The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling
Benchmark Report
Improving Engineering Efficiency
September 2006

— Underwritten, in Part, by —

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Executive Summary

D

o more with less. The mandate hasn’t changed for manufacturers. They must develop more products with increasing complexity to address customer and competitive pressures. Yet, there’s no “give” in project timelines to adopt new technologies like 3D modeling to help them win. However, some manufacturers are not only adopting 3D modeling technology, but excelling at hitting their product development targets at the same time. How is it possible? Interestingly enough, it’s actually quite simple.

Key Business Value Findings
•

Best in class manufacturers their hit revenue, cost, launch date, and quality targets for 84% or more of their products.

•

Best in class performers typically produce 1.4 fewer prototypes than average performers.

•

Best in class performers average 6.1 fewer change orders than laggard performers.

•

In total, best in class manufacturers of the most complex products get to market
99 days earlier with $50, 637 lower product development costs.

Implications & Analysis
How do they do it?
•

Best in class performers are 40% more likely to have engineers use CAD directly to ensure they stay close to the design.

•

Best in class performers are 24% more likely to take advantage of extended 3D modeling design capabilities. They are 55% more likely to use downstream capabilities.

•

All (100%) best in class performers acquired new hardware when adding 3D modeling, compared to 53% of laggards.

Recommendations for Action
•

Initially document design deliverables in electronic form.

•

Allow engineers to use 3D modeling tools rather than allocating them to drafters.

•

Deploy the advanced design and downstream capabilities of 3D modeling.

•

Acquire hardware and data management tools to avoid 3D modeling problems.

•

Measure design reuse on a periodic basis throughout the design process.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • i

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................. i
Chapter One: Issue at Hand.................................................................................1
Variation on an Old Theme: Do More with Less............................................. 1
Manufacturers Add 3D Modeling Instead of Replacing 2D Drafting ............... 2
Concerns with 3D Modeling Vary Widely ....................................................... 3
Chapter Two: Key Business Value Findings .........................................................5
Replacing Physical Prototypes with Virtual Prototypes.................................. 6
Catching Issues before They Become Change Orders.................................. 7
Additive Benefits............................................................................................ 8
Chapter Three: Implications & Analysis...............................................................9
Getting Engineers Closer to Design............................................................... 9
The Transition from Paper to Electronic Formats......................................... 10
Leveraging Electronic Design Deliverables.................................................. 11
Necessities for Success: Data Management and Hardware........................ 12
Checking Performance before Design Release ........................................... 14
Chapter Four: Recommendations for Action ...................................................... 16
Laggard Steps to Success........................................................................... 16
Industry Norm Steps to Success ................................................................. 17
Best in Class Next Steps ............................................................................. 17
Featured Underwriters ....................................................................................... 18
Appendix A: Research Methodology .................................................................. 21
Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research & Tools ............................................. 24

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group

The Transition from 2D-to-3D Design Deliverables Benchmark Report

Figures
Figure 1: Challenges to Using 3D Modeling .........................................................3
Figure 2: Application Performance Challenges of 3D Modeling............................4
Figure 3: Best in Class Hit Targets on an 84% Average or Better ........................5
Figure 4: Number of Change Orders per Product ................................................8
Figure 5: Organizational Approaches across the Competitive Framework ......... 10
Figure 6: Paper and Electronic Approaches across the Competitive Framework................................................................... 11
Figure 7: CAD Capabilities across the Competitive Framework......................... 11
Figure 8: Data Management Technology across the Competitive Framework.... 13
Figure 9: Hardware Upgrades across the Competitive Framework.................... 14
Figure 10: Measurement Frequency across the Competitive Framework .......... 15

Tables
Table 1: Top Five Business Pressures and Strategic Actions ...............................1
Table 2: Prototype Costs and Time per Product Complexity ................................6
Table 3: Change Order Costs per Product Complexity.........................................7
Table 4: Total Best in Class Advantages in Time and Cost...................................8
Table 5: Top Three Performance Measurements for 3D Modeling ..................... 14
Table 6: PACE Framework ................................................................................. 22
Table 7: Relationship between PACE and Competitive Framework ................... 23
Table 8: Competitive Framework........................................................................ 23

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Key Takeaways

Chapter One:
Issue at Hand
• Driven by customers and competitors, manufacturers are pressured to develop more products that are complicated and bring them to market in less time.
• Manufacturers are striving for product innovation and greater operational efficiencies as the answer to the “do more with less” mandate.
• Manufacturers plan to add 3D modeling to 2D drafting instead of replacing it.
• Unclear benefits and lack of executive sponsorships are the roadblocks stopping some manufacturers from adding 3D modeling.
• The primary concern for those planning to add 3D modeling is user productivity.
• Past experience shows that the unexpected negative consequences of 3D modeling are slower application performance and management of CAD relationships.

W

hile the emergence of 3D modeling tools occurred two decades ago, some vendors estimate that roughly 85% of the current CAD user base still primarily employs 2D drafting. Although one would expect the pace of migration from 2D drafting to 3D modeling to have accelerated, unyielding time-tomarket constraints offer no opportunity for manufacturers to allow users to adapt to new paradigms and convert legacy drawings into new formats without being productive at the same time. Yet some manufacturers are not only accomplishing this feat, but excelling in top-line and bottom-line measures.

