Manual 21099216

Manual 21099216
WHAT
YOU
WILL
RECEIVE
AS
A
CLIENT
MECHANICAL CAD/CAM/CAE WORLDWIDE
Perspectives
Event Summaries
Prpaua Analysis Market Analysis
Technology Analysis
Competitive Analysis
Vendor Analysis
End-User Analysis
Channel Analysis
Dataquest Predicts
Dataquest Perspectives: Tliese 6- to 12-page research documents provide analysis and
commentary on key technologies, companies, products, market opportunities, events, user and
distribution trends, and strategic issues in the mechanical CAD/CAM/C^-E industries. A minimum of
12 Dataquest Perspectives •will be delivered to you on a regular schedule throughout the year. Topics
scheduled for 1998 include the penetration of the NT operating system into the mechanical design
market, and understanding the needs of the midrange design maiket.Published Monthly
Throughout 1998
Marl^et Trends
MechanicaI CAD/CAM/CAE Market Trends Report: This report includes detailed analysis
fi-om several perspectives on the forces driving the MCAD market. Trends and issues, changing
end-user requirements, high-growth applications, analysis of leading vendors, regional differences,
and computer industry technology changes are discussed in relation to their impact on MCAD
market dynamics.
Available Q3 1998
Guides
Each Dataquest research program publishes an annual Market Segmentation Guide to assist clients
in understanding its market segmentation scheme. In addition, clients receive an annual guide to
Dataquest's Research Methodology.
Electronic News
QuicI<TaI<es: This weekly news bulletin summarizes the top stories in the online, multimedia,
and software industries, and tops each story with the "DQ Take," our expert analysis of the
News and analysis delivered
directly to your desktop
news.
Delivered Weekly via Internet E-mail
Dataquest Alerts: These fax bulletins provide analysis of fast-breaking news, events, or
announcements in the MCAD industry, as they tmfold.
Event-Driven Faxes
Inquiry Support
Personalized inquiry support is a primary component of your research subscription. You have direct
access to experienced analysts who can provide fast answers to fact and data questions, as well as
advice tailored to the needs of your business.
Information
Resource Centers
Clients may visit Dataquest information resource libraries to perform their own research using our
extensive print and online resource collections.
Market Statistics
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Marltet Statistics Reports: These reports provide the most reliable
and comprehensive set of market data on the MCAD market. They contain hardware, software, and
service forecasts and market share for worldwide MCAD companies and applications. A total of four
reports are published each year. A multi-dimensional database is used to capture and analyze all
elements of Dataquest's CAD/CAM/CAE market coverage. Customized analysis of this database is
available to our clients.
Worldwide Market Share and Market Share Update
Worldwide Market Forecast and Forecast Update
Special Reports
Available Q1 and Q3, Respectively
Available Q2 and Q3, Respectively
MCAD User Wants and Needs Report: Dataquest's annual mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
end-user study is the premier source of end-user buying and preference information in the industry.
This year's survey will focus on mechanical design software usage and satisfaction, purchasing,
and design processes in Europe.
Available Q2 1998
Market Statistics modules presenting detailed MCAD market shipments, revenue, and five-year
Europe and Asia/
Pacific MCAD Data forecasts for the 11 major Western European countries and the 6 major Asia/Pacific countries are
available as separate, optional products. Each module provides two data reports per year.
Interactive
Services
Dataquest's research is available electronically through our Interactive Services:
• Our monthly CD-ROM contains a rolling 13 months of publications and statistics.
• Dataquest's web site — www.dataquestcom — is updated with new documents daily and
provides access to the prior 24 months of research publications and data.
Electronic delivery is priced separately.
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
Corporate Headquarters
251 River OaIs Partway
San Jose. CA 95134-1913
IMted Stales
Phone: 1-«»468«)00
Fax:
1-408-954-1780
Web Site: www.dataquest.com
©1998 Dataquest
Boston Area
Nine Technology Drive
P.O. Box 5093
Westtxjfough. MA 01581-5093
United Slates
Phone: 1-508*71-5555
Fax:
1-508*71-6262
Program Code: CMEC-WW
United Kingdom
Tamesis
The Glanty
Egham
Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: ••441784 431611
Fax:
•H41784 488980
AsiayPacific
Suite 5904-7. Central Plaza
18 Hartxxjr Road. Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: 8522824 6168
Fax:
8522824 6138
Dates are subject to change.
Japan
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153
Japan
Phone: 81-3-3481-3670
Fax:
81-3*481-3644
MKTG 1/98 (PSB)
DataQuest
Global
IT Market
Insight
MECHANICAL CAD/CAM/CAE
WORLDWIDE
Dataquest's Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide program provides comprehensive and
insightful analysis of the dynamics driving the growth of markets for mechanical CAD tools
and applications. The service balances detailed worldwide quantitative statistics with
qualitative assessments of leading MCAD players, products, channels, and market issues.
Key Business
Issues
fVant to learn more
about Dataquest?
Please visit our
Internet web site at
www.dataquest.com
Marl<et Coverage
The Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE program
provides data, advice, and
analysis to help clients make
informed planning decisions.
Publications include a mix of
analytical articles, weekly news
bulletins and event-driven faxes,
focused reports, and timely
market statistics published on a
regular schedule throughout the
year. Briefings and conferences
bring clients together with
analysts to share insights and
opinions.
Key topics covered throughout • NT versus UNIX in engineering
the year in our publications and
environments
briefings will include:
• Distribution channels analysis
• Midrange market for mechanical
• Ongoing analysis of major
design
trends and issues in :
- CAD—Computer-aided • Collaborative engineering
• European and Asian trends in
design
mechanical design
- CAM—Computer• Product data management market
aided manufacturing
dynamics
- CAE—Computer-aided
Dataquest provides global
MCAD market statistics, as
follows:
MCAD Applications
Modeling Technologies
• Product data management
• Analysis
• 2-D
• 3-D
• Solid modeling
Geographic Coverage
• Manufacturing engineering
• North America
Market Share/Size
• Total factory revenue for
hardware, software, software
service, and hardware service
• Software revenue by
application and industry
• Hardware unit shipments
• Hardware installed base
Distribution ChanneIs
• Direct
• Indirect
engineering
- PDM—Product data
management
• Drafting/documentation
• Design
• Numerical control
• Western Europe *
Industries
• Asia/Pacific *
• Major discrete
manufacturing industries
• Japan
Operating Systems
• Worldwide
• All major personal
computer and UNIX
operating systems
• Rest of world
• Country-level Western Europe and
Asia/Pacific data is available in
optional Market Statistics modules
^^R>'j^^^S
(hjJm.^m.AA ^l\^¥l
^^^^^^B.Ai^
191^''
^^^^^^^^H
PE^^;- ..b.'^li^H
^E^^^^^^
# ^
^^^H
Perspective
mM
•
•
-'t
•, r
..
