m CAD/CAM/CAE Mechanical Applications DataQuest

m CAD/CAM/CAE Mechanical Applications DataQuest

m

DataQuest

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

Dataquest Incorporated

1290 Rldder Park Drive

San Jose, CA 95131-2398

(408) 437-8000

Telex: 171973

Fax: (408) 437-0292

United Kingdom

Dataquest UK Limited

Roussel House,

Broadwater Park

Denham, Nr Uxbridge,

Middx UB9 5HP

England

0895-835050

Telex: 266195

Fax: 0895 835260-1-2

Japan

Dataquest Japan Limited

Shinkawa Sanko Building 2 Fl

1-3-17 Shinkawa

Chuo-kuTokyo 104

Japan

011-81-3-5566-0411

Telex: 781-32768

Fax: 011-81-3-5566-0425

France

Dataquest Europe SA

Tour Gallifeni 2

36, avenue du G6n6ral-de-Gaulle

93175 Bagnolet Cedex

France

(1)48 97 31 00

Telex: 233 263

Fax: (01)48 97 34 00

Korea

Dataquest Korea

Dacheung Buikiing Room 1105

648-23 Yorksam-dong

Kangnam-gu, Seoul 135-80

Korea

011-82-2-552-2332

Fax: 011-82-2-552-2661

Germany

Dataquest GmbH

Kronstadter Strasse 9

8000 Munich 80

West Germany

Oil 49 89 93 09 09 0

Fax: Oil 49 89 930 3277

Dataquest Incorporated

Le^eway/Dataquest

The Corporate Center

550 Cochituate Road

Framingham, MA 01701

(508) 370-5555

Fax: (508) 370-6262

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by responsible individuals in the subject com]>anies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients.

This information is not furnished in connection with a sale or offer to sell securities, or in connection with the solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This firm and its parent and/or their officers, stockholders, or members of the families may, from time to time, have long or short position in the securities mentioned and may sell or buy such securities.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmiaed, in any form or by any means—^mechanical, electronic, photocopyiiig, duplicating, microfilming, videotape, or otherwise—without the prior permission of the publisher.

®1991 Dataquest Incorporated

Welcome to Dataquest

CAD/CAM/CAE

You are in the

Mechanical Applications

binder

This binder contains detailed market statistics, including market share and forecasts, of the overall mechanical applications market. It also contains

Dataquest Perspectives dedicated to the mechanical applications industry segment.

O t h e r * C A D / C A M / C A E binders are:

Dataquest Perspective

A series of multitopic publications that provide analysis on worldwide CAD/CAM/CAE markets, companies, technologies, exhibitions, and trade shows, as well as news and views from around the industry.

Source: Dataquest

A biannually updated collection of reference and statistical documents about the worldwide

CAD/CAM/CAE industry. Worldwide, regional, and industry segment market statistics. Company

Backgrounders, and several guides such as How to Use Dataquest, Dataquest Research Methodology, and Dataquest High-Technology Cuide—Segmentation and Glossary are contained in this binder.

Electronic Design Automation Applications

Contains detailed market statistics, including market share and forecasts, of the overall electronic design automation applications market. It also contains Dataquest Perspectives dedicated to the electronic design automation applications industry segment

AEG and CIS Applications

Contains detailed market statistics, including market share and forecasts, of both the architecture, engineering, and construction CAD and geographical information systems market. It also contains

Dataquest Perspectives dedicated to the AEC and CIS applications industry segment.

C A D / C A M / C A E Europe

Contains detailed market statistics, including market share and forecasts, of the overall European market. It also contains Dataquest Perspectives dedicated to the European CAD/CAM/CAE industry.

C A D / C A M / C A E Asia

Contains detailed market statistics, including market share and forecasts, of the overall Asian market

It also contains Dataquest Perspectives dedicated to the Asian CAD/CAM/CAE industry.

Personal CAD and Distribution Channels

Contains detailed market statistics, including market share and forecasts, of the overall personal CAD market. It also contains Dataquest Perspectives dedicated to the personal CAD industry segment as well as a Dealer Directory and analysis of the indirect distribution channel.

*AII CAD/CAM/CAE subscribers receive the Dataquest Perspective and Source: Dataquest binders, inquiry privileges, and access to Dataquest's Information Resource Center. In addition, subscribers to individual product or geographical segments receive the segment-specific binders: Mechanical Applications, Electronic Design Applications, AEC and

CIS Applications, Personal CAD and Distribution Channels, Europe, and Asia. Each regional service and segment also provides Dataquest Perspective and Source: Dataquest coverage unique to that region or segment For more information, contact your Dataquest marketing representative at (408) 437-8000.

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

Table of Contents

Market Statistics

Market Share

Forecast

Dataquest Perspectives

Quarterly Index

Dataquest Perspectives covering the mechanical industry segment

Dataquest Perspective

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

CCAM-MEODP-9201

December 7,1992

In This Issue.

End-User Analysis

End-User Analysis

Opportunities and Oi^stacles for CAD/

CAM/CAE Vendors and Users

Opportunities and Obstacles for CAD/CAM/CAE

Vendors and Users

In August and September, Dataquest conducted

Dataquest siuveyed vendors and users in the

CAD/CAM/CAE marketplace. In this article, we a telephone siuvey of U.S. CAD/CAM/CAE end users to characterize the market penetration by present the most salient findings and analyze the site size, job description, and department to impact of these findings on the market. better understand tiie djniamics of the user

By Michael J. Seely Page 1

environment. This article highlights some of the study's findings, focusing on the impact of the current economic conditions and identifying the best opportunities for CAD/CAM/CAE vendors and tjsers. For more detailed analysis and findings see Dataquesf s report CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications: User Wants and Needs,

(CCAM-MEC-UW-9201) October 26, 1992.

Dataquest expects the worldwide market for mechanical (ZAD/CAM/CAE software revenue to be $2.1 billion for 1992 and to grow at a

5 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in the next five years. The market is fueled by a growing perception that this technology is indispensable in a design and manufacturing environment, independent of industry or location. CAD/CAM/CAE tools have moved out of the hands of the experts and are being used by people with many different job descriptions for himdreds of applications.

Software functionality is steadily improving, with a focus on ease of use and enhanced ability to deal with com^plex designs and optimization.

Economics are forcing the issue: New systems replace older ones because of significant improvements in hardware price/performance.

Maintenance costs on some old systems are more than the cost to purchase new systems. In any case, the result is an evolutionary growth with Utile increase in mechanical CAD/CAM/

CAE budgets.

Dataqyest® a company of

The Dun& Bradstreet Corporation

Dataquest is a registered tiademari< of A.C. Nielsen Company.

File behind the Perspectives tab inside the binder labeled

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

©1992 Oalaquest Incotpotated, Reprodudion Prohiliited 0014192

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical /\pplicaHons

An immense diversity of tasks fells tmder the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE umbrella. All major subapplications were explored in this survey to better imderstand the work profile and market penetration in each category. Mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE applications were measured in context with support fimctions and other computer-related tasks. A view of the total work environment of the typical mechanical CAD/

CAM/CAE user was also developed.

Survey Results

Employment History and Forecast, by Industry

Only the aerospace, automotive, and industrial machinery industries had more than

30 respondents—^Ihe number necessary for statistical significance in this survey. The other industries can be evalxiated with lower confidence.

Aerospace

Total employment in the aerospace industry . dropped by more than a 16 percent CAGR from 1990 to 1992 and is expected to have a negative 7.6 percent CAGR from 1992 to 1994.

The pool of technical professionals receded in the last two years, but a significant 16 percent growth is expected in the next two years. The number of CAD/CAM/CAE users has held relatively steady. More than 55 percent of these users are working full-time on a system.

industrial Macliinery

The sxirvey showed flat to downward growth in indvistrial machinery emplo3mtient, with the exception of CAD/CAM/CAE users, where a whopping 24 percent CAGR took place and another 21 percent is expected.

Overall

The survey population saw a 9 percent drop in total employment, a 1.7 percent drop in technical professionals, and a 3.6 percent growth in CAD/CAM/CAE users from 1990 to 1992. Continued reduction in total employment is expected, but more technical professionals and CAD/CAM/CAE users are planned.

Site Penetration

The study compared, in detail, seats installed to the nvunber of trained users and technical professionals. The total population of technical professionals, by Dataquesf s definition, sets the size of the total available market. Understanding the distribution, size, and user environment of each group will identify the best market growth opportvmities for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools.

As a business opporttmity for mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE, one group stands above the rest. Figure 1 dramatically shows a large difference between the nvimber of trained tisers and the total nvimber of technical professionals at very large sites. This group has a large installed base of trained users and support people who can help the new users learn the effective use of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE.

Benefits to the company will be magnified by a higher percentage of users having access to this technology, with a better organization and elimination of many duplicate systems.

Automotive

Automotive employment in the past two years grew in all areas except the number of technical professionals, which had a modest 2 percent drop. CAD/CAM/CAE users grew a significant 10 percent in the last two years and are forecast to grow 7.6 percent in the next two. More than 64 percent of these users are working full-time.

The potential benefits hold true for all sites, regardless of size; but as large sites currentiy have the lowest penetration levels, they have the highest potential market. The ratio of seats installed to number of technical professionals is 21 to 28 percent at sites with more than

500 technical professionals. The penetration ratio at small sites is in the range of 30 to

60 percent.

1992 Budget for Software and Hardware

Recessionary times have an impact on budgets for all but a top few items on a company's priority Ust. From a strategic standpoint, investment in CAD/CAM/CAE tools has been on the list for many years. This year is no exception, but the d3ntiamics have changed.

We believe that the decision makers wiU look at a mix of strategies over the next fewyears, ranging from large purchases of 200 to

500 seats to a wait-and-see approach of buying no new seats this year. Steady improvement in price/performance of hardware will lead to

December 7,1992

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-DP-9201

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 1

Market Penetration, b/ Site Size

T o t a l in G r o u p

30,000

25,000-

20,000-

15,000-

10,000-

5,000-

ItolO

21 to 30

51 tQ 100

251 to 5O0

Technical Professionals, by Group

Source: Dataquest (December 1992)

1,001 to 12,000

Technical Professionals

Trained Users

Seats Installed

G2001755

the oldest systems being replaced with the newest, as economics force the issue. Maintenance costs on some old systems may justify system updates more than purchasing new systems.

In any case, the result is evolutionary growth with little increase in mechanical CAD/CAM/

CAE budgets. The good news is that the 1991 budget allocation generated more than $7.2 billion in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE products sold worldwide. expenditure situation. The industrial machinery industry has the highest growth forecast, with

40 percent of respondents indicating higher budgets, compared with automotive and aerospace, in which about 25 percent foresee higher budgets. In fact, all the other industries indicated higher software and hardware budgets liian did automotive and aerospace.

R&D/New Product Development has the highest department growth expectation, with almost 50 percent of respondents anticipating growth.

Approximately 40 percent of the respondents see the budget situation for CAD/CAM/CAE software and hardware in 1992 unchanged from last year. A few more respondents expect higher budgets with higher growth rates than the group that expects lower budgets. This should yield a slight growth in total expenditure.

New Design and Enhancement Activity

Comparing data from this survey with a 1988

Dataquest survey of a similar group of designers and engineers in the same industries shows interesting changes over time. Figure 2 shows the distribution of new product design activity in three groups: 1 to 4, 5 to 15, and more than 15 new designs per year.

A closer look at the expectations of department managers and systems managers indicates a less optimistic view, however, and they may be in a better position to know the

A case can be made for significant improvement in CAD/CAM/CAE systems' productivity and ease of use. The overall work load

CCAM-MEC-DP-9201

©1992 Dataquest Incoipoiatad December 7,1992

4

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 2

New Product Designs

Percent

4 0 -

3 5 - |

3 0 -

2 5 -

2 0 -

1 5 -

1 0 -

5 -

0 —

1 to 4

! » V ^ • • •

- • 1988

mmm

1992

1

5 to 15

New Designs per Year

More than 1 5

Source: Dataquest (December 1992)

G2001756

or volume of new design work seems to be even or slightly higher in 1992. The number of people doing more than 15 new designs increased, and the group doing only 1 to

4 increased more than 7 percent. The more experienced staff is now doing more designs in the same period, and the group doing only a few designs per year represents a larger portion of the user base. This makes the ease-ofuse argxmient.

The product enhancement and revision data support the view that CAD/CAM/CAE is improving the productivity of the average user

(see Figure 3). The distribution of revision activity has definitely dropped. In 1988, each category, from a low level of revision activity to more than 150 changes per year, had about

30 percent of the users in each group. Now the lowest level—1 to 49 changes—has increased to more than 60 percent of the total.

CAD/CAM/CAE Activity Ailocation

We asked how many hours per week were spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools and the amount of time spent on other tasks. The implication was that this number represented the full work period. The average work week is 44 hours. Systems managers exceeded that, with an average score of 47 hours. CAD/

CAM/CAE tools may make the manufacturing and design process more efficient, but the systems reqmre sigiuficant attention to keep them

This suggests that better designs are being produced the first time, requiring fewer revisions as the design progresses into the manufacturing and delivery process. This trend is also supported by the shortening of product life cycles. In some cases, especially in consumer products, the product could be out of production before half the product is purchased. working properly. Industrial machinery and

R&D have the highest ratings in each group.

The CAD/CAM/CAE users, on average, work on the systems 24 hours per week.

It is worth noting that almost 30 percent of all respondents said they work more than

30 hours per week on a CAD/CAM/CAE system. This group also stated that they believe that an average of 65 percent of all users at their site worked more than 30 hours per week.

The major subapplications of mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE are product detail or functional design, conceptual design, and drafting.

These three subapplications make up more than 72 percent of the total work hours. The remairung subapplications cover ever3^hing from system management to resource planning.

i

December 7,1992

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-DP-9201

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4 shows the fuU list of subapphcations, the survey. These data provide an accurate with distribution of total hours worked in evaluation of the actual work activity on each subapplication by the total population in todaj/s mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE systems.

Figure 3

Product Enhancements and Revisions

P e r c e n t

1 to 49

Source: Dataquest (December 1992)

1

50 to 149

Enhancements and Revisions per Year

More than 150

Figure 4

Distribution of End-User Hours, l y Application

Control System Design (1.4%) 1 r—

Analysis Using Physical Testing (1.1%)

Process Simulation (1.6%) \ \ \ r

Analysis witti Software (6.4%) ^^ ^ . ^ - T T T T

Manufacturing Resource Planning (1.0%)

Product Manufacturing (7.5%) — x v ' ' ^ \ W l l

Product Detail or \

22001757

\ Drafting or

\ Documentation

\ (23.3%)

Product m

Conceptual S

Design M

(24.6%) #

Note: Segments do not add to ^ v ^

100 percent because of ^ ^ ^ i , . ^ . rounding. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Source: Dataquest (December 1992)

CCAM-MED-DP-9201

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

G2001760

December 7,1992

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Recommendations:

For the Vendor

Recommendations that are partictilarly relevant to the vendor are as follows:

• Find a way to interest the large nmtiber of technical professionals working at the larger sites in using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE.

This, by far, represents the largest xmtapped market for new system sales. These big sites already have more than one different system installed, which highlights the importance of the installed vendors to work together to ensvtre that this site is effective in its use of this technology. Anything less will open the door for competitive systems to be installed, or worse, the ctistomer may become noncompetitive.

• Be aggressive in using this technology. Get your experts with their hands in their pockets involved. In this case, the automation of a group effort is exponentially better than the incremental improvement of the individvials. Get all the oars in the -water.

m Understand the fuU cost of ownership. Some vendors are clever in getting in the door with low installation fees and then charging high monthly service fees. Check a full three-year cost of ownership and support cost model. Size the tool for the job.

For the Investor

The following are recommendations to the investor:

• Do not overlook growth industries with a high probability to need CAD/CAM/CAE tedmology. This survey identified the industrial machinery group as an above-average growth opportunity. Other industries have strong potential as well, such as fabricated metal parts, electrical and electronic machinery, and computers and peripherals.

In fact, almost every indtistry is doing well except the aerospace and automotive industries, considering the forecast for growth in the population of mechanical CAD/CAM/

CAE users.

But take advantage of the situation. Buy the latest technology at bargain prices, realizing that almost any vendor in this business can fall on its sword.

• Find the people who understjmd this business and have demonstrated an ability to move with it.

• The market needs to invest more than

$10,000 for every engineer, designer, and technician annually for the foreseeable future. Expenditure is below this level and is growing, which will fuel long-term growth in the user base.

• Read and heed the list of suggestions for vendor improvement from users, which is contained in the larger report. Suggestions range from improving manuals to establishing a 24-hour hot line to being more responsive to customers. The users know what they need for the short term. Invest some time and effort into "what-if" scenarios to help define the products to be made 5 and 10 years from now.

• The design, analysis, and manufacturing indvistty is becoming more complex, more diverse, and cross-polhnated with ideas from other technical applications. Developments in multimedia and virtual reality will have in impact on mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE.

Understand what the next-generation products will look like, because they will obsolete any product more than five years old.

For the User

Recommendations to the user are as follows:

• IDevelop a technology enrichment plan that systematically removes old systems from use and replaces them with the best of the best.

The price competition common in this industry borders on insanity. The resulting marginal profit levels may not allow the vendors to invest in R&D, high-quality product releases, and high-quality services.

• Education and training are perhaps the biggest stumbling blocks to the full potential of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE. The users need to break through the mental mush of focusing on how they get specific commands to work or how to get the plotter to run. Think about what is possible from a personal value-added scenario. Users need tools that help them do tomorrow's job better. This may sound like the better mousetrap story, but a company such as

Parametric Technology, with an 80 percent annual growth rate, makes the point. Rnd the next Parametric.

December 7,1992

©1992 Dataquest incorporated

CCAM-MEC-DP-9201

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Methodology and Respondent Profile

This survey focused on a set of respondents selected from a filtered but random population.

An attempt was made as the survey progressed to steer the interviewers toward sites witii the designated profile, so that the resulting population would match the desired characteristics.

The svirvey sample was selected from the Dataquest CAD/CAM/CAE end-user database, from contact names provided by vendors, and from company contacts identified with The Dun &

Bradstreet Corporation million-dollar directory.

The respondents represented a wide range of job tides from all major departments and all major manufacturing industries.

The single largest group of respondents is department managers. Following closely are the titles of system manager, project engineer, and design engineer. These people represented more than two-thirds of the respondent base (see

Figure 5).

These job classifications are expected to provide good insight into use of equipment, budgets, and site penetration levels. Sufficient responses were given in each of these job title groups to allow comparison, providing further insight into the decision-making process and work environment in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE.

Figure 6 shows the distribution of the respondents' companies by industry. The intention of having the survey distribution match the Dataquest market model for installed base was partially successful. In general, the distribution matched. Unfortunately the total number of completed surveys was insufficient to allow statistically valid comparison among all industries. Comparison is made among the aerospace, automotive, and industrial machine industries.

The education and government sectors were intentionally excluded from this survey primarily because of the interest in comparing product engineering and manufacturing engineering activities.

Dataquest Perspective

We expect to see a slight growth in total expenditure in the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE application areas, with the largest growth anticipated in R&D and New Product Development. Large sites provide the greatest market opportxmity since the percent of technical professionals that are trained users is lowest in this group.

Figure 5

Respondents' Job Function

Draftsmen (3.8%) •

Chief Engineer (4.3%)

Technical Support (4.8%)

Group Engineer (4.8%)

Specialist/Technician (5.8%)

Detailer (0.5%)

Source: Dataquest (December 1992)

CCAM-MEC-DP-9201

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

G20017S1

December 7,1992

Figure 6

Respondents' Primary Business

Service/Design/Consulting (5.3%)

Fabricated Metal Parts (7.7%) —

Other Manufacturing (9.1%)

Electrical and

Electronic Machinery (10.6%)

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

i

Computers and Peripherals (3.8%)

Source: Dataquest (December 1992)

G2001752

The use of CAD/CAM/CAE systems have shown noticeable improvement in users' productivity and in ease of use. These systems are currently used predominantly for three main subapplications: functional design, conceptual design, and drafting. The use of CAD/CAM/CAE in analysis and manufacturing continues to grow less rapidly. to users to find out what business pressures, organization changes, or application requirements will be driving system enhancement requirements. These requirements will vary by industry and will evolve with imique applications of enabling technologies such as multimedia and virtual reality.

By Michael}. Seely

To ride the crest of the wave in the mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE area, vendors should listen

For More Information . . .

On the topics in this issue Michael J. Seely (408) 437-8178

About upcoming Dataquest conferences (408) 437-8245

About your subscription or other Dataquest publications (408) 437-8285

Via fax request (408) 437-0292

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by responsible individuals in the subject compaiues, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our dients.

Individual companies reported on and analyzed by Dataquest may be clients of this and/or other Dataquest services. TTus information is not furnished in connection with a sale or offer to sell securities or in connection with the solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This firm and its parent and/or their officers, stockholders, or members of their families may, from tinw to time, have a long or short position in the securities mentioned and may sell or buy such securities.

December 7,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-DP-9201

Dataquest

a company (rf

The Dun & Siadstrcct Corporation

Dataquest

Perspective

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

Vol. 1, No. 1 December 30, 1991

Market Analysis

Design Optimization: Opening New Frontiers in the Automation of Design

Design optimization is the next logical step in the general trend of task simulation using

C A D / C A M / C A E

systems. The tasks to be simulated have evolved in complexity and importance as the abilities of the tools have progressed to automate the task. Design optimization potentially meets all these needs. It is just a matter of time before all mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE systems will be required to have strong design optimization capability. Anything that makes it easier to use the system, do the job, and improve the quality of the result will be greeted with open purchase orders.

By Michael J. Seely

Page 2

End-User Survey

Product Data Management

Product data management is the single most challenging issue in CAD/CAM/CAE. A tremendous amount of CAD/CAM/CAE data is being produced at an exponential rate. Every piece of data must be tracked and stored in a safe place for rapid update. The implementation of a well-functioning solution for most users is critical. The effective design of these environments will determine the ability of these users to be competitive in their businesses.

By Michael J. Seely

Page 10

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Market Analysis

Design Optimization:

Opening New Fr€mtiers in the Automatifm of Design

Design optimization is the next logical step in the general trend of task simulation using CAD/

<IAM/CAE systems. The tasks to be simulated have evolved in complexity and importance as the abilities of the tools to automate them have progressed. The early 1980s witnessed the full automation of drafting and documentation tasks.

Most would agree that the vast majority of user expectations have been met in automating drafting tasks. Other tasks in analysis and manufacturing applications have progressed during the same period with dramatic improvement in price/performance primarily because of the amazing changes in computing hardware.

This dramatic change in computing performance has facilitated yet another step in the design environment. In the last five years, more and more attention has been given to the automation of multiple tasks with the system managing the flow of information between applications.

Mechanical computer-aided engineering (MCAE) is perhaps the best example of this trend, with a modeling task being married to an analysis function, thereby increasing the value of both applications because of the quick turnaround in modifying the design and re-evaluating the result to determine if further design modification is necessary.

Design optimization is the next step in this process. Now, the computer has the necessary computing resources and software designers possess the know-how to integrate the processes that allow the computer to execute and manage the iterative design process. Automatic mesh construction, error-checking, and problem definition have been stumbling blocks in the implementation of design optimization.

These problems currentiy are not fully solved for all design problems. However, this concept has been proven effective and, perhaps more importantly, users' expectations are being reset to the point where they will demand access to this type of simulation process.

The addition of parametric input for the user is a recent development that has greatiy improved the usability of systems. This relatively simple concept of allowing the user to drive dimensions and the corresponding geometry fixjm interactive modification, formula, or table dimensions is a significant productivity improvement for the

CAD/C:AM

user. Because the ratio of new design activity to revision is roughly

10:1, the value of a fast geometry modification process is readily obvious. However, parametric input is not design optimization. Using parametrics can facilitate the process, but the optimization activity actually takes place in the designer's mind. The designer makes every decision, albeit much faster than in the past.

An Evolution in Mechanical

Design

Over the next five years, designers wiQ see a fast evolution on two fronts that will forever change the nature of mechanical design. The true nature of design optimization will emerge: designers wiU spend the majority of their time setting up a variety of problems or design scenarios for the computer to optimize. The second element of this change is a result of systematic effort on the part of software developers to add optimization functionality to almost every vertical market application. The net result will be an easier-to-use system where the designer will have to the ability to create what-if scenarios with almost real-time feedback of the results. The exponential increase in computing performance will support this process and the parallel development in user interfaces, databases, and communication. Any potential excess capacity will be matched with simulation and optimization tasks that have more components, more detail in the design and, perhaps more importantly, that will automate the flow of information between work groups.

Linking product development with manufacturing engineering for tool and fixture design is a good example. Eventually, the whole enterprise would be linked in an as-built model In such a scenario, any proposed change in product design form, material, or tolerance can be evaluated against the manufacturing process.

Any proposal changes in manufacturing process can also can be evaluated for impact on cost, time for delivery, or quality. In order to support business simulation on this level, multiple

1,000-miUion-instructions-per-second (mips) and

100-million-floating-point-operations-per-second

(mflops) workstations will be required. Luckily, many of the major computer manufacturers are looking into the feasibility of producing such machines within the next three to five years

(see Figure 1).

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Bidder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 1

Evolution of Simulation Tasks in the Design and Manufacturing Process

Mips

(1.000) X Enterprise

1,000Product/Process

Assenfiblies

Design Optimization

100-

Component

10Documentation

1

1980

1

1985

Source: Daiaquest (December 1991)

The enterpiisewide simulation process can be described from many viewpoints. Sometimes the discussion sounds like a series of disjointed technologies or competing oiganizational structures, but the resulting goal remains the same:

Shorten time to market, design and build it right the first time, and meet the customers' needs better than the competition.

Leading Design Optimization

Product Stiategies

Leading vendors in the mechanical CAD/CAM/

CAE market have adopted various strategies in meeting this growing awareness for design optimization tools. Some vendors have focused on a key part of the solution by developing unique products and forming alliances in order to be successful. Others are selling integrated solutions for one or more vertical markets.

The following is a brief overview of product positioning statements from several industry leaders. "Hiese companies represent a range of solutions with different product goals and business models and the public statements repvresem the current status of the existing products offered. As the market matures and each product offering evolves toward nirvana, the optimum design optimization solution will evolve.

Each vendor certainly has a strategic plan in

1 1 1

1990 1995 2000 place for successfully supplying these tools at some point. The intention of this analysis is not to describe the future, but to define the reality of today's solution set.

Comments from Vendors

Adra Systems Inc.

As CAD/CAM systems have developed, Adra

Systems has recognized a need /or tools to optimize component design. In many cases, design engineers like to develop design models that contain all the variables of the design problem. In order to achieve a benefit over the conventional methods for determining design alternatives, the design model must have enough intelligence to take into account the impact of changes to design parameters and physical dimensions.

Adra has a tool called FlexDesign that combines parametric, variational, and dimension-driven functionality into one product. With FlexDesign, users can generate what-if scenarios to optimize the design. Dimensions and geometry are linked so that users can update the geometry by picking a dimension and entering a new value.

Users can also use equations to ensure that, if one dimension changes, associated dimensions will be updated.

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Frequently, designers like to vary the set of design parameters to determine the physical impact to the design. With FlexDesign, equations can be linked to a macro program that will generate a new set of design parameters based upon user action.

FlexDesign uses standard mechanical engineering conventions to implicitly define constraints and shield the user from having to define all the relationships of the design geometry. Flex-

Design does not require that all of the geometry be dimensioned in order to develop the various design alternatives. Thus, with very little user input, a design engineer can then optimize the design by trying various alternatives and approaches with minimal effort and rework.

Anything that makes the system easier to use, easier to get the job done, and improves the quality of the result mill be greeted with open purchase orders.

A manufacturing engineer employs FlexDesign's tolerance recognition capability to easily modify the part geometry within the tolerance band defined on the blueprint. This modified part description is then used for in-process drawings and with CADRANC to create efficient part programs for any numerically controlled machine tool.

CADRA-III FlexDesign provides the type of system intelligence that is a valuable component for design optimization. Adra Systems is dedicated to providing productivity tools for design and manufacturing automation. Adra is focused on two areas of the design and manufacturing processes: production design/drafting and flexible numerical control part programming. These key components are ideally suited for the pursuit of intelligent C^AD/CAM systems and the achievement of design optimization.

Alias Research Inc.

Alias Research is committed to the full automation of the conceptual design task. Alias software, Alias Studio and Alias Designer, optimizes the design task by providing sophisticated tools for the industrial designer. These tools support the iterative design process by facilitating communication among those involved in the design process. They provide interactive, easy-to-use tools that stimulate design option development and bypass data to and from engineering systems.

Alias products facilitate communication among members of the design team by offering a 3-D development environment for a traditionally 2-D process. Designers can see every detail of the conceptual design on-screen, through plots, color prints, numerical control (NC) miUed models, and stereolithography models. Alias shows even minor changes in shape or color instantly so that the designer can pursue a multitude of what-if scenarios. These models are so accurate and realistic that they can even be used to present designs to prospective consumers in consumer research. Tlie Alias

3-D data can be moved to and from many engineering systems through standard file formats or specific translators.

Alias design tools automatically create curvature plots pinpointing the areas of the surface that may need fine-tuning. Possible problem areas can be identified quickly and accurately. Highlights can also be automatically simulated with a highlight evaluation tool allowing the designers to see surface reflections long before the prototyping stage. Design dimensions can be automatically determined with special tools incorporated into the Alias software.

Alias also optimizes the design process by providing productivity tools proven to help the designer create more designs faster. The designer's work flow is seriously considered in software development, with designers on-staff developing tools to make conceptual design a fast yet flexible process.

Autodesk Inc.

Design optimization has always been part of the engineering process. The creation of ideas and their subsequent analysis is the iterative process that serves to validate engineering options. What is changing are the tools used for the evaluation. New application software programs that have enabled engineers to rely more on software rather than physical prototypes have done much to speed up the design verification loop. Not only is the design cycle shortened but, equally important, a larger number of iterations are possible within any given time deadline.

Just as design alternatives are optimized by increasing choice, so are the tools used to validate them. With engineering disciplines fragmenting into ever-increasing numbers of highly

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

specialized areas, it is difficult for any one software vendor to supply a design optimization system tailored for everyone's specialized needs.

Because of this diversity, it is important that the design and analysis applications used for optimization deliver a wide variety of software tools and function in an environment that allows for easy communication.

Autodesk's position in the CAD market has always been focused on delivering a design foundation that can serve as an "information bus." AutoCAD provides an open and flexible system running on a wide variety of hardware platforms that encourages application development. This approach has been very successful in giving engineers a great deal of choice in selecting solutions that make sense for them without having to worry about issues of compatibility or integration. For example, the

AutoCAD Development System (ADS) allows application developers to run their programs seamlessly within AutoCAD, providing the customer with advantages in ease of use and data integrity. This cooperative atmosphere allows

Autodesk application developers such as SDRC,

MSC, and Rasna to complement AutoCAD and deliver design optimization solutions.

With key technology advancements such as

AQS well under way, AutoCAD will continue to serve not as the application but rather as the underlying database for design optimization.

Computervision

In fulfilling its objective to help customers bring higher-quality products to market more quickly,

Computervision offers a set of interoperable tools for use across the entire design process, from conceptual engineering and analysis through modeling, drafting, and manufacturing engineering, Tliese software tools share a common database that enables users to easily pass design data among different departments without time-consuming and inaccurate data conversions.

Computervision core software design capabilities include easy-to-use, dimension-driven, parametric, feature-based modeling tools. Built on top of these core capabilities are a host of spediic applications. To provide engineering analysis capability, for example, Computervision has integrated a family of interactive analysis tools such as StressLab for finite element modeling,

ThermaLab for heat transfer aiialysis, and Physical Properties for geometric and mass properties analysis.

In addition to Computervision's own tools, the architecture is open to third-paity developers that wish to integrate their own specialized applications, such as knowledge-based engineering tools or quality-control tools, into Ctomputervision's core ftjnctionality,

Electronic Data Systems (EDS)/

Unigraphics

EDSAJnigraphics understands the importance of design optimization and has taken steps to see it realized as part of an integrated CAD/CAE/

CAM product. Key to this effort will be its work with parametric and variational sold modeling, automatic solid meshing, and embedded finite element analysis (FEA) solvers. The company also is exploring the use of Boundary

Integral Method for predicting design response without the need for meshed models. This effort will be accomplished through a combination of internally funded projects as well as through work on joint developments with the company's strategic technology partners and major customers, -who now require a more participative relationship with their system suppliers than in the past. Only when the customer, the technology experts, and the system integrator w^ork together will these new products emerge ftom the lab and become commonplace.

Design Power Inc.

Design++ is a knowledge-based engineering

(KBE) tool that operates from within favorite

CAD systems and allows users to automate the concurrent engineering process. It is a generalpurpose, object-based geometry and rule encapsulation tool with the ability to define mathematical, logical, functional, and geometric relationship rules between its objects. It allows for the definition in libraries of parametric "standard parts" and intelligent parts, including geometry, instantiation, and association rules as sets of classes and subclasses. These parts may then be assembled into a "produa" via definition of a bill of materials, like a hierarchy tree.

Upon execution of the resulting parts libraries and rule bases, and the entry of instancespecific data by the user, the system is capable of coordinating aU rule interdependendes and producing a preliminary or final design (either schematic- or physical-model based) including selection of parts from standard catalogs and production drawings via interaction with the

C;AD system.

Design++ supports design optimization by allowing the user to produce multiple variations of a design through a what-if process. As a

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-6000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAP/CAM/CAE—Mechanical AppI ications

result, current users are able to optimize designs through design requirements that iterate based on designing a product that is manufacturable at the lowest cost, or the lowest cost with the best materials. This excellence in design can be accomplished because the technology has the ability to incorporate knowledge from different disciplines (such as manufacturing, standards, costing, engineering quality, materials, and inspection requirements) all at design time.

JCAD Inc.

Knowledge-based engineering is becoming one of the leading technologies for design optimization, helping shorten product development cydes for semicustom designs, tooling, and oneof-a-kind designs for large or complex assemblies. With a KBE system like The ICAD System, engineers can automate the design and engineering process by capturing company expertise in the form of rules. These can be design rules, rules that define optimization strategies, standard engineering rules, or rules about physical product attributes as well as manufacturing process information. This collection of rules is called a Smart Model (a term that ICAD has trademarked) or product model.

The model takes input specifications, applies the relevant rules, and automatically generates a product design. Because a KBE system automates most of the repetitive work, engineers have more time to study alternatives before committing costly design and manufacturing resources. In addition, a KBE system can integrate information from external database or analysis programs to create a single system so that the user can optimize the design, taking into account all the relevant information as it changes. By creating a rule base containing geometric and nongeometric information, a company can build a Smart Model of an extremely complex design process and then use that model over and over again to optimize the design.

ICAD is the leading worldwide provider of knowledge-based engineering systems. Its goal is to dramatically increase customer competitiveness by automating strategic engineering applications. To protect a company's existing investments, The ICAD System works with current automation tools such as CAD systems from leading vendors and engineering analysis software. More and more companies are realizing the benefits of adding KBE to their arsenal of tools for design optimization.

Intergraph Corporation

To dose the loop between design and analysis,

Intergraph has developed the Geometric Element Modeling System, I/RASNA. An innov^ive new tool for design engineers, I/RASNA seamlessly integrates the parametric and vari^onal design capabilities of Intergiaph's Engineering

Modeling System CI/EMS) with sensitivity analysis and design optimization technologies from

Rasna Corporation. The result is a system that quickly evaluates many design variables and determines the best solution for specific design objectives.

VEASNA helps designers evaluate multiple design variations and determine the best design.

I/RASNA provides accurate, designer-oriented analysis capabilities that do not require an indepdi knowledge of structural analysis techniques. For structural optimization, I/RASNA determines the optimal values of multiple design variables to achieve a specified design objective. The software directly applies the results to automatically produce a precise geo-

metric model of the optimized design.

MacNeal Schwendler Corporation

(MSC)

MSC/NASTRAN is the leading finite element analysis program used by engineers and designers around the world to analyze the stress, vibration, and heat transfer characteristics of structures and mechanical components. The structural optimization capability of MSC/NAS-

TRAN automatically modifies the structural design and the associated analysis model to satisfy criteria prescribed by the user, this is distinctly different from ordinary structural analysis capabilities in -which structural responses are calculated for a given and fixed analysis model.

In structural optimization, the design parameters and the associated analysis model parameters are actively modified to make the structural responses assume desirable values or fall within a defined range. These structural responses are computed by the analysis capabilities. Therefore, the quality of the design obtained by applying the optimization capability depends on the quality of the information generated by analyses,

Accordingly, high-quality analysis; modeb and accurate analysis capabilities are essential ingredients for obtaining a superior design by means of automated redesign.

the most significant feature of MSC/NASTRAN's structural optimization capabilities is its versatility in handling a variety of problems of different types, complexities, and sizes. MSC/NAS-

TRAN can simultaneously perform sizing

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

optimization of the design model with respect to responses from static analysis, eigen value analysis, and buckling analysis. The design can be optimized on any of a broad selection of design characteristics, including weight, volume, displacement, stress, strain, internal force, natural frequency, buckling load factor, composite lamina stress, composite lamina strain, composite failure index, or an explicit analytic function combining these charaaeristics and the design parameters. Design sensitivity calculations can be performed on static, normal modes, buckling, frequency response, and transient response with respect to sizing or shape variables. MSC/

NASTRAN's capability for the user to define target responses as a combination of design charaaeristics and model parameters is a very powerful feature in the design of real-life, complex structures.

Parametric Technology Corporation

Parametric Technology supports the goal of design optimization in two key ways—through its core produa architecture and through its rapidly expanding network of strategic thirdparty relationships.

The company's Pro/ENGIT^ER software is the

only mechanical design automation tool that integrates the entire design-throughmanufacturing process.

Pro/ENGINEER is a feature-based system, meaning that models are created as combinations of design-specific features such as ribs, slots, chamfers, and shells. This approach to model building is natural and intuitive to the engineer and eliminates the need to design with complex geometry.

The parametric nature of the system assigns symbols to model dimensions rather than to fixed values. This allows engineers to relate model dimensions and features to each other.

With the simple change of any parameter, all related features update. This capability facilitates change and encourages design optimization.

In addition, Pro/ENGINEER is built on a single, underlying database and not many proprietary databases as is the case with traditional, oldergeneration CAD/CAM systems. One database means one source of information for all engineering disciplines. This allows individuals from different departments to work concurrently, all from one product model or definition.

With Pro/ENGINEER, as changes are made in one discipline, all related areas are updated automatically. Full associativity throughout the entire design-through manufacturing process allows engineers to reconfigure product designs on the fly without incurring time and cost penalties in downstream applications such as manufacturing. This also promotes design optimization and makes it possible for companies to bring their products to market faster and more cost-effectively.

To permit customers to leverage existing technology investments as well as further automate the design process. Parametric Technology has developed strategic relationships with many of the premier suppliers of complementary engineering applications. These relationships have resulted in seamless interfaces between

Pro/ENGINEER and the leading analysis, visualization, prototyping, electronic design, and other key engineering applications. Ttiese links permit

Pro/ENGINEER users to integrate complementary technologies into their design process through the familiar, easy-to-use Pro/ENGINEER environment.

As it relates specifically to design optimization,

Parametric Technology offers direct interfaces between Pro/ENGINEER and the leading technologies for finite element analysis, motion analysis, dynamic analysis, and kinematic analysis. Tliese interfaces allow engineers to perfoim design optimization and verification early in the design cycle, resulting in better-ndesigned products at a lower cost.

Parametric Technology's strategic relationships in this area include Computer Aided Design Software Inc. (CADSI), Engineering Mechanics

Research Corporation, MacNeal Schwendler,

Marc Analysis Research Corporation, Modem

Computer Aided Engineering, PDA Engineering,

Rasna Corporation, Structural Research and

Analysis Corporation, and Swanson Analysis

Systems Inc.

PDA Engineering

Design optimization includes not only geometric and performance considerations, but factors such as material selection, manufacturing considerations, and field service issues. While focusing on the CAE aspects of design, PDA is addressing design optimization from a number of perspectives: through expanded technology offerings, through partnering relationships to address integration, and through open system architecture to facilitate implementation.

©1991 Dataquest Incoiporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

8

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

PDA's offerings that play a specific role in the design process include a variety of products.

For material selection, the MANSION material information management system and material databases provide the only true access to material information for design, analysis, and test.

This system provides an electronic means for studying and selecting materials that fit the designer's requirements and then providing consistent and reliable information for the rest of the design process.

In the analysis arena, P/FEA will compute design sensitivity information important in determining the influences various parameters play relative to performance optimization. With the

PDA Trimmed Element Analysis Method (TEAM), there is the potential of directly coupling shape optimization to the original design geometry because the TEAM "elements" are the CAD geometry as represented in their original forms.

PDA offers analysis products for thermal and computational fluids as well. In the area of fatigue evaluation, the cooperative relationship between n-Code and PDA to produce the

P/FATIGUE product allows fatigue prediction capabilities and FEA to be directly coupled,

Other parmerships such as those with Dassault

Systemes (CATIA), Electronic Data Systems

(EDS/Unigraphics), Matra Datavision (EUCLID), and Parametric Technologies (Pro/ENGINEER), help form the foundations required for integrated technologies to address the broad piaure of design optimization.

We believe that it is possible to integrate many of the aspects of the design process in such a way that automated design optimization is achievable. The collective efforts of a number of technology developers and suppliers will be required. Design optimization will serve as both a motivator and as a natural fall-out of cooperative relationships currently driving the CAD/

CAM/CAE industry.

Rasna Corporation

Rasna is the leading developer of shape optimization and analysis tools for mechanical engineering. These tools enable mechanical engineers and analysts to use their existing

CAD geometry, without building traditional finite element models, to optimize the shape of their component and assembly designs. The user builds one parameterized mesh on the existing geometry. ITie program automatically recalculates and convei^s to an accurate mathematical solution and then uses the solution geometry to optimize a produa's shape.

Rasna is pioneering the most recent developments in geometric element modeling, based on adaptive P-technology, as an alternative to the problems with traditional finite element modeling and analysis (FEWFE^, This new technology makes design optiraizarion tools easier to use and provides more accurate analysis results.

Rasna products include Applied Structures for structural optimization and analysis requirements and Applied Motion for mechanism optimization and analysis requirements. Both products include interfaces to the leading C;AD packages.

Scblumberger Ltd.

Schlumberger Ltd. CAD/CAM has long recognized the end-user benefits of providing an integrated set of tools covering design-throughanalysis and simulation-through manufacturing.

The Bravo3 produa line is used by a large base of customers to shorten their produa development cycle while simultaneously lowering their end-product costs and significandy improving end-product quality. In addition to the capabilities provided directly by Bravo3,

Schlumberger CAD/CAM has entered into several partnerships to help provide an even more comprehensive set of solutions.

As the smoke clears and the leaders emerge in supplying this exciting technology, design optimization mill emerge as the premier buying decision factor in the mid-1990s.

A key aspect of this design-throughmanufacturing cycle is "software prototyping," which lets a customer evaluate its end product by simulating its performance in the environment in which it will ultimately operate. Many characteristics of a component or an entire system can be optimized prior to committing a design to manufacturing, such as meeting strength requirements while minimizing weight.

Synthesis of spatial Lnkages is one of several areas of optimization in which Schlumberger

CAD/CAM is investing. Linkages are found in a wide range of products, such as automobile susptension assemblies and tape-feeding mechanisms in consumer electronics products. The

Bravo3 family of solutions includes BravoMOST, which is sjjedfically targeted at these types of systems. Designers can use an integral modeling capability to create a preliminary mechanical

©1991 Dataquest Incoiporated / 1290 Kidder Paric Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-SOOO / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

design of the mechanism. Then, using

BravoMOST, designers can establish target objective functions and define constraints that must be met for the system to operate correctly. To complete the process, BravoMOST uses automated algorithms to perform dimensional synthesis, resulting in an optimal system.

Schlumberger CAD/CAM strongly believes that end users want capabilities to perform both component optimization as well as mechanism optimization, and that these capabilities must work as an integral part of their overall CAD/

CAM capabilities. It is only through this systems approach that end users will truly be able to take the next step in mechanical design automation.

Structural Dynamics Research

Corporation (SDRC)

SDRC views design optimization as an extremely important component of its current product offering and future produa direction.

The company realizes that manufacturers worldwide are faced with stringent requirements for superior product quality and shortened time to market. They are searching for design optimization capabilities in their CA£/CAD/CAM systems that will not only confirm whether a design is good or bad but that will also provide some insight as to how to make it better, whether for

2 single component or a complex assembly.

The most powerfiil software products will provide fuUy integrated design and analysis tools in an easy-to-use system tliat will allow engineers to quickly create multiple design revisions and optimize product designs.

Design optimization has recendy become more practical as an application because of the combination of available computational power and advances in aigorithm development. By the mid-l9SOs, SDRC began providing analysis tools that could affect design decisions, In 1986, with

I-DEAS level IV, it implemented a sizing optimization capability that helps the engineer achieve a minimum weight design given stress, deflection, and natural frequency constraints. The initial structure is then changed, or improved, through finite physical properties. Use of second-order sensitivities and integration with the finite element solver allow si^iificant insight and optimization of the design within three or four iterations.

Ultimately, fiill design optimization will be achieved when all analysis results can be directly integrated and automatically reflected in the solid model geometry. The increased use of variational design technology will provide the future ability to control dimensional changes to the solid model. In addition, it will be critical that the optimized design geometry become the core technology to be used for further downstream applications in manufacturing.

Swanson Analysis

Design optimization capabilities have existed in the company's ANSYS program since 1984. During that time, engineers have used ANSYS for optimization problems as diverse as minimizing the weight of a solenoid (a magnetic analysis where a specific force level was lequiredO to minimizing the change in equivalent stress throughout a dutch disk.

ANSYS design optimization is a computer technique that generates a series of designs in order to obtain an improved design; complete shape optimization is included. The engineer defines the criteria and bounds of the design and sets up the model parametrically. The optimization routine controls and executes the design cycle, supplying new values for the parameters to be used in each trial design.

ANSYS design optimization permits virtually any aspect of a design to be optimized—such as shape, stress, natural frequencies, temperature, magnetic potential, or discrete quantities—not just cost or weight. In the solenoid example, the optimized reduced solenoid dimensions; the lower volume resulted in reduced weight. In the clutch example, the optimized changed the shape of various cutouts to obtain more uniform stress levels. Any analysis or combination of analyses can be used.

Most ANSYS design optimization problems have been solved by defining the solid model in the

ANSYS program using parameters. Engineers also want to be able to optimize geometries created in CAD systems. Swanson Analysis is working with many CAD vendors to accurately transfer geometry in such a way that the full range of optimization problems can be solved,

Wisdom Systems Inc.

Optimization of product designs in enterprisewide simulation has been the focus of

Wisdom Systems since its inception. The technical obstacles to achieving this objective were the first to be torn down. The perceived risk of embarking on and persevering in a comprehensive development program, uwd organizational resistance to change, have been much more formidable obstacles.

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA. 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

10

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical AppI ications

Wisdom Systems develops and markets a knowledge-based engineering system called the

Concept Modeller, an object-oriented design system shell that permits the capture and interaction of geometric and nongeometric knowledge.

Its ability to accommodate a large number of assemblies and parts in a dynamic hierarchical structure makes the Concept Modeller an ideal environment for building intelligent design systems. The Concept Modeller's support for multiple views of every part and assembly in a product model and its support for interaction among models facilitates enterprisewide optimization.

The Concept Modeller is an open system, permitting the integration of existing programs, data repositories, and proven methodologies into a product knowledge base. The ability to reuse the results of previous automation efforts and integrate industry-standard programs has significantly reduced development spans.

Concept Modeller applications are extensible.

The development and delivery of incremental design systems track a dear migration path from existing design methodologies and processes to complete integration. This incremental approach to automation provides management the periodic reassurance through measurable return on investment and ensures acceptance by involving end users early in the development cycle.

Dataquest Perspective

The ability of users to assimilate new technology and adopt it into a baseline expectation in system use can be demonstrated in the rapid growth of parametric input. Anything that makes the system easier to use, easier to get the job done, and improves the quality of the result will be greeted with open purchase orders.

It is easy to discern from the preceding discussion that there is a wide range of proposed solutions or partial solutions to the design optimization problem. As the smoke clears and the leaders emeige in supplying this exciting technology, design optimization will emeige as the premier buying decision factor in the mid-1990s. It is just a matter of time before all mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE systems will be required to have strong design optimization capability. •

By Michael J. Seely

End-User Survey

Product Data

Management

Product data management is the single most challenging issue in CAD/CAM/CAE. The issues of geometry construction can be complex and the issues of interface between applications can cause inefficiencies, but no single issue touches everyone and every aspect of the engineering environment as does produa data management.

Every piece of data generated must be tracked and stored in a safe place for rapid update if necessary. In some government and aerospace businesses this tracking of data is mandatory.

End-User Survey Results

The CAD/CAM/CAE group has performed several end-user-focused surveys in the last

12 months. The following extracts from that work give a profile of the current problem and status of the data management process, for user sites primarily oriented to mechanical applications:

The Problem: Which aspect of design or docutnentatioii management is causing the worst problem for your site?

The replies, in rank order, are as follows:

• Engineering Change Management—^Almost half of the sites surveys chose engineering change management as the most significartt problem. Engineering change management is defined as tracking changes in the approval cycle, updating engineering drawing/ documentation, and tracking release status.

The most commonly suggested solution to this problem, not surprisingly, was to implement a software management program. Other suggestions were mosdy process or organizational: implement better training, better interface with manufacturing, implement a

100 percent solution—eliminate a dual process. Perhaps the most eloquent solution was to eliminate changes. This implies doing it right the first time, which would in fact be the best solution.

• Access to Data and File Management—The next two highest ranked problems were related: finding and providing access to the right person at the right time. Improvements called for better oiganization of existing systems,

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

CAP/CAM/CAE—Mechanical AppI ications 11

getting the right people together to work through solutions to problems, and using standards and translators to move data from one system to another,

• Configuration or Product Structure Management—Configuration management was seen as the least significant problem. An interface to MIS fi"om the CAD system was a recommended solution.

The CHjvious Solution: Has yoxtr site adoptetl a commercial database maaagem e n t system Csuch as Ingres o r Oracle)? If n o t , d o you t h i n k it will in t h e n e x t year?

Thirty percent of the respondents answered yes to this question; 70 percent an^s-'ered no. Of this latter group, 35 percent—almost an 80 percent growth rate—said that they would in the next year,

A tremendous amount of CAD/

CAM/CAE data is being produced at an exponential rate.

Such data would suggest that the commercial database management solution is taking off like crazy. The growth rate of a technology or an application solution, however, is only part of the story. The next question in the survey compared commercial solutions to other solutions.

The Rest of t h e Story: What is the c u r r e n t p r o c e s s for managing design documentation a n d data i n t e r m s of w o r k done? Now a n d i n o n e year?

A majority of sites use more than one process for design and data management (see Table 1).

Not surprising is the fact that the most common means of managing engineering data is on paper. The year 1SJ91 should be noted as a major turning point. However, for the first time more engineering data will be stored and managed in electronic format than on paper,

The transition is slow. Only 36 percent of the sites are expecting to make any significant change in data management methodologies.

However, the trends are clear more use of tools supplied with CAD systems and third-paity management tools, and less use of paper and in-house-deveioped systems.

Dataquest Perspective

It is useful to consider that the commercial

CAD/CAM/CAE market has been in existence

Table 1

Distribution of £ngineerlng Data

Management, b y Type (Percentage)

Pajjer

Tools Supplied with CAD System

In-House Developed Software

Third-Party Management System

Source: Dataquest (December 1991)

N o w

51

16

32

1

In One

Year

4A

21

30

5 since 1969- In the first 18 years of this business activity, just over 660,000 PCs, workstations, and host-based terminals were installed. In the next two years, this instaUed base doubled. In the next two years, ending this year, more than another 1 million seats were shipped. "We forecast that another 1.5 million sea.3 will be shipped in the next two years.

The mathematics of this situation have not escap>ed the database management vendors or the users. A tremendous amount of CAD/CAM/

CAE data is being produced at an exponential rate. The time to implement a well-functioning solution for most users is critical,

The business opportunity to solve the database management and distribution problem is not as obvious. Some users believe tihat every system should have this capability built in, not providing much of an incremental business opportunity. A number of vendors are building wellintegiated solutions that operate in the group or department level They can prove value and stay away from the corporate commiitee that has been studying this problem for years.

The more structured approach will challenge the big system integrators now and a long time into the future. Whether it be a large SI vendor or an internal corporate resource, the big bucks will go to the group building the datamanagement solution into the "system," The enterprisewide solution that forms the backbone of the engineering and business data communications system will own the data and the access to the data and will define the applications that use the data. This is not a mainframe world; it is a networked distributed environment including notebook computers to supercomputers. The effective design of these environments will determine the ability of these corporations to be competitive in their businesses. •

By Michael J. Seely

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

12

In Future Issues

Watch for reports on the following topics of interest in future issues of Dataquest

Perspective:

• Concurrent engineering for CAD/CAM/CAE, including a review of knowledge-based took and vertical markets

• An analysis of the latest finite element analysis technologies, including P-method, coupled analysis, and boundary representation

• A knowledge-based engineering case study with a large aerospace company

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

For More Information . . • 1

Managing Editor Patrick Waurzyniak (408) 437-8132

On the topics in this issue CAD/CAM/CAE (408) 437-8132

About other Dataquest publications Sales (408) 437-8000

About upcoming Dataquest conferences Conferences (408) 437-8245

About your subscription Customer Service (408) 437-8402

Via fax request Fax (408) 437-0292

The content of this report represents our interpreution and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by responsible individuals in the subject companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Individual companies reported on and analyzed by

Daiaquest nay be dieott of this and/cx- other Dataquest services. This information is not furnished in connection with a sale or offer to sell securities or in connection wiih the solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This firm and Its parent and/or their officers, stockholdeis, or members of didr fomilies may, from time to time, have a long or short position

In ihe securities mentioned and may «ell M- buy such securities.

©1991 Dataquest Incorporated / 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2398 / (408) 437-8000 / Fax (408) 437-0292

0012515

DataQuest

GOl i

crJ

f5

W)

0 = p T " l^/io-b€f^—'

r

Mechanical Applications

K^ruRM .

ataquest'

CAD/CAM/CAE

Rdechanical Applications

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

September 28,1992 ft.

Mechanical Applications

MarketTrends

I>ataQuest®

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

September 28,1992

Published by Dataquest Incorporated

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by knowledgeable individuals in the subjea industry, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmitted, in any form or by any means—mechanical, electronic, photocopying, duplicating, microfilming, videotape, or otherwise—without the prior permission of the publisher.

© 1992 Dataquest Incorporated

October 1992

0013703

Table of Contents

Page

1. Report Overview 1-1

Report Objectives 1-1

Methodology '. 1-1

2, Executive Summary 2-1

Major Trends and Issues 2-1

Market Analysis 2-2

3i Trends Analysis 3-1

Introduction 3-1

General Overview 3-2

The Level of Indispensability Is on the Rise 3-2

Cheaper and Faster Is the Law of the Land Regarding Hardware 3-3

Meirket Penetration—^The Race Toward a Replacement Market 3-4

Technology 3-5

Computing and Graphics Performance, by Task 3-5

Amazing Growth in MIPS 3-6

Modeling Technologies 3-7

Knowledge-Based Engineering 3-9

•Wrtual Reality and Multimedia 3-9

End Users 3-10

The Cost of Product Life Cycle 3-10

A Shrinking Business Environment 3-10

Regional CAM/CAM/CAE Growth 3-10

Dataquest Perspective 3-12

4. Market Analysis 4-1

Methodology 4-1

Definitions 4-1

Subapplications 4-1

Computing Platforms 4-3

Regions 4-3

The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market: 1991 4-3

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Region 4-3

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Platform 4-5

The Top 10 Market Share 4-6

Total Revenue 4-6

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

Software Revenue 4-6

Leading Vendors 4-6

IBM 4-6

Computervision 4-7

Autodesk 4-8

SDRC 4-8

EDS 4-9

Hewlett-Packard 4-9

MacNeal-Schwendler 4-9

Schlumberger Technologies 4-9

Parametric Technology Corporation 4-9

Major Market Segments ^ 4-10

Appendix A—^Market Statistics—Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE A-1

List of Figures

Figure Page

3-1 Level of IndispensabUity in Mechanical Applications 3-3

3-2 Distribution of Cost Per Seat by Hardware and Software 3-4

3-3 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS InstaUed Base 3-5

3-4 Applications Performance Spectrum 3-6

3-5 Forecast of MIPS Shipments in Worldwide Computing—All Applications 3-7

3-6 Revenue Forecast, by Modeling Technology 3-8

3-7 Product Life-Cycle Costs 3-11

3-8 Distribution of Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Total Revenue, by Region 3-12

4-1 CAD/CAM/CAE Market Database 4-2

4-2 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Region 4-4

4-3 1991 Worldwide Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Platform 4-5

4-4 1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Total Revenue (All Platforms) 4-7

4-5 1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (All Platforms) 4-8

4-6 1991 Asia Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (All Platforms) 4-11

4-7 1991 Asia Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue (All Platforms) 4-12

4-8 1991 Europe Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (All Platforms) 4-13

4-9 1991 Europe Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (Technical Workstations) 4-14

4-10 1991 Europe Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue (Technical Workstations) 4-15

4-11 1991 North America Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (All Platforms) 4-16

4-12 1991 North America Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue

(Technical Workstations) 4-17

4-13 1991 North America Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue

(Technical Workstations) 4-18

4-14 1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (Technical Workstations) 4-19

4-15 1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Softwiire Revenue (Personal Computer) 4-20

4-16 1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue (All Platforms) 4-21

List of Tables

Table Page

A-1 Worldwide—All Platforms A-Z

A-2 Worldwide—Technical Workstation A-10

A-3 Worldwide—Host-Dependent A-16

A-4 Worldwide—^Server A-18

A-5 Worldwide—Personal Computer A-20

A-6 North America—All Platforms A-25

A-7 Europe—All Platforms A-29

A-8 Asia—All Platforms A-35

A-9 Rest of World—All Platforms A-40

Chapter 1

Report Overview . ^ . . ^ . . ^ _ ^ . - ^ — .

Report Objectives

The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE 1992 Market Trends Report presents the results of Dataquesf s research and analysis of the 1991 mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE market. This comprehensive analysis of the market provides the following:

• Executive Overview—^This is a bulleted siunmary of the major findings of the report.

• Trends Analysis—^The major trends and issues driving the market are defined, discussed, and analyzed.

• Market Analysis—^A methodology and definitions are presented before the market results of 1991 are analyzed by looking at the market by region and by platform. A top 10 analysis is given that identifies all of the top 10 vendors in all the major and several selected market segments. Leading vendor profiles identify the products and highlights in various hot software market areas.

• Forecast Analysis—^Based on the major trends and forces in the market, Dataquest makes a five-year forecast in all the major market segments. This forecast includes factory revenue and software revenue by region, platform, and subapplication.

• Appendix—Includes detailed market share tables showing revenue and unit shipments.

Methodology

The market and trends analysis is based on more than 50 years of industry experience in the CAD/CAM/CAE group. We use the results of primary research to define, measure, and estimate the significant parameters of the market. Vendor and end-user-based surveys are conducted to gain further insight into significant market dynamics.

First-hand discussions with end users, investors, and vendors are used to verify assumptions and to check analysis results.

Project Analyst: Michael J. Seely

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

Chapter 2

Executive Summary

"Mechanical" is the largest application area in the CAD/CAM/CAE market, representing around 60 percent of the total. The mechanical apphcation area comprises electronic design automation (EDA), architectural, engineering and construction (AEC), and geographic information systems (GIS). The following bullets are intended to provide a high-level overview of the major trends and issues and market analysis that will be covered more fully in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report.

Major Trends and Issues

• The level of indispensability is on the rise, which is increasing demand for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE products around the world.

• Expect hardware price erosion to continue at a slowing rate as package complexity increases for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE applications.

• Expect software prices to stabilize or increase slightly for leading products.

• Expect second-tier products with stale technology to fight price erosion.

• Full implementation of automation technology in the engineering environment will take more than 10 years. The replacement nuirket is gaining importance as the potential seat count approaches

50 percent saturation.

• The most aggressive companies will derive benefits of integrated

CAD/CAM/CAE as a required strategic business decision.

• For the foreseeable futiu«, computing performance will continue to improve at an exponential rate. This enabling resource will fuel the next-generation software tools, which are focused on integrated solutions at the enterprise level.

• Core-modeling technologies will evolve slowly to support a product data structure that is growing in complexity. Three-dimensional solutions are replacing two-dimensioixal solutions. Next-generation solid-modeling-based solutions will replace three-dimensional solutions.

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

2-2 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

• Knowledge-based engineering is a dream becoming a reality. The technology works well if implemented with careful planning. The success stories are growing. The cost and ease of implementation will improve.

• \ ^ u a l reality and multimedia are both important to mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE. These technologies are growing quickly in mass market applications and will bring revolutionary benefits to the engineer and designer as they continue to improve.

• The users are becoming fully dependent upon this technology. As the general business operations gain the efficiency of shared data and electronic communications, the users can focus on the simulation of better product design and manufacturing procedures.

• The growth opportunity in each country is dependent upon the success and healtii of the local manufacturing industries. Multinational corporations will fuel the growth in newly industrialized coimtries.

Market Analysis

• Overall, the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market grew 0.9 percent in 1991, reaching $7,238 billion for total factory revenue.

• The U.S.-based vendors shipped almost 75 percent of the worldwide total; Asian vendors shipped 16 percent, and European vendors shipped only 9 percent. The vast amount of products developed in Asia were sold only in Asia. The Eiuopean market is much more international with many local and overseas vendors/ developers. A few vendors/developers such as IBM's Catia, Computervision's Medusa, ParasoUd from EDS, and Eudid-IS from

Matra Datavision are developed in Europe and sold successfully around the world.

• As a group, the worldwide top 10 lost ground in 1991. They had

57.5 percent of total market in 1990. This share dropped to

56 percent, representing slightly more than $4 billion of the total market.

• Two shining stars on the top 10 list are Silicon Graphics and

Hewlett-Packard with a 22.5 percent and 19.0 percent revenue growth rate, respectively.

• The other vendors experienced lower growth, with half of the top 10 showing negative growth.

• IBM continues to lead the market in all regions for total factory, host-based, and server revenue for both hardware and software.

This represented $1,339 billion in total mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE revenue.

• Computervision maintained its lead with top revenue share in total factory revenue and software revenue on the technical workstation in the North American, European, and worldwide markets. This represented $730 milUon in total mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE revenue.

October 2,1992 ®1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT4201

Executive Summary 2 ^

• Autodesk has the No. 1 f)osition in personal-computer-based software everjrwhere except in Asia. This represented $94 million in total mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE revenue.

• A revenue growth of 78 pjercent in 1991 pushes Parametric

Technology Corporation (PTC) past the $47 million mark. If PTC can maintain this growth rate for two more years, they could soon become the largest mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software vendor in the world.

• The software-only segment grew at 6.8 percent rate, reaching

$2,040 billion in worldwide vendor revenue.

• A regional view of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market finds

Eiu"ope taking the leading position with 40.4 percent of the world market. Despite poor economic conditions in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, overall conditions in all of Europe supported the modest growth.

• Asia, in particular, showed dran\atically slower growth—a

2.1 percent rate, to $2,150 billion.

• The North American market actually dropped (4.7 percent) to

$2,051 biUion.

• A view of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market by platform shows the importance of the technical workstation in this market.

Almost 50 percent of the total revenue, 50 percent of the service revenue, and almost 60 percent of the total software revenue is represented by technical workstations.

• The market perception of the PC as a more serious design and analysis tool has progressed slowly, but virtually all applications miming on workstations or host-based systems are now available on the PC.

• Host-based systems—once the basis for the entire mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE market—^have evolved to focus on a single, dominate force in the market. IBM owns a 42 percent market share.

Unfortunately, this whole market segment dropped 23 percent from

1990 revenue levels.

CCAM-MEC-Mr-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporatsd October 2,1992

Chapter 3

Trends Analysis

Introduction

Time-to-market for most market-driven products is a good indicator of the productivity or efficiency of the enterprise in question. The ability to react to changes in the market place, to asses the change in opportunity, and to make the necessary corrections to remain competitive is fundamental in a successful operation. C A D / C A M / C A E is an enabling technology, leveraging the abilities of the organization to make these changes. While this view is common at a corporate level, it is interesting to consider the larger view of operation at the industry or global level. This is, in fact^ where C A D / C A M / C A E is being implemented. Many trade and industry organizations are implementing standards to promote the sharing of product design and manufacturing information using C A D / C A M / C A E . This facilitates design and manufacturing anywhere in the world. General Motors, Ford, and

Toyota are good examples using this strategy. Instant communications with a worldwide integrated work force is the reality of today. Since

C A D / C A M / C A E is the language of change in an engineering environment, this technology has become a strategic weapon in global competition.

Several interesting observations can be made that position this technology in the context of global competition and what to expect in the future, C A D / C A M / C A E tools aie created t o be used to design, simulate, and document the product development process. This apphes to every consumer and commercial applicatiorL All cars, appUances, clothing, and utensils are produced—or will be someday—with the benefit of C A D / C A M / C A E tools. While the productivity and quality innprovements are well understood, the commercial appUcations of

C A D / C A M / C A E are somewhat more sophisticated. These industries h a v e been using C A D / C A M / C A E for more than 20 years with good results. The transportation, construction, and chemical industries are leading in the application of these tools in the commercial sector.

Another fact of application focuses on the designing of faster and more complex computers. These computers, in turn, will be used to support more complex sofhvare and design/simulation algorithms that will be used t o design even faster computers. This cycle has resulted in the common availability of computing resources that would have been unimaginable only a decade ago. The exciting reality is that this trend is increasing at an accelerating rate. What the mass market does with this plethora of MIPS, MFLOPS, and gigabytes remains to be

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ®1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2.1992

3-2 CAD/CAIWCAE—Mechanical Applications

seen. Whatever the result, you can be sure that the latest and fastest computer will always be used by some engineer or designer to create the next mode of transportation, communication device, and appliance.

Any evening news program will demonstrate the fundamental changes taking place in the global economic, environmental and political arenas. Public awareness of the impact of these changes is increasing.

The expectations for further change are increasing even more. The amazing advances in telecommunications and computing are moving everyone as close as their telephone, terminal, or modem. The

CAD/CAM/CAE market exists in the center of much of this turmoil.

CAD/CAM/CAE is a tool to be used in building the infrastructure of our global society.

General Overview

The Level of Indispensability Is on the Rise

Drawing an accurate picture of indispensability for mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE is difficult. If a required task can only be accomplished using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, then obviously its use is indispensable. A means of illustrating the issue considers the level of job complexity for em individual task and the current level of automation required. In general, easy/simple tasks are usually accomplished quickly using manual or low-tech solutions. Changing a number on a drawing can take less than a minute with an eraser and pencil. Making the same change in a CAD system may take hoius if the data is not well organized. The ingenuity of the typical engineer or designer can replace millions of dollars worth of computing equipment with a sketch and a bent wire—sometimes. As the complexity of the design increases, the need to share information increases. The benefits of automation, in turn, improve dramatically, and the level of indispensability goes up. Coupled with market pressures to produce higher quality, ergonomically correct designs with shorter production cycles is making mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE a necessity in all manufacturing industries (refer to Figtue 3-1).

A hidden benefit when full implementation is accomplished comes from the elimination of redundant process or systems. Unfortunately, this is difficult to accomplish in a mechanical design and manufacturing environment. So many people need access to some part of the engineering database, it is diMcult to identify everyone, let alone to actually set up a system that totally replaces the manual operation. A common mistake in this process is the goal of

"doing-it-right-the-first-time." This requires an imreasonable amount of planning and assuming it could be done right. In several months, something surely would change, requiring a modification in the "right" system. The only methodology that will work over time is to expect changes and build into the process an easy means of accommodating any update.

October 2,1992 ®1992 Dabquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT-4201

Trends Analysis

Figure 3-1

Level of Indispensability in Mechanical Applications

Job Complexity

High

Indispensability

3-3

Low

Level of Automation Required

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Cheaper and Faster Is the Law of the Land Regarding

Hardware

Software is emother issue. The average value of software shipped per seat has increased slowly. An indicator of this trend shows total software revenue divided by total number of new hardware seats shipped, hx 1987, this average value was $6,740. It has risen to

$7,667 in 1991. The corresponding amount for technical-workstationbased software is $16,640; for the PC, the amount is $2,360; and

$15,020 is the amount on host-based terminals. Many leading software vendors on all platforms have been raising prices directly or indirectly with new pricing structures for network licensing or site licensing. Price cutting is rampant for second-tier vendors trying to build or maintain market share. Older software technology is seeing strong price-erosion pressure particularly on the PC platform (refer to Figure 3-2).

Dataquest expects the average value of software per seat to continue to rise as more sophisticated applications and more integrated solutions are implemented. A related trend may see a slowing or even reversal in the price erosion of the typicjJ hardware platform.

Many of the seats installed have been purchased to run basic design and documentation applications. These platforms will not run the next generation of design optimization software in an effective manner. Users will plan to upgrade or replace these systems when the economics or new baseline requirements become compelling.

CCAM-MEC-MT-4201 ®1992 Dataquest Incoiporated

High

ezoDvess

October 2,1992

3^

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 3-2

Distribution of Cost per Seat, by Hardware and Software

Cost per Seat

30-

2 5 -

2 0 -

1 5 -

1 0 -

5 -

Software

^ Hardware

1987

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

1991

1996

G2001659'

October 2,1992

Market Penetration—The Race Toward a Replacement

Market

The next five years will see the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market evolve toward a replacement market where the new unit sales will be balanced by system retirements. This trend is inevitable. The remaining question is when. Figure 3-3 forecasts 1997 or 1998 as the balance point. Considering the plethora of forces at work in emerging technologies, world economics, competitive issues, and new applications, this should be considered a rough estimate. From the user standpoint, this should be viewed as a desirable situation where everyone who accesses the engineering database uses an electronic format. This implies that many parallel manual systems can be eliminated, as well as the development of many new applications, knowing that everyone in a company will be using the system. The savings potential for this future scenario is tremendous.

Many examples can be foimd of full CAD/CAM/CAE automation in specific design or manufacturing tasks for a certain family of parts or a common design. Few, if any, companies have taken the leap of faith, automating the entire operation from concept to manufacturing. Many companies, large and small, have automated parts of the operation. Large enterprises will proceed with careful planning to accomplish this result, but it will take longer since they are, in effect, rewiring the house with all the lights on. Smaller operations can make the leap sooner since the problem set may be less complex with all of the automation tools available to make the switch.

(E)1992 Dataquest Incorpoiated

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

Trends Analysis

3-5

This evolutionary trend will occur sooner or later. Those that are slow to make the leap when all the pieces of the implementation puzzle are available will become noncompetitive in a few years.

Those that get it right can reap the rewards in better product quality, faster time-to-market, and lower operational cost. Once a strategic automation plan is in place, the business can focus on the incremental enhancements that will maintain the high performance of the operation. The concept of computer-aided design then fades, since it can be done no other way.

Technology

Computing and Graphics Performance, by Task

The expected improvements in computing and graphics performemce are fueling a dramatic growth in software development. As can be seen in Figure 3-4, what can be accomplished with reasonable interactive performance on a $20,000 workstation is evolving.

In 1987, a $20,000 workstation could support only the basic applications of 2-D drafting and assembly design. Now, what is shown is the growth in user expectation for baseline functionality. These new requirements for complexity and performance would not be suitable for the "old" $20,000 seat.

Figure 3-3

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Installed Base

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Seats

1,600,000

1,400,000-

1,200,000 -

1,000,000-

m

Seat Shipments

a

Installed Seats

Retirements

800,000 -

600,000-

400,000-

200,000-

0

1987

21

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

QZDDieeo

October 2.1992

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

3^

Figure 3-4

Applications Performance Spectrum

5 Million 2-D/3-D

Vectore/Second

A

I

/ Solid Model \

Simulation

100 Thousand

2-D/3-D

Vectors/Second

^Wn^burtacef ^^."''^ —-

[ 2-D / ^ ^ ^ ^ Analysis

" " ^'^"s,,^^ [ Data ^ V ^

^ ^ V Management y " - — „ _ •

$ 2 0 K \ ^ $ 2 0 K \ ^ /

1987 y ^ ' ' - - ^ _ 1 9 9 i l ^ ^ ' ^

$ 2 0 K \

1995

1

30 MIPS 100 MIPS

Note: Oval size ir idicates current range of common expectation for performance.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

^

G20009911661

In 1991, all of the basic and many of the advanced applications in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE could be used effectivdy on a

$20,000 workstation. As the performemce improves, the 1996 version will handle all that and more. The important issue here is the accurate tracking of application growth in complexity and what is required for user-perceived acceptable performance. New applications win also evolve that will require more computing and graphics performance. The widespread interest in design optimization is a prime example of this trend. New user interfaces developed for virtual reality products coupled with styling and conceptual-design applications will thrive in the new high-performance market.

Amazing Growth in MIPS

The war over millions of instructions per second (MIPS) are continuing with greater urgency. Lucky for mechanical designers and engineers everywhere, this provides a developing arsenal of computing resources for a growing list of applications. The Dataquest Tedinical Computing Group has forecast the growth in MIPS shipments for all applications. An amazing revelation comes from

i

CCAM-ME&-MT-€201

©1992 Dataquest Incorporatsd Octotwr 2,1992

Trends Analysis

3-7

the forecast that the total MIPS shipped in history up to and including 1992 will be matched by the shipments in 1993. In other words, the total MIPS shipped will double in 1993, and almost double again in 1993, and double again in 1994 (refer to Figure

3-5). The changes this can bring about during the next ten years are mind boggling. The software vendors can redefine the concept of interactive design. Designers will literally be able to simulate the crash of one car into another and see if the doors still open. The value of this level of computing will change the nature of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE. The result will allow anyone in the design and manufacturing process to simulate real problems, evaluate potential solutions, and choose the best solution. They then can commiinicate the change instantly to all involved.

