The sole purpose of investing in CAD technology is to increase company profitability within a business environment characterised by pressures from markets, competitors and economic conditions. The present environment for many companies is defined by economic downturn, shrinking or static markets, increased competition and tightened margins. Successful companies respond by raising engineering performance to deliver enhanced product innovation, higher product quality, greater value for money and reduced time to market. That is what 3D CAD investment is about.

It is important to distinguish 'engineering performance' from 'productivity', which is too often taken to mean personal productivity. 2D CAD systems were sold as automated draughting tools, aimed essentially at drawing productivity, and by now that benefit has been fully absorbed. 3D CAD aims much higher - at the performance and efficiency of the whole collaborative engineering enterprise. Thus the payback from a 3D CAD investment, properly executed, is much greater than the historic payback from 2D CAD.

Technology investment

Whenever a new technology appears the senior manager has to decide whether and when to adopt it, balancing the business benefits against the inevitable costs of change and the time to produce the benefits. All three are difficult to analyse and the manager ultimately depends on advice from many quarters, the most useful being evidence from companies in related industries who have already made the change. The manager is unlikely to have personal hands-on experience of the technology, especially where technological development has moved fast, and the link between technology investment and ultimate profit becomes more difficult to assess as the technology becomes more all embracing.

CAD is a classic example of this syndrome. Apparently a significant number of engineering company managers are still hesitating to invest in 3D CAD. Perhaps they are not persuaded about the business benefits; or they do not really understand how the technology delivers the benefits; or they feel that their organisation is not capable of implementing the technology without undue difficulty, cost or disruption of their operations. We will cover these issues in turn but first a brief recap of why 3D CAD is fundamentally different.

A smooth step forward

An originally small engineering company supplying custom designed automation equipment, now with 60 engineering staff and 600 employees, prides itself on its ability to adapt to changing markets quickly when necessary. Four years ago they invested in 3D CAD in order to stay competitive - as soon as the technology, in their judgement, had become sufficiently productive and easy to use. A short learning curve was very important.

Taking a planned approach to implementation they took one week out for training then applied the system first to a couple of small projects. That being successful the next step was to complete a large mechanical design project (estimated at two man-years of work using old methods) exclusively using the 3D CAD system. The automated machine had multiple complex mechanisms, including three conveyor systems, a 6-axis robot, a 3-axis custom designed positioning system, a feed system, two camdriven indexing units, a vision system, and literally dozens of pneumatically activated motions. The three lead designers assigned to the project had taken part in the initial training six months earlier, but had no actual experience using the system subsequently. The 'bottom line' was that they came in ahead of schedule, under budget and with engineering change orders reduced to only 10% of what they would previously have considered normal.

CAD is a tool of the whole engineering business

Any company still using 2D CAD as its primary design tool is likely to recall the basis on which it was originally justified, namely as a means of increasing design drawing productivity. 2D CAD had relatively little impact on the far more costly and time-consuming downstream processes of product development, engineering analysis, testing and production. Software for these processes became available in the same time frame as CAD, but 2D drawings provided a poor interface to such software, generally requiring interpretation and manual data transfer, with all the attendant potential for mistakes. 2D systems have developed over the years and can of course handle the third dimension in various ways. But 2D drawing as a means of conveying design intent cannot shed its fundamental deficiencies: it is an indirect representation of reality, subject to interpretation and error, and not containing sufficient information to feed downstream computerised processes automatically. Its impact on the overall engineering business process is inherently limited.

3D CAD systems approach these issues from exactly the opposite direction. 3D allows the engineer to directly produce 3-dimensional 'solid' digital models of product's geometry in the form that downstream processes require, impacting much more of the overall engineering process. 2D CAD does not disappear, if only because 2D sketching is a key method of defining a solid object, but many drawings can be generated automatically as an output from the 3D design process (not an input), thus reducing drawing work and increasing speed, accuracy and consistency. By attaching non-geometric engineering information to the 3D digital model it becomes a complete digital definition of the product, holding all the data required to analyse, procure and make it. The results on the bottom line have now been more than adequately verified in thousands of companies, especially those developing complex electromechanical machinery and equipment. Typically they experience halving of development time through higher design productivity, better engineering decision making, reduced engineering change orders and improved reliability of communication with customers, suppliers and contractors.