Variation on an Old Theme: Do More with Less
In one form or another, manufacturers considering a change in how they produce design deliverables are reacting to customer and competitive pressures by creating innovative products or improving operational efficiencies (Table 1).
Table 1: Top Five Business Pressures and Strategic Actions
Business Pressures

Strategic Actions

Shortened time to market

65%

Improve product performance or quality

49%

Customer demand for new products

47%

Improve development efficiency

42%

Increasingly complex customer requirements

43%

Lower internal manufacturing costs

25%

29%

Develop markets with breakthrough innovation

17%

27%

Decrease customer response time

17%

Accelerating product commodization
Threatening competitive products

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 1

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

In fact, manufacturers are caught between opposing business pressures. On the one hand,
Aberdeen survey respondents report that their companies must develop more products and get them to market faster due to shortened time to market (65%), accelerating product commodization (29%), and threatening competitive products (27%). On the other hand, they also indicate that their companies must address customer demand for new products (47%) that are more complicated due to increasingly complex customer requirements (43%).
Accordingly, manufacturers are addressing these business pressures in two ways: through increased product innovation and operational efficiency. They aim to improve product performance or quality (49%) and develop markets with breakthrough innovation (17%).
To achieve operational efficiency, they strive to improve development efficiency (42%), lower internal manufacturing costs (25%), and decrease customer response time (17%).
Overall, the message is clear. Business pressures are driving manufacturers to develop more complex products in less time. They are responding with product innovation and improvements in product development efficiency. This trend seems to be the continuation of an old theme: do more with less. It’s likely not to change anytime soon.

Manufacturers Add 3D Modeling Instead of Replacing 2D Drafting
With various strategies in mind to address the business pressures of the day, many manufacturers are making 3D modeling part of the plan. Fully 71% of companies currently using 2D drafting are planning on using 3D modeling.

Case Study – Transpo Electronics
“The main reason we still use some 2D tools along with 3D tools is that most of our tooling partners simply aren’t accepting 3D models yet.”

John Burrill, Transpo Electronics
While one might think that these companies would switch completely to 3D modeling and eliminate 2D drafting, that is actually not the case. In fact, 77% of companies that use 3D modeling also use 2D drafting.
Follow-up interviews with Aberdeen survey respondents show that the motivation to continue use of 2D drafting varies widely. For some, 2D drafting is better suited for conceptual engineering when users don’t want to commit to part numbers and the complexity of assemblies. Others are constrained by the absence of 3D modeling in their supply chain. If their suppliers can’t use 3D models, they certainly can’t provide them as a deliverable. Regardless of the reasons, manufacturers are planning to add 3D modeling to
2D drafting instead of replacing it.

Case Study – Safeworks
“For the most part, we’ve decided to design all new products in 3D. However, one thing that isn’t clear is our strategy on what to do with all of our legacy 2D drawings. Should we go back and revise all legacy data? Should we convert as we go? We haven’t made a clear decision about that yet.”

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
2 • AberdeenGroup

John Albers, Safeworks

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Concerns with 3D Modeling Vary Widely
The transition from 2D to 3D is an old, but still active trend, so one might expect the wealth of knowledge gained from past migrations to be widely available and leveraged by those considering migration. However, this is not the case, as shown by the widely varied challenges reported by those who have no 3D modeling plans, those who have 3D modeling plans, and those who have already implemented 3D modeling (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Challenges to Using 3D Modeling
Non-moving companies challenges revolve around justification and risk

70%
60%

50%

Concerns that are founded 50%
42%

40%
20%

The unexpected realities that companies encounter once they have migrated

63%

50%
30%

Migrating companies worry about training 39%

39%
31%

22%

19%
11%

35%

37%

44%

24%
16%
4%

10%

8%

8%

0%
Benefit Is
Unclear

No Executive
Support

2D users w ith no plans

New Softw are
Training

Large Complex
Design
Performance

2D users w ith plans

2D Legacy to 3D
Managing
Model
Complex CAD
Conversion
Relations
3D users that migrated

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

The biggest challenges for manufacturers without plans for 3D modeling concern justification. Much more than those manufacturers who have 3D migration plans and those already using 3D modeling, this group does not understand the benefits of 3D modeling and can’t gain the support of executives. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that they are not planning to use 3D modeling.
The primary concern for manufacturers with plans for
3D modeling is software training. The implicit issue is user productivity. Again, Aberdeen findings show that these manufacturers are under pressure to develop more products that are more complicated in less time (Table
1). They gain no reprieve from these pressures to get their users up to speed in a timely fashion.

Case Study – Ovalstrapping
“Training after switching over to 3D tools was a major challenge. The issue wasn’t really the concepts of 3D modeling such as definition of features or parameters. The outstanding issue was educating the users on where the functionality was located within the application.”
Phil Jones, Ovalstrapping

While training users in the face of project development deadlines is a valid concern, there are hidden barriers on the road to successful 3D modeling. Most notably, the slow application performance of large and complex designs as well as the difficulties of managing complex CAD relationships are issues recognized by those who already using 3D modeling and not recognized by those who are not. The slow application performance of large
All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 3

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

and complex designs can be further broken down into a number of specific issues (Figure
2).
Figure 2: Application Performance Challenges of 3D Modeling
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