Modeling Technologies

The revenue of applications software sold in Mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE totaled $2.04 billion in 1991. We asked the vendors what modeling technology is used as the core technology for each of their application packages. This survey data was combined with end-user implementation data to understand how these systems are being used. The results of this analysis is the forecast shown below. Systems that are 2-D-only are on a steady decline.

Three-D capability is available for a minimal cost premium. Even if

Figure 3-5

Forecast of MIPS Shipments in Worldwide Computing, by All Applications

Millions of MIPS

3,000

CAGR 1987-91

78%

2,500 -

2 , 0 0 0 -

1,500-

1,000-

^

D

H

Workstation ly^idrange

Supercomputer

Mainframe

^

PC

5 0 0 -

CAGR 1991-1996

94%

rTTTTI [ » 0 0 «

I I

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

-I 1 I I

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Actual Forecast

Source: Oataquest (October 1992)

G2t»16S£

CCAM-MEC-MT-g201 ©1992 Oataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

3-8

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

a user has few occasions for a 3-D application, the minimal expense and common availability on all platform types makes a 3-D-based product a reasonable alternative to 2-D. Chily a few, recent 2-D-only products have added a significant amount of enhancements for parametric user input and constraint-based modeling, that may keep a significant market presence. This discussion does not intend to minimize the value or necessity of providing high-performance production drafting capabilities; however, the general message is that the vendor revenue from this application is on the decline.

Solid modeling has been promised for many years as the panacea for the design environment. The more complete data structure with improvements in performance are rapidly building a strong following. Add-on applications that use part or assembly information are still less than optimed, but progress is being made in integration between the model and analysis applications, also between the model and documentation, and further into manufacturing applications. Ease of use, performance, and the ability to accurately model any object independent of shape or manufacturing process continue to challenge all in this business. Significemt progress has been made jmd the systems available today are very usable. Ten years from now at the Detroit Autofact Show of 2002, the comer pub may buzz with tales of a new solid modeler that can automatically build a mold cavity from the part model. Solid modeling can always be better (see Figure 3-6).

Figure 3-6

Revenue Forecast, by Modeling Technology

Millions of U.S. Dollars

1,400-

1,200-

1,000-

8 0 0 -

6 0 0 -

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

• 3-D and Surfacing

October 2,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incoipciatad

1995 1996

Solid Modeling

Gfoo-iEes

CCAM-MEC-MT4201

Trends Analysis 3 ^

Knowledge-Based Engineering »

Knowledge-based engineering (KBE) is a productivity multiplier for any mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE system. The rules developed can drive automated applications, capture design intent, and automate sharing of data between applications and departments. Every production operation has task and procedural structures that can be automated and optimized with KBE. The needed improvements in ease of use, cost of implementation, and availability of interface to a variety of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software products will improve with time. Two years ago, our first in-depth look at KBE made some wild predictions. We expected the market to grow by a factor of iova in the next two years. A preliminary analysis now shows that to be a bit optimistic. A two-times growth in two years would be closer to the truth. The general market softness has had an impact, but the underlying market d5mamics are imchanged. In fact, the applications ear marked for early implementation are proving to be more successful than previously imagined.

Virtual Reality and Multimedia

These buzz words bring to mind a dusty trail and a derby coifed huckster plying his trade to the unwary. The magic elixir will cure most general maladies—from short attention span to lack of motivation. Improvements in training techniques, enhanced information flow, and a general well being should be expected. The allure is real. The promised benefits are compelling emd needed. The proof of delivery as promised is difficult to find. Enthusiasm for new technologies, especially those with remarkable potential, is difficult to ignore. In the case of virtual reality (VR) and multimedia, mainstream development is targeted in the consumer market. These technologies will progress quickly and will be available at a reasonable price. The clever will find a way to bring the best of this technology into the CAD/CAM/CAE world.

A brief scenario can highlight a potential application. A designer responsible for a die design for an aluminum casting is having a problem. The parts are not being formed correctly; porosity and incomplete filling of the mold is the problem. Using VR techniques with real-time interactive simulation, the designer can shrink himself and walk inside the mold. The simulation can djmamically represent the flow of the molten aluminum. As it moves into the passage in question, the designer can see and hear a synthesized analysis of the process. He can hear or even feel the fluid velocity and decide to modify the shape of the mold, then run the simulation again. A real design problem exists. One that could be solved today, in a few weeks. VR combined with the next generation computing resource should reduce that design time down to minutes.

The promise of VR and multimedia in an engineering environment is real. The practical applications are many. The time for implementation will evolve during the next decade.

CCAM-MEC-MT-^201 ©1992 Dataquest Incoiporated October 2,1992

3-10 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

End Users

The fundamental driving force in the market comes from the users.

The need for additional features and functions is a never-ending dialog between the vendor and the user. The necessary and tjqjical focus

y on the next release forces the users and vendor into baby steps of sig-

' » nificant improvement. Truly dramatic change is needed in some

^'"" ' • , ' * ' products to bring the functionality up to today's standards. For some,

' "- , } ^ " starting over from a clean sheet might be more effective.

u - ' •' 'J -.

r^'x - V ;! The Cost of Product Life Cycle

f*' ,^ 7 . ' ' ' - '^ The major applications in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE have been

•^ '^-^' ••' defined. Product conception, development, production, operation, and support will be necessary apphcation areas a himdred years

/ f^. ^ from now. What will change is execution. The pressure for change

A^^'j^y'^ is directly related to the product development cycle. All significant

-^''<> •^'^ elements for change will come from an intimate understanding of the flow of information in each of these departments of application

, • ,-' areas. Figure 3-7 illustrates the concept of cost commitment in new

f/>^ product production that highlights the importance of high-quality

I c^^^ ^^ design. An internal study attributed to British Aerospace several

-'1^-'* j ^ ^ • y ' years ago estimated that 85 percent of a product life-cycle cost is

. V 'iy^, ' '^ committed prior to engineering release. This is not necessarily bad,

"^r^ , ' 1 •% ^___,,,-^- as long as the design is acciu-ate. Making the design commitment,

oj^ ^ ordering tooling, and then discovering the need for a major engi-

> ^ ' .

^ *J neering change is costly. A major change after product shipment

1^.. ^ ^ * summons the dreaded specter of recall. The cost of such things in

F

"" lost-nuuket confidence is immense.

The value of automation in evaluating product life-cycle cost will increase product quality and improve time-to-market. The improved automated processes will typically share and reuse information, use multistep analysis with optimization, and drive production directly from the database. Vendors can package vertical and horizontal application tools to make the process more modular and to aid training.

A Shrinking Business Environment

Competitive pressures from every country are forcing improvements in product quality, time-to-market, reduced expenses, and improvements in shortening time-to-market. The supporting automation environment can provide a full range of tools and structure to address each of these issues. In addition, these tools can provide direct conununication to remote design and manufacturing facilities.

This opens the door for business relationships with the same efficiency as the company next door. Expect more interwoven business partners, organized by industry and synergistic relationships.

Regional CAM/CAM/CAE Growth

The forces at work in steering the development of CAD/CAM/CAE are universal. Drafting and design are the same in Spain, California, or Singapore. The evolution of user demands are siinilar, as well.

Usually, the first application mastered produces drawings faster. Ne)ct_

October 2,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT-3201

Trends Analysis

3-11

Figure 3-7

Product Life-Cycle Costs

Percentage

Conception Validation Development Production Operation Support

1 0 0 -

9 0 -

8 0 -

7 0 -

6 0 -

5 0 -

4 0 -

3 0 -

2 0 -

1 0 -

$ Committed

^ /

$ Spent

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

G£oai6e4 application finds progress toward more sophisticated uses of design, analysis, and manufacturing applications.

Standards work in ANSI, SET, DIN, and other national and international committees has paved the way for sharing of engineering data at the international level. These programs are used for standards at the documentation level. These same standards aite evQl'dng to accommodate engineering information in electronic form.

Each country has a dominant industry or market segment that sets the tone for CAD/CAM/CAE use. The evolution of these industries has had an important inipact on the growth of the CAD/CAM/CAE market in each region and has directed the success of many vendors trying to serve these markets. The automotive industries in Japan, United

States, Germany, Italy, and France have a major influence on the local

CAD/CAM/CAE market. Aerospace, a major force in the United

States and France, is less of a force in other regions and a minor but growing interest in Japan. All of the other manufacturing industries such as fabricated metal, machinery, and consumer products have strongholds in various locations arotmd the world. Specifically, the machinery industry in Japan and Germany represent a significant local

CAD/CAM/CAE opportunity ciAcS . Gr^-p - i^iic.$

The shipments of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE products reflect the global nature of the business (see Figure 3-8). The major regions of the world are nearly balanced for revenue shipments, with Bvaope being

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

©1992 Dataquest Ixoiporated

October 2,1992

3-12 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 3-8

Distribution of Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Total Revenue, by Region

1991

Total = $7.24 Billion

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

GZ001665

the largest, then Asia, and North America. This trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. An interesting reference point comes from our worldwide anal)rsis. This compares the total

CAD/CAM/CAE consumption to the total sales volume of the manufacturing companies. This ratio is 0.3 percent. In other words, for every $100 of sales revenue to manufacturing companies, 30 cents per year is spent for the purchase of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE.

Dataquest Perspective

The major trends in the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE arena have forced the market to a crossroads. The pressure to use automation tools is higher than ever. The quality and productivity of the tools available is also at an all-time high. The cost of implementation is lower than ever with productivity payback in less than two years. So whaf s the problem? It depends on the point of view. If the "glass is half empty" attitude is taken, then the tools are difficult to use, too slow, too costly, and umeliable, and the overhead is not worth the effort to get the simple things done—^too complicated. Why bother? If a positive attitude is taken, amazing things happen. The whole PCbased CAD/CAM/CAE market explosion can be explained by the fact that the people making it happen did not know they could not do it.

CAD/CAM/CAE tools can be used with dramatic success, if used properly.

Unfortunately, misusing tools is a problem, too. If a painful project of implementation has finally been organized to yield the benefits expected, it will be difficult to change this process. The users and developers

i

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated

CCAM-MEC-MT-g201

October 2.1992

Trends Analysis 3-13

will reluctantly move to a new platform or core software only if ^ ^ compelled with strong incentives. Fortvmately some of these incentives_ y\ are in place. A fundamental change in perception needs to take place in the market. As long as CAD/CAM/CAE is positioned as a tool to make a drawing faster, to make an analysis faster, the real opportunity is lost. The crossroads decision will change the tool focus away understanding that CAD/CAM/CAE is a communication medium, t/^ --^^ u.^^A^ ^ - IL^-

„,.A.wv#-i-''^'

When everyone in an organization has access to the information in an organized, managed, and reliable system, great economies can take place. In a very real sense, the engineering drawing is the language of design and manufactiuing. It is very common for dozens and dozens of translations of this information to take place as the design intent travels from concept to production to purchasing to the shipping dock.

The translations can be automated. The enhanced value will come from a system that lets the individuals focus on their value added in the process as the design intent travels through the company. This is / the fundamental issue to be reconciled. The challenge of the next decade will organize the efforts of many, to take the value-added input, to eliminate the manual translation of data for the individual to use, and to take the engineering drawing, the 3-D models, the bill of materials, material specifications, process plans, and a hundred other things, and form it into a usable flow of information. The sooner the users can get control of their data, the sooner they can optimize and reoptimize the process, the sooner they will increase the profitability of the enterprise.

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ©1992 DataqiMSt Incorporated October 2.1992

Chapter 4

Market Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ . ^ - ^

Methodology

Every year, the Dataquest CAD/CAM/CAE group builds two vendor surveys to help define the market performance for the previous year.

In the fourth quarter, the process begins with direct contact with more than 400 vendors worldwide. This information drives the preliminary market share published in February. Ehiring the first and second quarter, additional survey work is completed that qualifies that published preliminary data. This results in a final market share publication in July. The information described resides in a multidimensional database as illustrated in Figure 4-1.

Having the benefit of detailed historical data, the analyst generates a preliminary and final forecast using the market share results to sanity check earlier assumptions. These final reports are distributed in May and October This report describes the 1991 market performance based on published data and the most recent updates available.

Definitions

Subapplications

Dataquest defines the Mechaniccil CAD/CAM/CAE market where a set of computer-aided applications are used to design, analyze, document, and manufacture discrete parts, components and assemblies. The computer applications used to accomplish these tasks are segmented into several functional areas. Specifically, the mechanical application set includes:

• Documentation and E>rafting—comprised of a related set of applications that together define the documentation and drafting application. These include detail drafting, schematics, technical illustration and charting applications.

• Conceptual Design—^includes industrial layout, design layout, and styling applications.

• Functional Design—^includes component design, assembly verification, and linkage/mechanism design applications.

• Analysis—^includes mass properties calculations, stack up, fatigue, structural, thermed, vibration, magnetic, composite, and quality control applications.

CCAM-MEC-Mr-9201 • 1992 Dataquest IncoipotalBd October 2,1992

4-2

Figure 4-1

CAD/CAM/CAE Market Database

440 Companies

• 94 Subapplications

• 26 Industries

• 27 Operating Systems

• 18 Countries/Regions

•History from 1984

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Applications

G20Q1666

• Manufacturing Engineering—includes tool design, fixture design, and part processing design applications.

• Manufactiuing Process Simulation—includes numerical control part programming, coordinated measuring machines, and offline robotics applications.

• System Management and Tools—includes product structiue or configuration management, engineering change management, network file management, iiser application tools, knowledge-based tools, and training tools applications.

Most of the users of these applications are found in the discrete manufacturing industries. These industries, such as automotive, aerospace, and machinery, represent about 80 percent of the total revenue of the market. The other category literally spans the full range of industry possibilities. Mechanical engineers can be found

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT-g201

i

Octotwr 2,1992

Market Analysis 4-3 everywhere supporting the design activities of products and manufacturing processes in everything from tooth paste to billboard signs.

Computing Platfonns

The computing platforms used for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE include ever3rthing from notebooks to supercomputers. The

Dataquest CAD/CAM/CAE database uses four platform designations to track the market: technical workstations, host-dependent systems, servers, and personal computers.

• Technical workstations operate as a single-user computer with a large range of performance options; this includes a virtual, multitasking operating system (UNIX, VMS, Domain); and built-in functions for networking, high-performance graphics.

• Host-dependent S5:stems are a shared-logic device with external workstations/terminals that are dependent on the host for operation.

• Servers can be used for a variety of services that operate transparently for the user. Functions include £Qe storage, database access, compute capability, and others.

• Personal computers are defined as single-user computers that have featiu^s similar to a technical workstation but are optional in the package, such as, virtual operating system, networking, and high-performance graphics. Overall performance characteristics are generally positioned lower than a workstation.

Regions

The regions covered in the service database are defined as follows:

North America—includes United States and Canada

Europe—^includes United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Benelux Region,

France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Rest of Europe

Asia—^includes Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, China, and

Hong Kong

Rest of World—^all other countries including Australia, New

Zealand, Oceania, Africa, Central America, South America, and the

Middle East

The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market: 1991

Overall, the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market grew 0.9 percent in

1991, reaching $7,238 billion for total factory revenue. The software segment grew at a higher 6.8 percentage rate, reaching $2,040 billion in worldwide shipments.

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Region

A regional view of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market finds

Europe taking the leading position with 40.7 percent of the world market (refer to Figure 4-2). The relatively stronger economy in

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ®1992 Dataquest IncoiporatBd Octotwr 2,1992

4 ^

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-2

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Region

Millions of U.S. Dollars

3,000 •

2,500 -

2,000-

1,500-

1,000-

500-

North America Europe

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Asia

• Service Revenue

Software Revenue

_^^^^^9_

Rest of World

0 Hardware Revenue

G2001667

Europe has supported this growth. Proportionally, a higher percent of service revenue is paid in Europe, due primarily to the import of U.S.-based products into the region. Germany has the largest covmtry market share in Europe with a typical strong interest in using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools in both product design and manu&cturing applications. Total factory revenue in EuFOf>e grew 3.8 percent—^to $2,925 biUion. All regions have reported lower than expected growth rates compared to the preliminary market share report in May.

Currency exchange rate fluctuations affect apparent growth

(Dataquesfs CAD/CAM/CAE data is expressed in U.S. dollars).

Dataquesf s European exchange rate tables include data from all

Western European coiuitries, each of which have different and variable exchanges rates against the U.S. dollar. To cite a specific example, in 1989, 1990, and 1991, Matra Datavision grew 7.3 percent,

0.2 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively, in French francs. This growth, when converted to U.S. dollars, looks quite different—

2.4 percent, 17.8 percent, and 4.9 percent, respectively.

Asia, in particular, slowed dramatically, growing only at a

2.1 percent rate to $2,150 billioru Japem represents more than

90 percent of the total Asian market and is expected to continue to dominate this market. The North American market actually dropped

(4.7 percent) to $2,051 billion. Overall, this brought down the total factory revenue growth rate—^from the preliminary estimate of

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT-€201

i

October 2,1992

Market Analysis

8 percent to the current 0.9 percent actual—^for the 1991 worldwide mechaiucal CAD/CAM/CAE market.

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Platform

The mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market has embraced the technical workstation as the platform of choice. Almost half of the total revenue and service revenue and almost 60 percent of the total software revenue is represented by technical workstations. Most of the leading vendors are now first developing in a technical workstation environment. Computervision dominates the worldwide technical workstation market with a 17.6 percent market share in total revenue (see Figure 4-3).

The personal computer has experienced rapid growth and wide acceptance since the first product offerings supplied a low<ost drafting solution. The market perception of the PC as a more serious design and analysis tool has progressed slowly. Virtually all applications running on workstations or host-based systems are now available on the PC. Many manufacturing application have been implemented on the PC with good results. Numerical-control part programming is probably the best example. The combination of low cost and focused application fit well in the laboratory/shop floor environment. We expect the PC and workstation to continue to

Figure 4-3

1991 Worldwide Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market, by Platform

Millions of U.S. Dollars

4,000-

• Service Revenue

4-5

Software Revenue

Technical

Workstation

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

- T "

Host-Based Server

Personal

Computer

Platform

0 Hardware Revenue

G£00ie68

CCAM-MEC-Mr-9201

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

4-6 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

battle for the engineering desktop. Autodesk and Compaq are leading the charge for market share for software and hardware revenue, respectively.

Host-based systems, once the basis for the entire mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE market, has evolved to a single, dominate force in the market. IBM owns a 42 pjercent market share. Digital and

Control Data are important suppliers in this market, but together they are less than 50 percent of IBM revenue in hardware and

7 percent of the software revenue. Several Japanese vendors show considerable strength in the Japanese market with host-based offerings, but even in Japan, the trend is the same. Revenue is flat-todown. This bad news finds the whole market segment dropping

23 percent from 1990 revenue levels. IBM dropped more than

28 percent alone. Dataquest expects the mainframe solution to continue to lose ground to the workstation and PC offerings. The server market along with host-based solutions will continue to supply the large system support and maintenance security blanket that is needed in some industries. The trend, however, is clear; host-based products will represent only 15 to 20 percent of the market total by 1996.

The Top 10 Market Share

Total Revenue

The total revenue for the worldwide market in 1991 was

$7,238 billion. The U.S.-based vendors shipped almost 75 percent of the total; Asian vendors shipped 16 percent; and European vendors shipped only 9 percent. The vast amount of products developed in

Asia were sold in Asia.

As a group, the worldwide top 10 lost ground in 1991 (refer to

Figures 4-4 and 4-5). In 1990, they had 57.5 percent of total market; in 1991, total market share dropped to 56 percent, representing slightly more than $4 billion of the mEtrket. The naunes and positions on the list have not changed significantly. Two shining stars on the top 10 list are Silicon Graphics with a 22.5 percent revenue growth rate and Hewlett-Packard with a 19.0 percent revenue growth rate. The other vendors experienced lower growth with about 50 percent of the top 10 showing negative growth.

Software Revenue

Leading Vendors

IBM. IBM continues to lead the market with its CATIA, CADAM, and CAEDS product offerings. It leads the market in aU regions for total factory revenue, host-based revenue, and server revenue for both hardware and software. Strategic investments in a variety of software companies in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE and other industrial applications almost guarantee this leading position in the futiu€. Last year saw IBM deepening its relationship with Dassault, the developers of CATIA, the flagship design and manufacturing

October 2,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT-4201

Market Analysis

Figure 4-4

1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Total Revenue (All Platforms)

4-7

Hewlett-Packard (7.1%)

Intergraph (2.3%)

Silicon Graphics (2.4%)

Fujitsu (2.5%) -

Digital (4.9%)

EDS (2.9%)

NEC (2.7%)

Nihon-Unisys (2.5%)

Total = $7,239 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

GZ0D1SS9 product offering. This business deal traded some of the development resources in CADAM, a wholly owned subsidiary, for a minor share of the Dassault CAD/CAM/CAE software business. This action cemented the already tight relationship between Dassault and its only distribution partner. IBM continues to make strategic investments in software companies to expand its influence and to add leading-edge software offerings around the CATIA core.

Computervision. Computervision maintained its lead with top revenue share in total factory revenue and software revenue on the technical workstation in the North American, European, and worldwide market. The strength of the product reputation in Europe, along with the higher-than-average market growth in Europe helped

Computervision maintain this No. 1 position. The release late in

1991 of CADDS5, a major update, had some positive affect on revenue. The year 1992 promises to see the full benefit of this significant enhancement. A separate issue in positioning Computervision for a public stock oltfering this year should reduce the debt overhead formed after the Prime and DR Holdings acquisition in

August of 1989. Assuming a successful result in the ciirrent financial deals, the company should remain in a strong position for the foreseeable future.

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

October 2,1992

4-8

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-5

1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (All Platforms)

Autodesk (5.2%)

SDRC (5.0%)

Schlumberger (2.5%)

EDS (3.5%)

Hewlett-Packard (3.0%)

MacNeal-Schwendler (2.6%)

Hitachi (2.8%)

Total = $2,040 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992) a£oatE7D

Autodesk. Autodesk has the No. 1 position in personal-computerbased software everywhere, except in Asia. A few of the local

Asian products have edged them out of the lead; in Europe and the United States, Autodesk dominates this market segment. The strength of the company is in its market share and distribution chaimel. The recent shakeup in the company—^bringing in a new president and several senior vice presidents—should leverage this strength to a new generation of product offering. The latest release of AutoCAD revision 12 has many of the most sought after features in a 3-D system. Recent bvisiness activity suggests a more active role for the company in helping the channel be successful in selling to the Fortune 500 accounts. Autodesk's role of systems integrator can help the company leverage potential synergies between sofhvare VARs for the benefit of the large strategic accounts and many of the smaller accounts as well.

SDRC. SDRC isn't No. 1 on any of the market share charts, although this does not slow them down. SDRC has stnmg together

24 consecutive months of profitable business—an accomplishment that is very rare in this business. The users are loyal, enhancements have occurred on a regular basis, and the price/performance of the

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

i

October 2,1992

Market Analysis 4-9 software keeps getting better. With the IDEAS product family, SDRC has focused on the MCAE market providing conceptual, detail, and analysis tools for the designer. All the major automotive and aerospace companies use the software with reasonable success.

EDS. EDS is a new comer to the top 10 list. Although the name is new, the products are weU-established. McDonnell Douglas sold the

Unigraphics product line to EDS in November of 1991. The transaction took several months longer than expected, which may have had a negative impact on the growth in 1991. Revenue was down,

15.9 percent to $208 million in total factory revenue. Market softness for the mainstream Unigraphics end users contributed to the less-than-stellar performance. Automotive, and part of the aerospace industries, particularly in this country, obviously were not in a bujdng mood.

Hewlett-Packard. Hewlett-Packard saw more than a 19 and

27 percent growth in total revenue and in software, respectively.

The ME series software for mechanical design and drafting are growing in popularity. The recent enhancements in adding parametric input to the ME 10 product moves it into the mainstream of current technology. The Elan product, the solid-modelingbased next-generation product, is soon to be released. If it advances the industrial strength capabilities of the ME series products, it will meet with above-average success. Delays in release, however, will caution the potential users to test beyond demonstration functionality

MacNeal-Schwendler. MacNeal-Schwendler had flat revenue growth in

1991. The $53 million company is well recognized for the depth of application base in the finite-element analysis world. The evolutionary approach to product development has well served a large installed base. More revolutionary tactics may be needed to incite the casual user to tcike the analytical plunge.

Sclllumberger Technologies. Schlumberger Technologies could provide a blueprint for other mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE companies with an established installed base. End-user surveys suggest a strong support organization. The next major product release is a bit overdue, but the unique features of Bravo are keeping the current users happy.

Paramedic Technology Corporation. Every once in a while, a company comes along that seems too good to be true. For Parametric

Technology Corporation (PTC) a revenue growth of 78 percent in

1991 pushes PTC past the $43 million mark. If PTC can maintain this growth rate for two more years, they could become the largest mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software vendor in the world. The success of PTC should eliminate any doubt about the market value of solid modeling with a good user interface.

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201 ®1992 Dataquest Inconxxatad October 2,1992

4-10 CAD/CAM/CAE—-Mechanical Applications

Major Market Segments

The following set of figures highlight and recognize the leading vendors around the world in each major market segment and in several selected segments of special interest:

• Asia software revenue—all platforms

• Asia hardwcU'e revenue—all platforms

• Europe software revenue—all platforms

• Europe software revenue—^technical workstations

• Europe hardware revenue—^technical workstations

• North America software revenue—all platforms

• North America software revenue—^technical workstations

• North America hardware revenue—^technical workstations

• Worldwide software revenue—technical workstations

• Worldwide software revenue—^personal computers

• Worldwide total hardware revenue—all platforms

i

October 2,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporatsd CCAM-MEC-MT-4201

Market Analysis

Figure 4-6

1991 Asia Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (All Platforms)

4-11

C A D A M ( 3 . 1 % ) -

Hal<uto(3.1%)

Nihon Unisys (3.9%

Toshiba (No OEM) (4.5%)

I Computervision (4.9%)

SDRC (4.8%)

Total = $605 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

62001671

CCAM-MEC-MT-4201 ®1992 Dataquest IncorporalBd Octot»r 2.1992

4-12 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-7

1991 Asia Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue (All Platforms)

IBM \

(18.2%) \

/ others

/ (27.7%)

^^."-""'^ NEC 1

^i^^^^ (10.5%) 1

Mitsubishi Electric (2.5%) — — \ ^ " ^ ^ ^ X / 1 \ \ N i h o r i *

Y j ^ X / I \ \ Unisys M

Toshiba (No OEM) (3.0%) " y ^ / / / \ \{Q-7%)M

Hitachi Zosen Information y ^ \ / \ \ Fgjitsu ^\^^r

Systems (3.6%) \ , ^ / \ (9-0%) ^ ^ T

Silicon Graphics (5.0%) -^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Hitachi (5.1%) -/

— Hewlett-Packard (5.7%)

Total = $1,271 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

GZ[X]1Er2

October 2,1992 ®1992 Dataquest Incoiporated CCAM-MEOMT9201

{

Market Analysis

Figure 4-8

1991 Europe Top 10 Market Share, b y Software Revenue (All Platforms)

4-13

IBM \

(17.6%) \

/ Otiiers

[ (40,4%)

^ ^ Computervision E

^>v,.,_^_^ (14.0%) 1

\ \ \ a i r ^ ^ — Hewlett-Packard (4.3%)

\ \ iJ^^^~ Autodesk (4.2%)

J ^ ^ Matra Datavision (3.9%)

FITn ('> Vf\ 1

1 ^ SDRC(3.8%)

Information Systems (2.9%)

Total =

$830.1 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

G2001673

CCAM-MEC-MT-«201

®1992 Dataquest Incoipoiated October 2.1992

4-14

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-9

1991 Europe Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (Technical Workstations)

Hewlett-Packard (7.1%)

Matra Datavision (6.4%)

CAD Lab (2.4%)

EDS (3.9%)

Schlumberger (3.9%)

SDRC (5.4%)

IBM (4.9%)

Siemens NIxdorf

Information Systems (4.8%)

STI-Straessle(4.1%)

Total = $505.4 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

QZQ01E74

October 2,1992

®1992 Dataquest Incorporatad GCAM-MEC-MT-a201

Market Analysis

4-15

Figure 4-10

1991 Europe Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue (Technical Workstations)

Schlumberger (2.4%)

Intergraph (3.3%)

Sun Microsystems (3.4%)

Matra Datavlsion (3.4%)

EDS (3.5%)

Silicon Graphics (3.9%)

Siemens Nixdorf

Information Systems (4.6%)

Total = $744 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

62001679

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

4-16

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-11

1991 North America Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (All Platforms)

Schlumberger (3.3%)

PDA Engineering (3.4%)

Intergrapli (3.4%) —

MacNeal-Schwendler (4.1%)

Parametric Technology (4.7%)

Total = $576 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

GJ001676

October 2,1992 ®1992 Dataquest Incorporated GCAM-MEC-MT-9201

Market Analysis

Figure 4-12

1991 North America Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue

(Technical Workstations)

4-17

Hewlett-Packard (3.4%)

IBM (3.7%)

Schlumberger(4.1%)

Intergraph (4.2%)

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Parametric Technology (8.4%)

Alias Research (5.5%)

' — PDA Engineering (4.6%)

Total = $321 Million

GZ001677

CCAM-MEC-MT-g201

®1992 Dataquest IncotporatBd

October 2,1992

4-18

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-13

1991 North America Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue

(Technical Workstations)

Schlumberger (2.9%)

X x - ^ O t h e r s

Control Data (3.4%) \ / K \ {7-8%}

Digital (5.2%) — V \ v \ \

Hewlett-Packard \

(17.9%) J \

/ '^'^^^""""•^S^

Y'''"'^.,,,.,^^ (13.8%) 1

Sun Microsystems (8.9%) " ^ y^ 1

\ EDS j f y^lntergraph /

\ (13.2%) M

\ (9.3%) /

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Computervision (11.0%)

Total = $415 Milli on

G20O167B

October 2.1992 ©1992 Dataquest IncoiporatBd CCAM-MEC-MT-92m

Market Analysis

Figure 4-14

1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue

(Technical Workstations)

4-19

/ others

{46.8%)

Computervision \

(14.9%) y \ .

y ^ (7.7%)1

( ^ Z I I 3 ] ] 7 1 Hewlett-Packard (5.3%)

\ \ \ \ ^ ^ ' ^ ' ' ^ ' W ^ ^ EDS (5.0%)

\ \ \ ,JF^ IBM (4.7%)

^J^^g^^^ Pararri'^tr''' T o r h n n l n g y {Tk HOA)

Hitachi (? 5%) ^ ^ "

\ ^ — — NEC f3 2%^

Matra Datavision (3.1%) i

Total = $1,145 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

6200379

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

©1992 Dataquest Incotporated

October 2.1992

4-20 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-15

1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Software Revenue (Personal Computer)

Hitachi (5.0%)

Tebls (2.6%)

Design Automation (2.6%)

Computeivision (2.8%)

CADKEY (2.8%)

Hal<uto (4.5%)

Vero International Software (3.6%)

Mutoh Industries (No OEM) (2.9%)

Total = $388 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

GSDOieeo

October 2,1992

©1992 Dataquest Incoiporated

CCAM-MEC-MT-4201

Market Analysis

Figure 4-16

1991 Worldwide Top 10 Market Share, by Hardware Revenue (All Platforms)

4-21

Computervision (7.2%)

Fujitsu (2.9%) •

Sun Microsystems (3.0%)

Nihon-Unisys(3.1%)

Digital (6.1%)

Silicon Graphics (3.9%)

Compaq (3.5%)

NEC (3.3%)

Total = $3,995 Million

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

G2DDieS1

CCAM-MEOMT-^201

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated

October 2,1992

Appendix A

Market Statistics—Medianical

CAD/CAM/CAE - . ^ ^ ^ ^ — ^

CCAM-MEC-MT-92m 01992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

A-2

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications a

(8

Cft - ^

^

iri

T-H

"O

13 ffi

CO

^

t N t s

^

t N l-i

I—c

U 01 feS

00

^

OS i^ l O

« £

I—1

(/3 BB

ON

6? o

CO

^

q

^

CO

1 - !

^

T f i-j

6S

NO

CO

6S

I N

^

i n r H

^

i n r H

^

i n

CO

ss

'*'

CN gs

CN

1-<

^

• *

CN

^

q

ss

ON

^

• *

ss

00

CN

6S

CO d

^

i n r-i

6S

NO

^

q

^

q

6? i n

K

6S

CO

^

ON

^

•*

feS t v

ss

CN r-i

^

00 r H

ss

CO r H

^

q

^

q

6S

00

CN

£S i n

CN

6S fvl i n

6S o i n

ss

q

^

00

T H feS

CO

6S

CN r H r-i

6S t^.

I - <

^

1-H

'u

5 c

6S cr>

> at

•a >

ON l - H feS tN

6S

CN tN ON

6S

1—1

\d

^

t N

CN

BS

CO

CO

£S

1 — 1

CO

^

ON

CN

^

ON

CO

^

CN

CN

6S o

CN

SS o

CO

6S i n

CO feS

£S

NO r H r H r H feS 6S q q

ss

r H

CN

^

t>.

X^

^

q r H gs

ON

ss

NO

ss

r - i r-i

"n

•fcrf

f2

^^

6S

IT)

•2 P

00 t - c be V

C^

^

r - i d

T - <

^

1—1

K feS 6S

ON

ON

•*

CN

^

tN

CN

^

i n

CN

£^ i n

CN feS

T f

^

CO

CN CNJ

^

CO

CN

^

o

CN

6S o fNJ

^

ON

6S

00

ss

i n

^

•^

feS

6?

CO r H

S^ q

^

q

^

ON

6S

00

K

(B -Q

. t : OJ i n

1—1 n

;a

X

^.2-

X

§

\o

I—1 f ^ t N

ON

•*

s

1—1

CO

^ .

Co"

^

1 — <

?N

S

CO"

^ .

oT

^ .

1 - 1

NO s

Tl<

CN

8

Tf-

00

^

f S

CN

CO r H r H

CM

00 t ^

ON

CN f N j

ON^ co"

_

s rn" o o t x t x

§s

ON" r H

K r H

9

CN

_

m s

1-H

^

T P

)S

s t N

1-H

?

at

CM

CO

£ > t o Cfi cn

ci

q

1-i

NO q

ON r H t s o

ON

•*

ON

CO

CNJ o

ON

Tl< q t s

NO

CO

CO t s

CN q q t s

NO i n

ON d m

CN

t

r H r H r H q

0 0 i n

CO o

K

CM

ON

Tji

CM rs iri

CO t N r-i

0) U OS

•u > g s ^

1—1

^

fe

«N

NO

CO

[ > s

^

CN

IS.

N.

s

1—1

^

1 ^

ON

•*

a

I - "

1—1 r H

0 0 i n r H r H

NO

00 r H d

00 t s d

CN r H

T P r H

00

t r-* t

q q i n s a>

I N

CN

CN

00

CO

NO

Jji

CO i n a

NO

PiM ns

z

H vO

2 c

« > o< cn

^a

I—1

P4

00 cK t ^

• *

1—1 i n

CO

CO

CN g

CN

NO

00

ON i n

CO

0 0

NO r H

0 0 q r H tv.

^

• *

S8 s o

CN

5i r H o iri

CO

CO

1-H

CO

(N s r H r H o

ON s:

CO

R i n

K r H r H t N i n

3 r H

ON i n

•PH

I

T3

I

I

JD

E2

October 2,1992

& o

U r i e

* « 4 g

1 n"

if

i

(J

1

:ia

• a b

[U

y

Si

(0 o i

01

•g

3 s

C L I

S^

c

o

1

1

1

X

C L .

^

S

1

U i rt

t

in "rt

D

1 g g

1 d

u

T

s.

e

%

^J

1

1 i s

<

y )

U

(J

1 tx

C L .

<

5 g

3

1

• K

>

i l rt

0

TJ o

I

X

IB

1

<u

(75

i

it

&

(A

1

t3

Q

<

U

(S

HH

1-

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

Market Statistics—Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE A-3 e ra

X en

^^

Si

5

TJ

CO -Q

^

."g W tS b . o

D ci.

13

CD a:

V 0) ^

\o cvi

M

2 2

5 C

^ o s

T3 >

6S i n

^ o

6S o\

^

I N

^

\o

^ en ss

T - t

^ fvl

6S l - H

(vi

^

ON ss o

^ t s

^

Psl

^

O

6S t N

6?

T-H ss o feS

CM

^ o

6? en gs q

I - H

6S

\q

6S

\q

6? i n

T-i es q

6S t^.

6S

CO

I - H

^ i n ss

00 ss

Pvl

6S en

SS

•<!)< sS o ss

00

^

•<}*

^ o

^

• *

^

Tj"

6?

CO feS ^ o 1-H feS o

^

NO

6S

T j <

^

Cvl

^ r^

6? cs ss

CO

BS BS BS r - t

T H

T-H

6S

• ^

1-H

5S

^ H

6? t f

BS

NO es i n

^

ON

6? i n

BS

BS BS

CM CM - " j ; gs

I - H

SS

CO

^

BS BS

T C

CO CM

"S f2

(B > b V

B^

6S

00

^ t N

^

I N

^ t N

6S

VO ss m

BS i n

£S i n

6?

rf

^ i j t es

•*

^

T t

^

"*

^

^

£^

•<f ss

•<t es

^

^

• t

^

•^

BS

CO

^ ^ ^

CO CO CO a

«

"O

»H m

£ m -a

.t: 01 o e a

S .o-

X

«

«N

CO

O r H r j

^ r H t N

K

I N

^

_

^

CM g

O ON

R

I - H i n o

CM o

_

^ o m

CM

I - H

I - H t N

«

ON

ON

0 \ ft!

CO o r H s

R m NO op

' * (N ^

I-H r > I I-H a s

•*

rri

i n t v t N l - <

• * m

•*

<J\

00

I - H m iri

(3\

CJ

CM o\

CM

I - H tv.

I - H

T - <

T(< q o i n

1-H

2 4^ o

I N

CM i n o\ i n

00

CM

00 c j

I - H

00

(JN

CM

1-H o d

I - H o

00

r-l

q i - <

I - H

• * 0 0 CM

• ^ CO 00

V

• f - l

^^ o

U

w tu u q

m

vd

CM q

CD

00

CM

1-H cn

00

CM l - H

T-H o

I - H q c^

T-H

CO

CM l - H q

•o >

* - H

T P

I - H q i n i n

I - H

00

00 b s

ON

NO

CM q r H

I - H

CM O I-H i r i I-H ON r H r H

K ^

3

I ©

H

^ s

- p

" f S vo

I f ) i n i n

^

«N t N

"<J<

T - l t N

• * o\ o

Tl< o

00

CD

CT\ cn tn

T f

m m

^ r-<

m

CM r-5

CO

CM

1-H to t^

ON

CM

ON

00

CM

I - H i n s

00

CM

O t>:

CM

00

CO

NO

CM t N i n

CM

T f

Tj5

C>l

00 I N t N r-i rH d

CM CM CM n

K

I

TS

• T H

73

>-H

* - l

I

JJ

3

E2

CCAM-MEC-MT-S201

0 o.

S o

^

X

1

•£

CO

3

<X

§

1

"Q u

^r*

o

EL,

a

u m

M

3

CO

• k ' u>

1

_3j

"m

( 0

$ ia t/i

XI

Or

2

M)

!2

U

UO

D bO d

<

- i K

1

0

B

bO

a

4 H

G o

• P 4

4 - 1

A

1

1

9

1 f i

X

CL, tf) i

01

tA

X cn tn

-^

J F J

1-

CO

<

1

55

<e

<j

• g

1

1 o

1^

« £

i t—1

5

X o

J -^

1

E2

3

<

1

1

(J

U

1

c m

" ° D

3 -^ <

•tJ o H

S Z £2

1

(01992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

A-4

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

E2

•a

•PH i

2

1 3

<

I

73

O)

3 i W

O

U

CO

O

MH i4-l pi! g en

•fcrf u

^

s

4) (« -Q

6S

5 c cu

.B P ^

K

V

W

6S i n

^1 en K

(1> 01

5 c

6S cs

TJ >

53 ^

6S l - H

^ o

6S r H

^

^ H

^ r H

£S o

^

T-H ss o

^

T-H

BS

T - l

^ o

BS BS BS

BS

^

^

BS BS

O CM O T-H cs O T-H O

T-H

^ n

£S

00

6S so

^ i n

ES m

6S so

BS

CS

6S t>.

BS

• *

^ cri

BS i n

BS BS

BS

• * T-H t v .

^ ^ ^

BS

^

CS i n i n CO I-H

6S

CO

6? o ss

T-H

6?

^ H

6S t s

^ o

^ cs

6S o

^

r-t

ss cs

^

I - H

B?

BS

feS

O CO O

^

BS cs o

^ BS B^

BS

BS

BS

H (J w

( i i 4|

oi

feS

(0

£S

CD

^

CO ss

CD

6?

<s

^ cs

^ cs

6S cs

^ cs

BS cs

BS cs

BS cs

BS

^ BS

^ cs cs cs cs cs feS ^ SS cs cs cs c s c s T-H

1-H

CM o i n l-H

8 cs o o

?5 o cs en

OS

I-H

CO o

00 o cs o in o o cs o

O Q T-H

0 \

S

o r H

CO

CO T-H

2 2 - 2

S e a

CD

£ a a

•a •-

>- J3

" CO

X a

2

CS d

I—1

00 iri

CM

K

I—1 o

c6

T-H

CN d

T-H so iri so

CS

I—I

• *

• *

T-H

T t

T-H i n

00 so

SO

T-H d

1-H

VO Tj< 00 T-H T}< CO O CO I-H VO

00 T-J CO

T-H

Tji d

T-H

• fsi

T-H d SO CS

T-H

CO K

I—1

K

I—C

N

1—1 q

00 fsi o

T ) < cs

K q o

00 q t ^

^

• 5 j <

K f>J t s

O so O O

T-t

CM

T - l

00 so fsi

T-H i n i n

X^

2 ^n

^

H u 01 t N

« >

Of;

0 0

OS i n

OS i n

00

<N

VO o so t s i n t s i n i n i f i i n i n

0 0

TlH i n

T)5 cs OS 00 in o bs ' S ' CO O O 0 0

^ CO CO

CO CO cs cs cs

CN rH d o

G

.2 i

B

bc

TJ

iZ

3

1 y i

Si

i

1 g

1

1

.J

5

IS

• a

1 o

X I s u

U i

OJ l-c

H

< i 'I

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated s o u

CO d3

Is

1

3

0.1

1

^1

1^

IS ^

- u y

X i ; <(J u Q &;

'^ii

CCAM-MEC-MT4201

October 2.1992

•3

> 1

CL g e

u

••g

^^ i

s

1

pe;ejodio3U| isenbeisa Z661®

Z661 'Z Jeqopo 10Z6-1W-03W-WV00

1

OT

O

I—1

UJ

CB

S

1 n ff.

• ^

< n

1 ren

1

0

^ s

t

i ro*

"1

§; a

1

Oi

1

"1

9

3

Tl m

Cfl

0) o.

1

S

n

Sf s;

1 ? ro i i-d

§•

4-f

1

SI 1

1 1

I

*a

1

9

1'

'Tj g

g

3

f

>t^

ON

1 ^ ^

VJ

>^

»>J

Ul o

U l

ON

Ul

ON

U l <Jl o*

^

N> O l 0 \ o

0 0

O l o

1—'

1 ^

O o o

!«»

VO

1—»

^

M

n

*fl

< &>

« 2. H o ro

S-^ Si

(sJ

f i

U> K>

ON o w o 1-1 o

S'e

•< a .

3 ^

>^

ON

K>

0 0 itk

H ^

t n o

Ol

ON o o

(JI

0 0 o o o u

«

1—ft

Ol

O

V ] Ol o

a\

H ^

1 - ^

1 - ^

o\ o^ o S

^

1—1 1—1

o

N>

^a

3 i

TO 3 a: w ST

W

H-1

»-»

13 C <

N> hO

Ol 0 0 0 0 vq

Ol O ^ vO

'S '^ 1

D. n

o

3

T

SL

a

I

JJ^

2

ST

< - ^

)-n

O

5^ o; fT

>

M

9-V

S3

^ S9

5S S5

^

^ o

^ o

53 o

^ o

^ o

^

1—1

^ o o

^

N>

^

N>

^

1—'

S5

K>

S5

NJ

ss

u

S5 o

SS

OJ N> w

O

^

S3

1-1

55

O i-i O

S5 re 2. H

§ s o

^

??

<! a.

2 « re S

2

Ei re

Cft u w w >(>-

^

CO

^ S3 35 S3 e3 S5 55 55 S3 55

S'o

1? o o

3

3

(D

a.

b g5 o

35 o

S5 o

^ o

S9

l - »

^

O o

33 59 53

1 ^

53 o

53

O

55 35 35

(-1 h-l O O t-"

S5 35 55 55 55 o

53

. . S i^ K

• S ' c l -

' H a w

0- w re

3V0/WV0/aV0 |EO!um|08|/\h-so!iS!iEis }a>|JEi/\|

peiBJodJOOui tsenbqea 2661.®

2661 'Z J a q o w

UK6-iW-03W-WV00

j ^ n Q > n a

03 a. I X - 3* 51

O . :3 g <2.

3" i

CM

H ^

C ff. o

s

9

a

I

O)

I a tn

<

X

<: ti

£S S. S^

§ S ° l-» N > h-» ) - '

b •-» o> In to o o \o o o ui

a: ei o.

B>

13 n o s p ^

13

n

O. o*

>

I

T

a a

H i h>^

I

173

» ^ s>

1 ^

H K o

VO ! - •

N> M i-> 1-1 K>

u> ii^ o> s ] o)

O v j p-»

3 * re 3

W i - » M l -

5 i_» i_i vo V ] O O i-» \ 0

O 0 \ ^ N ) O

1-1 O J

2 ; iP N)

00 O

CN

)^

K

8S

W 1 ^

W v j o s w

O U l

00

Cfl w

SP M

• f l C i

TB Si. 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 - ' J - " i-»

O O O O O O O i ' O O O O O i ' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I—*

H J

O O » ^ H-* N 3 O >—' >—' I—' >—'

^ S 5 g 5 5 5 ^ ^ S 5 c 3 5 5 S 9 s 9 s a 5 9 s a

K) i - i N > i - " o o

3 a L

O O O O O O S J O O O I ' O P ' O

S 5 S 5 g 9 S S 5 3 s a s 5 S 9 g 9 g 3 s 5 ^ ^ ^

O 1 - ' O O 0 0

< 0 1 g ^ £

S'ei

< a.

3 «

§ Sj n n

a W5

™^ S.

< l:?

3 ^

i Ej ffi

Sj

^ o^

O. u r€ suojiBOjiddv |K)!UBi|09|/\|—3V0/lNV0/aV0 9-V

k

Table A-1 Worldwide—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

Kubota Computer

Ricoh—NO OEM

Rasna Corporation

PEGS

Robocom

Softdesk

CAD Centre

Wisdom Systems

Evolution Computing

Accugraph

Object Design

S.T.L.D. s.r.l.

Objectivity

Vision 3D

Zuken

Irmovative Data Design

Foresight Resources

Aura C A D / C A M Systems

Ithaca Software

ESDU International

A,I. Systems

GRAPHSOFT

Machinery Sales

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.5

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.5

.0

1.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.8

.8

.7

.7

1.0

.9

.9

.8

.7

.7

.6

.6

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

Software

Revenue

.7

1.6

1.8

1.4

1.7

1.4

1.0

1.0

.9

.2

1.1

1.0

1.2

.5

.7

.7

.7

.6

.5

.8

.7

.6

.6

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

5

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

37

0

0

113

0

0

0

0

0

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Ha

R

I

Table A-1 Worldwide—All Platforms (Continued)

I i

Company

CADWorks

Graphisoft Software Dev

Uniras

Cascade Graphics

Engineering Systems Corp.

Ashlar

Spectrum Graphics

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Mc2 Engineering Software

Synthesis

A/E Microsystems

Mega CADD

CAD-Capture

DAPCO

Engineered Software

Lamp Software

Masta Corporation

IGC Technology

Number One Systemsi

Other Companies

AH Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

Total

Factory

Revenue

.6

.6

.4

.4

.4

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.1

.0

454.2

7,238.5

.2

.1

.1

.1

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

441.3

3,995.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

.5

.6

.4

.4

.3

.3

.0

.2

.0

.3

.3

.2

.3

•1

.0

.0

2,040.1

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

0

0

0

0

25

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

62,133

266,062

0

0

6

0

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

6.3%

100.0%

Ha

R

5,410.1

3,030.2

1,408.4 225,025

74.7%

k

?5

Table A-1 Worldwide—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

1,171.1

657.3

1,813.5

5,425.0

Hardware

Revenue

722.5

242.3

1,578.1

2,417.0

Software

Revenue

323.7

308.0

5.7

2,034.3

Hardware

Units

Shipped

30,040

10,997

186,666

79,395

Total

Factory

Revenue

16.2%

9.1%

25.1%

74.9%

Har

Re

@

I

A-10

CAD/CAIVI/CAE—Mechanical Applications

u u rs cn

u

O

•O

Tf

Ti

I

n a>

X

E2

October 2 , 1 9 9 2 a> to "B

S e a

| 3 . &

13

!/)

00

0\ CM

^ ^ ^ 6 S ^ g S 6 § 6 S g S ^ 6 S f e S f e S g S f e S 6 S ^ ^ ^ 6 S t N . r N p i n ^ r j i p i - i v o i n < j N O r H t N o \ o t ^ i n i r ) i o iri 0 0 c S l r i c ' S T l ' O O r ^ " r - ; « N r - ; . - H r l < r - < r - ;

CM a

(0 gs

^ 6S

O O t S f S O O t ^ r H O O t N l T l O lO " c N f O ' c < S l N C » S i - ; f S « N

e S f e S f e S ^ g s ^ g s g s

CS r-H r-i

O N

• D s

C

1

o

O

(Z)

01 U i^

"O >

M QJ gS ^

^ g s f e s ^ g s g s s s g s g s f e s g s f e s ^ g s g s g s g s ^ e s s s

o o T f O r i t - ^ o o o v o v o o o o i n o i o i T i O f N i n v o ^ n < o 6 ' « t r t T i i r - ; • r - J o i o i r - i c N c s t N c s i " T - ! ' r - ;

3 ^ 3

^

rO 5 C

VD

^ in

H t; «

r^

«8 > th 01

tN

B^

^

ON

ID

feSgS^^gSgSsSgSfeSfeS^feS^^^^SSfeS^SS

\ o v o t ^ o o t v \ o i r i t N i - i o a v o o \ 0 ^ p i o c r ) c < 4 r - < o q o q

T f T j i c r i t N C N C N C N t v i c S C N r H r - J r H r - i r H T - J r H , - ;

^ :^ .2-

ni

X

CD i n o \ <y\

\ 0 0 \ rH i n v o r ^ t N O N O N O t N ^ * ^ t v 00 i-H

* rt tN c^ p\ i r ^ o q ^ C 5 _ ' - i a \ ^ o \ t ^ o o ^

Cf^ t s , VO

-t' rH ci i n t v i n

N en rJ" CO in"' t-n"

CO CO CO

01 vo O

in

i^

CO in

en OS

CM ts in o

I-H in

CM tN

VO

CO

' C J ' ^ O O • t < C S i - < C O V O O > - < t N

CO 0 0 CO

C M C N C M t-H • * i - i c \ | ' - i

V

i - H i n ^ c o v O T f v o i - H i n o o N O N V O T j f O c o t n v o o o t N i - i ^

!3 3

C V | T H 0 0 i n O N r H T t T } " T - H m ' - J i - ' o o ' ^ t N i n o o c o t N \ D l n c M : ^ o ^ l n l n i - n o o o i n

CM

- • ^ C O C O ^ C O C O ^ CS i - i C N

"O >

(M CO i-H rH

K "

"3

1

<N in \ o p tx p CO

1^ t s t o v© •^ CO 0 \ t^: r-i

U O'

2 ^ ?q S S 2 ^

nj >

U4 U

§8

(^

i n t N t N C M v o t s o o i n o o a \ ^ rH t^ t x tN tN NO

2 JR

00 i n tN i n i n r f ^ t o CO

®1992 Dataquest Incofporated

1 ^ g -

£ D 2 U

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

s

ro

Table A-2 Worldwide—Technical Workstation (Continued)

Company

Alias Research

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Gerber Systems

Sharp System Products—NO OEM

Tokyo Electron—NO OEM

Auto-Tirol

Unisys

Cimlinc

PDA Engineering

Delcam International

Mitsui Engineering

ISICAD

Mutoh Industries—NO O l M

Cimatron

ISYKON Software

Toyo Information Systems-NO

OEM

Fides Industrielle Automatiodi

EKgital Kienzle

CAD Lab

Graphtec Engineering

Swanson Analysis

Kewill Systems

Omron

Total

Factory

Revenue

29.7

29.1

28.9

27.1

26.8

26.3

25.7

25.7

23.7

20.4

19.8

18.8

17.0

16.3

16.0

Hardware

Revenue

.0

29.1

14.1

14.1

8.8

9.7

13.1

2.6

.0

7.1

13.9

9.1

8.2

7.3

7.2

15.8

15.7

15.7

14.9

14.8

14.3

14.0

13.9

9.9

2.4

8.0

.0

7.4

.0

4.2

12.6

Software

Revenue

27.0

.0

9.5

13.0

12.9

10.0

9.0

18.0

22.8

10.2

4.0

6.3

5.8

7.3

5.6

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

1^77

400

168

99

329

398

540

0

343

112

148

223

365

274

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.8%

.8%

.8%

.8%

.7%

.7%

.7%

.7%

.7%

.6%

.6%

.5%

.5%

.5%

.4%

Hard

Rev

4.5

11.0

4.4

12.0

6.6

14.3

7.7

1.4

187

149

230

0

319

0

309

402

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

A-12

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

s •- ^

5 c ci.

^ !^ ^

^ 2

K

CD o

^ f e S S S ^ ^ ^ ^ f e g g S g S f e S f e S S S g S g S B S s i S g S s S ^ S S

O c r i O f O ' i ' i - i O - ^ J ' t S T f o m O i - i o o o t s i r i o

01 01

c

01

^ s S f i S ^ s s f e S g s g s s S f i S g s g s s s ^ ^ e s g S s S f e S ^ ^

6S © o =

I

G

O

• ^N i4->

«

•W cn

P

-a

0)

:i

C

• ^ H

> 4 - *

O

U

« u

• P H

0> 01

^ c

o

O T f o t M r o t o o t n i N c n r o o t s o c N O O O i - i

^ 01

•o >

IH U

K «

3 ^ S

E S I S n > b OJ

6S £^ SS

CD O O

^ ^ ^ g s g s ^ g s g s g g ^ g s g S f e S e S e S s S ^ ^ ^ ^ s S s s

• * ' « t ' * c n c D c D c n c n « t n c o c n m c > j < N e M r M ( M c v i c s « N i - H

5 c o,

.5 !2 S-

o o

«S eft

8 8 S t N CD l-H

O N t ^ O l C O O O O O O O t ^ 00 CD 00 T-i

ON

( S I— CM CD

CD i n i n c>4 o o

T-H CD

V 0)

5 s

c5 t N O N t ^ « N i - i \ O i n i D \ O O C D t v l N O i - " O t s C T \ t N O \ 0 0 i N c D ( N t s \ d c N C 3 c D ' * e s i c D o 6 T i < o 6 c v i t > ; i r i i r i T i i ' i r i i r j eft K

01 W

5 C

S V

"O >

»i V

K «

' t>^ ' ^ iri uS • vd CD i r i I D

CD

CD

O O O O O

ON

O O

• T j i • • •

• •

3 ^S

O

CD tO 2 c o o o o t ^ i n o o o i n c s o o o o v o c D O o O ' ^ r H o o v o v o o c s i c v i e N C N J r H c 5 e D o o c ) o > o < o \ o s t x i > i \ d \ d i r i i r i i o i r i

O)

•w^

TS v - H

I f - H

Xi

ES

October 2 , 1 9 9 2 a o

u

3 B i G ^ 5 r i l i o a - c ' S

© 1 9 9 2 Dataquest Incorporatsd CCAM-MEC-MT«201

ZG61 'Z Jaqopo peieiodiocui ;s8nbe]ea zSBi®

10Z&-1W-03W-WW0

ei.-v

a

P

ff

l^^

g 8 o.

& 3 p = 3

ST i

It

en

g'

1

y^

c o

§: n

If

1

;r

-t

o o

3 g ri

Q

If

f ? i

3 m

ST

O

O s

I

0

s g ^ P E D g o ^ ' l o o

^i *r^ rrk hp* »"^ E . ' ^ CO

S

rt

w a ,i< e-

3

1

s r • c

C

u

1 ? s:

I

>-*

D .

n '

1

J

CO

K) i

a t^» n

&>

<B "fl

< W it^ >;^

U l

ui o\

VO

r o h o i o h o h o h o w u u w u

O i - ' P - > 0 \ 0 0 0 0 N ) 0 » * k N J 0 0

1 ^

>l^

<* 2 . H

S ^ SL

O

I

S"*

O <M

l - » 1—> o

00 W

o

H^ 1—k ho 1—> l-k o l n O V O r f k O W O V J O J O rsj

< a .

A A

d Si n

o rt»

3 a

r^

• - » p - >

>->

O Oi

o o o

O l ho

I - *

VO

o u

)&. W O

o w

\ 0 00

o

2 2s

g $

H - 1

o \ 00

o\

< J \ W V O W P - ' Q 0 O V O J N J N ) Q 0

V ]

l - l p-» i _ i ( j j r o i _ i N j o v i - ' u

N>

H-k

O i - ' v O h - > K ) 0 4 » . W O W O hO

a:

« i ST

^ ' JM4 O *

T :

C ^

Ta 3 S

& CO n

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 s 3 5 5 s 3 ^ ^ 5 5 5 5

55 pa

rti • «

< e>

S§5^

o o o

S3 55 S9 o o

55 55 o o o

^ S9 o

^ 55

O O i — ' O O O i — ' 1 — ' 1 — ' i - * 0

S 3 e 3 s 3 ^ 5 5 5 5 s 3 ^ ^ 3 5 5 5

0 rt Ct

< a.

2 « c B{

« n u

ss-

n

!r

u

i-t

re

I-* O

55 59 S3 o

^ 55

O i—

1—*

55 55

H J i — ' t - « i — i N ) ( s J i — i i — » i — i s > w

^ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ^ 5 5 5 5 5 5 ^ ^

OJ

S3

93 W f ' g g)

re 3

"6

o

i:

a o o

59 55 o o

^ 55

55

O O H - O O O O C t v J N J O

5 9 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 ^ 5 5 5 5 5 5

OJ

55

w ST

=f 5

^ • d l -

Ta 3 . S d. w^ n

3V0/l/\IV0/aV0 |BO!UBM09|/\|—sojisiiBJS VSi\im

I

Table A-2 Worldwide—Technical Workstation (Continued)

Company

PEGS

Accugraph

Objectivity

Zuken

Computational M«iiEtiit^

Point Control

Everex Systems

Whessoe Computus Systemis

Spectrum Graphics

Softdesk

Ithaca Software

A / E Microsystems

Serbi

DAPCO

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Algor Interactive Systems

CADWorks

Masta Corporation

Lamp Software

ESDU International

Synthesis

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.5

.0

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

1,790.2

.0

.0

.5

.0

.1

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Total

Factory

Revenue

1.0

1.0

.9

.8

.0

.0

.0

.0

3^90.7

.2

.2

.1

.1

.3

.3

.3

.2

.1

.1

.6

.6

.5

.4

2^05.1

610.8

1,239.5

379.5

Software

Revenue

.8

.4

.9

.5

.0

.0

.0

1,145.4

.1

.1

.1

.0

.1

.0

.6

.6

.0

.4

.2

.3

.3

.0

.2

Hardware

Units

SJlJIpfted

0

36

0

5

0

0

68,799

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

21

0

0

83

0

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Har

Re

1

756.9

1681:6

50,352

12,014

69.8%

17.0%

s

Table A-2 Worldwide—Technical Workstation (Continued)

Company

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Tumlcev & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

474.9

531.5

3,059.2

Hardware

Revenue

171.2

452.4

1,337.8

Software

Revenue

220.0

2.6

1,142.9

Hardware

Units

Shipped

6,434

25,548

43,252

Total

Factory

Revenue

13.2%

14.8%

85.2%

Har

Re

S

Table A-3 Worldwide—Host-Dependent

@

B

o p

Company

IBM

Digital

Nihon Unisys

Control Data

Fujitsu

Computervision

NEC

EDS

MacNeal-SchwendBex

Schlumberger

Hitachi

SDRC

Norsk Data

Exapt

Swanson Analysis

PDA Engineering

Unisys

Toshiba—NO OEM

MCS

Mitsubishi Electric

Intergraph

Toyo Information Systems-NO

OEM

Hitachi Zosen Info Sj^atiettitiJ

Total

Factory

Revenue

815.1

195.1

124.8

104.8

78.1

71.6

53.6

42.2

31.7

23.6

21.6

13.2

11.5

9.3

8.9

7.9

7.7

7.3

6.6

6.5

5.0

Hardware

Revenue

440.1

134.6

83.6

43.0

49.2

28.9

40.8

21.4

.0

7.5

10.4

.0

5.1

4.5

.0

.0

3.9

3.6

.0

3.1

2.5

Hardware

Units

Shipped

10,709

0

1,033

334

1,316

1,592

126

1,129

0

431

363

0

91

110

0

0

104

125

0

21

68

Software

Revenue

216.0

.0

16.2

14.7

21.1

16.3

8.6

14.7

30.5

9.8

9.1

13.2

1.7

3.2

8.9

7.6

2.7

2.9

5.8

1.8

.8

Total

Factory

Revenue

42.2%

10.1%

6.5%

5.4%

4.0%

3.7%

2.8%

2.2%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.3%

.3%

.3%

1.6%

1.2%

1.1%

.7%

.6%

.5%

.5%

Hard

Rev

4.1

3.6

2.2

.0

1.3

.0

24

0

.2%

.2%

k

^'

Table A-3 Worldwide—Host-Dependent (Continued)

Company

MARC

Fides Industrielle Automabion

Computational Mechanics

Kewill Systems

Century Research Center

Framasoft

Mechanical Dynamics

Whessoe Computing Systems

PEGS

Kubota Computer debis Systemhaus

Olivetti

FEA

Georgia Tech Research Corp,

Engineering Systems Corp.

ESDU International

Accugraph

Other Companies

All Companies

Total

Factory

Revenue

3.0

.0

.0

259.9

1,929.7

.3

.3

.2

.1

.8

.7

.5

.3

2.8

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.1

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

246.9

1,133.5

.8

.0

.0

.0

.0

.4

.0

.5

.3

.1

.3

.1

Software

Revenue

3.0

.0

.0

.0

418.5

.0

.1

.2

.1

1.0

.8

.6

.2

.2

1.9

1.7

.9

.5

.8

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

1

10,209

27,835

7

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

2

10

0

14

2

0

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.2%

.0%

.0%

.0%

13.5%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

Hard

Rev

1

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

1,597.7

301.4

30.6

477.4

1,452.3

928.8

193.9

10.9

390.9

742.6

345.0

61.7

11.9

3.1

415.4

24,575

3,027

233

10,292

17,543

82.8%

15.6%

1.6%

24.7%

75.3%

I

§

Table A-4 Worldwide—Server

Company

IBM

Digital

Sun Mictosy^NHiis

Intergraph

MacNeal-Schwendlef

Computervision

Schlumberger

Silicon Graphics

Toshiba—NO OEinlt

Cisigraph

Control Data

Hewlett-Packard

Mutoh Industries—NO OEM

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Solboume

Sharp System Products—^NO

OEM

Rasna Corporation

A / E Microsystems

Other Companies

All Companies

Total

Factory

Revenue

214.9

94.4

44.9

25.3

16.7

15.8

14.5

6.3

5.1

3.4

3.3

3.0

2.4

2.2

1.9

Hardware

Revenue

121.1

65.2

36.6

12.3

.0

6.1

1.6

2.4

1.8

2.2

1.8

4.7

5.2

4.6

1.1

Software

Revenue

52.2

.0

.0

6.1

16.0

4.8

5.9

.0

.0

1.3

.4

.0

.6

.0

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

1,358

768

1,653

364

0

129

151

106

83

40

6

228

75

162

92

1.6

.5

.0

.0

456.0

.8

.0

.0

.0

267.5

.8

.5

.0

.0

88.5

2

0

7

0

5,223

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

47.1%

20.7%

9.8%

5.5%

3.7%

3.5%

3.2%

1.4%

1.1%

.7%

.7%

.7%

.5%

.5%

.4%

Hardw

Reve

45

24

13

4

2

1

1

1

.3%

.1%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

100

S m

9

7 ro i i

Table A-4 Worldwide—Server (Continued)

Company

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SVV Companies

Source: Dataquest (Octotier 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

441.3

11.3

3.4

155.2

300.7

Hardware

Revenue

257.0

9.4

1.1

115.6

151.9

Software

Revenue

85.8

1.4

1.3

.1

88.4

Hardware

Units

Shipped

4,856

327

40

3,476

1,748

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

96.8%

2.5%

.7%

34.0%

66.0%

Hardw

Reve

96

3

43

56

@

A-20 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

* l *

!"

IH

n

S e a

^

00

vd i—i

S en

X

^

OS

m

r H feS

T-H

^ q r H feS

o\

ts.

^

t >

CM

6S

• * r H

^

Ov

en

5S

Ov

^

VO

e?

VO

es

bs

^

• *

^ r H r H

6S q

^ q ss

OS

r H ss r H

ES q gs q

^

^

^ ^ q q

a 2

^

5 c q

« t

en K

6S q

£S q

^ r H

• ^

CM

^ q feS

CM

^

O

Ov

i n

^ o\ feS

i n

T f

^ o\

CM

6S o

CM

^

tv.

^

i n

r-i

fiS

OS

r H ss

VO

en gs

VO

CM

^ q

^

t N

CM

ss

00

CM

6S

VO

CM

^ q

r-i

^ gs

^ VO

CM r - t

(8

V 01

^

13 3

VO

? V

I N

•a >

1-H

^

• * r H

^

•>* o r H

^ q

^

I N

vd

^

00

CN

6S

I N

cvi

^

00 r l i

^ en en ss o

CM

^ en

CM

feS

00

CM

6S

^ r H

6S r H r H

^ q

^ en

^

i n

r H

6S q

^ q

^ q gs

VO

gs ^ q en rP S C

« >

1—t

C!

^

VO

K

^

I D

«< es

T f ts!

sS en

irj

^

* - H iri ss

VO

en

^

VO

en feS

i n

en

SS m

CM

^ en f^i

6S

CM

CM

es vq

^

T f

^

CM

^ r H gs q

6S

OS

es

Ov

gs

00

^

00

es gs

ts.

t x

•a .tS S

S e ci,

^ 13 C^

CM

10-

CM iH j i

ON t s

00

f:l

00

00

oC r H o

£

en r H q en' r H

s

'^

' *

ON

VO

*H

CM" r H

VO

Ov

Ov

" * v

r-T

^ q^ r H

58

Ov i n

CM

r H

^^

f:;

i n t^. tN^

r H o o

00

CM

VO

r H ^ en o en r H o o r H

i n

r H

° E^

V 01

P q q

i n

m

Ov

q

1 > t N

ID en en o< r H

^s

en

i n t <

r H

• * r H r H

00 t <

00

CM

o vd

CM t x

r H

Tji

r H r H

CD

r H q

t s

« 3

r H q r H r H

CM

d>

r H

Ov

en

CM r H

OS vd

CN

1 ^

m

»-H

ON

T—t

i n

CO

oo q

i n

en

i n

i n

f:i

o

?j

T f

00

en en

\d

CM

en r H en

00

r H

i n

?i

' ^ r H r H r H

OS

q

CM

CM

^

CM

r H q q q

Ov

^

O r H

CM

E «

i W

DH

g o u

H

c o

CA

Ix

pL,

1

•o

•rt

I in

<

O)

E2

October 2,1992

3 rs

fS

r-J

• * r H

«8 > h 0*

Pi

T—1

VO

0 \

Ov

Tl<

ON i n

cri

Ov

o

t x

VO

1

CL,

o

U

r

B

o

U

I

OL,

i

t 1 o

U

Ji

"a, a

<

M

u

<s p .

<

ai 1

1

D

<

U

i n

S

o\ i n

• *

X

tv. i n

• *

i

a o

00

en

^ r H

OS

CM

r H

Ov

CM

r H

00

CM

O

o

CM

t - H

OO i n

iri

©1992 Dataquest Incoiporatsd

i n

• *

rC

CM

CSJ

r H q r H

CM

d

00

OS

CM i n

Ov 00

^

o

9

!

1

3

2

o

3

ID f

2

S

35 s

•s

1

1

0

01

a

! i

i

cS5

o

Xl

Si

1

•M

o

U

= 1

(5

6

s

D H

w

V

g

U

O

1-

D

S

1

'•S

i

< d

s^l

'B 13 w ni

D U

n

CCAM-MEC-MT-Q201

{

IVIarl<et Statistics—f/lechanical CAD/CAIVI/CAE A-21

a

n

(u 06 " n ^

| 3 . £ -

^ E^ p:^

feS m

ss

o

^ t ^

^

o

ES o

6? o

6? o

^

o

3^ 01

5 c

6S i n t - H

6S

O)

ss

ON r ^

6? q

^

vq

r H

feS

• * t - H

^

• *

i-i

^ r j

T-i

^

o

^

CD

6S o

^

o feS o

6S 6 S t - H feS

l-H O

^

^

BS

I-H O CO

^

6S

IN.

6S q

r H

^

"*

6?

T H

I - H

6S

00

6?

l ^

BS 6? £S 6 ? feS q Ov

BS BS

^

00 tv.

00

I N

BS

q

« «

4 - t n

s

U 01

6S

5 C

f V

CM

•u >

ss rj*

^

o

^

o\

^

o

^

o tS o

^

o feS ts

ss

o

^

•* ss

o

SS

I—C

^

^ H

^ ^

BS ^

« ^ S f S l £

^ t N

(8 >

( ^ 01

PS

^

VO

^

VO

^

VO ss

I D

gs

«*

6S

Tj<

£S

• * feS

•>*

BS

• *

6S

• *

SS

CD es

en

es

CD

BS 6S en en

BS 6S es en en IN

BS BS

<M e s

BS ^

«S CM i> CO - a

T - l

S • " w

5 C Du

>*

rv

I—1

^

O

i<

J :

s en ffi

cs

VO

1-H

r H

o o o o

00 i n

o m

CD

• * o m

CD s

•,J< o

tv| O i n t>.^ r H

o\ en

s ° r H

O

ON

Q)

0 0 a g

iri

VO

m

'* tv!

q

r H

vd

VO

i n

m

i n

0 0

^

00 t N

o

^ i n

r H

'S'

•«j5

Ov

CN

VO

I N

en en «vi en

r-I CS

9i

• P 4 i M

G

O

U

h

0)

*•>

O H a o

U

"•S o

ft

\o i - <

\o

CO

q

r j

K q q q q

^

T-i

q o en q q

i-J

Ov

•"J*

^ q

r H

CN

-o >

S^

»*

o 5 c

00

o

00

re >

Ub V

T f

K ts

K i n

VO

^

i n

tn i n o i n

t V

• *

VO

•*

m

T f

Tf"

Tji

CM

Tji

O

• *

O

ON

> * e n

t S r H

CO en en

CO CO

Ov m es esi

0)

73

• I H

-o

13

I

ID

I

<

O)

CCAM-MEC-MT-g2m

(J

1

c

s

o

u

1 0

- 4 ^

.5

o

P H

1 t

10

1

w

SG

1 u nl

1

"tS i

J S

TJ

Q

K3

t n

1

<:

§

'c

<

1

t n

••5

2

va

J—f

Ju

U

1

i2

I'

•1

ra

•s u

«

a

M

"3

OH

U l

^ • §

S

£j en

£ u

5 ? S

< (S D

W S

It s e l l

(/I , *

? O

01992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

A-22

CADAJAIWCAE—Mechanical Applications

V u

n

(/)

^^

9i

11

S e a ,

^ 1^ &-

^ cn

E

^ o

^ o

^

o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

1 s

i i ?;

o ^ tfl B

^ en gs

\o

^

VO

^ SS ^

T f r-t i n

g S ^ S S ^ S S ^ g S S S s S g S f e S g S g S j ^ ^ S S f e S i n T f r H e M e n e n e n e n < N i - i t > ^ c M < N < s j T - i ( N » - i

W 01

*« 3

5 c

•a >

K ^

^

(N

^ o

^ o

l-H Psl O

O O O O O O O O O T H O O O O O O O

•D

O

3

C

?

O

O

5

fc^S tP 5 c

(N

eS

tM

6S t N

Pi

a o

U

"rt

O

« i

0)

Pu,

i

•O

•o

0) s

G

4 ^

O

U

U(

4->

T3

^ H

>H

I

ID

<

3

E2

October 2.1992 tti to T 3

T3 I-" . S "

• H F C

«S E/)

X

T H

m

O

O

i n en o en en o o e n o \ o o o o o \ o o o o o o o *

«-i e n T - i r H

01 V

<N

1 ^

o ,3^

r H f N f S

re csi

i n Tj< OS

o \ t > . T i ; \ q e n e N r H r H p c > < t v t s . o q v q i n s q e s

I-H l - t

' r H r i r H r H r i

a> w

1 §

tn

«-<

O o

C^ T f O

o o e n e n o o o o o i n o o o o r - i O " *

1—(

« ^ S

t 2 | g n >

U4 01

(K

i n p j

Tl"

cvi en p o\

O N t N ' s i j e n e n c g r - i i - H p a j O N o p o q o q t s . i N i v . d i

O

4 - i

1

w

o

U

<0

C

0

•XI

.5

I

3

S a g y '-' * s

C^ gB

CO

0 <d

•§ 1

•J3 ^ S 3 « ^

r

1 i

1-

0

1

1 i/i

1 s s 1

• i i | 2 | g l i l ? I O l i i i g | i l

^ 1

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

peiendjooui ^ssnbeiea ZBBIO

ZBBl 'Z Jeqopo L0Z6-1W-03A-WV00 n o

S i - > i - » i - i ; _ i i - i r s > K i N } w w w c > j w r f k 4 i . j i . u i < j \ 0 \ o \ b N < T > ^

n *Tl

< B»

3^5^ g^ £

O O O O O O ' - ' O O O O O ' - ' O O O O O O O O i - ' O

^ S n n

I

93 ^

O O r s > N > ( j . > U U > K > > t k i ^ > U i ^ O s O \ O N O S W ^

3 ^ c S

n n

U l r f : ^ 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 0 0 0 0 ( J » O O O O O O O O v O O cn

a

13 C <

S li- SJ a*

I — •

n

;>

U1

I

I n

o

3

*T3 s: rt

HI n o

H "

a

T

•T3 rD

>^ w

O

3

Si

83-V

o o o o o o o sS s9 ^ ss sS ^ sS

o o o o o o

s

o o

SS o

S5 o o o ss

1—I

n

rn

<

»

S5 ^

315^

« 2 C

o o o o o o o

O O eS SS S3 53 S3 ^ eS o o o o

S3 S9 ^ S3

S3 ^

<S D .