Data management

For several years a manufacturer of industrial equipment for the forestry, marine, mining, oil and gas industries wanted to make the move from an old 2D system to the much more productive environment of 3D solid modelling, but a requirement to include a design management system prevented the move. Identification of a 3D CAD system with integrated product data management allowed the company to move into 3D and bypass the need for a separate PDM system investment that would have cost $200 000 up front and been more difficult to implement and maintain.

The company now manages 3D engineering data between 25 engineering department employees, with another 75 users on the manufacturing shop floor, the service department and in the technical publications department. Most of the legacy 2D drawings and data have been moved into the 3D system - managed workspace, which means that the company has been able to leverage the value of all their previous work.

The present state of play

The 3D vision has taken a long time to achieve and managers may be forgiven if they think they have 'heard it all before'. 3D technology development started nearly 40 years ago but (outside the aerospace, automotive and process industries) it has become a viable proposition for many companies only in the last five or 10 years. Recently this progress has accelerated.

Several key developments have now converged to make modern 3D CAD systems into a practical proposition - even essential - for any engineering company developing significant industrial or consumer products:

* Greatly reduced costs of computing power, graphics processing and data storage.

* Emergence of MS Windows as a standardised operating environment for 3D CAD, fully capable of supporting collaborative engineering in the extended enterprise.

* More utilisation of Microsoft standard data handling applications and utilities for lower costs and increased compatibility with other business processes.

* Ability to model large assemblies in 3D and manage all the complex relationships between features, components and assemblies.

* Engineering data management integrated within the 3D CAD system so that product data and administration is handled 'on the fly'.

* Tools that provide access to the product model and design data by external applications.

* Easier to use systems resulting from improved logical structure and user interface style.

* Full integration of 2D drawing and 3D modelling within the same CAD product - known as 'hybrid 2D/3D' technology.

* Mixed 2D/3D semi-automatic workflow aids for assembly layouts and modelling.

Some of these software characteristics are product dependent, and development continues to be rapid. We suggest that management should review the situation regularly and frequently, as discussed below.

So what is the problem?

Our own continuous monitoring of the technology persuades us that modern mainstream 3D CAD systems are at the stage where they will deliver the benefits claimed for them when implemented and applied properly. From some potential user companies we hear doubts expressed, not so much about the benefit arguments (which seem to be generally understood and accepted) but about their own ability to change their current methods without undue disruption or difficulty. Here are the principal issues raised, as well as some thoughts about them.

3D CAD will cost too much

System cost may not be so high as anticipated. There is a constant trend towards lower costs of technology and competition between CAD vendors over recent years has produced notable decreases in prices, so costs should be checked out regularly. Of course the cost of a modern 2D drawing system would be less than a 3D CAD system but that is not a relevant comparison: as we have seen, 3D technology delivers many more and quite different benefits across the whole of engineering. Yet the cost of a mainstream 3D CAD system now would be no more than the cost of a 2D system only a few years ago.

In any case, the real issue is cost benefit, not simply cost. 3D investment is almost invariably made as a way of increasing the company's competitive strength through increasing its engineering performance, delivering better products and getting them to market more quickly. Sometimes this is a planned strategy, at other times it can be a response to immediate market pressures or even specific customer demands. In such circumstances cost is naturally a factor but the real cost is seen to lie in a failure to respond. From our observations most successful 3D CAD investments tend to occur when times are tough, when there are budget pressures from loss of sales, or anticipated losses, and the company is highly motivated to deal with the situation.

How to evaluate the benefits?