> t.>->
Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Worldwide
Market Analysis
Analysis Software: Moving to tlie l\/lainstream
Abstract: Despite high hopes for its growth, the analysis market has not really taken off in
the past few years. Vendors are now exploring avenues for increasing their penetration of the
installed base of designers by trying to move into the mainstream. This Perspective looks at
where the analysis market is today and how well the vendors are succeeding in their efforts.
Dataquest's market analysis reveals that the market did not grow from 1996 to 1997, but it is
predicted to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 9 percent over the next five years.
By Daya Nadamuni
Introduction
Creating virtual products with all the associated parts and subassemblies
before committing the design to manufacturing is an attractive proposition
that seeks to reduce design to manufacturing cycles and cut costs of rework
and redesign before the physical prototype stage. The task of analysis
software is to take a design and simulate different conditions (such as
stresses and strains, temperature variations, or vibrations) that the final
product w^ill be subject to in reality and give the engineers a glimpse of how
the product will behave under real-world conditions. The software helps
engineers and analysts to come up with an optimal solution for the given
specifications of the operating environment in which the product will
function.
CCQ
LU 4
"CC
iXjO
a ; DC ^
e/s t J rt T—
I..1 • y P.. LJD
c c — y,cr.
__ h - - ^
C3
„
crt JS "^ c3
^
•*•
CO
-lP"i
fT- ^
i^ <
Subjecting a design to this kind of rigorous analysis gives the designer an
opportunity to flag errors and rework the design before it goes into
manufacturing. As a methodology, the process of conducting the analysis
before the physical prototype is manufactured represents a shift from the
historical design and manufacturing process, in which a physical prototype is
analyzed for conformance to the design specifications.
CC —1 " ^
Dataquest
to «
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwicle
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9812
PubIicatlon Date: January 11,1999
FiIIng: Perspective
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Software and Technical Applications binder)
O
^OoJCrt-^
j^*
1
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
The Process
Several lands of analysis can be conducted on a component or an assembly of
parts to determine stresses and strains on the product. Finite element analysis
(FEA), for example, can be used to determine material deformation.
Computational fluid d5mamics (CFD) can be used to assess the heat
dissipation or fluid flow. This Perspective will focus on FEA.
Once the geometry for the design has been created, the model has to be
prepared for analysis. Traditionally, this has been a difficult process because
the analysis system is not necessarily tied closely to the CAD system. In the
course of the preprocessing stage, healing algorithms are used to clean u p the
model, if necessary. When using finite element analysis, this stage of the
process also includes creating the finite element mesh and adding boundary
conditions and loads.
The premise of FEA is based on the fact that component geometry is broken
down into smaller elements that can then be analyzed more rigorously and
thoroughly. Over the past few years, there has been much debate over the
use of p-elements versus the more traditional h-elements in breaking down
the part model. The debate over which element to choose has focused on the
perceived trade-offs among speed, acctiracy, and types of problems that these
elements are able to solve. The status today is that most of the analysis
software available offers both choices to the analyst because the analyst has
the knowledge of when to use the appropriate method. Once preprocessing
has been completed, the loads and boundary conditions are specified, and
solvers can be used to determine whether the design meets the operating
conditions satisfactorily or if the design needs to be reworked. At this stage of
the process, CAD and CAE vendors are also adding optimization modules
that can find the best solution given the maximum and minimum
specifications for the design.
The common link among the solvers that can be used for specific analytical
applications is that the analysis is performed on the geometry brought in
from a CAD system or recreated from scratch in the analysis software.
Displa5dng the results of the analysis is equally important. Postprocessing
software that displays the results in both text and graphical formats is an
integral part of the analysis package today and helps in making decisions on
whether a design needs to be reworked or not. For example, stress and
material deformation on a specific component can be displayed on a soHd
model of the part by shading it in various colors to indicate areas of
maximum and nunimum stiess.
All the analysis functions are mathematically intensive. The basis of
competition in the analysis software market has been the rigor and
mathematical purity of the solution for various problems. However, the
market is moving away from competition based on specific solution methods
(p- versus h-elements) to other arenas of competition.
#
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
The Market
Despite high hopes for its growth, the analysis market has not really taken
off. In previous years, revenue growth for this market hovered around the
average mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market growth rate. However, in 1997,
the computer-aided engineering (CAE) market posted essentially no growth.
Software revenue for the CAE market was U.S.$515 million in 1997.
Table 1 shows market share for the CAE vendors. MacNeal-Schwendler is the
leader in this market, with revenue of U.S.$104 million, followed by
Structural Djmamics Research Corporation. One interesting feature of the
analysis market is that it is quite fragmented, with CAD vendors providing
some analysis tools and with specialty analysis vendors—and even within
the analysis vendors, enclaves of niche players with best-in-class solutions for
certain analysis problems.
Table 1
Software Revenue for the CAE Market, 1997 (Millions of Dollars)
MacNeal-Schwendler
Structural Dynamics Research
1996
1997
Growth (%) 1996-1997
1997 Market Share (%)
106.3
64.1
104.0
73.2
-2.2
20.2
14.2
14.2
56.3
61.8
9.8
12.0
49.3
17.5
9S:
ANSYS
42.0
37.0
35.1
MARC
Mechanical Dynamics
19.5
11.6
21.7
-5.2
11.4
m
15.3
32.0
2$
12.0
10.3
13.0
8.6
2.5
11.1
7.0
2.1
10.5
512.1
10.9
515.7
3.5
0.7
2.1
100.0
Parametric Technology
IBM*
Altair Computing
Adina R&D
Algor Interactive Systems
All Companies
45'
*IBM Is the exclusive reseller for Dassault Systemes.
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
Forecast
Given that the analysis market grew less than 1 percent from 1996 to 1997 in
terms of software revenue, Dataquest's forecast for software revenue growth
in this market between 1998 and 2002 is for a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of sUghtly under 9 percent. We believe the market will return to
higher growth rates, based on the following assumptions:
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
•
There will be an uptake of analysis tools aimed at the midrange designer
and specialist.