71%
55%
35%

Section
Regeneration
Times

59%

61%

Visualization /
Graphics Lag

Initial Model
Retrieval Times

43%

Virtual Memory
Limits

Netw ork Data
Management
Retrieval

Model
Regeneration
Times

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

These issues are the result of different hardware shortfalls. Inadequate processor speeds and lack of memory cause slow section regeneration times, model regeneration times, and initial model retrieval times. Inadequate graphics cards result in visualization and graphics lag. Network bandwidth impacts data management retrieval. And memory limits are an inherent limitation of 32-bit systems that are addressed by 64-bit machines.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
4 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Key Takeaways

Chapter Two:
Key Business Value Findings
• Best in class manufacturers their hit revenue, cost, launch date, and quality targets for
84% or more of their products.
• Best in class performers typically produce 1.4 fewer prototypes than average performers.
• Best in class performers average 6.1 fewer change orders than laggards.
• In total, best in class manufacturers of the most complex products get to market 99 days earlier with $50,637 lower product development costs.

W

hile the majority of manufacturers are planning to adopt 3D modeling, Aberdeen research shows that they face both serious known and unknown challenges. While some are taking steps in response, their strategies and tactics are only as good as the results they deliver. To get a clear picture of which strategies and tactics are successful, Aberdeen categorized survey respondents by measuring five key performance indicators (KPIs) that provide financial, process, and quality measures (Figure
3). This classification subsequently enabled differentiation between the “best practices” of the top performers and the practices of lower performing companies.
Figure 3: Best in Class Hit Targets on an 84% Average or Better
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

88%

87%
71%

68%

91%

87%

84%
65%

81%
70%
53%

44%

Product
Revenue
Targets

41%

Product Cost
Targets

36%

36%

Development
Cost Targets

Launch Dates

Best in Class

Average

Quality
Expectations

Laggard
Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

Based on aggregate scores incorporating all five metrics, those companies in the top 20% achieved “best in class” status; those in the middle 50% were “average”; and those in the
All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 5

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

bottom 30% were “laggard.” As expected, companies in the different performance categories show substantial differences – with best in class hitting all five marks at an 84% or better average.

Replacing Physical Prototypes with Virtual Prototypes
One of the promised benefits of using 3D modeling is reducing the number of physical prototypes required to develop a product. Instead, 3D modeling software allows manufacturers to develop virtual prototypes in order to catch issues before any capital investment is made in
The best in class manufacturers of the physical prototypes. most complex products get to market 41
In theory, best in class manufacturers days earlier with $14,733 lower product should be developing fewer protodevelopment costs than average pertypes. However, the more complex a formers because of fewer prototypes. product is, the higher its costs and the longer the time required to build it. To get a clear picture how costs and required development time varied according product complexity, Aberdeen categorized survey respondents’ products by measuring three key indicators: number of parts in the product, length of product development lifecycle, and number of engineering disciplines incorporated. This measurement subsequently enabled differentiation of levels of product complexity and their typical time and cost to build (Table 2).
In fact, the theory that best in class manufacturers develop fewer prototypes holds true.
Aberdeen research showed that for each product development cycle they average 1.5 prototypes compared to 2.9 prototypes for average performers.
Table 2: Prototype Costs and Time per Product Complexity
Product Complexity

Time to Build

Cost to Build

Very complex products

29.6

$10,524

Moderately complex products

13.7

$3,959

Simple products

15.1

$2,290
Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

The difference of 1.4 prototypes has a direct impact on time to market and product development costs. The best in class manufacturers of the most complex products get to market in 41 days with $14,733 lower product development costs than average performers.
The best in class manufacturers of the simplest products get to market 21 days earlier and spend $3,206 less on product development costs than average performers. All in all, virtual prototyping pays off for best in class performers.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
6 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Case Study – Rincon Corporation
“In the past, we usually found interference issues when we went to put together the prototype physical assembly of the product. For example, someone might have forgotten about the head of a bolt that would clash. Using 3D tools, we find those issues virtually because an interference check highlights the problem on the screen. This has directly contributed to us going from a 9-to-12 month development cycle down to six months.”
Raymond Reynolds, Rincon Corporation

Catching Issues before They Become Change Orders
The advantage of virtual prototyping has additional benefits. By more fully addressing design issues up front, manufacturers experience fewer change orders downstream than laggards. By applying the same classifiThe best in class manufacturers of the most comcation of product complexity to the cost of executing change plex products get to market 58 days earlier and orders, we see there is a pay $35,904 less in product development costs marked differentiation here than average performers because of fewer change also (Table 3). Executing orders. change orders for more complex products commonly takes more time and requires due diligence because more engineers must be coordinated, and the issues are generally more complex. The time to execute a change order, however, was the same – 9.5 days – across all product complexity levels.
Table 3: Change Order Costs per Product Complexity
Product Complexity

Cost of Executing Change Orders

Very complex products

$5,886

Moderately complex products

$2,021

Simple products

$1,492
Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

Survey findings also confirmed the theory that best in class performers execute fewer change orders (Figure 4). In fact, best in class performers execute 6.1 fewer change orders per product development lifecycle than laggard performers.
The difference of 6.1 change orders also has a direct impact on time to market and product development costs. Best in class manufacturers of the most complex Case Study – Large Military Aerospace Supplier products get to market 58 days earlier “After doing an internal analysis, we found with $35,904 lower product develop- that the root cause of 30% to 40% of all nonment costs than average performers. conformances were due to 2D drawing inacThe best in class manufacturers of the curacies. After we realized that, we quickly simplest products get to market 58 days moved to 3D technology.” earlier with $9,101 lower product deAll print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 7

