an issue as users become more experienced with CAD. Only 23% of companies that have used 3D for longer than six years indicate that the time required to create models is the top challenge. Interestingly, only 10% of those companies Aberdeen categorized as Best-in-Class performers (Figure 6) rate this as a top challenge. This suggests that they have effectively promoted the best practices that have made a difference on their use of 3D, and product development overall. Managing complex relationships is also a top challenge, regardless of when 3D was adopted. However, it was most challenging for those that implemented more than six years ago, followed by those that just started less than two years ago. Many CAD vendors have recognized this challenge and have responded by implementing capabilities or workflows that simplify the process of managing CAD relationships. This means that once a company has surmounted the initial leaning curve, today’s 3D CAD systems are a lot easier to use. Figure 5: Top Five Challenges Using 3D CAD 40%

35%

37% 31% 23%

28% 23% 22%

25%

23% 19%

20%

22%23%

22% 21% 17%

0% Time to create new models

< 2 years

Managing complex CAD relationships

Virtual memory limits

2 to 5 years

Ability to w ork Version control w ith 3rd party of files CAD data 6 to 10 years

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

The Maturity Class Framework Between April and May 2008, Aberdeen Group surveyed over 680 manufacturers about their use of 2D and 3D CAD tools. To determine how companies can achieve the most tangible business benefits from their 3D CAD implementations as well as the best steps they can take in the transition from 2D, Aberdeen benchmarked respondents according to six © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 11

key performance criteria. These criteria evaluated their ability to meet crucial product development targets, including the percentage of products meeting the following: •

Product launch dates

•

Product revenue targets

•

Product cost targets

•

Product development budgets

•

Quality targets

•

Lifecycle cost targets

Using these metrics, Aberdeen classified companies into the top 20% (Bestin-Class), the middle 50% (Industry Average) and the bottom 30% (Laggard) of performers. Figure 6 displays the performance gaps that define each category. Figure 6: Top Performers Earn Best-in-Class Status 100%

50%

92%

82%

91%

51%

93%

91% 79% 46%

79%

93% 76%

83%

79%

61%

47%

45%

92%

47%

0% Product revenue

Product Product cost development cost Best-in-Class

Product launch

Industry Average

Product quality

Product lifecycle

Laggard

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

The largest performance gap can be found in the ability to meet product launch dates. The Best-in-Class are 22% more likely than the Industry Average and nearly twice as likely as Laggards to meet product launch targets. This shows that these companies are able to do a better job of addressing the top pressure driving the use of 3D CAD, shortened development schedules. Table 5 further illustrates the difference between the Best-in-Class and their competitors when it comes to bringing products to market faster. In particular, they release products to manufacturing 36% faster than the Industry Average, which makes a difference of over 10 weeks. After a design is released, they report an average of 33% fewer engineering change orders. Additionally, they have reduced the average number of physical prototypes they build by 33% -- 2.2 fewer prototypes than the Industry Average.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 12

Table 5: Best-in-Class Speed Advantages Best-inClass

Industry Average

Laggard

19.8 weeks

29.4 weeks

36.5 weeks

Number of engineering change orders post design release

6.4

9.5

11.3

Number of physical prototypes

5.0

7.2

7.7

Timeframe from design concept to release to manufacturing (in weeks)

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Depending on product complexity, these numbers can make a tremendous impact both to product development schedules and budgets (Tables 6 and 7). Table 6: Time Saved Based on Product Complexity Product Complexity

Time from Concept to Release to Manufacturing

After 36% Improvement

Simple

17.9 weeks

11.5 weeks (6.4 weeks faster)

Moderate

37.5 weeks

24.0 weeks (13.5 weeks faster)

High

47.1 weeks

30.1 weeks (17.0 weeks faster) Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Further, the difference in the number of prototypes the Best-in-Class build has a large impact on their product development budgets (Table 7). Building fewer prototypes results in an average savings of $15,610 over the Industry Average for simple products and $376,273 for complex products. Table 7: Prototypes Costs Saved Based on Product Complexity Product Complexity

Cost per Prototype

Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

5.0 prototypes

7.2 prototypes

7.7 prototypes

Savings over Industry Average

Simple

$6,978

$34,632

$50,242

$53,886

$15,610

Moderate

$63,819

$316,718

$459,478

$492,804

$142,760

Complex

$168,201

$834,778

$1,211,051

$1,298,890

$376,273

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Aberdeen classified products as simple, moderate, or complex according to the definitions shown in Table 8.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 13

Table 8: How Product Complexity Was Defined Product Complexity Simple Moderate High

Number of Parts

Length of Development

Between 50 and 1,000

Between one month and less than one year

Between 1,000 and 10,000

Between one and five years

Between 10,000 and 100,000

Between five and 20 years Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

The Best-in-Class PACE Model Implementing and ramping up on 3D CAD, can be a complex and time consuming process. The Best-in-Class are taking a multi-dimensional approach to the transition to 3D CAD tools. To do so they leverage process, organizational, and knowledge management capabilities that are summarized in Table 9. Table 9: The Best-in-Class PACE Framework Pressures

Actions

ƒ Shortened product ƒ Ensure hardware / development network schedules infrastructure is adequate for 3D ƒ Demand for modeling increased quality / reliability ƒ Establish a formal training program

Capabilities ƒ Formal audit of design processes prior to selecting software ƒ Third-party training is expanded on with online tutorials and internal experts ƒ Dedicated IT help desk established to resolve 3D CAD issues ƒ New designs are developed using 'start' models and standard templates ƒ Measurement of development cost reduction and employee satisfaction as implementation success metrics