•
We will see closer integration of the CAD system with the analysis
software.
•
Analysis solutions will become more vertical for use in specific industries
outside the traditional automotive and aerospace industries.
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
•
Slow^ growth among the major CAE vendors has caused the market to
Stagnate, masking the fairly good growth shown in specialty analysis
markets.
In the light of these factors, it is important to focus on certain techrucal and
nontechnical market trends in the CAE market today.
Emerging Trends in the Analysis IVIarlcet
Analysis has long been the stronghold of specialized analysis software
companies, which have prided themselves on the mathematical accuracy and
rigor of their solutions. But what has been a niche market is starting to
become mainstream in response to user wants and needs for more
Streamlined tools, tighter integration between software packages, increasing
CAD vendor participation in this market, and more partnerships forged
between the CAE and CAD vendors.
Tigliter CAD and CAE Integration
As mentioned earlier, the move to system-level integration means that
analysis needs to be done as early as the conceptual stage of the design.
Because the analysis is based primarily on the geometry created in the CAD
model, the analysis software needs to be tied as closely as possible to the
CAD software used for the design so that the preprocessing stage is as
painless as possible.
Embedding tlie Solid {Modeling Kernel In CAE Software
Tight integration speeds up the modeling and geometry creation, which
already consumes much of the analysis process. As a response to the need for
greater integration between the model geometry from the CAD system and
the analysis software, analysis providers, including ANSYS, MacNealSchwendler and Structural Research and Analysis Corporation, to name a
few, are embedding sohd modeling kernels such as ACIS from Spatial
Technologies and Parasolid from Unigraphics Solutions in their software
packages in an attempt to make bidirectional transfer of data between CAD
and CAE smoother and more accurate.
CAE Tool Now an Icon
Some analysis programs now run inside the CAD system itself so that the
user does not leave the CAD environment to perform the analysis. Loads and
boundary conditions can be applied directly to the CAD model itself. Often
the analysis software appears as an icon on the menu bar of the CAD
program. For example, MSC/InCheck from MacNeal-Schwendler and
DesignSpace from ANSYS are available as icons within Mechanical Desktop
from Autodesk. COSMOS/WORKS from Structural Research and Analysis
Corporation is similarly available as an icon within SolidWorks.
Historically, CAD vendors have had links with CAE vendors at different
levels of integration to be able to provide a way for analysts to plug in the
solvers of their choice—CAD vendors offer the basic solvers, but the more
speciaUzed solvers tend to come from the CAE companies.
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Moving beyond the Specialist
For years, CAE companies have focused on the specialist analyst community
vvith the training and the background to handle the analysis software and
interpret the results. Automotive and aerospace companies have been at the
forefront of analysis tools users, and CAE vendors have faced several
marketing challenges in trying to expand beyond this traditional domain.
Their solutions to these challenges are multifaceted: They are making the
tools easier to use, providing intelligent templates to automate the analysis,
and creating packages that can be used by nonspecialists.
Ease of Use
Ease of use has become a very important part of the technology and market
strategy for both CAD and CAE vendors. CAE vendors, in particular, are
concentrating on efforts to make analysis less esoteric and more mainstream
by creating a product that lets the designers do some preliminary analysis
before the design is passed to the analysis specialist. The idea is to make a
product that is easy to use and does not reqmre the Idnd of speciaUzed
trairdng demanded by a traditional, high-end analysis package. Ease of use
includes tighter interfaces to CAD packages and a trend toward less meshcentric analysis, where FEA models are built directly from the CAD model.
The mesh is still generated but is displayed only when the user wants to see
it.
Software for Nonspecialists
The desire to make an analysis product that works for designers and design
engineers is driven partly by the recogrution that there is a much larger
installed base of designers than of analysts and that to take analysis into
industries where traditionally littie or no analysis is done as part of the
design and manufacturing process requires a product that is easy to use. The
growth of rrudrange CAD packages means that analysis vendors want to
target designers who may have very little famiharity with CAE.
All the major analysis companies have to come to this realization, as a look at
the kind of products they have begun offering over the past few years
indicates.
Two examples of these kinds of products have been mentioned earlier in this
Perspective, DesignSpace from ANSYS and MSC/InCheck from MacNealSchwendler.
Both MSC/InCheck and DesignSpace are aimed at the design engineer and
give the engineer access to a subset of the fvmctionality that is contained in
the companies' flagship products. The engineer can evaluate what-if
scenarios and do some fundamental analysis based on the prelirrdnary
design. Once the irutial analysis is complete, the design can be sent to the
specialists for further analysis.
In addition, analysis vendors have been responding to designers' needs by
developing better user interfaces, error-checking codes, and automatic mesh
generators and healers. A note of caution is that the technology still is not
foolproof. There are plenty of potential problems, such as setting bovmdary
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
conditions or meshed model cleanup, that might escape the designer. Others
want more feedback from their tools that will help them correctly set loading
conditions and understand the results.
Intelligent Templates
Different companies are achieving this sort of standardization of the analysis
effort in different ways, but one corrunon idea seems to be to use a set of
Standard templates that allows the designer to do a first-pass analysis. Major
analysis vendors are all coming out with add-on modules that give the
analyst a continuing role in the process but also give the designer some
fundamental rules tmder which to evaluate the results of the analysis.
One example is a product from ANSYS called Advanced Controls, a module
in the DesignSpace product line. This product configuration, DesignSpace
Expert, provides the ability to execute intelligent templates created by
analysts for use by the design engineers. Specialists within a company set up
a series of templates for either a product or a process that can be used by
novice engineers and designers. The company then has a way to capture the
knowledge that these senior analysts possess and allow it to be used by
nonspecialists.
Other companies, such as Structural Research and .Analysis Corporation with
its new COSMOS/DesignStar, are evolving similar modules for their CAE
product lines.
However, although the product captures the knowledge of the engineer and
can be used to evaluate alternative scenarios, the intent is not to replace the
speciaUst but to automate the initial design process and turn over the more
serious, show-stopping problems to the specialist for high-end analysis.
CAD Vendors and Analysis
There are several analysis packages from CAE-only vendors, but CAD
vendors also offer analysis packages. Major CAD software packages have
some basic analysis capabilities that are usually modular and are sold as addon modules. Some companies, such as Dassault Systemes, have their own
solvers and have additional partnering relationships with analysis vendors so
that those solvers can be plugged into the CAE enviroiunent provided by the
CAD vendor.
