THE ROI OF MBD

26%

79%

9%

61%

42%

THE ROI OF MBD 2

Do Model-Based Definition (MBD) initiatives provide tangible benefits?

In talking with manufacturers and suppliers, that’s a question I get time and again. At this point, most people understand the theoretical benefits: MBDs take less time to create and reduce downstream errors and delays due to their unambiguous nature. However, many people still wonder if that kind of advantage is proven to manifest in some measured improvement.

Answering that critical question is the purpose of this report. Here, you will find new research findings on which MBD practices and methods translate to productivity gains and downstream benefits, both for engineering and the company as a whole.

So read on to gain insight on the ROI of Model-Based Definition.

Take care. Talk soon. Thanks for reading.

Chad Jackson, Industry Analyst, Lifecycle Insights (512) 284-8080, chad.jackson@lifecycleinsights.com

FULFILLING THE FUNCTION OF ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION ...... 3

THE FOUR OPTIONS FOR ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION ................ 4

A CAUTIONARY TALE: MISS-ESTIMATING THE BENEFITS .................... 10

MODEL-BASED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTIONS ............................... 13

THE ADOPTION OF MBD AND THE CULTURAL COMPROMISE ............. 14

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 16

APPENDIX A: STUDY LIFECYCLE AND DEMOGRAPHICS ...................... 17

APPENDIX B: DEFINING COHORTS ............................................................ 18

APPENDIX C: MEASURING PERFORMANCE ............................................ 19

APPENDIX D: DATA SETS USED IN THE SURVEY ................................... 21

APPENDIX E: LEGAL ..................................................................................... 25

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

THE ROI OF MBD 3

In order to properly provide the right context for some of the findings in this report, it is important to highlight two of the primary functions of engineering documentation and the implications of fulfilling them in different ways.

Convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component.

Define the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards.

These two functions have not changed in some time. Yet, the means by which they are fulfilled has been evolving over the past few decades, especially in the context of the emergence of new technologies. As a result, it is important to understand how the process by which 2D Drawings and 3D Models fulfillment are different.

2D DRAWINGS

To convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component, a drawing relies on a combination of 2D entities, dimensions and multiple views. In a single view on a drawing, 2D entities and dimensions convey the detailed form or shape of a component. The combination of the traditional three views of a drawing and its dimensions conveys the complete detailed form of a component.

The effort to define the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards partially builds on the earlier efforts to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component. Dimensions already exist that define the component’s form. However, not all processes use all of those dimensions to measure conformance to quality standards.

Therefore, dimensions should be explicitly identified for measurement once the component is manufactured. Tolerances must be added to the existing dimensions or geometry on the drawing to define the threshold within which those dimensions must fall.

3D MODELS

The means by which a 3D model conveys the complete and detailed geometric form of a component sharply contrasts with that of drawings. The geometry of the model inherently defines its form. No additional dimensions or information is needed to fulfill this function of engineering documentation.

That inherent form, however, does not satisfy the need to define the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards. Therefore, dimensions must be added to the 3D model to define what must be measured to assess its conformance. Furthermore, tolerances must be added to those dimensions or the geometry to define acceptable thresholds.

FULFILLING THE FUNCTION OF ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION

THE ROI OF MBD 4

Using these two different types of engineering documentation, however, isn’t as simple as picking one or another. Organizations have used them in combination and even applied the practices used from one to another. As a result, organizations have settled into practices of releasing one of four different kinds of deliverable sets for engineering documentation detailed as follows.

RELEASING FULLY ANNOTATED DRAWINGS

Today, many organizations exclusively release 2D graphical drawings as their engineering documentation. As such, the 2D entities, dimensions, tolerances and multiple views are the means to both conveying the complete and detailed geometric form of a component and defining the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards.

Figure 1: Average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents cohort (Appendix A).

Estimations for developing the fully annotated drawing dataset act as the baseline in our research study. Respondents estimated the amount of time it would take to create this deliverable averaged 8.8 hours.

RELEASING MINIMALLY ANNOTATED DRAWINGS

While a lot of attention is focused on replacing drawings with annotated models, that’s not the only engineering documentation initiative organizations are pursuing. One initiative that is in practice is to release a 2D graphical drawing and a 3D model as a set. The advantage here is to rely on the ability of the 3D model to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component while allowing the 2D graphical drawing to define the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards.

These two deliverables work in conjunction to achieve the function of engineering documentation. The following examples illustrate how the two are used side-by-side downstream.

Tooling Design: Those developing molds, dies and casting tooling can accurately develop cavities within the tooling based on the 3D model. They then make changes to the tooling based on the tolerances and surface finishes defined in the 2D graphical drawing.