§ t c Sj n n

o o o o o o o

^ s 3 S 5 g 9 S 3 g 3 5 S g 9

S3 S3 S3 53 a en f S.

>-> N> d ^ rt 3

i:

(D a o o o o o o o

S3 53 S3 53 53 S3 S3 o o

59 ^

53 53 o o o o

^ 53 53 53 o o

^ S3 ffi crt B) s" 5

^* ^

"S 2. w

0> ce re

3V0/IAIV0/aV0 |BO!UEi|oa|/v—sojlSjjBis ;a)|JEifl|

o

z

m

9

?

Table A-5 Worldwide—Personal Computer (Continued)

Company

Masta Corporation

A / E Microsystems

Number One System*:

Other Companies

All Companies

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1

.0

.0

194.3

1,262.1

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

194.3

803.9

Software

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

387.6

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

2

1

51,925

164,204

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

15.4%

100.0%

Hard

Rev

1

All N,A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

866.0

247.7

148.5

649.3

612.8

605.0

139.8

59.1

619.3

184.6

220.7

92.1

74.9

.0

387.6

145,242

14,672

4,291

147,351

16,853

68.6%

19.6%

11.8%

51.4%

48.6%

Market Statistics—Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE

M)

B

M o

M-<

4->

flj

n

X

«

4 1 ^

&

(Q

S

c ex

5 .&<

X d

r H

tn

E

M -O

gs

^ ts. r H es b s r H

feS

r H

cvi

^

OS

OS

^

• ^

T^

g?

t v

r^

6§ in

ES

gs

^ r H r H

ES p

ss

\q feS p

SS p

ES

p

6? p feS

CO

gs p

6S

^ r H

feS

CS

gs gs

cs CO

^

00

•s S cs

<—1

tf3 K feS q

6S

r j t

o\

^

00

K

^

0 \ r H

feS

Tf

CO

^ p

^

O)

r H ss r H

d

r H ss

CO

CO

feS

t N

\ D

^ t-x

•«^

^ r H

•*

^

Tj<

CO

^

cs

r-i

6S

r H

CO

^

00 r H

gS

CS

T H

^ gs

OS OS r H t l

n

0) W

S c

^ tN

? V

i n

gs

\o d

r H

^

SO

T l !

^ f - H

vd

^

0

06

SS

0

^

gs

CO i n

^

00

(NI

^ t>N i n

iri •>*

• < *

^

P

^

^ r H

feS p

^

p

6S p

6S p

6S

OS

^

P

^

SO

gs so

^ ^ t v r H

3

(2

2 c

^

ts in

* - H

b oj

Cfl

^

VO

06

^ i n

K

^ t ^

vd

^

0

\d

ss

'*

•^ ss

•>*

CO

6S cs

CO CO CO CS

^

0 \

ts feS

^

cs

^

O)

r H

feS

• ^ r H

^

cs

r H

^ p

r H

^ p

r H

^

OS

gs

OS

gs

CJS

^ gs

00 00 a

m ce "o

.tS a;

»—t

§

© • r H

•0

fc4

X cn

r H r H

T f

VO^ r H r H r H r H

r^

^.

oC

Tl"

IN r H iS r H

CO

^

0

VO CO

> ^ 00^

^

CM"

1-H

CO 04 r H

0

CO s

0 0 0 0

S

0 0

^

I - H

T j <

?:!

p Tf

?l PJ

a S

t s

P tN.

P

0

S

00

^

p

r H r H t ^

a\

r H

p

0 \

d

r H

m

06

i n

cs

o\

T H

^

06

CO

OS

vd cs

OS

CO

ts

00

CJs r H

CS

K

SO ts; r H

T f

d

r H

00

sd

CO 00

in d

r H

W5 B .

V V

"<)<

la g

8

"O >

I—1

•1 01

E ^

cs

r-i

CM f - H

ts in

CO

R

vq

r-i

o\

CO

^

VO s r H

S^

CO s ^ r H

i n p

VO

VC

I-H

P

p p p

• *

d

T H

p

00

sd so sd

00 i n t< r-;

(Q

p

•2 c u 0;

1-H t ^

« > h«

S'i

t ^ r H

m

CO i n

T-^

0

K

CO

^^

0

^

1-^

VC

d o\

r H

a\

\o

vO

^

s s

00

in in

06 m m

0 \

^

•*

06

CO

cs

OS

cs

OS SO

d cs

t

d cs

CO

OS r H

OS

06

r H

OS t v r H

OS Tj<

iri iri

r H r H

A-25

>

CO u

•^H a> a so

<

VH

O

E2

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

G

0

> P 4

EC

D.

E

0

(J

r i l-H

3

•a b

3

a.

1

U

1

I

BH

:tl:

u u

l a

u

i

X

CL. n

1

S

A

4 J

a

D

1 i e s

1

g

U cr

1'

I

s

"S.

0

0

U t

<

0

U

01

Cu

! •

*J

3

[H

I

01

3

< la

^ b

1 1

C>0

i 4

0)

3

1

^ s

CH

F

a u

01

1 cX

1

-a

1

p-

• 1

Oi

tn

1

OS

13

J

X

0

< u

<

i

1

11

0 0

01992 Dataquest Incorporatad October 2.1992

^ peisjodjoaul tsenbqea 2661.®

UK6-iW-03A-WV00 Z66I. 'Z Jsqopo

OS

g

5'

CO

0 )

3

re

H* ^ -

Ui

s o

3- 2

i i-

n

ca

a

1 f

S

1

S

R

1

1

n'

e.

%

o

• T J

1

9 Q ^ fe o 00 a o

t

n

" 3 S ^

"3, ui 5* a [^ i

!ti

S)

3

1 i 1

n

1

"S r i

o

5 g

5* -a

1 '

S? s'

f t

Q

g

i

1

N ' *

n i-t

^

NJ

i-i

N ) k) is> ^

^

u b

n

T ]

U is) u>

4^

U

CJI u u w u> b\ Ni \o vo

>tk fo

l ( ^

lu

CJI N J v j

CJI bo

1 - ^

00 VO i-i

1 - ^

CJI

1—1

CJI

h - 1

3 | 5 ^

g | £

O u

N> to U

V I bo

1—'

KJ b b

1-1 u b k> vo b b

M b

1 - 1

VO b

33

M u

« I I

< a

2 t

fo n

c &i

ss cn

N>

t - >

1 - 1

N I

K )

i - > i - >

VO

1—I

U l w b u

In

M b

CJI «>. (T> ui b\

KJ

k - 1

)->

1—1 t - 1

3 I

c a

O

1—1

0 0 i-»

K

CO

0 0 u u o o

H ^

(-1

ii^ w

VO t o o

en ST

^ 5

-a s_ I sa

1—>

^

I—1

sa

(-> >-»

S9 59

1—1

59

1 — '

^

ro

^

S J

^

s>

^

N > K ) N> S )

N )

^ SS 59 S9

^

S J

^

C » 1 ^

• ^ it^ CJI CJI •Nl V I

^

3

| 5 ^

su s; o n o

1 - ^

h^«

13 l£ n

a

S^

s*

>

I

ON o sr o

53 o

^ ro o

1—1

g5 ^ ^ il^

^ w

S9 b ;*>.

59 ^ w

^

h - k

^

H ^

^

o

59 o

^

59 g9 g9 ^

^

S )

59 59 ^

^

59 g9 S3

^

o

^

w

S9 u

59

In

^ b\

^ b\ K) b ON

59 59 S9 ^

V ]

S9 w

S9

H ^ » - l

b bo

53

>->•

t o w b w

S3 59 53 S3 t o

ON

^

n

11

< a .

3 ^

c E{ n n

50 CD

f Sv

2 ?

t Si

TO re s ai

TO in sr u

3

o o

3

i s

b

59 b

S9

N ) N> b

59 59

^

b

^

b

S9 b

^

b

59

1—1

b b b\ b

^ S9 ^ S3 b

59

H - l

^

b

^ ^

t o b itk b

^ S9 ^ b

^

b

^

r^ K

¥ s

• o - c l -

•a 3 £

R 5^ a suoiiEOjiddv IBOjUBijoei/^—3VQ/l/\IVQ/aV0

92-V

I

Table A-6 North America—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

MARC

SPATIAL Technology

Micrografx

Claris

Delcam International

Softdesk

Investronica SA

Wisdom Systems

Accugraph

Pathtrace

Evolution Computing

Computational Mechanics

Object Design

Innovative Data Design

Objectivity

GRAPHSOFT

Rasna Corporation

Aura CAD/CAM Sy^aans

Machinery Sales

A.L Systems

Uniras

Foresight Resources

Ashlar

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.0

2.0

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.2

.9

.9

.8

.8

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.7

.6

.6

.6

.6

.6

.4

.4

.3

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.4

.2

.0

.5

.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

.6

.6

.9

.9

.8

.5

.6

.6

.4

.4

.3

Software

Revenue

2.0

2.0

1.7

1.6

.7

1.2

.1

.8

.4

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

24

0

46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

34

14

0

0

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardw

Reve

i

?

3

@

Table A-6 North America—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

Ithaca Software

Cascade Graphics

PEGS

A / E Microsystems

Engineering Systems Corp.

Georgia Tech Research Corp,

Mc2 Engineering Software

CAD Centre

Mega CADD

Synthesis

Technische Computer Systeme

Vision 3D

IGC Technology

Engineered Software

Zuken

Other Compaiues

All Companies

Total

Factory

Revenue

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

•1

•1

•1

.0

254.5

2,050.6

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

247.0

1,147.3

Software

Revenue

.3

.3

.3

.0

.2

.3

.1

.1

.0

.2

.2

.2

.1

.1

.0

.0

576.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

0

25

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33,484

99,561

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

12.4%

100.0%

Hard

Rev

2

10

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

2,034.1

.0

16.4

819.2

1231.4

1,141.2

.0

6.1

711.2

436.2

568.3

.0

7.8

2.3

573.7

99,253

0

307

85,963

13,597

99.2%

.0%

.8%

39.9%

60.1%

9

6

3

i

@

Table A-7 Europe—All Platforms

Company

IBM

Computervision

Hewlett-Packard

Digital

Control Data

Schlumberger

Matra Datavision

Siemens Nixdorf Info systeme

Compaq

EDS

Intergraph

Sun Microsystems

Sn-Straessle

Silicon Graphics

Autodesk

SDRC

Cisigraph

Wiechers Datentechidk

Investronica SA

Apple Computer

Norsk Data

ISICAD

MacNeal-Schweodler

35.3

35.0

31.4

28.5

27.0

26.5

24.7

21.7

19.9

16.9

Total

Factory

Revenue

606.3

496.7

282.4

135.1

84.8

75.1

72.2

68.8

65.0

60.8

57.2

42.4

38.0

Software

Revenue

146.3

116.1

36.0

.0

13.9

29.1

32.4

24.1

.0

23.7

12.5

.0

20.9

.0

35.0

31.4

10.8

8.1

2.7

.0

3.8

7.8

16.3

Hardware

Revenue

348.1

201.8

197.9

93.2

40.7

25.2

25.3

34.4

65.0

31.0

29.3

36.1

8.7

31.0

.0

.0

9.4

15.4

21.2

21.7

11.0

8.8

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

17^54

4,726

15,125

1,386

577

915

682

1,011

12,663

1,420

830

1,908

357

849

0

0

336

667

1,060

5,171

226

142

0

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

20.7%

17.0%

9.7%

4.6%

2.9%

2.6%

2.5%

2.4%

2.2%

2.1%

2.0%

1.5%

1.3%

1.2%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

.9%

.9%

.8%

.7%

.7%

.6%

Hard

Rev

2

1

1

s

A-30 CAD/CAIVI/CAE—Mechanical Applications

a j 2 t J ra

••S

ej

^

en

"U

IH

5 .s-

2

^

o CS CD i n

^

o

^

r H

ss

CD

^

r H feS

CM

6S 6? ^ ^ 65

CD y-i

CD

ss

r H

^

CD gs

CM

^ ^

«

O CD

3

C o p

K

n en

^ i »

V 01

^

t v

ss

i n r H

es ^

£S i-<

^

vq r H

^

(N r H

ss

o\

^

<N

r-i

ss

i n

6? 6? SS

6S SS ^ gs i n 00 i n i n 00 t S CD

^

^

r-i

^t

U5 K

^

vq

^

• * gs i n gs gs rH vq r-i

U 01

6? i n

^ s

^

o

^ ^

i n CD

T f

^

o

6? l-H

^

CD

6S r H

^

i n

^ gS 6S

6S

CD CD

T f

ss

CM gs

CD gs

CD gs gs

O CM s

"(3

1 l^s

<s >

^

i n

ea

^

i n

^ ss

65 i n i n i n

^

i n

6S i n

^

i n

^

m

^

i n

eS ss ^

^ ^ ^

^

T T TJ< • ^ r}< CD

^

CD

^

CD

^

CD gs gs

CD CD

§

» 13

• n <1> c a, i^" . £ •

J^

tM

•a

»

X

en o

O CNI

^

^

o o

00 o

CM fe r H i n

Ov r H

§ 1 ° s ° r H

O »-•

g:

CD r H CM

00

£

CM rH i n r H o i n r H

CD

V

U

? 0)

>£( t S

I—1

• * 00 vd

CD

CD

T-H

I—1 c5

I-H r H

K t x

(J\ r H

^

CD 00 CN o o i n

Tf VD cvi r H rl< t < v d CM

CD

VO

T)!

CD

CD

<^

CD r H r^

Ov T j i

CD K

<U 0)

1 § es rx

1 §;

q

00 • * vd q

CM csi o i n r H

CM r - i

00 vd ' ^ i n i r i i n vd t N

CD r H iri o\

• ^

O CD

CD

! o

;H

::l

(£1 t>

I

<

Xi

E2

V

• ^ N

o

u en

I ns

F2

U 01

« >

o vd t s i n

B^

I f ) i r i r r

VO

M* m

•^

CD

• ^

Ov

CD i n

CD Cvi CN CM CM r-i r-;

O

d

0 0 o\

0 0 o\ m • *

Ov Ov

October 2,1992

§

a

B o

U

r

1

J?

1

O

s

1%

* j

Q; u

0 W

B

E

•H k^

1

1

1

•B

13

c

• |

1 aj

B

m

1

I

0

1 en

Ji

^

^

<u

D

0)

u,

E2

m

1

- i

1

1

H

- ^ y

CL.

D g

*h 1

" [ J

w u e

U ft

1 ^ d

2 S

b" t

Vi

1

1

-§ 1

VL,

•S3

1

1

U

1

•a fi

U

£ (2

®1992 Dataquest Incotporated CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

i

Marl<et Statistics—Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE A-^1

73

0)

i W

o u

o

S3

«

1 — H

P H

J,

PH o

<H

s<

(ti

IN

I i

CCAM-MEC-MT-4201 r a,

E

a

U

a.-S'S

S c &. o >-<

^ ^ s s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o e s i - i ( N O O i - i o o

• u "^ • -

M en g s ^ f e S s S ^ ^ B S ^ ^ s S s S e s

» i r i O O 0 0 O l D O O O t i O

TJ

C c o

O

01 V o •* g s ^ s s ^ ^ s s ^ s ^ ^ o v o c n o t N t ^ i o i n v o feSgS^gSsSsS^gSgSfeS^^ c n c D r j m o r f O i - i c n f N i t N i N en K a> 01

•H

a o en s S s S s S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

O i - " ( s i i n o o r H O O n g

^ 01

TS >

a

u

X ^

£S SS en en g S f e S f e S g S f e S ^ ^ B S ^ e n e n e n i N t s e N f M e s e N

« > b OJ g S s S ^ s S ^ ^ ^ ^ g S ^ ^ f i S r - i r - i T H O C N l O « N O O O r H » - i

S S g S s S ^ f e S ^ f e S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

£ o o en

VO a \ \ 0 Tf

O e n O O > - i O v O \ 0 0 0 \ C i i » - ; m e n r i * ff\ 2 2 ' " ' » - i ^ < s ill:

« yi

5 c

? Ol

CM O

00 en i - < T ) i o o o i - i i r i e n e n \ o vO CM O; 00 p i-< o o i r i t s • v o i r i T j i ' ^ T j H p ts en t^ en en

Csj 1 ^ 1-5 r H en cs

V 01 o Tj*

O 00 tv CM O O

Ti*

• t s K •

? 01

73 >

Ui V

£« o o e n p p r H p ^ t v p t N t S C T ; r ^ T H r ^ ' e n ' e S ' r n

n

F2

^ s o t^ i - i t v T j < c N i r ) i n T j < o o v o

00 r< t< K vd iri iri •»** Ti!

U 01 o< 00 r H t N C < j r H r H r H C T \ O q o q O O \ p N O

T f e n e o e n e n e n c v i o i e M C M t M e N b 01 cs:

3 §

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 2,1992

>

pepjodiocui ^sanbEiea ZBBl®

Z661 '2 Jeqopo l0Z6-iW-O3W-WV00 p^ H|gb

Q s

g"

S 5

S*

c

S3 > n

4 - ^

1

G. ^

5

s

n

o

^ a

SP

f

1 i- 1 r g-

0)

f

i-a i-a

O B>

H " <"»•

3 sr

n a

p * i - r n 3

§ fS

s

n

o

^

1

1

rt in v ) v j < X ( » < » b O t - » w i ^

^ j ^

'it^ In v j

bo b

K> NJ

•-*

KJ KJ

4^

U1 y i

c 2 9o ^ t ( ^ > - > o o o o > b o

O O O O U I O O O ^ O O O

o

t-i »-k 1 - ^

v ] O N > 0 \ 0 0 O 0 0 v ] N J i ( ^

1—' t-i

H ^

H-l

O) <J1

VJ

o l-> H ^ i - t

00 0 \

VO ' - '

N ) p-" N>

S> O y i

(ji i - i o o

O (J\

o

33 g'S

< CL

3 «

o w

(J1

c B n n ipr w

n O

< »

3 S f» S o

a:

en w

>S" ^N O -

13 C <

"2 3 tt

O i en n

b b b b b b b b b b o o

^ 55 ^ SS

55

S5 ^ ^ S5

^

93

< »

3 §5^

o o o o o o o o o o

^ S9

H ^ O O i — ' t - ' i — i i - i > - » > - ' N 3

P-' N >

N> N )

o o o

S3 ^

p-> O

55 ^

S3 ^ o o

S* ST

< a.

3 ^

c S{

NJ N>

S5 ^

55 S9

OJ

55 ^

w

53 y^

« 2.

2 ? c 51

n n

• 1

s

B>

?r

n

tR isfii o o

3 o:

b ' - ' b b b b b b b b o o

S3 ^

55 ^ o o

^ 55 o o

S5 ^

U3 ST o

• S - c l

"5 5 »

O* ui n

n o

13

<-h h^«

fi n

CL cr

>

•>a rri c:

Hi

O

•TS

T

w o suoiJEOjiddv |B0!UBij09|/\|—^o/l/WO/OVO 2e-v

Table A-7 Europe—All Platforms (Continued)

k

7 ro

Company

Algor Interactive Systeixtii^

Rasna Corporation

Graphisoft Software Dew

Everex Systems

Foresight Resources

Micro Engineering Solutions

Spectrum Graphics

Evolution Computing

CADWorks

CAD-Capture

Ontos

\>Ssdom Systems

DAPCO

American Small Business Comp.

Synthesis

Objectivity

Lamp Software

Ithaca Software

Masta Corporation

A.!. Systems

Cascade Graphics

Object Design

Softdesk

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped

Revenue

.7

.6

.5

.5

,4

.4

.3

.3

.0

.0

.0

.4

.0

.1

.1

.0

.6

.6

.5

.0

.3

.2

.2

.3

0

0

0

184

0

4

3

0

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.3

.2

,2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.2

.0

.2

.1

.1

,2

.2

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hard

Rev

?

Table A-7 Europe—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

Engineered Software

Mega CADD

Accugraph

Zuken

Number One SysteOJS

Other Companies

All Companies

All NA.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

132.3

2,925.4

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

128.7

1,509.5

Software

Revenue

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

830.1

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

1

0

1

19,314

95,360

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

4.5%

100.0%

Har

Re

1

2,315.4

.0

610.0

633.9

2,291.5

1,282.4

.0

227.1

543.3

966.1

546.8

.0

283.3

2.9

827.2

85,154

0

10,206

67,483

27,877

79.1%

.0%

20.9%

21.7%

78.3%

Table A-8 Asia—All Platforms

i

Company

IBM

NEC

Nihon Unisys

Fujitsu

Hitachi

Hewlett-Packard

Toshiba~NO OEM

Computervision

Silicon Graphics

Hitachi Zosen Info Systems

Mutoh Industries—NO OEM

Hakuto

Mitsubishi Electric

Sun MicrosjTstems

CADAM

Digital

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Sharp System Products—NO OBNI

SDRC

Tokyo Electron—NO OEM

Mitsui Engineering

Toyo Information Systems-ri|0;

OEM

Graphtec Engineering

Total

Factory

Revenue

404.9

198.6

183.5

181.6

135.0

102.3

72.5

72.0

66.5

59.1

48.5

47.1

40.9

35.2

33.1

32.2

31.2

31.2

29.3

26.8

21.8

18.9

5.5

.0

18.6

.0

.0

15.0

29.3

12.9

4.4

Software

Revenue

98.4

49.0

23.9

49.0

56.7

12.8

27.0

29.6

.0

1.7

17.7

Hardware

Revenue

230.9

133.7

122.9

114.4

64.8

72.0

38.2

29.9

11.3

22.2

31.2

16.2

30.5

63.2

45.6

26.3

28.3

31.4

.0

8.8

15.2

Hardware

Units

Shipped

1 U 0 6

9,679

1,761

4,086

3,966

5,516

2,431

717

1,502

606

1,332

1,562

787

1,741

2,250

313

1,739

205

0

99

145

Total

Factory

Revenue

18.8%

9.2%

8.5%

8.4%

6.3%

4.8%

3.4%

3.3%

3.1%

2.8%

2.3%

2.2%

1.9%

1.6%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.4%

1.4%

1.2%

1.0%

Har

Re

19.8

14.8

12.1

7.4

5.8

6.6

211

319

.9%

.7%

CADA;AI\/[/CAE—Mechanical Applications

A-36 a j : ;

C/3

OJ

N n a fl

• o

;a

« T3

^ . f r

^

-t: u

S

CLI

\q

X en

^

q ss q

^ r H

^

<N sS

T f

m

sS q

^

CM

^ q ss r H

^ r H ss ^ in q ss r-i

^ feS ss rH rH r H feS ^

•D e

3

C

••g o o

«; > o 4i

^

^

^ o

CN

^ o\

I - H

^

m

ss

• *

^ q

^ t>. i-i

^

T-H

r H

^

• *

r-<

^ q r M

^

•*

6? ^ ^

Tj< 0 0 00 i n q

gs gs

• ^ CO

•" d

6S

$ u

•o > o

T—1

^

O gs o

^

Tl<

^

^

^ t N

^ o

^

<N ss o feS

CM

^

CO feS ^

CM O T f O ss ss ^

SS r H CM r H

6S gS

O rH

1

^ s gs

S c

n >

U 01

\o

^

VO

£S i n ss

I f )

^ m ss i n

^ i n

^

•*

^

^

^

•^

^

CO feS 6S 6S 6S

CO CO CO CO

^ ^

CM CM

^

CM

6S SS ss

( N CM CM

^ 6S

CM r l a m

"O s

X i 2 1 3

.tn

U e

CL.

^ . S -

J :

S

CD

O o g: I-H m

>—1

%

I-H

CM"" o

K

<—1

o a sj

"*

»-H

CM r H t v

I-H r H

O;

T - <

1 l

CD CS a K vO t>j

T - l

•n >

a

oi q q

CO

( N q

VO i n

CD i n

CM d i-i

00 vd

Cvj

00

CM

0 \ q o

CM q f^

Jt

00 s °

CO

O CO i n

CM

00

1—1

VO

^

CM

VO r H o i n q

CM i r i iri

• * CO s s

9

1-H

CM

00

CO

CO O o\ o q t->

CM

CM ' t

• *

r H tM r H

CM

VO • ^ ov

CM r-;

r^

VO VO

CM r H q CO r H

73

O)

•w^

C

o

u

<J\ n]

E2

- p ts >

oi oi

t s fvi t N

I-H t x

r-i

i n d

T f d

CM d t N .

0< o

Ov i n

00 r1< t s r<.

VO VO i n

ON VO

CM vd in i n i r i

• ^ T j i • ^ rji « *

^

CO CM

CO CO

(0 en

<

00

Xt

f2

i

October 2,1992

J

6

r

c

=3

S

Ji

«

&

9

0 a

ti

1

1

1 u

1

1

1 u

OJ

Of i

O i

<

(S

1

§

x

2

s

< e bO

•ffi

1 i g o

<

1

CU,

Q

1

1

T3

1

11

• 3 <u i

<-

-6

Sk 6

^i il

^ 1

<a

1

1

4-1

01

1r

§ 1

u

c

.S a

2

CCAM-MEC-MT-9201

01992 Dalaquest Incoiporatad

i

I

Table A-8 Asia—All Platfonns (Continued)

Company

Century Research Center

Ciniatron

Mechanical Dynamics

Delcam International

Framasoft

Cknlinc

Point Control

Kubota Computer

Ricoh—NO OEM

Aries Technology

Cisigraph

FDA Engineering

SPATIAL Technology

Anilam Electronics

MCS

Auto-Trol

Gerber Systems

ISICAD

Zuken

CMC Software

Whessoe Computing Systems

Rasna Corporation

Vaiisys

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.9

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.1

.9

.8

.8

.7

.7

.6

.6

Software

Revenue

1.1

1.3

2.5

1.3

1.6

1.8

2.2

.7

1.6

1.6

.6

1.5

1.5

.8

1.2

.4

.3

.3

.5

.7

.7

.6

.6

.0

.4

.4

.4

.0

.0

.4

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

1.6

1.3

.0

.9

.0

.3

.0

1.3

.0

.0

.6

Hardware

Units

Shipped

12

95

0

13

12

6

20

0

0

18

0

113

0

0

0

45

0

54

0

0

5

0

0

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardw

Reve

s

ISA

@ s

?

5

Table A-8 Asia—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

CADSI

ModaCAD

Micro Engineering SolutiotD$^

Investronica SA

Technische Computer SyslgiRij

CADKEY

CADWorks

Solboume

Superdraft

Object Design

CAD Centre

\Wsdom Systems

Everex Systems

Pathtrace

Ithaca Software

PAFEC

Softdesk

Algor Interactive ^^^Stttins

Objectivity

American Small BusiiuM Cbtixp.

Accugraph

Foresight Resources

Mega CADD

Total

Factory

Revenue

.5

.4

.4

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

.1

.1

.1

.2

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.3

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

,4

3

2

0

2

3

2

0

1

2

0

0

0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

3

4

4

11

8

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

55

2

0

0

0

27

13

0

0

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardw

Reve

i

Table A-8 Asia—All Platfonns (Continued)

Company

Other Companies

AH Companies

Total

Factory

Revenue

48.5

2,149.8

Hardware

Revenue

47.3

1,271.1

Software

Revenue

.0

605.4

Hardware

Units

Shipped

7,191

64,472

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.3%

100.0%

Hardw

Reve

10

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

Ail Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

957.0

1,171.1

21.8

312.9

1,836.9

542.7

722.5

5.8

281.4

989.7

269.5

323.7

12.2

.4

605.0

34,126

30,040

306

27,768

36,704

44.5%

54.5%

1.0%

14.6%

85.4%

4

5

2

7

A-40

CADA)AM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

ai in • «

6S en

Ja ^

X

Ol 01 t-i vi

5 c i a*

"3 ^ y i fi?

^ f e S ^ S S f i S f e S ^ S S g S ^ S S ^ g g f i S f e S g S v p c n i f ) ( N v o o N c n s . c N | i n i j n i-i cs ts! ^ d uS ' >-<

CN o in

6 ? ^ ^ 6 S ^ o o o o o o

c6

•o

1-H O

0) c

••g o

o

^ ^ S S f e S s S f e S s S s S ^ S S ^ g S s S ^ g S ^ ^ ^ g S g S ^ ^ p ts. en •^ o r>. o \ v c o N o q v O t - H p i n o s t s . t > . o p 00 tn en tN ^

CN c n c n c s c o t v i ' u S c n c n c n

CO r H

2 c

^ g S g S g S S S f e S ^ S S S S ^ g S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S S s S s S

O O O O C O O C O C J O

C J t N O O c r i d ' c N t S r H r H r - I ' o l w

B u

O

^ H

PH

3 I^S ra >

C^ c n p i N t ^ . f n ^ p o q f N j p o q o q i n ' ^ p p O N o o o q t ^ i n t o o s o s t s \ o v d " « i < c r i c s r > i c > i i - < i - < r H t - ; f - ; r H

> ^

•o

tft

S

•^ in CO 00 c\ vo tn in p in o\ r>N t^ OS c ^ r-< T-H Tt* r<^ en

S ^ R S ^

O) V CM cn

^ Ol

P c N C N i t N P c M i n p

' cvi i-H r j ' T)* • I - ;

P P P P O v P P O O P

ON ri

00 p P p vq l - H T - l r H p O N i n t ^

' i-< CM ' r H e n PS

a

n

•n

13 i n C M C M O V O i - H C M v O v O t r H K l r i v O r > i t > C ' r H r H

i C M t x P ^ P O O P O O P C M i i O

5 2 c

c n i n > - i t > . \ o > - i o \ m r H ^ ( n p p t x \ o t < p p Q 6 i < i < T j < c n t n c s i c v i c s i c N i » - ; i - H rH rH p ON 00 VO tj<

I en

C ^ c\

<

jj

3

E2

October 2,1992

Ci.

S

5

.11^

•e T

C^ B £ s

®1992 Dataquest Incoipofated

u

Di:

"5

cS5 u fij

^ s

x;

fX

•^

JA

&

•3

Cu,

B

U v

?l i

CCAM-MEC-MT4201

i

I

@

Table A-9 Rest of World—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

Aries Technology

Unisys

Whessoe Computing S^r^^^iinK

Superdraft

Investronica SA

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

Engineering Systems Corp.

Mc2 Engineering Software

Ithaca Software

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

American Small Business Comp.

Softdesk

Algor Interachve Systenxs

Moda CAD

Ziegler Informatics

Iimovative Data Design

CAD Centre

Accugraph

FEA

Vision 3D

Fides Industrielle Automation

Foresight Resources

ESDU International

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hardware

Revenue

.4

3

3

2

2

.0

.2

.0

.1

.2

.0

.0

.0

0

0

0

0

0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Software

Revenue

.3

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

.1

.3

.1

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

Ma

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Total

Factory

Revenue

.3%

.3%

.3%

.2%

.2%

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

Hardw

Reven

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I

Table A-9 Rest of World—All Platforms (Continued)

Company

Graphisoft Software Dev

Other Companies

All Companies

Total

Factory

Kevenue

.0

Hardware

Revenue

.0

18.9 18.3

112.7 67.2

Software

Revenue

.0

.0

28.5

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

2,147

6,669

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

16.8%

100.0%

Hardw

Reven

27

100

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All "nimkey & SW Companies

Source: Dalaquest (Octoiier 1992)

103.6

.0

9.2

47.6

65.2

63.8

.0

3.3

42.2

25.0

23.8

.0

4.7

.1

28.4

6,492

0

178

5,452

1,217

91.8%

.0%

8.2%

42.2%

57.8%

95

5

62

37

DataQuest^"

^iCDfnninyof

ThcDunk BradbticcI OxpotatlDn

Daiaquesi Incorporated i29flRiddcr P a d Drive

San JcBC California 95131-2398

Uoited Stales

Phonei 01-408-437-8000

Facsimile: 01-408-437.0292

DataqucsE Incorpoiated

Dataquejit/Ledgeway

T k Coqwrate Center

550 Cochituale Road

Framingham, Nfassachusetts 01701-9324

United States

Phoflc: 01-508-370^5555

Facsimile; 01-508-370-6262

DataquKt Europe Limited

Roussel Hmise Broadwater Park

Deoham, Near Ujibridge

Middlesex 1/B9 5HP

England

Pbone; 44-895-835050

Facsimile: 44-895-83526(Vl

Dataqnesl Japan Limited

Shinkawa Sanko Building l-3-l7Shinkawaarao-kn

Tokyo Ift*

Japan

Phone: 81-3-5566-0411

Facsimile: 81-3-5566-0425

Otncesin

Costa Mesa, Munich,

Paris, and Seoul

Reprcscni^Uive Agencies in

Bangkok, Kong tCong,

Kronber^, North Sydney,

Singapore, and Taipei

0013703

© 1992 Data^iuest Incorporated

CCIS-1354279

L o i s Petersen

n

AtiBiinstrstive A s s i s t a n t s CCIS

299-1256

Internal Distribution

i

Meclianical Applications

Final Market Share

September 14, 1992

Market Statistics

I>ataQuest

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

CCAM-MEC-MS-9202

Mechanical Applications

Final Maricet Share

September 14,1992

Source:

Dataquest

Market Statistics

Dataqgest'

CAD/CAM/CAE

CCAM-MEC-MS-9202

File behind the Market Statistics tab inside the binder labeled CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical

Applications

Published by Dataquest Incorporated

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by knowledgeable individuals in the subject industry, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of diis publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmitted, in any form or by any means—mechanical, electronic, photocopying, duplicating, microfilming, videotape, or otherwise—without the prior permission of the publisher.

© 1992 Dataquest Incorporated

September 1992

0013682

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction 1

Market Analysis 2

About This Update 3

Dataquest Perspective 6

About This Document 6

Segmentation 6

Definitions 7

Market Share Methodology 8

The Audit Process 9

Notes on Market Share 9

Figure Page

1 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market Database 1

2 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market Portfolio 2

Table Page

1 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS 1991 Market Summary 3

2 1991 Top Twenty CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Vendors Total Revenue 4

3 1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market 4

Mechanical

4 Worldwide All Platforms U

5 Worldwide Technical Workstation jg

6 Worldwide Host-Dependent 23

7 Worldwide Server 25

8 Worldwide Personal Computer 27

9 North America All Platforms 32

10 North America Technical Workstation 35

11 North America Host-Dependent 30

12 North America Server 4j

13 North America Personal Computer 42

14 Europe All Platforms 45

15 Europe Technical Workstation 5j

16 Europe Host-Dependent 55

Note: All tables show estiinated data.

Table Page

17 Europe Server ey

18 Europe Personal Computer eg

19 Asia All Platforms 52

20 Asia Technical Workstation gy

21 Asia Host-Dependent 71

22 Asia Server y^

23 Asia Personal Computer y4

24 Rest of World All Platforms yy

25 Rest of World Technical Workstation 80

26 Rest of World Host-Dependent 82

27 Rest of World Server 83

28 Rest of World Personal Computer 84

Note: All tables show estimated data.

Mechanical Applications

Final Market Share

Introduction

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS systems have dramatically changed the methods by which designers and production managers originate and implement products. CAD and CAE systems allow designers to create, draft, analyze, test, and manipulate products on a screen in two and three dimensions. As CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS systems continue

F^:ure 1

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market Database

to decrease in cost, they become more available and cost justifiable to new users.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS industry, Dataquest's

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS group maintains a laige database of industry information. The type of information contained in the database is depicted in Figure 1.

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Applications

02000995

Market Analysis

Analysis of Dataquest's final 1991 market share information shows that the entire worldwide

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market grew at a 3.0 percent rate in 1991, to $14.8 billion. The software market portion grew by more than 7 percent, to $4.5 billion. Causes of the downward revision are examined in the following section.

Figure 2 depicts the market size and market growth rate of segments in the CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS software industry. In Figure 2, the size of the bubble reflects the size of the market, and the bubbles are centered over both their market size, and their market growth rate last year. For example, mechanical applications, valued at slightly more than $2.0 billion, grew close to the industry average, at 7 percent; while the considerably smaller GIS market grew at a brisk 16.8 percent rate. Each shade

CAD/CAM/CAE-^Mechanical Appllcadaas in the figure represents a different market segmentation: segments by application are clear; segments by region have light shading, and segments by platform have diagonal lines. The sum of any one type of shading equals the total $4.5 billion software market. Corresponding to this figure. Table 1 lists market size and

1990-to-1991 growth rates by segment, for both software revenue and total revenue.

In 1991, the platform category of servers was created. Most of the revenue for servers came from what had formerly been classified as technical workstations, which depressed the apparent growth rate of technical workstations.

Ill reality, workstations are the largest market platform, and had a better-than-average growth rate. In the illustration, workstations and servers are combined. In total, computer hardware sold into CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS remained flat with 1990 revenue.

Figure 2

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market PortfoUo

Percent Change

ao'i

15-

/o:rkstatiai>/|

/Server:

io-

•<S>

5 -

\

Industry

Average

7.8

Percent

. 5 *

'ifi^

•22

$500M $1B $1.5B $2B $2.SB

$3B

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE Software Revenue

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

G2D009S6

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

Table 1

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS 1991 Market S u m m a r y

Software

Revenue

1990

($M)

Application

Mechanical

AEC

GIS/Mapping

Electronic CAE

IC layout

PCB/Hybrid/MCM

Total

Region

North America

Europe

Asia

Rest of World

1,910.5

589.4

476.2

653.7

184.5

328.0

4,142.2

1,480.7

1,492.7

1,105.3

63.6

4,142.2 Total

Platform

Technical Workstation

Host Dependent

Server

Personal Computer

Total

NA - Not appUcable

Source: Dauquest (September 1992)

2,478.3

761.8

0

902.1

4,142.2

Software

Revenue

1991

($M)

In contrast, Dataquesfs research in our computer systems group shows that worldwide computer revenue declined 7 percent throughout the same period. So things could be worse—software was one of the few growth areas in some very tough economic times, and

CAD software dearly boosted revenue for a few hardware suppliers.

2,040.1

659.5

556.3

686.3

195.8

328.3

4,466.3

1,520.3

1,617.7

1,247.7

80.6

4,466.3

2,684.9

593.1

188.7

999.6

4,466.3

About This Update

Growth

Rate

(%)

8.3

-22.1

NA

10.8

7.8

6.8

11.9

16.8

5.0

6.1

0.1

7.8

2.7

8.4

12.9

26.8

7.8

Total

Revenue

1990

($M)

7,176.5

2,173.6

1,652.7

1.778.5

527.1

1,089.8

14,398.2

5,012.2

5,251.4

3,867.4

267.3

14,398.2

7,634.8

3,856.1

0

2,907.3

14,398.2

Total

Revenue

1991

($M)

7,238.5

2,330.0

1,843.6

1,763.9

574.7

1,086.1

14,836.8

5,026.7

5,472.4

4,039.0

298.6

14,836.8

7,923.0

2,875.5

991.1

3,047.1

14,836.8

Growth

Rate

(%) significant downward revision of revenue for most of the major vendors. Of the top 20 vendors listed in Table 2, 18 companies' revenue was revised downward, 10 of them significantly, based on final fourth-quarter financial results. Looking at software alone,

Table 3 also portrays a primarily downward revision trend. In all cases, however, these changes have produced very small changes in any company's market position.

3.8

-25.4

NA

4.8

3.0

0.9

7.2

11.6

-0.8

9.0

-0.3

3.0

0.3

4.2

4.4

11.7

3.0

Since the preliminary market share numbers were published, eight more new companies have been added to the database, bringing the total new companies added this year to 15.

The market share numbers also have been rechecked and verified for all vendors worldwide. Year-end 1991 financial results released this past spring have also been checked and incorporated into the final numbers.

The most important change affecting the market share numbers for this update was the

Two companies, Electronic Data Systems Corp.

(EDS) and Computervision Corp., revealed previously unavailable information in 1992.

EDS' market position was significantly lowered due to new reporting structure put in place after its purchase from McDonnell Douglas, which eliminated considerable revenue from service and consulting that has been reclassified as a separate, non-CAD activity. Computervision's revenue was also revised downward almost $90 million based on the company's final published results in conjunction

£>1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Protiibited

CAD/CAM/CAE-^echanical Applications

Table 2

1991 Top "nventy CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Vendors Total Revenue

Preliminary

Total

Revenue

($M)

Final

Total

Revenue

C$M)

IBM

Intergraph

1,762.0

Computervision

Hewlett-Packard

Digital

Sun

Fujitsu

Mentor

1.156.8

982.9

850.0

926.7

679.7

1,712.1

1,148.0

890.5

830.2

Compaq

NEC

EDS

Autodesk

491.8

406.5

433.1

462.0

419.8

278.4

816.1

674.3

442.9

396.1

394.3

342.4

Siemens Nixdorf

Cadence

Apple

Nihon Unisys

Silicon Graphics

Hitachi

Control Data

Valid Logic

380 Other Companies

All Companies

Source: OaUquest (September 1992)

309.0

233.6

231.5

245.4

172.5

210.0

160.2

152.1

5,227.5

15,791.5

287.2

279.5

267.5

233.9

231.5

210.9

189.8

180.0

176.3

152.1

4,981.2

14,836.8

Revenue

Change

C$M)

-38.8

-119.6

-132.6

1.1

-41.5

0.3

0.0

-34.5

17.3

-30.0

16.1

0.0

-246.3

-954.7

-49.9

-8.8

-92.4

-19.8

-110.6

-5.4

-48.9

-10.4

Table 3

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market

Company

IBM

Inteigraph

Autodesk

Computervision

Cadence

Mentor Graphics

Fujitsu

Valid

SDRC

EDS

Siemens Nixdorf Infosysteme

NEC

Preliminary

Software

Revenue

C$M)

369.0

282.4

278.4

272.9

195.2

170.7

134.4

109.6

93.5

146.6

109.1

103.5

Final

Software

Revenue

C$M)

378.8

280.3

279.5

247.3

184.3

146.4

119.6

108.5

101.1

100.1

94.3

83.4

Revenue

Change

($M)

9.8

-2.1

1.1

-25.6

-10.9

-24.3

-14.8

-1.1

7.6

-46.5

-14.8

-20.1

Final

Software

Share

(%)

8.5

6.3

6.3

5.5

4.1

3.3

2.7

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

1.9

Share

Change

(%)

0.7

0.3

0.4

-0.3

0.0

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

-0.9

-0.2

-0.3

(Continued)

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

Final

Market

Share

PM,)

11.5

7.7

6.0

5.6

2.7

2.3

1.9

1.9

1.8

5.5

4.5

3.0

2.7

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.0

33.6

100.0

-0.7

0.1

-0.2

0.1

0.1

-0.1

0.2

-0.1

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.0

Share

Change

(Vo)

0.4

0.4

-0.2

0.2

-0.4

0.2

-0.1

0.1

-0.1

-0.6

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

C o m p a n y

ESKI

Hitachi

Racal-Redac

Zuken

Hewlett-Packard

MacNeal-Schwendler

CADAM

Schlumberger

Parametric Technology

Toshiba—No OEM

Matra Datavision

Wacom

Viewlogic Systems

PDA Engineering

Synopsys

Sharp System Products—^No OEM

Control Data

Swanson Analysis

ISICAD

Nihon Unisys

Alias Research

Mutoh Industries—No OEM

STI-Straessle

Nemetschek

COMPASS Design Automation-VLSI

Landmark Graphics

Auto-Trol

Harris EDA lEZ

Hakuto

EEsof

Cimlinc

PAFEC

MCS

Kewill Systems

CADKEY

Xilinx

CADK

Tokyo Electron—No OEM

170 Other Companies

Total

Source: Dauquest (September 1992)

Table 3 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market

PreHmlnary

Software

Revenue

($M)

32.3

30.7

24.9

31.4

29.9

28.2

28.8

27.6

31.9

27.0

31.0

26.1

24.0

28.1

20.7

19.6

82.5

88.2

67.6

62.8

72.7

52.8

48.3

60.9

43.4

51.5

37.6

19.1

33.7

22.0

18.1

17.7

19.4

17.2

17.1

14.8

16.2

16.1

15.1

1,120.6

4,722.9

Final

Software

Revenue

($M)

32.3

32.0

30.4

30.1

29.9

29.3

28.5

27.6

27.4

27.0

26.7

26.1

24.7

23.9

23.2

51.3

50.9

43.4

40.0

35.8

77.5

75.6

70.6

62.8

61.0

53.6

17.1

16.4

16.2

16.1

15.1

1,072.4

4,466.3

21.3

20.1

19.8

18.9

18.1

18.0

17.9

17.2

Revenue

Change

($M)

-0.3

0.9

-4.5

0

-4.3

0

0.6

-4.2

2.5

1.7

0.8

-13.9

-3.2

0

0.3

-1.5

0

0

1.6

0

0

0

-5

-12.6

3

0

-11.8

0.8

3

-10

0

-11.5

-1.8

0

1.3

5.5 •

-1.3

0

1.1

-58.5

-256.6

Final

Software

Share

(%)

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

23.8

100.0

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.4

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

-0.1

0.0

-0.1

0.0

0.1

-0.1

Share

Change

(%)

0.0

-0.2

0.2

0.1

-0.1

0.1

0.2

-0.2

0.1

-0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

-0.3

-0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

with the company's recapitalization. Both

Digital Equipment Corporation and NEC Electronics Inc. are significant computer suppliers in the CAD/CAM market, so our reduced revenue estimates here produced a significant dollar drop. Changes to these four companies

(EDS, Computervision, Digital, and NEC) account for approximately 50 percent of our market size reduction.

Final financial results for most Asian-based and

European-based companies, which are not usually available until midspring, were also overoptimistically estimated (by the companies themselves and Dataquest) in January. The worldwide economic slowdown, much of which occurred in the fourth quarter of 1991, was significandy underestimated.

On the software side, most of the changes to vendor revenue were again downward, with fewer balancing upward adjustments (see Table 3).

Beyond the companies already mentioned,

Mentor Graphics Corp. revenue was adjusted to reflect a lower proportion of software in

1991, based on delayed shipment of a new software release—with a resulting reductions in software revenue. Here, too, changes to our software revenue produced almost insignificant changes to any company's market share.

In addition to these changes, the CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS group significantly refined its database model for tracking sales through the

OEM distribution channel. This model change affected many of the major hardware vendors' market position by application as we tried to match their hardware OEM sales going through to turnkey vendors. This model change has been adjusted for historical information also and will continue to be refined each update.

Dataquest's policy is to continually update its market information, for current and past years, with any new data received in order to arrive at the most accurate market representation possible. of computing and graphics resources. A more detailed analysis of each application area must be made to thoroughly understand the forces driving the entire market. Dataquest will discuss these forces and will provide an in-depth analysis of CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS regional issues, technology trends, and company analyses in future publications.

About This Dociunent

This document contains Dataquest's detailed market share information on the CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS industry. Following is a description of the information reported in the Market Share book for each segment:

• Source—All companies in database; overview of industry

• Mechanical Applications—^All companies in database with mechanical revenue

• AEC and GIS Applications—All companies in database with AEC or GIS revenue

• Electronic Design Automation Applications—

All companies in database with EDA (electronic CAE, IC layout, PCB/hybrid/MCM) revenue

• Europe—All Europe-based companies and all other companies with more than $1 million in European revenue

• Asia—All Asia-based companies and all other companies with more than $1 million in Asian revenue

• Personal CAD and Distribution Channels—All companies in database with personal computer revenue

More detailed data on this market may be requested through our client inquiry service.

Dataquest Perspective

The market dynamics in the total CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS market comprises many factors based on applicadon-specific market needs, diverse geographical issues, and the amazing growth

Segmentation

Daiaquest defines CAD/CAM/CAE^GIS as systems used in the mechanical; architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC); GIS/mapping; and electronic design automation (EDA) application areas. The CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market is defined

®1992 Dataquest Incorf>orated September-^teproduction Prohibited

according to the following segmentation scheme:

• CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS

- Mechanical

- AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and

Construction)

- GIS/Mapping (Geographic Information

Systems)

- EDA (Electronic Design Automation)

. Electronic CAE

. IC Layout

• PCB/Hybrid/MCM

In addition, more detailed information by subapplication is available and usually published in Dataquest Perspectives.

Definitions

This section lists the definitions that are specific to this document.

Application definitions are as follows:

• Mechanical—Mechanical CAD/CAM refers to computer-aided tools used to design, analyze, document, and manufacture discrete parts, components, and assemblies.

• Architecture, Engineering, and Construction

(AEC)—^This segment covers the use of computer-aided tools by architects, contractors, plant engineers, civil engineers, and other people associated with these disciplines to aid in designing and managing buildings, industrial plants, ships, and other types of nondiscrete entities.

• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)/

Mapping—This is a computer-based technology, composed of hardware, software, and data used to capture, edit, display, and analyze spatial (tagged by location) information.

• Electronic Design Automation (EDA)—This segment covers computer-based tools that are used to automate the process of designing an electronic product including printed circuit boards, ICs, and systems. EDA

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

includes ECAE, IC Layout, and PCB/Hybrid/

MCM, as follows:

- Electronic Computer-Aided Engineering

(CAE)—^These are computer-aided tools used in the engineering or design phase of electronic products (as opposed to the physical layout phase of the product).

Examples of Electronic CAE applications are schematic capture and simulation.

- IC Layout—This is a software application tool that is used to create and validate the physical implementation of an integrated circuit (IC). The IC layout category comprises polygon editors, symbolic editors, placement and routing (gate array, cell, and block), design verification tools (DRC/ERC/logic-to-layout), compilers, and module development tools.

- Printed Circuit Board (PCB)/Hybrid/

Multichip Module (MCM)—This segment covers products that are used to create the placement and routing of the traces and components laid out on a printed circuit board. Also, included in this category are thermal analysis tools.

Regional definitions are as follows:

North America-

Canada

-Includes United States and

• Europe—^Includes the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Benelux, France, Germany, Italy,

Spain, and Rest of Europe

• Asia—^Includes Japan, Singapore, Taiwan,

Korea, China, and Hong Kong

• Rest of World—All other countries including

Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, Afiica,

Central America, South America, and the

Middle East

Platform definitions are as follows:

• Technical Workstation—This is a single-user computer that is distinguished from a personal computer by its features and by the user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features include a virtual, multitasking operating system (UNIX, VMS,

DOMAIN); the computer is designed by manufacturer to run high-performance graphic applications in a multiuser/multitasking environment.

©1992 Dataquest Incotporated September-Reproduction Prohibited

• Host-Dependent—This is a shared logic system in which the external workstations' functions are dependent on a host computer.

• Server—A server is a computer that transparently provides its resources for use by other computer systems. It is a system on a network that provides specific functionality to other computer systems: the clients.

Functions include file storage, database access, compute capability, and others. Dataquest tracks the following major categories of servers used for CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS applications:

- Compute Servers—^These systems provide capabilities for solving numerical problems

(for example, simulations, statistical calculations, and simultaneous partial differential equations). System features usually include high-speed computational capabilities (for example, vector and parallel processing) and laige memories.

- Print Servers—^These systems provide access to printers, specialized printing applications software, and print spooling resources to a network.

- File Servers—^These systems provide mass storage capability to clients on a network.

Services can range from temporary storage of working files to long-term backup and archive systems.

- Database Servers—These systems manage databases as a shared resource to a network. These servers handle such functions as physical data storage, data security, and high-level queries and can access stored information at the record level.

• Personal Computer—This is defined as a single-user computer that is distinguished from a technical workstation by its features and by the user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features found in technical workstations (such as a virtual operating system, networking, highperformance graphics, multiuser/multitasking capability) are optional rather than integrated by the manufacturer.

CAP/CAM/CAE—Mechanical AppUcadons

Revenue/shipments/ASP definitions are as follows:

• Total fartory revenue is defined as the amount of money received by a manufacturer for its goods measured in U.S. dollars.

Total factory revenue does not include revenue that a company may receive from products that are sold to another company for resale (OEM revenue).

• Unit shipment is defined as the number of products delivered (that is, seats).

• Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of bundled (part of a turnkey system) and unbundled software.

• Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and support of CAD/

CAM/CAE/GIS systems. Service revenue can be calculated in the tables by subtracting hardware and software revenue from total revenue.

Market Share Methodology

Dataquest uses both primary and secondary sources to produce our market share data.

In the fourdi quarter of each year, we survey all major participants in each industry. Each vendor is offered the opportunity to self-report the information required. Although there is a primary contact for each company, large companies are surveyed across product lines and across geographic regions. "Thus, there is a corresponding increase in the number of contacts at large companies. (Dataquest maintains a large contact database on all sources of information). Examples of the job titles of people contacted for information are the following:

• President and CEO

• Vice President and General Manager

• Vice President of Marketing

• Vice President, Strategic Product Planning

• Dirertor of Strategic Planning

• Director of Marketing

01992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

• Director of Market Development

• Manager, CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Marketing

Programs

• Market Research Analyst

We resurvey select companies during the second quarter of the following year to verify final annual results and then publish final market share information based on this updated information. Our annual delivery schedule is as follows:

• First Quarter January 31)—^Preliminary market data are available. All tables will be published and distributed to clients. Historical database is opened for changes for a six-month period.

• Second Quarter (March 31)—We provide complete preliminary forecast tables, including a new five-year forecast period.

• Third Quarter Quly 1)—We send complete, final updated market share tables based on additional data collection and analysis over the previous six months. At this point, the market share database is frozen and will not be changed vmtil the end of the year. For the next six months, supplementary market data will be based on these final market data.

• Fourth Quarter (October 1)—^We provide complete final forecast tables, taking into consideration changes in the market duriag the previous six months.

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

• Information and data from online data banks

• Articles in both the general and trade press

• Annual reports, SEC documents, credit reports

• Company publications and press releases

• Reports from financial analysts

• User studies

• Reseller and supplier reports and reports from a vendor's competitors

In addition, Dataquest sums vendor revenue across other industries covered by Dataquest to make sure that revenue is not credited twice and checks with multiple sources at one company to cross-check data on that company.

Dataquest analysts have many years of experience in how to apply the above tools to get the most accurate information possible on a particular company (such as what to use when and what industry averages are). We believe that the estimates presented here are the most accurate and meaningful generally available today. It is the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS group's policy to continually update our market information for any year, based on any new data received, in order to arrive at the most accurate market representation possible.

Dataquest's CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market numbers are often higher than those reported by other sources. We survey worldwide, which involves more vendors, higher total market revenue, lower market share per vendor, and a more accurate market picture—particularly usefiil when comparing regions or applications.

The Audit Process

Data supplied by vendors are evaluated against information drawn from many sources, including the following:

• Revenue published by major industry participants

• Estimates made by knowledgeable and reliable industry spokespersons

• Government data or trade association data

• Published product literature and price lists

• Interviews with knowledgeable manufacturers, distributors, and users

• Relevant economic data

Notes o n Market Share

For the 1991 market share cycle, Dataquest's

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS group added server as a platform. The platform categories now include technical workstation, host-dependent, server, and personal computer. Revenue formerly classified in technical workstations, host-dependent, or personal computer may now be more accurately classified, where appropriate, in the server category. However, because of this reclassification, data and growth rates for the other platform areas were affected.

&1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

10 CAD/CAM/CAE-^iechanical Applications

Finally, please note that despite the care taken agencies, and trade associations may use in gathering and analyzing the available data slighdy different definitions of product and in attempting to categorize those data in a categories and regional groupings, or they may meaningful way, careful attention must be paid include different companies in their summaries. to the definitions and assumptions used herein These differences should be kept in mind

•when interpreting the estimates presented in when making comparisons between these data this document. Various companies, government and those provided by others.

01992 Dataquest Incoiporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

@

I - *

K)

1

s

8

1

S

^

« c

1

1

I

1

Table 4

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Worldwide

Millions of U.S.

Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Computerviston

Hewlett-Packard

Digital

EDS

NEC

Nihon Unisys

Fujitsu

Silicon Graphics

Intergraph

Control Data

Sun MicmsyateaiBi

Compaq

Hitachi

Schlumbeiger

Autodesk

SDRC

Apple Computer

Matra Datavlsion

Toshiba—NO OEM

Siemens Nixdorf Info systeme

CADAM

Hitachi Zosen Info Systems

MacNeal-Schwendler

Total

Factory

Revenue

1,339.6

729.8

517.4

353.3

208.2

198.6

183.5

181.6

171.0

168.4

166.4

142.0

141.2

135.0

131.3

106.2

101.1

94.9

79.3

72.5

71.1

64.5

59.1

55.6

Hardware

Revenue

80.1

120.7

141.2

64.8

44.1

.0

.0

770.9

287.1

367.4

243.7

106.7

133.7

122.9

114.4

154.8

86.1

83.5

27.9

38.2

35.6

22.5

45.6

.0

Software

Revenue

321.7

202.3

61.0

.0

71.9

49.0

23.9

49.0

.0

36.7

101.1

.0

35.8

27.0

24.9

35.7

1.7

53.4

27.3

.0

.0

56.7

50.9

106.2

Hardware

Units

Shipped

40,515

7,216

31,039

3,494

3,654

27,529

3,966

1,600

0

0

19,887

757

2,431

1,045

4,500

606

0

9,679

1,761

4,086

4,002

2,508

1,132

7,582

1.3%

1.1%

1.0%

1.0%

.9%

.8%

.8%

2.3%

2.3%

2.0%

2.0%

1.9%

1.8%

1.5%

1.4%

Total

Factory

Revenue

18.5%

10.1%

7.1%

4.9%

2.9%

2.7%

2.5%

2.5%

2.4%

®

•g

•o t)

3

I

I

n

I

I

o

?p

o.

i

Table 4 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GE* Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units;

Mechanical

All Platforms

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

C o m p a n y

Mutoh Industries—NO OEM

Parametric Technology

Hakuto

Mitsubishi Electric

STl-Straessle

Cisigraph

Unisys

PDA Engineering

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Sharp System Products—^NO OEM

Alias Research

Gerber Systems

Swanson AnaJysis

Jnvestronica SA

Wiechers Datentechnik

Tokyo Electron—NO OEM

Auto-Trol

Cimlinc

Cimatron

Mitsui En^neering

Norsk Data

ISICAD

Delcam International

Toyo Information Systems-NO OEM

Hardware

Revenue

26.3

.0

28.3

31.4

8.7

11.2

17.0

.0

31.2

16.2

.0

14.1

.0

22.5

15.4

8.8

9.7

2.6

11.0

15.2

11.0

9.1

7.1

12.1

Total

Factory

Revenue

27.0

26.8

26.3

25.7

24.4

21.8

21.7

20.7

20.4

198

31.2

29.7

28.9

28.5

28.1

48.5

47.2

47.1

40.9

38.0

33.9

33.4

31.6

31.2

Hardware

Units

Shipped

1,332

0

1,562

787

357

400

502

0

1,739

205

0

400

0

1,125

667

99

329

540

781

145

226

148

343

211

Software

Revenue

17.7

43.4

18.9

5.5

20.9

12.9

11.7

30.4

12.9

10.0

18.0

11.0

4.4

3.8

8.2

10.2

5.8

.0

15.0

27.0

9.5

28.5

2.8

8.1

Total

Factory

Revenue

.7%

.7%

.7%

.6%

.5%

.5%

.5%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

13

|I1J i l l l M M M M M M JMMi M|

9 M

%0 iiA \ 0

NQ

\ 0 ^ p >^

^* ^ ^ " ff* d* w* O^

1^ - ^ t n i n • * r i t^ i n

# # # # in <o rt in

n

(fi «

# # # # vo in fo vo o^ o^ o^ e* ^ e^ o^ ^ o^ tf" ©^ ^ o^ <ff> ^ o^ tt* d" o* d* c* o^ o^

^ # # ^

^t to tci

ON

O - ^ i n o i ^

11 M (N

^

N

CM 0 \ O O £}

(N 1 1 0 0 Q

ON tN vo o o r^ 00

t i ( S 1 1 r o 1 1 CJ

(O

V V N p N VO \ 0 •«»< i §

K eo o in

P4

•*• l n ^ O t H ^ © • * 0 0 1 1 • * r t ^ O o d v £ > d o d i i f ( S - ^ d ' *

«^ 00 n vo N in vo

M d vo M d fri "«• o o o N O O o r ^ - ^

<N "«<• K ' 0 0 ' •*" 1^

(N)

M o \o

<M o

1 1

00 o

M

VO

•*

«N o o o i n

" - I

i n o o

VO t^

CO

M

i n t n < N p r ^ r ~ ; i n i n o q i n f N j o s o q i n p r « ; - ^ r n

O N o d s d v d i n i n i n i n - ^ ' - q i - v ' t o r n r n c n c J r J r M '

O O 00 N

H i-i d d

CM O d d

3 i s -

"^ f •& I

Is Is

I

5 c o

2

JU

13

I

S

J l

5

T)

9 § o 55 "^^

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated September-^teproduction Prohibited

1 4

1

1^1

S ^ ^

C A D / C A M / C A E — M e c h a n i c a l A p p l i c a t i o n s

Np >P \P %P sP sP oP sp sP ^p sp % p %p %p sp

N P

> 0 ^ ^P \P sP ^ p ^ >P O

^ d ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' o

>P sP >P oP \P

N P

^ ^ sP sP >P oP sP ^P

N P

op sp >P o p >P op op s P > P p ^ P» ^ ^ ^ ^ p«i ^ * ^ i p * ^« ^N ^N p*> p ^ O ^ ^ ^ ^ P ^ ^ ^ P" P* P* P ^ P^ O ^

< A N N p o N - ^ ( r ) - < r f O c r i O c o ( N r o o p n M N . - i N C 5 i - i N « - <

# ^ #

5 s §

BS

N P

^p

N P S Q S A I O > P « P

>^ sP >p -.^ %p ^ -sP ^ iP >0 ^ ^ ^ ^

O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ d* O^ P^ ^ P* O^ P^ P^ P^ P^ P* P^ P*

tr\ T-i tr\ ir\

00 »A ITt rH

N t-H 1-1 m

O M

VO

(Tl O lA

o o o s^

rH tCi

00 l A

SS < o s

V V

II

(O C \ 00

<rt (ri \£)

1^ fM rt o >A r^

o \ \ d 00 s o vo

• vd •«• lA o vq o iH

00 NO

• l A l A • * • r i -*•

OS

(N

.1 \ 0

>*•

( M '

O f-H ^ O <<^ O *-<

' uS - ^ r4 fri • r i

O -9< O <M O

( N o o s o o o - ^ r o lA O O OS xr i-i • •

5 1 3

•^t^

p 00 00 r-; ^ N lA

O 0 \ Os 0 \

ON

0 \ 00

\ q i A r j i A o o v o \ o > o o r ^ i ^ N O > A f M i H O

K K K ^ d l A I A I A l A I A ' ^ ' ^ ' ^ ' f l ' - f l " ' ^ ' * i

Si

nil

I r

u

©1992 D a t a q u e s t I n c o r p o r a t e d S e p t e m b e r - R e p r o d u c t i o n P r o h i b i t e d

III

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

NO

^ >

NO

1^^ 1^5 > 0 s ^ ^ p > 0 %0 ^D

i < 0 C 5 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0

«A > 0 N0 s p <sO s O

o^ o* o* o^ d^ ^^

# # #

# # #

^i

#

# # #

15

\i

X

# ^

»t t^ m

o j i r ' O ' ^ ^ ^ o o o o i s i ^ v o o a v r H o o r ^ O N f f t o o o o

<-l f O 1-1 ^9< i l

u V o q - f l ; N \ q ^ o o i H m o

>-i 1 ^ O f r t ( N t v i < N i i - i ' c r i r - i f r t

• * r-r 4 i - ( i - i c i f > i i - i ' i - i i - i

6

II

I*

» - J l ^ ' l ^ c n ' * - J ' t H ' C ^ i - i * H

IP

o o i ^ r ^ i r i N i - i . - i . - i o o \ o s O \ o o o o v o " * c n f M i - i o o s o o r v r > .

1 iS ^

I cC 2 o

- K! .§ ^

E 5 ^ S a

H I t

"g-^S c

•S, ^ eo -a

5-5

I ep

I

I

r K a u o

"3

I irt

3

^1

(n s

>

01992 Dataquest Incoifwrated September—Reproduction Prohibited

@

>-»

I

o.

i

I

I

Table 4 (Coatlnued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

\Porldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Softdesk

CAD Centre

Wisdom Systems

Evolution Computing

Accugraph

Object Design

S.T.L.D. s.r.l.

Objectivity

Vision 3D

Zuken

Innovative Data Design

Foresight Resources

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

Ithaca Software

ESDU International

A.I. Systems

GRAPHSOFT

Machinery Sales

CADWorks

Graphisoft Software Dev

Uniras

Cascade Graphics

Engineering Systems Coip.

Ashlar

Total

Factory

Revenue

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

.9

.9

.8

.8

.8

.6

.6

.4

.4

.4

.7

.7

.7

.7

.6

.6

.3

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.5

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.5

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

1.4

1.1

1.0

1.2

.5

1.0

1.0

.9

.2

.6

.5

.6

A

A

.7

.7

.6

.5

.8

.7

.6

.7

.3

.3

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

0

0

37

0

0

0

6

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hardwa

Reven

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

@

K)

t

3

^

1 i a

I

•s

I

I

Table 4 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Worldwide

Millions of IIS. Dollats/Actual Units

Company

Spectrum Graphics

Georgia Tech Research Corp,

Mc2 Engineering Software

Synthesis

A/E Microsystems

Mega CADD

CAD-Capture

DAPCO

Engineered Software

Lamp Software

Masta Cotporation

IGC Technology

Number One Systems

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0

454.2

7,238.5

.1

.1

.1

.1

.3

.2

.2

.2

.3

.3

.3

.3

Hardware

Revenue

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

441.3

3,995.0

5,410.1

1,171.1

657.3

1,813.5

5,425.0

3,030.2

722.5

242.3

1,578.1

2,417.0

Software

Revenue

.1

.0

.0

2,040.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.2

.3

.3

.3

.0

.2

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

6

0

0

1

62,133

266,062

25

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

6.3%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardwa

Reven

11

100

1,408.4

323.7

308.0

5.7

2,034.3

225,025

30,040

10,997

186,666

79,395

74.7%

16.2%

9.1%

25.1%

74.9%

75

18

6

39

60

®

D

I

I

1

cr

I

I

Table 5

1991 CAD/CAM/C^EASIS Final Market Share

Application;

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Iftits

Company

Computervision

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

EDS

Silicon Graphics

Intergraph

NEC

Sun Microsystems

Schlumbeiger

SDRC

Matra EKitavtsion

Fujitsu

Siemens Nixdorf Info systeme

?Iitachj

Digital

Nihon Unisys

Coniml Data

Hitachi Zosen Info SysteflOS^

Parametric Technology

Toshiba—NO OEM

STI-Straessle

Cisigraph

Mitsubishi Electric

Alias Research

Hardware

Revenue

252.1

311.5

118.4

39.3

35.5

45.6

.0

21.0

8.7

10.1

25.4

.0

85.3

149.6

71.4

54.6

84.1

31.5

.0

27.9

46.9

35.6

32.4

44.0

Total

Factory

Revenue

631.2

447.5

213.6

166.0

79.3

74.4

71.1

67.5

63.7

58.7

58.2

55.6

164.7

133.0

99.3

97.1

91.9

88.0

47.2

42.0

38.0

30.5

29.8

29.7

Hardware

Units

^ p p e d

791

606

0

477

357

360

330

0

757

1,804

1,044

1,334

2,727

728

5,365

17,799

5,619

2,525

3,896

2,077

3,112

5.929

979

0

Software

Revenue

170.6

61.0

53.5

57.2

.0

25.1

36.7

.0

34.7

88.0

35.8

20.1

24.9

28.4

.0

7.6

12.2

1.7

43.4

16.8

20.9

11.6

2.1

27.0

Mark

Hardwa

Revenu

14.1

17.4

6.6

4.8

8.4

4.0

3.1

4.7

1.8

.0

1.6

2.6

2.0

1.8

2.5

2.2

2.0

2.5

.0

1.2

.5

.6

1.4

Total

Factory

Revenue

17.6%

12.5%

5.9%

4.6%

4.6%

3.7%

2.8%

2.7%

2.6%

2.5%

2.2%

2.1%

2.0%

1.9%

1.8%

1.6%

1.6%

1.5%

1.3%

1.2%

1.1%

.8%

•3

I

1

B

1

T

1 c

1 e

K)

1 g

i

o-

1

Table 5 CContlaued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application: Mechanical

Platform: Technical "Workstation

Region: "Worldwide

Units: Millions of US.

Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Sumitomo Deoko Wbrkstation

Gerber Systems

Sharp System Products~NO OBM

Tokyo Electron—NO OEM

Auto-Trol

Unisys

Cimlinc

PDA Engineering

Delcam International

Mitsui Engineering

ISICAD

Muloh Industries—NO OEW

Cimatron

IS"yKON Software

Toyo Information Systems-NO OSH

Fides Industrielle Automation

Digital Kienzle

CAD Lab

Graphtec Engineering

Swanson Analysis

Kewill Systems

Omron

ICAD

Framasoft

8.0

.0

7.4

.0

4.2

12.6

.0

.0

7.3

7.2

9.9

2.4

Hardware

Revenue

29.1

14.1

14.1

8.8

9.7

13.1

2.6

.0

7.1

13.9

9.1

8.2

19.8

18.8

17.0

16.3

16.0

15.8

15.7

15.7

14.9

14.8

14.3

14.0

Total

Factory

Revenue

29.1

28.9

27.1

26.8

26.3

25.7

25.7

23.7

20.4

13.9

13.0

12.8

Software

Revenue

.0

9.5

13.0

12.9

10.0

9.0

18.0

22.8

10.2

4.0

6.3

5.8

7.3

5.6

4.5

11.0

4.4

12.0

6.6

14.3

7.7

1.4

10.4

7.7

148

223

365

274

187

149

230

0

M

Hardware Total

Units Factory Hard

Shipped Revenue Rev

1,577

400

168

8%

8%

8%

7%

99

329

398

540

0

7%

7%

7%

7%

343

112

6%

6%

5%

5%

5%

4%

4%

4%

319

0

309

402

0

0

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

e v8

I

a

I i

! a

1

Table J (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

^plication:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Hahn & Kolb

Autodesk

ADRA Systems

Nestler Electronics

ItalCad

PAFEC

ICL

Ferranti

Norsk Data

Marcus Computer Systcme

Aries Technology

Radsn Computational

MCS

Wiechers Datentechnik

MARC

Mechanical Dynamics

MacNeal^Schwendler

Technische Computer Systeme

Sony

Valisys

SPATIAL Technology

Engineering Mechanics?

Ontos

XAO Industrie

Hardware

Revenue

7.7

.0

4.0

5.0

5.1

.0

6.0

3.7

5.8

5.1

.0

3.3

.0

4.0

.0

.0

.0

1.2

4.9

.0

.0

.2

.0

1.3

Total

Factory

Revenue

12.8

12.7

12.5

11.0

10.8

10.5

10.2

10.0

10.0

9.8

9.6

9.3

9.0

7.0

7.0

6.4

6.1

5.8

5.6

5.6

5.0

4.4

3.8

3.7

Software

Revenue

3.9

12.7

4.7

8.0

2.1

7.0

4.6

2.0

3.3

8.7

7.2

6.1

2.6

10.5

3.5

5.6

5.0

3.7

3.8

2.2

5.7

5.9

4.7

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

181

0

200

300

101

0

279

87

130

285

0

310

0

90

0

0

0

153

325

0

0

212

0

133

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hardw

Reve

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

•o

I

Is)

i

I

I

I

I

cr

I

Table 5 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GlS B n a i Market Sbiri

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. DoUars/Actual Units

Company

ETtapt

Hakuto

CADIX

CADKEY

CADSI

CacpJpa

ISKA debis Systemhaus

CAMTEK

R i c o h - ^ O OWA

Caroline Infomiatique

Century Research Center

Kubota Computer

Micro Engineering SolutiCins

CAD Centre

Wisdom Systems

Wacom

Sol bourne

FEA

Objea Design

PEGS

Accugraph

Objectivity

Zuken

.3

1.3

.3

.0

.0

.5

.0

.3

.3

.8

1.0

.4

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

1.7

2.0

1.3

.0

.4

.9

1.0

.5

.0

.0

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.0

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.0

1.0

.9

.8

Total

Factory

Revenue

3.4

3.3

3.2

2.8

2.0

1.9

1.6

1.5

2.8

2.6

2.1

2.1

Hardware

Units

Shipped

110

63

24

0

12

21

39

11

0

13

0

0

13

254

0

8

9

97

3

0

0

36

0

5

Software

Revenue

1.2

1.3

1.6

2.8

2.1

1.3

.5

.9

1.1

1.0

1.0

.0

.3

1.0

.8

.4

.9

1.3

1.6

1.6

.8

.6

.9

.5

Mark

0%

0%

0%

,0%

,0%

0%

.0%

,0%

,0%

0%

0%

0%

Total

Factory

Revenue

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Hardwa

Reven

.

.

.

.0

.0

.0

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.0

.0

.

.

.

.