Enablers ƒ Project planning tools (57% Best-inClass) ƒ Project collaboration tools (50% Best-in-Class) ƒ Video conferencing / virtual meeting (57% Best-in-Class) ƒ Internal website / message board about CAD implementation (43% Best-inClass) ƒ Community forums (57% Best-in-Class) ƒ New desktops (86% Best-in-Class) ƒ Product Data Management (79% Bestin-Class) ƒ Conceptual model / 2D-3D concept sketches (100% Best-in-Class) ƒ Assembling modeling (93% Best-inClass)

Best-in-Class Strategies

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

3D CAD has evolved over the last five years with improved ease of use as well as reduced cost of ownership. This results in a markedly different implementation experience for those that have implemented in the last five years compared to those that installed 3D CAD 10 years ago. Consequently, the actions of those that made the migration to 3D in the last five years have been isolated and reported in Figure 7. © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 14

Figure 7: Best-in-Class Strategic Actions Improving the Use of 3D CAD Ensure hardware/network infrastructure is adequate for 3D modeling

64%

31%

Develop internal technical expert(s)

50% 48%

Establish design standards for CAD models

50% 45%

Capture knowledge of best design practices

43% 31%

Establish formal training program 0% Best-in-Class

43%

21% 35%

70%

All Others Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

The top strategic action the Best-in-Class take to improve their use of 3D CAD is to ensure that their hardware and network infrastructure is adequate for 3D modeling. This addresses one of the top challenges reported by 3D users, running into virtual memory limits using 3D CAD. Software performance issues create frustration for engineers who are already working to tight deadlines. This frustration makes it even harder to overcome the cultural resistance to change. It also causes otherwise avoidable delays to product development processes, eroding the benefit of 3D tools. Upfront planning for infrastructure investment avoids unexpected cost later on when companies run into hardware limitations. The Best-in-Class focus on investing in infrastructure before they begin to use 3D contributes to their enhanced performance. To this end, the Bestin-Class are 28% more likely that the Industry Average to meet or exceed expectations for the length of time required to implement 3D CAD and are 32% more likely to report that implementation costs are met or lower than had been anticipated (Figure 8). The other top strategies reported by the Best-in-Class are to support employees. They are ensuring their engineers are trained, identifying and promoting best modeling practices, and ensuring engineers have support resources available. In particular, they are twice as likely as their competitors to focus on establishing formal training programs (43% compared to 21%). This is likely why the Best-in-Class find it takes as much or less time to train engineers on 3D CAD as they expected. Additionally, early attention to training results in less productivity loss during the transition. Best-in-Class companies are more likely to find productivity loss is as expected or less than expected. Finally, with trained and productive engineers, the Best-in-Class enjoy a Return on Investment (ROI) that either meets or exceeds expectations. © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

"We initially had a hard time convincing upper management that 3D was the way of the future. The money was a pain to get, but now we have some of the same people going to bat for us when it comes to new design tools. We can now man global changes quickly with our product lines, and we are able to verify so many things about the design up front that we could not do before 3D." ~ Doug Conner Manager, Engineering Systems Kollmorgen, Danaher Motion

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 15

Figure 8: Expectations of 3D CAD Implementation 92% ROI of 3D CAD

85% 78% 78%

Cost of implementing 3D CAD

59% 40%

Productivity loss during transition to 3D CAD

78% 52% 48% 50%

Length of time it took to implement 3D CAD

39% 32%

Time to train employees on 3D CAD

50% 38% 30%

0% Best-in-Class

25%

50%

Industry Average

75%

100%

Laggard

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Aberdeen Insights — Strategy One of the top strategies to improve the use of 3D CAD is to identify an internal technical expert. With this strategy, the majority of the staff can get a basic level of training while the expert can complete more in-depth training and become a resource for the remainder of the staff. This minimizes training costs and productivity losses. In addition, the internal expert can then conduct internal training seminars to share what he or she has learned with the staff, without spending additional money on training courses. There are a couple of options for developing an internal expert. One way is to identify an existing member of the staff who is already familiar with the company products and design processes. This person leverages his or her experience to identify the design knowledge that needs to be captured to promotes modeling best practices, another top strategy of the Best-in-Class. However, this person may require more training investment. Another option is to hire someone from outside the company who already knows 3D CAD. Laggards are 22% more likely than the Best-inClass to hire new staff already trained on 3D. While this person will not require the training investment, they will not have the knowledge of the company’s business processes. continued

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 16

Aberdeen Insights — Strategy In addition 25% of those companies that installed 3D CAD less than two years ago reported one of their top challenges is integrating 3D CAD into their existing business processes. Without experience following these processes, it is harder for the internal expert to overcome this challenge. Best-in-Class are more likely to invest in the staff they have to make the migration to 3D CAD a success. In the next chapter, we will see what the top performers are doing to achieve these gains.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 17

Chapter Two: Benchmarking Requirements for Success Competitive Assessment Aberdeen Group analyzed the aggregated metrics of surveyed companies to determine whether their performance ranked as Best-in-Class, Industry Average, or Laggard. In addition to having common performance levels, each class also shared characteristics in five key categories: (1) process (the approaches they take to implement 3D CAD); (2) organization (corporate focus and preparation to support the organization's ability to embrace the changes required for 3D CAD); (3) knowledge management (capturing and promoting best modeling practices); (4) technology (the effective use of appropriate tools to support implementation and the design process); and (5) performance management (the ability of the organization to measure their progress). These characteristics (identified in Table 10 through Table 15) serve as a guideline for best practices, and correlate directly with Best-in-Class performance across the key metrics. Again, only those companies that have implemented 3D CAD in the last five years will be considered.

Fast Facts

This chapter has two major sections. The first half looks at how Best-inClass 3D CAD implementations are different overall from the Industry Average and Laggards. However, the Industry Average and Laggards do many of the same things that the Best-in-Class do. The difference is when they are done. The second half of the chapter is a "how-to" guide and discusses the timeline of a Best-in-Class implementation.