Generating NC Toolpaths: Machinists can directly, and frequently automatically, generate toolpaths using the 3D model in CAM software applications. They then reference the 2D graphical drawing for tolerances, surface finishes and other details to refine the speeds, feeds and tools used during the operation.

8.8 Hours

Time to Create Fully Annotated Drawing

BASELINE FOR STUDY COMPARISONS

THE FOUR OPTIONS FOR ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION

THE ROI OF MBD 5

Using such a method theoretically offers a straightforward benefit: less time is required to detail a fully annotated drawing, only documenting the aspects of the design that needs to be measured for conformance. Findings from this research study do, in fact, verify this benefit. The amount of time estimated to create the minimal drawing dataset averages 5.2 hours, a significant amount less than the 8.8 hours estimated to create the fully annotated drawing dataset. Additionally, those using this approach realize a small reduction in clarification requests for engineering documentation (23% vs. 15%), as the 3D model can provide clarification.

Figure 2: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the minimally annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by the Drawing-Reliant cohort (Appendix B).

There is, however, a flaw in using this approach. A 2D graphical drawing that has been exported or saved into a neutral or other format can still be edited without updating the 3D model. When under tight time constraints, as is often the case in product

development projects, this is seen as an easy fix requiring little time. Taking this approach, however, leads to diverging definitions in the 3D model compared to the 2D graphical drawing. This leads to costly errors downstream. For example, parts coming out of tooling made with the 3D model will not conform to quality standards when measured against the 2D graphical drawing. Responses from this research report verify this as there is no practical difference between organizations that primarily release drawings, defined as the Drawing-Based cohort in Appendix B, and organizations primarily releasing models and drawings, defined as Model-Based cohort in Appendix B in reducing ECOs (20% vs. 21%), decreasing non-conformances (16% vs. 16%) and reducing scrap (16% vs. 16%).

Percent of Respondents Experiencing Benefits from Documentation Initiatives: Drawing-Reliant and Model-Reliant

Drawing-Reliant

Model- Reliant

% of respondents reducing ECOs 20% 21%

% of respondents decreasing non-conformances 16% 16%

% of respondents reducing scrap 16% 16%

Table 1: Comparison of benefits (Appendix C) realized across the Drawing-Reliant and Model-Reliant cohorts (Appendix B).

5.2 Hours 8.8 Hours

Time to Create Fully Annotated Drawing

Time to Create Minimally Annotated Drawing

MIGRATING TO MINIMALLY ANNOTATED DRAWINGS

THE ROI OF MBD 6

Ultimately, transitioning from releasing fully annotated drawings to releasing a combination of minimally annotated drawings and a 3D model provides benefits to the engineering organization in terms of time spent on engineering documentation, but little else for the whole company.

RELEASING FULLY ANNOTATED 3D MODELS

For some, the theoretical benefits of moving towards releasing Model-Based Definition rings true enough for them to make a change. A frequent adoption of MBD involves transitioning from fully annotated drawings to fully annotated models, essentially replicating the traditional effort of adding dimensions in order to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component. In this case, however, the 3D model is annotated with PMI where it can be used directly by software, rather than only read by a human.

This single deliverable fulfills all of the functions of engineering documentation. The following examples illustrate how it is used.

Tooling Design: Tooling designers can develop molds, dies and casting tooling based on a model and its PMI without consulting a second definition of the design.

Generating NC Toolpaths: Machinists can generate toolpaths directly from the model and the associated machine-readable PMI, which includes tolerancing. Speeds, feeds and tools can be determined using the model only.

The advantage of this method lies in the fact that there is a single and unambiguous definition that both conveys the complete and detailed geometric form of a component and defines the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards. Theoretically, this method should address the flaws associated

with releasing a 2D graphical drawing and a model. With only one deliverable, there is no divergence of the definition from which errors can emerge. Findings from this research report do, in fact, verify that is the case, as a higher percentage of organizations releasing only MBD deliverables cite reduced change orders (30% vs. 21%) and reduced scrap (35% vs. 15%) by wide comparative margins. The benefits in this case are strong for the company.

Percent of Respondents Experiencing Benefits from Documentation Initiatives: Model-Reliant and Model-Based

Model- Reliant

Model- Based

% of respondents reducing ECOs 21% 30%

% of respondents decreasing non-conformances 16% 16%

% of respondents reducing scrap 16% 35%

Table 2: Comparison of benefits (Appendix C) realized across the Model-Reliant and Model-Based cohorts (Appendix B).

The shortcoming using this method, however, lies in the effort invested in annotating the model as if it were a drawing. This effort essentially replicates the traditional effort of adding dimensions in order to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component when the 3D model already inherently does so through its geometry. As a result, one would expect no reduction in the amount of time it takes to annotate the 3D model compared to creating a 2D graphical drawing. Interestingly, however, findings from this research show it

THE ROI OF MBD 7

actually requires more time to replicate the effort, with estimates to develop the fully annotated model averaging 11.7 hours compared to 8.8 hours to create the fully annotated drawing dataset.