Table 2 is a partial list of CAE offerings from CAD and CAE vendors. Most of
the analysis companies offer a variety of solvers, preprocess and postprocess
software. This table is not an exhaustive fist of either companies or products.
We have attempted only to give a flavor of what is available in the market.
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 2
Sample List of CAE Offerings from CAD and CAE Vendors
Vendor
Offering
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
I-DEAS Simulation Advisor
Dassault Systemes
CATIA Analysis and Simulation Solutions, GPS, ELFINI
Unigraphics Solutions
Matra Datavision
UG/Scenario, GFEM
Euclid Analyst
Parametric Technology Corporation
Pro/Mechanica
ANSYS
MacNeal-Schwendler
ANSYS, DesignSpace
MSC/Nastran, MSC/Patran
Structural Research and Analysis Corporation
Enterprise Software Products
COSMOS
Algor
Algor FEA
CADSI
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen (HKS)
PolyFEM
ABAQUS
FEMAP
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
With every new release of CAD software, a trend toward the CAD vendor
folding the analysis into the design tool becomes more visible. The
presumption is that whoever owns the geometry owns the process. Many
CAD vendors see themselves as controlling the preprocess and the results
visualization—the postprocess—stage. CAD vendors even provide basic
solvers in many cases. The CAD vendor's view is that the CAE vendor
becomes involved only at the stage of providing the more advanced analysis
functions. The CAD vendors present themselves as more than quaHfied to
take on the basic analysis function because they control the geometry with
which the model has been created. Therefore, they believe, their analysis
solutions are likely to be more robust in terms of associativity between the
CAD model and the CAE model. CAD vendor Parametric Technology
Corporation has actually acquired CAE vendor Rasna. Others, such as
Unigraphics Solutions, prefer to create an environment where the CAD
vendor provides some pre- and postprocessing capabilities, but where the
CAE solution is embedded within the CAD tool and does most of the
analysis and optimization work.
A Common Vision
CAD and CAE vendors would Uke to move toward even more intelligent and
knowledge-based systems that do not stop with capturing the expert
knowledge of the analyst, perhaps in templates, but that go even beyond that
to allowing the software to suggest design changes that not only optimize the
solution for the given specifications but actually suggest changes necessary to
optimize the final product. Vendors are talking about analysis tools
providing design guidance and going beyond performing verification
functions.
Leading vendors in both the CAD and CAE markets such as Dassault
Systemes, SDRC, and MacNeal-Schwendler have strategic visions for a set of
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
products that can capture all the knowledge generated within a company in
terms of products, process, personnel, and even outside factors that would
affect the product or process. This sort of CAE software, imbued with
intelligence that goes beyond wizards or intelligent templates that prompt an
engineer based on captured knowledge, is still in the future.
Dataquest Perspective
For many companies, with little beyond the most preliminary analysis,
designers tend to overdesign in order to get products out the door in time to
meet the market window. A large proportion of the analysis seats sold tend
to be in the automotive and aerospace industries. Even within this user base,
deployment of analysis seats tends be at a ratio of one or two CAE seats for
every 10 CAD seats. Analysis vendors have been trying hard to get to the
large installed base of designers who currently use minimal or no CAE tools.
Their strategies to bring analysis to the enterprise and expand their user base
have been changing over the last few years. In the past, analysis companies
tended to focus on creating specific solutions for nonanalyst designers. Their
current product focus is to create a line of products that takes the designer
through a series of steps toward higher-end analysis. Problems that are
beyond the expertise of the design engineer can be handed over to a
speciaUst.
CAE vendors, despite their good partnering relationships vvith CAD vendors,
find themselves hemmed in on several fronts by CAD vendors seeking to
expand their influence in the analysis areas as well. CAD vendors, driven in
part by a move by their users to the virtual prototyping paradigm for design,
are tr5dng to provide a solution set rather than point tools to their users so
they can generate the CAD, CAM, and CAE information from the same set of
tools. Companies such as Dassault Systemes and SDRC, to name just two, are
visuaHzing a more streamlined design process that facilitates knowledge
capture, knowledge transfer, and best practices within the organization and
that makes the tools easy to use, even for the designer. As owners of the
geometry creation process, they believe they are the most qualified to take on
the basic functions of the CAE side of the creative process.
Interestingly, given that users are talking about wanting tools to transfer
designs more seamlessly from CAD to CAE and wanting the benefits of
tighter integration with CAD packages, some analysis vendors are starting to
question this strategy, citing the issues that arise from supporting multiple
CAD packages. For the majority of the vendors, however, the golden mean
seems to be for CAE to exist within the body of the CAD package, embedded
as an icon or available as an analysis window within the same environment.
As a result of these technological and market forces, Dataquest expects to see
more consofidation among the analysis vendors in the next five years. One
recent example is the merger of CADSI and LMS, two specialty analysis
vendors. CADSI is active in the kinematics marketplace with its motion
analysis products and also has a FEA package called PolyFEM. It would also
not be very surprising to see CAD vendors bujdng out specialty analysis
vendors. Particularly in the case of analysis technology, many of the specific
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
solvers are advanced enough that it would require a large R&D investment
from CAD vendors to duplicate them. The good news is that as we move
toward the virtual prototyping paradigm for system-level design, analysis
will become an integral part of the process. Companies that do not currently
engage in analysis as part of the design-to-manufacturing process will find
themselves having to acquire the capabilities and the tools. Also, there are
Still untapped areas within this market to pursue, such as nonlinear analysis,
and nontraditional industries to target, such as electronic packaging (which
we can no longer consider "untapped").
CMEC-WW-DP-9812
©1999 Dataquest
January 11,1999
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
For More Information...
hiqmry Hotline:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
IJOT*!/"*! I^^^l
^^fc_
A Gartner Group Company
-Hl-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.com
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of infonnation 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. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express coiwent of Dataquest.
©1999 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
74879
Perspective
Mechanical CADICAMICAE Worldwide
Market Analysis
European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Update
Abstract: This document provides an analysis of the European mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE
software market by region, component, and platform. Dataquest discusses the impact of the
Western European economy on the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market, as well as how
fluctuating currency rates influence the market.
By Petra Gartzen
The European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market at a Glance
The foUovving characterized the European C A D / C A M / C A E / G I S market in 1997:
The European C A D / C A M / C A E / G I S market remained static at
$6.1 billion in total factory revenue in 1997. Calculated in European
currency units (ECU), the market grew 11.1 percent.
