• Top 5 Ways to Measure Product Innovation, Choosing Metrics to Drive Innovation Performance shares the importance of measuring innovation to improve innovation capability and outcomes. Please enjoy the summary below, or click the report to download a PDF overview (free of charge, no registration required). For the full report, please visit our sponsor, Planview (free of charge, registration required). Why Measure Innovation? Companies know they’ll be rewarded for innovation. They’ve seen that product developers who set the agenda in their market and force their competitors to react have a distinct … [ read more ]

    Top 5 Ways to Measure Product Innovation (white paper)
  • This episode of Tech-Clarity TV explains how food and beverage companies can survive in the digital age as new, agile, innovative companies disrupt their markets.  It shares how these food and CPG companies can use analytics as a competitive tool to better sense and respond to customer needs and gain deeper understanding of their products, processes, and production. This video is part of a series of videos showing how digitalization can help food and beverage companies compete with innovative, digital industry competitors that are disrupting the status quo. The video series is sponsored by Siemens, a … [ read more ]

    The Analytics Opportunity for Food and Beverage in the Digital Age (video)
  • Tech-Clarity’s BOM Management Buyer’s Guide - Boost Performance with Digital BOMs provides criteria for manufacturers to evaluate software solutions to support their Bill of Material and product structure data and processes. Tech-Clarity’s Buyer’s Guides go beyond software functionality to provide a framework of requirements that impact implementation success and long-term ROI, including: Software requirements Implementation Integration User adoption Support Vendor characteristics / attributes Industry or unique business needs Please enjoy the summary below, or click the report to … [ read more ]

    BOM Management Buyer’s Guide
  • This episode of Tech-Clarity TV explains how digital food and beverage companies improve agility, innovation, and productivity through better connectivity between R&D and the plant, streamlined production operations, and analytics. This video is part of a series of videos showing how digitalization can help food and beverage companies compete with innovative, digital industry competitors that are disrupting the status quo. The video series is sponsored by Siemens, a leader in digitalization for the food and beverage industry. For more information, see Tech-Clarity's series of guest posts on how … [ read more ]

    Producing Food and Beverages in the Digital Age (video)
  • How do chemical companies apply digital to the chem lab? Digitalization is streamlining the way companies innovate and bring products to market. Tech-Clarity's Jim Brown will share findings from his research on how chemical companies leverage the digital enterprise to improve efficiency and reduce cost while dealing with mounting regulatory and sustainability pressure. Register for the December 13 webcast (free of charge, registration required). Sponsored by Dassault Systemes BIOVIA. … [ read more ]

    Digitalizing the Chemical Lab (webcast)

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

*