• Composite Trends in the A&D Industry: Identifying Opportunities to Save Cost and Time reveals survey findings on design and manufacturing trends for composites in the Aerospace & Defense industry. The research examines two areas that can be a source for bottlenecks when working with composites: springback and manufacturing planning. The report details best practices to minimize or avoid distortions due to springback. It also looks at ways to streamline manufacturing planning while reducing errors and supporting changing.Please enjoy the summary below, or click the report to download a PDF … [ read more ]

    Composite Trends in the A&D Industry (survey findings)
  • The How-to Guide for Adopting Model Based Definition (MBD) reveals advice and best practices for implementing MBD.  The guide explains why 89% of companies are happy they made the transition and benefits they enjoy as a result. The hardest part of adopting MBD is overcoming the cultural resistance to change. The guide identifies what other companies have done to make the adoption of MBD a success, both internally and with suppliers.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 model-based definition (MBD)Please … [ read more ]

    The How-to Guide for Adopting Model Based Definition (MBD) (eBook, survey findings)
  • How do leading manufacturers use cloud software to support product innovation, product development, engineering, and manufacturing?Please share your experience, thoughts, and lessons learned in this new survey on cloud software for product innovation and manufacturing.If you already completed the survey  –> please share with a colleague or on social media using the “Share/Save” buttons above. If you haven’t taken the survey  –> please: CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY NOW!Complete the survey and receive a free copy of the final report. In addition, 25 *eligible respondents will … [ read more ]

    Cloud for PLM and Manufacturing (survey invite)
  • This infographic shares survey results about quality and cost management in the Consumer Packaged Goods industry. It visually communicates the results of our research that shows how Top Performing CPG companies are able to achieve better quality and better cost of quality, without trading one for the other. The research shares the methods these leading companies employ, including automation, integration, and a more holistic approach to managing quality.To learn more, please:View the full Stop Choosing Between Cost and Quality in CPG infographic from our sponsor Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA (free or … [ read more ]

    Choosing Cost versus Quality in CPG (infographic)
  • Jim Brown contributed a guest post, Innovation Platforms - the Operating System for the Digital Enterprise, on the value of innovation platforms published in the Dassault Systèmes' Navigate the Future blog. The post shares the value an integrated platform of solutions provides to engineers, the enterprise, and toward achieving digital transformation. The post also covers some basis of the innovation platform from people, process, and technology perspectives.Read the post now (free of charge, no registration required).   … [ read more ]

    Innovation Platforms are the Operating Systems for the Digital Enterprise (guest post)

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

*