•
C A D / C A M / C A E / G I S software revenue increased 4.4 percent to
$2.3 billion. Based on ECU, software revenue grew 16.1 percent.
The largest application segment in Europe is mechanical, with
48.3 percent of the total European C A D / C A M / C A E / G I S software
market. It increased 13.5 percent in 1997 based on ECU.
sTt n
i^i-U
Europe-based vendors generated only 25.4 percent of the mechanical
C A D / C A M / C A E software revenue, compared with 74.6 percent
generated by U.S. -based vendors.
-r
SSjOcjiD
i _ - —-
•
^
-CO
s z ; -.^ o CO
" r *C Lo rao
S D CM t/3 ^
UNIX-based software still dorrunated the market, accounting for nearly
66 percent of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software sales in Europe in
1997. By 2002, this share will decrease to 46 percent as NT-based
applications gain more ground.
Dataquest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9811
Publication Date: January 18,1999
Filing: Perspective
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Software and Technical Applications binder)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
•
The largest regional market for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software in
1997 was Germany, with U.S.$414 million in software revenue,
representing 37.4 percent of the European market.
The top five vendors accoimted for 62 percent of mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE software revenue in 1997, compared with 53 percent in
1996. Their combined revenue increased by 19.9 percent.
Figures 1 and 2 provide a snapshot of the European CAD/CAM/CAE and
GIS market as a whole and the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market in
particular.
The Continuing Impact of Currency Shift
Fluctuating exchange rates once again masked the true performance of the
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market. European CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS
software grew 4.4 percent from 1996 to 1997 when measured in U.S. dollars.
The dollar appreciated 11.2 percent against the ECU, so European
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS software revenue grew 16.1 percent from 1996 to 1997
when measured in ECU. Table 1 shows the U.S. dollar's performance over the
past three years against the individual European currencies. Table 2
highlights the effect that the fluctuations in the dollar exchange rate had on
the performance of the European CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market.
Figure 1
European CAD/CAMlCAE/GIS Software Market Portfolio
Percentage Growth, 1996-1997 (Local Currency)
30
Average
Market
Growth =
16.1%
120
240
360
480
600
720
Millions of Dollars (1997)
840
960
1,080
1,200
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 2
European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Snapshot
Revenue( Growth, 1996-1997 (Local Currency)
Top Five Marltet Leaders
(Software Revenue)
1
Total
: • :
1
IBM, Parametric Technology, Matra Datavision,
Autodesl<, CoCreate
^..^»1
Software
•\13.5|
L
4 — r
0
2
1 — 1 — 1 -1
4
6
8 10
Percent
1
12
European Software MarIcet Share
r
14
/others
/ (28%)
Software Revenue = $1,106 iVIilllon
<
Total Revenue = $3,089 Million
Hardware Units Shipped = 115,620
v
Top 10 I
(72%) M
European Compan ies' Share = 25.4%
988781
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
Table 1
U.S. Dollar Exchange Rates for European Currencies
U.S. Dollar Appreciation (%)
19951996199719981996
1997
1998
1999
Country
Currency
1995
1996
Preliminary Projected
Average,
Rate,
1998'
1999'
1997
Austria
Schilling
10.06
10.59
12.20
12.44
11.96
5.2
Belgium
Franc
29.42
30.96
35.79
36.48
35.05
5.2
15.6
1.9
-3.9
2.0
-3.9
3.5
-3.7
15.2
2.0
-3.9
Denmark
Krone
5.59
5.81
6.61
6.74
6.47
3.9
13.7
Finland
Markka
4.37
4.59
5.19
5.37
5.17
5.1
13.0
France
Franc
4.97
5.12
5.84
5.93
5.70
2.9
14.1
1.6
-3.9
Germany
Deutsche
mark
1.43
1.50
1.73
1.77
1.70
5.2
15.2
2.0
-3.9
1,628.21 1,542.72 1,703.02
Italy
Lira
1,744.55
1,678.92
-5.3
10.4
2.4
-3.8
Netherlands
Guilder
1.60
1.69
1.95
1.99
1.92
5.2
15.7
2.2
-3.8
Norway
Krone
6.33
6.46
7.08
7.56
7.56
2.1
9.6
6.8
-O.l
Spain
Peseta
124.40
126.68
146.45
150.09
144.33
1.8
15.6
2.5
-3.8
Sweden
Krona
7.14
6.71
7.64
7.93
7.88
-6.0
13.9
3.8
-0.6
Switzerland
Franc
1.18
1.24
1.45
1.46
1.40
4.8
17.3
0.6
-4.1
United
Kingdom
Pound
0.63
0.64
0.61
0.60
0.59
1.3
-4.7
-1.3
-1.4;
Europe
ECU
0.77
0.80
0.89
0.90
0.86
2.9
11.2
1.2
-3.6
'Preliminary average for 1998
^Projected rates for 1999
Source: Dataquest (September 1 998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2
Software Revenue History and Forecast, All Operating Systems (U.S. Dollars and ECU)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Growth
Rate (%)
1996-1997
Growth
Rate (%) CAGR (%)
1997-1998 1997-2002
European Revenue (U.S. $M)
Mechanical
987
1,084
1,106
1,188
1,295
1,391
1,515
1,686
AEG
411
421
392
408
450
500
542
587
GIS/Mapping
317
362
413
466
528
592
671
748
EDA
284
324
377
440
515
591
674
759
2,000
2,192
2,289
2,501
2,787
3,074
3,402
3,780
0.77
o.so
0.89
0.90
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
All Applications
Exchange Rate
(ECU/U.S.$)
2
#
•
m^
4
•
^
7
8.8
4
8,4
13
17
15.0
9
10.6
-
-
12.6
European Revenue (ECU M)
Mechanical
764
863
979
1,065
1,119
1,202
1,309
1,457
AEC
318
335
347
366
389
432
468
507
GIS/Mapping
245
289
366
417
456
511
580
646
220
258
334
394
445
511
583
656
2,026
2,242
2,408
2,656
2,939
3,266
EDA
All Applications
1,547
1,745
9
8v3
4
4
'W.
22
U
12.1
29
18
14.4
16
11
10.0
13
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
Looldng ahead, currency fluctuations vvill continue to be felt in all global
markets. The dollar started to depreciate during the latter months of 1997, so,
assuming a stable currency for the remainder of this year, 1998 will end with
the dollar appreciating only about 1 percent against the ECU.
