• On Thursday, May 18 at 2:00 EDT, Michelle Boucher share best practices to improve the efficiency of simulation postprocessing. During this webinar,  Shawn Wasserman, simulation editor at ENGINEERING.com, will join Michelle. This webinar will reveal: Common challenges during the postprocessing phase Best practices to overcome those postprocessing challenges Case studies demonstrating the benefits of efficient postprocessing   Register for this event today.   … [ read more ]

    Webinar: Solving the Bottlenecks of Simulation: Postprocessing – May 18, 2PM ET
  • The How-to Guide to Adopting a New 3D CAD  shares best practices for changing from one 3D CAD tool to another. The guide shares the reasons you should consider making a change, potential benefits of making a change, and advice for selecting a new tool. The guide then goes deeper into the steps you should take to plan a migration, training resources, what to do with legacy data, and how to prioritize what legacy data you convert. These best practices were developed by analyzing the responses of those who were very satisfied with their transition process. Their responses were compared to the rest to identify … [ read more ]

    Adopting a New 3D CAD (survey findings eBook)
  • Are you making your products smarter? Are you feeling pressure to add software and electronics? Please share your experience, thoughts, and lessons learned  in this new survey on transforming product design to develop smart products. The survey explores challenges you should be aware of, the impacts of those challenges, and how to avoid them. We will explore questions such as: What strategies should you consider when developing connected products? What challenges should you be aware of when designing the PCB? How do you overcome electrical wiring challenges? We would like to learn what you find hard … [ read more ]

    Transforming Product Design for Today’s Smart Products (survey invite)
  • Jim Brown joins Autodesk's Michael Vesperman during this Engineering Live panel discussion moderated by Janine Mooney, Editor in Chief at Advantage Business Media. Jim and Michael share insights from recent survey results and customer experience in an interactive discussion on NPDI.  They share NPD best practices and technology including 7 things that Top Performers in NPDI do differently than the rest. Register for the May 17 event now! … [ read more ]

    Beating the Competition with New Product Development and Introduction (webcast)
  • The Design Data Management Maturity Improves Profitability, Analyzing Best Practices for Managing Designs report shares fresh survey data and interviews. It updates our design data management research to cover new trends like using cloud file sharing applications to manage data. It also drills down on the topics of complexity and non-value added time spent managing design data, and shares metrics on the business improvements available from design data management best practices and technologies. Please enjoy the summary below, or click the report or title to download the full PDF (free of charge, no … [ read more ]

    Design Data Management Maturity Improves Profitability (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

*