√ 69% more likely than the Industry Average and 2.2 times as likely as Laggards to purchase new desktops to support a 3D CAD implementation.

Best-in-Class are: √ 93% more likely than the Industry Average and twice as likely as Laggards to perform an audit of design processes prior to deploying a 3D CAD solution √ 38% more likely than the Industry Average and 93% more likely than Laggards to measure reductions in product development costs as success criteria for an implementation

Preparation and Implementation CAD is a critical application for improving the productivity of engineers. Selecting a new tool provides an opportunity to optimize productivity in new ways. The Best-in-Class recognize that there are a variety of CAD solutions available, but begin by examining their design processes internally. To this end, they are 94% more likely than the Industry Average to map out their design process and identify their specific design needs prior to selecting a tool. The needs of engineers are also considered prior to selecting the tool, supporting engineering "buy-in" to the new solution. By better understanding their needs, they are better positioned to overcome cultural resistance to change. The Best-in-Class are also more likely to establish a dedicated help desk during the implementation to ensure that all issues are given the appropriate level of visibility and attention, enabling the implementation itself to run as smoothly as possible. This attention to the needs of the entire organization is supported by the technologies the Best-in-Class leverage at this stage. These companies report a focus on collaboration and project management tools, providing better communication with the implementation team itself as well as a wider range of stakeholders, and allowing employees to feel like © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

"The best advice I can offer is to choose your tool carefully. I have been through two implementations and led one, and the tool selection made a huge difference in the success of the effort. Also, because 3D files are far more interdependent, you need to think through your file management process carefully and seriously consider a PDM or PLM system." ~ Scott E. Davis Director, Global Documentation Systems Symmetricom Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 18

a part of the process with an opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns. Table 10: Competitive Framework - Implementation Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

Map design processes prior to deploying (audit of design processes and how information flows) 64%

Process

33%

32%

Determine design needs prior to selecting software solution 71%

66%

64%

Leverage subscription service for 3D CAD 77%

Organization

54%

46%

Dedicated IT help desk for resolving CAD issues 43%

32%

30%

Technology enablers in use for CAD implementation:

Enabling Technology

57% Project planning tools 50% Project collaboration tools 57% Video conferencing / virtual meeting 43% Internal website / message board about CAD implementation 57% Community forums

43% Project planning tools 37% Project collaboration tools 29% Video conferencing / virtual meeting 31% Internal website / message board about CAD implementation 41% Community forums

30% Project planning tools 25% Project collaboration tools 19% Video conferencing / virtual meeting 22% Internal website / message board about CAD implementation 27% Community forums

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Training and Promoting Best Practices Establishing formal training processes is a highly differentiated strategy for the Best-in-Class. The Best-in-Class reduce the learning curve by sending employees to third-party run training sessions. They are 22% more likely than the Industry Average to do so. They also ensure training continues as engineers begin to use 3D CAD. They are more likely to designate an internal expert to provide ongoing training classes as well as leverage online tutorials. For training, timing is critical. If it is done too early, employees forget what they’ve learned before they get a chance to use it; if it is done too late, employees become frustrated with the tool and bad practices develop that hurt productivity. While Laggards are more likely than the Industry Average to send employees to training and to document best practices, their timing © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

"Our local reseller provides a very strong training and continuing education program, which helped with both continuing skills development and training of new hires. We also set a mandatory requirement for new designs and drawings to be in 3D to help force the transition." ~ Scott E. Davis Director, Global Documentation Systems Symmetricom Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 19

is off which impacts efficacy. Additionally, the Best-in-Class are 28% more likely than the Industry Average to document training materials and best practices. They also make those best practices easier to follow by leveraging drawing templates and “start parts” that contain standard company parameters. Table 11: Competitive Framework - Training Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

Training material /documentation defining best practices

Process

86%

70%

Employees use online tutorials to learn specific functionality 86%

Knowledge Management

67% 79%

68%

New designs developed using 'start' models that contain standard company parameters (coordinate system, layers, views, etc.) 86%

74%

72%

Standard templates for drawings (standard title block, views, etc) defined 100%

93%

83%

Employees attend instructor led training sessions on how to use software 86%

Organization

80%

80%

Internal expert conducts instructor led training sessions on CAD 64%

61%

52%

Attend instructor led training sessions on CAD (instructor is a third party) 79%

64%

"We initially upgraded memory to 1GB and new video cards with full OpenGL support. As software demand increased, we eventually upgraded all workstations to 3GB of RAM, with high-end OpenGL video cards. Since upgrading, we installed a dedicated server for a parts library, increased spec’s for MCAD workstations to the max supported by the OS, and upgraded the CAD software four times to the latest releases." ~ Peter S. Dettmer Technology Manager Big Sky Engineering, Inc.

71%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Measuring Success Metrics Establishing success metrics for the implementation is important to ensuring its success as well as setting future expectations. The Best-in-Class are more likely to measure both reduction in development costs and employee satisfaction with 3D CAD. By contrast, both the Industry Average and Laggards are more than twice as likely as the Best-in-Class to indicate that they do not measure any metrics at all. Specifically, Best-in-Class performers are 38% more likely than the Industry Average to measure reductions in product development costs as success criteria for an implementation. This contributes to the satisfaction the Bestin-Class report on the ROI of 3D CAD implementation. Their additional attention to user satisfaction continues with their focus on training and © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 20

overall employee involvement. This metric combats the top challenge reported during 3D CAD implementations: cultural resistance to change. Table 12: Competitive Framework - Performance Measurement Best-in-Class Performance Measurement