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

velopment costs than average performers. Again, these advantages translate into a realworld financial benefit.
Figure 4: Number of Change Orders per Product

12.0

9.8

10.0
8.0

6.0

6.0

3.7

4.0
2.0
0.0

Best in Class

Avg

Laggard

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

Additive Benefits
All in all, the benefits described so far are impressive – and they add up. The costs and time saved in developing prototypes are realized prior to design release. The costs and time saved in executing change orders happen after the design has been released. Both sets of benefits can be realized simultaneously (Table 4).
Table 4: Total Best in Class Advantages in Time and Cost
Product Complexity

Time Saved

Costs Saved

Very complex products

99 days

$50,637

Moderately complex products

77 days

$18,266

Simple products

79 days

$12,307
Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

Overall, the savings that the best in class are realizing both in time to market and product development costs are both substantial – and reveal how the best in class are hitting 84% or more of the targets for launch dates and product development costs.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
8 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Key Takeaways

Chapter Three:
Implications & Analysis
• Best in class performers are 40% more likely to have engineers use CAD directly to ensure they stay closer to the design.
• Best in class performers are half as likely to document any design deliverables on paper.
They are 12% more likely to completely develop them electronically.
• Best in class performers are 24% more likely to use the extended design capabilities of
3D modeling and 55% more likely to use its downstream capabilities.
• All (100%) best in class performers acquired new hardware when adding 3D modeling compared to 53% of laggards.
• Best in class performers are 50% more likely to measure performance at design release or periodically. Laggards are 49% more likely to never measure performance.

A

s noted earlier, the aggregated performance of surveyed companies determined whether they ranked as best in class, industry average, or laggard, In addition to having common performance levels, each class also shares characteristics and practices in four key categories – organizational structure, processes, technology usage, and performance measurement.

Getting Engineers Closer to Design
In the modern manufacturing era, the person responsible for creating the design deliverable has often been different (i.e., the drafter) from the person ultimately responsible for the performance of the product
(i.e., the engineer). However, the skills of the drafter have evolved over time as the drawing medium has changed from ink and
Mylar to electronic 2D drafting and, finally, to 3D modeling.

Case Study – Bleck Design Group
“Our engineers use design tools directly instead of CAD specialists. It’s really a staffing decision when it comes down to it. Hiring someone that doesn’t add value beyond building a model doesn’t make sense. It’s like hiring typists for writers!”
Jim Bleck, Bleck Design Group

The age of 3D modeling, however, has caused many manufacturers to re-evaluate this division of labor. Some have seized the opportunity to reduce staffing by placing the design tools directly in the hands of engineers instead of hiring drafters at all. Aberdeen findings show the best in class are following this trend (Figure 5).

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 9

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Figure 5: Organizational Approaches across the Competitive Framework
60%

56.2%

50.9%

46.2%

50%

36.1%

40%
30%
20%
10%

2.8%

7.7%

0%
Separate Drafter Teams

Mixed Drafter and
Engineer Teams
Best in Class

Engineer Teams, No
Drafters

Average

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

In fact, having separate teams of drafters and engineers seems to be phasing out, with best in class performers leading the trend. Furthermore, best in class performers are
41% more likely to place the design tools in the hands of the engineers.

Case Study – CACO Pacific Corporation
“We have several different types of engineers using our CAD tools, varying from mold designers, hot runner designers, and EDM electrode designers. It’s a must because to design our injection molds, you have to have a lot of specialized knowledge about our products and how they work.”

Aberdeen’s follow-up interviews uncovered some of the reasons behind
Bill Sigsworth, CACO Pacific Corporation. the change. In some cases, the products were of such high complexity that the company wanted to remove the insulating layer that a specialist drafter represented, so that the engineer could get closer to the product. In addition, staffing drafters posed an overhead that didn’t necessarily add value to the development of the deliverable. Exemplifying this trend, the best in class companies aim to get their engineers closer to the design by having them use the CAD tools.

The Transition from Paper to Electronic Formats
Those with no 3D modeling plans (27%), those with 3D plans (22%), and those already using 3D modeling agree (26%): the process change required by 3D modeling is a challenge. While this overall process change can affect specific processes throughout a company, fundamentally designers and engineers must decide what formats and forms they will use to document a design. Overall, the trend is for design deliverables to start out and stay in electronic forms rather than moving from paper to electronic form (Figure 6).

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
10 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Figure 6: Paper and Electronic Approaches across the Competitive Framework
70%

59%

60%

47%

50%
34%

40%

38%

30%
15%

20%
7%

10%
0%

Paper Only

Paper First, Recreated
Electronically
Best in Class Average

Electronic Only

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

Aberdeen research shows that best in class performers are more likely to start out in electronic form rather than paper. In addition, they are half as likely to document any design deliverables on paper. This is important because electronic design deliverables facilitate collaboration across distances and supply chains better than paper deliverables.