Although Dataquest does not forecast currency exchange rates, we do
forecast with the best information available. The exchange rate is calculated
as the simple arithmetic mean of the 12 monthly average rates for each
country. For the purposes of this forecast, Dataquest assumes that the
September exchange rate will remain stable in the future.
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market in Europe
Mechanical applications, which totaled $1.1 billion, held a 48 percent share of
ti:ie total European CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS software market in 1997,
compared with 50 percent in 1996, and increased by 13.5 percent in software
revenue in 1997. The top 10 vendors grew 13.4 percent and contioUed
72 percent of this market, compared with 76 percent in 1996. The market is
expected to increase by another 9 percent to $1.2 billion in 1998 (all growth
rates are based on ECU).
Dataquest expects the market for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software to
grow at a compound armual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.8 percent until 2002.
Figures 3 and 4 give a snapshot of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software
market in 1997 and Dataquest's predictions for the market by major European
countiy.
CMEC-WW-OP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 3
European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Software Market Portfolio
Percentage Growth, 1996-1997 (LocaI Currency)
25
1"
other Europe
20
^ ^ 11aly
15
Germanyjj
i&
^m M
^^^
^ ^^
10
B
France
Average
Market
Growth =
13.5%
5
0
-5
-10
i
40
^ ^ B
80
120
160
United Kingdom
200
240
280
320
360
400
Millions of Dollars (1997)
98B7ffi
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
Figure 4
European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Software Revenue Forecast by Country
IUIillions of Dollars
700France
600-
Germany
500-
Italy
400
United
Kingdom
1995
1996
1997
— I —
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Over the past three years (1995 through to 1997), investment has been heavy in mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE tools from the automotive and aerospace industries across Europe. Most
of the European companies have now completed their CAD renewal, and we expect that
these two sectors will begin to slow during 1998. In 1998 and 1999, Dataquest expects the
machinery industry to pick up growth, investing mairdy in NT-based solutions. However,
because the automotive and aerospace industries are the main consumers of mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE tools, we expect software revenue growth to slow to less than 8 percent
between 1998 and 2001.
The economic statistics make it evident that Germany plays a leading role in the European
manufacturing industry, both in terms of the number of people employed in this industry
and in terms of production (see Figures 5 and 6). This is also reflected in Germany's
37 percent share of European mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software revenue. Any change
in the German manufacturing industry has an impact on mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
software revenue growth. According to German economic statistics compiled by
Commerzbarik, German manufacturing production as a whole will grow 6 percent in 1998,
slowing to 3.3 percent in 1999. The machinery industry in particular will increase 8.2 percent
in 1998 and 4.5 percent in 1999. This will drive CAD investment in the machinery sector in
Germany, and this in turn will ensure that growth rates for Europe as a whole vvill remain
relatively high.
Figure 5
European Manufacturing Industry—Percentage of Workforce by Industry
m others/Not Defined
Social,
s Community,
Personal Services
•
Finance, Insurance,
Business SeIvices
[3
Transport, Storage,
Communications
H
Wholesale/Retail,
Restaurants, Hotels
m Construction
n Electricity, Gas, Water
•
Germany United France
Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Benelux
Nordic
n
s
Manufacturing
Mining/Quarrying
Agriculture/Forestry
BBBf&i
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 6
European Industrial Production Growth Forecast
Percent
8-
^
1996
[3
1998
•
1997
•
1999
-4Germany
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market by Component
The software share of the total revenue for mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E
applications has increased at the expense of hardware revenue. This trend is
expected to continue as hardware prices continue to fall at a faster rate than
software prices (see Figure 7).
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market by Platform
The mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market segment, in terms of software
revenue, is still dominated by UNIX-based solutions, which accotrnted for
66 percent of European mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E software revenue.
UNIX-based seats made u p 43 percent and PC-based seats 46 percent of the
mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E installed base in 1997 (see Figures 8 and 9).
With growth of 126 percent in 1997, NT-based applications are begirming to
encroach on revenue for applications on the other platforms, in particular,
PC-based applications. Revenue for mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E tools is
primarily driven by large UNIX-based orders from the automotive and
aerospace industries.
In Europe, growth for NT-based solutions will not come from the traditional
users in the automotive and aerospace industries, but from other industry
sectors made up by small-to-medium-size companies.
In major industiies such as automotive and aerospace, adoption of NT-based
solutions will take longer because most of the large companies have just
CMEC-WW-DP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
invested in UNIX-based systems. Given the long IT investment cycles in
these industries, it will take a number of years until these new installations
will be replaced.
Figure 7
European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Revenue by Component, 1995,1997, and 2002
1995
1997
2002
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
Figure 8
European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Software Revenue Forecast by Platform
Percentage of Revenue
100 ^ j ^ ^ P B ^ ^ M n *
9o-y<Ss:^S>S$$x
8070-
^^:'''?
60504030'
2010—I
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
, —
2000
2001
2002
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 9
European Mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E Hardware Seat Installed Base by Platform
2002
1997
Host (1.3%)
Host (0.3%)
/NT/Hybrid 1
/ \
(10.4%) 1
/
/
\
\
UNIX
(42.8%)
PC
1
(45.5%)
1
UNIX
(30.8%)
PC
(36.1%)
\
\
\
\
NT/Hybrid
(32.8%)
9Be/sa
Source: Dataquest (December 1998)
Dataquest Perspective
There is a clear indication that the European manufacturing industry is going
through a major transformation to remain competitive in a more and more
global economy. High labor costs forced industry to change radically and
increase productivity despite high labor costs. This change in the structure of
the European manufacturing industry is one of the factors behind the
continuing IT investment.
CAD investment in Europe is part of global corporate strategy. This means
that when orders are placed in Europe, generally they are much larger than
in the United States, as shown by the various large orders that came in from
Europe over the past three years. But this trend also means that the IT
investment cycles are longer in Europe—in the automotive and aerospace
industries, these range from five to 10 years. Because most of the large
compardes in the automotive and aerospace industries have now made their
CAD renewal investments, Dataquest does not expect the mechanical
C A D / C A M / C A E software market to continue to grow at its current pace.
From 1998 onward, things will go back to normal, and the market will again
display all the signs of a mature replacement market.
CMEC-WW-DP-9811
©1999 Dataquest
January 18,1999
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
!