Industry Average

Laggard

Reduction in development costs 62%

45%

32%

Employee satisfaction with the CAD system 62%

60%

44%

33%

36%

No metrics used 15%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Hardware 3D CAD tools often require network upgrades. The files themselves can be huge and running the applications can consume a great deal of memory. The Best-in-Class are more likely than their competitors to invest in 3GB to 6GB RAM, high end graphics cards, and multicore servers. Most differentiated, however, is the investment in new machines. The Best-inClass are 69% more likely than the Industry Average and 2.2-times as likely as Laggards to purchase new desktops to support a 3D CAD implementation. As with CAD training, the impact that hardware investment makes is highly dependant on timing. We will see that it's not the technology that the Bestin-Class purchase that makes the difference, but when they deploy it. Table 13: Hardware Investments to Support 3D CAD Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

New desktops

86%

51%

40%

3GB to 6GB RAM for desktops

57%

52%

45%

High-end graphics card (>512MB of video RAM) for desktops

79%

74%

73%

New peripherals (spaceballs, 3D motion peripherals) for desktops

50%

50%

36%

Multi-core server

64%

60%

48%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

System Maintenance and 2D Data Conversion After an implementation, there are persisting issues to be managed: who maintains the 3D system and how to continue to leverage 2D data files. © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 21

These are two areas where the Best-in-Class have yet to adopt clearly defined strategies. Seventy percent (70%) of 2D users have identified engineering as the department responsible for the maintenance of their 2D CAD system. However, among 3D users there is no clear designation of maintenance responsibility between engineering and IT. The Best-in-Class, in particular, have not clearly defined a department, with respondents split relatively evenly between IT (50%) and engineering (57%). IT likely assumes some responsibilities, such as installations and resolving network issues; but engineering retains responsibility for more technical tasks such as maintaining start parts and drawing templates. The important point here is that when going from 2D to 3D, maintenance must be evaluated and the department that is most suited for certain activities should be responsible for them.

"The approach to legacy has been ‘if it's not broke don't fix it.’ We are not updating existing designs unless we have revisited these jobs for changes or updates, or if the design may benefit from being updated to 3D." ~ Lee Jay Scriber Engineering and Technology Roll Forming Corporation

The Best-in-Class do not have a clearly differentiated strategy for migrating 2D data to 3D either. Converting all 2D at once is the least adopted strategy for all companies, especially for the Best-in-Class. Best-in-Class companies are most likely to base conversions on product lines or even on an "as needed" basis. However, the Industry Average and Laggard organizations are even more likely to adopt one of these strategies than the Best-in-Class. Table 14: Competitive Framework - Maintenance and Conversion Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

IT is responsible for CAD maintenance

Organization

50%

42%

40%

Engineering is responsible for CAD maintenance 57%

62%

64%

Convert all 2D data at once internally 0%

Process

12%

22%

Convert 2D legacy data based on project / product line 21%

55%

56%

Convert 2D data on an as needed basis 50%

68%

72%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Adding Modules Once the initial implementation has taken place, companies often look to add new functionality to support their design processes. However, as with hardware, the successful addition of new CAD functionality depends on timing. If too much is added at once, engineers can be overwhelmed and refuse to use the tools. Instead, starting with basic functionality and © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

"Without a vault to save all versions of your CAD files, to pass assemblies, parts and drawings to other users, etc., 3D CAD is a giant mess. A PLM system takes care of all of the headaches of 3D CAD. It is especially important if there are many users. It keeps track of the latest files and who has what checked out. In our case the PLM system is also used for engineering change processing. This way a user can follow changes from iteration to iteration and review what was done. It also automatically keeps the latest and released files available. We also know what the latest revision is. There is never any confusion as to what is the latest revision. " ~ Larry Ensler Mechanical Engineering Manager Optovue Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 22

gradually scaling it based on company needs optimizes the use of new functionality and productivity. This approach helps minimize the upfront investment as well. Regardless of timing some functionality is more likely to be leveraged by the Best-in-Class. Managing version control is a top challenge reported by 3D users, and the Best-in-Class are 74% more likely than the Industry Average to respond by implementing a Product Data Management (PDM) solution. The Best-in-Class are also more likely to deploy translation tools to help them work with third-party CAD data or leverage existing 2D legacy data. Finally, there is a growing trend around leveraging CAD data for publications and other technical documentation. The Best-in-Class are 60% more likely than the Industry Average to support this functionality. Table 15: CAD Modules Best-in- Industry Laggard Class Average Automatic technical publications / documentation

43%

27%

22%

Product Data Management (PDM)

79%

45%

48%

Conceptual model (2D / 3D concept sketches)

100%

71%

71%

Design translation tools for converting formats

64%

60%

54%

Assembly modeling

93%

86%

87%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Timeline of a Best-in-Class CAD Implementation A clear theme emerging from the capabilities and enablers the Best-in-Class have adopted is that "it's not about what you do, but when." In order to build a timeline for how to approach a 3D CAD implementation, Aberdeen asked respondents to describe their implementations at the less than three months, three to six months, and the six to 12 month marks. This included questions regarding their training programs, roll out schedules, deployment of functionality, and hardware investments. Aberdeen identified the optimal time to implement a capability when 50% or more of the Best-in-Class had implemented it. Case Study — Taking the Long View: Xandex Xandex designs, manufactures, markets, and services products and equipment for use in the testing of semiconductor devices. Their customers include manufacturers in the computer equipment, consumer electronics, automobile, and telecommunications equipment sectors. Xandex’s products and services enable semiconductor manufacturers to test the integrity of semiconductor devices while in batch wafer form or as packaged chips. continued

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 23

Case Study — Taking the Long View: Xandex Xandex took a pragmatic and programmatic approach the migration from 2D to 3D design tools. An approach epitomized by Mark Walkers, Xandex’s CAD and PDM Systems Administrator, who stresses, “There is and will always be a need like this. You just have to plan and prepare for it.”