@

I

I cr

I

I

•t)

9

I i

I

Table 5 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application;

Platform:

Region;

Units:

Company

Computational Medianics

Point Control

Everex Systems

Whessoe Computing Systems

Spectrum Graphics

Softdesk

Ithaca Software

A/E Microsystems

Serbi

DAPCO

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Algor Interactive Systems

CADWorks

Masta Corporation

Lamp Software

ESDU International

Synthesis

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

•Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Mark

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardwa

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenu

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

3,590.7

.4

.3

.3

.3

.2

.6

.6

.5

.2

.2

.1

.1

.0

.0

.5

.0

.1

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1,790.2

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

1,145.4

.4

.2

.3

.3

.0

.6

.6

.0

.2

.1

.1

.1

0

0

83

0

3

0

0

21

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

68,799

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

All NA.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

2,505.1

610.8

474.9

531.5

3.059.2

1.239.5

379.5

171.2

452.4

1.337.8

756.9

168.6

220.0

2.6

/1.142.9

50,352

12,014

6,434

25,548

43.252

69.8%

17.0%

13.2%

14.8%

85.2%

69.2

21.2

9.6

25.3

74.7

23

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

>P sP sp sp «p s p sP sp sP sP sP Np sp sp s p

O^ ff* O ^ O ^ ^ ^ CT* O * ^ O ^ ^ O ^ ff* O ^ ^

u ^ p r ^ ? ^ r ^ r ^ i A r H p » r \ c f > p « f > ' ^ p

?R

* rtS i-H ^ ' i n

^

Is

B

4p ^ 3 Np >P \ 0 sO sP > p ^p sp s P sp s p ff* ^ ff^ O ^ O * O ^ O * O ^ © ^ O ^ O ^ O * O *

0 \ i A O & \ o m p C f n c M r H ^ 0 0 i - H rtS rtS in f<S ri fC K r4 (s fC ' * ri

I

II tH

U-1

V U s

SR sp sp sp < ^ sp sp sp >p > P sP ' ^ 1 ^ ^p

O^ « s ^ . ^ s ^ s A .

^ ^ s ^» ^ s « s ^ 1 ^ s

5 \ - < r « r r i ? \ ' 3 ) 5 \ q t S o > P " ^ " < » :

I g

If

sp > P sP s p sp ^ p sP s p

O* o * O ^ O * d* O * O ^ O ^

v o i ^ - ^ r - ' r N e r i o P ^

' s

1

tCi eO

#

N 9 I ^ % 0 ^ S S P

^ 3 N ^ > ^ 1 ^

^ N ^ N ^ ^ ^ N ^ S ^ N ^ N ^ ^ ^ N

••O > 0 ( ^ - ^ 1 0 i O

o* o^ o^ o^ ^ eS

III

r4 O ^ ITS - ^

* fe pr> •* so (M \ o ov rTi (Tl i-< &\ <N M

O rt^ rt^ l A t-( f^

O " I fTl

tr>

v © o t-l o o o -ai o ^

0 \ i-i O

M

s

xj" c j r ^ i - i f r i \ o r ~ i A o o r H ( s i ^ < N a v s o i ^ o s o o o o o o m o o

\ d ' < f t - i \ d o d - < i < o o \ 0 \ » r i < - ! r r t o d K N f 4 i r \ r t ' r - i ' t r i

»-( »H f M i H 1-1 f O 1H

r H \ c > \ q p < M _ o s « - * o i r i - * o i H i A o o o \ \ o o » - i i r v N O p

O - f l ' t r i f r t O N O O O r - i ' K o " « A - ^ ' tCt tCt ' rC> t^ (^ o

Q

S c« i - i i - i o o o o < - i \ o \ o f > i f ^ v o v o < N « r i p r i O \ f f \ r ~ o f t v o « r i O » - i \ o o l A i A - ^ - j o d i - i t o c i i - i c r t i - i i O i - i o N o d r ^ K r - ^ v o v d u S - ^ r r o r o HI

0 0 1-^ 1"t 1 " !

IS I a

^ 3 2 o

u in it s

S K ^ S

I

^

III

t t

II

I w

EP a

CO

Q

I

O) y 1^ E.

i i i QIS^^ i l i ^ i i ^

•I a

tu

<

Q a,

^

o

i

5 ^

I la

I

I; .3

IH^ a

X

SI;

01992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

Table 6 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/(SS: Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Fides Industrielle Automation

Computationa! Mechanics

Kewill Systems

Century Research Center

Framasoft

Mechanical Dynamics

Whessoc Computing Systena

PEGS

Kubota Computer debis Systemhaus

Olivetti

FEA

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Engineering Systems Corp.

ESDU International

Accugraph

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Ba5ed Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

Ail Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: DaUquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

1.4

1,1

.8

.7

2.8

1.7

1.6

1.4

.5

.3

.3

.3

,2

.1

.0

.0

259.9

1,929.7

Hardware

Hevcoue

.4

.0

.5

.8

.0

.0

.0

.0

246.9

1.133.5

.3

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.3

.1

Software

Revenue

1-9

1.7

9

5

.8

1,0

.8

.6

.2

.2

.1

.0

.0

.0

418.5

.0

,1

.2

Hardware

Units

Shipped

10

0

14

2

0

0

0

0

36

2

7

1

0

0

0

1

10,209

27,835

1,597.7

301.4

30.6

477.4

1,452,3

928.8

193.9

10.9

390.9

742.6

345.0

61.7

11.9

3.1

415.4

24,575

3,027

233

10,292

17.543

.0%

.0%

.m>

.0%

.(M

.0%

.0%

.0%

13.5%

100.0%

Total

Factory

Revenue

. 1 %

. 1 %

.1%

.1%

.1%

. 1 %

,0%

.<M

Har

Re

82.8%

15.6%

1.6%

24.7%

75.3%

t s

Q.

f

6

«

S"

•S

I

I

I

Table 7

1991 CAD/CAWmM/iESIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Company

IBM

Digital

Sun Microsystems

Intergraph

MacMeal -Schwendler

Computervision

Schlumberger

Silicon Graphics

Toshiba—NO OEM

Cisigraph

Control Data

Hewlett-Packard

Mutoh Industries—NO OEM

SumltotTK) Denko Workstation

Solboume

Sharp System Products—J^fO OEM

Rasna Corporation

A/E Microsystems

Mechanical

Server

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Marke

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardwar

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenu

214.9

94.4

44.9

25.3

16.7

15.8

14.5

6.3

5.1

3.4

3.3

3.0

2.4

2.2

1.9

1.6

.5

.0

121.1

65.2

36.6

12.3

.0

6.1

4.7

5.2

4.6

1.1

1.6

2.4

1.8

2.2

1.8

.8

.0

.0

52.2

.0

.0

6.1

16.0

4.8

5.9

.0

.0

1.3

.4

.0

.6

.0

.0

.8

.5

.0

1,358

768

1,653

364

0

129

151

106

83

40

6

228

75

162

92

7

0

2

47.1%

20.7%

9.8%

5.5%

3.7%

3.5%

3.2%

1.4%

1.1%

.7%

.7%

.7%

.5%

.5%

.4%

.3%

.1%

.0%

45.3%

24.4%

13.7%

4.6%

.0%

2.3%

1.8%

1.9%

1.7%

.4%

.6%

.9%

.7%

.8%

.7%

.3%

.0%

.0%

IT

I

I

I

I

I

®

K> s*

•g

m^

I

Table 7 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Server

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

All N,A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

Ail Turnkey & SW Companies

Source Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0

456,0

Hardware

Revenue

.0

267,5

Software

Revenue

.0

88.5

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

5,223

441.3

11.3

3.4

155.2

300.7

257.0

9.4

1.1

115.6

151.9

85.8

1.4

1.3

.1

88.4

4,856

327

40

3,476

1,748

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

100.0*6

Market

Hardware

Revenue

.0%

100.0%

96.8%

2.5%

.7%

34.0%

66.0%

96.1%

3.5%

.4%

43.2%

56.8%

®

I-*

I

I

I

I

I k

I

I

T ^ l e 8

1991 CAD/Cm/mB/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region;

Unite:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Compaq

IBM

Apple Computer

Autodesk

Hewlett-Packard

CADAM

Hitachi

NEC

Plakuto

MuCoh loiisttk^MNIiGi OiEM

Fujitsu

Investronica SA

Wiechers Datentechnik

Toshiba—NO OEM

Vero International Software

TelMS

Dell Computer

Computervision

CADKEY

Design Autoinatioit

Caditron

CNC Software

Andor

Wacom

Hardware

Revenue

141.2

91.3

83.5

.0

53.5

22.5

22.0

38.4

26.3

16.3

18.3

22.5

11.4

9.1

.0

2.2

12.4

4.9

.0

2.1

1.6

.0

.0

.0

Total

Factory

Revenue

141.2

96.1

94.9

93.5

67.0

64.5

45.9

45.7

43.8

29.1

29.1

28.1

20.0

18.1

15.5

14.5

12.4

11.2

11.0

10.2

9.8

9.2

8.5

8.4

Software

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

93.5

.0

35.7

19.3

3.7

17.5

11.4

7.8

2.8

6.0

7.2

14.1

10.1

.0

10.7

11.0

10.2

3.9

9.2

6.1

5.8

Hardware

Units

Shipped

27,529

22,829

19,887

0

13.013

4,500

2,269

6,441

130

0

0

151

0

77

141

1,499

1,034

965

1,125

577

1,747

0

80

3,162

Ma

3.5%

2.3%

2.3%

2.2%

1.6%

1.4%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

.9%

.9%

.8%

.8%

.7%

.7%

.7%

Total

Factory

Revenue

11.2%

7.6%

7.5%

7.4%

5.3%

5.1%

3.6%

3.6%

Hardw

Reve

1

1

1

@

t-*

«

I

•g

I-*

I

I

I

I

I

Table S (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Cimatron

Point Control

Research Machines

DAT Standard info ssystemcft

Ziegler Informatics

Swanson Analysis

Intergraph

Anilani Electronics

Algor Interactive SysteilfiS

Mitsubishi Electric

Serbi

Moda CAD

Pathtrace

Everex Systems

MCS

ADRA Systems

Engineering Mech^dCS

Garis

Superdrafl

Micrografe

"Whessoe Computing Systems

Olivetti

Sharp System Products—NO OEM

Aries Technology

H a r d w a r e

Revenue

3.6

.0

7.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

1.4

.0

3.0

.0

1.0

.9

4.0

.0

.0

.2

.0

1.4

.0

.0

2.2

13

.0

3.0

2.9

2.5

2.5

2.4

3.7

3.2

3.1

3.1

4.2

4.0

4.0

3.9

Total

Factory

R e r e n u e

8.0

7.4

7,2

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.4

6.5

5.6

5.3

5.0

.0

3.5

3.0

2.7

3.1

1.5

3.0

2.9

.0

1.2

2.2

Software

Revenue

3.6

7.4

4.8

2.8

4.0

1.5

.0

6.1

5.6

5.3

4.4

2.9

2.6

168

0

0

429

31

0

35

60

1,754

0

0

392

0

Hardware

Units

S h i p p e d

417

0

1,162

0

0

0

0

58

0

435

0

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

H a r d w

Reven

.6%

6%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

@

I-*

to

S"

•3

I

9

I

I

o-

I

I

i

I f

Table 8 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform;

Region;

Units;

Company

American Small Business Comp.

Micro Engineering Solutions

Mitsui Engineering

PAFEC

ISICAD

Robocom

FEA

Schlumbe^er

Hasna Corporation

Evolution Computing

MacNeal-Schwendler

Softdesk

S.TX,D. s,r.l.

Vision 3D

CAMTEK

Foresight Resources

[nnovative Data Design

CAD Lab

CADSI

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

Hahn & Kolb

A I. Systems

Caroline Infonnatique

GRAPHSOFT

Mechanical

Personal Computer

•Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Mark

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardwa

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenu

2.4

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.7

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.0

.9

.9

.8

.8

.8

.7

.7

.7

.7

.6

.6

.0

.7

1.4

.0

.0

.0

.3

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.5

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.4

.0

.1

.0

2.4

1.5

.4

1.9

1.9

1.7

.4

.6

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.0

.2

.7

.7

.8

.6

.5

.6

.2

.7

.3

.6

0

35

33

0

0

0

13

39

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

10

0

14

0

9

0

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

.0

.1

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

@

I

I

1

I

I

O"

I

I

Table 8 (Continue^)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Meclianical

Personal Computer

Worldwide

Millions of U,S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

ESDU International

Machinery Sales

Graphisoft Software D«r

CADWorks

Uniras

Cascade Graphics

Ithaca Software debis Systemhaus

Ashlar

Mc2 Engineering Software

Synthesis

Engineering Systems Corp.

Mega CADD

Norsk Data

CAD-Capture

Engineered Software

IGC Technology

Accu graph

Lamp Software

Radan Computational

Masta Corporation

A/E Microsystems

Number One Systems

Total

Factory

Revenue

.6

.6

.6

-5

.4

.4

.4

.3

.3

-3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

.6

.6

A

A

.2

.6

A

A

.2

.2

.0

-3

.3

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

4

5

0

2

1

Marke

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

SM

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardwar

Revenu

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

,0%

,0%

.0%

.0%

,0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

e

I

I

i

Table 8 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS I%Dal Market mux

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units;

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Woridwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A,-B3sed Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companti»t

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source; Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

194.3

1,262.1

Hardware

Revenue

194.3

803.9

Software

Revenue

.0

387.6

866.0

247.7

148.5

649.3

612.8

605.0

1398

59.1

619.3

184.6

220.7

92.1

74.9

.0

387.6

Hardware

Units

Shipped

51.925

164,204

145,242

14,672

4,291

147,351

16,853

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

15.4%

100.0%

Hardwar

Revenu

24.2

100.0

68.6%

19.6%

11.8%

51.4%

48.6%

75.3

17.4

7.4

77.0

23.0

I

I

I

32

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanlcial Applications

ill

«p \ p ^ ^ A ^ ^ • > P ^ P ^ < i P ^

^ ^ ^ * ^ ^ ^ O^ W^ ^ ^ C^ ff^ CT*

' ^ f S ^ * ^ ^ " ^ ^ ' 0 ^ ° ^ ' ^

0 » - * l H H a \ l - * I ^ ' H f O M

I

g ^ g g

(^ « (O

I e^ o^ ^ ff- ^ r-; vq •i> 1-1 o in o -ir \ d 06

S t S:

rn * uS f-j

r~- '^ v\

i n XT -fl!

I

I g ^ ^ §1

I

If

# # # # vo \o r- rt

III

p s f f s s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s s s i r i o d K \ d s o - t i i " ( f i r r i ( r i t r t M < N ( s

O ON Ov 1-1

•^J* o so *-<

O ' ^ ^ - ^ f ^ f T i O O O c ^ j

0 0 0 0 o\ rn so_ •* sq^ oo_ (C, ^

0\ >-<" •-<' (s" (A

M '

O O -T

in fN

o -v r^ p p 00 p r-; o

:? :: S

eh d

o o o N o p s d f f i o s K r ^ d s D i n d i / S

- i r f > i o < ( r i s o f r i s o i H O v m o q

S

( N m r ^ o s - ^ v S c o v i j i A m

O " * c > o o v o o o i r i o

• \ e • • •

' C> • NO vd K »-i

3 t S

B B C o i ^ i n o o s i > ' - i s o < ^ r ~ ; C T \ ' O i ' ^ ' ' > ; < s i o \ s o - ^ r r t o v O \ 0 \ " ^ ' - ; i - i i n ( < i r - ^ T p p Q \ v D V M o d o o o \ o d o \ " < r d o o \ o d r - ^ i n i n i r N r - i r ^ i r \ ( f i r > » S , \ D v 5 s o \ j 5 i r i i A - f l ' « f i N N < N f ^ i - i i - H i - < i - i > - i i - i

f n «-l f H 1—I •M

, 0 OS

« o\

H IH

•'•III

< K & 3

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

• «

3

< g i O

SJ

0 u

.3

s n

^

c

10 i

©

I - *

i i a

1 s

T

1

C

1

cr

1

Table 9 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/<5BiS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

AJ] Platforms

North America

Millions of U.S.

Dollars/Actual Units

Company

MCS

CADKEY

Deli Computer

Aries Technology

ICAD

ADRA Systems

CNC Software

Cimatron

Vallsys

Algor Interactive $jFjtt%n»

Everex Systenas

Cisigraph

Ontos

Point Control

Mechanical Dynamics

Matra Dacavision

Micro Engineering Solutions

Moda CAD

E n ^ e e r i n g Medianics

Solboume

CADSI

American Small Business Gdimp.

MARC

SPATIAL Technology

2.7

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.0

3.5

3.4

3.2

3.0

3 9

3.9

3.7

3.6

2.7

Total

Factory

Revenue

15.0

11.0

9.3

8.4

7.8

7.3

5.5

4.4

4.2

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

9.3

.0

.0

1.8

.0

2.0

.0

.0

3.9

1.2

.0

.0

.0

1.2

.8

.7

.1

2.2

.3

.0

.0

.0

1,599

44

0

0

0

33

38

22

211

238

14

0

0

0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

2,372

0

0

90

0

143

0

0

3.5

3.0

1.5

1.9

3.4

.0

1.4

3.6

1.9

2.3

.0

1.7

2.1

2.0

2.0

Software

Revenue

13.3

11.0

.0

7.6

6.2

4.6

5.5

2.0

4.2

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

.7%

.5%

.5%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.1%

.1%

.3%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

Hardwa

Reven

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

® a

j

? ts

I

I

I

Table 9 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CA£/aiS( Final Market Share

Application:

Platfonn;

Region:

Unit£:

Mechanical

All Platforms

North America

Millions of U.S. Bbllari/Actual Units

Company

Micrograhc

Claris

Delcam Intemaaonat

Softdesk

Investronica SA

Wisdom Systems

Accugraph

Pathtrace

Evolution Computing

Computational Mechanic$

Object Design

Innovative Data Design

Objectivity

GRAPHSOFT

Rasna Corporation

Aura CAD/CAM SystanS:

Machinery Sates

A.I. Systems

Uniras

Foresight Resources

Ashlar

Ithaca Software

Cascade Graphics

PEGS

Total

Factory

Revenue

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.9

.9

.8

.8

.6

.6

.4

.4

.7

.6

.6

.6

.3

.3

.3

.3

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.5

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.9

.0

.4

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Mark

Software

Revenue

.1

.8

A

.6

1.7

1.6

.7

1.2

.6

.5

.6

.6

A

A

.8

.7

.6

S

9

.8

-3

.3

.3

.3

Hardware

Units

Shipped

46

0

34

14

0

0

0

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

• 0

0

0

0

0

0

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hardwa

Reven

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

@

fS

•§

St

a

I

i

I

I

I

I

8.

I

Td)le 9 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Ptatfotni:

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

A/E Microsystems

Engineering Systems Corp.

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Mc2 Engineering Softvrare

CAD Centre

Mega CADD

Synthesis

Technische Computer $i^Aeine

Vision 3D

IGC Technology

Engineered Software

Zuken

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey A SW Companies

Soufce: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1

.0

254.5

2,050.6

.1

.1

.1

.1

.3

3

.3

.2

,2

.2

Hardware

Revenue

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

247.0

1,147.3

Software

Revenue

.0

.2

.3

.2

.2

.2

.1

.1

.0

.1

.1

.0

.0

576.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

33,484

99.561

3

0

0

0

25

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,034.1

.0

16.4

819.2

1,231.4

1,141.2

.0

6.1

711.2

436.2

568.3

.0

7.8

2.3

573.7

99,253

0

307

85,963

13,597

Marke

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

12.4%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardware

Revenu

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

21.5%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

99.2%

.0%

.8%

39.9%

60.1%

99.5%

.0%

.5%

62.0%

38.0%

36 ftll

!3

B

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

NO

'tO vO

NO S O

> ^ \ Q s 0

O^ ^ OS ^ ^ <** ©s ^ a \ m & \ r ^ \ o o » A O r ^ o d i A \ d c d c d w S < N

#

CsJ 1-t

^

5 a f o

1^

1

o

1

tCi

# # #

i

i - i

•^

#

• ^ o

r^

i

^ p ^ ^ 3 s 9 > 0 sO v ^ s ^

O^ O^ O^ tf^ d * O^ ^ ^ d *

- ^ m i r j i - j v o r - v q - ^

00 i-I lA c4 r-( i-< - ^ rO

(N

M '

M

I

> 9 s 0 ^A ^ 9

NO NO

^ 9 sO ^ 0 <i,0 i g ^ ^

^ ^ S S S ^ S S ^ ^ i H m r v O s c T i v o o o f M

I

5 |

P« sP xp iiO sO sS «0 vO 110 sO ^ 0 sP

N P

S

TH

^ ^ i « « i « ^ « ^ « v ^ v ^ 1 ^ . ^ i ^ s

• f l ; o \ N - o ; r - ; 3 b r - ; - < ) ; M v o i - ;

rt" K i < ir\ -^' tri fri

MS

e<S

P4

NO NO N B S 9

N0

i ^ ^ ^ ^ i r \ - * o \ - * o o i ^ r ~ - v o

•q<_ lA, r^ rH_ l / \ -fl". 00. (O f-T f-T •<j<' T-T i-H* i-T ro"

1 ^

r - t t o o

•«•

fM

O

<N fM

rrt

o

-9>

<N

Id

? l

1

s

g

§

•a

I

1

^ I i|

P Z

11

fri •^' <-i «S q p

p i

>* «S « i-c

O rt •<»• O

O v o s v o o O f O i A o q o q f M v q p f M r H f f )

• CO frt

\ d " f l ' r ^ v d » A i A " f l ' o s d K K \ d \ o < r i

f-i f C

N T - l < - l 1-1

• NO K 00 i A q i r \ " ^ f M i A O O \ p l A ir\ >«• CO K K K rH

^1 t o

•2 IP o

00

«

VO

M

O

\ 0 O rH 00 i-( ITl O^ N r^

1^ VO • * • *

;?;

• « ; p N t O f O O \ o \ r - ; ' < r ' f l ; o q v o t o i H O \ t o o s K i r \ i A i A « r \ K K f O t O f M ( S i ^ r H i - l T H T H i - 4

o o\ r>. vo

K \o \ d >A

§£ c

,9 .-

=5.

-g

I

< 0, Bi

:P

©1992 Dataquest Iruxjrporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

i

I

s

I

I i a

I

Table 10 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/WS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Valisys

Ontos

Cisigraph

Matra Datavisicui

Mechanical Dynamics

Cimatron

MacNeal -Schwendler

CADKEY

SPATIAL Technology

CADSI

Engineering Mechanics

Delcam International

MARC

Micro Engineering Solutions

Wisdom Systems

Solboume

Accugiaph

Object Design

Objectivity

Everex Systems

Computational Mechanics

Softdesk

Point Control

A/E Microsystems

Total

Factory Hardware Software

Revenue Revenue Revenue

Hardware

Units

Shipped

4.2

.0 4.2

0

3.6

.0 3.6

0

3.4

1.1 1.3

40

3.2

1.2 1.5

33

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.2

.0

1.3

.0

.0

2.5

1.3

2.6

2.2

0

62

0

0

2.0

1.8

.0

.3

2.0

1.3

0

8

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.1

.1

.5

.0

.3

1.3

.7

1.4

.7

74

24

0

10

1.1

9

.9

.8

.7

.4

.4

.3

.3

.2

.0

9

.4

.0

.0

.4

.0

.0

.0

.2

.8

.0

.4

.8

.7

.0

.4

.3

.3

.0

0

175

33

0

0

73

0

0

0

21

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.5%

Hard

Rev

.2%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.4%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

@

l-t

?f

"2

§

I

I

I

?

Table 10 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/CaB Final Market

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

C o m p a n y

CAD Centre

Ithaca SoEtwaie

PEGS

Technische Computer Systeme

Algor Interactive Systems

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Zuken

Synthesis

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

North America

Millions of US, DoHars/Actol HQJtS

Ma

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hard

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Rev

.2

.2

.2

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

902.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

415.1

.2

.2

.1

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

321.0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

18,520

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

10

All N.A.-Based Companies

Ail Asian-Based Companies

All Eurofiean-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

890.4

.0

11.7

195.4

706.7

411.0

.0

4.1

162.1

253.0

315.5

.0

5.6

1.0

320.0

18,358

0

162

9,581

8,940

98.7%

.0%

1.3%

21.7%

78.3%

9

3

6

to i

•s

I

I f i

I

Table 11

1991 CAD/OM/jCmmS Final Market Share

ApplicaticMH

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

North America

Millions of U.S, Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Digital

Control Da^

EDS

MacNeal^chwendler

Schlumbetger

Computervision

PDA Engineering

MCS

SDRC

Swanson Analysis

Unisys

Intergraph

MARC

MechanicaJ Dynamics

Computational Mechanics

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

PEGS

Engineering Systems Corp.

Accugraph

Total

Factory

Revenue

187.5

98.2

42.0

30.1

14.2

4.7

4.7

2.7

.6

.5

.5

.2

8.9

7.4

5.1

5.1

5.0

.1

.1

.0

Hardware

Revenue

101.2

67.8

17.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

1.3

.0

.0

.0

15.3

.0

2.8

2.6

.0

.0

.0

.0

2.4

Software

Revenue

49.7

.0

5.9

10.0

13.6

4.7

1.6

.4

.6

3.7

2.2

5.0

4.4

5.0

.5

.5

.2

.1

.1

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

2,651

0

134

572

0

162

0

63

35

0

79

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Marke

Total

Factory

Revenue

33.0%

17.3%

7.4%

5.3%

2.5%

1.6%

1.3%

.9%

.9%

.9%

.8%

.8%

.5%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardware

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.7%

.4%

.0%

.0%

.0%

28.7%

19.2%

4.9%

4.3%

.0%

.8%

.7%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

I a

Table 11 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CA£/GI$ Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

Total

Fartory

Revenue

149.7

567.3

Hardware

Revenue

142.2

352.9

Market

Hardware Total

Software Units Factory Hardware

Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenue

.0

108.1

5,879

9,577

26.4%

100.0%

40.3%

100.0%

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Compjanies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dauquest (September 1992)

566.7

.0

.6

256.8

310.6

352.9

.0

.0

213.6

139.3

107.6

.0

.6

1.2

106.9

9,577

0

0

5.910

3.667

99.9%

.0%

.1%

45.3%

54.7%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

60.5%

39.5%

I

I

® t - *

•s

I

I

I

I

i.

Table 12

1991 CAD/CAM/mB/^ Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Server

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Digital

Sun Microsystems

Intergraph

Computervision

MacNeal-Schwendler

Schlumberger

Silicon Graphics

Control Data

Sol bourne

Hewlett-Packard

Cisigraph

Rasna Corpoiation

A/E Microsystems

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory Hardware Software

Hardware

Units

Revenue Revenue Revenue

Shipped

49.5

46.4

27.9

32.0

12.0

.0

339

374

20.0

13.6

10.4

7.5

5.5

4.2

1.3

16.3

6.6

4.2

.0

1.8

3.4

.6

.0

3.3

3.2

7.2

2.2

.0

.2

961

195

91

0

57

67

3

.0

1.3

1.3

.4

.2

1.3

1.0

.1

.0

.1

.2

64

96

4

0

.0

.0

161.3

.0

.0

.0

95.3

.0

.0

28.3

2

0

2,252

160.9

,0

.4

73.9

87.5

95,1

.0

.1

54.7

40,6

28.1

.0

.1

,0

28.3

2,247

0

4

1,682

570

Market

Total

Factory

Revenue

30.7%

28.8%

12.4%

8.4%

6.4%

4.6%

3.4%

2.6%

.2%

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

100.0%

Hardware

Revenue

29.3%

33.6%

17.1%

6.9%

4.4%

.0%

1.8%

3.6%

.7%

1.3%

1.1%

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

99.8%

.0%

.2%

45.8%

54.2%

99.9%

.0%

. 1 %

57,4%

42,6%

42 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

#

I

I 5 =00

#

-S 61

00 r^

P4

«S

^

I

X

I

V V

sO s© • ^ >P • ^

N O

^ 5 «0 - ^ " i ^

S

^ ^ ^ o** ^ ^ ^ <^ o^ o ^ o o r ^ o ^ v o ' ^ to

- * •

S r^ XT -V (N

^^ ^ ^N ^^ ^^ ^^

O & m •<> N \c>

CM <N| ( N fN)

H

V j BE

> P s ^ > 0 1 ^ N 0

N 00 s # ^ # s^

• 0 0 l A <N f O

<N I M

I

O fO

^ # #

•<»< VO f r t

Iff

# # #

m

(vi \ o

N rH PO f O pq p j 1 - ! i - I

:S :S ^

^ i ^

#

^iO > 0 s 0

H O I I O S Q I I O

t A i A

^ . ^ » d ' ^ ^ CT* O ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ * r - ^ I ^ V O V O l T i l T i - ^ - ^ x f - ^ f D p O S O S » O N O O O \

SO^ CO

O N

O , f O f C oj" pf in lA rt" tvf

I

|i

II o o -^ o o •* d

00 >A CM >*_

00 >A «A (O o o o o

?5

o o o

to t~-

frt pj o q ^ o \ ' - ; p j i A r f ) r ^ r ^ v o p i p 4 i - J p i t - J i H i - i r t ' i-i

o\ 00 p

t ^ i - ; 0 0 f f > p O p p « A p frt \o \o OS • • «S

\S «A

PM 1-1

o o o r ^ o v A O O O i ^ o

I t s o\ o\ •*

O r H O \ « o o o i A > A o o i A f f t o o q i - ^ i ^ » - i O \ r ^ i ^ i ^ v c v o i A d o d o \ o 6 i A i A f r i e r i ( r t p r t p i p i p J p J f - l T H i - i . - i r t i - i

\S 9s lA

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

K) o

g

•g

I

I

I

I i

I

I

Table 13 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GB Final Marlcet Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

C o m p a n y

Investronlca SA

Engineering Mechanics

Softdesk

Pathtrace

Evolution Computing

Innovative Data Design

GRAPHSOFT

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

Machinery Sales

A.I. Systems

Schlumbeiger

MacNeal-Schwendlef

CADSI

Rasna Corporation

Uniras

Foresight Resources

Ashlar

Cascade Graphics

Mc2 Engineering Software

Engineering Systems Coip.

Ithaca Software

Mega CADD

Synthesis

Vision 3D

Mechanical

Personal Computer

North America

Millions of US. Dollars/Actual Units

Marke

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardwar

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenu

1.2

1.1

.5

.5

.4

.4

.6

.6

.6

.6

.9

.9

.9

.8

.4

.4

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.1

.1

.9

.1

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

1.0

.9

.6

.9

.8

.6

.5

.6

.6

.2

.5

.3

.4

.4

.4

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.1

.0

46

137

0

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

15

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

,0%

,0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

1%

,0%

.0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

,0%

,0

,0

,0

,0

®

H*

S"

•g

81

I

I

Table 13 (Cootlnued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

[GC Technology

Accugraph

Engineered Software:

A/E Microsystems

Other Companies

All Companies

All N,A,-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source Dauquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1

.1

.1

.0

104.8

419.8

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

104.8

284.1

Software

Revenue

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

118.6

Hardware

Units

SMpped

0

0

0

2

27,605

69,211

416.1

.0

3.8

293.2

126.7

282.3

.0

1.9

280.8

3.3

117.1

.0

1.5

.0

118.6

69,070

0

141

68,790

421

Market

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

25.0%

100.0%

Hardware

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

36.9%

100.0%

99.1%

.0%

.9%

698%

30.2%

99.3%

.0%

.7%

98.8%

1.2%

B: a

i

© i

•3

I

I

a-

I

i

I

Table 14

1991 CAD/CMJE^'|CA£/GIS Final Market Share

^plication:

Platfonn:

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Europe

Millions oF U.S. DoUafs/Actuai Units

Company

IBM

Computervision

Hewlett-Packard

Digital

Control Data

Schlumberger

Matra Datavision

Siemens Nixdoif Inf^ SjFUiiSiaiS:

Compaq

EDS

Intergraph

Sun Microsystems

Sn-Straessle

Silicon Graphics

Autodesk

SDRC

Cisigraph

Wiechers Datenteche|&

Investronica SA

Apple Computer

Norsk Data

ISICAD

MacNeal -Schwendler

ISYKON Software

Total

Factory

Revenue

65.0

60.8

57.2

42.4

38.0

35.3

35.0

31.4

606.3

496.7

282.4

135.1

84.8

75.1

72.2

68.8

28.5

27.0

26.5

24.7

21.7

19.9

16.9

16.0

Hardware

Revenue

348.1

201.8

197.9

93.2

40.7

25.2

25.3

34.4

65.0

31.0

9.4

15.4

21.2

21.7

11.0

8.8

.0

7.2

29.3

36.1

8.7

31.0

.0

.0

8.1

2.7

.0

3.8

7.8

16.3

5.6

20.9

.0

35.0

31.4

10.8

Software

Revenue

146.3

116.1

36.0

.0

13.9

29.1

32.4

24.1

.0

23.7

12.5

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

17,554

4,726

15,125

1,386

577

915

682

1,011

12,663

1,420

830

1,908

357

849

0

0

, 336

667

1,060

5,171

226

142

0

274

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

20.7%

17.0%

9.7%

4.6%

2.9%

2.6%

2.5%

2.4%

2.2%

2.1%

2.0%

1.5%

1.3%

1.2%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

.9%

.7%

.7%

.6%

.5%

.6

2.

.0

1.

1.

1.

.0

.6

.

.

.

.

Hardwa

Reven

23.1

13.4

13.1

6.2

2.7

1.7

1.7

2.3

4.3

2.

1.9

2.4

46

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

N0 sO > 0

N P NO <IO « 0

^ O^ O^ ^ O^ &» O^

N s^ 9\ & S^ S^ S

^p

N P d^ o^ o^ o^ ^ S^

8i 2> ^ ^ ^ ^

X

Ff

>0 ^ * ^ • ^ ^ ^ 3 %0 ^ ^ ^ p %0 ^ p ^S

^

^ . ^ .

tf«- ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ » ^ ^ S ^ ^ ^ ^ O^

P

I P

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ t ^ CO XT s o -«" iri i-i NO

If

#

sO H O O ^ N 0 N P Sp N P ^ >p Np > 0 sP Vp Np \p >P N P I P •.P \P ^ >P ^ o^ o^ o^ o*> o^ o^ ^ o^ o^ ^ p* ^ e^ ^ o^ o* o^ o^ o* o^ o^ ©^ o*

^ sP ^ op Np >P op oP ^ >p Np sP ^ > 0 Mp Sp sp Np

N P > P S P

^ >P

N P

m m i r i V ^ » A i r \ i A i r \ u ^ ^ ^ ^ * ^ ' ^ ' < f ' < f r C r n r n r O r O r O r O r o o o ( N f n o o o r ^ » A O

CM f O ^ ( N i-t i-( (M s

® 8 S ?^ So

<r> 1-1 o )

ITS 1-1 O VTi O O

00 l A 1-1 fO

<N i-i m 1-1

VO

<N

•»r lA \0 fO

•^

00 \0 (T)

1—) o

r^

r^ r^

OS r-t

«^

00 rr •T

(S so

<M

O O rH SJ) vA SO m OS 1-1 r^ N o

•^ K SO tsi fo -^ (O t o OS "^ 00 fO o r- so o

00 xr so

M O i - i i ^ . N i r v o o s o p i - i p r ^ i - i o s o m o - * f s i l A P J o d s O - ^ ' ' « A • l / S « A s d « O I A " « " ' < * ^ ' • « <

ilM

s ?

-^^

Q

<A

I

111

r ^ r ^ i A v o s o i A r n o s i n r ^ in i/s lA •^' ir -^ Ti" (rt «S oi

«A N 1-1 SO O

(NJ « N (si i-i i-i

M p 00 00 lA -^ p

O

G

oo'

1 i s -

u •! -a -s

^ s l a

.1 6 "§ 13 -a "S

S

U IS H O E E t3

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share lis,

X r$

II

^ I

#

# #: # g # g ^

>A O O O M

i 9 Mp - ^ s P >0 -.A s 0 ^ «p «p >p ^ p ^ s p ( ^ >^ ^

o ^ o ^ d ^ e N o ^ o ^ o ^ e ^ e ^ o ^ o ^ o ^ c ^ o ^ o ^ o ^ o *

< ^ oO 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ « ^ ^A ^ - ^ l O ^ ^ ^ ( A «P > p sP ( ^ <A ^ s P ^ >P

^ d * ^ e ^ e * c » ^ ^ ^ ^ p ^ ^ ^ y * ^ p ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

0 » - ' N i A O O r H O p » - » » - < ' ^ C > N C ) N o o p » ^ i ^ C > 0 0

47

i p • ^ >p . ^ ^ «^ s p •A s p ^ ^ Np >p ^ >p -.p • ^ - ^ s p ^p ^ • ^ «P >p

O^ O^ W* d* O^ ^ d^ ^ ^ d* C^ O^ »^ O^ O^ O^ O^ ^ ^ P^ P^ ^ P^ P^

O N M N

O O N

O O O fTj m fo

O »H O NO \ 0

C \ f O t - i

r v > ^

0 \ M rH O

t-H • * M

O VO m

"*. 00 ir\ rg i - H \ A t r > f r > v o N O f > q o \ o o c > i - i

\ o «r\ -^ •«••«< <N f>i i-i <N ' «S

O t^ fr> 1^ f o fr> «rv vA vq ts rt .^ t-i r j «s iH

00 1^ (N O O

CM'

K o o o f r ) p p i - i p - < r r ^ p t-< r^ ' <rt ' r i r» p« a \ o o «rv

IP

»-H

00 i ^

1 ^

"*

K

M r--

I T l

^ l A

I T i

• * 00 v© ir\ • * • *

'^

• ^

r - . M » - i < - i i - i o \ o o o o o o \ e v e i r > i r i - * e r i r n f O « o » r i r 4 f v i M ' c i H f > i f > i < v i p 4

V

I

1^

6

1 5

t u

I

p g <K b

ID ,5^. -B (2

-S

l i i g t l l l i i l ^ ^

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

-. <e

•a I t ^

^ £. a 5

•a lo O E s

a.

D

I

i

K

?

n

I

I

I

Table 14 (Contfaiued)

1991 CAD/CAH/CAE/GIS Final IVfarket Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Europe

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Point Control

Caroline Informatique

ISKA

ICAD

CNC Software

Robocom

SPATIAL Technology

Aries Technology

Computational Mechanics

PEGS

MiCTOgrafx

Mechanical Dynamics

Moda CAD

CAD Centre

S.TL.D, s.r.l.

Valisys

CADSl

Vision 3D

Solboume

ESDU International

Algor Interactive Sysuaicis

Rasna Corporation

Graphisoft Software EWV

Everex Systems

.7

.7

.7

.6

.5

.5

1.3

1.1

1.0

1.0

.8

.8

.8

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

Software

Revenue

2.2

1.1

.0

.7

.6

.6

.5

.0

.7

.8

1.0

.8

.6

.2

.9

1.6

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.4

1.1

1.4

1.2

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.4

1.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.3

.4

.7

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.4

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

17

39

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

6

78

0

0

0

0

184

Marke

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardwar

Revenu

.0%

.0%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

@

t - *

N i

•i

•8

I

I

D*

1

I

Table 14 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All PlatftM-mS

Eurqpe

Millions of U S . Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Foresight Resources

Micro Engineering Solutions

Spectrum Graphics

Evolution Computing

CADWorks

CAD-Capture

Ontos

Wisdom Systems

DAPCO

American Small Bu^oc;^ Comp.

Synthesis

Objeaivity

Lamp Software

Ithaca Software

Masta Corporation

A.I. Systems

Cascade Graphics

Object Design

Softdesk

Engineered Software

Mega CADD

Accugraph

Zuken

Number One Systems

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

.3

.2

.1

.2

.2

.1

.2

.3

.2

.0

.2

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

.1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

6

0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

4

3

0

0

O

0

0

0

0

0

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardwa

Reven

I

I a

I

o.

I

Table 14 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Europe

Millions of UJSt, Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A,-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

Alt Turnkey & SV Companieai

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

132.3

2,925.4

2,315.4

.0

610.0

633.9

2,291.5

Hardware

IRcvenue

128.7

1,509.5

Software

Revenue

.0

830.1

Hardware

Units

Shipped

19,314

95,360

1,282.4

.0

227.1

543.3

966.1

546.8

.0

283.3

2.9

827.2

85,154

0

10,206

67,483

27,877

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

4.5%

100.0%

Hardwar

Revenu

8.5

100.0

79.1%

.0%

20.9%

21.7%

78.3%

85.0

.0

15.0

36.0

64.0

Mechanical Appllcadons Final Market Share

sO vO sO •.O > 0 sO d * O^ ^ n o ^ « * «*•

N <A <o OS ir\ a?

& \ o fo ff\ N q

P 4

i-< iH

i-i cri 00 f^ frt ci

i-i tr> s ^ ^

# u u

# # g # #

^ ^ I i

11

S i i

fO <-i 5 \ • * 00

0 \ l < -^C' v© •«< fCi rO

<sO N p « ^ N Q > 9 « 9 ^ ^ ' ' ^

d^ ^ . c^ ^* ^^ ^ ' o* o^ r H O N - T - ^ r i T l O O O O V O

<i|0 a ^ 4 ^ • ^ S 0

rt •«< v© >«• l A fTl d^ ^^ o^ o* o^

1 2 1 ^ 1

&v • * -^r o 11

( r ) - « " M t r > m i - i t r > ( M t o

*-H T-i rH

51

3

l^g

0 \ -"T

o^ S^ S^ SC S^ §^ S^

>r\ <ri fO f>i & xr rt

•* •* to »ri (vi M

N '

fi a

II

I

( S 0 \ 0 \ tM i n 1^ r^ op

5 'S »

M N N ' ®

O ITv 00 t o OS

M "

# # # # r~ NO v o -H

(Ci CO "^ ir\ t o o i - i N M N « ^ t - i i - i » - i

J o en a

00 o 0\ -^r

1-1 00 00 >A a \ O (M

t - v o - * r ^ - < » > o \ o s o 6

• o

' N O

ts

0 \ t o fM <n «M i l i l

m t^

K OS

.-H \ o -fl;

\ D l/S « ^ rH r-. Os p

t o

r^ r^ to "fli

00 r H ( N I O \ t O ^ O i - l < O t ~ - N T H < 0 0

I T l

9 ^ P f 3 ! f > ' 3 : o d v d ' ^ o d g \ o 6 i A

0 0

P - r ^ l A M t O i - ( ( M ( N N r l t N

M r>-

0 0

0 0

<M r^ o

0 0 o o

«r\

(M xr t ^

1 ^ o\

ir\

0 0

1 - (

O P J O N f ^ i O t O V O O ' - i O t ^ O s t O O

^ l / S o d t O O v O s K v A l A O d v O V S " ^ - ^ " ^

« r i l A - * t O t O N N ( M f ^ N i - l i - l i - ( . - l t - i t - i

00 <-< 0 0

<M' ( S

rt

o.

®1992 Dataquest Incoiporated September-Reproduction Prohibited

3

I

2

.1

I to

§ :9

Si o

o

I

I

52

I-t - ^

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical AppllcaUons

^ ^ ^

$ # ^ # # ir> o

• « S^ o R^ -^

^ I g If

I

a u fa S

^ ^ ^

H

tB (O

^

^ r^

^

^ " ^ ^ ^ * P ^ P ' ^ " ^ •*?

^ ^ fl^ &• O^ ^ ^ O^ O*" O^

# # § g so i n

^ # #

>n ir\ 11 fO

^ l " 3

^ ^ l i J ^ ^ ^ J i ^ ^ ^ l ^ l ^ ^ ^ ^

s •= o o\ ft r^

0 0 s s

O O (^

0 \ CK O m <H

1—1

•<r o o O ft m

f - H

o

f - l

1-H

o l A

r - t

<N

M t C O O C O i H f O C O f f t N p M f s l o q t f ) o iTi rt

ITl

O

\o

' I f r^

(<i oo

iri

n u^ t o

(Tl

O 00 p o • * t H O O O f f t l ^ O O S

f S l g

p oq

T-i d o d d d o d o \ O s O \ S K K K v o u S - 9 " ' « r ' f l ' « o e o « r i r > i

* t

I f

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

• a c

I i

3 O S< S -§

S

5 -S § u t 3

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

%%%%%%

>p ^p >p g g i i

^ p <i^ >£> >£>

N O

> ^ s O

N 9

« ^

O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ o * w*

11

l |

sn SS

# # g

1-H 1-H O

i

# # #

i

> 0 s 0

NO ^ P NQ > 0

Np

NQ

> 9 s 9 * ^ ^ 9

O^ O^ O^ O* O^ ff* o * d*- d * »*• ^ ^ O*

^11

t

l^t

(C

© o o o o o o o o r r i o o o o f o o f o o r - o o o o

ITl

V V o \ f f t ^ N q o q o q o q < r \ i r ) O c f ) p o q o q r ^ « A i r \ < N e f ) p r J M p < t - <

11 p i r N p p p p r t ^ p q q f O p q p p i - j p M p t o p p p p t-i

ii

. I t - l r H O O O \ 0 0 V O I A - « ' M i - l « H O 0 0 0 0 \ O < A t r t e f t f O ( > ) M M M

m

PJ

P 4

<N f^' i-i i-i rt rH rM

TM

rH ^ rH

V

I s

^i

^ t= U

!

s

c

ii ^

A OS

« o\

H »H

^K^B t

3 s 9 a -S 2

V

(U

^ Sc

•a _o

I i

(^ S

I

"8 c

ill

t S

01992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

8 -S o.

ES

O

1 u -a

E a

I

J 6 ^

I

!

53

®

t-»

B

•8 e

I

o-

I o.

5P

•o i

Table 15 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

Europe

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

DAPCO

Point Control

Micro Engineering Solutions

Objectivity

Objea Design

Masta Corporatldo

Ithaca Software

Everex Systems

Accugraph

Lamp Software

ESDU International

CADWorks

Algor Interactive Sys^l^

Synthesb

Zuken

Softdesk

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Sources Dauquesl (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.2

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1,608.7

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

,0

.0

743.6

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

.1

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

505.4

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

8

1

0

0

0

0

27,597

3

0

0

0

1,168.4

.0

440.3

170.5

1,438.2

583.5

.0

160.2

139.9

603.8

303.0

.0

202.4

1.3

504.1

21,630

0

5,967

8,662

18,935

Marke

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.m

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

Hardware

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

:ioo.o%

72,6%

.0%

27.4%

10.6%

89.4%

78-5%

.0%

21.5%

18.89

81.2%

5

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

< ^ ^ 9 <iiP > 0 %0 %0

f O

Mr r-i i n ^ ^ ^ ^ s s

^ g g #

rH fO N 1-1

S

s p 1^^ \ P s P >P >P « ^ Np « ^ 1 ^ d * O* d * O^ d * O^ Q!^ d * O^ O^

\ q h ; i A i - j ^ o \ p N p v o * ^ ,

K '^* rtS rH fV) ITN H f 4 1-J 1-H o

Vi

11

> 0 > 9 ^ 0

NO ^ P ^ O > 0

• ^ %0

^ h tf* ^ ^ ^N d ^ ^ ^ ^ * tt* ff*

p ? > i i r \ i ~ - r t ( f ) « ^ p p i

r > i c r t » r N » f \ i H i - H » - J ' » - <

# g g #

i-< t o N »-l

Np •^>

N P ^ P ^ P ^ P

?\ S m -^r m iH

55

^ f

s

I

s p \ p s P s 9 S ^ S ^ Np ^ P ^ P

W

©^ O^ O^ ^ ^ o * o*' o ^ ^N ^N

« 5 > A r - : v o o \ v o - * . -"rfO f ^ o r ^ r ^ i - i i - i t ^ i ^ f ^ i n t i

§ # #

•^ fCi «\

# #

o o v o v o r H - ^ - o o o o o r ^

1^ r^ •«< o \ <N rt m <-i (N i n ri h- <r» • *

M <M I-H

o p o o o o n r -

© o ri

K i n i - H e r i O N e r i - ^ ' c J c i r t

f o o s N r ^ o v o o ^ i T i N o

8^ ^ ?3 S •*• "^ -^

I T i O O O f O O O O l A O O O O O O i l l O a p

<n %

•a

1

•a

a

C o n •

% i

II

IP i - j x r i - j - ^ i A i A r ^ i ^ i f ) ! - ;

^ rv ir\ «ri 1-1 i-i

«r\ • * rn O

M H N M

r - v o N M t - i o o N O v o m m

I g § c

- £ s a

^ E < S 5

®1992 Dataquest Incoipotated September—Reproduction Prohibited

to s*

I

I

•8

I

9

I

K

g-

Table 16 (Contliiiied)

1991 CAD/CAM/CA£/(HS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Company

FEA

Mechanical Dynamics

ESDU International

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

Europe

MiSIions of US. Dollars/Actual Units

Marke

Total

Factory Hardware

Hardware Total

Software Units Factory Hardwar

Revenue Revenue

Revenue $hlpped Reveoue Revenu

.3

.2

.0

72.6

699,0

.1

.0

.0

69.0

383.5

.1

.2

.0

.0

158.2

1

0

0

2,852

9,880

.0%

.0%

.0%

10.4%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

18.0%

100.0%

All N.A.-B3sed Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: DaUquest (September 1992)

670.1

.0

28.9

157.5

541.5

372.8

.0

10.8

124.5

259.1

147.7

.0

10.5

1.6

156.6

9,650

0

230

2,897

6,983

95.9%

.0%

4.1%

22.5%

77.5%

97.2%

.0%

2.8%

32.5%

67.5%

K)

I

1

I

I

t

I

Table 17

1991 CAD/CAM/CilK«^@S Final Market Share

Application;

Platfbnn:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Server

Europe

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Digital

Sun Microsystentt bitet^raph

Schlumbeiger

MacNeal-Scbwendler

Compuiervisioa

Cistgraph

Silicon Graphics

Control Data

Hewlett-Packard

Solboume

Hasna Corporation

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Soufce Dataquest (Septernber 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

97.3

36.7

13.2

8.6

8.3

5.1

4.9

2.9

2.1

1.7

1.3

.4

.2

.0

182.5

Hardware

Revenue

54.8

25.3

10.7

4.2

2.7

.0

1.8

.9

1.8

.8

1.0

.4

.0

.0

104.4

Software

Revenue

23.6

.0

.0

2.1

.0

.2

.0

.0

3.3

4.9

1.4

1.1

.2

.0

36.8

Hardware

Units

Shipped

33

39

3

96

21

0

0

1,622

573

303

316

119

87

0

33

179.6

.0

2.9

54.9

127.6

103.4

.0

.9

40.2

64.1

35.7

.0

1.1

.0

36.8

1,589

0

33

985

638

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

53.3%

20.1%

7.2%

4.7%

4.5%

2.8%

2.7%

1.6%

1.2%

.9%

.7%

.2%

.1%

.0%

100.0%

Hardwar

Revenu

52.5

24.3

10.3

4.0

2.6

.0

1.7

.9

1.7

.8

1.0

.4

.0

.0

100.0

98.4%

.0%

1.6%

30.1%

69.9%

99. m

.0

.9

38.5

61.5

to

I

I

cr

I

I

s

I

Table 18

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

ApJpltcation:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Europe

Millions of U.S. Pollatii/Actual iUrm

Company

Compaq

IBM

Hewiett-Packard

Autodesk

Investronica SA

Apple Computer

Wiechers Datentechnik

Vero International Softwjtrtf;

Tebis

CAD AM

Caditron

Research Machines

DAT Standard info ssystemes

Ziegler Informatics

Computervision

Clmation

Serbi

Anilam Electronics

Dell Computer

Superdraft

Olivetti

Pathtrace

Whessoe Comp^tbig^^ir^tenis

Point Control

6.5

5.5

5.2

4.5

4.4

3.2

3.1

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.2

2.1

Total

Factory

Revenue

65.0

43.3

33.5

30.8

26.5

24.7

20.0

14.6

14.5

12.5

9.8

7.2

Hardware

Revenue

65.0

41.1

26.8

.0

21.2

21.7

11.4

.0

2.2

4.5

4.9

7.2

.0

1.0

3.1

1.2

2.2

.0

.0

2.0

.0

.5

.0

.0

Hardware

Units

SMpped

12,663

10,273

5,751

0

1,060

5,171

577

0

80

900

151

1,162

0

0

61

236

0

40

791

142

429

36

0

0

.0

1.3

.0

1.6

2.2

2.1

4.9

2.0

4.4

1.9

3.9

.0

6.1

5.5

Software

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

30.8

2.7

.0

6.0

13.3

10.1

6.8

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

14.9%

9.9%

7.7%

7.1%

6.1%

5.7%

4.6%

3.3%

3.3%

2.9%

2.2%

1.7%

1.5%

1.3%

1.2%

1.0%

1.0%

.7%

.7%

.6%

.6%

.5%

.5%

.5%

Hardwar

Revenu

23.4

14.8

9.6

.0

7.6

7.8

4. I

.0

.8

1.6

1.8

2.6

.0

.0

.0

.7

.0

.3

1.1

.4

.8

.2

.0

.0

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

ill

I ill

1 ^

11

# # #

«5 BB

f C i

> ^ %o > ^ >o <t^ 1 ^ <i^ ff* O^ &^ O^ & * O^ O^ ve r^ vo iri »A to rt

* d ^ D " i ^ > ^ ^ ? > P 1 ^ S ^ \ © ^ P %© ' ^ N© * ^ > 0 S©

S

^ e * © ^ <3> ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ © ! * <ff' ^ O ^ ^

^ S i A ^ p « 0 >0

« s ff* o^ o^ d*

^ ^ m ^ cTk

#

59

^1 g §

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^il

• ^ ^p ^p ^p ^p \ Q N© " ^ ^p o^ o^ o^ d^ d^ ^^ o^ ^* o^ l A ' ^ * ^ ^ ^ ^ r r j r O f C

O O O O O O O N O O v O O O O

< M V 0 - * 0 \ O O O O O « r i si p 00 00 00 vq r; <A r^ *H

T H

1-i rH »^ f-J

• * r ^ o o o r ^ v o - * N ( M f D v o v o v o m - v o

O O O O O O O r f > 0 » f t O O O O C J ' * " * « i O O O O O " *

I

•B

II

B.i

s

wi

cu M

O X 00 00 f- t~ «A

^S! p j

T H

rt f-i

• * » - < O a > O \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 l > - V 0 v O N O \ O « r i

I

I 5 ij

< ft(

c o

I §

s Q ^ " a

g- t

•a -^ «B « s s

Q

w

I i ^ ^ ° M g

" ^ I 5 ^" i i

II

01992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

e

« i f? a

I

I

I

I

I

Table 18 (ContinuedE)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Europe

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Foresight Resources debis Systemhaiis

MacNeal-Schwendler

Evolution Computing

Aries Technology

CADWorks

Norsk Data

Micro Engineering Solutions

CAD-Capture

American Small Business Corap.

CADSI

Synthesis

A.I. Systems

Radan CompuUtiabjl^

Lamp Software

Cascade Graphics

Masta Coqwration

Ithaca Software

Engineered Software

Mega CADD

Softdesk

Number One SysteOSI

Total

Factory Hardware Software

Hardware

Units

Revenue Revenue Kevenue Shipped

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.3

.2

.3

.3

.3

.2

.0

.1

.0

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

.1

.0

.2

.1

.2

0

0

5

4

3

0

0

2

0

6

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardwa

Reven

i

•S

I

I

I i

•3

I

I

I

I

Table 18 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GI£ Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Europe

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Cotnpany

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based CompaniQss

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory Hardware Software

Hardware

Units

Revenue Revenue Revenue

Shipped

59.7

435.2

59.7

278.0

.0

129.7

16,463

56,261

297.3

.0

138.0

251.0

184.2

222.7

.0

55.2

238.8

39.2

60.4

.0

69.3

.0

129.7

52,285

0

3,976

54,939

1,321

Marke

Total

Factory

Revenue

13.7%

100.0%

Hardwar

Revenu

21.5%

100.0%

68.3%

.0%

31.7%

57.7%

42.3%

80.1%

.0%

19.9%

85.9%

14.1%

e

Table 19

1991 CAD/(Ul^<^Gi$^ Final Market Share

Application:

Platfonn:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platft)nns

Asia

Millions of U^^ ISidBafa^jimai ViiitS

CcMnpatiy

IBM

NEC

Nihon Unisys

i

cr

I

Fujitsu

1

Hitachi

Hewlett-Packard

Toshiba—NO OEM

Computervision

Silicon Graphics

Hitachi Zosen Info Systems

Mutoh Induaries-^O OEM

I

Hakuto

Mitsubbhi Electric

Sun Microsystems

CADAM

Digital

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Sharp System Products—NO OEM

SDRC

Tokyo Electron—NO OEM

Mitsui Engineering

Toyo Information Systetns-NO OEM;

Graphtec Engineering

Omron

Total

Factory

Revenue

404.9

198.6

66.5

59.1

48.5

47.1

40.9

35.2

33.1

32.2

31.2

31.2

183.5

181.6

135.0

102.3

72.5

72.0

29.3

26.8

21.8

19.8

14.8

13.9

Hardware

Bevcoue

230.9

133.7

122.9

114.4

64.8

72.0

38.2

30.5

63.2

45.6

26.3

28.3

31.4

29.9

11.3

22.2

31.2

16.2

.0

8.8

15.2

12.1

7.4

12.6

Hardware

Units

Shipped

11,206

9,679

1,761

4,086

3,966

5,516

2.431

717

1,502

606

1,332

1,562

787

1,741

2,250

313

1,739

205

0

99

145

211

319

402

Software

Revenue

98.4

49.0

23.9

49.0

56.7

12.8

27.0

29.6

.0

1.7

17.7

18.9

5.5

.0

18.6

.0

.0

15.0

29.3

12.9

4.4

5.8

6.6

1.4

Mark

.9

1.7

2.5

1.3

.0

.7

1.2

.9

.6

1.0

Hardwar

Revenu

18.2

10.5

9 7

9.0

5.1

5.7

3.0

2.4

5.0

3.6

2.1

2.2

2.5

2.4

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.3%

2.2%

1.9%

1.6%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.4%

18.8%

9.2%

8.5%

8.4%

6.3%

4.8%

3.4%

3.3%

3.1%

2.8%

1.4%

1.2%

1.0%

.9%

.7%

.6%

63

§ -a -

I'^f

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share

i

# § #

# #

<lO 1 ^ %P N p

N P

P* P^ P^ P^ P* r H f O * - t 1 ^ »•<

I

li

l |

§.

§

O -^ rr t^

1^ rH -^r

^ ^

^ • *

I i ^

# f §

i-t fO

I

# # # fD -^f (f>

# § #

1

1 ^ S

sP >P >P ^P ^P Np

NP

1^ <sP sP >P ^P SP ^9

P^ P* P^ P^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ P*' ^ ^ ^ ^ P^ P* ^ ^

\ o v ^ l ^ \ l / ^ l ^ ^ u ^ x r ^ • ^ f C c f i f O r r v f O

g

# ^ # #

N N rH »-l

ill

o o "I

gg

O VN

IT.

F; ;5

\r\

(N fft

0 0

tCt \0

«A <S

00

ITv

0

VO

(M

•*

0 (N

r H

l A a\ c M i - ^ 0 \ f n o f M o o < N i - c - < r v e > i - i pq t-i r-< (vi • o vd 00 ^ pi pi vr\

>r\ o \ p j o \ o - < i ; o \ \ o s o > - < f o ir\ •«)• «S p i t-! »-< p i i-H »-< t-i o p \q w^ PI ir\ uS ON q o pi p 1-1 00 pr>

' pi «o pi

o o\ o o r^

• ^ ' • • •

O p IT. i-J p i i-i o <n \ o ff>

3

-a

•3

I

Q

CO a p

- ^ 5 tw

1 1 °

J

TJ w

« g

I ^ I S

II

pL.

OH

c; o

So r^ t^ 1^ >A -v p« r~; p ir\ p i r-i rt O O O

^ r ^ v o v o u ^ o v v o p i ' - H r - ^ v d u S u S u S " ^ - * >*'•<}"

§

•3

11

JM

*- T i

tH

EP I

6 «

(J

I

"g S I ^

%

3

isimiiisil

5 9 ^ 1

01992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

£•

1^

to

! a i

I

•fl

I

I

Table 19 (Contimjed)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GE9 Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Untai:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Asia

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Act • al Units

Company

Mechanical Dynamics

Delcam International

Framasoft

Qmlinc

Point Control

Kubota Computer

Ricoh—NO OEM

Aries Technology

Cisigraph

PDA Engineering

SPATIAL Technology

Anilam Electrorucs

MCS

Auto-Trol

Gerber Systeras

ISICAD

Zuken

CNC Software

Whessoe Computing;

Rasna Corporation

Valisys

CADSI

Moda CAD

Micro Engineering Solutions

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.2

2.0

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

.9

.8

.8

.7

.5

.4

.4

.7

.6

.6

.3

.3

.5

.7

1.5

1.5

.8

1.2

.4

.7

.6

.6

.4

Software

Revenue

2.5

.7

1.6

1.6

.6

1.3

1.6

1.8

2.2

.3

.2

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.9

.0

.4

.4

.3

.0

.0

.4

.0

.4

.3

.0

1.3

.0

.0

.6

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

45

0

54

0

113

0

0

20

0

0

18

0

0

3

4

4

13

12

6

5

0

0

0

Mark

Hardwar

Revenu

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.

.

.0

.

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

N)

V

•S

I

I

i

a

I

Table 19 CCoiitliiiied)

1991 CA0/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Asia

Millions of U.S. tliciars/Actual Units

C o m p a n y

Investronica SA

Technische Computer Systeme

CADKEY

CADWorks

Solboume

Superdraft

Obfea Design

CAD Centre

Wisdom Systems

Everex Systems

Pathtrace

Ithaca Sofbvare

PAFEC

Softdesk

Algor Interactive Systems

Objectivity

American Small Business Cotnjp.

Accugraph

Foresight Resources

Mega CADO

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hardware

Revenue

.2

.1

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.3

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

0

0

55

2

0

0

1

0

0

27

13

0

0

0

11

8

0

0

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardwa

Reven

©

«

N)

§ a

JP

!

9

I

Table 19 (Contimied)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units;

Mechanica]

All Platforms

Asia

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companigj

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

48.5

2,149.8

Hardware

Revenue

47.3

1,271.1

Software

Revenue

.0

605.4

Hardware

Units

Shipped

7,191

64,472

957.0

1,171.1

21.8

312.9

1,836.9

542.7

722.5

5.8

281.4

989.7

269.5

323.7

12.2

.4

605.0

34,126

30,040

306

27,768

36,704

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.3%

100.0%

Hardwa

Reven

3.

100.

44.5%

54.5%

1.0%

14.6%

85.4%

42.

56.

.

22.

77.

a

Mechanical Applications Final Market Share x r i ^ p T i N o s f r i f ^ ^

# # # § fv) l A fO &

-oJ lA 00 vo vo 00

<M'

w^ fvj r i i-i

>P "^ ^9 ^9 ^^

P ^ ^ s « s ^ \ ^V

^ i n p o> tr)

I

67

s p s P s p N p s P

P^ P^ ©^ ^^ ©^

^ ^ ^ ^ §; cTi o <r\ >r\ >A in o\ H ' i n

(N -«r \ 0

ON

# # #

»r> is •*

•^ -tr 00

^ ^ i-< fvi • (N

sP sp sp sp <sp sp sp • ^ ^9 ^p sp ^p sp ^9 sP sp ^p sP sp sP o ^ ©^ ©* ©^ ©^ ©^ ^ © * p*" ©* o*" ©^ ©** ©^ «y> d * ©^ ©^ ©* ©^

S H N S ^ S ^ p T - < ^ I A ^ r t & » ^ ^ 0 ^ » ) S ) ' « N r t

S >r\ O N£>

i-< t - t ( S s p s p s p s p s p s P s p s p s p s p

^ ^ ©^ ©* ©*• 1 ^ O^ CT* P ^ ^P- P ^ sp sp sp sp sp sP

^ ^ <^ <©* © • ^ ^ d *

^ I"!

N q s p N i / N - « ; r t ^ C ) r ^ " ^ i - i o \ o 6 K v d \ d N C > \ o i A i f \ - ^ c5\ 00 \£> vo in «^ f>i c4 ci ci pi N

* b

# # # #

NO i n •q' t o t o o ' O i ^ o t ^ o o 5 \ o » - i f M f r i i ^ o s r J O O O « r i o o N O i ^ m K v S o s o \ t - < < N o o t - i o i-i-fl" i A r ^ \ o - ^ < o i r \ r - i c r ) < - i « s » - i < r ) - ^ . i d

U V

1 ^ 00 t-i • * vd <s d 00 m 1-1 CM M

O TH •»»< s o 1^ 00 iH

• sd K K T-i \ d

P4

O O 0 \ lA O O

• e n (Ni l A • - *

11 rH N

00 «A vo -^ N ve lA -^ \ d t-i 00 r-J

VO «A OS -9" c s o q f O i o s © p - * i - i i - !

>A SO -fl- t o > 0 t o M

00 o r^ Ov fM

OS • *

SO O • * O

CO o t o 00 OS r~ ri • -^ -^r

^fi t o M -»r l A »A s o

0 \ 00 1^ VO >0 o r~ so

• 8R so so

O O O I - I T H O O I A O O O O u S H o s o s K s d t A - f l ' O s K

I A ' « ' f M f s i M < s | C s | N i - i i H

00 00 ^ o t o 00 lA •*' rrt 0 \ 00 ir\ a

B

®1992 Dataquest Incorporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

68

« _ . E* u_

CAD/CAM/CAE-^lechanical Applications

X

I

V V

S O

^^ o** ^^ ^ S» rr> O l A Pi ff> f # #

O vo rO

.gii

^

O fC

SO

NO S O NO S O <I0

O^ O^ O*- O* O^ d *

^

PO

' ^ o\ \r\ so

I

I

# # # ©

^ r- & I

' ' ' €

ITi f ^ ^ r^ lA m g i n

# §

d^ i n

^

%; f D

^! i

sS >^ sp s 0 > 0 iiO >^ Np ^9 ^ 0 %P ^P >^ sP '^ ^P

N P

ip sP

O*" O^ O^ O^ O^ O ^ d^ O^ O^ d* ^ * ^^ G^ ^ ^^ O^ O^ O^ ^

•2 ^

^ # # # lA O lA <M O O (Tl

<N lA ir\ •* irv \ o rn

•«< O 00 lA "<t"

M lA -^ •<»• «A

• * 0 \ i-i o \ » - ; p o q o \ o \ o q o > r f ) \ q v o o q r H i A " i - J ' t - J r i r n t H M f ^ i ^

f f ) 0 q i A I A r - t \ £ ; 0 0 V O < A V q « A

T-H rH <Ni 1-J r4 rH ' r^

o o

- ^ !-( JN i-i

(Ti

I B i

iv, vq s o »>.

l A «A «A •«•

o

0 \ 0 \ e f ) r O N > - < i - ; r ^ \ p < A - ^ ' f l ;

f r i f O e r i f r i f r i c o t r i j s ' r i H t s f v i

ON

0 \ >A l A «A l A

"Si

%

,2

®1992 Dataquest Incoiporated September—Reproduction Prohibited

i

I

I

I

e

I

I

Table 20 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application;

Platform:

Hegion:

Units:

C o m p a n y

Aries Technology

MacNeal -Schwendler

Autodesk

Wacom

PDA Engineering

Auto-Trol

Gerber Systems

Zuken

ISICAD

MCS

Valisys

CADSI

Tcchnische Compute Sjneenie

Object Design

Point Control

CAD Centre

Micro Engineering S^ulE^ii^

"Wisdom Systems

Solboume

PAFEC

Whessoe Computit^ft^

Ithaca Software

CADKEY

Objectivity

Mechanical

Technical 'WorksKition

Asia

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Ma

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardw

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Reve

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

.9

.8

.8

.6

.6

.4

.3

.2

.2

.0

.0

.0

.3

.0

.4

.4

.3

.4

.0

.0

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

3

4

0

1

4

3

5

3

.6

.6

3

2

2

2

0

0

0

13

0

13

12

5

6

0

0

2

8

0

0

0

1

0

20

0

0

0

0

0

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

i

I

I

3

I

I

I

Table 20 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

TechnlcaJ Workstation

Asia

Millions of U,S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

CADWorks

Softdesk

Accugraph

Everex Systems

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All 'Aimkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1,036.6

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

611.1

Software

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

304.7

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

1

3

0

21,628

408.9

610.7

17.0

160.2

876.4

227.2

379.5

4.4

146.2

464.9

126.7

168.6

9.4

.2

304.5

9.412

12,014

203

6,960

14,668

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

Hardw

Reve

10

39.4%

58.9%

1.6%

15.5%

84.5%

3

6

2

7

i

f

•s

6

M

I

IT

I

I

Table 21

1991 CAD/CAmfm/GXS Final Market Share

Application;

PJatform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

Asia

Millions of U.S, Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Nihon Unisys

Fujitsu

NEC

Hitachi

Digital

Computervision

Control Data

Toshiba—NO OEM

MacNeal-Schwendler

Mitsubishi Electric

Toyo Inforroation Systems-NO OEM

SDRC

Hitachi Zosen Info Systenis

MARC

EDS

Swanson Analysts

Century Research Centir

Schlumbetger

Unisys

Fides Industrielle AutoaMsiPli

Kubota Computer

MCS

Mechanical Dynamics

.5

.1

.3

.0

.0

3.1

2.2

.0

.0

.0

.8

.0

.8

.4

Hardware

Revenue

135.2

83.6

49.2

40.8

10.4

12.3

5.2

3.0

3.6

.0

.9

.7

.5

.5

.4

6.5

4.1

3.8

3.6

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.2

Total

Factory

Revenue

250.4

124.8

78.1

53.6

21.6

17.8

9.7

7.4

7.3

7.2

Hardware

Unite

Shipped

3,513

1,033

1,316

126

363

0

130

20

0

2

22

0

0

0

12

23

125

0

21

24

3

16

0

0

Software

Revenue

66.4

16.2

21.1

8.6

9.1

.0

1.9

1.0

2.9

7.0

1.8

1.3

3.8

.0

1.7

.5

1.6

.5

.5

.3

.5

.2

.4

.4

Mar

1.0%

.6%

.6%

.6%

.3%

.3%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.1%

. 1 %

.1%

. 1 %

. 1 %

Total

Factory

Revenue

39.6%

19.7%

12.3%

8.5%

3.4%

2.8%

1.5%

1.2%

1.1%

1.1%

Hardw

Reven

36

22

13

10

2

3

1

1

K>

I

I

I

4?

1

I

•fl

o;

Table 21 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAB/GIS Final JVfarket Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Company

PDA Engineering

Inteigraph

Framasoft

Whessoe Computing Systea:^

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

Asia

Millions of U.S. Dollarsi/'Actual Units

Mari

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardwa

Hcyenue Reveoue Revenue Shipped Revenue Reven

,4

.3

.2

.1

24.9

632.2

.0

23.7

375.2

.0

.1

.0

.1

.0

148.2

.4

.0

.1

0

980

7,737

0

5

0

. 1 %

.0%

,0%

.0%

3.9%

100.0%

6.

100.

.

.

.

.

All fl.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey St SV Companies

Source Dacaquat CSeptetnber 199Z>

329.8

301.4

1.0

44.3

587.9

J8I.2

193.9

.1

36.6

338.6

85.9

61.7

.7

.2

148.0

4,706

3,027

3

985

6,752

52.2%

47.7%

.2%

7.0%

93.0%

48.

51.

.

9.

90.

•i

Si a i

I

I

I

Table 22

1991 CAD/CAtlt/CmfGIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

Server

Asia

Millions of t;rj$, E>ij)Mar5/Actual IJoJCS

Company

IBM

Sun Microsystems

Digital

Toshiba—NO OEM

MacNeal-Schweodler

Mutoh Industries—NO OEM

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Intergraph

Sharp System Products—NO OEM

Schlumbeiger

Hewlett-Packard

Control Data

Cisigraph

Rasna Corporation

Solboume

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source Dauquest (Sepcember 1992)

Total

Factory Hardware Software

Hardware

Units

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped

65.9

11.2

8.6

5.1

3.8

2.4

2.2

1.6

1.6

.8

.4

.2

.2

.2

.2

.0

37.1

9.2

5.9

4.6

.0

1.8

2.2

.8

.8

.3

.3

.1

.1

.0

.2

.0

16.0

.0

.0

.0

3.7

.3

.0

.0

.1

.6

.0

.4

.8

.2

.0

.0

413

351

68

83

0

75

162

28

7

8

30

0

2

0

7

0

104.1 63.2 22.0 1,235

92.7

11.3

.2

23.0

81.1

53.7

9.4

.1

18.2

45.0

20.6

1.4

.1

.0

22.0

905

327

2

730

504

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

63.3%

10.8%

8.2%

4.9%

3.7%

2.3%

2.1%

1.5%

1.5%

.7%

.4%

.2%

.2%

.2%

. 1 %

.0%

100.0%

Hardwa

Reven

58.

14.

9.

7.

.

2.

3.

1.

1.