We have described the wide-ranging benefits that 3D CAD brings to the whole of the engineering process. It was relatively easy to assess the benefits of 2D CAD in terms simply of draughting productivity. With 3D CAD the situation is different. The CEO needs to evaluate the effect on the top line of 'better products delivered faster', and be able to assess the value of greater productivity of the whole product development function, not just a bit of it. As always, this assessment will be greatly assisted by talking to companies who have already done it and are a year or two down the line.

Benefits

A world leader in personal protection systems for bomb disposal and mine clearance found that, "By creating accurate 3D parts, 2D drawings are only a few mouse clicks away. Using a 3D CAD system with hybrid 2D/3D technology we have reduced the time required to output a complete set of drawings by a factor of eight. That is an 87,5% time saving."

3D will prove too difficult to learn

This is one that we frankly do not believe, given the large number of companies and types of companies who have adopted 3D technology with relatively little difficulty. Some relevant points:

* Most engineers think in 3D so the essence of the 3D modelling process is intuitive.

* After many years of user feedback, leading systems vendors have made modern systems easy to use, with a logical structure and user interfaces that are closely aligned to the Windows 'look and feel' which is now widely familiar.

* The structure of the 3D CAD design process and the data structure of the resulting digital product modals is closely aligned with the physical structure of the product being designed (parts, components, sub-assemblies, assemblies), so the process feels natural.

* Drawing functionality in hybrid 2D/3D systems is similar to existing 2D systems, so no significant learning curve is involved as far as 2D work is concerned.

* Modern 3D CAD products include a large number of productivity aids that automate common processes and standardise work flows.

* The reduced effort needed to produce a full digital product definition, especially in a collaborative engineering environment, is a strong motivational factor.

Migrating from 2D to 3D will disrupt operations

Clearly disruption must be minimised. Most companies achieve this by targeting a defined small project to begin with and taking a step-by-step approach, introducing only certain features of the new system at a time. A large amount of training per individual is not recommended: CAD systems have so much operating guidance online that 'learn as you go' is often the best approach. Standard wisdom is to monitor progress, show management enthusiasm at all times and evaluate results at regular intervals. With a modern 3D CAD system loss of productivity during the learning curve is likely to be minimal for many reasons:

* Designing in 3D is inherently more efficient, offsetting any initial loss of impetus and leading to increased productivity within a short time.

* Built-in tutorials and 'intelligent help' guide the new user at every step.

* Time spent producing drawings will start to be diminish immediately.

* Integrated 2D draughting and 2D/3D work flow aids help staff to adapt quickly.

* 3D 'wizards' help users quickly convert existing 2D geometry to 3D, so legacy 2D design data is not lost.

* Hybrid 2D/3D technology means that the organisation can evolve from the 2D mode of working to 'full 3D' in a step-by-step manner at a pace matched to the company's own circumstances, type of product and staff capabilities.

Conclusions and recommendations

* Based on reviews of the latest 3D technology and the experiences of many companies that have adopted it, any company in the business of product development (and their suppliers) would be well advised to re-examine the business potential and market opportunities offered by modern 3D CAD systems.

* Whereas 2D CAD simply increased drawing productivity, modern 3D CAD systems impact the whole of the design, engineering and product development management process. The typical result (confirmed by very many users) increased design innovation and product quality, 50% or more reduction in engineering change orders and greatly reduced product development time, with all the competitive business advantages that follow.

* There have been a few doubts expressed about the ability of companies to adopt 3D technology without undue cost or difficulty. Generally speaking though, the evidence is the thousands of companies that have already done it. The technical reasons, however, lie in details of the advanced technology (such as hybrid 2D/3D) built into modern 3D CAD products. This technology has advanced rapidly in recent years, even months, and management should therefore ensure that the situation is reviewed regularly.

For more information on the effective implementation of 3D CAD solutions, contact EDS PLM Solutions' local representative ESTEQ Design, 012 991 9200, c.oosthuizen@esteq.com, www.esteq.com