The State of CAD Interoperability 2004: Survey Results

A survey co-sponsored by TenLinks, Inc. and Proficiency, Inc.

April 16, 2004

The CAD interoperability issue - using one CAD system in-house, yet needing to deliver or receive designs in another system - continues to pose a challenge to automotive, aerospace, shipbuilding, heavy equipment and high-tech original equipment manufacturers and their suppliers. The Proficiency and TenLinks’ survey was designed to study the issue and to determine how engineering model data is delivered today to manufacturers and suppliers, how CAD conversion, geometric translation and/or feature-based CAD interoperability is handled, at what expense, and under whose authority.

This document summarizes results of a survey co-sponsored by TenLinks, Inc. and Proficiency, Inc. TenLinks subscribers had the opportunity to answer survey questions during February and March 2004. Results were summarized and released March 22, 2004.

Survey respondents represented a number of vertical industries, business models, and held a variety of positions and responsibilities. Industries identified by respondents included automotive, aerospace, consumer goods, heavy equipment, high tech, medical, shipbuilding, plant design, architectural, and other industries. Titles ranged from draftsman, designer, analyst, and manufacturing engineer, through engineering management, executives, and business owners.

More than 130 respondents completed the entire survey. Since respondents learned of the survey through the TenLinks portal – a Web portal designed specifically for manufacturing professionals using or interested in computer aided design technology – or other news services also affiliated with CAD technology, the range of potential respondents was primarily engineering-oriented (versus purchasing, finance, logistics, sales, or marketing). The size of the survey range can be estimated to be more than 30,000 potential respondents (the distribution of TenLinks is 30,000 CAD/CAM/CAE professionals, affiliated sites would add to this number).

Given the size of the potential range and the actual domain of responses, the maximum margin of error is estimated to be 8.6%, and a practical margin of error is estimated to be 4-5%.

TenLinks and Proficiency do not certify the accuracy of the data contained in this summary. Readers’ reliance upon this data shall be at their own risk. In no event shall TenLinks or Proficiency be liable to readers or to any third party, for their actions, or inaction, taken upon information or observations contained in this report. The survey results are presented herein for information purposes only, and no recommendations are intended or inferred.

1. What industry is your company in?

• Aerospace
• Automotive
• Heavy Equipment
• Consumer
• High Tech
• Shipbuilding
• Medical
• Other

Notes:

• Respondents defined “other” industries as engineering, home building, general construction, packaging, oil & gas, steel, architecture, transportation, distribution, electrical, telecommunications, power generation, refrigeration, air quality control, surveying, civil engineering, land development, government, defense, and more.

2. Your company is:

• An OEM/Prime
• A Tier 0.5 / Tier 1 supplier
• A Tier 2-n supplier
• A service provider
• Other

3. As a percentage, how much of your product is engineered?

• 100%
• 75 – 99%
• 50 – 74%
• 25 – 49%
• 1 – 24%
• 0%

This data is presented by company type.

Notes/Examples:

• For all surveyed groups, the majority of their product line is engineered.
• 85% of OEMs and Primes report that more than half their product is engineered.
• 80% of suppliers report that more than three quarters of their product is engineered.
• 72% of service providers report that more than half their product is engineered.

4. Of your engineered components, what percentage is completely designed by your company?

• 100%
• 75 – 99%
• 50 – 74%
• 25 – 49%
• 1 – 24%
• 0%

This data is presented by company type.

Notes/Examples:

• All surveyed groups design the majority of their engineered components.
• 80% of OEMs and primes design more than half of their engineered components
• All OEMs and primes design at least 25% of their product.
• 60% of suppliers design three quarters of their engineered components
• Just less than 70% of service providers design the majority of their engineered components

5. For your engineered components, what percentage of your customers require you to deliver engineering model data?

• 100%
• 75 – 99%
• 50 – 74%
• 25 – 49%
• 1 – 24%
• 0%

This data is presented by company type.

Notes/Examples:

• For all surveyed groups, the majority of their customers require model data.
• Almost 90% of OEMs and primes reported that more than half their customers require model data.
• 60% of suppliers reported that three quarters of their customers require model data.
• Almost 70% of service providers reported that more than half their customers require model data.
• All OEMs and prime are required to deliver model data to some of their customers.

6. For your suppliers that provide engineering components, what format data do you require them to deliver to you (select all that apply)?

• Office correspondence – Word docs, sketches, telephone conversations
• 2D drawings - paper
• 2D drawings - electronic
• 3D models – IGES/STEP
• 3D models – native CAD
• 3D models – tessellated or visualization format
• Other

Notes/Examples

• According to their answers, no survey respondents will accept IGES or STEP files from their suppliers.

7. As a percentage, how much of your product is manufactured by your company?

• 100%
• 75 – 99%
• 50 – 74%
• 25 – 49%
• 1 – 24%
• 0%

This data is presented by company type.

Notes/Examples

• Within the margin of error, both OEM/Primes (58%) and Tier 1/Tier 2 Suppliers (60%) reported that they manufacture 75% - 100% of their product. These two data points seem to be contradictory since the Tiers provide components to the OEMs.
• When combined with the results of questions 3 – 5, both OEM/Primes and Tier 1/Tier 2 Suppliers are engineering and manufacturing the majority of their product lines.