100

89.0%

10.8%

.2%

22.1%

77.9%

85

14

28

71

@

M

K)

•o

1

I

1

i

5* i

1

a-

I

e

a

3

o

a

1

Table 23

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region;

Units;

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Asia

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Compaof

Hitachi

NEC

Hakuto

CADAM

Mutoh Iniistries—NO OEM

Fujitsu

IBM

Toshiba—NO OEM

Hewlett-Packard

Apple Computer

Autodesk

Design Automatkm

Andor

Wacom

Mitsubishi Electric

Compaq

Sharp System Products—NO OEM

Point Control

Mitsui Engineering

Anil am Electronics

Cimairon

ADRA Systems

Swanson Analysis

CNC Software

Total

Factory

Revenue

45.9

45.7

43.8

33.1

29.1

29.1

23.1

18.1

12.7

10.4

10.3

10.2

8.5

8.4

4.5

4.2

2.5

2.1

2.0

1.4

1.1

.9

.9

.7

Hardware

Revenue

22.0

38.4

26.3

11.3

16.3

18.3

21.9

9.1

10.2

9.2

.0

.0

2.1

1.6

3.0

4.2

.5

.0

.0

.0

1.3

.0

1.4

.4

Hardware

Units

Shipped

2,269

6,441

1,499

2,250

1.034

965

5,479

1,747

2,086

2,188

0

0

77

141

435

826

31

0

33

18

54

0

0

0

Software

Revenue

19.3

3.7

17.5

18.6

11.4

7.8

.0

7.2

.0

.0

10.3

10.2

6.1

5.8

1.5

.0

1.2

2.1

.4

.8

.5

.8

.9

.7

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

12.2%

12.1%

11.6%

8.8%

7.7%

7.7%

6.1%

4.8%

3.4%

2.8%

2.7%

2.7%

2.3%

2.2%

1.2%

1.1%

.7%

.6%

.5%

.4%

.3%

.2%

.2%

.2%

Hardw

Reven

8

9

4

4

4

9

17

11

5

7

1

1

1

©

I

I

I

I i

s

•S

I

I

Table 23 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GlSi Final Market Share

Application;

Platforai:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Asia

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Whessoe Computing Systems

Rasna Corporation

Moda CAD

Aries Technology

Intergraph

Investronica SA

MCS

MacNeal-^Schwendle^

CADWorks

Superdraft

Computervision

CADKEY

Micro Engineering SO&tl^

Pathtrace

Everex Systems

CADSI

Algor Interactive Systens

ISICAD

Softdesk

Ithaca Software

American Small Bu^esS l^^mip-

Schlumbeiger

PAFEC

Mega CADD

Total

Factory

Revenue

.5

.4

.4

.4

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.3

.3

.3

.3

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

.5

4

3

3

3

0

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

0

0

0

Marke

Hardware Total

Shipped Revenue

Revenu

0

0

4

1%

1%

1%

1%

.0

.0%

.0

.0

0

0

11

0

0

0

13

0

0

3

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

.0

.1%

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

2

53

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

K)

S"

B

•§

I t

I

I a

I

A

Table 23 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/cas Final Market Share

Applicationr

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Company

Foresight Resources

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Asia

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Market

Total Hardware Tcial

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardware

Reveoue Kevenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenue

,0

23.6

376.9

.0

23.6

221.6

.0

130.4

6,211

33,873

.0%

6.3%

100.0%

.0%

10.6%

100.0%

All NA.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SV Companies

Source Dautquest C&eptarixt 1 9 9 9

125.6

247.7

3.6

85.4

291.5

80.6

^39-8

1.3

80.5

141.2

36.4

92.1

2.0

,0

130,4

19,102

14,672

98

19,092

14,780

33.3%

65.7%

1.0%

22.7%

77.3%

36.4%

63.1%

.6%

36.3%

63-7%

@

I-*

lO

S"

•8

I s

I

I a

I f

Table 24

1991 CAD/mm/C/^GlS Final Market Share

Application;

Platform:

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Rest of World

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Digital

Intergraph

Hewlett-Packaid

ComputervlskMi

Compaq

Engineering Medianlcs

Control Data

EDS

Cimatron

Siemens Nixdorf Info syttteoe

Detcam International

SDHC

Sun Microsystems

Claris

CNC Software

MacNeal-Schwendler

Autodesk

Apple Computer

Vero International S o f t w ^

ADRA Systems

Pathtrace

Swanson A n a t y ^

Aries Technology

Marke

1.0

.9

.8

.6

.4

.4

2.3

2.0

2.0

1.7

1.6

1.1

1.1

1.1

Total

Factory

Revenue

17.3

10.5

10.1

8.7

7.6

7.1

4.9

3.3

3.1

2.4

Hardware

Revenue

11.5

7.2

5.2

6.0

2.6

7.1

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.8

.0

1.6

1.6

1.1

1.2

.7

.0

1.4

.2

.1

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

3.2

.0

2.2

1.2

2.7

.0

4.2

.5

1.0

1.6

1.1

1.1

1.1

.0

1.1

.8

1.0

2.0

.0

.9

.5

.4

.4

.3

Hardware

Units

Shipped

1,354

105

153

498

79

1,376

393

23

48

79

34

34

0

102

0

0

0

0

199

0

10

8

. 0

0

Total

Factory

Revenue

15.4%

9.3%

9.0%

7.7%

6.7%

6.3%

4.4%

3.0%

2.8%

2.2%

2.0%

1.8%

1.8%

1.5%

1.4%

1.0%

1.0%

.9%

.7%

.3%

Hardware

Revenue

17.0%

10.7%

7.7%

8.9%

3.8%

10.5%

.4%

2.4%

2.4%

1.6%

1.7%

1.1%

.0%

2.1%

.0%

.0%

1.3%

.0%

.3%

.2%

.0%

.0%

Table 24 (Contloued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

@

a

i f

•9

§

I

I

I a

I cr

I

I

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Company

Unisys

Whessoe Computing Systems

Suf)erdraft

Investronica SA

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

Engineering Systems Corp.

Mc2 Engineering Software

Ithaca Software

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Mechanical

All Platforms

Rest of World

Millions of U,S. DoUars/Actual Units

Market

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory H a r d w a r e

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenue

American Small Business Comp.

Softdesk

Algor Interactive Systems

Moda CAD

Ztegler Informatics

Innovative Data Design

CAD Centre

Accugraph

PEA

Vision 3D

Fides Industrielle Automation

Foresight Resources

ESDU International

GraphiscJt Software Dev

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

,0

.0

,2

.0

.1

.1

.3

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

.1

.0

0

0

0

0

5

0

13

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

3%

3%

2%

2%

%

%

%

%

%

%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

m>

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.3%

.0%

.1%

.2%

.(M

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Table 24 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GlS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Rest of World

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

AM Companies

S

•S

I

9

I

i

I f a

I

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

18.9

112.7

Hardware

Revenue

18.3

67.2

Software

Revenue

.0

28.5

Hardware

Units

Shipped

2,147

6,669

103.6

.0

9.2

47.6

65.2

63.8

.0

3.3

42.2

25.0

23.8

.0

4.7

.1

28.4

6,492

0

178

5,452

1,217

Marke

Total

Factory

Revenue

16.8%

100.0%

Hardwar

Revenu

27.2%

100.0%

91.8%

.0%

8.2%

42.2%

57.8%

95.0%

.0%

5.0%

62.8%

37.2%

o

I

3

•i

3

I

e

M

to

I

I a

I

>o

3

I

Table 25

1991 CAD/CAMI/CtmfG& Final Market Share

Application;

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

TechnicaJ "Workstation

Rest of 'World

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Intergraph

Hewlett-Packard

Computervision

Engineering Mechanics

EDS

Siemens Nixdoif Info syatl^Biii

IBM

Detcam International

Digital

SDRC

Cimatron

Control Data

Sun Microsystems

ADRA Systems

Aries Technology

Unisys

Swanson Analysis

Autodesk

MacNeal -Scbwendl er

Georgia Tech Heseaidl dc«^.

CAD Centre

Whessoe Computing

Softdesk

Accugraph

Total

Factory

Revenue

8.0

7.9

6.4

2.9

2.4

2.3

2.1

2.0

1.1

.6

.3

.3

.2

1.9

1.8

1.6

1.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.0

Hardware

Revenue

4.3

5.4

2.3

.1

.0

.1

.0

.0

.7

.7

1.0

.2

1.3

1.2

1.2

.7

1.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

1.5

1,2

2.1

2.4

.8

.8

.5

1.0

.0

1.8

.7

.2

.0

.4

.3

.1

.2

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.0

.0

H a r d w a r e

Units

S h i p p e d

128

324

71

138

35

34

16

77

10

0

4

0

64

34

82

0

34

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Market

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

3.5%

4.8%

1.0%

.0%

.6%

.0%

.0%

H a r d w a r e

Revenue

21.0%

26.2%

11.0%

.7%

6.1%

5.6%

5.8%

3.5%

6.6f/o

.0%

3.4%

Total

Factory

Revenue

18.4%

18-3%

14.7%

6.6%

5.6%

5.3%

4.9%

4.7%

4.5%

4.1%

3.6%

2.7%

2.6%

1.4%

.7%

.6%

.40/0

.3%

.3%

. 1 %

. 1 %

.1%

.0%

.0%

i

I t

(t

!

I

5P

1

6 t-t

i

•s

Table 25 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Company

FEA

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

Rest of Worid

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardwa

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenu

.0

.0

43.3

.0

.0

20.4

.0

.0

14.3

0

2

1,054

.0%

.0%

100.0%

Mark

.0

.0

100.0

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dauquesi (September 1992)

37.4

.0

6.0

5.4

37.9

17.9

.0

2.6

4.2

16.2

11.7

.0

2.6

.1

14.3

951

0

103

344

709

86.2%

.0%

13.8%

12.6%

87.4%

87.5

.0

12.5

20.8

79.2

©

D

§•

a

i

I

I a i

Table 26

1991 CAD/CA3lt/CimiGll& Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Company

IBM

Digital

Control Data

EDS

MacNeal-Schwendleir.-

Computervlsion

Intergraph

5DRC

Swanson Analysis

Unisys

'Whessoe Computing Systems

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Engineering Systems Corp.

Fides Industrielle Automation

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

Rest of World

Millions of US. Dollars/Actual Units

Marke

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardware

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenue

8.2

5.7

2.1

.7

.6

A

.3

,3

.1

.1

.1

.0

,0

.0

12.7

31.2

4.4

4.0

.9

A

.0

.1

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

,0

12.1

21.9

2.2

.0

.3

.2

.6

.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.3

.1

.0

4.0

115

0

7

13

0

3

4

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

498

642

26.1%

18,3%

6.7%

2.2%

2.0%

1.2%

1.0%

.8%

.4%

.3%

.2%

.1%

.1%

.1%

40.6%

100.0%

20.1%

18.0%

3.9%

1.6%

.0%

.6%

.7%

.0%

.0%

.2%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

54.9%

100.0%

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Afian-Based Companies

All European-Based Comfanies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Soitrre; Oat«queit (September 199^

31.1

.0

.1

18.9

12.4

21.9

,0

,0

16.2

5.8

3.9

.0

.1

.1

3.9

641

0

0

500

142

99.7%

.0%

.3%

60.4%

39.6%

100.0%

,0%

.0%

73.7%

26.3%

I

I s

a

t-t

to

1

I

Table 27

1991 CAD/aaHmAX/ji^S Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Company

Digital

IBM

Intergraph

Sun Microsystems

Computervision

MacNeal-Schwendler

Hewlett-Packard

CooHol Data

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Server

Rest of World

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Market

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardware

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenue

2.8

2.2

1.5

.5

.5

.3

.1

.1

.0

8.1

1.9

1.3

.7

A

.2

.0

.1

.0

.0

4.7

.0

.5

A

.0

.2

.3

.0

.0

.0

1.4

23

33

22

25

5

0

7

0

1

115

34.7%

27.6%

18.8%

6.6%

6.3%

4.1%

1.1%

.7%

.0%

100.0%

41.2%

27.4%

15.8%

9.2%

4.1%

.0%

1.5%

.9%

.0%

100.0%

All N.A-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Tumkey & SW Companies

Source: DaUquest (SepCember 1992)

8.1

.0

.0

3.5

4.5

4.7

.0

.0

2.5

2.2

1.4

.0

.0

.0

1.4

115

0

0

79

36

100.0%

.0%

.0%

43.7%

56.3%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

54.1%

45.9%

@

N i

•i j

I

I"

c

I

I

i

Table 28

1991 CAD/CAM/CAie/^S Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

CompaiTf

Compaq

IBM

Engineering Mechanics

Oaris

CNC Software

Apple Computer

Autodesk

Vero International SoJSt^ffitt^:

Cimatron

Hewlett-Packard

Pathtiace

Computervlsion

Inteigraph

Superdraft

Whessoe Computing Systems

Investronica SA

ADRA Systems

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

Mc2 Engineering Software

Ithaca Software

American Small Buriness Comp.

Swanson Analysis

Aries Technology

Digineering Systems Corp.

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Rest of World

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Market S

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardware

Revenue Revenue Heveniie Shipped Revenue Revenue

7.1

4.8

2.1

1.6

1.1

1,0

.9

.9

.9

.7

.6

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

7.1

4.6

.1

.0

.0

.8

.0

.0

A

.5

.1

.0

.0

.1

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1.8

1.6

1.1

.0

.9

.9

A

.0

A

.3

.3

,1

.2

.0

.2

1,376

1,141

255

0

0

199

0

0

45

167

8

0

0

13

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

23.4%

16.0%

6.9%

5.2%

3.7%

3.2%

3.1%

3.1%

2.9%

2.2%

1.9%

1.1%

1.0%

.7%

.6%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.2%

35.1%

22,7%

.5%

.0%

,0%

4.2%

,0%

.0%

2.0%

2,6%

.6%

.0%

.0%

.5%

.0%

.7%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0

.0

.0

0

0

0

.2%

.2%

.0%

.0%

.0%

G

t-^

•s

I f

I g-

I

I

Table 28 (Continued)

1991 CAD/CAM/CA£/GIS Final Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Company

Softdesk

Algor Interactive Systems

Innovative Data Design

Zieglcr Informatics

Moda CAD

MacNeal-Schwendler

Vision 3D

PEA

ESDU International

Foresight Resources

Graphisoft Software Dev

Other Companies

All Companies

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Rest of World

Millions of U,S, Dollars/Actual Units

Marke

Total Hardware Total

Factory Hardware Software Units Factory Hardware

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Revenue

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

6.3

30.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

6.3

20.1

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

8.9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,646

4,859

.2%

.1%

%

%

%

%

%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

20.8%

100.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

31.0%

100.0%

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companlf^

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (September 1992)

27.0

.0

3.1

19.7

10.4

19.4

.0

.8

19.3

.9

6.8

.0

2.1

.0

8.9

4,784

0

75

4,529

330

.0%

10.4%

65.5%

34.5%

96.1%

.0%

3.9%

95.6%

4.4%

Dataquest

Dataquest Research and Sales Offices:

Dataquest Incorporated

1290 Ridder Park Drive

San Jose, California 95131-2398

United States

Phone: 01-408-437-8000

Facsimile: 01-408-437-0292

Dataquest Incorporated

Dataquest/Ledgeway

550 Cochituate Road

Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-9324

United States

Phone: 01-508-370-5555

Facsimile: 01-508-370-6262

Dataquest Incorporated Invitational

Computer Conferences Division

3151 Airway Avenue, C-2

Costa Mesa, California 92626

United States

Phone: 01-714-957-0171

Facsimile: 01-714-957-0903

Dataquest Australia

Suite 1, Century Plaza

80 Berry Street

North Sydney, NSW 2060

Austraha

Phone: 61-2-959-4544

Facsimile: 61-2-929-0635

Dataquest Europe Limited

Roussel House, Broadwater Park

Denham, Uxbridge

Middlesex UB9 5HP

England

Phone: 44-895-835050

Facsimile: 44-895-835260/1

Dataquest Europe SA

Tour Gallieni 2

36, avenue du General-de-Gaulle

93175 Bagnolet Cedex

France

Phone: 33-1-48-97-3100

Facsimile: 33-1-48-97-3400

Dataquest GmbH

Kronstadter Strasse 9

8000 Munich 80

Germany

Phone: 49-89-930-9090

Facsimile: 49-89-930-3277

Dataquest Germany

In der Schneithohl 17

6242 Kronberg 2

Germany

Phone: 49-6173/61685

Facsimile: 49-6173/67901

Dataquest Hong Kong

Rm. 4A01

HKPC Building

78 Tat Ghee Avenue

Kowloon, Hong Kong

Phone: 852-788-5432

Facsimile: 852-788-5433

Dataquest Japan Limited

Shinkawa Sanko Building

1-3-17 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku

Tokyo, 104

Japan

Phone: 81-3-5566-0411

Facsimile: 81-3-5566-0425

Dataquest Korea

Daeheung Building 1105

648-23 Yeoksam-dong

Kangnam-gu

Seoul 135-080, Korea

Phone: 82-2-556-4166

Facsimile: 82-2-552-2661

Dataquest Singapore

4012 Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 1

Ave, 10, #03-10 to #03-12

Singapore 2056

Phone: 65-4597181

Telex: 38257

Facsimile: 65-4563129

Dataquest Taiwan

Room 801/8th Floor

Ever Spring Building

147, Sec. 2, Chien Kuo N. Rd.

Taipei, Taiwan R.O.G. 104

Phone: 886-2-501-7960

886-2-501-5592

Facsimile: 886-2-505-4265

Dataquest Thailand

300/31 Rachdapisek Road

Bangkok 10310

Thailand

Phone: 66-2-275-1904/5

66-2-277-8850

Facsimile: 66-2-275-7005

CCIS-1447260 l.ois Pet&r-sen

Hdffiinstrstive A s s i s t s n t j CCIS

299-1256

I r v l s r n s l D i s t r i b u t i o n

El i

iechanica! ApplicatlGiis

Oataquesf

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

October 26,1992

Mechanical Applications

User Wants and Needs

Dataquesf

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

October 26,1992

Published by Dataquest Incorporated

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by knowlec^eable individuals in the subject industry, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmitted, in any form or by any means—mechanical, electronic, photocopying, duplicating, microfilming, videotape, or otherwise—without the prior permission of the publisher.

© 1992 Dataquest Incorporated

October 1992

0013842

Table of Contents

Page

1. Executive Simmaary 1-1

Introduction 1-1

Study Objectives 1-1

Major Findings 1-2

Methodology 1-3

Structure of Report 1-4

2. Respondent Demographics 2-1

Respondents' Role in Their Organizations 2-1

Representation by Industry 2-1

Respondents by Department 2-1

Respondents Experience Base 2-1

Summary 2-4

3. Survey Analysis at Site Level 3-1

Employment History and Forecast, by Industry. 3-1

Aerospace 3-1

Automotive 3-1

Industrial Machinery 3-1

Overall 3-4

Site Penetration 3-4

1992 Budget for Software and Hardware 3-6

4- Survey Analysis at Respondent Level 4-1

New Design and Enhancements 4-1

Need for More Analysis 4-4

CAD/CAM/CAE Product Usage Profae 4-5

Computers Used at Work and at Home 4-6

Activity Allocation to CAD/CAM/CAE 4-9

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Subapplication Task Analysis 4-10

Sales Targets for SubappUcations 4-15

Activity Allocation to Sj^tem Support Activities 4-15

Other Computer-Related Tasks 4-17

Competitive Assessment of CAD/CAM/CAE Use by Competition, by Region 4-17

Platforms Being Used and Networked 4-17

Software Products Being Used: Autodesk and EDS Comparison 4-19

User Productivity Suggestions for Vendor Implementation 4-22

Data Conversion Problems 4-23

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

5. Findings and Recommendations 5-1

For the Vendors 5-1

For the Users 5-1

For the Investors 5-2

Appendix A—Survey Questionnaire A-1

General Information A-1

List of Figures

Figure Page

2-1 Respondents' Job Function 2-3

2-2 Respondents' Primary Business (N=208) 2-3

2-3 Respondents, by Department 2-4

2-4 Respondents' Experience Bjise 2-5

3-1 Market Penetration, by Site Size 3-6

4-1 New Product Designs 4-3

4-2 Product Enhancements and Revisions 4-3

4-3 CAD/CAM/CAE Pixxiuct Usage Profile 4-5

4-4 CAD/CAM/CAE Activity Allocation 4-10

4r-5 Distribution of End-User Hours, by Application 4-11

4-6 Penetration of Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Applications 4-12

4-7 Allocation of System Support Activity 4-16

List of Tables

Table Page

2-1 Survey Respondent Data 2-2

2-2 Experience Base of Respondents (N=30 or More in Each Group) 2-6

3-1 History and Forecast of Employment 3-2

3-2 Mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E Market Penetration, by Site Size 3-5

3-3 Budget Plan for 1992 <J<i=30 or More in Each Group) 3-7

4-1 N e w Design, Revision, and Analysis Activity (N=30 or More in Each Group) 4-2

4-2 Total Product Usage Profile 4-6

4-3 Total Product Usage Profile, Mean Values (N=30 or More in Each Group) 4-7

4-4 Computer Systems Used at Work and Home (Percentage of Respondents Using One or More Computers) 4-8

4-5 Work Week Analysis (N=30 or More in Each Group) 4-9

4-6 CAD/CAM/CAE Activity Allocation 4-13

4-7 Allocation of System Support Activities 4-16

4-8 Other Computer-Related Applications (N=30 or More in Each Group) 4-18

4r9 Competitive Effectiveness in Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Use (Percentage) 4-19

4-10 U.S.-Based Seat Demographics 4-19

4-11 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Subapplication Tasks 4-21

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

Introduction

Dataquest expects the worldwide market for mechanical CAD/CAM/

CAE software revenue to be $2.1 billion for 1992 and to grow at a

5 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in the next five years. The market is fueled by a growing perception that this technology is indispensable in a design and manufacturing environment, independent of industry or location. CAD/CAM/CAE tools have moved out of the hands of the experts and are now being used by every job description and for hundreds of applications across the enterprise. The market penetration by site size, job description, and department is explored in detail in tliis report to better understand the dynamics of the user environment.

No dramatic new technology that will obsolete everything in use is seen on the horizon. Software functionalify is steadily improving, with a focus on ease of use and enhanced ability to deal with complex designs and optimization. Economics are forcing the issue: new systems replace older ones because of significant improvements in hardware price/performance. Maintenance costs on some old systems are more than the cost to purchase some new systems. In any case, the result is an evolutionary growth with little increase in mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE budgets.

The diversity of tasks considered under the mechanical CAD/CAM/

CAE umbrella is immense. All major subapplications are explored in this survey to better understand the work profile and market penetration in each category. Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE applications are measured in context with support functions and other computerrelated tasks. A view of the total work environment of the typical mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE user also is developed.

Study Objectives

Dataquesf s goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market by collecting and anal3rzing data from vendor and end-user perspectives. This study examines the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market from the perspective of purchasers and consumers of these products.

This study was designed to identify and gather information about the current work environment of the typical user, with job function and

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 26,1992

1-2 CAD/CAI\/I/CAE—Mechanical Applications work activity considered. Answers from a series of questions designed to determine market penetration from several viewpoints help reveal the impact of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools on these processes.

The study also determines level of user satisfaction with the major tools and elicits suggestions for improvement in user productivity.

The specific study objectives were as follows:

• To identify the demographic characteristics of today's mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE end users, their budgets, implementation levels, experience base, and staffing expectations.

• To determine the level of new design and revision activity with perception of need for analysis to support high-quality design.

• To determine the typical environment of use considering software and hardware products installed.

• To evaluate effective use of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE versus domestic and overseas users in competitive companies.

• To determine the level of interest in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE subappUcations considering volume of work and percentage of work accomplished with CAD/CAM/CAE tools.

• To evaluate the role of support in an organization. (Who is doing it, how much, and what kind?)

• To determine the hoiu^ spent in using CAD/CAM/CAE and other computer-related applications.

• To identify the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE products being used and determine the relative level of satisfaction of each software product. Having identified the products being used, determine the suggestions from the user for this vendor to make the C A D / C A M /

CAE tools more useful in increasing user productivity.

• To evaluate the requirement to share data between different departments and tools.

Major Findings

Major findings of the siuvey are as follows:

• Most users would recommend their mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools to a friend.

• Most users beUeve that they are more effective in the use of their mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE systems than are their Japanese,

European, or U.S. competition by a factor of 3 or 4.

• Many users are seasoned veterans, with the majority having more than five years of experience using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools. Many of these people are learning to use their third or fourth product.

• The largest imtapped market for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE is at sites with more than 500 technical professionals. Market penetration in this group is less than 30 percent.

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest IncorporatBd CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Executive Summaiy 1 ^

• The automotive and aerospace industries dominate the market, with more systems installed and above-average penetration of the potential user base.

• New product design starts have increased slightly since 1988 (based on Dataquest siuvey data). During the same period, the level of product revision has dropped, indicating real productivity in using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, thus allowing better-quality designs.

• Vendor growth in a flat market will be fueled by users that expect to increase the ntunber of new products learned in the next two years by 37 percent.

• The 1992 budget for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE hardware and software is about the same as last year. Design engineers, new product development, and the industrial machinery industry all are more optimistic about budget levels.

• Three of four users believe that toda)r's designs are more complex than those of two years ago and most believe that they require a higher level of analysis to ensure a quality result. Customer demands, new materials, and computer-aided design have caused or contributed to the increase.

• A large majority of users work with two or more computers at work and are using a computer at home.

• A 44-hour work week is tj^ical, with 24 hours of that time spent using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE.

• Product detail or functional design is the most common subapplication, followed closely by product conceptual design and documentation or drafting. Together these subappUcations represent more than

70 percent of the work hours in medianical CAD/CAM/CAE.

• Spreadsheets and word processors are used an average of 8 hours per week in the engineering environment by the typical mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE user.

Methodology

Earlier survey activity identified the need to develop insight into several issues that are sensitive to the sample distribution for industry and department of respondent, site size, and platform type used. This stuvey focused on a set of respondents selected from a filtered but random population. An attempt was made as the survey progressed to steer the interviewers toward sites with the designated profile, to have the resulting population match the desired characteristics.

The specific sample characteristics desired were as follows:

• Match distribution of installed base in the United States by industry. The education and government sectors were intentionally ignored in the sample.

• Match the installed base distribution model for platform type used.

CCm-m0Wi-S2m ©1992 Dalaquest Incorporated October 26,1992

1-4 CADAJAIWCAE—Mechanical Applications

• Use representation from each major department in the tj^ical enduser organization.

• Use a wide sample distribution of user sites measured by number of employees.

• Interview users that collectively use a large variety of mechanical

C A D / C A M / C A E software tools.

The survey sample was selected from the Dataquest C A D / C A M / C A E end-user database, from contact names provided by vendors, and from company contacts identified with The Dim & Bradstreet Corporation million-dollar directory. A phone survey was conducted in August and

September 1992 in the United States.

We suggest that users of this information evaluate the results at t w o levels: What the total group of respondents say, and what each group with statistical significance reports. These groups are highlighted in the stuvey results.

A follow-up study is offered as a consulting project for specific vendors that would like to compare users of their products with the total population and users of competitive products. Only two vendors have a large enough sample size to make statistically valid comparison within the original sample. These are highlighted later in the report.

Structure of Report

The report is divided into three major sections. First, the demographics of the respondents are defined. Second, the site-spedfic questions and then the individual responses are analyzed. A sample questionnaire is included in the appendix. A total of 208 interviews were completed.

Project Team: Michael Seely and Kim Kisling

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest incotporalBd CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Chapter 2

Respondent Demographics

The target population in this study is users of mechanical CAD/

CAM/CAE tools in the United States. The respondents represented a wide range of job titles from all major departments and from all major manufacturing industries. Table 2-1 identifies the respondent sample distribution by industry, job title, and department.

Respondents' Role in Their Organizations

The majority of respondents hold the title of department manager. Following closely are the titles of system manager, project engineer, and design engineer. These people represented more than two-thirds of the respondent base (see Figure 2-1). These job classifications are expected to provide good insight into use of equipment, budgets, and site penetration levels. Sufficient responses were given in each of these job title groups to allow comparison, providing further insight into the decision-making process and work environment in mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE.

Representation by industry

Figure 2-2 shows distribution of the respondents' company by industry. The intention of having the survey distribution match the Dataquest market model for installed base was partially successful. In general, the distribution matched. Unfortimately the total number of completed surveys was insufficient to allow statistically vaUd comparison among all industries. Comparison is made among the aerospace, automotive, and industrial machine industries. The education and government sectors were intentionally excluded from this survey primarily becaxise of the interest in comparing product engineering and manuj^cturing engineering activities.

Respondents by Department

Figiue 2-3 shows the distribution of responses by department. Because the full sample is used for comparison by department, the sample size is quite large, which allows for comparison among all major user departments using CAD/CAM/CAE tools in the typical company.

Respondents Experience Base

Figure 2-4 answers the question "How long, in years, have you been u s u ^ mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software?" The average answer was 7.9 years. In general, the more senior engineers and management

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 26,1992

.8

I i

Table 2-1

Survey Respondent Data

Industry

Aerospace

Automotive

Number of

Responses

46

Percentage of Total

22.1

Job Title

Chief Engineer

Department Manager

Number of

Responses

9

Percentage of Total

4.3

Department

Design/Comp

Service Grou

41 19.7

54

26.0

System Manager 36

17.3 R&D, New Pro

Development

Computers and

Peripherals

8

Service/Design

Consulting

Electrical and

Electronic

Machinery

22

3.8 Group Engineer

Project Engineer

5.3 Design Engineer

10

33

30

4.8

15.9

Product Engin

14.4 Mantifacturing

Engineering

Fabricated

Metal Farts

Industrial

Machinery

n

16

32

Manufacturing

19

Other

Tbtal

208

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

10.6 Specialist/Tectmician

Designer

77

Technical Support

15.4 Draftsmen

DetaUer

9.1

12

18

10

8

1

208

5.8

8.7

Plant Operatio

4.8

3.8

0.5

Respondent Demographics

Figure 2-1

Respondents' Job Function

Draftsmen (3.8%) •

Chief Engineer (4.3%)

Technical Support (4.8%)

Group Engineer (4.8%)

Specialist/Technician (5.8%)

Detailer (0.5%)

2-3

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Figure 2-2

Respondents' Primary Business (N = 208)

Computers and Peripherals (3.8%)

Fabricated Metal Parts (7.7%) —

Service/Design/Consulting (5,3%)

02001751

Manufacturing Other (9.1%)

Electrical and

Electronic Machinery (10.6%)

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

C»\M-MEC-UW-9201

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

G2001752

Octoiier 26.1992

2'4

Figure 2-3

Respondents, by Department

R&D,

New Product Development

(17.8%)

CADA;AM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Plant Operations (1.4%)

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

GSQ01753 staff had more years of experience, but overall the group is quite experienced. (More evidence of this is shown later when the number of software products learned and used is measured.) Table 2-2 shows the average experience base of each reporting group.

Summary

This survey group is judged to have significant experience in using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE and should be well suited to make the distinctions requested. Readers should keep in mind that the total population of this survey is dominated by department managers, system managers, and project engineers in the automotive, aerospace, and industrial machinery industries.

Octotier 26,1992

©1992 Dataquest IncoipoialBd CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Respondent Demographics

2-5

Figure 2-4

Respondents' Experience Base

Percentage

90 HI

4 0 -

3 0 -

2 0 -

1 0 -

8 0 -

7 0 -

6 0 -

5 0 -

0-r r

Five or l\^ore Years

Ten or More Years

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Fifteen or More Years

62001754

CCAM-MEC-UW-4201

©1992 Dataquest Incoiporated October 26,1992

2-6

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Table 2-2

Experience Base of Respondents

(N=30 or More in Each Group)

How long, in years, have you been using mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE software?

Total Respondents

By Job Title

Department Manager

Systems Manager

Project Engineer

Design Engineer

By Industry

Aerospace

Automotive

Industrial Machinery

By Department

Design/Computing Service

R&D, New Product Development

Product Engineering

Manufacttiring Engineering

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Mean (Years)

7.9

8.7

8.6

7.3

7.8

8.6

6.5

8.3

9.0

8.8

7.4

6.9

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incofporated CCAM-MEC-UW-fl201

Chapter 3

Survey Analysis at Site Levei

A series of questions were used to determine changes in emplojnnent in three categories: total emplojnnent of the company; the group of technical professionals; and the number of trained mechanical CAD/

CAM/CAE users. A historical perspective and forecast was formed by evaluating the changes from 1990 to 1992, and from 1992 to 1994.

Another set of questions asked about the number of seats used.

Together the responses allow for a reasonable calculation of the penetration of CAD/CAM/CAE technology into these companies.

Employment History and Forecast, by Industry

Table 3-1 shows the full stuvey sample for all industries. Only the aerospace, automotive, and industrial machinery industries had more than 30 respondents, which, for this survey, are necessary for statistical significance. The other industries can be evaluated with a lower confidence.

Aerospace

The drop in total employment in the aerospace industry dropped by more than 16 percent CAGR from 1990 to 1992, and is expected to have a negative 7.6 percent CAGR from 1992 to 1994. The pool of technical professionals receded in the last two years, but a significant 16 percent growth is expected in the next two years. The number of CAD/CAM/CAE users has held relatively steady. More than 55 percent of these users are working full time on a system.

Automotive

Automotive employment in the past two years grew in all areas except number of technical professionals, which had a modest

2 percent drop. CAD/CAM/CAE users grew a significant 10 percent in the last two years and are forecast to grow 7.6 percent in the next two. More than 64 percent of these users are working full time.

Industrial Machinery

The survey showed flat to downward growth in industrial machinery employment, with the exception of CAD/CAM/CAE users, where a isrhopping 24 percent CAGR took place and another

21 percent is expected.

CCAM-MEC-UW-4201 ©1992 Oataquest Incorpotated October 26.1992

.s

I

Table 3-1

History and Forecast of Employment

Changes in total employment, technical professionals, and number of users during the forecast for the next two.

By Industiy

Aerospace CN=46)

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

Percentage Full-Tune U s ^

Automotive (N=54)

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

Percentage Full-Time Users

Computers and Peripherals (N=iEi)

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

Service/Draign Consulting ( K M l )

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

Electrical and Electronic MatilhitMMy (N=22)

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

1990

134,675

16,272

6,582

25,920

3,809

746

36,900

9,840

940

1,810

860

113

9,185

2,780

284

By year

1992

94,492

14,986

6,804

55.1

^ \

27,252

3,652

903

64.6

M

35,280

9,566

1,076

^<

1,665

769

167

^

8,660

2,811

309

^

1994

80,670

20,218

6,513

29,198

3,776

1,045

34,700

9,570

1,340

1,765

779

170

8,930

2,919

337

Table 3-1

History and Forecast of Employment (Continued)

Changes in total employment, technical professionals, and number of users during th forecast for the next two.

By Industry

Fabricated Metal Parts (N=16)

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

Industrial Machinery (N=32)

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

Percent Full-Time Users

Manufacturing Other (N=19)

Total

Technical Professionals

CAD Users

Total CN=208)

Total

Technical Profesaidt^s

CAD Users

Percentage Full-Time Users

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

1990

3^55

435

121

10,135

1,760

326

29,878

12,853

3,166

252,058

48,609

12,278

By year

1992

3,824

423

161

i

1994

4,139

440

226

28,186

13,043

3,243

208,862

46,982

13,168

65.8

9,503

1,732

505

68.8

3.^

10,310

1,710

747

28,643

13,100

3,276

198,355

52,512

13,654

3 4 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Overall

The total employment popiilation in the survey saw a 9 percent drop in total employment, a 1.7 percent drop in technical professionals, and a 3.6 percent growth in CAD/CAM/CAE users from

1990 to 1992. Continued reduction in total employment is expected, but more technical professionals and CAD/CAM/CAE users are planned. It is unclear why the forecast for 1992 to 1994 shows a

5.7 percent increase in technical professionals and only a 1.8 percent increase in CAD/CAM/CAE users. Table 3-1 shows CAGRs for history and a forecast of all industries in the survey. The N value shows the number of respondents from each industry. The three largest response groups are compared throughout the survey analysis.

Site Penetration

Table 3-2 compares in detail seats installed to the number of trained users and technical professionals. The total population of technical professionals, by Dataquest definition, sets the size of the total available market. Understanding the distribution, size, and user environment of each group will identify the best market opportunities for growth for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools.

As a business opportimity for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, one group stands above the rest. Figure 3-1 dramatically shows a large difference between the number of trained users and the total number of technical professionals at very large sites. This group has a large installed base of trained users and support p>eople that can help the new users learn the effective use of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE.

Benefits to the company will be magnified by a higher percentage of users having access to this technology, with a better organization and elimination of many duplicate sj^tems.

Table 3-2 shows the detailed analysis of site penetration data considering the ratio of seats installed to the niunber of technical professionals.

Someday this ratio will become 100 percent, when every eligible user in an organization actually uses a system. The number of trained users by technical professionals indicates the level of penetration of the technology into the organization. Comparing the number of seats installed by trained users indicates the amount of sharing taking place. A future survey should ask how this number might grow beyond

100 percent. Perhaps, if portable CAD, task-specific workstations optimized for a special task such as styling and the ordinary design/ analysis/simulation workstations are considered, this nimiber could go well beyond one per customer.

The potential benefits hold true for all sites, regardless of size, but large sites now have the lowest penetration levels, which indicates the highest potential market. This ratio is 21 to 28 percent at sites with more than 500 technical professionals. The penetration ratio at small sites is in the 30 to 60 percent range.

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incofporated CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

i

s

Table 3-2

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Penetration, by Site Size

Nxunber of Technical

Professionals at Site

1 tolO

11 to 20

21 to 30

31 to 50

51 to 100

101 to 250

251 to 500

501 to 1,000

1,001 to 12,000

Total

Number of Technical

Professionals at Site

1 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 30

31 to 50

51 to 100

101 to 250

251 to 500

501 to 1,000

1,001 to 12,000

Total

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

N

13

9

10

8

138

25

15

15

21

22

Seats Installed

85

95

123

237

Tra

408

309

453

2,365

2,620

6,695

CAD/CAM/CAE

Seats Installed by Technical

Professionals (%)

56.7

Tra b

Profes

39.4

30.5

26.7

24.7

13.7

15.8

33.1

9.2

15.1

3^

Figure 3-1

Market Penetration, by Site Size

Total in Group

30,000

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

I t o l O

21 to 30

51 to 100

251 to 500

Technical Professionals, by Group

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

1,001 to 12,000

Technical Professionals

Trained Users

Seats Installed

G20017S5

October 26,1992

1992 Budget for Software and Hardware

Recessionary times have an impact on budgets for all but a top few items on the executive board priority list. From a strategic standpoint, investment in CAD/CAM/CAE tools has been on the list for many years. This year is no exception, but the djmamics have changed. We believe that the decision makers will look at a mix of strategies over the next few years, ranging from large pimiiases of 200 to 500 seats to a wait-and-see approach of buying no new seats this year. N o dramatic new technology is seen on the horizon that will obsolete the current products. Steady improvement in price/performance of hardware leads to the oldest systems being replaced with the newest, as economics force the issue. Maintenance costs on some old systems may justify system updates more so than the purchase of some new systems. In any case, the result is evolutionary growth with little increase in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE budgets. The good news is that this budget allocation in 1991 generated more than $7.2 billion in mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE products sold worldwide.

The data in Table 3-3 show that about 40 percent of the respondents see the budget reality of 1992 unchanged from last year. A few more expect higher budgets with higher growth rates than the group that expects lower budgets. This should yield a slight growth in total

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

CCAM-MEC-UW-fl201

s-

i

Table 3-3

Budget Plan for 1992 (N=30 or More in Each Group)

Is the overall budget for CAD/CAM/CAE software/hardware higher, lower, or about t

Total Respondents

Mean % higher or lower

By Job Title

Department Manager

Systems Manager

Project Engineer

Design Engineer

By Industry

Aerospace

Automotive

Industrial Machinery

By Etepartment

Design/Computing Service

R&D, New Product Development

Product Engineering

Manufacturing Engineering

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Higher (%)

35.2

51.9

Software

Same (%)

42.6

-

23.7

24.2

37.0

52.0

24.9

27.7

40.0

38.8

48.3

31.2

28.1

57.9

36.4

48.2

28.0

42.5

48.9

43.3

38.8

31.0

46.9

46.9

Lower (%)

22.2

46.5

18.4

39.4

14.8

20.0

32.5

23.4

16.6

22.5

20.7

21.9

25.0

Higher (

34

45

24

3

34

24

31

29

53

4

4

3

2

3-8 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

expenditure. A closer look at the expectations of department managers and S3rstems managers indicates a less optimistic view, however, and they may be in a better position to know the expenditure approval situation. The industrial machinery industry has the highest growth forecast, compared to automotive and aerospace. In fact, all the other industries indicated higher software and hardware budgets. R&D and new product development has the highest department growth expectation.

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-UW-4201

Chapter 4

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

One of the first issues to explore at the individual respondent level is an understanding of the design work load. This was measured by asking for the number of new design projects and existing product enhancements or revisions completed. Table 4-1, which shows all average score ratings for each job title, industry, and department, leveals several interesting observations.

New Design and Enhancements

The eunount of new design work actually produced by different job titles varies widely. Department managers are still very much involved in the design process. They contributed to 34 new design projects, on average. Design engineers follow closely, then there is a large drop to systems and project engineers. It appears that systems and project engineers are too busy dealing with computer system and project management issues to maintain serious design activity. This illustrates why the CAD/CAM/CAE spiling cycle must include department managers and design engineers in the evaluation. The automotive industry had the highest level of new design activity; manufacturing engineering has an even higher average. The cascade effect is apparent, where a new product design will cause even more design work in manu^cturing for the corresponding tool and fixture design.

Comparing these data with a Dataquest 1988 survey of essentially the same group of designers and engineers in the same industries shows interesting changes over time. Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of new product design activity in three groups: those that did 1 to 4 new designs per year, 5 to 15, and more than 15. A case can be made for a significant improvement in CAD/CAM/CAE systems productivity and ease of use. Ilie overall work load or volume of new design work seems to be even or slightly higher in 1992. The nuniber of people doing more than 15 new designs increased and the group doing only

1 to 4 grew more than 7 percent. The more experienced staff is now doing more designs in the same period and the group doing only a few designs per year represents a larger portion of the user base. This makes the ease-of-use argument.

The product enhancement and revision data support the view that

CAD/CAM/CAE is improving the productivity of the average user

(see Figure 4-2). The distribution of revision activity has definitely dropped. In 1988, each category irom. a low level of revision activity to niore than 150 changes per year had about 30 percent of the users

CCAM-MEC-UW-92m ©1992 Dataquest Incotporatsd October 26,1992

^

Table 4-1

New Design, Revision, and Analysis Activity (N=30 or More in Each Group)

How many new product designs and product enhancements do you work on each ye

Are the designs of today more complex?

Will this design activity require more analysis?

A

Com

Total Respondents

By Job Title

Department Manager

Systems Manager

Project Engineer

I>esign Engineer

By Industry

Aerospace

Automotive

Industrial Machinery

By Department

Design/Computing Service

R&D, New Product Developittent

Product Engineering

Manufacturing Engineering

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

New Designs

Mean

42.3

34.1

4.9

5.6

30.3

17.0

114.1

4.5

14.5

13.8

18.5

140.7

Revisions

Mean

87.1

97.3

152.8

19.9

37.9

38.7

86.9

64.6

36.2

86.1

71.8

100.9

i

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

4 ^

Figure 4-1

New Product Designs

Percentage

4 0 -

35_

3 0 -

2 5 -

2 0 -

1 5 -

1 0 -

5 -

—•-

1 to 4

- • - 1988

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

1

5 t o 1 S

New Designs per Year

«Awe 1992

More than 15

QZ0017Sfi

Figure 4-2

Product Enhancements and Revisions

Percentage

70-

0-

1 to49

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

I

50 to 149

Enhancements and Revisions per Year

1988

1992

More than 150

G2001757

CCAM-MEC-UW-4201

©1992 Dataquest Incoiporaled

October 26,1992

4-4 CAD/CAIVI/CAE—Mechanical Applications

in each group. Now the lowest level—1 to 49 changes—^has grown to more than 60 percent of the total. This suggests that better designs are being produced the first time, requiring fewer revisions as the design progresses into the manufacttuing and delivery process. This trend is also supported by the shortening of product life cycles. In some cases, especially in consumer products, the product could be out of production before half the product is purchased.

Need for More Analysis

Another consistent message from the 1992 survey was the increasing complexity in design tasks and the requirement to perform more analysis. More than 70 percent of the respondents believed that the designs of today are more complex than the designs of two years ago.

This was consistent across job, department, and industry. In fact,

26 percent believed that the designs were much more complex.

Common reasons for this increase in design complexity were as follows:

• Customer demands

• Designs are smaller, lighter, and take more heat

• Market is tougher

• New materials complicate the design process

• Standards such as increased safety have resulted in more complex designs

• Company is moving to more complex designs and software allows it

• Quality tolerances are tighter

• Government regulations

• Designs have been simplified but tolerances have made designs more complex

• Materials have become more advanced, as has the design process

• Ability of C A D / C A M / C A E to program N C machines

The survey asked if this design activity requires more or less analysis than two years ago to ensure high-quality designs. The statistics were about the same: more than 70 percent of all respondents said more analysis was being done. The reasons were similar to the list dted.

The quality issue was emphasized in the responses, with more than one-third agreeing that quality was a primary concern in the design and analysis process. Many noted that more analysis was being done because C A D / C A M / C A E tools enable it.

Common reasons for the need for more analysis were as follows:

• Need for better quality

• Customer is more demanding

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incoipotalad CCAM-MEC-llW-9201

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

• Safety

• Design complexity requires more analysis

• CAD system has allowed better-quality analysis

• Integration between electrical and mechanical

• Getting into more futuristic designs

CAD/CAM/CAE Product Usage Profile

A key element to understanding the d3mamics of the mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE market is the transition of users as they learn new toob and discard the old. This survey asked a series of questions to determine the rate of change through history and to forecast the change in the next two years. Figure 4-3 shows the number of products learned, the number in current use, and the number expected to be learned in the next two years.

About 20 percent said that they had learned to use one to three different products. A surprising 29 percent said they had learned foiir or more products. Having learned to use a product certainly did not

Figure 4-3

CAD/CAM/CAE Product Usage Profile

4^

5 or

More

mmm

* n

P7J New Products Will

"^ Learn in Next Two Years

|—1 Total Number

'—' Currently Using

_ Total Number of Products

™ Leamed to Use

3

2

WMm.

1

^immm^^M^^^^

0

mm/////////////^^^^^^^

1 t 1 1 1 1

0

Percentage of Respondents

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Gaooi75s

CCAM-MEC-UW-4201 ©1992 Dalaqiiest Incorporated

October 26,1992

4-6 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

ensure that it would be used forever. More than 63 percent said they were using only one product now; 26 percent said they were using two, thus leaving only 11 percent for the hearty lot using three or more products. Many of these people are involved in system support or training activities, as will be seen later.

An important distinction here determines the number of products expected to be learned in the next two years. As shown in Table 4-2, a

37 percent increase is expected over the number currently in use. The

208 survey respondents together learned 895 major packages. Of those,

36 percent were still being used, representing 323 respondents.

Another 191 packages are expected to be learned in the next two years.

Table 4-3 shows the mean score values for the same questions. Department managers are the least likely to learn a new system. Industrial machinery will also be less active than other industries. The most interested in learning to use a new system are systems managers, project engineers, and respondents in the aerospace industry.

To help understand why these changes are taking place, w e asked vendor satisfaction questions later in the survey. First w e focused on

S5rstems used and time spent.

Computers Used at Work and at Home

Table 4-4 shows the environment by job title, industry, and department. About half of the respondent used one or two computers at work on a regular basis, and one at home. Systems managers not surprisingly used the most systems at work, but this was not by a large margin. Department managers and respondents in the aerospace industry were the most likely to use two or more systems at w^ork.

Table 4-2

Total Product Usage Profile

Current Profile

Number of Packages Learned

Number of Packages in

Use Now

Total

Profile in 2 Years

Number of Packages in

Use N o w

Number of Packages that Will

Be Learned in Next Two Years

New Total

Soutce: Dataquest (October 1992)

N u m b e r of

Packages

573

323

895

323

191

514

Percentage of Total

64

36

-

63

37

-

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

Table 4-3

Total Product Usage Profile, Mean Values

(N=30 or More in Each Group)

How many different major mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software products have you learned to use?

Of these, how many are you still using on a regular basis?

How many new major products do you think you will learn to use in the next two years?

Have

Learned

2.9

SfiU

Using

1.5

How

Many

New?

0.6 Total Respondents

By Job Title

Department Manager

Systems Manager

Project Engineer

Design Engineer

By Industry

Aerospace

Automotive

Industrial Machinery

By Department

Design/Computing

Service

R&D, N e w Product

Development

Product Engineering

Manufacturing

Engineering

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

2.6

3.1

3.2

3.0

3.0

2.7

2.5

3L5

3.0

2.4

2.5

1.4

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.7

1.2

1.9

1.6

1.3

1.4

0.8

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.7

0.7

0.6

The best way to find someone at home working on a computer is to find someone from manufacturing engineering—almost 80 percent of these people are using a computer at home. This group was also one of the highest in multiple systems in vise at work.

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

4-7

Octot»r 26,1992

I

Table 4-4

Computer Systems Used at Work and Home (Percentage of Respondents Using One o

How many different computer systems do you use on a regular basis at work and at

Used at Work

1

22.7

2

33.7

3

26.0

4

8.2

5 or

More

9.4 Total Respondents

By Job Title

Department Manager

Systems Manager

Project Engineer

Design Engineer

By Industry

Aerospace

Automotive

Industrial Machinery

By Department

Design/Computing

Service

R&D, New Product

Development

Product Engineering

Manufacturing Engineering

N-30 or More In Each Group

Source: Dataquest (Octot)er 1992)

12.2

13.9

33.3

23.3

10.9

37.0

21.9

20.7

21.6

30.9

11.9

46.3

27.8

33.3

36.7

43.5

24.1

34.4

27.6

27.0

38.2

40.5

24.4

38.9

30.3

26.7

28.3

18.5

34.4

25.9

32.4

19.1

31.0

7.3

5.6

3.0

10.0

8.7

7.4

3.1

12.1

8.1

5.9

7.1

9.8

13.8

0.1

3.3

8.6

13.0

6.2

13.7

10.9

5.9

9.5

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

Activity Ailocation to CAD/CAlifl/CAE

We asked how many hoiirs per week were spent using CAD/CAM/

CAE tools and the amount of time spent on other tasks. The implication was that this represented the full work period. The average work week was 44 hours. Systems managers exceeded that, with an average score of 47 hours. CAD/CAM/CAE tools may make the manxifactiu'ing and design process more efficient, but the S5rstems require significant attention to keep them working properly, hidustrial machinery and R&D had the highest ratings in each group. The CAD/CAM/CAE users on average work on the systems 24 hours per week.

Table 4r5 and Figure 4-4 show the mean score values and percentage of respondents that worked 10, 20, or 30 or more hours per week on a

CAD/CAM/CAE system. It is worth noting that almost 30 percent of all respondents said they work more than 30 hours per wedc on a system. This group also stated that they believed an average of 65 percent of all users at their site worked more than 30 hours per week.

Table 4-5

Work Week Analysis (N=30 or More in Each Group)

How many hours a week do you spend using

CAD/CAM/CAE tools and how many on other tasks?

Total Respondents

By Job Title

Department Manager

Systems Manager

Project Engineer

Design Engineer

By Industry

Aerospace

Automotive

Industrial Machinery

By Department

Design/Computing

Service

R&D, New Product

Development

Product Engineering

Manufacturing

Engineering

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Hours per

Week Using

CAD/CAM/CAE

(Mean)

24.1

20.1

22.7

18.7

25.1

23.6

25.5

23.6

19.3

27.1

22.8

29.0

Hours per

Week on

Other Tasks

(Mean)

19.9

25.0

24.3

23.4

16.9

18.4

19.2

22.6

24.6

17.9

21.2

15.3

Total

44.0

45.1

47.0

42.1

42.0

42.0

44.7

46.2

43.9

45.0

44.0

44.3

CCAM-MEC-UW-5201 ©1992 Dalaquest Incorporated

4-9

October 26,1992

4-10

Figure 4-4

CAD/CAM/CAE Activity Allocation

Percentage

30-ff

2 5 -

2 0 -

1 5 -

1 0 -

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applicatbns

1 t o l O 11 to 20 21 to 30

Hours Worked per Week

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

1 T

More than 30

G2001759

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Subapplication Task Analysis

The major subapplications of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAJE are product detail or functional design, conceptual design, and drafting.

These three subapplications make up more than 72 percent of the total work hours. The remaining subapplications cover everjrthing from sjretem management to resource planning. Figure 4-5 shows the full list with distribution of total hours worked in each subapplication by the total population in the survey and provides an acctirate evaluation of the actual work activity on today's mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE systems.

Figure 4-6 shows the mean results of the question, "What percentage of these hours are spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools?" The percentage penetration for this group is high. These experienced users use

CAD/CAM/CAE for almost all of the activity where it is appropriate.

For the major subapplications, the percentage of work done using

CAD/CAM/CAE is more than 86 percent. Many responses indicated

100 percent use in more than one subapplication. The lowest response in CAD/CAM/CAE percentage use was for analysis using physical testing. Strictly speaking, this category is not a CAD/CAM/CAE application by definition, but this response indicates that 44 percent of the time physical test data is brought back to a CAD/CAM/CAE system for correlation or further analysis. Material resource planning

October 26.1992

©1992 Dataquest Incnporaled

CCAM-MEC-UW-4201

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

Figure 4-5

Distribution of End-User Hours, by Application

Control System Design (1.4%) 1 f—

Analysis Using Physical Testing (1.1%)

Process Simulation (1.6%) 1 \ \ ^

Analysis with Software (6.4%) \ ^ - - t M H

Manufacturing Resource Planning (1.0%)

Product Manufacturing (7.5%) — ^ / " ^ \ \ \ \ \

Product Detail or \

4-11

\ Drafting or

\ Documentation

\ (23.3%)

Product •

Conceptual M

Design M

(24.6%) M

Note: Segments do not add up ^ v ^ to 100 percent because of ^ ^ - ^ rounding. ^ ^ ^ ^ M

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

(MRP), a long-standing maniifacturing application, has more than

50 percent penetration with CAD/CAM/CAE tools. Popular solutions for MRP software are not typically sold by CAD/CAM/CAE vendors.

The 50 percent penetration value indicates a significant sharing of data on the shop floor.

Table 4-6 shows CAD/CAM/CAE activity allocation and contains the data found in Figures 4-5 and 4-6. This table has a wealth of information concerning the distribution of work activity in the mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE application area. It looks a bit daunting, but a brief description will explain the process.

The column on the far left lists all mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE subapplications and the individual work tasks that make up each. The next column indicates the number of respondents in the siuvey that said they spend any time doing this task. The Percentage of Respondents column at the subapplication level shows the percentage of total respondents that do that kind of work. The percentage at the task level indicates the percentage of people in that subapplication that do that task. In other words, 42.5 percent of the people doing product conceptual design are doing industrial design.

(£2001760

CCAM-MEC-UW-«201 ©1992 Dataquest Incoipoialsd Octotier 26,1992

4-12

CAD/CAIWCAE—Mechanical Applications

Figure 4-6

Penetration of Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Applications

Manufacturing Resource

Planning i

Analysis Using

Ptiysical Testing

1

Control System Design

Process Simulation

Analysis with Software

Product Manufacturing

System Management and Tools

Drafting or

Documentation

Product Conceptual

Design

Product Detail or ( ^

Functional Design

Percentage of Total

m

Percentage Using

CAD/CAIWCAE

10 15

Percentage

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

G2001761

Average hours of work for each task and subapplication are shown next. For example, the 29 people who do any mass properties calculation spend an average 1.4 hours per week doing this task. We asked for the percentage of this work being done using CAD/CAM/CAE tools at the subapplication level, and then calctilated the total hours in each subapplication. The respondents do a total of 5,515 hours of work using CAD/CAM/CAE tools every week. The final column shows the percentage of total hours for each subapplication.

October 26,1992

©1992 Dataquest Incorpotaled

CCAM-MEC-UW-g201

I

Table 4-6

CAD/CAM/CAE Acftvity Allocation

Do you perform any of the following tasks?

Subapplication

Task

Product Conceptual D ^ i g n

Industrial Design

Styling

Other

Product Detail or Functioi$al

Design

Component Design

Assembly Verification

Linkage Design

Other

Control System Design

Electromechanical Design

Mechatronics

Other

Analysis with Software

Mass Properties

Structural

Thermal

Other

Analysis Using^jirsical T e s t ^

Vibration

Thermal

Stress

Other

Ntunber of

Respondents

106

45

24

45

107

66

64

28

13

61

29

43

19

14

21

6

1

4

23

4

4

7

1

Percentage of

Respondents

51.0

42.5

22.6

42.5

28.6

4.8

19.0

29.3

47.5

70.5

31.1

23.0

11.1

17.4

17.4

30.4

4.3

51.4

61.7

59.8

26.2

12.1

10.1

Hours per

Week

14.7

5.9

2.0

6.8

Percentage

Using

CAD/CAM/CAE

86.9

Percen of Ho on C

0.6

2.1

6.5

1.4

2.9

0.8

1.5

14.1

6.6

4.6

1.2

1.7

5.5

3.0

5.9

1.5

1.1

2.7

0.6

91.0

66.8

89.0

44.4

s;

I

-8

Table 4-6

CAD/CAM/CAE Activity Allocation (Continued)

Do you perform any of the following tasks?

Subapplication

Task

Drafting or Documentation

Detail Drafting

Schematics

Technical Illustration

Other

Product Manufacturing

Tool Design

Fixture Design

Other

Process Simulation

NC Tool Path Genen^B^a

Process Planning

Other

Manufacturing fosoutce

Planning

Materials

Equipment

Scheduling

Other

System Management and Tools

Product Data Management

System Tools

Total

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Number of

Respondents

108

72

20

14

13

19

10

7

36

47

17

45

2

19

3

5

2

2

29

Percentage of

Respondents

51.9

66.7

33.3

43.5

15.7

21.6

44.4

31.1

28.9

9.1

52.6

36.8

10.5

9.1

15.8

26.3

10.5

10.5

13.9

Hours per

Week

12.7

6.7

1.7

2.6

1.7

12.5

5.2

3.1

4.2

5.7

3.1

1.7

0.8

Percentage

Using

CAD/CAM/CAE

93.6

73.8

79.4

Percent of Ho on C

4

2

3

5

3

1

5

1

2

1

5.3

1.5

2.2

0.7

0.9

15.8

57.4

99.3

2

4

1

1

10

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level 4-15

Sales Targets for Subapplications

For those selling point solutions for any of these products, the following list should be of interest. It shows the rank order of job classification that does an above average of this kind of work.

• Product conceptual design

a Chief engineer, design engineer, designer

• Product detail or functional design o Design engineer, designer, project or group engineer, spedaUst/technidan

• Control system design

• Designer, spedalist/technidan, department manager

• Analysis using software

• Group engineer, project engineer, designer, systems manager

• Analysis using physical testing o Project engineer, design engineer, department manager

• Drafting or documentation o Technical support, draftsmen, designer, specialists/technidan, department manager

• Product manufactiuing

a E>epartment manager, spedalist/technidan

• Process simulation o Design engineer, project engineer, chief engineer, group engineer

• Manu^cturing resource planning

• IDepartment manager, design engineer, project engineer

• S3:stem management and tools

• Sjrstems manager, department manager, technical support, spedalist/technidan

Activity Allocation to System Support Activities

Of the 208 respondents to the survey, 61 percent said they provide some system support activities. Training was the most common task, with 82 fjercent doing some for an average of 4.6 hours per week (see

Table 4r7 and Figure 4-7 for details). Systems managers, department managers, and project/design engineers provide more than 70 percent of all system support activities. Half of these people were doing some product data management for 6.3 hours per week, a considerable work

cavM-MEC-UW-3201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 26,1992

4-16

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Table 4-7

Allocation of System Support Activities

Do you perform any system support activities?

61.1 Percent Said Yes

Training

Product Data Management

Application Software

Development

Other Support Actitivy

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

N

127

104

66

Percentage

Doing

Work

81.9

52.0

62

39

48.8

30.7

Hours per

Week

4.6

6.3

9.0

6.8

Figure 4-7

Allocation of System Support Activity

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

October 26,1992

GEM 1762 load. Half of this group is more than 30 percent of the total group of users, which means that more than 30 percent of all mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE users are spending more than 6 hours per week doing product data management. It is very important not to lose design information, but it should not take that much overhead to manage the process. This certainly is an area that could benefit from a more Mac-like approach. About ibe same size group said it was doing

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

CCAM-MEC-UW-4201

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level 4-17

application software development with an average of 9 hours per week activity. In all, for every 100 hours spent using mechanical

C A D / C A M / C A E applications, another 34 hours are used in system support for training, product data management, application software development, and other support activities.

Other Colnpute^Related Tasks

Word processors and spreadsheets have invaded the world of the engineer. Well over half of all respondents said they were using these applications more than 5 hours per week {see Table 4-8). Other categories have higher percentages. More than 75 percent of the department managers spent 11 hours per week at these tasks. No major difference was noted among the different groups. Managers used more and engineers used less than average. Word processing was lower in the automotive industry. Spreadsheet use was lower in manufacturing engineering.

Competitive Assessment of CAD/CAM/CAE Use by

Competition, by Region

Every survey has a question or two that resists fulfilling the enlightenment task. This following question is a good example: E>o you believe your competition is more effective in using mechanical C A D / C A M /

CAE tools than your company7 This question needs to be asked in our upcoming European and Asian surveys to gain the required insight into this competitive issue. In any case, respondents answered in the negative by a margin of about 4:1 for U.S.- and Europe-based competition- A 3:1 vote w ^ cast for the Japan-based competition (see

Table 4-9). Clearly, many U.S.-based users of mechanical C A D / C A M /

CAE technology believe that they are very effective in implementation.

A surprisingly large number of respondents said that they did rwjt have any competitiDn from Europe or Asia. Ooser analysis finds niche manufacturing operations that are so specialized or have a dominant market position that they have no ready competition. About one-third of each industry group believed that it did not have any significant competition from overseas vendors.

Piatforms Being Used and Networked

As expected, the sample mirrors the known denuigraphics in type of platform installed but was biased toward technical workstation and away from PC-based products. However, the sample was large enough in each group to be representative of mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E tools operating in each environment. Most users selected multiple suppliers of hardware platforms. The names ir^ntioned most often were, in order: IBM clone. Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, Siin

Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Compaq.

Most of the C A D / C A M / C A E seats in the survey are networked (see

Table 4-10). Host-based seats are by definition networked to the host,

Over 90 percent of the technical workstations and over 60 percent of the PCs are networked.

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incoipoiated October 26,1992

&

Table 4-8

Other Computer-Related Applications (N=30 or More in Each Group)

What other computer-related applications are you performing?

Percentage Doing Task

Spreadsheets Word Processing

55.8 66.3 Total Respondents

By Job Title

Department Manager

Systems Manager

Project Engineer

E)esig;n Engineer

Bjr Industry-

Aerospace

Automotive

Industrial Machinery

By Department

Design/Computing Service

R&D, New Product Development

Product Engineering

Manufacturing Engineering

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

75.6

69.4

45.5

43.3

47.8

46.3

59.4

63.8

51.4

58.8

47.6

78.0

80.6

60.6

60.0

65.2

48.1

78.1

75.9

62.2

67.6

57.1

None

26.4

Hou

S

9.8

16.7

30.3

36.7

26.1

40.7

18.8

22.4

27.0

27.9

26.2

I

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

Table 4-9

Competitive Effectiveness in Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE

Use (Percentage)

Do you believe that your competition in the United

States, Europe, or Japan is more effective in using mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools than your company?

U.S.-Based Competition

Eiuope-Based Competition

Japan-Based Competition

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Yes

15.4

4.8

4.8

N o

60.1

19.7

16.3

No Competition in This Region

-

31.3

38.0

Table 4-10

U.S.-Based Seat Demographics

Personal Computers

Technical Workstations

Host-Based Terminals

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

CAD/CAM/CAE

Industry Service

Database

63

21

16

This

Survey

36

51

13

Percentage

Networked

62

92

-

Software Products Being Used: Autodesk and EDS

Comparison

More than 40 different software products were mentioned in the surv ^ as being used regularly. This, unfortunately, diluted the ability to comment on several interesting issues raised in the survey. Specifically, these issues considered frequency of use, level of user satisfaction, reconunendations for improvement, and effectiveness in data conversion.

These issues will be addressed. However, vendors will not be compared, with the following exception. Both Autodesk and EDS-

Unigraphics had more than 50 respondents in the survey, which allows some discussion that sheds light on the current environment.

Autodesk weU represents the PC-based CAD/CAM/CAE experience.

EDS-Unigraphics represents well a seasoned vendor with a large installed base with a mature and diverse set of product offerings.

ccfM-fj\B>m-am

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

4-19

October 26,1992

4-20 CAD/CAMyCAE—Mechanical Applications

Questions not appearing in the following list were either similar in response or not piquant.

• Industry use

a Autodesk: More in automotive and industrial machinery

• EDS: More in aerospace

• Job title

• Autodesk: More project and design engineers

a EDS: More department managers and systems managers

• Department o Autodesk: More in product engineering

a EDS: More R&D, new product development

a Even in design/computing service group and manufacturing engineering

• Years of experience

a Autodesk: 7 years o EDS: 9 years

• Products learned to use

• Autodesk: 2.1

a EDS: 2.8

• Products currently in use o Autodesk 1.2

D EDS: 1.4

• N e w products to be learned in next two years

• Autodesk: 0.5

a EDS: 0.4

• Hours of CAD/CAM/CAE work per week

a Autodesk: 25.2

a EDS: 23.5

• N e w product design per year

• A u t o d e s k : 2 . 6 o EDS: 10.3

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated GCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level

• Product enhancement and revisions per year

• Autodesk: 78

• EDS: 67

• Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE subapplication Tasks (see Table 4-11)

• Would recommend use to a friend

a Autodesk: 81 percent yes o EDS: 98 percent yes o Honorable mention: Adra Systems had 16 users comment; 94 percent yes

• Total number of CAD/CAM/CAE users in 1990, average for site o Autodesk: 11 o EDS: 107

• Ciinent number of CAD/CAM/CAE users o Autodesk: 12 o EDS: 125

• Anticipated number of CAD/CAM/CAE users in 1994

a Autodesk: 14.3

a EDS: 137

Table 4-11

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Subapplication Tasks

Product Conceptual Design

Product Detail or Functional E>esign

Control Systems Design

Analysis Using Software

Analysis Using Physical Testing

Drafting or Documentation

Product

Manufacturing

Process Simulation

MRP

Systems Management and Tools

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

More

Autodesk

Users

Doing:

X

X

X

X

X

More

EDS

Users

Doing;

X

X

X

X

X

CCAM-MEC-UW'«201 ©1992 Dataquest IncoipoiatBd

4-21

October 26,1992

4-22 CAD/CAIWCAE—Mechanical Applications

• Percentage of users that are full time (more than 6 hours per day) o Autodesk: 63 percent o EDS: 72 percent

• Total nxrmber of seats at site

a Autodesk: 12 o EDS: 87

In summary, the average values for the Autodesk and EDS-

Unigraphics users are amazingly similar, although the following few significant differences did occur:

• The Autodesk users typically worked at smaller sites

• The Unigraphics users do a lot more new design work

• The Unigraphics users do more manufacturing-related work

User Productivity Suggestions for Vendor implementation

Many suggestions were given for vendor improvements to impact user productivity. As stated earlier, no vendor-specific suggestions will be identified because of sample distribution. Common or creative suggestions, in random order, are as follows:

• Need better manuals

• Remove bugs

• Good product but lots of bugs; they took care of previous problems but there are always new ones when a new release comes out

• Pay more attention to current customers than new customers

• Supply a complete package; don't nickel and dime me

• Improve 3-D

• Open ear to what users have to say

• Vendor shoiild take more interest in product

• Need naore integrated design tools

• Need more complete system, less reliance on third-party software

• Could be more friendly

• 24-hour hotline

• Too expensive; would like ever}^thing in one package

• Make FEA modeling more automatic

• Improve response time

October 26,1992 ©1992 Oataquest Incoporated CCAM-ME(>-UW-€201

Survey Analysis at Respondent Level 4-23

Data Conversion Problems

On average, 25 percent of the sites said that data conversion was a serious problem. The aerospace respondents were higher, at 30 percent. The industrial machinery group had a low 13-percent vote. No vendor was strongly identified as the culprit. A few that did get several votes were mentioned by other respondents as one of the vendors doing a good job in this area, IGES was mentioned several times as a problem area. It is expected that any site shipping data from one system to another is probably using the same name brand to improve the necessary communication. Other sites forced into cross-vendor communication see a significant problem, which is causing a productivity bottleneck in at least 25 percent of the sites. We expect this issue to increase in importance over the long term.

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201 ©1992 Dataquest Incorpotated October 26,1992

Chapter 5

Findings and Recommendations

We offer our findings and recommendations in the following sections.

For the Vendors

Findings and recommendations for vendors are as follows:

• Find a way to get the large nxunber of technical professionals working at the larger sites excited about using mechanical C A D / C A M /

CAE. This by far represents the largest xintapped market for new system sales. AU of these big sites already have more than one different system installed, which highlights the importance of the incum.bent vendors to work together to ensure that this site is effective in its use of this technology. Anything less will open the door for competitive systems to be installed, or worse, the customer may become noncompetitive.

• Do not overlook growth industries with a high probability of the need to use CAD/CAM/CAE technology. This survey identified the industrial machinery group as an above-average growth opportunity. Other industries have strong potential as well, such as fobricated metal parts, electrical and electronic machinery, and computers and peripherals. In feet, almost every industry is doing well except the aerospace industry, considering tiie forecast for growth in the population of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE users.

• Read and heed the list of suggestions made earlier in this report.

The users know what they need for the short term. Invest some time and effort into "what-if" scenarios to help define the products to be made 5 and 10 years from now.

For the Users

Findings and recommendations for users are as follows:

• Develop a technology enrichment plan that systematically removes old systems from use and replaces them with the best of the best.

The price competition common in this industry borders on insanity.

The resulting marginal profit levels may not allow the vendors to make investment for R&D, high-quality product releases, and highquality services. But teike advantage of the situation. Buy the latest technology at bargain prices, realizing that almost any vendor in this business can fall on its sword.

CGAM-MEC-UW-9201 ©1992 Dalaquest Incorporated October 26.1992

5-2 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

• Be aggressive in using this technology. Get your experts with their hands in their pockets involved. In this case, the automation of a group effort is exponentially better than the incremental improvement of the individuals. Get all the oars in the water.

• Understand the full cost of ownership. Some vendors are clever in getting in the door with low installation fees and then charging high monthly service fees. Check a full three-year cost of ownership and support cost model. Size the tool for the job.

For the Investors

Findings and recommendations for investors are as follows:

• Find the people who understand this business and have demonstrated an ability to move with it.

• The market needs to invest more than $10,000 for every engineer, designer, and technician on an annual basis for the foreseeable future. Expenditure is below this level and is growing, which will fuel log-term growth in the user base.

• The design, anal3rsis, and manvU^cturing industry is becoming more complex, more diverse, and cross-pollinated with ideas houx other technical applications. Developments in multimedia and virtual reality will have in impact on mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE. Understand what the next-generation products will look like, because they will obsolete any product over five years old.

• Education and training are perhaps the biggest stumbling blocks to the full potential of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE. The users need to break through the mental mush of focusing on how they get specific commands to work or how to get the plotter to nm. Think about what is possible from a personal value-added scenario. Users need tools that help them do tomorrow's job better. This may sound like the better mouse trap story, but a company such as

Parametric Technology, with an 80 percent annual growth rate, makes the point. Find the next Parametric.

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest IncoipoialBd CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Appendix A

Survey Questionnaire ^ ^ . ^ - ^ . - . ^ ^ _ ^ . . ^ - .

General Information

HeUo, this is from Dataquest Incorporated. We're conducting a study on the use of Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software and your input would be most important to us.

Would you be the person who is familiar with the design or manufacturing engineering tasks being performed with the Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software that has been selected to be used at your location?

If not, is there someone else at your location I might speak to who is familiar with the tools that are being used?

Do you have a few minutes to answer some questions? (if needed: this is not a sales call and your

answers xvill be kept completely confidential.)

CCAM-MEC-UW-^aol ©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October 26.1992

A ^ CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Q.l Which industry best describes your company's business? (ENTER ALL THAT APPLY)

Aerospace •

Automotive •

Computers and Peripherals •

Service\Design\Consulting Q

Electrical and Electronic Machinery •

Fabricated Metal Parts •

Industrial Machinery Q

Manufacturing Other (specify):

Q.2 Which job title best describes yom position? (ONE RESPONSE)

Quef Engineer •

Department Manager Q

System Manager •

Group Engineer •

Project Engineer •

Design Engineer •

Specialist/Analyst •

Designer „...„ •

Technician •

Draftsmen •

Detailer •

-' Other (specify):

Q.3 Of the following, which department most closely describes the one in which you work?

(ONE RESPONSE)

Design/Computing Service Group •

R&D, New Product Development •

Product Engineering •

Manufacturing Engineering •

Quality Control •

Plant Operations •

Other (specify):

Q.4 How long, in years, have you been using Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software?

Q.5 How many different major Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software products have you learned to use? Of these, how many are you currently using on a regular basis? How many new major products do you think you will learn in the next two years?

Total learned to use

Total currently use

Total NEW in two years

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest Incoipoiated CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Survey Questionnaire A-3

Q.6 How many different computer systems do you use on a regular basis?

At work

At home.

Q.7 How many hours per week do you typically spend using any CAD/CAM/CAE tool and how many hours per week do you typically spend doing other work related tasks such as meetings, writing reports, doing lab tests, and administration?

CAD/CAM/CAE (hrs. per week)

Other tasks (hrs. per week)

Total hours

Q.8 How^ many new product designs do you work on each year?

Q.9 How many product enhancements and revisions do you work on each year?_

Q.IO Do you believe that the designs of today are more or less complex than the designs two years ago? (ONE RESPONSE)

Much more complex Q

Somewhat more complex •

About the same Q

A bit less complex •

A lot less complex Q

Don't know/refusal •

-Q.lOa Whaf s the cause/reason for that?

Q.ll Does your design activity now require more or less analysis than two years ago to insure high-quality designs? (ONE RESPONSE)

A lot more anal3rsis ..._..„».......,.....,..•

Somewhat more analysis •

About the same •

A bit less analysis Q

A lot less analysis Q

Don't know/refusal Q

Q.lla Whaf s the reason for that?

Q.12 Do you believe that your U.S.-based competition is more effective in using Mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE tools than your company? (using software to improve quality/reliability, etc.)

Yes (why?)

N o (why?)

Don't know/refusal •

CGAM-MEC-UW-4201 ©1992 Dataquest Inconxxated October 26,1992

A ^ CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Q.13 Do you believe that yoiu- European-based competition is more effective in using

Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools than your company?

Yes (why?)

N o (why?)

Don't know/refusaL

N o European-based competition •

Q.14 Do you believe that your Japan-based competition is more effective in using Mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE tools than your company?

Yes (why?)

N o (why?)