Implementation Xandex approached their 3D implementation by beginning with a small project base and a core group of users interested in 3D. These individuals became able to mentor other users as 3D tools are were rolled out across the enterprise. This is the same approach Xandex takes to software upgrades, working out the kinks with a small group that validate and review for functionality issues before expanding the upgrade to a wider population. In particular, Xandex finds that this approach allows them to confront deeper issues that only emerge after continued use. When it comes to hardware, Xandex conducts reviews of application performance three, six, and 12 months out from an implementation to see if hardware upgrades are required on individual workstations. Upgrades are approved for users who are pushing their workstations to their limits. Software upgrades and expanded capabilities are also approached programmatically. Xandex keeps up-to-date on available capabilities and the needs of the engineering department. When functionality needs to be added, a review is conducted of the options that are available with the relevant members of the design team, in order to identify which best meets the needs of the organization.

Training Xandex supplements their training program with Computer Based Tutorials to fill in the gaps between training and actual usage, allowing users to review and re-review topics in order to jog memories. “There are those that were and are against 3D CAD,” observes Xandex’s CAD and PDM Systems Administrator, Mark Walters, “They insist on using 2D until their death. Some of these come around when they have a problem that might have only been identified by a full 3D model.” For those who don’t come around, Xandex attempts to find an area where these designers’ capabilities can be best used by the company. Designers who prefer to use 2D CAD tools are not forced to transition to 3D tools. Instead, they are provided with opportunity to play a role in preliminary stages of design where 3D tools may not yet be necessary. Alternatively, some 2D users may be put to work on production lines for manufacturing engineering where 2D may still work well. © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 24

3D CAD Training, Roll Out, and Functionality Less than Three Months The first step the Best-in-Class take is to send their employees to training. They are 76% more likely than the Industry Average to have sent employees to training within three months of implementing 3D CAD. They also ensure standard drawings templates are set up at this time. This is the easiest point to begin standardization and also one of the most visible since the drawing is still the primary engineering deliverable. Defining standard templates ensures design consistency and saves time by avoiding the need for engineers to duplicate efforts when creating drawings. The Best-in-Class companies set an aggressive schedule for the roll out of 3D CAD. This allows them to begin to realize a ROI as soon as possible. However, they also recognize that it is safest to roll out in manageable phases and so start with a limited pilot program. These companies are 85% more likely than the Industry Average to start 3D CAD with a brand new product line. This avoids the need to deal with legacy data during the initial roll out, allowing them to wait until engineers have become comfortable with 3D before having to worry about leveraging 2D data. At this stage, they also begin to use 3D CAD on no more than a portion of an existing product line.

"We started off with basic training, but after some experience, we created a syllabus and negotiated on-site classes. We spread a three day class over three months and we were assigned homework. This was to get the most out of the class. We also put one of the older computers in a separate office with a tutorial program for those that can come before work or stay after work." ~ Richard Donato Mechanical Engineer and CAD Manager Atlas MTS

The Best-in-Class keep functionality simple during the first three months. This includes: concept models, assembly modeling, and the creation of drawings from 3D models. They also begin to leverage libraries of parts which allow them to save modeling time early on. Table 16: Training, Rollout, and Functionality at Less than Three Months At Less than Three Months Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

Employees attend instructor led training sessions on how to use software

Training

64%

37%

24%

Standard templates for drawings (standard title block, views, etc) defined 50%

33%

17%

Run a limited small pilot program prior to widespread company deployment 50%

Roll Out

33%

28%

Started using 3D CAD for a brand new product line 57%

31%

36%

Started using 3D CAD for part of an existing product line 50% © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

29%

24% Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 25

At Less than Three Months Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

26%

17%

Assembly modeling 64%

Production drawings based on 3D models 57% 34% CAD Functionality Conceptual model (2D/3D concept sketches) 50%

29%

31%

17%

19%

13%

Libraries of existing parts 57%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Three to Six Months At three to six months, the Best-in-Class expand their training programs by leveraging online tutorials and expanding the roll out of 3D CAD to entire product lines until all lines are on 3D CAD. Laggards are a little more likely than the Industry Average to roll out 3D CAD to brand new product lines; but since they are behind on the training aspects, this hurts their success with the roll out. They also begin promoting best practices by creating start parts with standard parameters. They are 83% more likely than the Industry Average to begin to do so at the three to six month mark. Start parts and standard parameters improve productivity by saving engineers from wasting time creating basic parameters for each model. At this point, the Best-in-Class also begin to document best practices and training resources. Interestingly, Laggards are slightly more likely than the Industry Average to document best practices at this point, but without the earlier investment in training, they do not have a full understanding of what those best practices should be. Finally, the Best-in-Class begin looking at ways to save time and improve productivity through extended applications. At three to six months, they start to leverage design translation tools that make it easier to work with third-party CAD data, be it in 2D or 3D formats. They also start to leverage productivity tools such as tables to help manage different configurations of standard parts, such as bolts, to avoid recreating individual parts for every configuration option. Additionally, as the number of parts designed in 3D grows, they start looking at ways to classify the data to promote better management.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

"We trained one or two employees at first. We attended some on-line seminars, and added more advanced training classes. Once we felt we had these employees comfortable with the software we rescheduled the initial training class for other designers and used the more advanced software users to assist in training. The time span allowed users to become aware of the software's capabilities and ask intelligent questions during the advanced level training, while also learning new practices." ~ Lee Jay Scriber Engineering and Technology Roll Forming Corporation

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 26

Table 17: Training, Rollout, and Functionality at Three to Six Months At Three to Six Months Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

Employees use online tutorials to learn specific functionality 50%

Training

50%

36%

New designs developed using 'start' models that contain standard company parameters (coordinate system, layers, views, etc.) 57%