8. Why are you interested in feature-based interoperability?

• I have a migration project – am changing to a different CAD system
• I have a migration project – some old part libraries that I need to use
• I need to pass features between designers using different systems
• I have to deliver models in a variety of formats to my customers
• I use a different CAD system than those of my suppliers
• I need to pass features from design to manufacturing
• I need to pass features from design to analysis
• I’m not. Geometry is all I need

Notes/Examples

• Respondent’s top three areas of interest for feature-based interoperability suggest a desire to improve the communication of engineering product information across the extended design chain (OEM/Prime to supplier to sub-supplier)

9. Which CAD systems are in use in your company, your customer, and your suppliers?

Your Company

• I-DEAS
• Pro/ENGINEER
• CATIA v4
• CATIA v5
• Unigraphics
• SolidWorks
• Inventor
• Other

Your Suppliers

• I-DEAS
• Pro/ENGINEER
• CATIA v4
• CATIA v5
• Unigraphics
• SolidWorks
• Inventor
• Other

Your Customers

• I-DEAS
• Pro/ENGINEER
• CATIA v4
• CATIA v5
• Unigraphics
• SolidWorks
• Inventor
• Other

Notes/Examples:

• “All verticals” covers all vertical markets represented in the survey, including aerospace, automotive, consumer goods, heavy equipment, high tech manufacturing, medical products, shipping, and “other”, which includes respondents defined as engineering, home building, general construction, packaging, oil & gas, steel, architecture, transportation, surveying, power generation, refrigeration, civil engineering, land development, government, and more
• AutoCAD was the predominant CAD identified when “other” was selected, accounting for 52% of the “other” responses. This would have placed it at 27% of CAD systems used overall among all vertical industries (52% of 51%). Other CAD systems in the “other” category included SolidEdge and Microstation, each with 6% of the “other” category, Alibre Design, CoCreate, and CADKEY.
• In automotive, aerospace, and heavy equipment verticals, the use of the high end CAD systems is fairly uniform, statistically (4% margin of error, as seen in the following graph

10. How do you handle CAD conversion today?

• I don’t. I send the models to someone else to deal with
• STEP or IGES, and leave the part as dumb geometry
• STEP or IGES, and then re-master the part into feature-based
• Vendor produced geometric translation engine, and leave the part as dumb geometry
• Vendor produced geometric translation engine, and then re-master the part to feature-based
• Outsourced re-mastering
• I use a feature-based exchange product today

Notes/Examples

• Feature-based data exchange products are being used as frequently as manual re-mastering on top of STEP/IGES, according to survey respondents.
• 50% of all respondents require featured models following conversion while 36% are satisfied with dumb geometry.
• When contrasted with the results of question 6, where no respondents will accept IGES/STEP models from their suppliers, the 36% using dumb geometry translations may be for internal purposes.

11. How much does your company spend on exchanging feature-based models today?

• I don’t know
• Less than $50K
• $50K to $100K
• $100K to $250K
• $250K to $500K
• $500K to $1 million
• $1 million to $2 million
• $2 million to $5 million
• More than $5 million

Notes/Examples

• The costs associated with feature-based data exchange today are largely unknown by survey respondents.

12. Who funds the expense of data exchange?

• Don’t know
• Central group within IT
• Central group within the business unit
• Dispersed throughout the business
• The cost is just absorbed transparently by each project

Notes/Examples

• The majority of respondents indicate that data exchange costs are absorbed by projects. This supports the results of question 11 as to why the costs are largely unknown.

13. Who makes decisions about which data exchange technology to use?

• Don’t know
• Central IT
• The engineering groups
• The project office
• Multiple departments have input
• The technology committee
• No one seems to own the problem

Notes/Examples

• Although the largest percentage of respondents indicated that engineering groups own decisions on data exchange technology, one-third of respondents either didn’t know or felt no one owned the problem.

About TenLinks, Inc.

TenLinks, Inc. is the biggest CAD, CAM and CAE online media company. It was founded in February 1999. TenLinks operates four websites and distributes three newsletters that provide information and tools for engineers, architects and designers. Its flagship, TenLinks.com, is the only online directory where industry experts organize the Internet into TopTen lists. CADdepot.com is a leading destination for CAD shareware. CADdigest.com finds and organizes CAD-related articles. FreeCAD.com is a vast directory for free CAD, CAM and CAE programs. TenLinks also publishes three industry-leading newsletters: TenLinks Daily, CADdepot Update and CADdigest Weekly. For more information, please visit www.tenlinks.com.

About Proficiency

Proficiency is the recognized leader in feature-based CAD interoperability. The Company’s award-winning Collaboration Gateway allows development teams within manufacturers and their suppliers to efficiently collaborate on the design of complex products. A privately held company headquartered in Marlborough, Mass. USA, Proficiency has secured nearly $40M in venture capital investment led by Concord Ventures, Charles River Ventures, and Carmel Ventures. The Company has numerous patents and patents pending in engineering information representation and exchange technology. For more information on Proficiency, please visit www.proficiency.com.

Any questions regarding the collection and analysis of this data can be addressed to Proficiency at:

www.proficiency.com
info@proficiency.com

Proficiency, Inc.
33 Boston Post Road West, Suite 190
Marlborough, MA 01752 USA
Tel: 508.486.9868
Fax: 508.486.9068

More Select CAD Translation Articles

All the week's articles
FREE!