Don't know/refusaL

N o Japan-based competition •

Q.15 Do you perfonn any of the following tasks? (ENTER ALL THAT APPLY)

Product conceptual design

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on product conceptual design?

What percent of those hoiu-s are spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hours using CAD/CAM/CAE tools for product conceptual design are spent doing (FILL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Indiistrial design

Styling

Other (specify):

Don't know/refusal

Product detail or functional design

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on product detail/functional d e s i g n ? _ _

What percent of those hours are spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hours using CAD/CAM/CAE tools for product detail or functional design are spent doing (HLL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Component design

Assembly verification^

Linkage design

Other (specify):

Don't know/refusaL

Control System Design

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on Control System design?.

What percent of those hours are spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hours using CAD/CAM/CAE tools for control system design are spent doing (FILL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Electromechanical design

Mechatronics

Other (specify):

Don't know/refusal

October 26,1992 ©1992 Daiaquest Incoiporated CCAM-MEC-UW-4201

Survey Questionnaire A-5

Analysis (using software)

Overall, how niany hours per week are spent on Analysis (using software).

What percent of those hours are spent using C A D / C A M / C A E tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hours using CAD/CAM/CAE tools for analysis

(using software) are spent doing (FILL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Mass properties

Structural

ThennaL

Other (specify):.

Don't know/refusaL

Analysis (using physical testing)

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on Analysis (using physical testing)?

What percent of those hours are spent using C A D / C A M / C A E tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hotirs using CAD/CAM/CAE tools for analysis

(using physical testing) are spent doing (FILL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Vibration

ThermaL

Stress

Other (specify):

Don't know/refusaL

Drafting or Documentation

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on Drafting or Doctunentation?.

What percent of those hours are spent using C A D / C A M / C A E tools?

What percent of those C A D / C A M hours using C A D / C A M / C A E tools for drafting or documentation are spent doing (FILL I N % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Detail drafting

Schematics

Technical illustration

Other (specify):

Don't know/refusaL

Product Manufacturing

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on Product Manufacturing?.

What percent of those hours are spent using C A D / C A M / C A E tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hours using C A D / C A M / C A E tools for product manufacturing are spent doing (FILL I N % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Tool design ,

Fixture design

Other (specify):

Don't know/refusal

CCAM-MEC-UW-gzol ©1992 Dataquest IncoFpoiated October 26,1992

A-6 CAD/CAIWCAE—Mechanical Applicattons

Process Simulation

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on Process Simulation?.

What percent of those hours are spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hours using CAD/CAM/CAE tools for process simulation are spent doing (FILL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

NC tool path generation

Process planning

Other (specify):.

Don't know/refusaL

Manufacturing Resource Planning

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on Manu&cturing Resource Planning?.

What percent of those hours are spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools?

What percent of those CAD/CAM hours using CAD/CAM/CAE tools for manufacturing resource planning are spent doing (FILL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Materials

Equipment

Scheduling

Other (specify):

Don't know/refusaL

Other—with CAD/CAM/CAE (specify):.

Overall, how many hours per week are spent on Other (with CAD/CAM/CAE)?.

What percent of those hours are spent using CAD/CAM/CAE tools?

Q.16 Do you perform any system support activities? (IF THE ANSWER IS "Yes" ASK THE

FOLLOWING QUESTION)

Q.16a Of the following, which system support activities do you perform and for how many hours per week?

Tiraining

Product Data Management

Application Software Development.

Other support activity

Q.17 What other computer-related applications are you performing and how many hours per week do you perform them?

Spreadsheets

Wordprocessing.

Other business applications—^What kind?_

Other technical applications—^What kind?.

None

October 26,1992 ©1992 Dataquest IncoipofalBd CCAM-MEOUW-9201

Survey Questionnaire A-7

Q.18 Who are the manufacturers of the computers that you use regularly and what platform(s) do you use?

Surveyor use checkmark

Platforms Used

Technical

Manufacturers Used PC Workstations Server Host

Apollo

Apple

Compaq

Control Data

DeU

Digital

Fujitsu

Hewlett-Packard

Hitachi

IBM

IBM Clone

Intergraph

Prime/Computervision

NEC

Nihon Unisys

SUicon Graphics

Sony

Sun

Tektronix

Unisys

Other (specify)

CGAM-MEO-UW-^201 ©1992 Dabquest Incorporated October 26,1992

A-8

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Q.19 Which software products are you using or which software products would you recommend?

Manufacturers

Used Regularly Daily Weekly

Monthly

Adra Sj^tems

Aries Technology

Ashlar

Autodesk

Autotrol Technology

CADKEY

CADSI

Cimlinc

Computervision CADDS

Computervision Calma

EDS- Unigraphics

Generic Software

Gerber Systems

Hewlett Packard ME

1 2

3

1 2

3

I 2 3

I 2 3

L 2 3

I 2 3

I 2

3

I 2

3

I 2 3

I 2

3

3

3

L 2

[ 2

3

2

3

3

Intergraph

MacNeal-Schwendler

Matra Datavision

Mechanical Djnciamics

Parametric Technology

PDA Engineering

Schlumberger

Swanson Analysis

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

DK = Don't know

Quarterly

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

Would

Recommend

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

DK

October 26.1992 ©1992 Data quest IncwporalBd CCAM-MEC-UW-fl201

Survey Questionnaire A-9

Q.20 Which one of these products do you use most often?,

Q.21 What are a few suggestions for this vendor that would significantly improve the product:

Your productivity?;

Your departments productivity?:.

Any overall suggestions?:

Q.22 Is data conversion between users of different software a serious problem in your company?

Which vendor is causing the most trouble?

In your opinion, who is the best?

SITE RELATED QUESTIONS:

Q.23 What was the total ntimber of employees at this business location in 1990, what is the current (1992) number, and what do you anticipate two years from now (1994)?

1990

Current

1994

Q.24 What was the total number of technical professionals at this business location in 1990, what is the current niunber, and what do you anticipate two years from now (1994)?

1990

C\irrent_

1994

Q.25 What was the total number of trained CAD/CAM/CAE users at this business location in 1990, what is the current num.ber, and what do you anticipate two years from now^

(1994)?

1990

Current.

1994

Q.25a What percent of yoxu- current CAD/CAM/CAE users are full-time users (6+ hrs./day)?

Q.26a What are the total number of CAD/CAM/CAE seats at your site?_

Q.26b What percent of those seats are (FILL IN % - MUST EQUAL 100%):

Personal computers

Workstations

Terminals on a mainframe-

CCAM-MEC-UW-9201 ©1992 Dataquest InconxHated October 26,1992

A-10 CADyCAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Q.26c What percent of your personal computers are networked?.

Q.26d What percent of your workstations are networked?

Q.27 Is the OVERALL budget for CAD/CAM/CAE software higher, Iowa-, or about the same as last year? (FILL IN PERCENTS)

Higher

Lower

The same

Don't know/refusal •

Q.28 Is the OVERALL budget for CAD/CAM/CAE hardware higher, lower, or about the same as last year? (FILL IN PERCENTS)

Higher

Lower

The same

Don't know/refusal •

October 26.1992 ©1992 Dataquest IncoporaiBd CCAM-MEC-UW-9201

Dataquesf

M a company of

The Dun& Biadstreet Corporation

Dataquest Incorporated

1290 Ridder Park Drive

San Jose, California 95131-2398

United States

Phone: 01-408437-8000

Facsimile: 01-408-437-0292

Dataquest Incorporated

Dataquest/Ledgeway

The Corporate Center

550 Cochituate Road

Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-9324

United States

Phone: 01-508-370-5555

Facsimile: 01-508-370-6262

Dataquest Europe Limited

Roussel House Broadwater Park

Denham, Near Uxbridge

Middlesex UB9 5HP

England

Phone: 44-895-835050

Facsimile: 44-895-835260/1

Dataquest Japan Limited

Shinkawa Sanko Building

1-3-17 Shinkawa Chuo-ku

Tokyo 104

Japan

Phone:81-3-5566-0411

Facsimile: 81-3-5566-0425

Offices in

Costa Mesa, Munich,

Paris, and Seoul

Representative Agencies in

Bangkok, Hong Kong,

Kronberg, North Sydney,

Singapore, and Taipei

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated

0013842

C C I S - 1 2 0 1 2 9 5 Bt 1

Loi-=> P e t e r s e n .

AdHiinstr.ative A s s i s t a n t ! ' LL.lb

299-1256

Internal Distribution

Mechanical Applications

Forecast Update

October 26, 1992

DataQuest

CAO/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

CCAM-MEG-M^9203

U k mil

Dal taq e:

[ue

Market Statistics

Mechanical Applications

Forecast Update

October 26, 1992

Source:

Dataquest

Market Statistics

Dataoyest®

GAD/CANI/CAE

CCAM-MEC-MS-9203

File behind the Market Statistics tab inside the binder labeled CAD/CASA/CAE—Mechanical

AfipliccUions.

i

Published by Dataquest Incorporated

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by knowledgeable individuals in the subject industry, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights resented. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmitted, in any form or by any means—mechanical, electronic, photocopying, duplicating, microfilming, videotape, or otherwise—without the prior p>ermission of the publisher.

© 1992 Dataquest Incorporated

October 1992

0013929

i

Mechanical Applications Forecast Update

Table o f C o n t e n t s

Page

Introduction 1

Forecast Assumptions 2

Worldwide Forecast Drivers 2

North American Forecast Drivers 4

European Forecast Drivers 4

Asian Forecast Drivers 6

Applications 6

Mechanical 6

AEC 9

GIS/Mapping 10

Electronic Design Automation 10

Notes on Forecast 11

Forecast Methodology 11

Segmentation 16

Definitions 16

Figure Page

1 History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market:

Hardware, Software, and Services 3

2 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by Region 5

3 History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by Application 3

4 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Revised Platform Distribution 12

5 Dataquest's Building Blocks for CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market Forecasting I3

6 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market Forecasting Model 14

7 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Installed Base 15

Table Page

1 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by Region 1

2 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by Application 7

3 Worldwide All Platforms 19

4 Worldwide Technical Workstation 20

5 Worldwide Host-Dependent 21

6 Worldwide Server 22

7 Worldwide Personal Computer 23

Note: All tables show estimated data.

I

Table Page

8 North America All Platforms 24

9 North America Technical Workstation 25

10 North America Host-Dependent 26

11 North America Server 27

12 North America Personal Computer 28

13 Europe All Platforms 29

14 Europe Technical Workstation OQ

15 Europe Host-Dependent aj

16 Europe Server 52

17 Europe Personal Computer aa

18 Asia All Platforms 2^

19 Asia Technical Workstation «

20 Asia Host-Dependent ag

21 Asia Server ay

22 Asia Personal Computer ag

23 Rest of World All Platforms 39

24 Rest of World Technical Workstation 40

25 Rest of World Host-Dependent 42

26 Rest of World Server 42

27 Rest of World Personal Computer 4a

Note: All tables show estimated data.

Mechanical Applications

Forecast Update

Introduction

Proving no more immune to the current economic enviromnent than the economy as a whole, the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market turned in a relatively sluggish performance during the first half of 1992—continuing the trend of

1991. Financial results comparing first-half 1992 results for a select group of publicly held

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS companies showed flat-tonegative growth results. As a result of this and other factors, the updated compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS total factory revenue during the forecast period, 1991 to 1996, has been lowered to

7 percent from our previous forecast of more than 9 percent last spring. Table 1 shows the updated forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market by region.

This forecast update is based on the CAD/

CAM/CAE/GIS group's recently updated market information. (The 1991 market totals will match in both the market share tables and forecast tables.) Any changes in market conditions have also been incorporated into this updated forecast. The following analysis outlines the reasons supporting this CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS market forecast.

This document contains Dataquest's detailed forecast information on the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS industry. Included in this document are the following:

• Five-year historical data

• Five-year forecast data

Table 1

CAP/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by Region

1992

1991

Worldwide

Revenue 14,850

Systems

Seats

North America

Revenue

Systems

Seats

Europe

Revenue

Systems

Seats

Asia

589,615

619,932

5,027

240,985

252,860

5,486

208,812

219,677

Revenue

Systems

Seats

Rest of World

4,039

124,271

130,964

Revenue

Systems

298

15,547

Seats

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

16,430

15,303

650,470

674,800

5,141

265,850

275,470

5,689

229,300

238,080

4,131

135,870

141,020

343

19.450

20,230

1993

16,311

729,670

750,780

5,415

290,470

298,720

6,122

261,950

269,800

4,370

152,540

156,790

404

24,710

25,470

1994

17,740

810,890

829,200

5,834

315,390

322,610

6,666

294,250

301.100

4,768

170,120

173,630

472

31.130

31,850

7,325

320,240

326,300

5.219

185,890

188.830

553

38,310

38,950

1995

19,411

881,380

897,430

6,313

336,940

343.350

1996

21,050

945,880

960,090

6,803

358,450

364.230

7,929

340,700

346,100

5,673

200,850

203,330

645

45.880

46.420

CAGR (%)

1991-1996

7.2

9.9

9.1

6.2

8.3

7.6

7.6

10.3

9.5

7.0

10.1

9.2

16.7

24.2

23.1

More detailed data on this marked may be requested through our client inquiry service.

Forecast Assumptions

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Following are the main forces, worldwide and by region, driving the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS forecast.

World-wide Forecast Drivers

The worldwide CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market will maintain consistent, steady growth during the next five years. Figure 1 shows the forecast change in mix among hardware, software, and services.

The following are the main forces driving the

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS worldwide forecast:

• Globalization of world markets is driving economic restructuring for the major regions—the United States, the European

Community (EC) and Japan—^to a degree unprecedented since the 1930s. Growth will be limited in the short term as CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS buyers assess market conditions.

There is a sense of cautious optimism that the world economy will gradually improve, rather than get worse, beginning in mid-1993.

• CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS systems will continue to give buyers a competitive edge. As time-tomarket requirements shrink, demand for design automation tools wUl continue to increase.

• The recent currency fluctuations, specifically the sharp decline of the U.S. dollar in relation to many European currencies and the

Japanese yen, will offset sluggish economic growth for multinational corporations, particularly those with a high percentage of costs denominated in dollars. While many companies are hedging their profits to limit the effects of the currency fluctuations, some are utilizing the changes in exchange rates to reprice their products. In the current period of a rapidly declining dollar, U.S.based multinationals may lower overseas prices to stimulate demand. This would be particularly tme of the PC companies, which are striving to rapidly increase unit volume gains. For companies that have much of their cost structure denominated in dollars, the impact of currency will be highly leveraged. In the case of more mature companies that for the most part have established major manufacturing facilities overseas and therefore much of their cost structures are in foreign currency, the leverage from the change in the dollar is much less. Recent currency-rate changes may drive CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS growth internationally in the short term; long-term effects could be highly variable.

• Market demand will be limited by vendors' inability to fully meet demand for highly integrated software systems. We believe that the industry business model is evolving to a structure where large software vendors will function increasingly as application software integrators. Much of the innovation in new niche products can be expected to come from tfie small software vendors, who will be dependent on their OEM relationships with major software vendors. These alliances will ultimately reduce the total cost of software development, thus strengthening industry profitability. However, design problems being addressed will become increasingly complex, and meaningful success in integrating software will lag market demand.

• Increased flexibility in software portability will improve market stability during the next few years. Because the majority of software vendors have ported their products to multiple platforms, platform choice has become less of an issue. Software vendors are now poised to leverage their portability as new, faster hardware platforms become available.

Hiose software vendors that do so will have a selling advantage.

• The "late majority" buyers for CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS will be coming to market during the next five years, driving additional growth. However, conservative buyers "wQi favor market leaders. These conservative buyers are the "late majority" buyers who do not buy until the weight of the majority seems to legitimize the product. For vendors, therefore, the value of having high market share as -well as financial clout will increase.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Reproduction Prohibited

I

Is)

•8

I

I

I

Figure 1

History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market: Hardware, Software, and Services

Percentage

100-

9 0 -

•13.8% ll.(^'^

VtAf m.

8 0 -

13.2%

7 0 ft*** ffif'JH'

wW

,16.1%

6 0 -

5 0 -

4 0 -

3 0 -

I

2 0 -

1 0 -

Note: Columns may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

D

^

North American Forecast Drivers

The North American market was flat in 1991 at $5.0 billion and is forecast to grow at a

6 percent CAGR through 1996 (see Figure 2).

The main factors driving the North American forecast are the following:

• According to The IXm & Bradstreet Corporation's latest monthly survey of 1,000 manufacturers' nationwide, manufacturers modest expectations for improvements in operating conditions were essentially unchanged, despite reports of improved conditions in the past few months.

However, the one bright spot in the recent survey is that manufacturers' expectations to increase capacity in the next three months rose sharply. This bodes well for increases in capital spending. With the cost of capital so low, many companies are seeking to invest in systems and equipment that boost productivity. Market growth will increase as manufacturers invest in CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS systems.

• Market growth will be limited for the second half of 1992 and most of 1993 as businesses wait for the outcome of the

November election and the implementation of new fiscal policies. Fiscal policy proposals include restoring investment tax credits, accelerating depreciation for many investments, and reducing capital gains. The budget deficit issue will also have to be addressed. Most likely, after the elections, some form of tax increases and/or spending cuts will occur. A Republican win would favor defense spending, which would help

EDA and mechanical sales; a Democratic win would favor infrastructure spending

(such as roads and bridges), wMch is more likely to benefit sales to AEC and CIS applications. Businesses will postpone purchases until they have a better indication of what the new policies will be and how they will affect their investment decisions.

• Market growth wHl be reduced because of decreasing average selling prices (ASPs). The

United States is a large market with more developed distribution channels and larger order sizes than in other regions. Streamlined distribution channels leave fewer places for profit to hide; therefore, ASPs have declined more sharply. In contrast,

Europe is the sum of many smaller country markets, each with its own customs and

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Appllcadons requirements. Because of these special requirements, ASPs have not been as pressured to decline in European markets; therefore, North American unit shipments will continue to grow significandy, while revenue will grow at a slower rate because of strong price competition.

• Market growth will be limited because of lower defense spending. Spending cuts for the defense budget of 25 to 30 percent during the next five years are being proposed by the U.S. administration. In the United

States, both Republicans and Democrats are seeking to balance defense spending cuts against the large forecast loss of jobs that will occur when such reductions are incurred. Most likely, the U.S. Department of

Defense will encourage continued growth in

R&D spending, while severely limiting the number of programs that would ultimately make the transition to production. CAD companies heavily dependent on direct or indirect government defense spending contracts increasingly will have limited growth opportunities.

European Forecast Drivers

The European market grew 4 percent in 1991 to $5.5 billion and will reach $7.9 billion by

1996. This market is forecast to have an

8 percent CAGR for revenue through 1996.

The main issues driving the European forecast include the following:

• Growth will steadily increase in Eastern

Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union as an export market has complicated the difficult situation already facing other Central and Eastern European countries as they make the transition to market economies and establish new international trading arrangements. Poland, Hungary, and more recentiy Czechoslovakia have made impressive progress in shifting exports to other markets. In all these countries, prices have been set free and inflation seems to be coming under control. The initial groundwork toward adopting market economies has been laid. GDP/GNP growth is forecast to turn positive during the 1992 to 1993 period and reach strength toward 1994. As these countries' economies become market economies, CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS opportunities will increase, also.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October-Reproduction Prohibited

Figure 2

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by Region

I

I

I

ts)

D

I

s

Q.

Thousands of Units

^^^^ 1992 19I3 11 "H-r

'''' 1994 1995 ^gT

^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^3 1994 1995 ^^2

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Europe

• Growth will be relatively unaffected by the advent of the EC. The effects of 1992 will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Growth is expected for European vendors as they expand into other European markets. To date, many European vendors have competed often only in their country of origin.

During the next forecast period, European vendors increasingly will expand their operations to become more competitive across the European community. Furthermore,

German companies and German subsidiaries of international companies increasingly are expanding into Eastern European countries.

Asian Forecast Drivers

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical AppUcadons

The Asian market grew 4 percent in 1991 to

$4.0 billion and its forecast CAGR for revenue is 7 percent through 1996. The main issues driving the Asian forecast are as follows:

• In Japan, unexpected sluggishness has resulted from an abrupt end to the long boom of private fixed investment. This has followed a marked erosion of business confidence, partly associated with a continued unwinding of speculative activities in asset markets. CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market growth will be limited in the short term as Japan recoups from these recent changes.

• Shifting labor costs will affect growth among countries. Labor costs in Japan, Korea,

Taiwan, and Hong Kong will continue to increase, which will result in growing demand for productivity tools including

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS. Industries with bluecollar workers will transfer operations to

Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,

Thailand, and the Republic of China; Japan,

Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong will grow based on the work of the white-collar workers. Remote design and manufacturing sites also will encourage the growth of electronic-data sharing and thus CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS across Asia.

• Growth is less likely in some Asian countries because of the lack of stringent intellectual property rights. Most Asian countries, with the exception of Japan, have few laws governing intellectual property rights.

Many companies will be hesitant to invest or set up operations in a region where they will receive no design protection.

Applications

Table 2 shows ± e CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market software revenue forecast by application, as well as the forecast change in mix between bundled and unbundled software revenue.

Figure 3 shows the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS forecast by application.

M e c h a n i c a l

The mechanical software market grew 7 percent in 1991, and its forecast CAGR for the

1991 to 1996 period is 5 percent. The main issues driving the mechanical forecast are as follows:

• Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE indispensability is increasing. Market pressures to produce higher-quality, ergonomically correct designs with shorter production cycles is making mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE a necessity in all manufacturing industries. Several recent enduser surveys indicate the levels of drafting, conceptual, and detail design ^^ork done with mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools have surpassed 90 percent at many sites. The use of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools in various departments also has high-market penetration. As the complexity of the design increases, the need to share information increases, and the benefits of automation improve dramatically. This results in an increase in the level of indispensability.

• Integration is driving significant savings. A hidden benefit when all potential users at a site have full access to mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE comes from the elimination of redundant processes or systems. Unfortunately, this is difficult to accomplish in a mechanical design and manufacturing environment because so many people need to have access to some part of the engineering database. It is difficult to even identify everyone, let alone actually set up a system that totally replaces the manual operation; but, it is happening. Slowly, a number of users are building integrated systems that effectively share engineering data between departments and supplier companies. Some vertical markets have taken this to the level of implementing standards for the sharing of data for a whole industry. The German automobile industry is a good example.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Reproduction Prohibited

IV)

•a

a

o i

•9

I

I

Table 2

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by AppUcatlon

Revenue ($M) CAGR (%)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1991-1996

All Applications

Total Software

Bundled Software

Unbundled Software

Mechanical

TMal Software

Bundled Software

Unbundled Software

AEC

Total Software

Bundled Software

Unbundled Software

GIS/Mapping

Total Software

Bundled Software

Unbundled Software

Electronic CAE

Totai Software

Bundled Software

Unbundled Software

IC Layout

Total Software

Bundled Software

Unbundled Software

PCB/Hybrid/MCM

Total Software

Bundled Software

, Unbundled Softwafje

Soucce: Datequejt (October 195^

4,466 4,701 5,104 5,667 6,319 6,946

2,020 2,019 2,103 2,259 2,473 2,683

2,446 2,682 3,001 3,408 3,846 4,263

2,040 2,098 2,202 2,329 2,464 2,574

1,138 1,122 1,139 1,171 1,215 1,247

902 976 1,063 1,158 1,249 1,326

660

307

352

556

276

281

686

131

555

196

32

164

328

136

192

726

334

392

634

311

323

700

104

597

206

27

178

338

121

217

834

380

454

743

358

385

752

95

657

224

26

198

348

105

243

964

443

521

896

426

470

841

90

751

255

25

230

382

105

277

1,104

511

593

1,105

528

577

933

86

847

287

23

264

425

108

317

1,246

579

667

1,315

639

676

1,024

90

934

322

22

300

466

107

360

9.2

5.8

11.7

4.8

1.8

8.0

13.6

13.5

13.6

18.8

18.3

19.2

8.3

-7.2

11.0

10.4

-7.4

12.9

7.3

-4,8

133

P

1991 19

100.0 100

45.2 42

54.8 57

100.0 100

55.8

44.2

53

46

100.0

46.6

53.4

100

46

53

100.0

49.6

50.4

100

49

50

100.0 100

19.1 14

80.9 85

100.0 100

16.3 13

83.7 86

100.0 100

41.5 35

58.5 64

Figure 3

History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market, by Application

Billions of Dollars

3,000 •

2,500'

£.000' I

I

;

T

I

;.

I

1,500

1,000 -

500-

1987 1988

— I r

1989

Mechanical mmmsms AEC

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

1990 1991

GIS/Mapping

. ^ . . . . v ^ . . . ^ . v ^ - ^ - - —

1992 1993 1994

1

ECAE .Nv^^xv- IC Layout A

• The mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market is evolving toward a replacement market. The next five years will see the mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE market evolve toward a replacement market where the new unit sales will be balanced by system retirements. This trend is inevitable. The only remaining question is when. We forecast

1997 or 1998 as the balance point. Considering the plethora of forces at work in emerging technologies, w^orld economics, competitive issues, and software development, this should be considered a r o u ^ estimate.

• Significant changes are occurring for modeling technologies. Two-dimension-only systems are on a steady decline. Three-dimension capability is available for a minimal cost premium. Even if a user has few occasions for a 3-D application, the minimal expense and common availability on all platform types makes a 3-D-based product a reasonable alternative to 2-D-based products.

Only a few recent 2-D-only products have added a significant amount of enhancements for parametric-user input and constraintbased modeling that may keep a significant market presence. This discussion does not intend to minimize the value or necessity of providing high-performance production drafting capabilities. The general message, ho^vever, is that the vendor revenue from this application is on the decline.

• Solid modeling has been promised for many years as the panacea for the design environment. More complete data structure with improvements in performance is rapidly building a strong following. Add-on applications that use part or assembly information are still less than optimal, but progress is being made in integration between the model and analysis applications, between the model and documentation, and further into manufacturing applications. Ease of use, performance, and the ability to accurately model any object independent of shape or manufacturing process continue to challenge all solid-modeling products.

• Kno\\^ledge-based engineering (KBE) is a productivity multiplier for any mechanical

CAD/CAM/CAE system. The niles developed can drive automated applications, capture design intent, and automate sharing of data between applications and departments.

Mechanical Applications Forecast Update

Every production operation has task and procedural structures that can be automated and optimized with KBE. The needed improvements in ease of use, cost of implementation, and availability of interface to a variety of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software products will improve with time.

Two years ago, our first in-depth look at

KBE made some wild predictions. We expected the market to grow by a factor of four in the next two years. A preliminary analysis now shows that this pre<iction was a bit optimistic. Doubled growth in two years would be closer to the tmth. The general market softness has had an impact, but the underlying market dynamics are unchanged. In fact, the applications marked for early implementation are proving to be more successful than previously imagined.

• The promise of virtual reality (VR) and multimedia in an engineering environment is real. The practical applications are many.

Training is a prime target for these technologies both as an aid to the proper use of other computer tools and in job content to make better engineers and designers. The state of the art in VR has reached the experimentation level of a new highperformance visual experience. The next phase will add the ability to do more than just fly around in your data. Dynamic editing will be required. Imagine doing cable routing by grabbing the end of a wire and flying through the engine compartment of your car.

AEC

The AEC CAD software market, which is forecast to grow at a 14 percent CAGR for 1991 to 1996, will enjoy healthy underlying demand during the forecast period because of the following factors:

• We anticipate increased demand for electronic design data from designers' clients and partners in the building process—from the U.S. government to the small commercial developer. Designers in the AEC industry are finding themselves in markets that are more regionally and globally competitive, markets that favor partnering across design disciplines. The designer with no

CAD capability increasingly will be dropped from consideration as a partner or supplier.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Reproduction Prohibited

10

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

• We anticipate increased demand from designers' clients and partners to reduce uncertainty and risk; that is, to build what the client had in mind, on time, and within budget. Meeting this challenge will require electronic design data throughout the design/construction process.

These two factors will continue to stimulate growth in the AEC CAD market during the next five years, even in a recession. Tempering this growth will be the following fundamental factors that discourage purchases:

• Despite significant consolidation and partnering among users, the design and construction process will still often be divided among several companies representing different aspects of the design process.

Because automation systems are considerably harder to implement across companies than within companies, the pencil as a design tool will not be eliminated during the next five years.

• Because AEC is built primarily on a "one design/one build" model, proven economic benefits of CAD use wiQ remain smaller than in mechanical and electronic applications, where automated quantity manufacture can more readily leverage improved designs.

This fact both discourages CAD use and drives users to focus on electronic drafting.

Drafting software is nearly a commodity typically sold on PCs and commands a relatively low price.

• Several new technologies will drive growth in the GIS market. Currendy, advances in global positioning systems (GPS) and aerial photography are making it possible to create GIS systems significantly more accurate than existing paper maps, giving experienced users some compelling reasons to reinvest. Increasingly portable computers, multimedia, and better compression of satellite imagery will create opportunities to develop more useful GIS.

• Opportunities for growth exist in new applications, industries, and regions. During the forecast period, slow sales in one area will generally be balanced with higher sales in another.

Two factors seriously threaten the long-term expansion of the GIS market, as follows:

• The uncertain (but certainly high) cost of creating a working GIS.

• The impact of applications stuck in the pilot phase, both in terms of halted pvirchases at the troubled project, and the negative publicity these projects create.

GIS/Mapping

GIS software revenue is forecast to grow at a robust 19 percent CAGR during the next five years, priniarily because of the following factors:

• Bread-and-butter prospects in government and utilities are diarged with maintaining information on land and assets in perpetuity. Many of these prospective buyers are still using paper maps, which will degrade. This creates a certain inevitability to moving from paper maps to computer maps—the first step to building a GIS.

• Inexpensive spatial data—^both public and private—are accumulating, and their reuse will help dissolve a traditional obstacle to growth in GIS.

Electronic Design Automation

The electronic design automation (EDA) industry produced a laclduster 1 percent growth in total factory revenue in 1991 and a 5 percent growth in software revenue. This has as much to do with fundamental changes occurring within the top suppliers as with the following economic factors:

• Produa transitions of top EDA suppliers have caused a significant stagnation in the purchase of new EDA tools. Buyers are prolonging their evaluation process. This problem is further exacerbated by the global recession and political and economic iiifrastructure changes in North America and

Europe.

• The final vestiges of platform dependence are being removed from the EDA industry.

This has a had a short-term negative effect on the market, but should improve the profitability of EDA tool suppliers.

Fueling the fixes of growth in the coming years will be the ever-increasing demands to shorten the design cycles of electronic systems.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Reproduction Prohibited

Mechanical AppUcatloas Forecast Update

EDA tools will continue to be purchased in hopes to gain competitive advantages. Application markets that will contribute to this growth include the following:

• Advanced analysis tools for IC and PCB designs. Increasing dock frequencies will require tighter design tolerances and sophisticated analysis tools will be needed to ensure proper operation.

• Architectural-level tools to improve designer productivity. While top-down design is now being adopted by the majority of electronic designers, architectural-level tools will emerge during the next two to five years.

• Emerging higher service content. A higher service content will emerge in the EDA industry as large suppliers shift their business models toward solutions and selling integration services.

Notes on Forecast

For the 1991 publishing cycle, Dataquest's

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS group added server as a platform. The platform categories now include technical workstation, host-dependent, server, and personal computer. Revenue formerly classified in technical workstations, host-dependent, or personal computer may now^ be more accurately classified, where appropriate, in the server category. However, because of this reclassification, data and growth rates for the other platform areas were affected. Figure 4 depicts the revised platform distribution.

Forecast Methodology

Fundamental to the way Dataquest conducts its research is an underlying philosophy that says the best data and analyses come from a well-balanced program. This program includes the following: balance between primary and secondary collection techniques; balance between supply-side and demand-side analysis; balance between focused, industry-specific research and coordinated, "big-picture" analysis aided by integration of data from the more than 25 separate high-technology industries

Dataquest covers; and balance between the perspectives of experienced industry

11

professionals and rigorous, disciplined techniques of seasoned market researchers.

Dataquest also analyzes trends in the macroenvironment, which can have major influences on both supply-side and demand-side forecasting. In addition to demographics, analysts look at GNP growth, interest rate fluctuation, currency fluctuation, business expectations, and capital spending plans. In the geopolitical arena, the group looks at trade issues, political stability or lack thereof, tariffs, nontariiff barriers, and such factors as the effect on Europe of the events of 1992. Figure 5 depicts the building blocks for the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS forecast.

Figure 6 is a diagram of the CAD/CAM/CAE/

GIS forecasting model. The overall forecasting process uses a combination of forecasting techniques such as time series and technological modeling. Market estimates and forecasts are derived using the following research techniques:

• "Bonom-up" aggregation—^This method involves adding all relevant vendor contributions to arrive at total market estimates for all historical data.

• Segment forecasting—^For each application segment tracked by the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS group, individual forecasts are derived following the basic information model defined previously. Specifically, each design phase covered within each application is segmented by channel, produa, region, and platform. In this way, each application segment incorporates its own set of unique assumptions.

• Demand-based analysis—Market growth is tracked and forecast in terms of the present and anticipated demand of current and future users. This requires the development of a total available market (TAM) model and a satisfied available market figure to accurately assess the levels of penetration.

Installed base is also evaluated. Rates of product retirement are primarily based on input from end users in our ongoing survey programs. Figure 7 shows the CAD/CAM/

CAE/GIS installed base by platform. In addition, Dataquest analysts factor in the acceptance or ability for users to consume new^ technology.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Reproduction Prohibited

hO

Figure 4

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Revised Platform Distribution

Billions of Dollars

600,000 •

500.000 •

400,000 -|-

o

fj

1

g"

300,000

200.000 "T^""^''""^"" "—

I

I

100,000-f-^-^

'>A>.

1987

- M -

1988

1969

1990

1992

1993 1994

K™««M

New PC —*— New Technical Woritstation .N.>.>f,N'vv New Host-Dependent

Old Technical Workstation mn^Dm Old Host-Dependent

Old PC

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Figure 5

Dataquest's Building Blocks for CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market Forecasting

WitsfGomin*'^

to

O

•i

1

I

4?

I a

§

I

I

Dataquest Insists and Expert Opini

1^1

Environmental Trends

Technological Developments

Vendorreupply-Side Data

User/Demand-Side Data

1992

1993

1994

1995

What Comes Out. . . Marl<et sizing, Five-Year Market Forecasts

Source: Dataquast (October 1992)

Figure 6

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Market Forecasting Model tvj

8

a

1

I

I

I

Technology Assessments

• Technology Developments

• Standards Development

• Price/Performance Development

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

Vendor/Supply-Side Dat

• Product Shipment Projec

• Factory Revenue

• Strategic Alliances

•^ Marketing Strategies

Environmental Analysis

• Economic Forecasts

• Industry/Competitive Clim

»

Figure 7

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Installed Base

Percentage

100-

goso-

§

I f i

I

i

I

1 , , . . r . • • • . • , • , • • • • • • . • , • • , • r . . , . | . . . r . • , • • • , . . , • • • • . • , j .

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Note: Segments may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

0

16

CAD/CAWCA&—Mechanical Applications

Capacity-based analysis—^This method involves identifying future shipment volume constraints. These constraints, or "ceilings," can be the result of component availability, manufacturing capacity, or distribution capacity. In any case, capacity limitations are capable of keeping shipments below the demand level.

Segmentation

Dataquest defines CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS as systems used in the mechanical; architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC); GIS/ mapping; and EDA application areas. The

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market is defined according to the following segmentation scheme:

• CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS

- Mechanical

- AEC

- GIS/Mapping

- EDA

. Electronic CAE

• IC Layout

. PCB/Hybrid/MCM

In addition, more detailed information by subapplication is available and usually published in Dataquest Perspectives.

Definitions

This section lists the definitions that are specific to this document.

Application definitions are as follows:

• Mechanical—^This segment refers to computer-aided tools used to design, analyze, document, and manufacture discrete parts, components, and assemblies.

• Architecture, Engineering, and Construction

(AEC)—^This segment covers the use of computer-aided tools by architects, contractors, plant engineers, civil engineers, and other people associated with these disciplines to aid in designing and managing buildings, industrial plants, ships, and other types of nondiscrete entities.

• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)/

Mapping—This is a computer-based technology, composed of hardware, software, and data used to capture, edit, display, and analyze spatial (tagged by location) information.

• Electronic Design Automation (EDA)—^This segment covers computer-based tools that are used to automate the process of designing an electronic product including printed circuit boards, ICs, and systems. EDA includes ECAE, IC Layout, and PCB/Hybrid/

MCM, as follows:

- Electronic Computer-Aided Engineering

(CAE)—^These are computer-aided tools used in the engineering or design phase of electronic products (as opposed to the physical layout phase of the product).

Examples of electronic CAE applications are schematic capture and simulation.

- IC Layout—^This is a software application tool that is used to create and validate the physical implementation of an integrated circuit (IC). The IC layout category comprises polygon editors, symbolic editors, placement and routing (gate array, cell, and block), design verification tools (DRC/ERC/logic-to-layout), compilers, and module development tools.

- Printed Circuit Board (PCB)/Hybrid/

Multichip Module (MCM)—This segment covers products that are used to create the placement and routing of the traces and components laid out on a printed circuit board. Also, included in this category are thermal analysis tools.

Regional definitions are as follows:

North America-

Canada

-Includes United States and

• Europe—^Includes the United Kingdom,

Scandinavia, Benelux, France, Germany,

Italy, Spain, and Rest of Europe

• Asia—^Includes Japan, Singapore, Taiwan,

Korea, China, and Hong Kong

• Rest of World—All other countries including

Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, Africa,

Central America, South America, and the

Middle East

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Keproduction Prohibited

Platform definitions are as follows:

• Technical Workstation—A single-user computer that is distinguished from a personal computer by its features and by the user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features include a virtual, multitasking operating system (UNK, VMS, Domain); the computer is designed by the manufacturer to run high-performance graphic applications in a multiuser/multitasking environment.

• Host-Dependent—^A shared logic system in which the rarternal workstations' fijnctions are dependent on a host computer.

• Server—A computer that transparently provides its resources for use by other computer systems. It is a system on a network that provides specific fianctionality to other computer systems: the clients. Functions include file storage, database access, compute capability, and others. Dataquest tracks the following major categories of servers used for CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS applications:

- Compute Servers—^These systems provide capabilities for solving numerical problems

(for example, simulations, statistical calculations, and simultaneous partial differential equations). System features usually include high-speed computational capabilities (for example, vector and parallel processing) and large memories.

- Print Servers—^These systems provide access to printers, specialized printing applications software, and print-spooling resources to a network.

- File Servers—These systems provide mass storage capability to clients on a network.

Services can range from temporary storage of working files to long-term backup and archive systems.

- Database Servers—These systems manage databases as a shared resource to a network. These servers handle such functions as physical data storage, data security, and high-level queries and can access stored information at the record level.

• Personal Computer—A single-user computer that is distinguished from a technical workstation by its features and by the

Mechanical Applications Forecast Update

17

user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features found in technical workstations (such as a virtual operating system, networking, high-performance graphics, multiuser/multitasking capability) are optional rather than integrated by the manufacturer.

Line item definitions are as follows:

• Average selling price (ASP) is defined as the average price of a product, inclusive of any discounts.

• CPU installed base is defined as the total number of CPUs in active, day-to-day use.

• CPU revenue is the portion of revenue derived from a system sale that is related to the value of the CPU. (In the case of technical workstations and personal computers,

CPU revenue contains the terminal revenue.)

• CPU shipment is defined as the number of

CPUs delivered.

• Hardware revenue is defined as the sum of the revenue from the hardware system components: CPU revenue, terminal revenue, and peripherals revenue.

• Installed seats are defined as the total number of seats in active, day-to-day use.

• Peripherals revenue is defined as the value of sdl the peripherals of a turnkey sale.

(Peripherals in this category typically are input and output devices.)

• Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and support of CAD/

CAM/CAE or GIS systems. Service revenue can be calculated in the tables by subtracting hardware and software revenue from total revenue.

• Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of bundled (part of a turnkey system) and unbundled software.

• Terminal revenue is defined as revenue derived from the sale of terminals that are used to graphically create, analyze, or manipulate designs. The term is applicable only to the host-dependent platform, as terminal revenue is contained within CPU revenue for technical workstations and PCs.

• Total factory revenue is defined as the amount of money received by a manufacturer for its goods measured in U.S. dollars.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Reproduction Prohibited

i s CAP/CAM/CAJE—Mechanical AppHcations

Total factory revenue does not include revenue that a company may receive from products that are sold to another company for resale (OEM revenue).

• Unit shipment is defined as the number of products delivered (that is, seats).

i

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated October—Reproduction Prtrfiibiled

i

Table 3

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Worldwide

All Platfornis

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments 134,343 160,237 179,152 226,054 245,500 262,900 280,660 296,890 307,520

B Unit Shipments or Seats 162,320 185,167 202,018 251,070 267,223 280,750 296,520 311,070 320,410

•^ CPU Installed Base 270,012 418,518 568,305 736,572 890,820 1,028,930 1,155,290 1,270,820 1,369,820

^ Installed Seats 348,267 519,024 686,791 871,904 1,035,359 1,175,260 1,299,060 1,409,780 1,502,810

8

I

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP 77.6 86.9 67.9 60.0 52.7 49.4 47.0 45.6 44.7

Hardware-Oniy ASP 15.2 10.2 10.9 9.5 8.9 8.0 7.5 7.1 6.9

9 REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

§• Hardware Revenue 3,544 3,6l2 3,799 4,111 4,003 3,838 3,785 3,777 3,783

I, CPU Revenue 2,208 2,496 2,889 3,231 3,145 3,053 3.023 3.029 3,044

I Temiinal Revenue 847 650 438 361 306 251 229 208 190

I Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey) 489 465 471 518 552 534 533 540 549

I

Bundled 610 735 930 1,114 1,138 1,122 1,140 1,172 1.216

Unbundled 483 6 l l 631 796 902 976 1,063 1,158 1,249

§. ifervice Revenue 734 856 999 l,l62 1,203 1.314 1,424 1,540 1,655

Total Factory Revenue 5.372 5.813 6,359 7,183 7,246 7,250 7,411 7,646 7,902

Increase over Prior Year (%) 24 8 9 13 1 0 2 3 3

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platfonn. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

s

I

I i a

Table 4

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application;

Kegion:

Platfonn:

Mechanical

Worldwide

Technical Workstation

1987 1988 1989

1990

1991 1992 1993

1994

1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

20,336 29,640 48,090 6l,l48 68,799 74,400 81,060

20,336 29,640 48,090 61,148 68,799 74,400 81,060

88,490

88,490

95,650

95,650

36,550 64,986 109,990 164,739 221,396 275,980 327,030 375,570

419,380

36,550 64,986 109,990 164,739 221,396 275,980

327,030 375,570 419,380

CALCULATED AVERAGE SMEUlfpf PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

56,7 56.4 52.5 47.3

46.3

28.7 23.4 21.4 20.7 17.8

44.2

16.5

42.4

15.3

41.1

14.4

40.1

14.0

I

I

KEVENUE DATA (Millions: isf U.S. DoUars)

Hardware Revenue 741 1,056 1,526 1,742 1,790

CPU Revenue 617 852 1,239 1,414 1,435

Terminal Revenue 0 0 0 0

0

Peripheral Revenue p u r n k e y ) 124 204 287 328

356 loftware Revenue 366 557 803 1,049 1,145

Bundled 220 327 528 639 666

Unbundled 146 230 275 410

479

$!Srvice Revenue 198 355 540 625

655

Total Factory Revenue 1,305 1,968 2,870 3,416

3,591

Increase over Prior Year (%) 91 51 46 19

5

1,798

1,443

0

355

1,227

682

545

750

3,775

5

Note; In 1991, server was added as a platfonn. This teclassiflcatlon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms,

Source: E>ataquest (October 1992)

1,828

1,467

0

361

1,336

710

626

844

4,008

6

1,888

1,516

0

373

1,464

749

715

939

4,291

7

1,960

1,573

0

387

1,594

795

798

1,036

4,589

7

@

»-» t\> o

Table 5

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application;

Region;

Platform;

Mechanical

Worldwide

Host-Dependent

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

5,177 5,366 7,702 9,033 6,112 5,460 5,210 4,980 4,87

33,154 30,296 30,568 34,049 27,835 23,180 20,940 19,050 17,66

18,748 23,361 29,766 36,605 39,671 41,210 42,100 42,l60 41,52

97,003 123,867 148,252 171,937 184,210 187,540 185,870 181,130 174,51

a

1

CALCULATED AVERAGE SESJOtNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

358.7 430.1

324.9 265.3

Hardware-Only ASP

1,244.3

368.2

154.7 138.8

232.9

250.3

221.1

228.8

212.2

209.0

204.2

192.3

196.

176.

i

I

I

iVE^fUE DATA CMillions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 2,236

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenge CTurnkey)

Software Revenue

1,087

847

301

Bundled

Unbundled

497

291

206

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

496

3,229

7

1,884

1,067

650

167

528

329

199

467

2,880

-11

1,579

1,019

438

122

433

313

120

403

2,416

-16

1,523

1,046

361

116

513

394

120

469

2,505

4

1,134

738

306

90

419

317

102

378

1,930

-23

940

613

251

76

362

277

84

359

1,660

-14

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platfonn. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

845

549

229

67

330

255

75

340

1,516

-9

239

71

330

1,400

-8

760

492

208

60

310

29

23

6

32

1,31

-

69

45

19

5

tv)

•g

Table 6

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application: Mechanical

Region; Worldwide

Platfonn: Server

1987

1988 1989

1990

1991

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

NA

NA

5,223

5,223

5,223

5,223

1992

6,750

6,750

11,660

11,660

1993

1994

8,230

8,230

19,120

19,120

9,640

9,640

26,700

26,700

1995

10,880

10,880

34,430

34,430

CALCULATED AVERAGE. SKtM^il^papB DATA (Thousands of U.S.

Dollars)

126.0

NA

33.3

119.9

30.3

115.1

27.8

110.6

26.4

106.3

25.7

H

a

! i

REVENUE DAIA (MillioflS; fflf iSiS. IJi^ins)

Hardware Revenue

NA

CPU Revenue

NA

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue CTmritmSf)

0

NA

Software Revenue

NA

Bundled

Unbundled

NA

NA

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

267

233

0

35

88

68

20

100

456

NA

87

25

124

558

22

321

279

0

42

112

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platfonn. This reclassiflcatlon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other ptatfoims.

Source: DaUquest (October 1992)

366

317

0

49

136

106

30

147

650

16

406

352

0

54

158

122

36

169

733

13

437

379

0

58

176

134

42

188

802

9

Table 7

CAD/CAM/CAE/<Ei3K History and Forecast Update

Application:

Region:

Platform;

Medianical

"Worldwide

Personal Computer

1987 1988 1989 1990

1991 1992

1993 1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base loscalled Seats

108,830 125,231 123,360 155,873 165,366 176,290 186,170 193,780 196,120

108,830 125,231 123,360 155,873 165,366 176,420 186,290 193,890 196,220

214,714 330,171 428,548 535,228 624,531 700,070 767,030 826,390 874,480

214,714 330,171 428,548 535,228 624,531 700,070 767,030 826,390 874,480

n

ft

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELLING PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

20.2

Hardware-Only ASP

4.2 4.4 4.8 4.6

15.5

4.2

13.7

3.9

12.4

3.6

11.8

3.4

11.3

3.2

5

9

I

•a

I

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 568

504 CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (TXimkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

0

64

230

99

132

40

838

35

671

577

0

94

260

78

182

33

965

15

693

631

0

63

324

88

236

56

1,073

11

846

771

0

75

348

81

267

68

1,262

18

811

740

0

71

388

86

301

70

1,269

1

Note: In 1991. seiver wa$ added as a platfonn. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platfoims.

Source: Dataquest (October I992)

778

717

0

61

397

76

321

81

1,256

-1

746

690

0

56

400

69

332

92

1,238

-1

722

670

0

52

398

62

337

102

1,222

-1

689

640

0

49

396

55

340

110

1,194

-2

i

•g

3 a i

O n

!

•s

I

I

Table 8

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application: Mechanical

Region: isfotth America

Platform: Ail Platforms

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

69,642

81,494

145,332

184,632

82,180

91,105

220,605

266,764

73,761

81,180

277,947

328,078

81,668

91,137

91,488

99,561

328,113

382,864

371,669

428,113

98,130

104,760

407,660

463,920

103,740

109,580

440,890

495,460

108,840

114,210

473,930

526,590

111,160

116,140

503,400

554,060

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S

Dollars)

Turnkey ASP 91.6 90.7 77.1

74.4

Hardware-Only ASP

12.4 8.7 10.6 9.8

60.7

8.8

56.5

7.8

53.2

7.2

50.9

6.8

49.3

6.5

REVENUE DATA (MiliioCB «*• U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

1.406

888

1,203

892

1,239

963

1,229

956

1,147

898

1,080

863

Tefininal Revenue 337

223

161

161 138 111

Peripheral Revenue CRirnkey) 180 88 115

112 112

107

Software Revenue

372 424 467 571

576

593

Bundled

184 156 196

240 211 206

UnbundJed

Service Revenue

189

312

268

295

271

335

331

352

365

327

387

348

Total Faaory Revenue 2,090

1,922 2,040 2,152 2,051

2,022

Increase over Prior Year (W)

n

-8

6

5 -5

-1

Note; In 1991, server was added as a platfotm. This reclassiflcallon reduced 1991 growtli rates for tlie otiier platforms.

Source; Dataquest (October 1992)

1,050

846

97

106

629

212

417

370

2,048

1

1,036

841

89

106

660

219

441

394

2,090

2

1,015

828

82

105

683

226

457

413

2,111

1

®

h-*

i

I

I

I

Table 9

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Applicatioaj

Region:

Platform;

Mechanical

North America

Technical Workstation

1987 1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

HAHDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1994

1995

8,567

8,567

17,346

17,346

10,140

10,140

26,804

26,804

15,148

15,148

40,391

40,391

16,499

16,499

53,935

53,935

18,520

18,520

67,446

67,446

19,480

19,480

79,540

79,540

21,150

21,150

90,570

90,570

22,750

22,750

101,210

101,210

23,820

23,820

109,940

109,940

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

51.3

28.2

47.2

27.1

51.1

21.4

46.7

19.5

41.8

17.0

39.9

15.4

38.3

14.2

REVENUE DATA (MimoOj of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

283

CPU Revenue

235

0 Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

48

119

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factorjf Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

72

47

78

480

54

323

278

0

45

163

74

89

121

607

26

458

384

0

74

228

115

113

191

876

44

431

361

0

70

306

136

170

183

919

5

415

344

0

71

321

122

199

166

902

-2

399

331

0

68

341

120

221

182

922

2

Note: In 1991, seiver was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

400

333

0

68

374

125

249

198

972

5

37.1

13.4

36.2

12.9

405

337

0

68

405

131

274

212

1,023

5

406

338

0

68

429

136

294

226

• l,06l

4

©

M

K)

B

•§

R

0

s

i

?

1

!?

o.

9

1

1

Tab!e 10

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application;

Region:

Platfonn:

Mechanical

North America

Host-Dependeni

1987 1988 1989

1990

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1,898

13,750

9,352

48,652

1,751

10,676

10,562

56,721

2,480

9,899

12,186

62,317

2,797

12,266

13,739

68,489

1991

1992

1993

1994

1,505

9,577

13,733

70,176

1,330

7,950

13,280

69,540

1,250

7,090

12,850

67,420

1,240

6,600

12,340

64,990

1995

1,240

6,230

11,760

62,420

CALCULATED AVERAGE! SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S.

Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

344.8

1,362.0

360.5

462.7

483.8

149.4

349.0

152.1

297.3

263.6

284.0

240.0

272.3

220.3

261.0

202.0

250.0

184.9

REVENUE DATA CMilliOE^ of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 880

CPU Revenue

Tferminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue Cl\imkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

421

337

121

187

100

87

Serrice Revenue

Total Faaoty Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

223

1,290

-3

613

348

223

42

182

79

103

166

962

-25

515

320

161

33

135

78

57

128

778

-19

516

323

161

33

154

101

53

151

822

6

353

193

138

23

108

67

41

106

567

-31

286

157

111

18

92

59

33

98

476

-16

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platfonn. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

251

137

97

16

83

54

28

93

426

-11

229

125

89

15

78

52

27

92

400

-6

212

116

82

14

78

52

26

91

381

-5

®

S

S"

n

*9

I

I o

I

•g

I

Table H

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application;

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

North America

Server

1987 19S8 1989 1990 1991 1992

1993

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2,252

2,252

2,252

2,252

2,900

2,900

5,020

5,020

3,520

3,520

8,210

8,210

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

DATA (Thousands of U.S.

Dollars)

NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

105.5

32.5

100.8

29.6

96.6

27.2

REVENUE DATA CMUltocft jrf U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue NA

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue CHimkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

95

84

0

11

28

20

9

38

161

NA

113

100

0

13

36

25

11

47

196

21

Note: In 1991, seiver was added as a platform. This reclassiflcation reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source; Dataquest (October 1992)

31

13

54

225

15

127

112

0

15

44

1994

4,040

4,040

11,370

11,370

92.6

25.8

35

15

61

248

10

138

121

0

16

50

1995

4,410

4,410

14,430

14,430

88.7

25.0

37

17

65

263

6

143

126

0

17

54

•g a o

I

I

I

or n

O.

I

Table 12

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Hlstorjr and Forecast Updstc

Application;

Region:

Platfomi;

Mechanical

North America

Personal Computer

1987 1988 1989

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

59,177 70,289 56,133 62,372 69,211 74,420 77,820 80,820 81,680

59,177 70,289 56,133 62,372 69,211 74,420 77,820 80,820 81,680

118,634 183,239 225,370 260,440 288,239 309,810 329,260 349,010 367,270

118,634 183,239 225,370 260,440 288,239 309,810 329,260 349,010 367,270

CALCULATED AVERAGE S E L U N G PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

19.6

Hardware-Only ASP

3.8

3.7 •

4.7 4.5

12.3

4.1

11.1

3.8

10.0

3.5

9.4

3.3

8.9

3.1

REVENUE DATA (Millioraj; of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 242

232 CPU Revenue

Tenninal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (TXirnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

0

11

67

12

55

11

320

34

267

266

0

1

78

2

76

8

353

10

267

259

0

8

104

3

101

16

386

10

282

273

0

9

111

3

108

18

410

6

284

277

0

7

119

2

117

17

420

2

282

275

0

7

124

2

123

21

428

2

Note! In 1991, server was added as a platfomi. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

271

265

0

7

128

2

126

25

424

-1

265

258

0

6

126

2

125

28

419

-1

254

248

0

6

121

1

120

31

406

-3

Is)

Table 13

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS fflstory and Forecast Update

^plication;

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Europe

All Platforms

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1987 1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

37,263

44,951

71,432

91,564

47,214

56,271

115,935

145,082

62,409

72,030

170,909

209,134

77,516

86,470

233,237

278,867

88,616

96,521

296,647

346,995

94,690

101,410

354,810

406,750

100,370

106,580

406,500

458,840

105,370

110,940

451,020

502,390

109,710

114,820

487,960

537,580

i

I

I hiM i

I

CALCULATED AVERAGE SEUUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars]

Turnkey ASP

56.1

72.8

75.2 68.1

Hardware-Only ASP 14.4

12.5

11.6

9.5

62.2

8.4

57.9

7.7

54.7

7.3

52.6

6.9

50.9

6.7

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

955

CPU Revenue

595

222

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

138

419

188

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

231

270

1,644

36

1,310

929

214

167

498

273

225

347

2,154

1,491

1,124

186

180

614

380

234

439

2,544

18

1,516

1,200

122

195

769

466

302

540

2,825

11

1,517

1,198

104

215

830

488

342

585

2,932

4

1,483

1,181

92

210

869

497

372

637

2,989

2

31

Note: In 1991. server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platfonns.

Source: E>ataquest (October 1992)

1,477

1,177

90

210

916

511

405

690

3,083

3

1,467

1,174

82

212

973

528

445

748

3,188

3

1,480

1,188

75

217

1,035

557

478

812

3,327

4

n

a

I

•8

cr

I

N)

S"

Table 14

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application;

Region:

Platfotin:

Mechanical

Europe

Technical Workstation

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

1993

1994

1995

HABDWARE SMPMEiST DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

7,224

7,224

11,953

11.953

12,344

12,344

23,972

23,972

19,246

19,246

42,271

42,271

23,368

23,368

63,477

63,477

27,597

27,597

86,702

86,702

29.960

29,960

109,190

109,190

32,150

32,150

129,770

129,770

34,180

34,180

148,120

148,120

36,690

36,690

164,260

164,260

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

:E DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

47.0

29.1

53.0

26.4

53.5

20.4

52.2

19.9

48.6

16.3

46.4

14.8

44.6

13.6

43.2

12.8

42.1

12.4

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

•Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

237

194

0

43

157

75

81

84

478

96

452

366

0

86

237

137

100

156

844

77

636

525

0

110

350

234

116

257

1,244

47

716

594

0

122

472

303

168

329

1.517

22

744

608

0

136

505

319

187

359

1,608

6

752

614

0

138

542

332

210

407

1,700

6

Note; In 1991, server was added M a platform. This reclasslAcation reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms,..

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

757

618

0

139

579

346

233

454

1.789

5

764

623

0

140

624

360

263

502

1,889

6

788

643

0

145

674

384

290

554

2,015

7

•g l-M

I

Tabic 15

CAD/CAM/CAB/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application:

Region:

Platform;

Mechanical

Europe

Host-Dependent

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

1992 1993

1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shifttnents

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

2,215

9,903

4,801

24,933

2,148

11,205

6,874

36,021

2,500

12,122

9,192

47,418

2,949

11,903

11,706

57,336

1,975

9,880

12,946

63,293

1,850

8,570

13.740

65,690

1,850

8,060

14,150

66,490

1,800

7,370

14,280

65,650

1,790

6,900

14,260

63,870

237.2

929.0

358.0

419.7

459.2

164.2

286.0

142.5

274.6

221.8

258.5

207.1

248.0

190.8

237.7

175.8

.

227.4

161.9

I i

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

574

277

222

75

190

94

97

173

938

15

679

403

214

63

173

118

55

178

1,031

10

612

387

186

39

157

128

29

162

931

-10

517

356

122

39

185

151

35

185

888

-5

384

248

104

31

158

128

30

157

699

-21

335

215

92

27

140

116

24

148

623

-11

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

316

201

90

25

130

107

22

139

585

-6

287

183

82

23

123

102

21

134

545

-7

267

171

75

22

120

101

20

132

520

-5

to

•g

o

I

I

I

I

I

Table 16

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application:

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Europe

Server

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1987 1988 1989 1990

1991 1992 1993

1994

NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1,622

1,622

1,622

1,622

2,050

2,050

3,570

3,570

2,510

2,510

5,850

5,850

3,010

3,010

8,220

8,220

1995

3,490

3,490

10,750

10,750

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

147.5

40.9

140.6

36.9

134.8

33.9

129.2

32.1

123.7

31.2

REVENUE DATA (Millions: df* Ui$< Dollars)

Hardware Revenue NA

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

NA

0

NA

NA

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year C%)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

104

90

0

15

37

30

7

41

182

NA

123

105

0

18

46

38

8

50

219

20

Note: In 1991, server -was added iu a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growtli rates for ttie ottier platforms,

Source: Dauquest (October 1992)

141

121

0

21

56

46

10

60

258

18

160

137

0

23

(A

54

12

71

297

15

177

151

0

25

75

61

14

80

332

12

to

•i

I

9

I

Table 17

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast tjigiiSapt

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Europe

Personal Computer

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1987 1988 1989 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994 1995

27,824 32,722

27,824 32,722

54,678

54,678

85,088

85,088

40,662

51,199

57,422

40,662

119,445

119,445

51,199

158,055

158,055

57,422

195,377

195,377

60,830

60,830

228,300

63,850

63,850

256,730

228,300

256,730

66,380

66,380

67,730

67,730

280,400

280,400

298,690

298,690

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

C E D A T A (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

10.3

4.4

14.3

4.5

28.6

4.9

25.4

4.8

23.1

4.3

20.5

4.0

18.5

3.7

17.5

3.4

16.6

3.3

I

I

I

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year C?«0'

143

124

0

19

72

19

53

13

228

55

178

160

0

18

88

18

70

13

279

22

242

212

0

30

107

18

89

20

369

32

284

250

0

34

111

12

99

25

420

14

285

252

0

33

130

11

119

27

442

5

274

246

0

28

141

12

129

32

447

1

Note: In 1991. server was added as a platform. This teclassiAcatlon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

263

237

0

26

151

12

140

37

451

1

256

231

0

25

160

12

148

41

457

1

248

224

0

25

166

12

154

46

460

1

®

I - *

K)

K

•§

n

Q

!

1

^

E

1

H

O'

o

1

i

Table 18

CAU/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application: Mechanical

Region: Asia

Platform: All Platforms

1987

1988

1989

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

24,549

32,230

47,940

64,922

28,248

34,395

74,354

97,265

39,674

44,984

109,059

136,663

62,305

68,288

161,324

193,428

59,293

64,472

204,170

238,844

62,450

66,450

242,870

277,850

67,530

70,860

278,350

312,070

72,210

74,990

309,710

341,580

74,770

77,150

335,390

365,110

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

97.8

25.1

107.3

11.2

57.3

9.8

49.1

8.9

43.8

10.5

41.1

9.7

39.2

9.0

38.5

8.7

38.2

8.8

REVENUE DATA (Milliopsf t ^ U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

1,080

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

658

260

161

289

230

60

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

139

1,508

34

1,028

629

193

205

409

298

112

198

1,635

8

1,006

757

79

170

462

343

118

210

1,677

3

1,301

1,027

68

206

551

397

154

254

2,106

26

1,271

999

53

219

605

427

178

273

2,150

2

1,202

953

39

210

600

404

195

310

2,112

-2

Note; In 1991, servrer was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 199I growtti rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (Octot>er 1992)

1,181

939

33

209

614

401

213

341

2,136

1

1,190

947

29

214

645

406

239

371

2,206

3

1,201

957

26

218

687

413

274

400

2,287

4

@

(-1

V?

•g

I

•o

I

I

a

i

Table 19

CAD/CAM/CA^©KS History and F o r e c a s | l^pdNe

Application:

Region;

Plaifonn:

Mechanical

Asia

Technical Workstation

HARDWARE SfflPMfflNlf DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments of 'Seats

CPU Installed Basas:

Installed Seats

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1994

1995

3.975

3,975

6,102

6,102

6,617

6,617

12,565

12,565

12,956

12,956

20,358

20,358

25,042

44,307

25,042

44,307

21,628

21,628

23,670

23,670

63,474

63,474

82,620

82,620

26,200

26,200

101,080

101,080

29,690

29,690

119,430

119,430

32,990

32,990

137,070

137,070

•nirnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

3E D A T A (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

94.1

29.4

78.3

13.2

52.6

23.8

42.6

23.7

46.5

21.0

44.3

20.0

42.6

18.4

41.3

17.4

40.3

16.8

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue ClXirnkey)

^ftware Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

205

175

0

31

86

70

16

33

324

195

265

195

0

71

151

112

39

73

490

51

413

315

0

99

217

173

44

84

714

46

574

442

0

132

262

193

69

104

940

32

611

467

0

144

305

218

87

121

1.037

10

624

480

0

144

326

219

107

151

1,101

6

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platfonn. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

644

496

0

148

361

228

133

180

1,184

8

689

531

0

158

408

245

164

209

1,306

10

732

566

0

166

460

260

200

239

1,431

10

Table 20

CAD/CAM/CAE/GK History a n d Forecast Update

Application;

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Asia

Host'Depafldent

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

971

8,652

4,054

21,037

1,365

7.512

5,367

28,279

2,588

7,899

7,760

35,365

3,165

9,147

10,498

42,602

2,557

7,737

12,351

47,024

2,210

6,080

13,620

48,590

2,030

5,240

14,570

48,290

1,870

4,540

15,040

46,920

1,770

4,050

15,030

44,740

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S.

Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

689.1

1,367.4

638.9

155.2

211.2

131.1

217.2

84.1

189.0

265.5

178.8

239.4

171.5

219.9

164.4

202.4

157.5

185.4

REVENUE DATA (Millions (rf U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 703

CPU Revenue

Temilnai Revenue

Peripheral Revenue Cnimiceir^

345

260

Software Revenue

Bundled

97

115

94

21

Unbundled

Sfervice Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

89

907

15

545

292

193

60

166

127

38

113

824

-9

421

295

79

47

136

104

32

106

663

-20

462

352

68

43

169

138

31

125

756

14

375

287

53

36

148

119

30

109

632

-16

300

232

39

29

126

100

26

108

534

-16

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (Octotier 1992)

261

202

33

25

114

91

23

104

479

-10

227

176

29

22

104

82

22

99

430

-10

204

158

26

20

98

77

21

94

395

-8

Table 21

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Asia

Server

1987 1988 1989 1990

1991

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1,235

1,235

1,235

1.235

1992

1,650

1,650

2,810

2,810

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP NA NA NA NA 124.6

118.3

Hardware-Only ASP NA NA NA NA 24.9

23.6

1993

2,010

2,010

4,630

4,630

113.5

21.7

108.8

20.6

1994

2,360

2,360

6,500

6,500

199?

2,690

2,690

8,420

8,420

104.2

20.0

REVENUE DATA (Miliiofis of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue NA

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

NA

0

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

NA

NA

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Inaease over Prior Year (%)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

63

54

0

9

22

18

4

19

104

NA

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source; Dataquest (October 1992)

80

69

0

11

29

23

5

25

134

28

91

78

0

13

34

28

7

30

155

16

101

87

0

14

39

31

8

34

174

13

109

94

0

15

44

34

9

38

191

10

Table 22

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application:

Region;

Piatform:

Mechanical

Asia

Personal Computer

1987

1988

1989

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

19,603

19,603

37,783

37,783

20,266

20,266

56,421

56,421

24,129

24,129

76,257

76,257

1990

1991

1992

38,783

38,783

106,519

106,519

33,873

33,873

127,111

127,111

34,920

35,040

143,820

143,820

1993

1994 1995

37,300

37,420

158,060

158,060

38,300

38,410

168,740

168,740

37,330

37,420

174,880

174,880

CALCULATED AVERA^ SELUNG fBlCE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

25.7

5.7

33.2

7.0

19.7

4.7

19.2

4.4

14.5

4.2

12.8

3.9

11.5

3.6

10.8

3.4

10.3

3.2

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 172

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

139

0

33

89

66

23

16

277

21

217

143

0

74

93

58

35

12

322

16

172

148

0

25

109

66

42

20

300

-7

264

233

0

31

120

66

54

25

409

36

222

191

0

30

130

73

57

25

377

-8

198

172

0

26

119

62

57

26

344

-9

Note; In 1991, server was added as a platfomi. This ledasslAcation reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: DaUquest (October 1992)

186

163

0

23

105

55

50

28

318

-7

173

153

0

20

93

48

45

29

295

-7

156

139

0

17

85

42

43

29

270

-8

••o

VO

N)

i

I

I

I a

I

\

Table 23

CAD/CAM/CA&asaS History and Forecast Update

Application:

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Rest of World

All Platfornns

1987 1988

1989

1990

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

2,889

3,646

5,309

7,148

2,596

3,396

7,624

9,912

3,309

3,824

10,389

12,916

4.565

5,175

13,898

16,744

6.103

6,669

18,334

21,408

7,630

8,140

23,590

26,740

9,020

9,500

29,560

32,690

10,470

10,940

36,170

39,230

11,890

12,300

43,060

46,050

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP 62.2

70.0 60.5

45.4

Hardware-Only ASP

32.4 18.1

12.9

10.4

33.9

8.5

32.6

7.0

31.8

6.2

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 104

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

66

Peripheral Revenue

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

CHimkey)

27

10

13

8

4

14 Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

131

7

71

46

20

6

15

9

6

15

102

-22

63

45

12

6

18

11

8

16

97

65

48

11

6

19

10

9

16

101

4

67

50

11

6

29

12

16

17

113

11

72

56

-5 13

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

9

7

36

14

21

20

127

77

61

9

8

44

16

28

23

144

13

31.0

5.7

83

67

8

9

52

19

33

27

162

12

30.3

5.2

87

71

7

9

61

20

40

30

178

10

^

-9

n

»

t^

i a i

•s

§•

3

I

Table 24

CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS History and Forecast Vp^om

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Rest of World

Technical Workstation

1987

1988 1989 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995 liARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

570

570

1,148

1,148

539

539

1,644

1,644

739

739

2,286

2,286

923

923

3,021

3,021

1,054

1,054

3,774

3,774

1,290

1,290

4,620

4,620

1,570

1,570

5,610

5,610

1,870

1,870

6,800

6,800

2,150

2,150

8,100

8,100

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

32.6

31.0

38.6

24.4

46.4

11.5

36.5

16.0

33.9

12.5

32.3

11.4

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 15

CPU Revenue

12

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (TXirnkey)

^ f t w a r e Revenue

0

3

5

Bundled

Unbundled

3

1

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

3

23

25

16

13

0

3

6

3

2

5

27

18

19

15

0

4

9

6

2

8

36

34

21

17

0

4

9

7

3

9

39

8

20

16

0

4

14

8

6

9

43

11

24

10

8

11

52

19

0

5

18

20

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

31.1

10.4

27

21

0

6

22

12

11

13

62

19

30.1

9.8

31

24

0

7

27

14

13

15

73

17

29.4

9.5

31

15

15

18

82

13

34

27

0

7

s*

•§

1 a

9

B

I

I

i

I

Table 25

CAD/CAM/CAK/GIS History and Forecast Update

Application: Mechanical

Region: Rest of World

Platfona: Host-Dependent

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shiptnents or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1987

198S

1989

1990

1991

1992 1993 1994 1995

93

849

541

2,381

103

903

558

2,845

134

649

627

3,153

123

733

662

3,509

75

642

642

3,716

70

580

570

3,720

70

550

530

3,670

70

540

500

3,570

70

480

470

3,470

CALCULATED AVERAGE; SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

496.3 482.0 601.0 365.8

Hardware-Only ASP

1,342.8 522.2

182.5 217.9

367.4

313.0

350.9

285.0

336.6

261.6

322.5

239.8

308.9

219.6

REVE^^JE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Tenninal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

79

44

27

7

6

4

1

10

94

-4

46

24

20

3

7

5

2

10

64

-33

32

18

12

2

5

4

2

7

44

-31

28

16

11

1

5

4

1

7

40

-9

22

10

11

1

4

3

1

5

31

-22

19

9

9

1

4

3

1

5

28

-10

Note: In 1991. senrer was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (Octot)er 1992)

18

8

9

1

4

3

1

5

26

-6

17

8

8

1

4

3

1

5

25

-4

3

2

1

4

22

15

7

7

1

-13

Table 26

CAD/CAM/CAie;^^^ History and Forecast Update

Application; Mechanical

Region: Rest of World

Platform: Server

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

HARDVFARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

115

115

115

115

150

150

260

260

190

190

430

430

240

240

620

620

280

280

830

830

^J s*

•g

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

0 sr a

I

I

45

I

I

83.8

29.2

REVENUE DATA (MUiions of U.S. Dollais)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

NA

NA

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue (Turnkey)

0

NA

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year (%)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5

4

0

1

1

1

0

2

8

NA

6

1

0

2

10

22

5

0

1

2

Note: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms,

Source: Dataquest (October 1992)

80.3

26.8

3

12

22

2

2

1

7

6

0

1

77.0

25.5

3

2

1

4

14

18

8

7

0

1

73.7

24.7

3

2

1

4

16

9

8

0

1

15

to

Table 27

CAD/CAM/CAS/im History and Forecast Update

Application;

Region:

Platform;

GIS/Mapping

Rest of World

Personal

Computer

1987

1988

HABDWARE SHIPIi^N^ DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1989 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

398

398

464

464

269

269

729

729

822

822

1,521

1,521

1,126

1,126

2,557

2,557

1,628

1,628

3,988

3,988

1,950

1,950

5,580

5,580

2,430

2,430

7,410

7,410

3,030

3,030

9,530

9,530

a

I

I

5 c

If

I i

I

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

6.0 35.1 64.1 24.1

22.3

Hardware-Only ASP

4.8

5.9 4.9

4.6

4.3

20.1

4.0

18.1

3.6

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

2

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue CI\jrnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year ( ^

2

0

0

1

0

1

0

3

120

2

2

0

0

1

0

1

0

3

15

5

4

0

0

3

0

3

1

8

166

6

5

0

0

4

0

4

1

10

22

7

7

0

0

5

0

5

1

14

32

0

6

0

8

8

0

6

1

16

16

Note: In 1991, seiver was added as a platforai. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth fates for the other platforms.