Figure 3: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the Model-Based cohort (Appendix B).

Why would it take longer to fully annotate a 3D model than create a fully annotated drawing? The reasons are many. Developing a Model-Based Definition involves more complexity, including deciding upon how to orient dimensions and tolerances on presentation planes as well as grouping such annotations into sets that can be turned on and off. Furthermore, the additional time may also be the result of a transition between technologies, as there is a learning curve that must be navigated. Over time, however, improved proficiency in using the new technologies will reduce this as well.

Another important point to note is that creating fully annotated models represents a duplicative effort. The geometric representation of the model already conveys the complete and detailed geometric form of a component. Adding dimensions adds a different means of doing the same thing. The risk in this approach is that these two duplicative methods of conveying the complete and detailed geometric form of a component may fall out of synch as the dimensional values can be changed without a corresponding modification of the geometry. The only additional effort that is truly required is to define the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards through tolerancing and other annotations.

Ultimately, transitioning from fully annotated drawings to fully annotated models yields benefits for the company overall, with fewer ECOs and scrap, but not for engineering, who must invest more time to create such deliverables.

RELEASING MINIMALLY ANNOTATED 3D MODELS

Developing 3D models with annotations isn’t the only improvement effort organizations are pursuing with respect to engineering documentation. Some are adopting practices to include the absolute minimum amount of annotations required in their deliverables. This means, for example, that a component that will be machined with toolpaths automatically created by a CAM software program with no manual programming will not require any annotations, theoretically. In contrast, if a sheet metal part requires the brake operator to manually set the bend dimension and angle, then that annotation should be included and displayed.

By pulling together the effort to minimize annotations and the effort to release a 3D model with PMI, some organizations are seeking benefits from both types of improvement efforts. The

11.7 Hours 8.8 Hours

Time to Create Fully Annotated Drawing

Time to Create Fully Annotated Model

MIGRATING TO FULLY ANNOTATED MODELS

THE ROI OF MBD 8

idea is to rely on the 3D model’s inherent geometry definition to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component while adding the minimal annotations to define the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards.

This single reduced annotation deliverable fulfills all of the functions of engineering documentation with effort that, in theory, is lower. From a functional perspective, this deliverable is used in the same way downstream as a fully annotated 3D model, albeit with only the dimensions and tolerances that are needed for conformance measurements.

For the company, the benefits of a fully annotated model are realized here because there is a single unambiguous definition with a clear source authority for geometry and tolerance. There aren’t two definitions that can diverge, causing errors. Findings from this research report, as shared earlier, show a higher percentage of organizations releasing only MBD deliverables lower the number of change orders (30% vs. 21%) and reduce scrap (35% vs. 16%) by wide comparative margins as shown in Table 2.

For the engineering organization, the flaw associated with fully annotated models, which according to estimates would take longer to create, is addressed. Findings from this research study show that the benefit associated with minimal or reduced annotation efforts carries over here. The amount of time estimated to create the minimally annotated model dataset averages 6.7 hours, less than the 8.8 hours estimated to create the fully annotated drawing dataset.

Figure 4: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the minimally annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the Model-Based cohort (Appendix B).

Furthermore, engineering organizations realize further advantages because such model-based deliverables require less interpretation. On average, organizations releasing MBD deliverables spend 20.7 hours per week on engineering documentation as opposed to 23.9 hours per week for organizations releasing drawings.

6.7 Hours 8.8 Hours

Time to Create Fully Annotated Drawing

Time to Create Minimally Annotated Model

MIGRATING TO MINIMALLY ANNOTATED MODELS

THE ROI OF MBD 9

Figure 5: On the left is the average time per week (Appendix C) that Drawing-Reliant organizations (Appendix B) spend on engineering documentation. On the right is the average time per week (Appendix C) that Model-Based organizations (Appendix B) spend on engineering documentation.

Overall, combining efforts to minimize or reduce annotation efforts with model-based deliverables provides validated benefits for the company, in the form of reduced ECOs and non-conformances, as well as less time spent by the engineering organization to create the deliverable.

TAKEAWAYS

Organizations are taking varying approaches on improving engineering documentation. Those releasing models with minimally annotated drawings realize engineering productivity gains, but little else for the company. Those developing fully annotated 3D models reap downstream benefits in the company, but spend more time developing the deliverables. Those releasing minimally annotated 3D models gain benefits in both engineering and the company.

Average time per week Drawing-Reliant organizations spend on engineering documentation.