31%

32%

Training material / documentation defining best practices 57%

29%

35%

Start using 3D CAD for an entire existing product line 64%

Roll Out

21%

24%

Start using 3D CAD for multiple product lines 50%

31%

32%

Start using 3D CAD for all product lines 62%

17%

28%

Design translation tools for converting formats 64%

CAD Functionality

31%

33%

Tables to manage similar standard parts such as bolts (i.e. configurations, family tables) 50%

21%

17%

29%

17%

23%

21%

Sheet metal design 57% Classification system for parts 50%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Six to Twelve Months With formal training over at six months, the Best-in-Class establish an internal expert as a continuing, internal resource for the engineering staff. Interestingly, this is also the time when more than 50% of the Industry Average establish an internal expert. To further support the transition, the Best-in-Class leverage tools that allow them to access a 2D design environment within 3D. This not only helps engineers ease into 3D, but also allows them to leverage existing 2D legacy data. As their modeling ability develops, the Best-in-Class implement advanced surfacing tools. They are 2.1 times as likely as the Industry Average to use advanced surfacing this early in their implementations. The Best-in-Class are also 91% more likely than the Industry Average to begin to leverage PDM at © 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 27

the six to twelve month mark. PDM provides easier and controlled access and organization to design data. There is a variety of other CAD functionality that the Best-in-Class continue to add. However, these applications are often specialized for specific industries, so while they begin to see increasing adoption, they do not see adoption by more than 50% of the Best-in-Class across all industries. Table 18: Training, Rollout, and Functionality at Six to 12 Months At Six to 12 Months Best-in-Class

Industry Average

Laggard

Development of one internal technical product champion (goto person for other employees)

Training

50%

60%

48%

Access a 2D design environment inside 3D CAD to help transition engineers to 3D modeling 57%

43%

50%

24%

21%

Product Data Management (PDM) CAD Functionality 50% 26%

28%

Advanced surfacing 50%

Design collaboration (desktop sharing sessions) 50%

15%

26%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Hardware Less than Three Months Hardware investments across the maturity framework are relatively similar in the first three months of implementation. However, due to the more intensive memory usage required by 3D CAD to interact and spin designs, the Best-in-Class ensure that their desktops have at least mid-range graphics cards within the first three months. They also ensure that their servers possess more than 20 GB of disk space and are operating on high speed LAN networks. The Best-in-Class also invest in security measures to restrict access to CAD data and protect designs at this point, as do the Industry Average.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 28

Table 19: Hardware at Less than Three Months

Desktops Mid-range graphics card (256MB512MB of video RAM) Servers Security to restrict access to data / applications More than 20 GB disk space Network LAN high-speed network

Best-inClass

Industry Average

Laggard

57%

38%

41%

57%

58%

38%

50%

45%

25%

71%

69%

58%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Three to Six Months

At three to six months, the Best-in-Class expand on initial capabilities. They begin to implement Wide Area Networks (WAN) and begin to upgrade their desktops, ensuring that they possess at least 2GB of RAM. This is also the point where they begin to deploy new peripherals such as spaceballs and 3D motion peripherals to make it easier to interact with 3D models. They are 2.9-times more likely than the Industry Average to take this step at three to six months.

"We did a study of what would be the best hardware / operating system configuration that would achieve the performance we wanted. My seat includes a support contract for technical support with annual update. As a result the hardware is also updated on a regular basis every three years to maintain best performance matching the software development. In each case the choice of hardware produced a gain in performance matching the development of the CAD software." ~ Larry Jones Engineer Vantage Technology

Table 20: Hardware at Three to Six Months

Desktops 2 GB RAM New peripherals (spaceballs, 3D motion peripherals) Servers Multicore server Network WAN high-speed network

Six Months and Beyond

Best-inClass

Industry Average

Laggard

57%

54%

45%

50%

18%

9%

50%

38%

22%

50%

38%

27%

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

As the use of 3D continues, the amount of design data expands, and designs become more complex, companies begin to focus on making upgrades to the desktops used by their engineers. At this point, over 50% of the Best-inClass have upgraded to high end graphics cards. At one to two years, they seek to improve system performance and are 51% more likely than the Industry Average to use a multicore PC. At two to five years, companies within all three categories begin to seek better performance by deploying 64-bit PCs.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 29

Table 21: Hardware - Desktops at Six Months and Beyond Best-inClass

Industry Average

Laggard

57%

54%

45%

Multicore PC

64%

43%

48%

Two to five years 64-bit PC

50%

45%

52%

Six to twelve months High-end graphics card (>512MB of video RAM) One to two years

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Aberdeen Insights — Technology 3D CAD has evolved significantly over the years. It began as a high performance productivity tool that only functioned on high end UNIX workstations. Today's tools run on a variety of operating systems and stress ease of use, often at a lower price point. With the focus on ease of use, two distinct approaches to modeling have emerged: parametric, feature-based modeling, and freeform modeling. Each has its benefits and disadvantages. The Best-in-Class practices of auditing the design process and understanding employee needs help companies make sure they select the tool that will work best for their organization and overcome the top challenge: cultural resistance to change. Parametric, feature-based modeling maintains relationships between features and parts. This means that when a change is made to a feature or part, the associated parts and features will update automatically. For example, if a mounting hole needs to be 1/2 inch from the edge of a plate, when the overall dimensions of the plate change, the hole will still "know" where it needs to be and automatically move to the correct location, along with the bolt that would be inserted in the hole and the subassembly it mounted to. The challenge is that early in the design, an engineer may not know what the relationships should be. Then when a major change comes along, the initial relationships are no longer valid and extra time must be spent fixing those relationships.