Source; Dataquest (October 1992)

8

2

19

19

0

8

0

9

9

0

17.0

3.4

9

2

22

19

11

11

0

0

9

0

1995

3,780

3,780

12,030

12,030

16.1

3.3

0

11

3

26

20

13

12

0

0

11

m DataQuest '

^ ^ V Dataquest Research and Sales Offices:

^ ^ K Dataquest Incorporated

^ B 1290 Ridder Park Drive

^ H San Jose, California 95131-239S

^ ^ f c United States

^ K Phone: 01-408-437-8000

^ K Facsimile: 01-408-437-0292

^ ^ E Dataquest Incorporated

^ ^ E Dataquest/Ledgeway

^ ^ K 550 Cochituate Road

^ ^ p Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-9324

^^M United States

^ B Phone: 01-508-370-5555

^ H Facsimile: 01-508-370-6262

^ ^ v Dataquest Incorporated Invitational

^ ^ B Computer Conferences Division

^ ^ E ' 3151 Airway Avenue, C-2

^ K Costa Mesa, California 92626

^ ^ E United States

^ K Phone: 01-714-957-0171

^ H Facsimile: 01-714-957-0903

^ ^ H , Dataquest Australia

^ ^ K Suite 1, Century Plaza

^ K 80 Berry Street

^ B North Sydney, NSW 2060

^ ^ K Australia

^ K Phone: 61-2-959-4544

^

^ Facsimile: 61-2-929-0635

Dataquest Europe Limited

Roussel House, Broadwater Park

Denham, Uxbridge

Middlesex UB9 5HP

England

Phone: 44-895-835050

Facsimile: 44-895-835260/1

Dataquest Europe SA

Tour Gallieni 2

36, avenue du General-de-Gaulle

93175 Bagnolet Cedex

France

Phone: 33-1-48-97-3100

Facsimile: 33-1-48-97-3400

Dataquest GmbH

Kronstadter Strasse 9

8000 Munich 80

Germany

Phone: 49-89-930-9090

Facsimile: 49-89-930-3277

Germaqy ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H

In der Schneithohl ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H

Kronberg ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ M

Germany '^^^^^^^^^^^^M

Phone: 9 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H

Facsimile: 49-6173/67901 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H

Dataquest Hong Kong ^ ^ ^ H

Km. 4A01 ^ ^ 9

HKPC Building 'm

78 Tat Chee Avenue ^^M

Kowloon, Hong Kong i ^ ^ ^ l

Phone: 852-788-5432 ^^M

Facsimile: 852-788-5433 J

Dataquest Japan Limited ^ ^ ^ |

Shinkawa Sanko Building ^ ^ ^ B

1-3-17 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku fl

Tokyo, 104

Japan

Phone: 81-3-5566-0411 JBM

Facsimile: 81-3-5566-0425 ^ H

Dataquest Korea A

Daeheung Building 1105 M

648-23 Yeoksam-dong 3

Kangnam-gu 9

Seoul 135-080, Korea *

Phone: 82-2-556-4166

Facsimile: 82-2-552-2661

i

Dataquest Singapore

4012 Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 1

Ave. 10, #03-10 to #03-12

Singapore 2056

Phone: 65-4597181

Telex: 38257

Facsimile: 65-4563129

Dataquest Taiwan

Room 80y8th Floor

Ever Spring Building

147, Sec. 2, Chien Kuo N. Rd.

Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C. 104

Phone: 886-2-501-7960

886-2-501-5592

Facsimile: 886-2-505-4265

Dataquest Thailand

300/31 Rachdapisek Road

Bangkok 10310

Thailand

Phone: 66-2-275-1904/5

66-2-277-8850

Facsimile: 66-2-275-7005

CL;IS-i314300 o i s P e t e r s e n sdirn i-!::>tr;5t ive As^iiistants

'99-1256

Distribution

Bi 1

3929

i

Mechanical Applications

Preliminary Forecast

May 18, 1992

Market Statistics

DataQuest

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

CCAM-MEC-MS-^01

Mechanical Applications

Preliminary Forecast

May 18, 1992

Dataqyest'

Source:

Dataquest

Market Statistics

File behind the Market Statistics tab inside the binder labeled CAD/CAM/CAE—Afec/tanicol

Applications

Published by Dataquest Incorporated

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information geiterally available to the public or released by knowle(^eable iixlividuais in the subjea industry, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmitted, in any form or by any means—mechanical, electronic, photocopying, duplicating, microfilming, videotape, or otherwise—without die prior permission of the publisher.

© 1992 Dataquest Incorporated

May 1992

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Forecast

May 18, 1992

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Forecast Accuracy and Comparison 1

Forecast Assumptions 1

Notes on Forecast 8

Forecast Methodology 8

Segmentation 8

Definitions 10

Table Page

1 CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Comparison 3

Mechanical

2 Worldwide All Platforms 14

3 Worldwide Technical Workstation jc

4 Worldwide Host-Dependent 1^

5 Worldwide Server yj

6 Worldwide Personal Computer Ig

7 North America All Platforms 1^

8 North America Technical Workstation 20

9 North America Host-Dependent 21

10 North America Server 22

11 North America Personal Computer 23

12 Europe All Platforms 24

13 Europe Technical Workstation 25

14 Europe Host-Dependent 26

15 Europe Server 27

16 Europe Personal Computer •. 28

17 Asia All Platforms 29

18 Asia Technical Workstation 30

19 Asia Host-Dependent 3I

20 Asia Server 32

21 Asia Personal Computer 33

22 Rest of World All Platforms.... 34

Note: All tables show estimated data. i

Table Page

23 Rest of World Technical "Workstation 35

24 Rest of World Host-Dependent 35

25 Rest of World Server 3-7

26 Rest of World Personal Computer 33

Note: All tables show estiimted data.

Figure Page

1 History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE Market: Hardware, Software, and Service 2

2 History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE Market by Application 4

3 History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE Market by Region 6

4 CAD/CAM/CAE Revised Platform Distribution 9

5 Information Compendium 10

6 CAD/CAM/CAE Installed Base 11

t-

Mechanical Applications

Preliminary Forecast

Introduction

The slowing of world economies was a major factor affecting CAD/CAM/CAE growth in 1991 and will continue to affea growth over the next few years. Many of the major world economies faltered in 1991 to 1992. On a list of the 33 largest countries compiled earlier this year by the Economic Analysis Department of

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, 18 were in or near recession. Although the gross domestic product/gross national produa (GDP/GNP) forecast for 1992 to 1^3 has been adjusted upward for the United States, the GDP/GNP forecast for 1992 to 1993 for 7 of the 14

European economies tracked has been adjusted downward. The Japanese economy, which has traditionally exhibited steady growth when other major economies slowed, began to falter in the latter half of 1991. Forecasts call for

R&D spending in Japan to slow to less than

10 percent (for the first time in 10 years) and for Japanese domestic spending to decline in the second half of 1992.

In spite of these poor economic conditions, the CAD/CAM/CAE market posted solid growth of 9-5 percent to $15.8 billion in 1991, somewhat slower than the growth rates of previous years. The market is forecast to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of

9 percent through 1996 (see Figure 1). (This forecast is based on the CAD/CAM/CAE group's preliminary market information and will be updated in October).

This document contains Dataquesf s detailed forecast information on the CAD/CAM/CAE industry. Included in this document are the following:

• Five-year historical data

• Five-year forecast data

More detailed data on this marked may be requested through our client inquiry service.

Forecast Accuracy and

Comparison

Overall, last year's CAD/CAM/CAE market forecast appears to have been slightly optimistic in many cases, with some A^iriance among regions (see Table 1).

European growth in 1991 was slightiy less than expected because of slower growth in all countries except Benelux. Overall, the

European economy slowed considerably during

1991. The North American results for 1991 were somewhat better than expected. Asia was right on target By application, AEC results were sligjitly better than expected for 1991; while actual results were somewhat lower than expected in the other application areas.

Figure 2 shows the CAD/CAM/CAE forecast by application.

Forecast Assumptions

Below are the main forces by region, driving the CAD/CAM/CAE forecast

Worldwide Forecast Drivers

The foUowing are the main forces driving the

CAD/CAM/CAE worldwide forecast

• CAD/CAM/CAE systems will continue to give buyers a competitive edge. As time-tomarket requirements shrink, demand for design automation tools will continue to increase.

• Limited system budget growth in the near term will constrain growth. Budgets for hardware, software, and services are forecast to grow by 5 to 10 percent in North

America in 1992, 10 to 15 percent in

Eiorope, and approximately 15 percent in

Asia. Dataquests research indicates tiiat users do not plan to buy one core software

Figure 1

History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE Market: Hardware, Software, and Service

Billions of Dollars

12

10

a - -

2 -

0 1 1 1 1

r*^

1 I

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1994 r

Hardware

Total

Software

Revenue

A Service

Unbundled

Software

Revenue

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Forecast

Table 1

CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Comparison CBilUons of Dollars)

Worldwide

Last Year's Forecast

Actual Results and Current Forecast

Difference 06)

North America

Last Year's Forecast

Actual Results and Current Forecast

Difference (%)

Europe

Last Year's Forecast

Actual Results and Current Forecast

Difference (%)

Asia

Last Year's Forecast

Actual Results and Current Forecast

Difference (%)

Rest of World

Last Year's Forecast

Actual Results and Current Forecast

Difference (%)

Soufce: Dataquest (May 1992>

1991

16.0

15.8

-1.5

5.2

5.3

2.4

6.0

5.7

-4.9

4.5

4.4

-0.8

0.4

0.3

-9.6

1992

17.9

17.2

-4.2

5.7

5.7

0.5

6.8

6.2

-7.9

5.1

4.9

-3.6

0.5

0.4

•14.3

CAGR («/o)

1991-1996

12

9

9

7

13

10

12

9

21

16

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated May—Repaoduction Prohibited

Figure 2

History and Forecast for the CAD/CAH/CAE Market by Application

Billions of Dollars

12

10

N)

if

I

{

1

(i

I

I

I

s - '

2 - • -

Mechanical

L

Source: DeiaqMsst (May 1992)

AEC

GIS/Mapping

ECAE

IC Layout

Mechanical Appllcatians FreUmliiaiy Forecast

package for each person; the sharing of seats will continue. Networked users will continue to buy systems for a limited number of concurrent users, waiting until the system overloads before buying more.

• Market demand will be limited by the vendors' inability to fully meet demand for highly integrated software systems. Dataquest believes that the industry business model is evolving to a structure where large software vendors will function increasingly as application software integrators. Much of the inno-

•s^tion in new niche products can be expected to come from the small software vendors, which will be dependent on their

OEM relationships with "major" software vendors. These alliances will ultimately reduce the total cost of software development, thus strengthening industry profitability. However, design problems will become increasingly complex, and meaningftil success in integrating software will lag behind market demand.

• We anticipate incremental progress in delivering open systems and standards to market, which will constrain market demand. When and how open systems successfiilly arrive on the market will affea the value of CAD tools.

• The "late majority" buyers for

CAD/CAM/CAE will be coming to market over the next five years, driving additional growth. However, conservative buyers will

fzvoT market leaders. These conservative buyers are the "late majority" buyers who do not buy until the weight of the majority seems to legitimize the product Therefore, for vendors, the value of having high market share as well as financial clout will increase.

• Market growth will be limited until the second half of 1992 for the EDA market. The major EDA vendors have just introduced their new products. Currently, many EDA buyers are evaluating product options and reftaining from purchasing until a thorough evaluation is completed.

Nprth American Forecast Drivers

The North American market grew 6 percent in 1991 to $5.3 billion and is forecast to grow at an 8 percent CAGR through 1996 (see

Figure 3 for the forecast by region).

Some of the main factors driving the North

American forecast are the following:

• Market growth will increase in the second half of 1992. In an across-the-board resurgence of optimism, U.S. business executives have said diey expea higher sales and profits in the second quarter, according to

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation's latest nationwide quarterly survey of business esecutives. "Rebounding sharply fi:om nearly a nine-year low last quarter, the mood of business executives around the nation has grown much more optimistic," said Joseph

W. Duncan, vice president and chief economist for The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation.

"The turnaround was unequivocal, with virtually all industries and nearly every region of the country expecting stronger sales and profits next quarter."

• Market growth will be reduced because of decreasing average selling prices (ASPs). The

United States is a large market with more developed distribution channels arid larger order sizes than other markets. Streamlined distribution channels leave fewer places for profit to hide; and, therefore, ASPs have declined more sharply. In contrast, the

European market is the sum of many markets of smaller countries, each with its own customs and requirements. Because of these special requirements, ASPs have not been as pressured to decline in European markets as they have been in the U.S. market. Therefore, North American unit shipments will continue to grow significantly, while revenue will grow at a slower rate because of strong price competition.

• Market growth will be limited because of lower defense spending. Spending cuts in the defense budget of 25 to 30 percent over the next five years are currently being proposed by the U.S. administration. In the

United States, b o ± republicans and democrats are seeking to balance defense spending cuts against the large loss of jobs that is expected to occur when such reductions are made. Most likely, the defense department will encourage continued growth in R&D spending, while severely limiting the number of programs that would lead to actual production. CAD companies that are heavily dependent on direct or indirect government defense spending contracts will have increasingly limited growth opportunities.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated May-^teproduction Prohibited

to

D

I s

I

I^gure 3

History and Forecast for the CAD/CAM/CAE Market by Region

Billions of Dollars

10

9 -

e -

7 -

6 -

4 - ' -

I

c

I

2 -

O T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

19B7 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

North America

Europe

SpweKPataqiffM (May 1992)

European Forecast Drivers

The European market will reach $9.1 billion by 1996 and grew 9 percent in 1991 to

$5.7 billion. This market is forecast to have a revenue CAGR of 10 percent through 1996.

Some of the main issues driving the European forecast include the following:

• Growth will steadily increase in Eastern

Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union as an export market has complicated the difficult situation already £adng other central and eastern European countries as they make the transition to market economies and establish new international trading arrangements. Poland, Hungary, and, more recently, Czechoslovakia have made impressive progress in shifting exports to other markets. In all these countries, prices have been set free and inflation seems to be coming under control. The initial groundwork has been laid. GDP/GNP growth is forecast to turn positive during 1992 to 1993 and reach strength toward 1994. As these covmtries' economies become market economies, CAD/CAM/CAE opportunities will increase.

• Growth will be relatively unaffected by the advent of the European Commimity (EC).

The eflfects of 1992 will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Currently, the new EC regulations on environment (such as request for environmental impact studies for town planning) are driving considerable growth in the

GIS application area.

• Growth is ^:pected for European vendors as they expand into other European markets. To date, many European vendors have competed only in their country of origin.

Over the next forecast period, European vendors will increasingly expand their overseas operations to become more competitive across the European community.

German companies and German subsidiaries of intematioi^ companies are increasingly expanding into Eastern European countries.

Asian Forecast Drivers

Mechanical Applications PreUminarf Forecast

The Asian market grew 14 percent in 1991 to $4.4 billion, and its forecast CAGR for revenue is 9 percent through 1996. Some of the main issues driving the Asian forecast are as follows:

• Shifting labor costs will affect growth among countries. Labor costs in Japan, Korea,

Taiwan, and Hong Kong will continue to increase, which will result in a growing demand for productivity tools including

CAD/CAM/CAE. Industries with blue-collar workers will transfer operations to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and the Republic of China; Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong will grow based on the industry of the white-collar workers.

Remote design and manufacturing sites also will encourage the growth of electronic data sharing and thus CAD/CAM across Asia.

• Growth will be strong as companies continue transitioning from the mainframe to network-based desktop environments.

CAD/CAM/CAE in Japan is still predominantly a mainframe environment. As companies increase their interest in desktop systems, healthy imit growth will occur, and

ASPs should decline sharply.

• Growth will be strong in EDA. Demands for merchant EDA tools supporting the design of ASICs, MCMs, and application-specific standard products (ASSPs) will expand; the development of in-house electronic products will continue to decline. The EDA industry will continue moving toward an oligopoly of vendors providing a full line of tools encapsulated within an open framework, with niche vendors providing point-solution tools.

• Growth is less likely in some Asian coimtries because of the lack of stringent intellectual property rights. Most Asian countries, with the exception of Japan, have few laws governing intellectual property rights.

Many companies will be hesitant to invest or set up operations in a region where they will receive no design protection.

• Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE growth will continue to be strong in Asia because of growing requirements to support concurrent engineering. Point-solution tools associated with parametric and variational design, manufacturability, and testability will be required. Major vendors will add these tools through OEMs, merger and acquisitions, or

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated May-^ieproduction Prohibited

Notes on Forecast

Forecast Methodology

CAP/CAM/CAE—Mechanical AppUcatioiis

in-house development in order to defend dieir installed base.

For the 1991 publishing cyde, Dataquests

CAD/CAM/CAE group added server as a platform. The platform categories now include technical workstation, host-dependent, server, and personal computer. Revenue formerly classifted in technical workstations, host-dependent, or personal computer may now be more accurately classified, where appropriate, in the server category. However, because of this reclassification, data and growth rates for the other platform areas were affected. Figure 4 depicts the revised platform distribution,

Fxmdamental to the way Dataquest conducts its research is an underiyir^ philosophy that says the best data and analyses come from a wellbalanced program. This program includes balance between primary and secondary collection techniques; balance between supply-side and demand-side analysis; balance between focused, industry-specific research and coordinated, "big-picture" analysis aided by integration of data from the more than 25 separate high-technology industries Dataquest covers; and balance between the perspectives of experienced industry professionals and rigorous, disciplined techniques of seasoned market researchers.

Dataquest also analyzes trends in the macroenvironment, which can have major influences on both supply-side and demand-side forecasting. In addition to derao^aphics, analysts look at GNP growth, interest rate fluctuation, currency fluctuation, business expectations, and capital spending plans. In the geopolitical arena, the group looks at trade issues, political stability or lack thereof, tarifife, nontariff barriers, and such factors as the effect on Europe of the events of 1992.

Figure 5 is a pictorial summary of the information compendivmi offered by the Dataquest

CAD/CAM/CAE group.

The CAD/CAM/CAE industry market estimates and forecasts are derived using the following research techniques:

• "Bottom-up" aggregation—This method involves adding all relevant vendor contributions to arrive at total market estimates for all historical data.

• S e ^ e n t forecasting—For each application segment tracked by the CAD/CAM/CAE group, individual forecasts are derived following the basic information model defined previously. Specifically, each design phase covered within each application is segmented by channel, product, region, and platform. In this way, each application segment incorporates its own set of unique assumptions.

• Demand-based analysis—Market growth is tracked and forecast in terms of the present and anticipated demand of current and future users. This requires the development of a total available inaiket CTAM) model and a satisfied available market figure to accurately assess the levels of penetration.

Installed base is also evaluated. Rates of product retirement are primarily based on input from end users in our ongoing survey programs. Figure 6 shows the

CAD/CAM/CAE installed base by platform.

In addition, Dataquest analysts factor in the acceptance or ability for users to consume new technology.

• Capacity-based analysis—This method involves identifying future shipment volume constraints. These constraints, or "ceilings," can be the result of component availability, manufacmring capacity, or distribution capacity. In any case, capacity limitations are capable of keeping shipments below the demand level.

Segmentation

For complete information on Dataquesfs b i o technology market segmentation sdieme, please refer to the Dataquest Higb-Tecbnology

Guide: Segmentation and Glossary.

Dataquest defines CAD/CAM/CAE as systems used in the mechanical; architecture, engineering, and construction CAEC); GIS/mapping; and electronic design automation (EDA) application

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated May—Reproduction Prohibited

Figure 4

CAD/CAM/CAE Revised Platform Distribution

Billions of Dollars

18

1 6 - r

19B7

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

19S8

1969

New

Technical

Workstation

Old

Technical

Workstation

1990

1991

New

Host-

Dependent

Old

Host-

Dependent

1992

1993

New PC

Old PC

1994

Ser

10

Figure 5

Information Compendium

CAD/CAM/CAE-^iechanical AppBcations

Support

Mechanisms

Information

Tools

02000167

Source: Dataquest (May 1992) areas. Hie CAD/CAM/CAE market is defined according to the following segmentation scheme:

• CAD/CAM/CAE

- Mechanical

- AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and

Construction)

- GIS/Mapping (Geographic Information

Systems)

- EDA (Electronic Design Automation)

. Electronic CAE

. IC Layout

. PCB/Hybrid/MCM

In addition, more detailed information by subapplication is available and usually published in Dataquest Perspectives.

For a listing of possible subapplication categories, see the Dataquest High-Technology

Guide: Segmentation and Glossary.

Defmitions

This section lists the definitions that are specific to this document. Complete definitions for all terms can be found in die Dataquest

High-Technology Guide: Segmentation and

Glossary.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated May—Reproduction Prohibited

Figure 6

CAO/CAM/CAB InstaUed Base

Thousands of Units/Seats

2500

2000'

1500 -

1000'

5 0 0 "

PC

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

Technical Workstation Host-Dependent

12

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Application definitions are as follows:

• Mechanical—Mechanical CAD/CAM refers to computer-aided tools used to design, analyze, document, and manufacture discrete parts, components, and assemblies.

• Architecture, Engineering, and Construction

(AEC)—This segment covers the use of computer-aided tools by architects, contractors, plant engineers, civil engineers, and other people associated with these disciplines to aid in designing and managing buildings, industrial plants, ships, and other tj^es of nondiscrete entities.

• Geographic Information Systems

(GIS)/Mapping—This is a computer-based technology, composed of hardware, software, and data used- to capture, edit, display, and analyze spatial (tagged by location) information.

• Electronic Design Automation (EDA)—This segment covers computer-based tools that are used to automate the process of designing an electronic product including printed circuit boards, ICs, and systems. EDA includes ECAE, IC Layout, and

PCB/Hybrid/MCM, as follows:

- Electronic Computer-Aided Engineering

(CAE)—These are computer-aided tools used in the engineering or design phase of electronic products (as opposed to the physical layout phase of the product).

Examples of Electronic CAE applications are schematic capture and simulation.

- IC Layout—This is a software application tool that is tised to create and validate the physical implementation of an integrated circuit OC). The IC layout category comprises polygon editors, symbolic editors, placement and routing (gate array, cdl, and block), design verification tools (DRC/ERC/logic-to-layout), compilers, and module development tools.

- Printed Circuit Board

(PCB)/Hybrid/Multichip Module (MCM>—

This segment covers products that are used to create the placement and routing of the traces and components laid out on a printed circuit board. Also, included in this category are thermal analysis tools.

Regional definitions are as follows:

• North America—^Includes United States and

Canada

• Europe—^Includes the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Benelux, France, Germany, Italy,

Spain, and Rest of Europe

• Asia—^Includes Japan, Singapore, Taiwan,

Korea, China, and Hong Kong

• Rest of World—All other countries including

Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, Africa,

Central America, South America, and the

Middle East

Platform definitions are as follows:

• Technical Workstation—This is a single-user computer that is distinguished from a personal computer by its features and by the user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features include a virtual, multitasking operating system (UNIX, VMS,

DOMAIN); the computer is designed by manufacturer to run high-performance graphic applications in a multiuser/ multitasking envirormient.

• Host-Dependent—This is a shared logic system in which the external workstations' functions are dependent on a host computer.

• Server—A server is a computer that transparently provides its resources for use by other computer systems. It is a system on a network that provides specific functionality to other computer systems: the clients.

Functions include file storage, database access, compute capability, and others. Dataquest tracks the following major categories of servers used for CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS applications:

- Compute Servers—These systems provide capabilities for solving numerical problems

(for example, simulations, statistical calculations, and simultaneous partial differential equations). System features usually include high-speed computational capabilities (for example, vector and parallel processing) and large memories.

- Print Servers—These systems provide access to printers, specialized printing applications software, and print-spooling resources to a network.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated May—Reproduction Prohibited

- File Servers—These systems provide mass storage capability to clients on a network.

Services can range from temporary storage of working files to long-term backup and archive systems.

- E>atabase Servers—These systems manage databases as a shared resource to a network. These servers handle such functions as physical data storage, data security, and high-level queries and can access stored information at the record level.

• Personal Computer—This is defined as a single-user computer that is distinguished from a technical workstation by its features and by the user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features found in technical workstations (such as a virtual operating system, networking, highperformance graphics, multiuser/multitasking capability) are optional rather than integrateid by the manufacturer.

Line item definitions are as follows:

• Average selling price (ASP) is defined as the average price of a product, inclusive of any discounts.

• CPU installed base is defined as the total number of CPUs in active, day-to-day use.

• CPU revenue is the portion of revenue derived from a system sale that is related to the value of the CPU. On the case of technical workstations and personal computers,

CPU revenue contains die terminal revenue.)

• CPU shipment is defined as the number of

CPUs delivered.

Mechanical Appllcadoos PreUminary Forecast 13

• Hardware revenue is defined as the sum of the revenue from the hardware system components: CPU revenue, tominal revenue, and peripherals revenue.

• Installed seats are defined as the total number of seats in active, day-to-day use.

• Peripherals revenue is defined as the value of all the peripherals of a turnkey sale.

(Peripherals in this category typicaUy are input and output devices.)

• Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and support of

CAD/CAM/CAE or GIS systems. Service revenue can be calculated in the tables by subtracting hardware and software revenue from total revenue.

• Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of bundled (part of a turnkey system) and unbundled software.

• Terminal revenue is defined as revenue derived from the sale of terminals that are used to graphically create, analyze, or manipulate designs. The term is applicable only to the host-dependent platform, as terminal revenue is contained within CPU revenue for technical workstations and PCs.

» Total factory revenue is defined as the amount of money received by a manuiacmrer for its goods measured in U.S. dollars.

Total factory revenue does not include revenue that a company may receive from products that are sold to another company for resale (OEM revenue).

• Unit shipment is defined as the number of products delivered (that is, seats).

©1992 Oataquest Incorporated May—Reproduction Prohibited

to

R

1

Tl

f

1

1

§•

B

B"

i

Table 2

PfeHtnlnary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Worldwide

All Platforms

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments 134,443 165,576 180,794 225,743

Unit Shipments or Seats 162,425 188,061 203,506 250,064

CPU Installed Base

249,425

275,842

275,120

298,610

299,030

320,130

319,560

339,020

333,860

351,610

270,425 424,786 576,900 745,310 903,484 1,053,200 1,190,410 1,311,710 1,402,430 1

Iitstalled Seats

349,024 523,460 693,584 877,895 1,048,984 1,203,720 1,340,060 1,455,310 1,535,300 1

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELLING PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turrtkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

77.4

15.2

86.7

10.8

66.0

12.0

58.0

10.4

52.8

10.0

50.0

9.5

47.6

9.0

45.9

8.8

44.6

8.6

REVENUE DATA (Millions dJF U.S . Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 3,546 3,747

CPU Revenue

TemUnal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

<5^ware Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

2,209

847

490

1,095

610

485

735

5,376

24

2,617

652

479

1,348

733

615

888

5,984

11

3,947

3,035

438

474

1,558

933

624

1,062

6,568

10

4,312

3,409

373

530

1,877

1,090

787

1,230

7,419

13

Source; Dataquest CMay 1992)

4,518

3,581

333

604

2,146

1,235

911

1,346

8,010

8

4,698

3,750

302

647

2,360

1,344

1,017

1,466

8,525

6

4,827

3,873

275

679

2,556

1,439

1,116

1,582

8,965

5

4,944

3,980

259

704

2,749

1,527

1,222

1,706

9,399

5

5,023

4,058

238

726

2,932

1,617

1,315

1,827

9,782

4

Table 3

Prellmlnfiiy History and Forecast

^plication:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Worldwide

Technical Workstation

HAiRDWARE SHIPMENT JDi/BCl

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

3 PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

56.3

22.9

51.4

19.7

46.2

19.9

43.9

17.7

41.7

16.2

40.0

15.0

38.7

14.1

37.8

13.7

REVENUE DATA (MUlions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 742 1,118 1,602 1,864 1,970 2,159 2,314 2,450 2,583

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

617

0

905

0

1,318

0

1,525

0

1,595

0

1,743

0

1,866

0

1,973

0

2,080

0

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

124

367

221

146

199

1.308

213

558

327

231

364

2,040

284

811

532

279

574

2,987

339

1,053

640

413

669

3,585

376

1,198

707

491

717

3,886

415

1.387

807

580

819

4,365

448

1.572

899

673

920

4,806

477

1,757

986

771

1,021

5.227

503

1.930

1,075

856

1,124

5,637

Increase over Prior

Year (%) 91 56 46 20 8 12 10 9 8

NOTE: In 1991, $ecvet w u added as a platform. This redassiAcaUon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

®

to

Ci

I

1

I

1

§•

3 a

1 f

Table 4

Pf eUmlnary History and Forecast

Appiication;

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Worldwide

Host-Dependent

1987

1988 1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

HARDWAHE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

5,181

33,163

18,839

97,438

8,027

30,512

26,198

124,872

9,054

31,766

33,967

150,651

10,569

34,890

42,287

174,871

7,724

34,140

46,502

192,002

7,690

31,150

49,500

200,020

7,500

28,580

51,130

200,780

• 7,430

26,860

50,640

194,230

7,330

25,060

48,050

180,930 1

CALCULATIBD AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

358.4

431.8 321.8 268.7 215.9

Hardware-Only ASP 1,244.3 151.3 1337

113.2 243.8

203.1

224.1

194.5

206.2

187.0

189.9

179.9

174.1

REVE^aJE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue 2,236

CPU Revenue 1,087

847 Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

301

497

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

291

206

496

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

3,229

7

1,959

1.137

652

171

529

328

201

491

2,979

1,678

1,112

438

128

442

313

129

437

2,557

1,637

1,145

373

119

495

369

125

499

2,631

1,358

915

333

110

473

360

113

444

2,275

1,251

846

302

103

453

349

104

424

2,127

-8 -14

3

-14 -7

NOTE: In 1991, tetvet was adiied as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms,

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

1,145

775

275

95

429

335

93

402

1,976

-7

1,069

721

259

88

416

325

90

390

1,875

-5

990

669

238

82

408

319

89

379

1,777

-5

@

h-*

to

Table 5

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Resion:

Platform:

Mechanical

Worldwide

Server

HAEDWAHE SHlPMBI*r DATA.

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or iSiMi;;:

CPU Installed Bjise

Installed Seats

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5,493

5.493

5,493

5,493

7,110

7,110

12,490

12,490

1993

1994

8,660

8,660

20,340

20,340

10,160

10,160

28,380

28,380

1995

11,490

11,490

35,520

35,520

1

1

4

4 a

1

I

I f

I

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

125.9

45.0

119.3

40.9

114.6

37.5

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year

(%)

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

331

293

0

38

84

65

19

113

527

NA

395

349

0

46

107

83

24

140

642

22

449

395

0

53

130

101

29

165

744

16

NOTE: In 1991, server wa« added as a platform. This FedasslRcation reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforais,

Sourcet Dataquest (Miy 1992)

109.9

35.6

497

438

0

59

152

118

34

189

839

13

105.4

34.5

535

472

0

63

171

131

40

211

917

9

I a a

I

to o

I

{

Table 6

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Worldwide

Personal Computer

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments 108,864 124,958 117,603 147,683 158,063 168,550 178,100 185,410 187,600 1

Unit Shipments or Seats 108,864 124,958 117,603 147,683 158,063 168,570 178,120 185,430 187,620 1

CPU Installed Base 214,748 329,931 422,550 521,048 603,369 672,400 734,290 790,210 836,270 8

Installed Seats 214,748 329,931 422,550 521,048 603,369 672,400 734,290 790,210 836,270 8

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

17.2

4.2

23.1

4.4

20.0

4.8

19.1

4.6

18.1

4.5

18.3

4.4

18.1

4.3

17.9

4.3

17.8

4.2

IVENUE DATA (MillioOiS of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

568

504

0

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

64

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

231

99

132

40

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

839

35

670

576

0

94

261

78

183

34

965

667

605

0

62

304

88

216

51

1,023

811

740

0

72

329

81

248

62

1,202

859

778

0

80

392

103

289

72

1,322

894

812

0

82

414

105

309

84

1,391

15

6 18 10 5

NOTE: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: E)ataquest (May 1992)

919

836

0

82

425

104

321

95

1,439

3

928

847

0

80

425

99

327

105

1,458

1

915

837

0

78

423

93

331

113

1,451

-0

®

t-^

I

•§

1 i a f s

1

§

1

^

1

Table 7

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Piaiform:

Mechanical

North America

All platforms

1987

HARD\FARE SHIPM^iT BATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Ses^

CPU Instiled Base

Installed Seats

69,642

81,494

145,543

185,148

1988

1989 1990

1991

1992

85,759

93,394

224,639

269,970

76,194

83,507

284.618

333,700

82,511

91,230

335,540

387,864

89,781

99,063

376,746

431,137

97,810

106,010

411,310

465,500

1993

1994

1995

1

104,130

111,620

441,740

494,400

109,710

116,930

470,280

520,560

112,430

119,160

492,510

539,360

113

120

51

553

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA CHiousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP 91.6

90,7 78.3 77.1 65.6

Hardware-Only ASP

12.4 9.2

11.3 10.7 10.1

61.2

9.4

57.8

9.0

55.7

8.7

54.1

8.4

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

1,406

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

Cnjmkey)

888

337

Software Revenue

Bundled

180

372

184

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

189

312

2,090

11

1,270

951

224

95

424

156

268

310

2,004

1,305

1,026

163

116

471

202

268

368

2,144

1.297

1,022

160

115

541

216

324

391

2,229

1,296

1,024

146

126

603

226

377

396

2,296

1,297

1,043

127

128

649

236

414

419

2,366

-4

7

4

3 3

NOHTE: In 1991, senrer was added as a platform. This ledasslAcation reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

1,303

1,058

116

129

688

248

440

444

2,434

3

1,319

1,076

112

3

131

722

262

460

472

2,513

1,307

1,074

102

131

751

274

477

494

2,552

2

Table 8

Prelknlnary Hlstoty and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

North America

Technical Workstation

®

1987

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

8,567

8,567

17,481

17,481

1988

12,176

12,176

29,190

29,190

1989

1990

1991

1992

18,170

18,170

46,044

46,044

18,831

18,831

61,942

61,942

22,178

22,178

78,759

78,759

24,890

24,890

95,250

95,250

1993

27,540

27,540

109,370

109,370

1994

1995

19

29,820

29,820

120,830

120,830

31,380

31,380

127,010

127,010

32,2

32,2

132,9

132,9

g

1

ft

1

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

"njmkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

51.3

28.2

47.2

23.5

50.9

19.4

48.6

18.3

43.1

15.6

41.1

14.2

39.5

13.0

•3

1

1

1

REVENUE DATA (Millioitt of V.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

283

235

0 Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey) 48

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Tbtal Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (9t)

119

72

47

78

480

54

357

306

0

50

163

74

89

125

645

34

491

417

0

73

233

119

114

212

936

473

400

0

73

296

125

171

213

982

473

395

0

79

331

125

206

207

1,012.

485

405

0

80

370

133

237

226

1,081

496

414

0

81

404

142

263

245

1,145

45 5 3

7 6

NOTE: In 1991, seiver was added as a platfonn. This redasslficaUon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

38.3

12.3

505

422

0

83

435

150

285

263

1,202

5

37.3

11.8

509

425

0

83

462

158

305

278

1,249

4

3

1

5

4

4

1

3

2

1,2

k n

I

s

n

o

&

I?' a

1

®

s

bJ

i

•i

1 ^

B

I

8

1

Table 9

Prelinilnary History and Forecast

Application:

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Nortli America

Host-Dependent

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seat?

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

1,898

13,750

9,428

49,034

3,204

10,838

12,119

57,450

3,050

10,362

14,272

63,354

3,524

12,242

16,446

68,770

1,846

11,127

16,446

70,838

1,760

9,960

15,990

70,180

1,730

9,230

15,260

67,910

1,790

9.010

14,150

64,430

1,810

8,530

12,670

59,520

1,9

8,5

11,0

52,5

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollais)

Tljmkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

344.8

1,362.0

360.5

152.3

489.5

128.1

368.8

118.6

279.7

259.8

267.2

236.5

256.2

217.1

245.5

199.0

235.2

182.2

22

16

REVErnjE DATA (MiUlons of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Tenninal Revenue

880

421

337

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey) 121

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year ©4)

187

100

87

223

1,290

^

648

380

224

44

182

79

103

177

1,006

553

355

163

35

140

80

60

141

835

549

355

160

33

142

88

54

162

852

418

245

146

27

126

80

46

129

673

366

216

127

24

120

76

44

119

605

335

197

116

-22

-17

2 -21 -10

NOTE: In 1991, seiver was added aa a platfomi. This redassificadon reduced 1991 growth rales for the other platforms.

Source: DaUquest Otny 1992)

22

112

74

38

113

559

-8

322

190

112

21

111

75

36

112

545

-2

2

1

1

1

1

5

300

178

102

20

112

77

35

110

523

-4

Table ID

Preliminarf History and Forecast

Application:

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

North America

Server

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments NA NA NA NA 2,093 2,700 3,270 3,760 4,110 4

Unit Shipments or Seats NA NA NA NA 2,093 2,700 3,270 3,760 4,110 4

CPU Installed Base NA NA NA NA 2,093 4,750 7,720 10,670 13,130 15

Installed Seats NA NA NA NA 2,093 4,750

7,720 10,670 13,130 1

i

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELLING PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP NA NA NA NA 122.3 116.8 112.0

Hardware-Only ASP NA NA NA NA 50.1 45.6

41.9

107.4

39.8

102.8

38.6

I a

I

I

REVENUE DATA (Milliooj^ of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue NA NA NA NA 123 146 l63 177 184

CPU Revenue NA NA NA NA 111 131 147 158 165

Terminal Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey) NA NA NA NA 12 15 17 18 19

Software Revenue NA NA NA NA 27 35 43 50 55

Bundled NA NA NA NA 19 24 30 35 37

Unbundled NA NA NA NA 9 11 13 15 17

Service Revenue NA NA NA NA 43 53 6l 69 74

Total Factory Revenue NA NA NA NA 193 234 268 295 313

Increase over Prior

Year (%) NA NA NA NA NA 21 15 10 6

NOTE: In 1991, server -ma added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

®

tv) s*

Q

s

Table 11

Frellmlnary History and Forecast

Applic^on:

Region;

Platform;

Mechanical

North America

Persona] Computer

1987

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

59,177

59,177

118,634

118,634

1988 1989 1990 1991

70,379

70,379

183,329

183.329

54,975

54,975

224,302

224,302

60,156

60,156

257,151

257,151

63,664

63,664

279,447

279,447

1992 1993

68,460

68,460

295,320

295,320

71,590

71,590

309,400

309,400

1994 1995

74,340

74,340

324,630

324,630

75,130

75,130

339,700

339.700

7

7

35

35

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

T^irnkey ASP

I^rdware-Only ASP

15.4

3.8

13.8

3.7

10.8

4.7

20.3

4.6

13.3

4.4

13.2

4.4

13.0

4.3

12.8

4.2

12.6

4.2

f

o

k

1

a.

s

n

Q.

1

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars;)

Hardware Revenue 242

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

232

0

11

>J!oftware Revenue

Bundied

67

12

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (H)

55

11

320

34

266

265

0

1

78

2

76

8

352

261

254

0

7

97

3

94

14

373

276

267

0

9

103

3

100

16

395

282

274

0

9

119

2

117

17

418

300

291

0

9

125

2

123

21

446

10 6 6 6 7

NOTE: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This redasslAcation reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source; Dataquest (May 1992)

309

299

0

9

128

2

126

25

462

4

316

306

0

9

127

2

125

28

471

2

314

305

0

9

121

2

120

31

467

-1

i

I

I

I

Table 12

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Europ)e

All Placfotms

1987 1988 1989

1990

1991

J 9 9 2 1993 1994 1995

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

37,362 48,831 6l,506 77,034 88,446 96,320 103,780 110,770 116,850 119

45,054 56,812 70,947 85,783 97,890 104,600 111,150 117,510 123,110 125 Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

71,591 117,885 172,246 234,432 298,058 358,050 410,900 455,390

91,725 145,980 209,526 279,232 349,046 411,890 465,150 507,700

488,070 514

536,380 556

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

"njmkey ASP 55.8 72.5 68.4 62.6 59.6 56.2

Hardware-Only ASP l4.4 13.4 13.0 10.7 9.7

9.4

53.3

9.0

51.2

8.7

49.5

8.6

REVENUE DATA (MiUior» of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

956 1,360

596 975 CPU Revenue

Tertrunal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

222 214

(Turnkey)

:Serftware Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

138

421

189

232

170

500

271

228

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

271

1,647

36

360

2,220

35

1,489

1,140

175

175

585

353

232

441

2,516

1,584

1,267

121

196

749

443

306

546

2,879

1,646

1,322

108

215

854

504

349

614

3,114

1,708

1,377

102

229

945

549

396

669

3,323

1,751

1,419

449

724

3,513

13

14 8

NOTE: In 1991, senrer was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms,

Source: Dataquest Qi»y 1992)

93

239

1,037

589

1,804

1,468

250

1,131

632

499

785

3,720

6

1,866

1,523

81

262

1,221

683

538

851

3,939

1

1

1

4

® tsJ

S"

rt

I

1

I c

1

1

§:

Table 13

Preliminary History and forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Europe

Technical "Workstation

1987 19SS 1989

1990 1991

HARDWARE SHIPMEp* j^ATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments Or-Seg^'

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

7,287

7,287

12,070

12,070

13,202

13,202

25,087

25,087

20.975

20,975

45,384

45,384

25.562

25,562

69,079

69,079

28,458

28,458

93.379

93,379

1992

32,620

32.620

118.180

118.180

1993

36.740

36,740

140,190

140,190

1994

40,770

40,770

158,840

158,840

1995

44.950

44,950

171,590

171,590

1

47

47

184

184

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S.

Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

46.7

52.8

52.9 51.6 49.7

Hardware-Only ASP

29.1

25.8 19.6

20.3

18.6

47.3

16.9

45.4

15.5

44.1

14.6

43.0

14.1

4

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

238

195

Terminal Revenue

0

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

43

158

76

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

82

84

480

97

472

384

0

88

238

137

101

159

869

667

561

0

107

341

223

117

265

1,272

780

654

0

126

469

301

168

335

1,584

799

666

0

132

530

337

193

374

1,703

855

712

0

142

606

374

232

422

1,882

905

753

0

152

685

411

274

471

2,060

81

46

24 8

11

NOTE: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms,

Sovirce: Dataquest (May 1992)

9

955

794

0

160

763

448

315

521

2.239

9

1,014

843

0

171

839

493

346

574

2,428

8

1

2

M

•S

!

i

I

i

Table 14

PfcHmtoaiy History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Europe

Host-Dependent

1987

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

2,219 3,272 2,832 3,480 2,525 2,490 2,410 2,400 2,420 2,470

9.912 11,253 12,273 12,230 11,968 10,770 9,770 9,l40 8,680 8,290

4,809 8,042 10,713 13,790 15,559 l6,800 17,290 16,950 16,040 14,540

24,944 36,137 47,993 58,590 66,547 70,630 71,540 69,250 64,350 56,510

CALCULATED AVERAGE SEIUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollais)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

236.8

929.0

360.9

139.6

400.2

149.9

265.7

1190

227.0

215.6

214.0

204.1

205.2

188.4

196.5

173.8

188.1

160.1

180.5

148.0

JVENUE DATA (Million*: of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

574

277

222

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey)

^ftware Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

75

191

94

97

173

938

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%>

15

710

431

214

64

174

116

57

188

1,071

14

593

381

175

38

142

112

30

158

894

-17

536

377

121

38

167

130

36

188

892

-0

437

294

108

34

161

128

32

171

768

-14

404

269

102

32

151

122

29

162

717

-7

366

244

93

29

143

116

27

153

662

NOTE: In 1991, seiver was added as a platfoim. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest QAxf 1992)

-8

341

228

86

27

139

113

26

148

629

-5

323

216

81

26

139

113

26

145

607

-3

308

206

77

25

139

113

26

144

591

-3

@

»-*

Table 15

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Europe

Server

1987 1988 1989 1990

1991

HARDWARE SHIPMENT pK&L

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seap

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1,782

1,782

1,782

1,782

1992 1993 1994 1995

2,250

2,250

3,990

3,990

2,750

2,750

6,490

6,490

3,300

3,300

9,100

9,100

3,830

3,830

11,540

11,540

TVirnkey ASF

Hardware-Only ASP

UCE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

NA NA NA NA 141.4

NA NA NA NA 50.4

134.3

45.8

128.8

42.1

123.3

39.9

118.1

38.7

{

1

I

I

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Tenminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

119

105

0

14

32

25

7

44

139

122

0

17

40

32

8

53

232

195

Increase over Prior

NA

NA 19

NOTE: In 1991, server was added » a platform. This reclassiftcation reduced 1991 growth fates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

160

140

0

20

17

49

39

10

64

272

181

158

0

23

58

46

12

74

313

15

200

175

0

25

66

52

14

85

351

12

Table 16

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region;

Platform;

Mechanical

Europe

Personal Computer f

1

1

§•

I

1

®

1

1

9!

1987

HARDWASE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

* Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

27,856

27,856

54,711

54,711

1

19S8

32,357

32,357

84,756

84,756

1989

37,699

37,699

116,149

116,149

1990

47,991

47,991

151,563

151,563

1991

55,681

55,681

187,339

187,339

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELLING PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

10.3

4.4

14.2

4.6

23.3

4.9

19.2

4.8

18.2

4.5

1992

21.4

4.5

1993

58,960

58,960

219,080

219,080

61,880

61,880

246,930

246,930

21.2

4.4

1994

21.1

4.3

1995

20.9

4.3

1

'64,310

64,310

270,500

270,500

65,640

65,640

288,900

288,900

65

65

301

301

REVENUE DATA (MUlians 6f U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

143

178

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

124

0

160

0

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey)

^ftware Revenue

Bundled

19

73

19

88

18

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

19

53

13

229

56

70

14

280

22

229

199

0

30

102

18

85

18

349

268

236

0

32

114

12

102

22

404

290

257

0

34

131

14

117

26

448

311

274

0

37

149

22

127

32

492

321

282

25 15

11 10

NOTE: In 1991, seiver wsu added as a platform. This reckuslflcaUon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

0

39

161

23

138

37

518

5

328

288

0

39

170

24

146

42

539

4

329

289

0

40

177

25

152

46

553

2

®

ts)

S"

E

•9

1

1

w

f

(J i-

9

•fl

1

Table 17

Prellminaiy History and \Forecast

ApplicaHon:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Asia

All Platforms

1987 1988 1989

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

24,549

32,230

28,250

34,401

40,151

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

47,971

64,967

74,471

97,503

45,405

109,856

137,638

1990

62,051

68,098

162,068

194,536

1991

1992

65,605

72,416

211,530

248,167

74,020

80,230

262,060

300,770

1993

1994

1995

82,880

88,400

310,780

349,610

89,550

94,360

353,320

390,490

93,790

97,980

383,340

417,510

9

10

40

43

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

97.8 107.2 57.6

48.3

44.4

Hardware-Only ASP

25.1

12.1

11.6

9.1 10.5

42.8

10.1

41.0

9.5

39.7

9.2

38.7

9.2

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

1,080

658

260

1,044

644

193

1,076

814

85

1,350

1,061

78

1,490

1,170

66

1,601

1,259

61

1,674

1,318

56

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

161

289

230

60

139

1,508

207

410

298

112

202

1,655

176

480

363

117

233

1,788

211

562

415

148

269

2,182

254

657

486

171

311

2,458

281

726

538

188

350

2,677

299

783

580

383

2,841

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

34 10 8 22

13

9

NOTE; In 1991, senrer was added as a pbtfoim. This redassificaHon reduced 1991 growth fates for the other platforms.

204

6

Source: Dataquest (fXay I992)

1,713

1,351

51

5

311

843

608

234

414

2,970

1,739

1,371

47

321

898

633

266

444

3,081

4

Table 18

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Asia

Technical Workstation

@ i

•9

1

§•

S

Hi

H

a

1

•9

1

1

1

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

HARDWAKE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

3,975

3.975

6,131

6,131

6,619

6.619

12,655

12,655

14,392

14,392

26.710

26,710

22,288

22,288

48.087

48.087

26,617

26,617

72,555

72.555

33,160

33,160

101,310

101,310

1993

1994

1995

19

39.140

39.140

130,320

130,320

44,380

44,380

157.240

157.240

49,280

49,280

177,670

177.670

53,2

53,2

197,5

197.5

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

94.1

29-4

78.3

16.8

50.1

20.6

39.6

22.4

39.0

20.7

37.2

19.0

35.8

17.6

REVENUE DATA (MillloiS of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminat Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%>

205

175

0

31

86

70

16

33

324

273

201

0

72

151

112

39

74

498

425

325

0

100

230

184

46

89

744

589

454

0

135

279

206

72

110

978

678

518

0

160

324

237

88

126

1.128

795

607

0

187

397

290

107

158

1.350

885

677

0

209

464

334

130

189

1,539

195

54 49

31 15

20 14

NOTE: In 1991, seiver was added as a platfonn. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

34.7

16.5

959

733

0

226

536

373

163

220

1,715

11

33.9

16.0

1.026

785

0

241

604

408

195

251

1,880

10

3

1

1,0

8

2

6

4

2

2

2.0

Table 19

Preliminary W^xtef tta4 :Fofecast

Application:

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Asia

Host-Dependeitt

@ t-i

s*

•§

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199

HARDWARE SHIPMENT fiATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

_ CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

971

8,652

4,057

21,054

1,365

7,516

5,395

28,426

2,997

8,250

8,256

36,038

3,383

9,430

11,233

43,701

3,214

10,025

13,664

50,300

3,310

9,500

15,910

54,620

3,240

8,730

17,820

56,640

3,110

7,900

18,820

55,990

2,980

7,150

18,710

52,880

2,87

6,51

17,32

46,59

I

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

a

1

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardwarc-Onty ASP

689.1

1.367.4

639.0

176.2

227.2

105.7

231.1

73.4

186.7

254.9

176.1

228.5

168.9

210.1

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

703

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

345

260

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

97

115

94

21

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

89

907

15

554

300

193

60

166

127

39

116

835

485

347

85

52

149

113

36

126

760

508

385

78

45

176

142

34

137

821

467

355

66

47

111

144

33

134

778

449

342

61

45

173

143

30

133

754

415

317

-8 r9

8

-5

-3

NOTE: In 19911 server W D utded as a platfomi. This reclassification reduced 199t growth rates for the other platforms.

Sourcet I>atiqu(st (Mas' 199B

56

42

165

138

27

128

709

-6

161.9

193.0

378

288

51

38

157

130

27

122

657

-7

155.1

177.1

343

262

47

35

150

123

27

116

609

-7

149.

163.

31

23

4

3

14

11

2

11

56

-

Table 20

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Piatfonn:

Mechanical

Asia

Server

1987

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

NA

NA

NA

NA

19S8

NA

NA

NA

NA

1989

NA

NA

NA

NA

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1

NA

NA

NA

NA

1.493

1,493

1,493

1,493

2,000

2,000

3,460

3,460

2,430

2,430

5,660

5,660

2,850

2,850

7,930

7,930

3,250

3,250

9,960

9,960

3

3

12

12

CALCULATED AVERAGE SEUEtNG PRICE D*1A ClhtJusands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP NA

NA

NA

NA

114.3 tfcrdware-Only ASP NA NA

NA

NA

27.3

107.9

25.1

103.5

23.0

REVENUE DATA OMlUion* of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

NA

NA

0 Tenninal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey) NA

NA

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

NA

NA

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

80

69

0

10

22

19

3

23

125

100

87

0

13

29

25

4

30

159

NA NA

NA

NA 27

NOTE: In 1991, server w u added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest QAof 1992)

113

98

0

15

35

29

5

35

183

15

99.2

21.9

125

109

0

16

40

33

7

41

206

13

95.1

21.3

135

118

0

17

45

37

8

46

226

9

®

H*

I

Table 21

Preliminary fl^Sitaty and'Forecast

Application:

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Asia

Personal Computer

1987

HASDWAKE S H I P M ^ DATA

CPU Shipments

19,603

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU InstaJIed Base

19.603

37,783

Installed Seats

37,783

1988

20,266

20,266

56,421

56,421

1989

22,763

22,763

74,890

74,890

1990

1991

36,379

36,379

102,749

102,749

34,281

34,281

123,818

123,818

1992

1993

35,550

35.570

I4lj380

141,380

38,070

38,100

156,980

156,980

1994

39.210

39.230

169.340

169.340

1995

1

38,280

38,300

177,000

177,000

37

37

180

180

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S.

Dollars)

TXjmkey ASP

25.7 33.2 19.8 19.2 18.4

Hardware-Only ASP

5.7 7.0 4.7 4.4 4.4

17.8

4.4

17.6

4.3

17.3

4.3

17.0

4.2

I

I

REVEINrUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

172

139

0

217

143

0

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey)

33 74

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Inaease over Prior

Year (%)

89

66

23

16

277

21

16

93

58

35

12

322

166

141

0

25

100

66

34

18

284

253

223

0

31

107

66

41

22

383

266

229

0

38

133

86

47

27

426

258

223

0

35

128

81

47

29

414

260

226

0

119

78

41

31

410

-12

35

11

-3

NOTE: In 1991, server was added as a platform. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: DaUquest (May 1992)

34

-1

252

221

0

31

109

72

37

32

392

-4

234

207

0

28

100

65

35

32

366

-7

Table 22

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Rest of World

All Platforms

®

i s* s

^

1987

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

2,891

3.647

5,322

7,183

1988

1989

1990

2,735

3,454

7,790

10,008

2,943

3,648

10,181

12,719

4,148

4,954

13,271

16,263

1991

1992

1995

1994

1995

1996

5,593

6,473

17,150

20,634

6,980

7,760

21,770

25,560

8,240

8,960

26,990

30,910

9^540

10,210

32,720

36,570

10,790

11,360

38,510

42,050

11,960

12,450

44,320

47,260

CALCULATED AVERAGE SEUiNG PRICE DATA (TTiousands of U.S. Dollars)

"nimkey ASP

62.1

69.8 86.3

66.1

50.9

Hardware-Only ASP

32.4 18.0

15.5

11.8

9 9

46.9

8.4

44.1

7.8

I

I

1

1

REVErOJE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

104

CPU Revenue

66

Z7

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

CTurnkey)

Software Revenue

10

Bundled

Unbundled

13

8

4

Service Revenue

14

131 Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior

Year (%) 7

74

48

20

105

-20

6

15

9

6

16

77

55

15

7

22

15

7

20

120

81

59

15

8

25

16

9

23

129

86

64

13

8

33

19

14

25

143

92

71

12

9

39

21

19

28

159

99

77

11

10

47

23

24

31

177

14

8

11 11 11

NOTE: In 1991, senrer vas added as a pbtfomi. Thk reclassiflcaUon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other pbtforais.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

41.6

7.3

106

85

10

11

54

25

29

35

196

11

39.3

6.9

111

90

9

12

62

27

35

39

211

8

37.1

6.6

114

94

8

12

72

27

45

41

227

8

Table 23

Preliminary History and Forecast

Application:

Region:

Platform:

Mechanical

Rest of World

Technical Workstation

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DJMA

CPU Sbipments

Unit Shipments or SJ^IOL

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

571

571

1,156

1,156

594

594

1,724

1,724

600

600

2,244

2,244

810

810

2,867

2,867

891

891

3,427

3,427

1,100

1,100

4,060

4,060

1,340

1,340

4,770

4,770

1,600

1,600

5,580

5,580

1,820

1,820

6,320

6,320

1,9

1,9

7,1

7,1

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

PRICE

DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

32.5

31.0

38.5

20.4

45.7

25.4

38.3

23.9

34.8

21.1

33.2

19.2

31.9

17.6

REVENUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

15

12

Terminal Revenue

0

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

3

5

3

1 Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year

(%)

3

23

25

17

13

0

3

6

3

2

6

28

19

15

0

4

8

6

2

8

35

22

17

0

5

10

7

2

10

42

21

16

0

5

12

8

4

10

43

24

18

0

6

15

10

5

12

52

21 26

19 3

20

NOTE: In 1991, server was added as a plaUbmi. This reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source: Dataquest (May 1992)

28

21

0

7

19

12

7

15

61

18

30.9

16.6

32

24

0

8

22

14

8

18

72

17

30.1

16.0

35

26

0

8

25

16

9

20

80

12

2

1

Table 24

Pf ellmlnaiy History and Forecast

Application;

Region:

Platfotm:

Mechanical

Rest of World

Host-Dependent

1987

19S8

1989

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

93

849

545

2,407

185

905

642

2,859

176

880

727

3,266

1990

182

988

819

3,811

1991

1992

139

1.019

833

4,317

130

920

800

4,590

1993

1994

1995

19

130

850

770

4,690

130

810

720

4,570

120

700

640

4,180 3.

@

t-*

i

^

CALCULATED AVERAGE SmUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of US. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

496.3

1,342.8

482.0

202.3

699.9

170.9

461.3

188.6

337.6

295.2

322.5

268.8

309.3

246.7

296.4

226.2

283.9

207.1

27

19

I

1 s

1

§•

i

1

REVEhfUE DATA (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

Terminal Revenue

79

44

27

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Faaory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year

(%)

-4

7

6

4

1

10

94

48

26

20

3

7

5

2

10

66

-30

47

29

15

3

10

8

2

11

68

4

44

27

15

2

10

8

1

12

66

-3

36

21

13

2

9

8

1

10

56

-15

32

19

12

2

9

8

1

10

51

-10

NOTE: In 1991, setver w u added as a platfoim. Thb reclassification reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms,

Source: Dataquest Olay 1992)

30

17

11

2

8

7

1

9

47

-7

28

16

10

1

8

7

1

9

44

-6

23

13

9

1

7

6

1

8

38

-14

Table 25 pf ellmlnary History and Forecast

Application;

Region;

Platform:

Mechanical

Rest of World

Server

1987 1988

HARDWARE SHIPMENT DATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shif)ments or Seats

CPU Installed Base

Installed Seats

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1989

1990

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1991

1992 1993 1994 1995

125

125

125

125

160

160

280

280

210

210

470

470

260

260

680

680

300

300

880

880

CALCULATED AVERAGE SELUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

Turnkey ASP

NA NA NA NA

130.5

Hardware-Only ASP NA

NA NA NA 49.8

124.7

45.3

119.5

41.6

114.6

39.5

109.7

38.4

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

(Turnkey)

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Faaocy Revenue

Increase over Prior

NA NA

NA

Year (%) NA NA

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

9

7

0

1

2

2

0

3

14

NA

10

9

0

1

3

3

0

4

17

23

NOTE; In 1991, seiver was added as a platform. This feclassiflcatlon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platforms.

Source; DaUquest (May 1992}

12

11

0

22

2

4

3

1

5

21

14

12

0

1

6

24

2

4

4

17

16

14

0

2

5

4

1

7

28

14

Tabic 26

PreUmlnary History and forecast

Appiication:

Region;

Platform;

Mechanical

Rest of World

Personal Computer

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

1992 1993

1994

1995

19

HARDWARE SHIPMBiStt JSlATA

CPU Shipments

Unit Shipments pir S^f^

CPU Installed

Installed Seats

2,228

2,228

1.956

1,956

2,167

2,167

3,156

3,156

4,438

4,438

5,580

5,580

6,560

6,560

7,550

7,550

8,550

8,550

9,5

9,5

3,620 5,424 7,209 9,585 12,765 16,620 20,980 25,740 30,670 35,5

3,620 5,424 7,209 9,585 12,765 16,620 20,980 25,740 30,670 35,5

CALCULATED AVERAGE SEIUNG PRICE DATA (Thousands of U.S. Dollars)

IXirnkey ASP

Hardware-Only ASP

13.5

4.3

10.0

4.5

9.6

5.1

6.2

4.6

5.1

4.6

5.0

4.6

5.0

4.5

IVENUB DATA (Millions of U.S.

Dollars)

Hardware Revenue

CPU Revenue

10

10

0 Terminal Revenue

Peripheral Revenue

CTumkey) 1

Software Revenue

Bundled

Unbundled

Service Revenue

Total Factory Revenue

Increase over Prior Year

W)

3

1

2

0

13

136

9

9

0

0

2

0

2

0

11

11

11

0

0

5

1

4

1

16

15

14

0

0

6

0

6

1

21

20

19

0

0

9

1

8

1

30

25

24

0

0

13

1

12

2

39

29

28

0

1

17

1

16

2

48

-15

42

30

42

31

22

NOTE: In 1991, server -was added as a platfbrai. This tectasslflcatlon reduced 1991 growth rates for the other platfoims.

Source: Oataquest (May 1992)

4.9

4.4

33

32

0

1

20

1

19

3

56

16

4.8

4.4

37

36

0

1

25

1

24

4

65

18

Dataquest

Dataquest Research and Sales Offices:

Dataquest Incorporated

1290 Ridder Park Drive

San Jose, California 95131-2398

Phone: 01 (408) 437-8000

Telex: 171973

Fax: 01 (408) 437-0292

Technology Products Group

Phone: (800) 624-3280

Dataquest Incorporated

Ledgeway/Dataquest

The Corporate Center

550 Cochituate Road

Framingham, MA 01701

Phone: 01 (508) 370-5555

Fax: 01 (508) 370-6262

Dataquest Incorporated

Invitational Computer Conferences Division

3151 Airway Avenue, C-2

Costa Mesa, California 92626

Phone: 01 (714) 957-0171

Fax: 01 (714) 957-0903

Dataquest Australia

Suite 1, Century Plaza

80 Berry Street

North Sydney, NSW 2060

Australia

Phone: 6I (2) 959-4544

Fax: 61 (2) 929-0635

Dataquest Europe Limited

Roussel House, Broadwater Park

Denham, Uxbridge, Middx UB9 5HP

England

Phone: 44 (895) 835050

Fax: 44 (895) 835260/1

Dataquest Europe SA

Tour Gallieni 2

36, avenue du General-de-Gaulle

93175 Bagnolet Cedex

France

Phone: 33 (1) 48 97 31 00

Telex: 233 263

Fax: 33 (1) 48 97 34 00

Dataquest GmbH

Kronstadter Strasse 9

8000 Munich 80

Germany

Phone: 49 (89) 93 09 09 0

Fax: 49 (89) 930 3277

Dataquest Germany

In der Schneithohl 17

6242 Kronberg 2

Germany

Phone: 49 6l73/6l685

Fax: 49 6173/67901

Dataquest Hong Kong

Rm. 401. Connaught Comm. Bldg.

185 Wanchai Rd.

Wanchai, Hong Kong

Phone: (852) 8387336

Fax: (852) 5722375

Dataquest Japan Limited

Shinkawa Sanko Building

1-3-17 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku

Tokyo, 104

Japan

Phone: 81 (3) 5566-0411

Fax: 81 (3) 5566-0425

Dataquest Korea

Daeheung Bldg. 1105

648-23 Yeoksam-dong

Kangnam-gu

Seoul, Korea 135

Phone: 82 (2) 556^166

Fax: 82 (2) 552-2661

Dataquest Singapore

4012 Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 1

Ave. 10, #03-10 to #03-12

Singapore 2056

Phone: 65 4597181

Telex: 38257

Fax: 65 4563129

Dataquest Taiwan

Room 801/8th Floor

Ever Spring Building

147, Sec. 2, Chien Kuo N. Rd.

Taipei, Taiwan R.O C. 104

Phone: 886 (2) 501-7960

886 (2) 501-5592

Fax: 886 (2) 505-4265

0013111

{

{ i

\

>

DataQuest

CAD/CAM/CAE

Mechanical Applications

L

iMeclianicai Appiications

Preiiminary iViaricet Siiare

February 1992

^ Dataquest'

Source:

Dataquest

Market Statistics

File behind the Market Statistics tab inside the binder labeled CAD/CAM/CAE—Afecftanicai

ApplicatiOTts

i i

Published by Dataquest Incorporated

The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public or released by knowledgeable individuals in the subjea industry, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or transmitted, in any form or by any means—mechanical, electronic, photocopying, duplicating, microfilming, videotape, or otherwise—without die prior permission of the publisher.

© 1992 Dataquest Inccaporated

February 1992

i

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Market Share

February 1992

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Segmentation 2

Definitions 2

Market Share Methodology 4

The Audit Process 4

Notes on Market Share 5

Tables Pages

Mechanical

1 World\>idde All Platforms 6

2 Worldwide Technical Workstation 13

3 Worldwide Host-Dependent 18

4 Worldwide Server 21

5 Worldwide Personal Computer 22

6 North America All Platforms 27

7 North America Technical Workstation 31

8 North America Host-Dependent 34

9 North America Server 36

10 North America Personal Computer 37

11 Europe All Platforms 40

12 Europe Technical Workstation 46

13 Europe Host-Dependent 50

14 Europe Server 52

15 Europe Personal Computer 53

16 Asia All Platforms 57

17 Asia Technical Workstation 62

18 Asia Host-Dependent 66

19 Asia Server 68

20 Asia Personal Computer 69

21 Rest of World All Platforms 72

22 Rest of World Technical Workstation 75

23 Rest of World Host-Dependent 77

i

Tables Page

Mechanical (Continued) \

24 Rest of World Server 78

25 Rest of World Personal Computer 79

Note: AU tables show estimated data.

i i

Mechanical Applications Preliminary

Market Share

Introductioii

CAD/CAM/CAE systems have dramatically changed the methods by which designers and production managers originate and implement products. CAD and CAE systems allow designers to create, draft, analyze, test, and manipulate products on a screen in two and three dimensions. As CAD/CAM/CAE systems continue

Figure 1

CAD/CAM/CA£ Market Database to decrease in cost, they become more available and cost justifiable to new users.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the CAD/CAM/CAE industry, Dataquesf s

CAD/CAM/CAE group maintains a large database of industry information. The type of infomution contained in the database is depicted in Figure 1.

Source: Dataquest (February 1992)

Applications

This document contains Dataquesfs detailed market share information on the CAD/CAM/

CAE industry. Following is a description of the information reported in the Market Share book for each segment:

• Source—All companies in database; overview of industry

• Mechanical Applications—All companies in database with mechanical revenue

• AEC and GIS Applications—All companies in database with AEC or GIS revenue

• Electronic Design Automation Applications—

All companies in database with EDA (electronic CAE, IC layout, PCB/hybrid/MCM) revenue

• Europe—All Europe-based companies and all other companies with more than $1 million in European revenue

• Asia—All Asia-based companies and all other companies with more than $1 million in Asian revenue

• Personal CAD and Distribution Charmels—^AU companies in database with personal computer revenue

More detailed data on this market may be requested through our client inquiry service.

Segmentation

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Appllcatloiis

For complete information on Dataquesfs hightechnology market segmentation scheme, please refer to the Dataquest High-Technology

GuideSegmentation and Glossary.

Dataquest defines CAD/CAM/CAE as systems used in the mechanical; architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC); GIS/mapping; and electronic design automation (EDA) application areas. The CAD/CAM/CAE market is defined according to the following segmentation scheme:

• CAD/CAM/CAE

- Mechanical

- AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and

Construction)

- GIS/Mapping (Geographic Information

Systems)

- EDA (Electronic Design Automation)

• Electronic CAE

. IC Layout

. PCB/Hybrid/MCM

In addition, more detailed information by subapplication is available and usually published in Dataquest Perspectives.

For a listing of possible subapplication categories, see the Dataquest High-Technology

GuideSegmentation and Glossary.

Definitions

This section lists the definitions that are specific to this document. Complete definitions for all terms can be found in ^ e Dataquest

High-Technology GuideSegmentation and

Glossary.

Application definitions are as follows:

• Mechanical—Mechanical CAD/CAM refers to computer-aided tools used to design, analyze, document, and manufacture discrete parts, components, and assemblies.

• Architecture, Engineering, and Construction

(AEC)—This segment covers the use of computer-aided tools by architects, contractors, plant engineers, civil engineers, and other people associated with these disciplines to aid in designing and managing buildings, industrial pknts, ships, and other types of nondiscrete entities.

• Geographic Information Systems

(GIS)/Mapping—This is a computer-based technology, composed of hardware, software, and data used to capture, edit, display, and analyze spatial (tagged by location) information.

• Electronic Design Automation (EDA)—^This segment covers computer-based tools that are used to automate the process of designing an electronic produa including printed circuit boards, ICs, and systems. EDA includes ECAE, IC Layout, and

PCB/Hybrid/MCM, as follows:

- Electronic Computer-Aided Engineering

(CAE)—These are computer-aided tools

i i

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated Febniaiy—Reproduction Prohibited

used in the engineering or design phase of electronic products (as opposed to the physical layout phase of the product).

Examples of Electronic CAE applications are schematic capture and simulation.

- IC Layout—This is a software application tool that is used to create and validate the physical implementation of an integrated circuit (IC). The IC layout category comprises polygon editors, symbolic editors, placement and routing (gate array, cell, and block), design verification tools (DRC/ERC/logic-to-layout), compilers, and module development tools.

- Printed Circuit Board (PCB)/Hybrid/

Multichip Module (MCM)—This segment covers products that are used to create the placement and routing of the traces and components laid out on a printed circuit board. Also, included in this category are thermal analysis tools.

Regional definitions are as follows:

• North America—^Includes United States and

Canada

• Europe—Includes the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Benelxox, France, Germany, Italy,

Spain, and Rest of Europe

• Asia—^Includes Japan, Singapore, Taiwan,

Korea, China, and Hong Kong

• Rest of World—^All other countries including

Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, Africa,

Central America, South America, and the

Middle East

Platfomi definitions are as follows:

• Technical Workstation—This is a single-user computer that is distinguished from a personal computer by its features and by the user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features include a virtual, multitasking operating system (UNIX, VMS,

DOMAIN); the computer is designed by manufacturer to run high-performance graphic applications in a multiuser/multitasking environment.

• Host-Dependent—This is a shared logic system in which the external workstations' functions are dependent on a host computer.

>f echaalcal Applications Preliminary Maricet Share

• Server—A server is a computer that transparently provides its resources for use by other computer systems. It is a system on a network that provides specific functionality to other computer systems: the clients.

Functions include file storage, database access, compute capability, and others. Dataquest tracks the following major categories of servers used for CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS applications:

- Compute Servers—These systems provide cajjabilities for solving numerical problems

(for example, simulations, statistical calculations, and simultaneous partial differential equations). System features usually include high-speed computational capabilities (for example, vector and parallel processing) and large memories.

- Print Servers—These systems provide access to printers, specialized printing applications software, and print spooling iresources to a network.

- File Servers—^These systems provide mass storage capability to clients on a network.

Services can range from temporary storage of working files to long-term backup and archive systems.

- Database Servers—These systems manage databases as a shared resource to a network. These servers handle such functions as physical data storage, data security, and high-level queries and can access stored information at the record level.

• Personal Computer—^This is defined as a single-user computer that is distinguished firom a technical workstation by its features and by the user's potential range of expansion on the platform. Features found in technical workstations (such as a virtual operating system, networking, high-performance graphics, multiuser/multitasking capability) are optional rather than integrated by the manufacturer.

Revenue/shipments/ASP definitions are as follows:

• Total factory revenue is defined as the amount of money received by a manufacturer for its goods measured in U.S. dollars.

Total factory revenue does not include revenue that a company may receive from products that are sold to another company for resale (OEM revenue).

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—Reproduction Prohibited

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

Unit shipment is defined as the number of products delivered (that is, seats).

Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of bundled (part of a turnkey system) and unbundled software.

Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and support of

CAD/CAM/CAE or GIS systems. Service revenue can be calculated in the tables by subtracting hardware and software revenue from total revenue.

• Second Quarter (March 5Xh-We provide complete preliminary forecast tables, including a new five-year forecast period.

• Third Quarter (July 1)—We send complete, final updated market share tables based on additional data collection and analysis over the previous six months, as well as company history tables. At this point, the market share database is frozen and will not be changed until the end of the year. For the next six months, supplementary market data will be based on these final market data.

• Fourth Quarter (October 1)—We provide complete final forecast tables, taking into consideration changes in the market during the previous six months.

Market Share Methodology

Dataquest uses both primary and secondary sources to produce our market share data. In the fourth quarter of each year, we survey all major participants in each industry. Each vendor is offered the opportunity to self-report the information required. Although there is a primary contact for each company, large companies are surveyed across product lines and across geographic regions. Thus, there is a corresponding increase in the number of contacts at large companies. (Dataquest maintains a large contact database on all sources of information). Examples of the job tides of people contaaed for information are the following:

• President and CEO

• Vice President and General Manager

• Vice President of Marketing

• Vice President, Strategic Product Planning

• Director of Strategic Planning

• Director of Marketing

• Director of Market Development

• Manager, CAD/CAM/CAE Marketing Programs

• Market Research Analyst

We resurvey selea companies during the second quarter of the following year to verify final aimual results and then publish final market share information based on this updated information. Our annual delivery schedule is as follows:

• First Quarter January 31)—^Preliminary market data are available. AU tables will be published and distributed to clients.

Historical database is opened for changes for a six-month period.

The Audit Process

Data supplied by vendors are evaluated against information drawn from many sources, including the following:

• Revenue published by major industry participants

• Estimates made by knowledgeable and reliable industry spokespersons

• Government data or trade association data

• Published product literature and price lists

• Interviews with knowledgeable manufacturers, distributors, and users

• Relevant economic data

• Information and data from online data banks

Articles in both the general and trade press

Armual reports, SEC documents, credit reports

Company publications and press releases

Reports from financial analysts

User studies

Reseller and supplier reports and reports from a vendor's competitors

In addition, Dataquest sums vendor revenue across other industries covered by Dataquest to make sure that revenue is not credited twice and checks with multiple sources at one company to cross-check data on that company.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—^Reproduction Prohibited

Mechaalcal AppUcatloiis Prelimlnaiy Maricet Share

Dataquest analysts have many years of experience in how to apply the above tools to get the most accurate information possible on a particular company (such as what to use when and what industry averages are). We believe that the estimates presented here are the most accurate and meaningful generally available today. It is the CAD/CAM/CAE group's policy to continually update our market information for any year, based on any new data received, in order to arrive at the most accurate market representation possible.

Dataquest's CAD/CAM/CAE market numbers are often higher than those reported by other soxorces. We survey worldwide, which involves more vendors, higher total market revenue, lower market share per vendor, and a more accurate market picture—^particularly useful when comparing regions or applications. technical workstation, host-dependent, server, and personal computer. Revenue formerly ckssified in technical workstations, host-dependent, or personal computer may now be more accurately classified, where appropriate, in the server category. However, because of this reclassification, data and growth rates for the other platform areas were affected.

Finally, please note that despite the care taken in gathering and analyzing the available data and in attempting to categorize those data in a meaningful way, careful attention must be paid to the definitions and assumptions used herein when interpreting the estimates presented ia this document. Various companies, government agencies, and trade associations may use slightly different definitions of product categories and regional groupings, or they may include different companies in their summaries.

These differences should be kept in mind when making comparisons between these data and those provided by others.