TIME SAVED BY MODEL-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

20.7 Hours

23.9 Hours

Average time per week Model-Based organizations spend on engineering documentation.

THE ROI OF MBD 10

Pursuing an MBD initiative is much like any strategic effort: it requires executive buy-in. Leadership is often presented with the potential benefits in terms of hard monies and organizational productivity gains balanced against monetary investments and changes to processes and practices. As shown in this research report, adopting an MBD initiative is worth the effort, but it must be done the right way. In this context, it becomes imperative to set the proper expectations. Unfortunately, a number of cohorts surveyed for this research report have underestimated or overestimated the benefits of such MBD initiatives to an extreme.

OVERESTIMATING THE BENEFIT

To start, first consider how organizations that are currently releasing drawings and models view the transition from fully annotated drawings to fully annotated models. To consider how much benefit an engineering organization would realize from such a transition, remember that findings previously shared in this research report show that all respondents estimate that it will take 8.8 hours on average to create the fully annotated drawing dataset.

To understand how much benefit an organization expects from a change, consider their estimate of how long it would take to develop the fully annotated model dataset. These organizations that are currently releasing drawings and models estimated that such work would take 6.9 hours, on average. Given that, we can assume that these types of organizations expect to realize a 22% reduction in the amount of time to create engineering documentation. That is the expectation that these organizations would likely set with their executives.

Figure 6: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents cohort (Appendix B). In the middle is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the Model-Reliant cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the Model-Based cohort (Appendix B).

6.9 Hours

11.7 Hours

MODEL-RELIANT ORGANIZATIONS UNDERESTIMATE EFFORT TO CREATE FULLY ANNOTATED MODELS

CURRENT OPERATION

All Respondent Organization’s

estimated effort to create the Fully

Annotated Drawing Dataset

EXPECTED OPERATION Model-Reliant Organization’s

expected effort to create the Fully

Annotated Model Dataset

REALISTIC OPERATION Model-Based

Organization’s estimated effort

to create the Fully Annotated Model

Dataset

8.8 Hours

A CAUTIONARY TALE: MISS-ESTIMATING THE BENEFITS

THE ROI OF MBD 11

Now, let’s look at what is likely a more accurate estimate. The study identified a number of organizations that are currently releasing MBD deliverables as part of their day-to-day development process. Because they have experience in creating annotated models, they are likely to most accurately estimate how long it would take to create the datasets defined in this survey. They estimated it would take 11.7 hours, on average. These organizations realize that transitioning from a fully annotated drawing to a fully annotated model will actually result in a 33% increase in the amount of time it takes to create engineering documentation.

Imagine how the transition would go for the organizations currently releasing drawings and models. They pursue the MBD initiative expecting to see a 22% decrease in time spent on engineering documentation, but instead they realize a 33% increase. Obviously, experiencing such a drastic shortfall in improvement would be catastrophic. Why do these organizations overestimate the advantages of MBD? Perhaps it is their familiarity with model-based approaches given they currently release models alongside drawings. Regardless, this overestimation of MBD benefits can clearly stop any MBD initiative.

Of course, these organizations can experience these kinds of gains in productivity if they develop minimally annotated models instead of fully annotated models. Organizations currently developing MBD deliverable estimated it would take 6.7 hours, on average, to develop the minimally annotated dataset, equating to a 24% gain in engineering productivity.

Therein lies the first cautionary tale: organizations releasing drawings and models need to carefully and conservatively assess the benefit that they can reasonably expect from such

engineering documentation initiatives. Don’t let your familiarity with models cloud your judgement.

UNDERESTIMATING THE BENEFIT

Another major cohort defined in this research study includes those that only release drawings as their engineering documentation. As these organizations are also candidates that may consider implementing an MBD initiative, it is also crucial for them to accurately assess associated benefits to set executive expectations correctly.

Their estimates to develop a fully annotated model is markedly higher than those of other organizations, on average coming in at 14.1 hours. Interestingly, this is more than twice the estimates of organizations releasing drawings and models, which averaged 6.9 hours. However, it is not as different as the estimate of organizations releasing MBD deliverables today, which averaged 11.7 hours. Overall, estimates from drawing-based organizations represent a 60% increase over the amount of time it would take to develop the fully annotated drawing dataset. While this is nearly double the productivity loss of 33% estimated by organizations releasing MBD deliverables today, at least it is not portraying a benefit for engineering productivity when it would result in a detriment.

Why would a drawing-based organization estimate the effort to develop a fully annotated model to be so high? Likely having released drawings as a standard practice for decades, transitioning to MBD deliverables can represent a radical change, leading some to err, in their estimates, on the side of caution.

THE ROI OF MBD 12

Figure 7: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents cohort (Appendix B). In the middle is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the Drawing-Reliant cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the Model-Based cohort (Appendix B).