Case Study – Radiation Shielding
“I start with an idea in my mind and sketch it out on a napkin because it’s quick. I put it into computer for one reason. It tells me where I have made mistakes.”
Rod Hutchinson, Radiation Shielding

Leveraging Electronic Design Deliverables
Best in class performers are also more likely to use the wide range of extended design and downstream capabilities that complement 3D modeling (Figure 7).
Figure 7: CAD Capabilities across the Competitive Framework
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

73%

70%
51%

51%
41%

Core Design
Capabilities

Extended Design
Capabilities
Best in Class

33%

Downstream
Capabilities

Avg

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 11

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Specifically, best in class performers are
Case Study – Accuray
24% more likely to use extended design capabilities (51% versus 41%) such as “We use simulation capabilities in the deconfiguration logic and knowledge, as- sign of our cancer treatment machines. Our sembly family tables, large assembly fully articulated machine directs highmanagement, simulation and analysis, energy x-ray beams at tumors, yet we have complex surfacing, and model quality to make sure that there are no other collichecks. These capabilities allow the best sions with the patient or anything else in in class performers to automate, virtually the room.” prototype, and reuse designs at a much
Ken Schulze, Accuray higher rate than the basic 3D modeling capabilities allow. The result is a better design.
What’s more, best in class performers are 55% more likely to use downstream capabilities (51% versus 33%) such as tool design, machining toolpaths, and quality / inspection toolpaths. These capabilities enable downstream departments to start on their deliverables before the design is actually complete. When changes are made, the modeling software updates all design deliverables, saving users the time and effort of manually propagating the change to all product features affected by it. This capability enables concurrent product development because it allows downstream departments to start their work earlier without fear of starting over when changes occur. Ultimately, concurrent work compresses the product development process, allowing manufacturers to hit their launch dates. The message here is clear. Use the extended design capabilities and downstream capabilities of 3D modeling to automate, virtually prototype, reuse designs – ultimately to get to a better design and enable concurrent product development, This, in turn, reduces product development costs and time to market.

Necessities for Success: Data Management and Hardware
While best in class performers are taking advantage of 3D modeling’s extended and downstream capabilities, many manufacturers run into the unexpected negative consequences of managing complex CAD relationships (39% in Figure 1). To address this issue, best in class performers are taking greater advantage of core data management technologies than their laggard peers (Figure 8).

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
12 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Figure 8: Data Management Technology across the Competitive Framework
60%
50%

57%

56%
46%

48%

51%

47%

40%

47%

31%

30%
20%
10%
0%
File Vaulting

Search & Reuse
Best in Class

Configuration
Management

BOM Management

Avg

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

Specifically, they are using many of
Case Study – Terex Cranes the core capabilities of data management such file vaulting, search and “Although we’re currently migrating from 2D reuse, and bill-of-material manage- to 3D, we don’t plan on using extended CAD ment. But most significantly, they are capabilities. However, we will be passing 3D taking advantage of the configuration models to our suppliers, whom we do expect capabilities. Many 3D modeling ap- will use capabilities like toolpath generation. plications have separate files for each We’re also going to use data management to part. An assembly is often another ensure that no two people can make conflicting separate file. While the 3D modeling changes to the same drawing. Down the road, application can look into a directory we plan to use it to collaborate with our sister and understand what files to retrieve company in Germany.” into memory, users have difficulty
Kyle Gerber, Terex Cranes understand versions of files and the interrelationships between them, especially in product models with more than 100 parts. Data management solutions often include specific functionality to understand these relationships, so that users do not need to manage the files manually.
Similarly, many manufacturers are experiencing application performance problems with large and complex designs (31% in Figure 1). The biggest problem is model regeneration
(71% in Figure 2). Accordingly, the best in class performers address these performance issues directly by upgrading the hardware these 3D modeling applications run on (Figure
9).

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 13

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Figure 9: Hardware Upgrades across the Competitive Framework
100%
80%
60%
40%

100%

80%
53%

20%
0%
Best in Class

Avg

Laggard

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

In fact, all best in class performers surveyed purchased new hardware when they migrated to 3D modeling software. Laggards were dramatically less proactive, with only
53% purchasing new hardware when migrating to 3D modeling.
The conclusion is clear: best in class performers proactively address the challenges of 3D modeling by supporting it with data management and new hardware.

Case Study – Isothermal Systems Research
“Our strategy from a computer hardware perspective is to continually improve; we’re always looking for better performance. We start by purchasing a new workstation for every engineer. After three years, we move those machines to someone else in the company and purchase new computers for the engineers. We cycle through that hardware lifecycle continuously.”
Matt Feider, Isothermal Systems Research

Checking Performance before Design Release
While virtual prototyping offers quantifiable benefits downstream, many manufacturers seek more immediate additional benefits by employing 3D modeling capabilities that enable reusing existing parts and morphing an existing part into a new one. Aberdeen findings show that the top three measures manufacturers are using to assess 3D modeling focus on this benefit (Table 5).
Table 5: Top Three Performance Measurements for 3D Modeling
Product Complexity

Best In Class

Average

First-time compliance with good modeling practices

56%

50%

Time required to find a design

52%

64%

Percent of reuse of models / parts

52%

52%

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

In fact, all of these measures are interrelated. First-time compliance with good modeling practices ensures that users can transform an existing design into a new one without havAll print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
14 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

ing to re-create most of it. Of course, engineers must find the design before they can use it, so retrieval time is an important measure. Finally, the bottom-line measure for gauging savings is the percent of a design that is composed of existing models and parts. This is important because by reusing existing parts manufacturers can eliminate testing qualifications and avoid additional tooling.
Finally, while what measures are tracked is important, when they are measured is equally important. While many companies never track performance measures or track them only in some ad-hoc manner, best in class performers are more likely to check performance at design release (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Measurement Frequency across the Competitive Framework
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

