The design demands in aerospace aren't wholly different from those in other sectors. To compete in today's markets, designers must be able to create designs that can be adapted to various customer needs quickly and easily. At the same time, customers are demanding better reliability, higher accuracy and less maintenance. Providing all of this and remaining profitable is a challenge, as companies need to do more than ever in less time and with fewer resources.

In fact, that was the general conclusion of an Aberdeen Group report last fall:

Manufacturers today must "do more with less": develop more — and more complex — products, in shorter timeframes — to address customer and competitive pressures. Many manufacturers are turning to 3D modeling to ease the burden, but not without challenges. Others are not only adopting 3D modeling, but excelling at hitting their product development targets.

The research firm conducted an online survey of more than 520 enterprises, and the results along with Aberdeen's recommendations were published in The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report.

Studying the external pressures companies face, their strategic approaches, business processes and support tools, Aberdeen classified participants into three categories: laggards, industry norm and best in class.

Fully half the survey pool turned out to be in the industry norm. Among the rest, 30 percent ranked as laggards while 20 percent ranked as "best in class."

There were a few characteristics that distinguished bests in class — or those that hit their revenue, cost, launch date and quality targets for 84 percent or more of their products — from the rest. For instance, bests in class are:

• Forty (40) percent more likely to have engineers use CAD directly to ensure they stay closer to the design;
• Half as likely to document any design deliverables on paper;
• Twelve (12) percent more likely to completely develop designs electronically;
• Twenty-four (24) percent more likely to use the extended design capabilities of 3D modeling; and
• Fifty-five (55) percent more likely to use 3D models' downstream capabilities.

Yet no matter the category under which you fall in the scale, you're stuck between opposing forces, Aberdeen said:

On the one hand, Aberdeen survey respondents [reported] that their companies must develop more products and get them to market faster due to shortened time to market (65 percent), accelerating product commodization (29 percent) and threatening competitive products (27 percent). On the other hand, they also [indicated] that their companies must address customer demand for new products (47 percent) that are more complicated due to increasingly complex customer requirements (43 percent).

According to the study, industry norm is six change orders per product, laggards are likely to average 9.8, but the best-in-class firms are only 3.7.

I Still Want My 2D!
Many manufacturers are making 3D modeling part of the plan: "Fully 71 percent of companies currently using 2D drafting are planning on using 3D modeling," Aberdeen noted.

Yet 77 percent of companies that use 3D modeling also use 2D drafting.

In follow-up interviews with respondents, Aberdeen discovered a number of factors that make them cling to 2D:

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.

Meanwhile, manufacturers today are receiving and delivering design data in myriad formats — "requiring time, effort, and, sometimes, staff knowledgeable in special applications to translate and re-create designs," noted another recent Aberdeen study, The Multi-CAD Design Chain Benchmark Report.

According to the report, companies that are best in class at designing in a multi-CAD environment reuse designs at twice the rate of laggards (67 percent versus 33 percent). This helps them hit their targets for product cost and launch dates — at a 93 percent average or better.

What to Do
The following are Aberdeen's suggestions, based on the category under which a firm or department falls.

Laggards:

• Do not employ separate teams of drafters and engineers.
• Document all design deliverables in electronic form.
• Acquire or access new hardware when migrating to 3D modeling.
• Take measures to support design reuse throughout the design process.

Industry norm:

• Give engineers 3D modeling tools.
• Deploy 3D modeling extended design capabilities.
• Deploy 3D modeling data management.
• Measure design reuse at design release.

Best in class:

• Initially document design deliverables in electronic form.
• Deploy 3D modeling downstream capabilities.
• Measure design reuse on periodic basis.

Manufacturers today need to get more, and more complex, products to market faster. Faced with this challenge, some companies are spending more time in the design phase in order to save time later. Others are not, and they are paying the price.

Resources

Survey: 3D Modeling Paves Road to Success
by Kenneth Wong
Cadalyst, Oct. 10, 2006

The Transition from 2D Drafting to 3D Modeling Benchmark Report: Improving Engineering Efficiency
by Chad Jackson
Aberdeen Group, September 2006

The Multi-CAD Design Chain Benchmark Report: Insulating Engineering from Today's Multi-CAD Environment
by Chad Jackson
Aberdeen Group, December 2006

Nimble Product Design: CAD/CAM/CAE for the Small to Mid-Sized Enterprise
by Chad Jackson
Aberdeen Group, June 2007

The Simulation-Driven Design Benchmark Report: Getting It Right the First Time
by Chad Jackson
Aberdeen Group, October 2006

Innovation in 3D PDF
by Michael Kaplan
NASA Tech Briefs, April 1, 2007

Additional

The Design Reuse Benchmark Report
Aberdeen Group, February 2007