Interestingly, these drawing-based organizations estimate the effort to develop the minimally annotated model dataset accurately, coming in at an average of 6.3 hours compared to the 6.7 hours estimated by organizations releasing MBD deliverables today. At least drawing-based organizations clearly assess the productivity they could gain by transitioning to minimally annotated models. The outstanding issue is whether or not they realize they can rely on the inherent ability of the model geometry to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component.

Therein lies the second cautionary tale: drawing-based organizations need to realize they will likely underestimate the benefit of transitioning to MBD deliverables. Realize that minimally annotated models represent a real opportunity to improve engineering productivity.

TAKEAWAYS

In conclusion, organizations tend to overestimate or underestimate the benefits of moving to MBD practices based on their current processes. Those releasing models alongside drawings underestimate the time it takes to create MBD deliverables. Those releasing drawings overestimate the same effort. Each should take care, as setting expectations with executives in any kind of initiative or strategy is crucial to success.

14.1 Hours

CURRENT OPERATION

All Respondent Organization’s

estimated effort to create the Fully

Annotated Drawing Dataset

8.8 Hours

REALISTIC OPERATION Model-Based

Organization’s estimated effort

to create the Fully Annotated Model

Dataset

EXPECTED OPERATION

Drawing-Reliant Organization’s

expected effort to create the Fully

Annotated Model Dataset

DRAWING-RELIANT ORGANIZATIONS OVERESTIMATE THE EFFORT TO CREATE FULLY ANNOTATED MODELS

11.7 Hours

THE ROI OF MBD 13

Of course, engineering documentation isn’t the only type of deliverable that utilizes the geometric form of a component. Manufacturing organizations must create drawings, specifications and instructions that are used in the operations for product components as well as tooling. These deliverables often reuse and reference pieces of engineering documentation. As a result, 3D models can be used to augment these items. A 3D model of a component or tooling can be used to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component for documentation or instructions for machining setups, assembly plans and inspections instructions. Such models can also be leveraged to create animations that illustrate a sequence of events that needs to be executed in a production operation.

Theoretically, many of the benefits that MBD offers to engineering documentation can be realized with manufacturing instructions. Deliverables that directly utilize a 3D model can be interrogated directly, allowing consumers to independently gather additional information. Such documentation also requires no interpretation of 2D graphics, allowing consumers to visualize a more recognizable 3D object. All of these theoretical advantages should manifest in measures of downstream efficiency. Findings from this research study do, in fact, validate these theories.

Measurable benefits of utilizing 3D models in manufacturing instructions comes in the form of three separate metrics. Organizations that do not embed models in their production deliverables execute 9.5 ECOs per development project compared to 5.6 for organizations that do embed models, representing a difference of 41%. Organizations that do not embed models in their production deliverables experience 6.5 non-conformances

per development project compared to 3.3 for organizations that do embed models, representing a difference of 49%. Lastly, only 10% of those that do not leverage models in manufacturing instructions stated that they have reduced scrap from poor or manually manipulated manufacturing methods compared to 47% of organizations that do embed such models.

Percent of Respondents Experiencing Benefits from Including and Not Including 3D Models in Manufacturing Instructions

Include 3D Models

Do Not Include 3D

Models

Average # of ECOs per development project 5.6 9.5

Average # of non-conformances per development project 3.3 6.5

% of respondents reducing scrap 49% 10%

Table 3: Comparison of benefits (Appendix C) realized across Cohorts that do and do not include 3D Models in Manufacturing Instructions (Appendix B).

In summary, findings from this study verify that organizations that embed models in manufacturing instructions see fewer change orders and non-conformances. A higher percentage of them see reduced scrap. Incorporating 3D models into manufacturing instructions pays off.

MODEL-BASED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTIONS

THE ROI OF MBD 14

The concept behind MBD deliverables emerged more than a decade ago. While the adoption of the practice hasn’t been widespread, general consensus has been that adoption is increasing steadily. This research study exposed three trends that support that claim when compared to adoption rates gathered in Lifecycle Insights’ The Model-Based Enterprise Study of 2014.

Figure 8: On the left is the adoption rates from the 2014 Model-Based Enterprise Study. On the right is adoption rates from the 2017 ROI of MBD Study.

EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON DRAWINGS DECREASING

Findings from the 2014 study showed that 42% of respondents exclusively released 2D graphical drawings as engineering documentation. Findings from this research study indicate that this percentage has fallen to 34%. This finding shows that more organizations are moving away from exclusive reliance on drawings.

Those shifting away from this practice are either releasing (1) unannotated or (2) annotated 3D models alongside the drawing or (3) moving exclusively to annotated 3D models. As we have seen from the findings shared earlier in this report, moving to the last of these operating states yields the most benefit.

EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON MBD INCREASING

Findings from the same 2014 study showed that only 6% of respondents exclusively released annotated 3D models as engineering documentation. This research study shows that number has increased to 12%, per respondents. Organizations making such a move are either doing so proactively due to the perceived benefits or due to contractual obligations.

Realizing the benefits of such a move depends on the tactical processes and methods of the change. As shown in findings earlier in this report, moving to a minimally annotated 3D model yields more advantages for engineering and the company as a whole than creating fully annotated 3D models.

42% 34%

52% 54%

6% 12%

ADOPTION OF MODEL-BASED DEFINITION INITIATIVES

Drawing-Reliant Organizations

Organizations Releasing Drawings, Models and MBDs

Model-Based Organizations

2014 ADOPTION RATES Findings from the 2014 Model-

Based Enterprise Study

2017 ADOPTION RATES Findings from the 2017 ROI of

MBD Study

THE ADOPTION OF MBD AND THE CULTURAL COMPROMISE

THE ROI OF MBD 15

RELEASING BOTH: THE CULTURAL COMPROMISE

Between the two extremes of engineering documentation practices with organizations either exclusively releasing drawings or annotated 3D models, lie companies that are releasing both drawings and an unannotated or annotated 3D model. Data from the 2014 study shows that 52% of respondents utilized this practice compared to 54% in this latest study.

Most interestingly, nearly four out of ten respondents (21% out of 54%) in this group are releasing drawings alongside an annotated 3D model. This practice is commonly employed when an organization embarking on a journey to MBD encounters cultural pushback internally or in their supply chain. The cultural compromise is to develop a drawing alongside the annotated 3D model. As shared earlier in this research report, releasing models with minimally annotated drawings provides benefits for engineering, as it takes less time to develop the drawing, yet such efforts convey few other benefits to the company.

TAKEAWAYS

In summary, per this research study, fewer organizations exclusively release drawings and more organizations are releasing annotated 3D models. Nearly half of all respondents release drawings and models, with four out of ten in this group doing so with annotated 3D models.

Overall, progress is being made towards wider adoption of MBD. However, companies should be wary of adopting a cultural compromise, in releasing both drawings and models, as findings from this study show little benefit to the company as a whole.

THE ROI OF MBD 16

In all, the results of this study provide some insight into the ROI of MBD initiatives, including:

Minimized or Reduced Annotation Models Pay Off: Regardless of whether such efforts are used alongside or separate from MBD efforts, only including the information that is needed for the required operation improves engineering productivity. Keep in mind, however, that such an effort requires a model to be released alongside a drawing if an MBD approach is not pursued.

Minimally, Not Fully, Annotated Models Pay Off: Many organizations are approaching an MBD effort by simply transitioning all the information traditionally included on a drawing to annotated models. Findings from this study demonstrate that such approaches increase the amount of time that engineering invests in documentation while reaping benefits downstream. Fortunately, a full annotation effort is not required as the model inherently conveys the complete and detailed geometric form of a component. The annotations on the model only need to define the measures and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards. Such an approach yields advantages for the engineering organization and downstream use of the deliverable.

Overestimating and Underestimating the MBD Effort: Conclusions from this study show that Model-Reliant organizations, those that release a drawing and a model, are more likely to underestimate the amount of time it takes to create a fully annotated model, leading executives to think that such a transition is easier than it is in reality. Findings also show that Drawing-Reliant

organizations, those that only release drawings, are more likely to overestimate the amount of time to create a fully annotated model, leading executives to think such an effort is more difficult than it is in reality. Organizations should carefully, and realistically, estimate the productivity gains they can realize by pursuing such an effort.

Including 3D in Manufacturing Instructions Pays Off: Animated and annotated 3D models can be included in manufacturing instructions to more clearly illustrate a production operation. Organizations applying this approach are reaping benefits downstream.

MBD Adoption Is Growing Slowly: In comparison to the 2014 study, adoption of the release of MBD deliverables is increasing, albeit at a slow rate.

The MBD Cultural Compromise: Many organizations are approaching such efforts while releasing both MBD deliverables and drawings, side by side. This represents a cultural compromise to make the transition in engineering but still offer drawings to downstream consumers. While such an approach disarms any cultural conflict within the organization, it undermines the benefits companies can reap from MBD initiatives.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

THE ROI OF MBD 17

STUDY LIFECYCLE

In August and September 2016, Lifecycle Insights surveyed 463 respondents to understand their practices and adoption of technology with respect to engineering documentation. Survey respondents originated from five research partners, including Lifecycle Insights, Desktop Engineering, ENGINEERING.com, Action Engineering, and Techsoft3D. Survey respondents were compensated for their time with a complimentary copy of The Modern Engineer’s Toolset, an eBook published by Lifecycle Insights in January 2016.

