• Jim Brown contributed a guest post to the Siemens PLM Community blog discussing the opportunity for food and beverage companies to leverage digitalization and the digital enterprise to combat market disruption from new, innovate companies that are challenging current industry leaders. The post offers several ways that consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies can get started on their digital journey, achieve tangible business value, and combat challengers like Blue Apron and Amazon Fresh that are disrupting the status quo.The full post, Surviving the New Competitive Landscape in Food and Beverage, can be … [ read more ]

    Digitalization in Food and Beverage (guest post)
  • Dassault Systèmes continues to make significant progress on the 3DExperience vision they laid out 5 years ago. This strategy has seen them transform from a software vendor offering distinct solutions for a variety of functional areas to a company that leads with a strong business transformation message backed up by a platform of solutions. I dropped "PLM" from the title of last year's strategy review. I feel even better about that decision a year later. They now have a broad software suite brought to market as solutions tailored to support key initiatives in the vertical industries they serve. As times goes … [ read more ]

    Dassault Systèmes Strategy 2017+
  • The Finding PLM to Fit Mid-Sized High-Tech Companies ebook explains how smaller companies in the high technology industry find themselves stuck between full-featured Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems that feel out of reach and less capable solutions including cloud-based file sharing or very basic data management applications. They know they can’t afford the errors and inefficiency inherent to informal data and process management, but can’t afford a large time, resource, and financial investment to fix their problems. Unfortunately simple solutions like web file sharing, while very attractive, fall … [ read more ]

    Finding PLM to Fit Mid-Sized High-Tech Companies (ebook)
  • The How-to Guide to Transitioning from 2D CAD to 3D CAD  shares best practices for moving from 2D to 3D. The guide shares the reasons you should consider going from 2D to 3D, common challenges to avoid, and benefits enjoyed by other companies who gone to 3D. The guide then shares advice to make your switch from 2D to 3D CAD a success. The recommendations were developed by analyzing the responses of Top Performing companies and comparing them to Average Performing companies.This eBook is one in a series of three:Transitioning from 2D CAD to 3D CAD Migrating from 3D CAD to a new 3D CAD Adopting … [ read more ]

    Best Practices for Going from 2D to 3D CAD
  • The Reducing Cost of Quality in CPG report shares perspectives from a survey of over 175 CPG companies to determine how Top Performers manage consumer packaged goods quality. The research finds that these leading companies are able to achieve better quality results with lower internal costs. The report analyzes their processes, organizational structures, and enabling technology to determine how they can get better quality results without placing a financial burden on the business.Please enjoy the summary below, or click the report to download a PDF overview (free of charge, no registration … [ read more ]

    Reducing Cost of Quality for Consumer Packaged Goods (survey report)

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

*