51%

58%

39%

31%

29% 30%

20% 22%

Never or Ad-Hoc

19%

Once at Design Release
Best in Class

Average

Periodic or Real Time Basis
Laggard

Source: AberdeenGroup, September 2006

In fact, best in class performers are 50% more likely to measure 3D model quality at that critical juncture before capital investments are made in developing prototypes for verification and validation. What’s more, they are 50% more likely to measure on some periodic or real-time basis. Interestingly enough, laggards are 49% more likely to never measure or measure in an ad-hoc manner. Measuring on a periodic basis throughout the design process is more beneficial than measuring once at design release because the design is less constrained earlier in the product development process. Important decisions affecting product costs that can be made early in the design process may not be possible at design release.
Overall, the message is to measure on some basis to ensure that designs can, first, be found and, second, modified to create a new design when needed.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 15

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Chapter Four:
Recommendations for Action
Initially document design deliverables in electronic form.

•

Allow engineers rather than drafters to use 3D modeling tools.

•

Deploy the extended design and downstream capabilities of 3D modeling.

•

Acquire hardware and data management tools to avoid 3D modeling problems.

•

Key Takeaways

•

Measure design reuse on a periodic basis throughout the design process.

R

egardless of the fact that manufacturers must develop more products that are more complicated in the face of unrelenting time-to-market constraints, they must find ways to implement new 3D modeling technology while still hitting product development targets. The following actions can help them address these challenges as well as enable them to improve their performance levels from
“laggard” to “industry average,” or from
“industry average” to “best in class,” or even from “best in class” to number one in their market.

Case Study – Advanced Dynamics
“We are roughly halfway through a twoto-three year initiative and starting to realize concrete benefits. Being able to collaborate closely with our clients during design reviews to dynamically modify designs to satisfy their specific needs has been invaluable. This capability has helped us win over $20 million in business so far.”
Fergus Groundwater
Advanced Dynamics

Laggard Steps to Success
1. Do not employ separate teams of drafters and engineers.
Organizational structures with separate drafting teams put more distance between engineers and their products. For engineers, who are ultimately responsible for product performance, close proximity to the design is critical.
2. Document all design deliverables in electronic form.
For historical, security, and legal reasons, it is important at some point to develop electronic forms of all design deliverables. Paper development followed by recreation in electronic form is an important first step.
3. Acquire or access new hardware when migrating to 3D modeling.
Performance is critical to the early success and acceptance of 3D modeling applications in the design process. Acquiring new hardware can prevent a variety of performance issues that commonly plague 3D modeling users.
4. Take measures to support design reuse throughout the design process.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
16 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

To ensure that the percentage of models and parts reused in the product increases, add measures to your design process that track how easily users can find and reuse designs such as time to find designs and first-time compliance to best modeling practices.

Industry Norm Steps to Success
1. Give engineers 3D modeling tools.
Providing engineers with 3D modeling tools directly allows them to efficiently explore more design iterations and uncover problems virtually, resulting in more complete and higher quality products.
2. Deploy 3D modeling extended design capabilities.
Use the extended design capabilities of 3D modeling including configuration logic capture, simulation, complex surfacing, assembly management, and model quality checks to arrive at better designs.
3. Deploy 3D modeling data management.
Use core data management capabilities to manage the complex relationships between parts and assemblies. These capabilities remove the burden of manually managing CAD file configurations in folder structures.
4. Measure design reuse at design release.
Measure levels of model quality and percentage of design reuse at design release.
This will lower product costs and product development costs by reusing parts and designs.

Best in Class Next Steps
1. Initially document design deliverables in electronic form.
Developing design deliverables facilitates collaboration across geographies and the supply chain more easily than paper.
2. Deploy 3D modeling downstream capabilities.
Use the associative downstream capabilities of 3D modeling such as tool design, machining toolpaths, and quality / inspection toolpaths. As a result, changes will propagate automatically. This will ultimately enable concurrent engineering, which compresses the product development lifecycle.
3. Measure design reuse on periodic basis.
Measure levels of model quality, time to find designs, and percentage of design reuse continuously on a periodic basis throughout the design process. Tracking these measures will enable engineers to make decisions leading to proactive actions early in the design process when the design is much less constrained than it is by the time design release occurs.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 17

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Featured Underwriters
This research report was made possible, in part, with the financial support of our underwriters. These individuals and organizations share Aberdeen’s vision of bringing fact based research to corporations worldwide at little or no cost. Underwriters have no editorial or research rights and the facts and analysis of this report remain an exclusive production and product of Aberdeen Group.

