CAD
SPAGHETTI
CAD/CAM user
attitudes to the 3D experience
March 2001
|
|
|
|
|
CAD
SPAGHETTI |
|
< a href="http://www.ictspaghetti.com/CAD/about.php" >CAD
SPAGHETTI Current issue: User view - the Foxboro Company User attitudes to 3D CAD Choosing a supplier - the price factor Customer satisfaction - what's the norm? The Internet - access for all? Market intelligence on the Mechanical Engineering Sector About The Business Advantage Group Plc
Do
you have any market research needs?
|
The case for the benefits for moving to 3D design solutions appears to be won. The CAD vendors have their research results demonstrating the dramatic productivity gains to be made, and can produce a case study to cover every scenario. But what are the current attitudes to and level of experience of 3D design solutions among CAD/CAM users? Why are non-users of 3D CAD holding back? Has the 3D experience met the expectations of those who have adopted it? We interviewed 254 CAD/CAM using companies from a cross section of sectors to gain a snapshot of their views. The
2D/3D big picture Almost
40% of our sample indicated that they use both 2D and 3D depending on
specific projects.
Just over half use only 2D drafting tools, while only 7% of
respondents use exclusively 3D solutions.
The sample size is too small for firm assertions about the differences in levels of use of 3D solutions between industry sectors. However, half of the 134 mechanical engineering companies we interviewed were using 3D solutions to varying degrees. The indications are that the lowest levels of 3D use are in electrical/electronic engineering, and construction/civil engineering. The
survey showed that the proportion of companies using 3D solutions
increases as company size increases.
Less than 40% of small companies (i.e. those employing less than
fifty people) reported using 3D CAD. Views
from the 2D world Three
quarters of the companies not currently using 3D CAD software have no
plans to move into 3D design in the future.
17% are planning to invest in 3D solutions, the majority within the
next twelve months.  What lies behind the majority view of the non-3D CAD users that this approach is not relevant to them? Clearly there are going to be a proportion of these for whom 2D is genuinely the appropriate tool. However, the proportions offering this view were similar across business activity groups, including mechanical engineering. We asked Richard Shepherd, a Research Analyst from RSR who has studied 700 MCAD users over the last five years, why the take-up of 3D solutions is not quicker. "It is fear of change by designers at the sharp end that is the sticking factor. It always comes back to being a people rather than a systems issue. Cost is less of an issue – sure 3D software is more expensive, but not enough to make a difference over a period of time.”
Views
from the 3D world We
investigated the experiences of those companies that have adopted 3D
solutions to find out whether the benefits, ease of use, cost etc had met
their expectations. Almost
one third of the companies using 3D solutions in our sample have been
doing so for five years or longer. One
in five started using it between three to five years ago, while a further
16% of the companies have used it for two to three years.
The remaining third of this group have been using 3D CAD for less
than two years. The
cost factor.... Companies
were asked whether the overall cost of moving to 3D had been higher, lower
or the same as expected. Over
half of them indicated the cost had been the same they expected, while
one in four companies argued that it had actually been higher. Only 7% mentioned the cost had been lower than expected. The
ease of use factor.... Almost
half of our group of 3D users indicated that the overall ease of use of
their chosen software had been the same as they expected.
A third of them stated it had been easier to use than expected –
but almost one in five found it harder than expected. The
impact factor.... The
productivity benefits of adopting 3D design methods were perceived
to have been greater than anticipated by over a third of the companies.
Almost half indicated the impact on productivity had met their
expectations, while only 8% felt the impact had been less than expected.
However, 84% of companies indicated they are not measuring changes
in productivity arising from the use of 3D CAD. Previous research has demonstrated the sort of increases in productivity that engineers should expect when moving to 3D. Richard Shepherd’s analysis of MCAD users compared productivity changes over a two-year period between companies using upgraded 2D software, and those changing to a 3D solution.
* Indicates that sample is too small for accurate analysis Richard Shepherd feels that both CAD vendors and users need to be realistic about the time and commitment needed to reap the rewards of 3D design: “To suggest that designers can be productive from day one using a
3D package with no previous training is nonsense – they can’t.
It is a long hard learning curve.
However, those who have made the effort to change to 3D have reaped
the rewards and done very well. Often
people think that the skills will be there instantly, but this is not
true. It may be one or two
years before the software can be used effectively.
I looked into what happened if people received training before the
software was installed. I
found that the longer the training period before installation, the more
productive the designer when it was installed.
You can’t expect too much to happen in too short a time.” Solid
services Good
quality support is going to be important to companies adopting 3D
solutions – and the vast majority are satisfied with the support they
have received from their software suppliers.
Forty per cent of companies were “quite happy” with the support
services they received. Almost
a third indicated they were “very happy”, while 12% were “extremely
happy”. However 12% of
companies mentioned they were either “not very happy” or “not at all
happy” with the quality of support. Conclusion Two
out of five companies in our overall sample are using both 2D and 3D.
Richard Shepherd feels vendors who can cater for this dual need in
the most user friendly way will have the edge.
“There are companies which have elements of their work which
would benefit from 3D but also have elements for which 2D would be
sufficient. However, is there
much point in having separate software for the two? This is why Mechanical Desktop is so popular – it allows
designers to switch between 2D and 3D.
3D systems which don’t have a 2D drafting facility don’t tend
to sell as many seats as those which have both.” When
talking to 3D CAD vendors on why 2D drafters are reluctant to move to 3D,
the same three or four factors keep cropping up – users feel it is too
expensive, takes too long to become productive, it’s too hard to use,
and an overall fear of change. Our
survey however shows that the first three of these are not necessarily
major factors in the attitudes of companies reluctant to consider 3D.
Richard Shepherd identifies fear of change as the sticking factor,
and this probably lies behind the thinking of some of the 2D users who
told us they have no need to move to use 3D. But
our research also identifies a sizeable group of companies who feel that
3D is not relevant to them – they see themselves as doing fine with 2D
with no need to change. However
a third of pure 2D users not considering a change have had no exposure to
3D solutions. This implies
that for some the decision to stick to 2D is not an informed one.
Of
those that have adopted 3D solutions, nearly a quarter feel that the
overall cost was higher than expected, and one in five feel it was/is
harder to use than expected. There
is an indication that some CAD suppliers may be glossing over the
practical commitments required to use 3D successfully.
In the long term it will be to everyone’s benefit if suppliers
focus on the actual needs of new 3D CAD users.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
