• This infographic shares the importance of developing a cohesive digital thread when developing formulated products in the consumer packaged goods industry. The digital thread should be driven by customer requirements and incorporate the recipe / formulation, specifications, packaging design, compliance information, claims, cautions, ingredients, labeling, artwork, and more to provide a full view of the product and it's design history. An effective CPG Digital Thread relies on an integrated Product Innovation Platform to connect product data from early in the front end of innovation through development, … [ read more ]

    The CPG Digital Thread (infographic)
  • Join Tech-Clarity's Jim Brown on this webinar sharing  recent survey results from almost 200 Consumer Packaged Goods companies, delving into their quality issue and how top performing CPG companies achieve better quality without suffering from excess internal cost. Learn the process, organizational, and technology approaches that Top Performers leverage to overcome their challenges and drive cost-effective quality. This Business Review Webinars event is brought to you by Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA. Register for the June 20th webcast now (free of charge, registration required). All registrants will … [ read more ]

    Cost Effective Quality in CPG (webcast, survey results)
  • On Thursday June 8, 2017  please join Michelle Boucher as she conducts a live interview with Mark Turner, Technical Manager for Development IT at Alcon, a Novartis Division. They will focus on key topics for medical device companies, including the Case for Quality. During the discussion, Michelle will share research on medical device industry trends. She will also discuss the implications for the Case for Quality and offered advice to efficiently manage regulatory compliance. Throughout the discussion, she will have an interactive conversation with Mark Turner. Mark will reveal how Alcon addresses their … [ read more ]

    Live Interview – Medical Devices: Making the Right Choice — Your Case for Quality
  • This eBook shares survey results analyzing companies' ability to hit new product development (NPD) targets, then offers seven practical tips identified by the research as best practice processes, organization, and technology leveraged by the top performing product developers. The research provides recommendations to companies based on the approaches taken by the Top Performers, those that are able to outperform their competitors in revenue growth, margin expansion, and delivering innovative products to market. Please enjoy the summary below. For the full report, please visit our sponsor Autodesk (free … [ read more ]

    7 Ways to Outperform Your Competitors in NPD (eBook, survey results)
  • Medical Device companies have the opportunity to leverage digitalization and the digital enterprise to develop innovative products and bring them to market quickly. Watch this edition of Tech-Clarity TV to learn about the digitalization opportunity and stay tuned for the rest of the series detailing specific business improvement opportunities including: Digital design Digital design transfer Paperless manufacturing The video shares how medical device manufacturers are embracing digitalization and gaining significant benefits including faster time to market, increased quality, and improved … [ read more ]

    The Digitalization Opportunity for Medical Device Companies (video)

Consolidating CAD – Strategic Advantages at Reduced Cost

Share

A quick peek into some research on … the benefits and savings available from consolidating onto a common CAD package in your business. Tech-Clarity Insight: Consolidating CAD – Benefits of a Unified CAD Strategy explores the strategic and operational benefits of leveraging a single package. As the research concludes, “… not all businesses have the opportunity to unify their CAD solutions … but there are multiple advantages for those that can.”

The Research Findings

The paper addresses benefits including enabling strategic initiatives and simple cost reduction. Strategically, a single tool can help support business strategies like a “design anywhere – build anywhere” approach. The report also explain how utilizing a single tool can help promote design reuse and simplify collaboration. Of course the biggest benefit may come from the ability to enable a more strategic, integrated PLM environment. These solutions typically involve a suite of pre-integrated solutions that are tailor-made for each other.

The report also details the very tangible reductions in total cost of ownership for the CAD solution. By evaluating a multitude of cost drivers, the report suggests a framework and a sample set of calculations to quantify the cost savings available from consolidation. Some of the cost drivers are obvious, while others may be more subtle. For example:

  • Removal of redundant CAD licenses (ok, no surprise yet)
  • Reduce cost of upgrading software tools (maybe less obvious?)
  • Eliminate need to develop training for redundant solution (maybe you wouldn’t have thought of this?)

See the report for a more complete listing and an educated (and conservative) example of the cost savings available. While the strategic benefits are compelling, many companies today may consider this strategy simply to achieve leaner IT overhead for their engineering software.

Implications for Manufacturers

What does this mean for manufacturers? I discussed that question with Paul Hoch, Team Leader of Product Engineering Services for lighting solutions manufacturer Zumtobel AG. He echoed a number of the benefits in the report, including cost savings and explaining that they don’t get the full benefit from <their> 3D CAD models” without PLM. But the most strategic benefit Paul discussed was corporate flexibility, which is critical as companies try to survive in difficult, global markets.

Our common tool is the basic infrastructure that allows us to make quick decisions on product and plant locations, it provides management with the flexibility and agility they need.

I am not sure I can add anything more to the power of that statement, other than to suggest again that many companies may pursue consolidation for much more tactical reasons.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on consolidating CAD, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

SPEAK YOUR MIND

  1. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  2. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  3. Hi
    I had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.

    Nevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  4. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  5. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  6. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  7. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  8. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  9. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  10. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  11. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  12. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  13. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  14. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  15. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  16. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  17. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  18. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  19. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  20. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  21. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  22. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  23. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  24. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  25. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  26. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  27. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  28. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  29. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  30. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  31. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  32. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  33. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  34. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  35. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  36. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  37. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  38. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  39. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  40. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  41. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  42. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  43. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  44. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  45. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  46. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  47. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  48. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  49. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  50. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  51. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  52. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  53. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  54. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  55. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  56. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  57. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  58. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  59. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  60. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  61. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  62. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  63. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  64. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  65. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  66. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  67. HinI had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.nnNevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

  68. Hi
    I had a quick look to your paper, which is very interesting. I will suggest you to add costs associated to CAD format conversions, internal and external. These are recurrent costs, often hidden as not paid by IT organizations.

    Nevertheless, I think that companies supporting several CAD systems today have very little choice, as their customers (OEMs) are driving their strategy. If not, I agree the companies should use a single one, main reason being: simplicity.

    • Francois,
      Excellent points.

      – Translation costs: I will keep that in mind for any refresh/update to the paper. Clearly that can be a big expense. Thank you.

      – Simplicity: We could all use a touch of simplification, and engineering software is a great example. With today’s global product development environment, more complex products, and need for fast innovation (not to mention lean resources and a tough economy) simplifying CAD – and PLM – could go a long way for most companies.

      Thanks for commenting,
      Jim

Trackbacks

Speak Your Mind

*