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
I ^JlT J:lf^l | f * ^ T
^•^..^
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
-f 1-408-954-1780
h t t p : / /www.dataquest.com
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1999 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
74845
Perspective
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
End-User Analysis
CAD/CAM/CAE Technology: Management Perspectives, Part Two
Abstract: what are some of the factors that affect the decision to purchase a mechanical CAD
system? How do managers view the technology? In this Perspective, we examine the results of
a recent CAD/CAM/CAE management end user survey. This is the second of two Perspectives
summarizing the joint Computer-Aided ¥NGINEERING/Dataquest survey.
By Daya Nadamuni and Sharon Tan
Introduction
Computer-Aided ENGINEERING (CAE) magazine and Dataquest recently
completed a joint end-tiser survey of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
managers in North America, The purpose of the siirvey was to better
understand current usage, benefits, and management of CAD/CAM/CAE
technology in a number of industries.
Dataquest is summarizing the results of the svuvey in two Perspectives. The
first Perspective, pubHshed in September ("CAD/CAM/CAE TechnologyManagement Perspectives," dated September 1998, CMEC-WW-DP-9809),
focused on management viewpoints on CAD technology, including benefits,
justifications, and upgrade/budget schedules. This second Perspective looks
at Intemet/intranet/Web plans and management's satisfaction with current
CAD solutions. The results of the survey vdll also be published in the
November issue of Computer-Aided ENGINEERING (please see
http://wv^rw.penton.com/cae/ for information on subscribing to ComputerAided ENGINEERING magazine).
ceo
^uf
UJ
4
"OC
UJ O
C3 Q .
CSC c c
go
1^
Js^
c f l O Q- u^
vjO)
ra<o
;to' JlC
O C3io
i_
.CO
I
^2 oc~41> —3OiOCO CDCO
•^
oc <
o l -
"-<
2o
1— C OO
LO CO CD
CNJ CO • ^
Dataquest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-gsi 0
Publication Date: November 2,1998
Filing: Perspective
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Software and Technical Applications binder)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Survey Methodology and Respondent Demographics
CAE magazine and Dataquest developed a four-page survey questionnaire.
Survey candidates were randomly pulled from Penton Publications' database
of CAE magazine subscribers with management titles. CAE magazine
published and mailed the surveys, and the completed surveys were sent to
Dataquest for analysis. There were 159 stirveys completed. While our intent
was to survey North American CAD/CAM/CAE managers, 24 respondents
(15 percent of all respondents) identified themselves as nonmanagers.
Overall, the survey respondents had a significant amoimt of managerial
experience, with 64 percent of respondents reporting 10 or more years of
experience in management.
Company size varied from fewer than 10 employees at a given location to
9,999 employees. For the purposes of this survey, b7 percent of respondents
were from small companies (fewer than 200 employees), 31 percent from
medium-size companies (200 to 999 employees), and 12 percent from large
companies (1,000 employees or more).
On the whole, we can characterize the majority of survey respondents as
managers coming from small to medium-size companies with less than $100
miUion in fiscal revenue. More detailed demographic information is available
in the first Perspective in this series.
2-D Design and 3-D Design
A great majority of the vendors in the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market
today are selling products that are geared toward or fadlitate 3-D design and
analysis. With this in mind, we asked the respondents if they considered 3-D
design to be the main form of design today. The resvilts were somewhat
surprising; only 51 percent of the respondents answered in the affirmative.
However, when we asked if 3-D design would be the main form of design in
2000,73 percent of the respondents gave affirmative responses. While we
have traditionally foimd user responses to be more optimistic than realistic,
we also realize that the respondents for this survey tended to be CAD/
engineering managers who perhaps exert greater influence on CAD
purchases than other respondents that we typically survey.
We then asked the respondents who indicated that they used mainly 2-D
design today to state their most important reason for not moving to 3-D
design. Figure 1 lists the reasons given by users for not using 3-D design at
present.
The most poptdar response given by 42 percent of respondents was that they
believed 2-D CAD was Siifficient for their purposes. A further 16 percent of
the respondents also claimed that 3-D CAD was difficult to learn and use.
Four percent of the respondents cited nontechnical reasons for staying with
2-D design packages. For many companies it appears that there is no
compeUing reason to move to 3-D design. 3-D design is not used
downstream or upstream by clients or suppliers, or in the next step of the
design/manufacturing process.
CMEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 1
Why Is 3-D CAD Not the Main Form of Design Today or in 2000?
•
Do Not Know (5.5%)
Others (3.6%)
3-D Data Is Not Used at the
Client Site or with Suppliers (7.3%)
3-D Design Is Not Compatible
with Current Design Work (3.6%)
3-D Systems
Are Too Expensive (9.1%)
3-D Data is Not Used
in the Next Process
(12.7%)
3-D Systems Are Difficult
to Use and Leam (16.4%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
The responses to the 2-D design versus 3-D design question showed some
variation by industry. The results of the survey in this case were not very
surprising. The automotive and aerospace industries have traditionally had a
much greater focus on 3-D design than, for example, the fabricated metal
industry. There were 61 percent of the respondents in the automotive and
aerospace industries that use 3-D design today and 88 percent expect to do so
in 2000. However, only 22 percent of respondents in the fabricated metal
industries use 3-D design now, and only 33 percent expect to do so in 2000.
Figures for CAD usage are listed by industry in Table 1.
Table 1
3-D CAD Usage by Industry, 1998
Percent
Industry
Automotive/Aerospace
20
Fabricated Metal
Industrial/Commercial Madunery
12
22
Electrical Equipment, Industrial Controls, Toys
Services
15
Government, Education, Process Industries, Recreation
ToUl
17
14
100
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Given the nature of the respondents' design envirorvment, our next goal was
to stirvey their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with current design-related tools
and technologies.
Design-Related Tools and Technologies—What Users Think and What They
Want
Respondents to our survey were asked to rate the following tools and
technologies with respect to importance and satisfaction on a scale of 1 (not
important) to 5 (very important/very satisfied).
•
Part modeling
•
Assem.bly modeling
•
Drafting/detailing
•
Overall performance
•
Ability to share design files via the Internet/Web
•
Design optimization capabiHties
•
PhotoreaUstic imaging
•
CAD to CAM integration
•
CAD to CAE integration
Table 2 presents the numerical results of the gap analysis (the difference
between importance ratings and satisfaction ratings). Figure 2 provides a
visual interpretation of these user importance and satisfaction ratings. The
importance of each characteristic is mapped on a 1 to 5 scale and the
satisfaction rating for each appUcation is mapped along the same axes as its
corresponding importance rating.