AMD is a leading global provider of innovative microprocessor solutions. Founded in
1969 and based in Sunnyvale, California, AMD designs and produces innovative microprocessors and low-power processor solutions for the computer, communications, and consumer electronics industries.
For additional information on Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.:
5204 East Ben White Boulevard, MS 647, Austin, TX 78741
1-(512) 602-1000 or bruce.shaw@amd.com www.amd.com Autodesk, Inc. is a Fortune 1000 company, wholly focused on ensuring that great ideas are turned into reality. With seven million users, Autodesk is the world's leading 3D software company for the manufacturing, infrastructure, building, media and entertainment, and wireless data services fields. Autodesk's solutions help customers create, manage and share their data and digital assets more effectively. As a result, customers turn ideas into competitive advantage, become more productive, streamline project efficiency and maximize profits.
Founded in 1982, Autodesk is headquartered in San Rafael, California. For additional information about Autodesk, please visit http://www.autodesk.com/.
For additional information on Autodesk, Inc.:
111 McInnis Parkway, San Rafael, CA 94903, USA
1-(415) 507-5000 www.autodesk.com All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
18 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

PTC provides leading product lifecycle management, content management, and dynamic publishing solutions to more than 40,000 companies—both large and small—across the globe. PTC customers include the world’s most innovative manufacturing companies, plus leaders in publishing, services, government, and life sciences. By optimizing their operations with PTC tools, small & medium businesses can boost innovation, speed timeto-market, cut costs, and enable seamless collaboration. PTC solutions include
Pro/ENGINEER®, the standard in 3D CAD; Windchill®, for project and data management; and Arbortext®, for electronic content management. Discover PTC’s Quick, Easy,
Affordable solutions at www.PTC.com/go/plm4smb
For additional information on PTC:
140 Kendrick Street, Needham, MA 02494
(781) 370-6733 www.ptc.com SolidWorks Corporation develops software for design, analysis, and product data management. It is the leading supplier of 3D CAD technology, providing intuitive, highperforming software that helps product design teams develop great products. SolidWorks software combines ease of use with advanced 2D and 3D design tools, enabling engineers to be creative and more productive. SolidWorks allows engineers in any industry to focus on creative design, not on the software, so they can design products that set their companies apart. SolidWorks is the world’s most widely used 3D software system, with more than a half million users and more than one million students learning the software every year. For additional information on SolidWorks Corporation:
300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 140 Kendrick Street, Needham, MA 02494
(978) 371-5000 or info@solidworks.com www.solidworks.com All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 19

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

UGS is a leading global provider of product lifecycle management (PLM) software and services with nearly 4 million licensed seats and 46,000 customers worldwide. Headquartered in Plano, Texas, UGS’ vision is to enable a world where organizations and their partners collaborate through global innovation networks to deliver world-class products and services, while leveraging UGS’ open enterprise solutions to transform their process of innovation. For nearly four decades, UGS’ PLM solutions have helped companies speed time-to-market, improve quality and innovation and increase revenue. In 2004,
UGS was the first PLM solutions provider to report $1 billion in annual revenue.
For additional information on PTC:
58 Granite Parkway, Suite 600, Plano, TX 75024
(800) 807-2200, info@UGS.com www.ugs.com All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
20 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Appendix A:
Research Methodology

D

uring August 2006, Aberdeen Group and Cadalyst, CADInfo.net, Desktop Engineering, and MCADCafe examined the experiences and intentions of more than
520 enterprises regarding their mechanical engineering and design methodologies.

Responding engineering and design executives completed an online survey that included questions designed to determine the following:
•

The degree to which mechanical engineering and design impact corporate strategies, operations, and financial results

•

The structure and effectiveness of existing mechanical design technologies

•

The benefits, if any, that have been derived from mechanical engineering and design efficiency initiatives

Aberdeen supplemented this online survey effort with telephone interviews with select survey respondents, gathering additional information on mechanical design strategies, experiences, and results.
The study aimed to identify emerging best practices for mechanical engineering and design and provide a framework by which readers could assess their own mechanical design capabilities.
Responding enterprises included the following:
•

Job title/function: The research sample included respondents with the following job titles: engineering and design staff (39%), engineering and design managers
(27%), senior management (CEO, COO, CFO) (8%), engineering and design directors (5%).

•

Industry: The research sample included respondents predominantly from manufacturing industries. Industrial equipment manufacturers represented 24% of the sample. Manufacturers in aerospace and defense accounted for 12% of respondents, closely followed by automotive at 10%. Producers of metal and metal products comprised 7% of the sample, closely followed by medical devices at
6%. Other sectors responding included computer equipment and peripherals, high technology, telecommunication manufacturers, services, and logistics.

•

Geography: Nearly all study respondents were from North America, accounting for 88% of respondents. Remaining respondents were from Europe at 6% and the
Asia-Pacific region at 4%.

•

Company size: About 61% of respondents were from small businesses (annual revenues of $50 million or less), 30% were from midsize enterprises (annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion), and 9% of respondents were from large enterprises (annual revenues above US$1 billion).