STUDY DEMOGRAPHICS

The number of respondents to the survey totaled 463. The findings of this report, however, are based on a subset of these respondents, totaling 355, who directly participate in the product development supply chain. Responses from engineering service providers, software providers, service providers, and system integrators were excluded.

Respondents to the study’s survey serve a wide variety of industries. The industries served at the highest rates by the survey respondents include:

32% Aerospace and Defense

24% Automotive

22% High Tech and Electronics

20% Medical Devices

20% Heavy Machinery and Industrial Equipment

19% Consumer Products

Survey responses for this study were gathered from fifty-one different countries. The contribution by geographic area is as follows:

85% from North America

6% Europe

5% Asia

The remaining 4% split between Australia and New Zealand, South America, Africa and the Middle East

APPENDIX A: STUDY LIFECYCLE AND DEMOGRAPHICS

THE ROI OF MBD 18

This research report grouped respondents into cohorts based on their answers in the survey. The following cohorts were used in the findings of this report.

DEFINING COHORTS BASED ON ENGINEERING DELIVERABLES

The organizations of the respondents were categorized into cohorts based on their answers to questions on the types of deliverables released as engineering documentation for component designs. The multi-select options, which means respondents were allowed to select more than one answer, included Drawings, 3D Models and 3D Models with PMI.

Respondents were categorized into cohorts based on the following rules:

Those that selected Drawings only were categorized as Drawing-Reliant.

Those that selected 3D Models were categorized as Model-Reliant, even if they had selected Drawings as an option as well.

Those that selected 3D Models with PMI were categorized as Model-Based, even if they had selected Drawings and / or 3D Models as an option as well.

This cohort categorization was used to compare and contrast the relative advantages for engineering organizations and the company as a whole across a variety of measures.

DEFINING COHORTS BASED ON INCLUDING 3D MODELS IN MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTIONS

The organizations of the respondents were also categorized into cohorts based on their answers to questions on whether or not 3D models were embedded in their manufacturing instructions. The option to designate whether their organization employs this practice was part of a larger bank of questions.

This cohort categorization was used to compare and contrast the relative advantages for the company across a variety of measures.

APPENDIX B: DEFINING COHORTS

THE ROI OF MBD 19

A primary objective of this research study has been to verify whether or not MBD initiatives provide measureable value. The following questions, compared and contrasted against cohorts, provided the means by which that theory was tested.

ESTIMATING THE CREATION OF DATASET DELIVERABLES

As the complexity of engineering documentation varies greatly depending on a company’s product, industry, and role in the supply chain, a means of baselining estimates of developing MBD deliverables was required. Four datasets, created by Action Engineering and detailed in Appendix D, were developed for their specific use in this survey. Respondents were asked to provide their estimate for each dataset. The assumptions associated with each dataset is detailed in Appendix D.

These estimates were then averaged for all respondents or within a specific cohort, as needed, to calculate averages that could be compared. The following values were calculated:

Estimations from all respondents, not single cohort, were used to calculate the average amount of time it would take to create the Fully Annotated Drawing.

Estimations from Model-Reliant cohorts were used to calculate the average amount of time it would take to create the Minimally Annotated Drawing because this more closely matches their current operating state today where many are releasing a model and a drawing, meaning their estimations are likely the most accurate.

Estimations from Model-Based cohorts were used to calculate the average amount of time it would take to create a Fully Annotated Model and Minimally Annotated Model because this more closely matches their current operating state today where many are releasing MBD deliverables, meaning their estimations are likely the most accurate. Estimations for the Fully Annotated Model dataset were also calculated for Model-Reliant and Drawing-Based cohorts for comparison.

MEASURING TIME SPENT ON ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION

Another method of testing the theoretical advantages of MBD initiatives in this research study was to average performance across a bank of productivity metrics and downstream error rates. Specifically, the metric bank of questions in this study’s survey asked for the following:

Average time an engineer in your company spends on design documentation per week (0-60 hours)?

Average number of change orders (ECOs) per product end items after first release?

Average number of Non-Conformances (NCs) resulting in scrap?

These metrics were then averaged for different cohorts for comparison.

APPENDIX C: MEASURING PERFORMANCE

THE ROI OF MBD 20

MEASURING THE RATE OF BENEFITS EXPERIENCED

Another approach to testing the theoretical advantages of MBD initiatives in this research study was to calculate the percentage of respondents citing a variety of benefits, which included:

Shrink the amount of time to create and / or review engineering documentation

Cut the number of clarification requests on engineering documentation

Lower the number of change orders, revisions and updates generated after first release

Shorten time to create data packages for Request for Quote (RFQ)

Reduced scrap generated from poor or manually manipulated manufacturing methods

Decrease in non-conformances

Increased first time resolution rates for service calls

The averages of each cohort were compared.