Notes o n Market Share

For the 1991 market share cycle, Dataquest's

CAD/CAM/CAE group added server as a platform. The platform categories now include

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—^Reproduction Prohibited

CAD/CAM/CAE-^Iechanical Applications ii

ff4 > P i A ^ p s p N p \,P % p v p > p > p > p

N P > P V O

>,p s p

N P

4 ^ <i^

N P

> 0 ^ A « 0

N P ^ S

5 i r \ -«• rt 8 J •& S^ s ^ ^ ^s s s o > n i ^ F ~ O f > ) o 5 \ f r i s o t r > i s ] i A a

& f r t « S r - i T - J i - ! - ^ l A ' M ' t - ! ' T H ' O S K ' < - < " B

I

N O IIIP N P > P N P S P <iP > p \ 0 N p l i p N P % P > P S p ^ i p < ^ \ p 1 ^ • i ^ > P ii

^ O r r t •fl<(si t-i r^ 1-i tr> (^ ' ^-i ^ ' - ^ r - ! r - ! r - ;

W5 K

I

I

%p > p • ^

N P

^ P s p ^ P N p *>P N p s p \ P N p s P % P > P s p s p s P

V V

^

§

I

as

Si

oc5 s o <3\ r-; «S -<r -*"

r r j f M i - * i ^ i - < f r i t f ^ T - i

I t:-

II

(I*

^•O s p > ^ ^ p % P s P > P s p s p s p s p s P 'Sp s p s P s P «A s P s P s p s p s p s P i ^

© * O ^ P ^ O ^ O ^ © ^ ^ N O ^ O ^ © ^ ^ ^ P* © ^ < ^ © ^ ^N ^ N © ^ O ^ O ^ © ^ O ^ © ^ d * m o O f r i i - i r ^ f O ( s ) s 9 > A i - i o S s 5 \ O s a \ t o t N t s j < s i T - i & \ S o i ^ i ^ i ^ o s i ^ s o « - ) c o r o < s ( S ) r - i ( s i

< 0 - « < O S S O O s O s i - i - < t » r » - f l < 0 0 < - i O S O m i i

ill

t o

OS O t o e o -fl*" i-T t o

IH"

Hr" i-T >^" t-T -o"* so* r-T t s l

t

2

S en

• V to

Is

1—1 t o t^

1-^ fM

I ^

o

00

O

(M

S

o »

so

(S| t o

1^

m

00 t o

<M

SO

SO t o

o

V3

O O <A l A

SO

<s) i n

O i v - o i A - t r t o - * i r i i r i

00 i - i 0 0 I ^ M 0 \ " *

00 •<j" r ^ -^r 0 0 u-i t o

OS {sf ^'" i-T

o

l A

OS

1^ t o so

!o

•* so

t o

•-I

?3

so

1^ o

{>»

^

I

1^ p to OS OS ^ to 00 00 so to to o o s o t f S o d s o i ^ i A t S r H i n i n o o M t O M o o t ^ i r s ^

CM 0\ O o

»A

U-i

00 N ^

OS O

1^

«n o

t o

00 t o

0 \

-*

r-t to t o

TH t o

TH O S

O SO

CO •'«•

SO

o

t o o q i A s o o o i A r ^ - < r p < s i i A O s > A t o c N O s t o o o s p

^ I"!

^11 i n r>i s o ^ vA o

0 0 K r 4 t i •«" 0 0

O 0 0 0 0 00 ON s o

- ^ 1 ^ l A ~V CS (M

• S ^ l A

m

.y g

1 lU

' c

1

X

^ 1

V t) — JJ s ^ ^

JB

,s

I H

OS

OS

I H

• <

c

9-

I:L4 c

.2 a

SPc

BS : J

r

a 1=^

5. « •«

E ^ -5)

c

3

t a

c

Q

t

^

te 1 .

•2 S

2 w

O

5" _ o

u

M O a . ciS

I g

.a

> s

i

ca

Q n

l a i ^ l l l l t l i ^ i a e l l l

s

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—Reproduction Prohibited

v6

Iv)

•9

%

1 — C

I T

2

I

1

3

!

n

>3

1

1

H

0*

Table 1 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platfocm:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Hakuto

MacNeal-Schwendier

Mitsubishi Electric

Parametric Technology

Norslt Data

Cis [graph

Unisys

Sn-Straessle

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Sharp System Products—NO OEM

PDA Engineering

Alias Research

Gerber Systems

Cinilinc

Swanson Analysts

Investronica SA

Ferranti

Wiechers Datentechnik

Tokyo Electron—NO C&X

Auto-TVol

Mitsui Engineering

Cimatron

Vero International Softiwtfe

ADRA. Systems

Hardware

Revenue

33.0

.0

39.1

.0

22.3

14.7

19.6

8.7

31.2

16.2

.0

.0

14.5

5.9

.0

22.5

10.3

15.4

8.8

10.5

18.3

11.0

.0

7.2

Total

Factory

Revenue

55.0

54.8

49.0

47.2

44.3

42.0

38.5

38.0

31.2

31.2

30.1

29.7

29.5

29.5

28.8

28.1

27.9

27.0

26.8

26.3

26.1

24.4

22.1

20.9

Hardware

Units

Shipped

1,350

0

971

0

433

366

574

357

1,739

205

0

0

400

563

0

1,125

243

667

94

310

171

607

0

371

Software

Revenue

22.0

52.7

6.4

43.4

7.7

14.7

13.5

20.9

.0

15.0

24.9

27.0

9.8

17.7

28.8

2.8

12.8

8.1

12.9

9.2

5.2

11.0

20.1

11.6

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hardw

Reve

.7%

.6%

.6%

.6%

.5%

.5%

.5%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.3%

• 1 ^

•§

s s "g # #

il I

I f

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

<iA sP ^^ Np sp s P

N P

sp >P >P sP sP 'sP '••P

©^ © * ^ * ©*• © ^ ^» © * ^ ' ^ ' ©*" ^ ^ ^C © * © " u w

# # ^ i

^ § §

I ^ cf) N

' ^ v^ to So

I

«3 »

s O s P V© s P N p v P - ^ N p s P - . p s p N© ' ^

« s e^ e«> rts ««• «* e» e^ « s «» « s «* ©^

' ^ r i ^ v o m - ^ i r i r - i i A v s N c n i - i o

tn

V W

Sp Sp >P s© sp sp sP sP sp sp s© •^ s© s© s© s© s© s© ^p s© • ^ >© 1 ^

© ^ © • ^ cS ^ ©s ^ ^ © s ^ 3s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ©s ^ S ^ s

I

I Si

1 I

B

sP sP s© s© sp sp sP s© sP <i© sp >P s 0 >© <i©

© ^ ^N © ^ CT* © ^ ©^ ©^ ^^ © * O ^ © * ©^ O* © * O ^

^ 1"^

^ ^ # r j c^ (M

i 2 B S

»• s

# #

III

00 M^ t-l

•<»• -<J" 1-1 rt « ^ CJ

O -"J" -9< O O O O

« n - ^ fO >-i iTi

M <M <S fO 1-1

CO - ^ rH tM f O r-l a o

o\ o

1 ^ <M

«

V V f>l 00

O lA

c q - < r < v i o \ o o v \ < M v A v o v £ > i < ^ v d ^ - < i ' 0 0 " < a < r f S \ o o d

Os fCi vCi r^ \0

o\ «S •<t' vo ri

P^ l A O o CO d

I Si

O ni m »

0 \ 0 0 I ^ I ^ p O - » » > O p ' O < 3 > p c M p r H

b 3 0\ K r^

I

^

S s n 9

^ ^

(X e

1

1^ o o

00 CO rH ir\ M

o\ -<i; CO r^

OS 0 \ 00

K K \ o lA in uS -^ -<r -^

CO CO CO PJ

O 00

r-l d r^ o o o

CJ <M O

o d d

•s

3 i

till

a

b

S u

I

V

o

H

a a

*:

S

J3 „

o. P

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—Reproduction Prohibited

H " t ; en

III £

i

s-

I s

n o.

I

(3

I

I

Table 1 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Cadltron

Wacom

Tebte

CNC Softvrare

Ziegler

Andor

Sony

Radan Computational

Mechanical Dynamics

Engineering Mechanics

Research Machines

DAT Standard info ssystetnes

Technische Computer Systeme

Valisys

Spatial Technology

Marcus Computer Systeme

Algor Interactive Systems

Anilam Electronics

Serbi

Everex Systems

Moda CAD

Pathtrace

Whessoe Computing; S^nn^tig^;

Mentor Graphics

5.8

5.6

5.0

4.9

7.6

7.6

7.2

6.5

8.7

8.5

8.5

7.9

9.8

9.7

9.3

9.2

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.2

4.1

4.1

4.1

Total Hardware

Factory Hardware Software

Units

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped

.0

2.1

7.4

2.8

4.9

2.0

1.4

.0

.0

.4

7.2

.0

1.2

.0

.0

2.6

.0

1.4

.0

4.5

1.0

1.1

.0

1.2

4.1

2.8

4.6

.0

2.9

2.7

4.1

1.7

4.7

5.6

5.0

1.6

6.8

6.5

.0

6.1

8.7

6.1

.0

4.0

3.9

6.8

6.5

9.2

1,323

35

60

0

40

153

0

0

152

0

58

0

493

271

0

604

1,162

0

151

155

46

0

0

77

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hard

Rev

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

\

paiiqmojd aopDnpoidaa—Areruqaj pajeiodioaui isanbEjEQ Z661®

I > § I 1 1 I I I 5 g

c

ST s-

-3

S? u O.

CI)

00

5'

n

!?

5

03

f o c

5'

3

I

I

CZ fo <v >

" "^ ^ •a

E?

S > ^ is

• 5"

3

?? •«

•vl 0 0 VO VO to N>

t^ iji

§ 1 E

O O O O O O O C 3 S V / > \ 0 0 0 0 * > ^ 0 0 \ C J \ * . O U < O O J O O

^1 g i

n n

0 fc ^

y

o

o

1. ^

S, (1 I

C 5

^ I

U3

V

ft>

n

0> i-» b s b \ to lb. bo if

s

-5- e I

)-> lb. 4 ^ i-> l->

<J0 l - > O N > t O IM \J\ > C ^ l - > 0 \ to 0 > > ^

O O O O ^ O O O V O V J > i - ' i - ' 0 0 \ * . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * . 0 0 > ^ 0

^ M

Q.

SB

rt

^P '^P ^P ^p ^ 5 ^ 9 s o ^ 5 ^P

©^ O^ O*" O^ ©^ O * O*' © * ©^

^ ^ s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s ^ s ^

^ i I ^

^5 ^ 5 ^p ^p ^p ^S o^ o * ©>• <s^ ©^ o ^

^p ^p ^p ^p >^ ^p ^p ^5 ^p ^p ^P ^p ^p ^ 5 ^p

O* O^ w* ^ ' ©* ff* O^ O* © * ©* ^ ' O^ O^ ^ ^ ©*

\0 sQ sP N^ <^ sO ^P \0 s^

N O ^ P

«^ 1^ -^ sP >9 '^

N P

^? '^P sP 'sp

N P

( g S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ \ ^ \ ^<k ^ S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ > . ^ S ^ * ^ > ^ S © ^ ^ ^ ^ S ^ S ^ V ^ \ ^ S ^ S

! > § § § § § - i i f

S t) d 3^

^p ^5 ^5 sp ^1 ^5 ^S ^p ^5 ^p

O^ ©*• O^ O* O^ w* O^ w^ w^ O^

^ M

SDopraqddy nsj[UEqj3K—aVD/J«VD/crVD

Vi

I

I

0 1

® s-

i u

I

I

8-

2 a

§

I

Table 1 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Worldwide

MilJions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Robocom

Point Control

Evolution Computing

Accugraph

CAD Centre

Object Design

S.T.LD. s.r.l.

Objectivity

Vision 3D

Zuken

Cadtronic

Innovative Data Design

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

Idiaca Software

A.I, Systems

GRAPHSOFT

Machinery Sales

ACERI SA

Sol bourne

Uniras

Cascade Graphics

Engineering Systems Corp.

Spectrum Graphics

Ashlar

Total Hardware Total

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue

R

1.7

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

.0

.0

.0

.5

.0

.0

1.7

1.4

1.2

.5

.8

1.0

0

0

0

37

0

0

.0%

.0%

1.0

.5

.4

.4

.4

.9

.9

.8

.8

.8

.7

.7

.7

.6

.6

.6

.0

.0

.5

.3

.5

.0

.0

.0

.1

.5

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1.0

.9

.3

.0

.4

.4

.6

.7

.7

.6

.6

.2

.5

.4

.8

0

0

6

5

24

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

58

0

.0%

.0%

.0%

.3

.3

.1

.0

.3

.2

.3

0

0

3

0

Table 1 (Cotnttnued)

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units;

®

I - *

Iv)

S"

n

S

a

Ji

1

1

a

1

1

1

I

Company

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Mc2 Engineering Software

Synthesis

A/E Microsystems

Mega CADD

CAD-Capture

ESDU International

DAPCO

Comshoppe

Masta Corporation

IGC Technology

Lamp Software

Number One Systems

Other Companies

All Companies

All N,A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

Mechanical

Alt Platforms

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Total

Factory

Revenue

.3

.3

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

461.5

8,033.5

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

448.5

4,532.7

5,969.5

1,361.6

702.4

2,025.9

6,007.6

3,420.9

849.1

262.7

1,751.0

2,781.7

Software

Revenue

.3

.3

.3

.0

.2

.0

.2

.1

.0

.1

2,148.2

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

0

25

0

1

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

63,295

274,884

I

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

5.7%

100.0%

Har

Re

1,455.2

370.3

322.7

5.5

2,142.7

229,796

34,188

10,900

180,998

93,886

74.3%

16.9%

8.7%

25.2%

74.8%

Source: Dataquest (Febiuaiy 1992)

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Market Share

13

I-

B

u

Q,

a

^ i i

0 0 i - i • * • s 9 > ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^Q ^ 9

N 9

> 9

N 9

> ^

^S O^ O* O^ ^N O^ ^S ^ ^ ^ * O* ^ * ^ * O^

c < ) p v O f O C q c < ) \ q p p i - i T - 4 r - i S o

» A C d r H r H f C " ^ c 4 r H * r 4 r H i - I r H

# § #

M T-H O

^r^ NO l <

N P

^^ s P « ^ s 9

S

« v ^ v ^ » o ^

. \ 0 » - ^ 0 0 f r t rH ( r i r-i

^ ^ ^ ^

S 2 ^ K

i i g i

O rH OD 0 0

CM f r t S O c j

^

e^

SO

en

1^ r-i

^

\r\

??

^r

^

l A g

. 1

^

i

^ < 5

\o

1

5

I

K

V u

^ p

N O NO S O S O S 0

>^ « 0 > 0

N O (IO S O S 9

« ^ i ^ i ^ >P <sO

H ^

•>^

^ n O^ O^ O*' O^ O^ O^ O^ iff* O^ O^ O^ O* ©^ ^ ^ O^ O* O* O^ d *

i - ( i n p O r H p * ^ r ^ o \ c o c o r ^ N O O O \ v o i A O ^ ^ O l - l T-H

• * 1 ^ VO 0 0

^IP

> ^ N^ ^p ^^ ^p >0 ^p >^ >^ >9 « ^ - ^

Nffl Sffl

I ^1

K ( s J \ d - ^ f r t < r i c i c i ( s < N f ^ t s i < v i N

%^ s O 1 . 0

N O N O

O * O ^ O * O ^ d '

\ 0 \ 0 - ^ N^ CJ i ^ i

11

I

• « | V A I ^ S O O - * 0 \ 0 0 ) ' ^ f O - « l < 0 0 0 \ " < f ' I ^ U ^ p o 1^ ca s o Hf

o^ i n o \ s o lA f o o i A f r > p a ' ^ s O i - i > * o o i - H O O • < r o \ M c n o \ . .

00. i-l_ .-(_ OtJ, r-l_ <N1_ <N)_ 0_ 0 \ «T) 0_ 1^ \0_ 00 00 "^^ lA • * so" r-^ CO i-T "*" vo' i-T r-T fsf en

M"

i-T r-T

V U r^ 1-^

< 3 O -fl". O S rH i - j f C rH rH t-^

OS S O Cf) iH O S

S O S O S O - ^ C S S C M l A - ^ en r^ t-i cri o \ r-i <si

CM en 00 en CM Ti en O en CM

-<r CM r 1

d

11

II

• ^ O S i-H e n l A c n ^ l ^ C M O ^ O

o o ' e n v j J o ; s S c M S i A ( A e n < - i

l A - f l > C M i A f < ^ s o v £ > e n i A S O v A e n

CM e n T-l

TH

rH

I i

0 0 CM

T - l

1 ^ r H e n l A

^

SR ^

!M r^

0 0

CM en

1-t

CM

CM t n

CM l A

i-t

1 a s O f v l t ^ O s e n v O o q O p v O i A C M e n o q e n e n c M C M r - i c s i p

00 00 t ^

0 5

0 6 ' - i r H r - ; C > O « % O S ^ O O ' u S v A i - ; 0 C i s O O < 3 l A - < ! ) < t ^ 0 6 h ^ O ^ O O l A C M r t O O S O S O O O O O O I ^ I ^ S O S O I A l A x r -

V O l A C M r H r l r H T H i - H

. K s o OS en en en CM

N w

£

^

»-(

W \

I H

s rt g c

P"

<

^

0 .

•§. d) o::

s "2 .y

O n .C

« -g fi-

D. Ji

I

<J X

D

-i a

2 c ,2

I- -^ t n [O

ir

L2

1

1

3

o

TJ

.a z

E

•§

c

o w

Q

^

rfr

£ i :

c

1

1

!

E2

I

I u u

V

s crt

I

P a a

.^ i

I

•2 3

a

© 1 9 9 2 Datac]uest I n c o r p o r a t e d February—^Reproduction Prohibited

14

11

CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

NO

'S0 i O >i^

NO S 9

> 9

o^ tf^ o^ ^N ^^ ^* ^^ ff\ F~ o ^ f j ?H ^

•dO s ^ > 0 \ ^ <i^ • i ^ N0 ^lO d ^ N O <IO 1 ^ • i ^ iiiO ^

O* ^ ^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ ^ ^ O^ e ^ w

11

v » s o

^A > 0 vO s O vQ v P > 9 s 9 ^O sO > 0

S

o^ ^ ^N o^ ^N o^ o^ o^ e^ o^

s O s ^ s » <i0 > n

N O

O^ tf^ CN &* o*- ^ ^

o^ o* o^

I

I

«© s©

^ ©^

tC l A

I; ^ S

-^ \ 0 lA m

^9

-*

-^

^

• « "

\r\

^

•<r

"?

•<f

^

-?

V3

I

II

^ # xO , © s ^ s© \© N© %© •^ >© S© ^p >© N© ^p S© ^ 5 ^p ^p N© ^© s 9 ^p

© ^ ©^ ^ ©^ © * © * © ^ ©^ ©^ © ^ © ^ © ^ © * © ^ ©^ ©^ © ^ © * © ^ © ^

ti^

| p ^

is

8

<o r^ «^ 00 ^ o vo 1^ •«• <0 o \ - •

•q< lA l A pa <-<

. . VA fTi >H

O e<^ t o lA 00 O

• * l A fSl -V

CO N CM i-l

I A - ^ O O I ^ O O » - I 0 \ 0 \ 0

C M < S t M C O i - l < O r - l t M - ^

O 00 1 ^ O

o o o o \ ( N o o r ^ ( N T - ( i ^ ( r > - ^ M O \ ( r > r j > A \ o

K o\ r< t N i p r t < v i o \ ~ « i ' o d c > - ^ s d \ o - ^ \ d ' < ^ K K ' ^ \ d

1^

f < i-H

(n Bfi

r~ •"if

K i-i

is I

K

O » A 0 \ T - i c r j i - l 0 0 > A 0 0 p

• -^r lA o\ o ~<r 00 o \o t - t ^ 1-H tM r H t-H

i-H 00 l A i - l O O N O O c n M O v - f l ^ M v O l < T-i

CNO\ • o 6 o 6 K K o \ K o d - 9 > c N i

1

I

I

5 c w

0 =3

•H O

S Q

"C " i

1

5

cr S

%t

I ^ « A l A T - l O \ i - < W c r i O \ V A ^

( N c a O J M P J C N C q t M t N N M t M i < i < s d \ d > A - < i < - < j < ^

1 ^

« 3 °

„ i I s

E f^ ^ S

0\ trt

a

B:sf I

<; cu eg 3

E S2 H

E2 Q a 5 t2 o K fcS O

i

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated Febniary—Reproduction Prohibited

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Market Share

N 9

sd

N O N 9

>^ sO ^p sO ^9 ^^ sO %0 sO >0 v^ >0 \0 ^^

15

# # # 9

S) ?H rt g

•a

I 2^

11

\^ « ^ >^ >^ ^ ^ sO ^ ^ ^p >^ «A sO N^ s 9

NP

W* C* O^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ff* O^ ^ ^ ^ ^ W^ ^ ^ ^ ' O^ l |

I

I ii

I

Nfi> S 0 <tO s 0 \ 0 s 0 •lO > 0 <i^

^ * O^ O^ O^ ^ ' O^ ^ * ^ ^ ^ ^ i i i i i

s 9 ^ p s ^ %^

N 9 ^ O

> 9 « ^ ^ P

^ S ^N ^N ^N ^ * ^ ^ d * O^ ff*

I I a^ do

1

^

1 0 > 9 "i^ " ^ > 9 ^ 9 ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ '•^ ^>? ' ^ " ^ "i^

fi c

^^ o^ a* efo &* o* o^ o^ d* o^ d* ^' o^ ff*

^ x f p n m t r i c o m t o r o r o c n i s is N

^ ^ ^ ^ »id >,P S© "isO N © ' • ^ •sO

^ s ^ i s s s g s ^

M

a o

•S

§

^ fl!

^—i

<J

(J

«

D

'n

^ ^

^

^ H

2

'S g

^^^1

IF'

I

o o o o

O O O i i O v O O

o o 1^ o

(TV i H (vq r - l

fr> 1^ O o o

<5\ so 0 \ cfi O O O C>< O s o

l A t-i ' V \ 0

-«• M

1-1 (M

1^ f r t o K f s i O O r S V O t s ' f r t t ^ O O • t r i c i K l A - < ! » < l A l A « / S « S i - i r - ;

en K o o o i ^ r ^ r t ^ o O f O r H s o i A o p o o s r t O o q r v c a v o o r ^ r ^ i A

V V

o o o o o o o

l A lA \ d 1-i

o •* r^ o o p

K pi ~*

M O O ©

I S J pa

^ I

^ l"2

00 s o 00 I^ tS

o

PA cA

M"

N r i

M fM PA

r-i ri

O 00 M 0 0 O > A O s O O O 0 0 0 0 S O O ' ^ r - l O S

1-! d

d o s O N o d K K i < \ o i A < A i A i A - < r ^ ' ( A

I

*< a

3 I g --

a ^ -ao •a, J3 ff c

< pL. ffij P

.!3

ja

CO

1-9

•a

n

6

«

I ^

&

0

"o

__§ c^

' u

^

^

13 «

^ -a

„ -a —

II) 2

S =3 ^ iS

^ -a ri 3 s s

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated Febniaiy—^Reproduction Prohibited

V H

T3

G

^ 4

lU

s

OJ

3 j 3

u en n

tu

2

5^

u

.B

C

J3

jSi

a

(J

c n

J2

U

i i

:^

•^

1 1

1 lU

!L> s

O

S?

1

V

a

f

S

a

u

I

O a

I

I

I

I

Table 2 (Continue^

1991 PrellnUnary CSD/^iSAU/OiE Markets

Application:

Platform:

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Wodcstation

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. DoUarVActual Units

Company

Ontos

XAO Industrie

Marcus Computer SystenpHb

Wisdom System$

Exapt

CADIX

Catalpa

Caroline InformatiqUC

ISKA

Kubota Computer

CAMTEK

Ricoh—NO OEM debis Systemhaus

Century Researcli Center

Micro Engineering Solutions

Wacom

FEA

Object Design

CAD Centre

PEGS

Accugraph

Objectivity

Zuken

Computational Mi^^i^(£da!

Hardware

Revenue

.0

1.3

1.9

.0

1.7

1.3

.9

.5

1.0

1.4

.0

.0

.5

.9

.4

.3

.3

.0

.0

.0

.5

.0

.3

.0

Total

Factory

Revenue

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.4

3.4

3.2

2.6

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.4

2.4

2.1

2.1

2.0

1.0

1.0

.9

.8

.6

1.3

1.2

1.0

1.0

Software

Revenue

3.8

2.2

1.2

2.6

1.2

1.6

1.3

1.7

.9

.7

1.6

1.6

1.1

.7

.9

1.0

.3

1.0

.8

.8

.4

.9

.5

.6

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

133

113

0

108

24

21

10

13

13

21

0

33

39

356

0

0

11

0

0

36

0

5

0

Total

Factory

Revenue

Ha

R

.1%

.1%

. 1 %

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

@

I-*

f

1

I

I

n

§•

P

O.

I

Table 2 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platform;

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Everex Systems

Whessoe Computing Systems

Spectrum Graphics

Ithaca Software

A/E Microsystems

Serbi

Solbourne

DAPCO

Georgia Tech Research Cc^;^

Algor Interactive Systems

Point Control

CADKEY

Masta Corporation

Lamp Software

Other Companies

AU Companies

All N.A,-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (Febniary 1992)

Total

Hardware

Factory Hardware Software

Units

.5

.4

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.0

.0

3,880.8

.5

.0

.1

.0

.2

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1,969.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.1

.1

1.197.4

.0

A

.2

.3

.0

.2

0

3

0

2

0

44

0

0

0

78,251

57

0

3

0

21

0

M

Total

Factory

Revenue iEIard

Rev

.0%

100.0%

1

2,682.3

701.9

496.6

608.9

3.271.9

1,347.4

437.6

184.1

515.3

1,453.7

780.3

192.5

224.6

2.6

1,194.8

55.767

16,340

6,144

29,092

49,159

69.1%

18.1%

12.8%

15.7%

84.3%

18 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications si's *^ "^ *^ # # # # x r N \ q NO g a ft

& ^ s

^ =3 3 ' ffS \ d T-i "fl" ' « S i ^ rh ff^

S qa

K *

^

% l l

o p o p s p o p o P

S

efo ^^ ^ s ^ s

O V© <M I---

sP ^p sP s P >p sP op sP sp op sP s p s P s P ( P o P ^ p s p

P^ po ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A

i-i • r o •^'

(N uS (N CO ^o c4 * oi * c«i ' " r4

i

X PS

V u op op sP op sp sp sP oP sp sP sp op ^p sP ps ^^ ^o ^ ^ ^S ^ ^ o ^ o ds ^ s ^» ^ o ^o ^^ s P s P s P s P s P r i r - i e r > N o r ^ o b * r i O \ o r ^ C 7 \ O N r ^ p

CO fCl O f O O

I Si

I

X

I I §

00

trt s p s P s p s p o p

P * d * d ^ PN ^ *

•> 00 r^ l A f o ^ <s l A rrt ffS ffS fO i ^ S g

N 9

%^ > ^ > 0 > ^ o^ o* o^ o^ o^

s O > ^ %0 N^ s ^ • ^ ' ^ « 9

^N O * O* O^ O * O^ O * ^ ^

i-H o iTi -<r ~ * ^ " ^ - ^ c O f T i P O M N

# <5

§

0 "-I ""l" 1^ O O CM

(M iTi 0 \ rr> rH i n

""l ®. ''i ' ' ' " ' " . "^ ^i.

i n t-T

CM"

t-T t-T

• 5 < 0 \ V 0 C M O 0 S 0 0 O O O O O

"* rrj -V r^ CM o <^

- V CM " ^ l l 1-1 r H r H

i n • * ^ a \ 1^ CM

o o

CM'

•<r

i n p v o i n i ^ . r ^ c M t f } . - < - * c M o q o \ i n r r )

\ 0 0 N ( r t c C % ( S 0 d O i - i

* - * f - 4 r H C M i - t r ^ C O T H

' • ^ O c c ^ < M ' c O f r i o s ( * S r ^ N £ > i n ' - < < - ! ' - i

(M

vo r<i

CM CM to xr a\ 00

•*' ••a' S in S CM »-( so v o o \ 0 0 c < % < o i n \ o CM

i n i-c o o

C7\

00

CM r-t

CM cTi

O

O

1^

~<r so

•<r o

• *

•^ o o o

T-(

«^ i n

,-t

CM

(M

1 ErS o o S

«^ 1 ^ rH O 00 VO

o o t D O i n c M i n r H t n c c c r v i ^

Q 1^ "^ • *

O N O c T l O O O O O O O O i n c f t C M C M C M C M T H

O CM r-l i n m VO i n CM <-<

o 6 o \ o S v 6 - < t ' c i c M i - i o b v n i n c < S c M O \ 0 \ O s o O o 6

K v d VO v r i j i c

•H

•g i.-8's

c u

Q

I

« s

I.

a iS

-*; ft.

^a

1 i

B

Q s

5

il

B

S^

n

5 1 § g SP x:

S P Z

If u u

Oi

a 1

-E.

6

£ •« •§ p A) S t

a A in

N

SJ 3

3 n

Q j i «

2 o z; w

J3

(2 t

c

I- ^ en

I 9 u

•s=

,^

w

<

Q a,

S3 s u

•c t3

V

•m

JC

."t

Xi

a

B

S

©1992 Datac|uest Incorporated February—Reproduction Prohibited

1 cS

R

I F H x: n.

E? i i c

•"•

1

(

NJ

R

I r

I a s

Table 3 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Kegion:

Units;

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Fides Industiielle Automation

Hitachi Zosen Info Systems

MARC

Mechanical Dynamics

Computational Mechanics

Kewill Systems

Pramasoft

Century Research Center

Whessoe Computing Syscepj^

PEGS

Kubota Computer

Olivetti debis Systemhaus

FEA

Georgia Tech Research Coip.

Engineering Systems Corp,

CADKEY

Accugraph

Mutoh Industries—NO OEM

Total

Factory

Avenue

3.6

3.5

3.0

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.3

.8

.7

.7

.3

.3

.3

.2

.1

.1

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

.5

.5

.0

.7

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.5

.3

.1

.0

Software

Rereniie

.2

.1

.2

.1

.8

.6

.2

.0

1.7

.9

.8

.5

2.9

.0

3.0

1.6

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

7

0

7

0

0

0

0

0

16

0

65

7

2

5

0

0

2

1

0

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

Hardw

Reve

.2%

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

.0%

! a s

M

O

I

S"

5i

Table 3 (Continued)

1991 Prellmlnarv CAD/CAH/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

All N,A.-Based Companies

Ail Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (February 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

259.9

2,300.4

1,907.2

345.6

47.6

548.7

1,751.7

Hardware

Revenue

246.9

1,373.6

Software

Revenue

.0

474.5

Hardware

Units

Shipped

10,208

34,335

1,131.2

224.7

17.7

449.4

924.2

387.7

70.8

16.0

2.8

471.7

30,517

3,428

390

10,315

24,020

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

11.3%

100.0%

Hardw

Reve

18

100

82.9%

15.0%

2.1%

23.9%

76.1%

82

16

1

32

67

@

to

^

s s

o

I

1

I

^Ti

1

1

1 n

1

0

1

1

cr f?'

a

Table 4

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platform;

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

Server

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Digital

Sun

Intergraph

Schlumbeiger

MacNeal -S chwendler

Computervision

Toshiba—NO OEM

Hewlett-Packard

Silicon Graphics

Control Data

Mutoh Industries—NO OEM

Sumitomo Denko Workstation

Sharp System Products—NO OEM

Rasna Corporation

Solboume

A/E Microsystems

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dataquest (February 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

230.1

127.1

77.9

25.5

17.1

16.4

7.0

6.5

6.3

5.2

4.2

2.8

2.2

1.6

.5

.3

.0

.0

530.7

Hardware

Revenue

134.0

91.5

64.4

12.8

5.6

.0

2.0

5.9

5.2

4.3

2.2

2.1

2.2

.8

.0

.3

.0

.0

333.2

Software

Revenue

50.3

.0

.0

6.1

6.9

15.8

.5

.0

.0

.0

83.8

.7

.0

.8

2.0

.0

.0

.0

.8

Hardware

Units

Shipped

1,469

0

1,983

257

156

0

54

0

306

117

5

76

162

7

0

13

2

0

4,607

517.6

13.1

.0

218.9

311.8

322.2

11.0

.0

167.5

165.7

82.4

1.5

.0

.1

83.7

4,362

245

0

2,775

1,832

Mark

Total

Factory

Revenue

43.4%

23.9%

14.7%

4.8%

3.2%

3.1%

1.3%

1.2%

1.2%

1.0%

.8%

.5%

.4%

.3%

. 1 %

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

100.0%

97.5%

2.5%

.0%

41.3%

58.7%

Hardwa

Revenu

40.2

27.5

19.3

3.8

.1

.0

.0

100.0

1.3

.7

.6

.7

.2

.0

1.7

.0

.6

1.8

1.6

96.7

3.3

.0

50.3

49.7

22 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

V

Np < P sS sP iP « ^ sP >P >P sP >P sP iP > 0 <>P

N P % P V P

SP sP Np >iP \P sP £IS

^ ^ 0*> P* O ^ P^ O^ 0*> O^ O^ CT^ O ^ O^ P^ P^ O ^ P* P^ P* O^- P* P* P^ O** O^ ^

0 0

^1

m

V V

N P

t ^ %P s P \ P s P s P Np s P

N P

1 ^ ^ ^

N P S P N P > P V P NC

I § f o i-H irv XT l A t S « ^ p a l A i-H cr> tOi

ITS

N T-H i-H C<4 M r H

I §i

im K

• M

I

S a

I Si

N P S P

<kP >P '^ sP sp

N P N P

< ^ >P sP sP

P^ P^ P* O ^ O^ P^ O ^ ^ * ^ ^ P^ O** O*" ^N i - i p v o £ > ? i ' S o F - ' © & s P ] ' S > ~ f l '

00 o\ • | < o d s o c r i r r t f O p i ( M ' ^ i t - ;

13 iS

K

> P %0 N0

N S N 0 N P

©^ ^N p^ ^ ' P^ p^ er> rH O ( O O ve>

# g #

O O (M

^ ^i

N P V P N P

^P i P s P ^P s P <iO

N P

^ ^ itP ^ 9

p V ^ \ ^ S i ^ \ ^ K ^ » i ^ V ^ > . ^ \ ^ i * ^ S ^ " i ^ i k vP >P >P >£>

N P S P N P N P N P > P > P

P^ P* P^ P^ P* ^* P^ P*" P* P^ O^ r - ; P i o P ~ ' s & ? H ? H 2 5 5 \ ' 5 > ' o ? < a > i-i r-^ K ITS irs uS '<j> '*' (ri cj

N'

(NJ i-i

i ^ i A r t i - H o o o o r ^ r ^ r ^ r ^ v o o 2 c

111

S O O S

( S rH

CM fTi ( N ON f f t ~*i 0 0

OS t n c<^ 1-^ - v rg 1-1

<M 1 ^ ITS Pq • *

•g< i r s " ^

-3" (M O S

O <-l I ^ r^ i n

I T l i-H o tn

O

OS

M" o

1-t

I T S

SO

•V

I ^

r-

Xi 9s

« OS

I

O

3 iu

"S

*a

§

I

1*1

u u

1 ^ oo

(SJ

OS o o r-

- T

U - l

N

M r-

00

T H

i n r ^ N o o f O M O N o o s r r t f s i o s o s d ^

00

P D

N rH CSl i-l

O

<M

O

Os

m

<r\

so

CM

OS

1^

00

f - l so

§P o in p

ITS c r t

l A 0 0

O S t ^ ( O 1 ^ vj< o <A r~ o - * O S CO 1 ^

O O S d l A r H C S T - i O S C M

S O r ^ l A C M C C ^ t O C M T - I C M d

1 1

K

1 fc-S

Q 5

O O s O O i - l C M O S O c T i C M l A O S T - J c C ^ i - ; l A - * CM l A •<«< i < c r i CO i - I ><r cf^ 0 0 cri CM' l A O s O s l ^ r ~ . S O « A V A l A ( f ^ t r i C M C s l C M

O S • »

' ^ I - ;

O

T H

csi r i i ^ r ^ c M o o c n c M r ^ i A l A x r d d o s o s C J s o d o d nil

8

I

r

©1992 Datacjuest Incorporated Febnjaiy—Reproduction Prohibited

i

c

.2

*> s

Is

3 O

£

g.

a g g <

S 5

« T 3

( / I

I

Ifc -a

Q J J U W V ^ . J J C

i

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Market Share

u l l ^ l l ^ ^ ^ ^ S ^ ^ s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s s i s ^ ^ ^ s l

I'l

V U

N© s © <i© > © N © > 0 ^ O S 0 \ ©

©^ ©* o ^ ©^ ©^ © * ©^ ^ ^ d *

i §

I Si

® ^

> p s o

«^ ^ rH r^

•$

^

I

•i© S © > © N © " l O

^ ^ s ^ ^

23

I

I

Vi

N

V V

S ^ N© \ © <sp SS>

©* ©* ©^ ©*• ©^

s:

N • * 00 O • *

IS© <l© S © > 0 N © N © N © S © S © S 0

s s ^ ^ s s s ^ s s s © <>,© V©

N O

> 0

©^ ©^ o ^ ©^ © *

cj o o o tr>

I g

^S « ^ ^ 9 ^O sS* ^ 0 > 0 ^ 9

N 9

> ^ ^ p ^P sO s 0 ^O ^O \ ^

^N O^ ^ ^ o * O** o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^N ^N O^ o * ^ ^ O^ ^ ^ O^ O^

v o s £ > i A m > « < - * > q < - q « - q < c f ^ c n f O t o m c o N M

^11

NO sfl> > 0 ^ 5 ^ ^ ^ p

O^ O^ ^ O^ O^ O^ r< (S fvi fNi N

P I pf r - J - » ( M O O O O O

VI' (M \ o rt i-H fTJ i-H ITi

00 O O lA

(O \ 0 NO

o o o

0\ \ 0

0 \ >A r-4

OJ O fO

N f O 1-1

2 Q

3

n S

^

U u -

1 1 ' ?

c

^ S : | o

s pt; ^ s

O 1^ OS

V

1 o

en

i

0 0 l A

VO O i - i

t n v£>

0 0 0 0 < O 0 0 O ^ a \ l ^ p i r i l ~ . r H i A

X

I

1

NO \ 0 M O

O \ p o p - ^ p q p

r-i CO K fO * * ' rH * ' rH

o o M o -<r o o o

CM ' rH

S k 3

• f l ' O C M I A 0 0 0 0 r H 0 e i ^ N O ' « < C M r - c O

00 0 0 K NO vr\ l A l A ~ * -q5 ~ * -<1< - ^ N^; >q;

0 \ C N j r H r H p O O \ l A l A

P f ^ t r i f r t f O t r i c c S c M C M C M " l A

^

s i c .

s- ^ 'a -s

ft i3 flj c

< pin « :3

r i

i

-° 1 1

-S

a

u

!P

I

en

c o

o

i« i i

^ 03

* i

J< I

a^

•s

(U

•- feSiQ-c M i ^ O ^ g C S S r t ft

> •

Q

PS

« w

©1992 Dataqfuest Incorporated February—Reproduction Prohibited

I

T)

I

§•

a

I

I

R o t l

o-

I

Table 5 (Continue^

1991 Prellmlnaiy 0li3!l&GSM/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platforau

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

American Small Business Comp.

Micro Engineering Solutions

Mitsui Engineering

PAFEC

ISICAD

Foresight Resources

Robocom

Hahn & Kolb

Schlumberger

FEA

Rasna Corporatioii

Point Control

Marcus Computer SysteaiS

Evolution Computing

MacNeal-Schwendler

S.T.L.D. s.r.l.

Vision 3D

CAMTEK

Cadtronic

Innovative Data Design

Aura CAD/CAM Systems

A.I. Systems

GRAPHSOFT

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.4

2.3

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.9

.8

.8

.7

.7

.6

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.7

.0

.5

.0

.5

.0

.0

.7

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1.0

.4

.3

1.5

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

2.4

1.5

.4

2.0

.3

1.3

1.3

.4

1.2

1.9

1.7

1.7

.5

.8

1.1

1.0

.2

.7

.4

.8

.6

.7

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

35

14

0

31

24

27

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

39

0

0

0

6

0

24

Total

Factory

Revenue

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

. 1 %

Har

Re

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.1%

.1%

. 1 %

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

I

H

a

3

I

<b

o-

5

I

•o

I

Table 5 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Caroline Informatii^fi

Machinery Sales

ACER] SA

Norsk Data

CAD Lab

Uniras

Cascade Graphics

Ithaca Software

Ashlar

Mc2 Engineering Softw54ifi debis Systemhaus

Synthesis

Engineering Systenos QdXp.

Mega CADD

CAD-Capture

ESDU International

Conishoppe

IGC Technology

Accugraph

Badan ComputatiQiul

Lamp Software

Masta Corporation

Number One Systems

A/E Microsystems

Total

Factory

Revenue

.6

.6

,4

4

3

.3

•3

.6

.5

.5

4

3

3

2

2

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

.4

.6

.3

.1

.4

.4

.3

.2

.2

.0

.4

.4

.3

.3

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.2

.1

.1

.1

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

8

0

0

0

0

7

0

3

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

3

1

1

2

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

Hardw

Reven

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Iv)

B

•§

8

!

B-

I

I

Table 5 (ConftaiieSD

1991 Preliminary iiaa»fCAM/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platform;

Region:

Units;

Mechanical

Personal Computer

Worldwide

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actuaj Upte

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

Ail N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

AH Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: DaUquest (February 1992)

Total

Factory Hardware Software

Revenue Revenue Revenue

Hardware

Units

Shipped

201.6

1,321.6

201.6

857.0

.1

392.4

53.087

157,691

862.4

301.0

158.2

649.4

672.3

620.1

175.8

61.0

618.9

238.1

204.8

105.6

82.0

.0

392.4

139,150

14,175

4,366

138,816

18,874

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

15.3%

100.0%

Hardw

Reven

23

100

65.3%

22.8%

12.0%

49.1%

50.9%

72

20

7

72

27

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Market Share 27

I "a

•d

# # #

> ^ « 0 ^ P ^ ^ ^ ^ s ^ ^ P ^ ^ ^ ^ > 9 « ^ ^ 9 ^ P

N 9

> 9 ^ 9

N Q > 0 ^ P ^ P

^ 9 ^ .

w

v£> i^ \ q

„ Q.

o 1-! (s

Os 1^

TH

• • c 4 • ^ • • • • ^ • • • I

°f

<i0 <iA •.O s 0 N S N O S & S ^ ^ ^ > ^ •••9 > ^ ' ' ^ > 9 ^ 9 ' ^ ^ 9 ^ ? " ^ > 9 > 9 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

CO o s K c j tCi -^ TA O\ \ d ^ ^ r - ! i - I r 4 < N i T - i t - i oi

u w

s O \ 0

N O S ^

> ^ V0 > ^ sA N^ >P %0 N^

o^ ^» o^ ff^ o^ o^ ©^ o*" o^ ^N o^ o^ t S ) & 0 0 O I ^ - 0 " l A T H S O - ^ O O

^

N P e * ^

I p

-<r o

trt

II a

^ 3 9

sA « ^ >,0 ^ ^

# ^ § g s ^ p; s s

v£> tn so o

> 0 ^lO \ S <iO iiA s O sO ai^ s O 1(9 s 9 '^^ N^ <s9 ^ ^ > 9 ' ^ ^ 9

N P N 9 N 9 • I 9 N 9

<S^ ff* d * O^ ^N O*" tf* O^ o ^ O^ &*• O* w* o ^ O^ ^ ^ ^ * Q^ O^ o * O^ O^ O**

l A

P > ^ o o i ^ i A O \ o s r ^ s o s o i r \ ? ) i ^ P j ? i O O < ? \ o o o o o o r ~ i ^ i / s o K s o s o u S w S c i f s J f s i f s i C M P J

n

4J I t ,

13 t: a o

•£•§ I

« -2 „ &

•5 '^ -g :2

^ =S 0 ~

S ^ 2 S

11

S o o o

W \ < M ( r > f O > r v o o « ^ o > A t ~ - - f n i^

00 (N i/s •*

m to

o o 00 O t o (M fO N

t o , s £ > _ i n r - ^ i r \ o , O s ^ _ _ s o i ^ t o vr\

c T f - r c v f t - T o s r ^ *-^' c*f i-T

V V -<r g c

00

1 ^ o r^ tc Os O N O en

l A • * f - H

OS

T H

~<f

^4 so o

f H

O 00

1 ^

\r\

f O p s O ( S O s C s l s q f O S O - < J > r H

o d s d i r \ o d o s d K s d o i n s £ >

t n t M C S l t - l r H i - l i H T H

W l | tfj K

V U

I ^

o o - < r s o - < r m t n o s i ^ o \ c M o o o s o o o o

OS 00 g^ OS <si eg in so o rj rH • (<5

CM rl

O - * SO rq ro >A

O •* O O

(M in o o

K (ri 00

?!

0 \ O i n < N O s o o t ^ r ~ ; c < ) i r j o s o q r - ; t f > r f ) r ^ - f l < r > ) i A ( < ) O s r ^ f s i i - i

\ A - < r o < n ( s i u S o p s o < s i o o d K o s o d o d s o « S N O s o s

K K so so i A c n r ^ » A m t M o o s o s o s o m i A " < r f O < S N C S i P J i - i

e n CJ »^ rH T-t t-1 rH r-t rH r-l

VS

M

A

i ! *

H w

£

1 H

OS

OS

I H

< cu a; 5

0.

-=

iS o s

3

If o

(J

c

ID

'S, 'So

Q

a 5

5

^

^

t / l

c

V

c rr

n

0

u

_3

IS

( / I

u

V

tij

(U

rf w

Q g n

(S

^ a

Po u

t f l

•a o

^ o,

2

O c

8

« u a trt

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—^Reproduction Prohibited

« a

I

•fl

g-

3

I

"O

I

• 0

I

Table 6 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application;

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Compiany

MCS

Cisigraph

ADRA Systems

ICAD

CADKEY

Matra Datavision

Aries Technology

Dell Computer

CNC Software

Cimatfon

Valisys

Everex Systems

Algor Interactive Systems

Ontos

Mechanical Dynamics

Micro Engineering Solutions

Moda CAD

Engineering Mechanics

Wisdom Systems

American Small Business Comp.

Spatiat Technology

MARC

Micrografec

Mentor Graphics

Total

Factory

Revenue

15.0

14.7

13.6

13.5

13.0

10.9

10.5

9.2

5.5

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.9

3.6

3.3

3.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.1

Hardware

Revenue

.0

5.1

4.7

.0

.0

4.0

.0

.0

.0

.8

.7

.1

.0

.0

4.9

.0

9.2

.0

2.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.6

Software

Revenue

13.3

5.1

7.5

10.8

13.0

4.4

9.5

.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

.8

1.9

1.9

2.3

1.9

2.1

5.5

2.0

4.2

.0

3.4

3.6

3.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

128

241

0

0

119

0

2,399

0

111

0

1,190

0

0

0

38

22

211

0

0

0

0

0

19

Mar

.2%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

Total

Factory

Revenue

.7%

.6%

.6%

.6%

.6%

.5%

.5%

.4%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

Hardw

Reve

Table 6 CConUnued)

Application;

Platform;

Region:

Units;

s*

•B

n

I

I a

n n a. o o

I

I

I

Company

Claris

Delcam International

Investronica SA

Evolution Computing

Accugraph

Foresight Resources

Pathtrace

Computational Medianlcs

Innovative Data Design

Object Design

Objectivity

GRAPHSOFT

Point Control

Rasna Corporation

Aura CAD/CAM Systeins

Machinery Sales

A.I. Systems

Sol bourne

Uniras

Ithaca Software

Ashlar

Cascade Graphics

PEGS

A/E Microsystems

Mechanical

All Platforms

North America

Millions of U,S. Dollars/Actual Units

Total

Factory

Revenue

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

.9

.9

.8

.8

.6

.6

.6

.6

.7

.6

.6

.5

.4

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.5

.9

.0

.4

.0

.0

.0

.0

.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.4

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.2

Software

Revenue

1.6

.7

.1

1.1

A

.9

.6

.9

.8

.8

.5

.6

.6

.0

.7

.6

.6

.6

.4

.3

.3

.3

.3

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

24

46

0

34

0

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

46

0

0

0

0

0

25

Ma

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

Hardw

Reve

N)

I

•B e-

§•

I

4?

I

i o

I a

Table 6 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary oyoi/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Engineering Systems Corp.

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Mc2 Engineering Software

Mega CADD

Synthesis

Technische Computer Systeme

Vision 3D

IGC Technology

Comshoppe

Zuken

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source; Dataquest (February 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.3

.3

.2

.1

.1

.0

241.9

.2

.1

.1

.1

2,295.1

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

234.3

1,295.3

Software

Revenue

602,

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

30,140

97,875

2,260.1

.0

34.9

923.9

1,371.2

1,281.5

.0

13.8

797.5

497.8

587.9

.0

14.2

2.2

599.9

97,429

0

446

82,593

15,282

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

Hard

Rev

.0%

.0%

10.5%

100.0%

98.5%

.0%

1.5%

40.3%

59.7%

1

Mechanical Applications Preliminary Market Share

I3

S3

S a a en

S ^ <t0 ^ ^ > ^ \ ^ < l ^ N 0 1.0

O^ ^ s O^ C?^ O^ O^ 0*> ^ ^ i §

O O t ^ I ^ t O i - l O O O O ' *

^i tn

00 NO f4 00 fri vo rH r-;

CO

ITv

31

s 9 > 0 \ 9 N^

N 9 ^ P

O O l A l A 1-1 O e

1

I

sn BS s 0 <iO > 0 s S iiA

NO I I O

ll

^ ^ ^ s ^ ^ ^

«S o -^ ' frt lA l A K o s ^ s d o d f f S v d

> 0 sO sO > 0 ^lO sO s S > 0

'NO • I O NO

>€> <i^ s 9

NO

O^ O^ ©^ O*" « ^ O^ O^ a** O*" O^ d * O^ d * ^ » O^

0 \ i A \ q e 0 0 \ 0 \ o i v £ > r ^ e O ^ ^ f Q ^ P O c O

r*^ rH rH l A fH

TH

fO rH CO (O r-I 1-J rH r4 04

> ^ > 0 s 0 >£> s p s Q v 0 ^ ^ 'sO sO > 0 s O itO vO %9 s ^ sfd » ^ %A s 0

o^

• ^

^

fc-S

''•9 sO 1.0

N O N O S 0 N O

\9 sO Hip >S sP sQ >P sP ii^ vP

N P > P S P N P N P N P N P

O * O ^ O ^ O ^ O ^ d^ O ^ O ^ C^> d^ ff* O ^ d* O^ ^^ O ^ O ^ ff* O ^ O* O ^ ^ * ^ * O^

S 5

o q o - < r o o o \ r ^ - * f o p r i o o ^ . • < f O \ o o o b o q v o i A < n c o T H O o q c b cri cri ci 00 lA • « < ' ' * " * fO ^4 cj r<i r-! i-t r-! r-i rt i-i rH r-i t-i i-i

l l

•o w

\ 0 r ^ r H Q | ^ Q p - * - « < O O > A m O t < ^ ' - l 0 0 O O O C l O . r H O O

OS •*_ 0 _ M, s o •<l'_ - ^ \ 0 _ ITl 00 (N M fTi M r l t-l (N i-T rH* l A so" i-T T-T

I en

a V

OS 00 ON

-^ ci rri

O ^ O

S£>

I ^

• ^ tr> i-H

r r i v o u S i A K \ o v d o \ A

00 so xr 1^ so 1^ d -^ -^ -<r K i<

>-l 0 0 0 \ i-i l A i-H O

•-H ^ ' ©, S

( M '

t - i l A 1-i r~ m 00 r^ m • * r l fCi

VA fO

N N «A O

OS K to 00

p sq OS r^

* ^ x j i * ^

I il

1 ^

°

^1

Z 2

^ I"! t-H O I ^ 1 ^

' f l ' r ^ S O l A P A f A i - l O

00 o -<T go

O s S D ( A f O f A 0 d - < t " - ^ '

K^ r O <M 0 0 i A - « r - < f - ^ ( r i t M N M

^c i cTi r-1 OS I ^ <M s o

OS 00

r< r< SO ~«r

l A M OS » A - ^

(A (<S d d 00

^ o\

I H

C

O

IS

,y

"E,

D.

<

&. c o

'f3i

<i>

K

1

U

:J

I «

•S 5

1

•g

V

I

'- a.

a i a 3

JZ

a

ss

Q. " e 3 o ^ c E

8 ^

• «

5

I o

U

u

•s

3

«

Q

I

CO

L^

« cu o:

I

11

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated Febwaxy—Reproduction Prohibited

uQ

'^

8

U)

1 §

'i

"a. Q *>

n d) a t- o

.|> S ^ .§ I

6 1 ° ? ^

!8

N)

o

8-

I a s

•o

3

I

I

Table 7 (Continued)

1991 PfeUmlnary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platfoim;

Region;

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Mar

Total Hardware Total

Company

Autodesk

MCS

Valisys

CAD AM

Ontos

MacNeal-Schwendler

Cimatron

Wisdom Systems

Mechanicai Dynamics

Spatial Technology

Mentor Graphics

Engineering Mechanics

Delcam International

MARC

Micro Engineering Solutions

Accu graph

Object Design

Objectivity

Everex Systems

Computational Mechanics

A/E Microsystems

Sol bourne

Ithaca Software

PEGS

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue Reve

6.9

6.9

4.2

3.7

3.6

2.9

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.1

.9

.8

.7

.4

.4

.2

.2

.2

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

1.3

.0

.0

.0

.6

.1

.5

.0

.3

.4

.0

.0

.4

.0

.2

.2

.0

.0

6.9

6.2

4.2

3.1

3.6

2.8

1.3

1.9

2.2

2.0

.8

1.3

.7

1.4

.7

.4

.8

.7

.0

.4

.0

.0

.2

.1

0

0

0

0

0

0

48

0

0

0

19

74

24

0

10

33

0

0

51

0

21

36

0

0

.7%

.7%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.3%

.3%

.3%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

. 1 %

. 1 %

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

S"

§

I

8-

I i

a.

s

13 a

I

Table 7 CContinued:)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platfomi:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Technical Workstation

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Technische Computer Systeme

Algor Interactive Systenris

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

Point Control

Zuken

Other Companies

All Companies

All N,A,-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SVf Companies

Source: Dataquest (Febniaiy 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

1,001.6

Hardware

Revenue

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

468.3

Software

Revenue

.1

.1

.1

.1

.0

.0

329.2

Hardware

Units

Shipped

3

0

0

0

0

0

22,084

972.5

.0

29.1

244.3

757.3

457.0

.0

11.3

203.9

264.4

317.5

.0

11.6

1.0

328.1

21,787

0

297

13,010

9,075

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

100.0%

Hardw

Reve

100

97

97.1%

.0%

2.9%

24.4%

75.6%

2

43

56

I

i

a

I

I

Table 8

1991 PreUmlnary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region;

Units:

Medianica)

Host-Dependent

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

IBM

Digital

Control Data

EDS Unigraphlcs

Computervision

M acNeal-Schwendler

Intergraph

Schlumberger

Unisys

Swanson Analysis

MCS

SDRC

PDA Engineering

CADAM

Cisigraph

Mechanical Dynamics

MAfiC

Computational Mechanics

Georgia Tech Research Cor^i

PEGS

Engineering Systems Corp.

Accugraph

Total

Factory

Revenue

252.1

129.5

34.7

32.4

16.3

15.2

13.3

11.2

5.3

5.2

5.1

5.0

4.9

2.5

1.5

.9

.6

.5

.2

.1

.1

.0

Hardware

Revenue

141.2

93.2

.5

.0

.0

.0

2.7

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

14.9

16.5

4.1

.0

6.7

3.6

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

60.5

.0

5.2

10.8

4.0

14.6

2.1

4.6

1.9

5.2

4.4

5.0

4.1

2.2

.5

.8

.6

.5

.2

.1

.1

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

3,985

0

199

598

172

0

122

178

75

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

26

0

0

0

1

.1%

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.7%

.7%

.7%

.4%

.2%

. 1 %

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

36.7%

18.9%

5.1%

4.7%

2.4%

2.2%

1.9%

1.6%

Hardw

Reven

33

21

3

3

1

i

I

I tv) s-

I

I

Table 8 { C o n t i n u e

1991 PreUmlnary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Applicadon:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Host-Dependent

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

AH Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dauquest (Februaty 1992)

Total

Factory Hardware Software

Hardware

Units

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped

149.7

686.2

142.2

425.6

.0

127.2

5,879

11,235

684.1

.0

2.1

286.7

399.5

425.0

.0

.5

238.6

186.9

126.2

.0

1.1

1.1

126.1

11,209

0

26

5.919

5,315

M

Total

Factory

Revenue

21.8%

100.0%

Hard

Rev

1

99.7%

41.8%

58.2%

R o

I a

•B

I

I

B.

I

s

I

Table 9

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application!

Platform:

Region:

Units;

Mechanical

Server

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Digital

IBM

Sun

Intergraph

M ac Neal-SchwenijkT

Schlumberger

Silicon Graphics

Hewlett-Packard

Control Data

Computervision

Solboume

Rasna Corporation

A/E Microsystems

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based CompaniMi

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies;.

Source: Dataquest (February 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

61.0

57.6

37.7

13.3

8.0

6.9

3.0

2.6

1.7

1.5

.3

.2

.0

.0

193.8

Hardware

Revenue

43.9

33.6

31.2

6.7

.0

2.2

.3

.0

.0

.0

123.8

2.5

2.2

.9

.4

Software

Revenue

.0

12.6

.0

3.2

7.7

2.8

.0

.0

.3

.4

.0

.2

.0

.0

27.1

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

390

841

136

0

62

73

129

2

14

11

0

2

0

1,660

193.8

.0

.0

105.3

88.4

123.8

.0

.0

80.6

43.2

27.1

.0

.0

.1

27.1

1,660

0

0

1,160

500

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

31.5%

29.7%

19.5%

6.9%

4.1%

3.5%

1.5%

1.4%

.9%

Hardw

Reve

3

2

2

100.0%

100.0%

54.4%

45.6% lO lO

6

3

psiiqiqoid uopDnpojcfoa—Areruqaj P>3JBICXIIODUI wanbeiBa Z661®

^

3 cr o

I

D n g; g

B g^

5

3.

<g o

2 "a

O

I

M

^

T

S i

^

1

);;L

1 f

?^

H

&

f o

»i

5" u

•e: rt

I

n

2; o

C/)

0 u re

9

3

C f l

3

K-

CJ

O

n

D n

^ s B

o

3

a

n g.

• B

M

^r

i.

O

& ^ 9 o

S 'S. 3

^ ^ •§

§?• 9 ^

I

3

• D

13

I O^ ^ f^

s ^s I

o

o

I-* M t o N) U>

8^ ro b o io 0> bo <o ^

ill

s to to

OJ \ 0 b b b < 5 \ b b b t o

VO >-' p . b '*> I"* '*. b

VJI 0 \ l-i 0 \ bo ^ it

n n

I i

"S

V O O ^ V J I O O O O

H

s ^

11

B S»

•• 5 "

3

\o

o*

? -

>-> o ^ to t o t o 1-1 lO M b !-' vo Oi \ o to to u)

^ bo to o) y> ^

'iK U > I-i l-* Vyi

U> VJl O if b b b\ b b bo b

0\ K)

U> 00 o o o o to to

U J o o o

Ul o o

VO ^ O

VJl to

h-t

to

>6v

>6.

H-*

4X

B to

^

U )

<J1

o o

i I

1 p. ff n o j . f e * j w ; U ! \ j ; y j Q \ ^ v j q o q o

s P «>0 N0 « ^

N O S 0

%0 v S

N O

•.» ^ p « ^

©^ O* O^ O^ O*" O^ ^ * O*" O* O^ ^ * ©^

© •

rt 5 H

Cu GO to h^ Vg *»^ K^ <^ to

* p »«$ - ^

rfs. d«. ^ s .

g

NP ^ ^ d « » * ff*

3 s a a

I-" to

00 >l^

SI

^

#

N O O ^

^ 5 ^ p ^ 5

« V « S (*V ^ « . ^ ^

^ I o^ o» ^ >i

•fe- "^ "fc

# ^ §

u

» SP

/.£

I,,

#

^ '^

s s

# i i to

#

N)

f

t tf* to

•fe to to

2 <S

>K

0 \ O i ^ ^ i §

t

©^ O^ « ^

u

to 00 ^

.^5 ^5 ^5 ^p ^5 ^5 «S ^5 ^5 ^lO >S ^5 %© ^© ^p ^5 ^P o^ o*" o* o^ o^ o* ff* w* o^ o^ o* o^ ©* o^ o^ ^^ ©^

•o is

a

I

00 LS S ^

SfllS

sjeqs i3]|«K ^seapxifpjd snopesnddy Tesfiieqssiv

I

N)

O

I o

I

I

S

I a

§

I

I

Table 10 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

North America

Millions of US. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Engineering Mechanics

Evolution Computing

Foresight Resources

Pathtrace

Innovative Data Design

GRAPHSOFT

Schlumberger

Aura CAD/CAM SysteriiS

Machinery Sales

A,I, Systems

Point Control

MacNeal-Schwendler

Rasna Corporation

Uniras

Ashlar

Cascade Graphics

Mc2 Engineering Software

Engineering Systems Corp.

Ithaca Software

Mega CADD

Synthesis

Vision 3D

ICC T e c h n o l c ^

Accugraph

Total

Factory

Revenue

1.1

1.1

1.0

.9

.8

.6

.6

.5

.6

.6

.6

.5

.4

.4

.2

.2

.1

.3

.3

.2

.2

.1

.1

.1

Hardware

Revenue

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.3

.0

.0

.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

1.0

1.1

.6

.3

.5

.6

.6

.9

.6

.8

.5

.5

.4

.4

.2

.2

.2

.1

.0

.3

.3

.2

.1

.1

Hardware

Units

Shipped

137

0

0

14

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mar

Total

Factory

Revenue

.1%

.1%

.1%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.1%

.3%

.3%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.2%

.1%

.1%

Hardwa

Reven

S"

•g

Table 10 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Personal Computer

North America

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Mark

Total Hardware Total

Company

Comshoppe

A/E Microsystems

Other Companies

All Companies

Revenue Revenue Revenue Shipped Revenue

Reven

.1

.0

92.2

413.5

.0

.0

92.1

277.7

.1

.0

.1

118.6

0

2

24,261

62,896

.0%

.0%

22.3%

100.0%

.

.

33.

100.

1

I

I a

§

1

I

Ail N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: Dalaquest (February 1992)

409.8

.0

3.8

287.6

125.9

275.8

.0

1.9

274.3

3.3

H7.1

.0

1.5

.0

118.6

62,773

0

123

62,504

392

99.1%

.0%

.9%

69.5%

30.5%

99.

.

.

98.

1.

40 CAD/CAM/CAE—Mechanical Applications

I

N© ^ P

N P S P

• ^ s P N p N p

§ # g

> P -^P

N P

O ^ O ^ ^

r^ u^ 5\

VO -^H '•a'

K

1

^ %

sP ^P ' ^ s; s ^

lA N^; uS

S p \ P ^ p > P ^ P N p S p N p > P ^-

s s h ^ h ^ k h h i

S p N p \ P s P <tP s P ' • P

• ^ " ^ *

O ^ P ^ O ^

S p N p N p V p s P N p N p N p %P N p

© ^ ^ * ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ <^^ ^ * P ^ ^ *

S i; € S S € 5^

' ^ ' CO r H P<S

T H

^ C7\ ^ c4 * r4

O r H c n i A o v t r i o o v C N O v

-<r e n I-I

J,

I p

N P S P

Np <tP sp s P ^ ^ >P Np Np

N P N P > P > P N P % P <I^ II^ S P N P S P N P N O

\p

O ^ ©*" ^ * ^ * ^ N CT' © ^ p ^ P ^ O ^ O ^ P ^ P * P ^ P ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ P ^ ©*• O ^ P ^ ^ * P * c C r - j o \ i A f v ) r ^ ^ p v o i A o q r ^ c o u ^ o s o p N O O s c n c o i A p i n c r i C S C i 0 0 « S r ^ C 4 ^ * ' ^ * <rH i H r - ( 1-i ' i - i '

T - H

rt*

B

Np <^3

N P

Np Np

N P N P ^ P S P

Np

N O

^ ^ S p Np N ^ S p S p

N P

Np

^ ^ p o 2 c

• ^ ( N & \ ( N r r i i ^ i r v i A - ^ t < M

K K o \ \ o « S f v i c 4 t s i ( v i c N i b k

a

^

^

%

X

?i

"S

Q fi

2

V)

o \ N O t < ^ i A o s O \ o o f r »

> r » r - i \ o « ^ i A o o a \ < N o

8 s S;

vfT -fl*" - * "

M " o VO ir\

T - i t f ^ r - v t - i o O r r i r ^ O r H T - t o fSl

O v r t ^ l / N I A - ^ S O V O I ^ O l ^ - < t < f O O \ f M V O O r H ( N l

V

V

SS

S

1 o

W3

t

t^

vr\ m

00 ej\

T ^

T-^

• ^

-<f

O r^

o

"^r

7-t

pn

fCi

«n m rH o o >-< rH t o

00

(N

T H

tC)

o

CM t^ t^

OS

O

CM o o

\r\ tr,

o

00

CN

00

(V» i - l

i-t

00

1^

N o

•-1 on

Ov

00

i-H

00 t^

V u

•n

^

>

s

00 ^ - ^ • * c M r ^ r ^ i - ; p c s i » n o \ c f ) r ^ o o

O \ 0 fO O

CM rH r-l - ^ f c S o 6 o \ s d v o H ? o o o c M 0 0 r H

CO

O O CC^ • * CM 1 ^

CM m CM r l oo

00

I ^

^

V

• ^ c O i - i O \ o o o r ^ i ^ i ^ v o m i A - ^

VA lA m r-i rH o

00 en en

VO

CD o l/S

(O o

00

CM

<3S

CM o r^

CM l A so

CM r^

CM r H

CA

CM

0 0

O

CM

OS

O S rH

i

T H

.2 ..

I-t

0\ i-i

1 s i

Q, _n

'5]

< ft.

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—Reproduction Prohibited

S'

Eb

i

Mechanical AppUcatlons FreUmlnary Market Share 4 1

U tf) ^4 ^^ "^ *^ "^ ^9 ' ^ ^<9 "^ "^ ' ^ "^ *>? ^^ ^9 "^ ^9 "i^ ^^ ' ^ "^ ^? ^^ ^^ ^9 G'

^ S \ h k s h ^ % ^, ^ s s h h s ^ ^ ^ h ^ ^ n s s s h%

I

<l© S © S © %© > ©

^N ©* ©* ^ ^ ©^

1^ \ o &\ ^ o

N ^ It© S © S ^ S © s O s O

© * ©^ ©^ © * ©^ ©^ o ^

CO 00 t c iTv i n m oo

« ^ i i P S © i i ^ S © > ©

©^ ©* ©^ © * © * © *

OS ( n 1^ - ^ ^ iTi

00 5 \

>l© >tP S © \ P N© 'S©

N P

%© > © S © > P

N P N P N P

^ © 'S© 1 ^

N O

1 ^ •<© %© V p N© N©

© S ^ ^ ^ rt\ © l i ^"i ©V ^ V ^ ^ ^*i ^ ^ ^ S ^ k ^ ^ ©V ^*i © V © * ©«. ©N. ^ l i ^ » .

« S ^ V

S a 2

« ^

N 9

^ 9 - ^ ^d >© t ^ ^ ^ « ^ >© ^ ^ %© ^ 3 ^ 5 ^ ^

^ S ^ . ^^ ©s ^N ^^ ^N ^ ^ ^ S ©» ^ S ©V gv ^ ^ ^ v S© N© ^ p sO ^ p ^p 1 ^ » ^ >©

^N ^N ^N ^N ^N ^N © * ^^ ^N

l | u -S "S i 3 o.

8

< M N N t n O O « ^ < N ( N r H

P Oil t- <-•

r^ OS o 1-1 o so

0 \ 1^ -q" irs ^ o o

r H

I c3 en

V V

M OS rH

I §

\ 0 >0<" SO

I Ji tn K

00

«rv t<5 s o 1-1 (f) «SJ «% rH

00 K s o I< rH frt •<!).• -qJ

K so K (si SO

<A irs 0 \ 1^ >A vA i~-

<ri fri to od so K 00

u u

O s o o o h - i ^ c o s o o o p r J i H o o r - j i - i r - i p ' H O s p ' ^ o p

I I!

O d o d ' O S " < ! t < S C > S O i r \ ' ' s d s d ' v S r H i n C s i s O i A - ^ ' r H

Is

«

III

00 (fl 1^ rH l A 00 s o

K 1^ s o s o VS -<)> - ^ cr> o

M. I ^ ' * S O O p 0 0 c r t < s i r 1

00 - * eft p r-. c O P i f s i r H r - i r H O C S O O OS Os 0 \ Os 00 r

II

1

^1

B

I

c

:§> ^

J3

=§ i

o

Vi

u

U

Q S

©1992 Dataquest Incorporated February—^Reproduction Prohibited

u

1

2

^-f

6 a

I-"

PU

1

1 c u

EL, t

42

CAD/CAM/CAB—Mechanical Applications irv

N 0 N 0 S 0 N 0 • • ^ S ^ S ^ \ 9 « £ ) ••$) > 9 ' ^ ^ * ^ ^ 9

N 9

• ^ S ^

««. &*• O^ O^ ©^ O^ O^ & * ^ * O^ O^ O^ O^ O^ & * O*" O^

^ § § r-l en f j

I w V

# # #

(N O o (s •*

1 I g I i

• ^

© * • sO ^ 0 •lA <i^

N P S ^ <SO N ^ N ^ V ^ ^ O S 9 S O

o^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o^ o^ o^ o^ Q> ^ ^

T H O O O i - < t - H O O » - ' ' - t O O O

-^1 b

s p s 0 - O s 9 <t0 <t0 v ^ <<P ^ P

N P

s p

N P S P •<P

"kp ^ P " ^ Np > P ^ P '•P ^ Np

^fc « » .

^ V ^t^ ^ i ^ S ^ S ^ S rfS ^ V A ^ ^ S ^ V ^ ^ ^»i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ « . ^<l ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ © \

« ^ c r i N ? ! l N p l P j ^ l i - l . - l t - l i - l i - l i - l i - l i H i - l r t i - l r - l r H r H r t

F - l

t ^

CM

(M

VO

t-H

S

o ra

(M

o o m o

o

PO

1-1

-"f o o o

•<r

M s o

ITl Cfl o r-i

ITi

^

fM

•<!r rH r-(

CM

ITl

O

r^

o so

CO

• < t < o o i r \ r - i c r i \ o ( 0 \ q ( N O \ o \ a q T H T - i \ q o c r i i ^ c f j c o

00 -q< • r v i \ o ^ i - i - f l < - « < p J c v i i - H C N i f r t c M r - ; ' r 4 ' . - i t - ;

vn NO

CM rA

i

11

<3 K

O 00 CM 00

CM'

K

CM'

P3

CM r H * r H ' ' * r ^ C M ' ' i i ' * '

3 &• S

o \ C M r H i r j - < ! ) ; o \ o q v q r ~ ; s q ( ^ ! ' - < » - i q c j \ 0 \

K r ^ K \ d i r \ ' ^ ' ^ " ^ « S p r t t f i ( r t c r i c r i c M C M '

1^ \o \o u^ >r\

CM CM CM CM CM

( S

I I &I

1) =

^1-=^

I I §^

a ^ Sr =

< d. M P

•f

3

a

S

u

I

O C

'S

(U 0 5

I

©1992 Datacjuest Incorporated February—Reproduction Prohibited

i

a

2"

i i"

I

I

I

Table 11 (Continued)

1991 Prellmioary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Europe

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

debis Systcmhaus-

ISKA

Aries Technology

CNC Software

Robocom

CADKEY

Dell Computer

Spatial Technology

Computational Mechanics

PEGS

Mechanical Dynamics

Mentor Graphics

Moda CAD

Micrografx

CAD Centre

S.T.L.D. s.r.l,

Foresight Resource

Valisys

Cadtronic

Vision 3D

Algor Interactive SystsiHa

Rasna Corporation

ACERI SA

Wisdom Systems

Total

Factory

Revenue

2.4

2.1

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.0

1.0

.8

.7

.6

.9

.8

.8

.6

.5

Hardware

Revenue

.6

1.0

.0

.0

.0

1.0

.0

.3

.3

.0

1.5

.0

.0

.0

.4

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.5

.0

Hardware

Units

Shipped

0

0

24

6

0

0

3

0

150

391

0

0

19

39

0

0

0

0

0

11

9

0

0

0

Software

Revenue

1.4

.9

1.8

.4

.2

.6

.6

.5

.7

1.0

.8

1.0

.8

.8

1.8

1.7

.5

.0

1.5

1.4

1.1

1.2

.3

.4

Ma

Total

Factory

Revenue

. 1 %

Hardw

Reve

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

. 1 %

. 1 %

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

I

I

I

i

S*'

•8

•B

n

a

I

Table 11 (Coatinued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platfonai:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

Ail Platforms

Europe

Miilions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Mutoh Industries—^NO OEM

Point Control

Everex Systems

Micro Engineering Solutions

Spectrum Graphics

CAD-Capture

Ontos

Evolution Computing

ESDU International

American Small Business Comp.

DAPCO

Synthesis

Objectivity

Ithaca Software

Masta Cofporation;

A.I. Systems

Lamp Software

Cascade Graphics

So! bourne

Object Design

Comshoppe

Number One Systems

Mega CADD

Accugraph

Total

Factory

Revenue

A

3

2

2

.5

.4

A

2

2

2

2

2

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Hardware

Revenue

.2

.0

.3

.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.1

.0

.0

.0

Software

Revenue

Mar

Hardware Total

Units Factory Hardw

Shipped Revenue Reve

0

0

1

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

106

4

3

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

8

0

0

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

.0%

a to

•g

s

3

I

I

I

I

I

Table 11 (Continued)

1991 Preliminary CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share

Application:

Platform:

Region:

Units:

Mechanical

All Platforms

Europe

Millions of U.S. Dollars/Actual Units

Company

Zuken

Other Companies

All Companies

All N.A.-Based Companies

All Asian-Based Companies

All European-Based Companies

All Hardware Companies

All Turnkey & SW Companies

Source: EHitaquest (February 1992)

Total

Factory

Revenue

.0

146.8

3,129.8

2,494.7 </