"As engineers began to see the output, we went from one seat to nine in about eight years. The seats we have currently are on a server and are used by about 25 engineers. We would like to expand the work. However, in our situation, design is spreading out to nonengineers who quickly pick up the basics and run on their own." ~ Michael G. Dodson Senior Development Engineer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

The alternative approach is freeform modeling. This approach is more like modeling with clay. It is very easy to push, pull, and twist the geometry to create the desired shapes. The model has few constraints; so, quickly manipulating the geometry is easy. However, because parameters do not drive the geometry, it is harder to embed intelligence in the model. For example, standard parts such as bolts and bearings can not be created automatically based on varied parameters.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 30

Chapter Three: Required Actions Whether a company is trying to move its performance in its use of 3D CAD from Laggard to Industry Average, or Industry Average to Best-in-Class, the following actions will help spur the necessary performance improvements:

Laggard Steps to Success •

Prepare employees for the transition from 2D to 3D CAD with training as early as possible. Employees will be much happier with the new tools if they feel comfortable using them. While 80% of Laggard companies do eventually send their employees to training, it is done too late to be truly effective. Bestin-Class companies are 2.7 times more likely to send their employees to training within the first 3 months of installing 3D CAD.

•

Support 3D CAD with the right hardware. Best-in-Class companies are 2.2 times more likely than Laggards to purchase new desktops for their employees. While 3D CAD offers many benefits such as being able to detect interferences and easily visualize the entire model, the additional information is more intensive to process. Hardware upgrades deliver noticeable improvements in performance. By using adequate hardware employees are far less likely to become frustrated by performance issues.

•

Use employee satisfaction as success criteria. Best-in-Class companies are 41% more likely than Laggards to use employee satisfaction as a criterion for success. To make sure they are satisfied, Best-in-Class companies are twice as likely to map the design process prior to deploying which helps employees feel a part of the process.

Industry Average Steps to Success •

Enable better software performance with hardware infrastructure investments. Best-in-Class companies are 69% more likely than the Industry Average to purchase new desktops to support 3D CAD. The benefits of visualizing an entire assembly in 3D, spinning it around, and detecting interferences require additional processing and better graphics cards. The right hardware will vary depending on model complexity. However, the more processing capability the computer has, the less likely employees are to experience frustrating performance issues. Best-in-Class companies are most likely to have 3-6 GB RAM, high end graphics cards, and new peripherals.

•

Empower employees with training classes. While 80% of the Industry Average do make sure their employees are trained, the

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Fast Facts √ Develop an ongoing training plan that starts within the first 3 months of installing 3D CAD √ Identify and promote best modeling practices with documentation, drawing templates, and start parts √ Invest in the hardware infrastructure to support 3D CAD

"To take full advantage of the software’s capabilities, you will need a dedicated, high-end MCAD workstation so the software and system will run efficiently. Require “test drives” and demonstrations on your product design or assembly with the software package and ask to talk to existing users about their experience and level of support by the vendor." ~ Peter S. Dettmer; Technology Manager; Big Sky Engineering, Inc. Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 31

Best-in-Class are 76% more likely to send employees to training within the first 3 months. Best-in-Class companies are able to roll out 3D far more quickly than the Industry Average because their employees have already been trained and are comfortable with the new tools. This allows the Best-in-Class to realize a return on their investment much faster. •

Promote best practices with documentation, start parts, and templates. Within the first 6 months of installing 3D CAD, identify best modeling practices and document them so that all engineers are aware of them and can benefit. The Best-in-Class are twice as likely as the Industry Average to do this. Create models that have basic company parameters in them. This promotes consistency in the models and saves engineers time because they will not need to recreate the same information for each model.

Best-in-Class Steps to Success •

Develop an internal 3D CAD expert within the first year. By developing an internal expert, other engineers have a resource to help them if they are stuck. Knowing they have a resource contributes to employee satisfaction. This person is also positioned to stay on top of new software releases, determine which new enhancements will be most helpful for the company, and teach the rest of the staff. An internal expert also cuts down on training expenses. Fifty percent (50%) of the Best-in-Class already do this, but more should take advantage.

•

Provide central access to data with Product Data Management (PDM). As more CAD data is created, it becomes more difficult to manage. Centralized data is easier for everyone to access. In addition, version control makes sure that no one accidentally overwrites someone else's work. While PDM is implemented within the first year by 50% of the Best-in-Class, more should take advantage of it.

•

Consider high-end graphics cards within the first 3 months. Part of the benefit of working with 3D data is that it is so easy to visualize the design and spin it to evaluate it. This requires a graphics card with a lot of video RAM. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the Bestin-Class use a mid-range graphics card within the first three months. However, within the first year, 50% upgrade to a high end card. It would be better to invest in the high end card up front.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 32

Aberdeen Insights — Summary The benefit of migrating from 2D to 3D CAD comes with several challenges. By anticipating these challenges and planning for them, they can be overcome or minimized. Best-in-Class companies, those who are most successful with 3D CAD: •

Develop an ongoing training plan

•

Identify and promote best modeling practices

•

Invest in the hardware infrastructure to support 3D CAD

•

Measure the success of 3D CAD and include employee satisfaction and reduction in development costs as part of the success criteria

•

Roll out 3D CAD in stages

Equally important to what Best-in-Class companies do, is the timing of when it is done. With proper timing, the 3D CAD installation can be optimized and the return on investment can be realized as quickly as possible.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 33

Appendix A: Research Methodology Between April and May 2008, Aberdeen examined the use, the experiences, and the intentions of more than 600 enterprises using 2D or 3D CAD in a diverse set of industries. An online survey looked at what was driving companies to use CAD, the challenges they face, the capabilities they possess, and the technology they use.

Study Focus

Aberdeen supplemented this online survey effort with telephone interviews with select survey respondents, gathering additional information on 2D to 3D migration strategies, experiences, and results.