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 21

The Transition from 2D-Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Solution providers recognized as sponsors of this report were solicited after the fact and had no substantive influence on the direction of The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D
Modeling Benchmark Report. Their sponsorship has made it possible for Aberdeen
Group, Cadalyst, CADInfo.net, Desktop Engineering, and MCADCafe to make these findings available to readers at no charge.
Table 6: PACE Framework
PACE Key
Aberdeen applies a methodology to benchmark research that evaluates the business pressures, actions, capabilities, and enablers (PACE) that indicate corporate behavior in specific business processes. These terms are defined as follows:
Pressures — external forces that impact an organization’s market position, competitiveness, or business operations (e.g., economic, political and regulatory, technology, changing customer preferences, competitive)
Actions — the strategic approaches that an organization takes in response to industry pressures (e.g., align the corporate business model to leverage industry opportunities, such as product/service strategy, target markets, financial strategy, go-to-market, and sales strategy)
Capabilities — the business process competencies required to execute corporate strategy (e.g., skilled people, brand, market positioning, viable products/services, ecosystem partners, financing)
Enablers — the key functionality of technology solutions required to support the organization’s enabling business practices (e.g., development platform, applications, network connectivity, user interface, training and support, partner interfaces, data cleansing, and management)

Source: Aberdeen Group, Month 2006

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
22 • AberdeenGroup

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Table 7: Relationship between PACE and Competitive Framework
PACE and Competitive Framework How They Interact
Aberdeen research indicates that companies that identify the most impactful pressures and take the most transformational and effective actions are most likely to achieve superior performance. The level of competitive performance that a company achieves is strongly determined by the PACE choices that they make and how well they execute.
Source: Aberdeen Group, Month 2006

Table 8: Competitive Framework
Competitive Framework Key
The Aberdeen Competitive Framework defines enterprises as falling into one of the three following levels of
FIELD SERVICES practices and performance:
Laggards (30%) — FIELD SERVICES practices that are significantly behind the average of the industry, and result in below average performance
Industry norm (50%) — FIELD SERVICES practices that represent the average or norm, and result in average industry performance.
Best in class (20%) — FIELD SERVICES practices that are the best currently being employed and significantly superior to the industry norm, and result in the top industry performance.
Source: Aberdeen Group, Month 2006

All print and electronic rights are the property of Aberdeen Group © 2006.
Aberdeen Group • 23

The Transition from 2Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report

Appendix B:
Related Aberdeen Research & Tools
Related Aberdeen research that forms a companion or reference to this report includes:
•

Managing Product Relationships: Enabling Iteration and Innovation in Design
(August 2006)

•

Product Lifecycle Collaboration Benchmark Report: The Product Profitability
“X Factor”? (August 2006)

•

The Product Lifecycle Management for Small to Medium-Size Manufacturers
Benchmark Report (March 2006)

•

Design for Sourcing: Improving Product Lifecycle Profitability (March 2006)

•

The Global Product Design Benchmark Report (December 2005)

•

The Product Innovation Agenda Benchmark Report (September 2005)

Information on these and any other Aberdeen publications can be found at www.Aberdeen.com. 24

Aberdeen Group, Inc.
260 Franklin Street
Boston, Massachusetts
02110-3112
USA
Telephone: 617 723 7890
Fax: 617 723 7897 www.aberdeen.com © 2006 Aberdeen Group, Inc.
All rights reserved
September 2006

Founded in 1988, Aberdeen Group is the technologydriven research destination of choice for the global business executive. Aberdeen Group has over 100,000 research members in over 36 countries around the world that both participate in and direct the most comprehensive technology-driven value chain research in the market. Through its continued fact-based research, benchmarking, and actionable analysis, Aberdeen Group offers global business and technology executives a unique mix of actionable research, KPIs, tools, and services.

The information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources Aberdeen believes to be reliable, but is not guaranteed by Aberdeen. Aberdeen publications reflect the analyst’s judgment at the time and are subject to change without notice.
The trademarks and registered trademarks of the corporations mentioned in this publication are the property of their respective holders.

THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR ELECTRONIC DELIVERY ONLY
The following acts are strictly prohibited:
• Reproduction for Sale
• Transmittal via the Internet
Copyright © 2006 AberdeenGroup, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts

Terms and Conditions
Upon receipt of this electronic report, it is understood that the user will and must fully comply with the terms of purchase as stipulated in the Purchase Agreement signed by the user or by an authorized representative of the user’s organization. Aberdeen has granted this client permission to post this report on its Web site.
This publication is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaties. Unless otherwise noted in the Purchase Agreement, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by Aberdeen
Group, Inc., and may not be reproduced, stored in another retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent of the publisher. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this publication, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent necessary to protect the rights of the publisher.
The trademarks and registered trademarks of the corporations mentioned in this publication are the property of their respective holders.
All information contained in this report is current as of publication date. Information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources Aberdeen believes to be reliable, but is not warranted by the publisher. Opinions reflect judgment at the time of publication and are subject to change without notice.

Usage Tips
Report viewing in this PDF format offers several benefits:
• Table of Contents: A dynamic Table of Contents (TOC) helps you navigate through the report. Simply select “Show Bookmarks” from the “Windows” menu, or click on the bookmark icon (fourth icon from the left on the standard toolbar) to access this feature. The TOC is both expandable and collapsible; simply click on the plus sign to the left of the chapter titles listed in the TOC. This feature enables you to change your view of the TOC, depending on whether you would rather see an overview of the report or focus on any given chapter in greater depth. • Scroll Bar: Another online navigation feature can be accessed from the scroll bar to the right of your document window. By dragging the scroll bar, you can easily navigate through the entire document page by page. If you continue to press the mouse button while dragging the scroll bar, Acrobat Reader will list each page number as you scroll. This feature is helpful if you are searching for a specific page reference.
• Text-Based Searching: The PDF format also offers online text-based searching capabilities.
This can be a great asset if you are searching for references to a specific type of technology or any other elements within the report.
• Reader Guide: To further explore the benefits of the PDF file format, please consult the
Reader Guide available from the Help menu.