THE ROI OF MBD 21

The survey for this research study requested that respondents enter estimates for the amount of time needed to create four different engineering documentation datasets. Each one is detailed as follows.

FULLY ANNOTATED DRAWING

This dataset represents a drawing that is released without any other deliverables.

The following specifies the information and assumptions given to the respondent for this question.

The following estimate should be entered by an engineer.

The drawing contains 6 views of the model. Note that all six views were included in the survey.

Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.

Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.

Each dimension must be created manually as measurements on the model geometry.

The drawing is meant to be the released source authority. The 3D model is not released.

To more closely inspect the drawing, you may download this PDF file. Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window. Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in Adobe Reader.

APPENDIX D: DATA SETS USED IN THE SURVEY

THE ROI OF MBD 22

MINIMALLY ANNOTATED DRAWING

This dataset represents a drawing that is released alongside a 3D model. It represents a drawing that has a minimal or reduced set of annotations.

This question is not a duplication. It focuses on a one-page drawing as opposed to a two-page drawing.

The following specifies the information and assumptions given to the respondent for this question.

The drawing contains 5 views of the model. Note that all five views were included in the survey.

Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.

Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.

Each dimension must be created manually as measurements on the model geometry.

The drawing and the 3D model are meant to be the released source authority.

To more closely inspect the drawing, you may download this PDF file. Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window. Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in Adobe Reader.

THE ROI OF MBD 23

FULLY ANNOTATED MODEL

This dataset represents an Annotated 3D Model that is released without any other deliverable. It represents an MBD deliverable where all aspects of a traditional drawing are replicated.

The following specifies the information and assumptions given to the respondent for this question.

The following estimate should be entered by an engineer.

Compared to the document shown in the prior question, this document includes more dimensions in the front and right views and contains two additional views. Note that all views were included in the survey.

The 3D model in this document is interactive, meaning the user can pan, zoom, spin and select different views.

Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.

Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.

Each dimension must be created manually as measurements on the model geometry.

The document is meant to be the released source authority.

To more closely inspect the model, you may download this PDF file or this JT file.

Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window. Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in Adobe Reader. Clicking the JT file link will launch a new browser window. Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in the free JT Viewer.

THE ROI OF MBD 24

MINIMALLY ANNOTATED MODEL

This dataset represents an Annotated 3D Model that is released without any other deliverables. It represents an MBD deliverable that has a minimal or reduced set of annotations.

The following specifies the information and assumptions given to the respondent for this question.

The 3D model in this document is interactive, meaning the user can pan, zoom, spin and select different views.

The document contains 7 annotated views of the model. Note that all views were included in the survey.

Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.

Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.

Each dimension must be created manually as measurements on the model geometry.

The document is meant to be the released source authority.

To more closely inspect the model, you may download this PDF file or this JT file.

Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window. Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in Adobe Reader. Clicking the JT file link will launch a new browser window. Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in the free JT Viewer.

THE ROI OF MBD 25

The works of authorship contained in The 2017 ROI of Model-Based Definition Report (the "Report"), including but not limited to all design, text, and images, are owned by LC-Insights LLC (Lifecycle Insights). This publication is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaties. Unless otherwise noted, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by LC-Insights LLC, 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.

All other names, products, and logos are trademarks of their respective owners. Featured words or symbols, used to identify the source of goods and services, are the trademarks of their respective owners. The information in this Report is for information purposes only. It is believed to be reliable, but Lifecycle Insights does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. The information and materials contained in this Report, and the terms and conditions of the access to and use of such information and materials, are subject to change without notice. Not all products and services are available in all geographic areas.

Lifecycle Insights or its report sponsors may discontinue or make changes in the information, products, or services described herein at any time. Any information published is valid as of its date only, and Lifecycle Insights does not undertake any obligation or responsibility to update or amend any such information. Lifecycle Insights reserves the right to terminate any or all report offerings without prior notice to the user.

Links and references to any website are provided solely as pointers to information on topics that may be useful to readers of the Report, and Lifecycle Insights has no control over the content on such websites. If readers choose to link to a website referenced herein, Lifecycle Insights makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the content of such site, including the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability thereof for any particular purpose, nor does Lifecycle Insights warrant that such site or content is free from any claims of copyright, trademark, or other infringement of the rights of third parties or that such site or content is devoid of viruses or other contamination. Lifecycle Insights does not guarantee the authenticity of documents on the Internet. Links and references to websites do not imply any endorsement of or responsibility for the opinions, ideas, products, information, or services offered at such sites, or any representation regarding the content at such sites.

APPENDIX E: LEGAL