√ What is driving companies to use of 2D or 3D CAD

Responding enterprises included the following:

Respondents completed an online survey that included questions designed to determine the following:

√ The challenges they face with 2D or 3D CAD

•

Job title / function: The research sample included respondents with the following job titles: senior management or VP (15%), director or manager (17%), engineer (56%), and other (12%).

√ The actions companies are taking to improve their use of 3D CAD

•

Industry: The research sample included respondents from the following industries: aerospace and defense (8%), automotive (11%), general manufacturing (11%), industrial equipment manufacturing (16%), medical devices (7%) consumer goods (8%), and high tech and engineering (15%), Construction/architecture (4%), telecommunications (2%), and other (18%).

√ The capabilities and technology enablers they have in place to support their use of 3D CAD

•

Geography: The majority of respondents (81%) were from North America. Remaining respondents were from Europe (10%), AsiaPacific (7%), Middle East / Africa (1%), and South / Central America and the Caribbean (1%).

•

Company size: Nineteen percent (19%) of respondents were from large enterprises (annual revenues above US $1 billion); 32% were from midsize enterprises (annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion); and 49% of respondents were from small businesses (annual revenues of $50 million or less).

•

Headcount: Twenty-five percent (25%) of respondents were from large enterprises (headcount greater than 1,000 employees); 36% were from midsize enterprises (headcount between 100 and 999 employees); and 39% of respondents were from small businesses (headcount between 1 and 99 employees).

The study aimed to identify emerging best practices for migrating from 2D to 3D CAD and to provide a framework by which readers could assess their own capabilities and plan their own migration from 2D to 3D CAD.

Solution providers recognized as sponsors were solicited after the fact and had no substantive influence on the direction of this report. Their sponsorship has made it possible for Aberdeen Group to make these findings available to readers at no charge.

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 34

Table 22: The PACE Framework Key Overview Aberdeen applies a methodology to benchmark research that evaluates the business pressures, actions, capabilities, and enablers (PACE) that indicate corporate behavior in specific business processes. These terms are defined as follows: Pressures — external forces that impact an organization’s market position, competitiveness, or business operations (e.g., economic, political and regulatory, technology, changing customer preferences, competitive) Actions — the strategic approaches that an organization takes in response to industry pressures (e.g., align the corporate business model to leverage industry opportunities, such as product / service strategy, target markets, financial strategy, go-to-market, and sales strategy) Capabilities — the business process competencies required to execute corporate strategy (e.g., skilled people, brand, market positioning, viable products / services, ecosystem partners, financing) Enablers — the key functionality of technology solutions required to support the organization’s enabling business practices (e.g., development platform, applications, network connectivity, user interface, training and support, partner interfaces, data cleansing, and management) Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Table 23: The Competitive Framework Key Overview The Aberdeen Competitive Framework defines enterprises as falling into one of the following three levels of practices and performance: Best-in-Class (20%) — Practices that are the best currently being employed and are significantly superior to the Industry Average, and result in the top industry performance. Industry Average (50%) — Practices that represent the average or norm, and result in average industry performance. Laggards (30%) — Practices that are significantly behind the average of the industry, and result in below average performance.

In the following categories: Process — What is the scope of process standardization? What is the efficiency and effectiveness of this process? Organization — How is your company currently organized to manage and optimize this particular process? Knowledge — What visibility do you have into key data and intelligence required to manage this process? Technology — What level of automation have you used to support this process? How is this automation integrated and aligned? Performance — What do you measure? How frequently? What’s your actual performance? Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

Table 24: The Relationship Between PACE and the Competitive Framework PACE and the Competitive Framework – How They Interact Aberdeen research indicates that companies that identify the most influential pressures and take the most transformational and effective actions are most likely to achieve superior performance. The level of competitive performance that a company achieves is strongly determined by the PACE choices that they make and how well they execute those decisions. Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2008

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897

Best Practices for Migrating from 2D to 3D CAD Page 35

Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research Related Aberdeen research that forms a companion or reference to this report include: •

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report; September 2006

•

The Multi-CAD Design Chain Benchmark Report; December 2006

•

The Design Reuse Benchmark Report; February 2007

•

Beyond Engineering, New Applications of 3D Drive Top Line Growth; August 2007

Information on these and any other Aberdeen publications can be found at www.Aberdeen.com.

Author: Michelle Boucher, Research Analyst, Product Innovation & Engineering, [email protected] David Houlihan, Research Associate, Product Innovation & Engineering, [email protected] Since 1988, Aberdeen's research has been helping corporations worldwide become Best-in-Class. Having benchmarked the performance of more than 644,000 companies, Aberdeen is uniquely positioned to provide organizations with the facts that matter — the facts that enable companies to get ahead and drive results. That's why our research is relied on by more than 2.2 million readers in over 40 countries, 90% of the Fortune 1,000, and 93% of the Technology 500. As a Harte-Hanks Company, Aberdeen plays a key role of putting content in context for the global direct and targeted marketing company. Aberdeen's analytical and independent view of the "customer optimization" process of HarteHanks (Information – Opportunity – Insight – Engagement – Interaction) extends the client value and accentuates the strategic role Harte-Hanks brings to the market. For additional information, visit Aberdeen http://www.aberdeen.com or call (617) 723-7890, or to learn more about Harte-Hanks, call (800) 456-9748 or go to http://www.harte-hanks.com This document is the result of primary research performed by Aberdeen Group. Aberdeen Group's methodologies provide for objective fact-based research and represent the best analysis available at the time of publication. Unless otherwise noted, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by Aberdeen Group, Inc. and may not be reproduced, distributed, archived, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent by Aberdeen Group, Inc. 043008a

© 2008 Aberdeen Group. www.aberdeen.com

Telephone: 617 854 5200 Fax: 617 723 7897