In an ideal situation the importance and satisfaction ratings would be equal,
and no area would appear between the circles because the drcles would
coincide. However, when the circles do not coincide at every point users are
not as happy as they could be, and tiiis certainly appears to be the case for
the respondents in this survey. The areas of divergence represent the gaps
between importance and satisfaction ratings by the respondents. We would
consider any gap greater than 0.5 to be an area that vendors might consider
concentrating future efforts.
Drafting/detailing and overall performance oftitieappUcations used for this
work ranked highest in importance with a weighted average response of 4.3
and 4.2, respectively. But these categories also showed some of the biggest
importance/satisfaction gaps at 0.7 for drafting and 0.6 for overall
performance. Both part modeling and assembly modeling were also very
important to users, but showed smaller importance/satisfaction gaps.
There is a large importance/satisfaction gap (0.7) in design optimization
capabilities of mechanical CAD software appUcations. Many vendors,
particularly those in CAE and visualization, have attempted to address this
design optimization gap either with CAE appUcations aimed at designers or
CI\/IEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
w^ith "virtual protot5rping" applications that aUow^ designers to view and
interact wiih assembly models ui a virtual enviroiunent.
Table 2
Gap Analysis of Importance/Satisfaction Ratings for Mechanical Applications
Drafting/Detailing
Overall Performance
Part Modeling
Assembly Modeling
Design Optiinization
Capabilities
CAD to CAM Integration
CAD to CAE Integration
Ability to Share Design
FUes via the Web
Photorealistic Imaging
Importance
4.3
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.7
Satisfaction
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.0
Gap
0,7
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.7
3.5
3.3
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.0
0.5
0.4
-0.1
2.6
2.8
-0.2
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
Figure 2
Gap Analysis for Importance/Satisfaction Ratings
Drafting/Detailing
Overall
5
Photorealistic Imaging
Perfonfnance
Importance
Satisfaction
Ability to Share Design
RIes via the Web
Part Modeling
Assembly Modeling
CAD to CAE Integration
CAD to CAM Integration
Design Optimization
Capabilities
Note: Ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = not Importeint/not satisfied and 5 = very important/very satisfied.
Source: Dataquest (October1998)
Getting a product to market is not just about CAD software and design. It is
also about how CAD and related technologies are vised together. With this in
mind, we asked the respondents about the importance of CAD to CAM and
CAD to CAE integration. CAD to CAM and CAD to CAE kitegration are
CMEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
perceived as important and users did display a lack of satisfaction with the
applications. This is consistent with previous user surveys conducted by
Dataquest that showed users were dissatisfied with data exchange and
translation software.
With the increasing penetration of the Web and the Internet into the
workplace and the design process, the ability to share design files via the
Web is perceived as important, though not as important as drafting/
detailing or design optimization. Respondents expressed minimal
dissatisfaction with the ability to share design files over the Web. The same
can be said of photorealistic imaging, which has been consistently ranked
lower in surveys both in importance and in dissatisfaction over the past three
years.
One interesting trend that we noticed was that satisfaction ratings were
generally higher for respondents who felt that their companies had fairly
strong information networks and that the overall progress in using CAD
technology had been good.
Design and the internet
Collaborative engineering, project Web sites, and the use of component
models dowmloaded from the Web have all been concepts of great interest
and much discussion for the past few years in engineering circles. The last
two years have seen a great deal of activity on the part of CAD vendors
implementing Web browsing capabilities within their design applications.
Web-enabling product data management (PDM) solutions, developing Webbased project management solutions, and in a few cases providing links with
component information system (CIS) vendors. To get some idea of how the
users view the Internet as a tool for engineering and product development,
we asked respondents about their access to the Internet, the Internet services
they use, and their security concerns about using the Internet.
Accessing tlie Internet
There were 82 percent of the respondents surveyed that indicated their
companies gave employees access to the Internet. However, of these
respondents, 70 percent gave most or all of their employees access to the
Internet while 30 percent limited access to a small number of employees.
The methods used to access the Internet also varied though the 55.6k modem
was the most popular, followed by the Tl line. Figure 3 shows the different
tj^es of access methods used by respondents.
Internet-Related Services
We asked respondents what Intemet-related services the company uses.
Here, multiple responses were allowed. E-mail was chosen by 34 percent of
the respondents as the most popular service, followed by the tise of the
general company intranet. There were 29 percent of the respondents that
used e-mail services and also accessed the general company intranet, but
only 9 percent used all fovir of the most popular services. Surprisingly, only 2
percent of the respondents indicated that they used CAD conferencing
services via model vievdng, which leads us to believe that vendors may have
CMEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
to do some seriovis evangelizing to get users to use the Internet as a tool for
concurrent engineering. Table 3 shows the Internet/Web services that
companies use to assist in engineering and product development. Figure 4
shows the four most popular Internet-related services used today by
respondents in different industries.
•
Figure 3
Internet Access Method
T3Une(6.3%) -
'Y
/ \
Others
\
(10.4%)
33.6k Modem
(19.6%)
T1 Une
(21.7%)
\
/
\ /
\
\
/
/
55k Modem
(29.4%)
•
m
ISDN
(12.6%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
Table 3
IntemetAVeb Services Used Today to Assist in Engineering/Product
Development
E-MaU
General Company Intranet
FTP
Project Web Site/Pages
CAD Viewer Plug-Ins
Videoconferencing
Don't Know
Extranet
CAD Conferencing(via Model Viewing)
Others
Total
Respondents Who Use These Services (%)
34
17
15
13
i
5
3
%
2
1
100
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 4
Top Four Internet-Related Services Used by Industry (Percent)
Automotive/Aerospace
Fabricated Metal
Industrjai/Commercial
I^achinery
Mi^Sll^^^^?^^^^^?!!^!^??^^
0
E-Mail
•
Intranet
Q
FTP
D
Project
Electrical Equipment,
Industrial Controls, Toys
Sen^ices
Government Education, k>.^|iQ^faKij|ya^^
Process Industries,
Recreation
~\
1
i
5
10
15
5
!
1
20
25
30
Percent
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
The Internet and Security Concerns
It is apparent that not every company uses or plans to use the Internet. What
is holding them back? We aslced respondents about tiieir primary concerns
regarding the use of the Internet as an everyday tool for engineering. The
survey asked respondents to identify one of the following as their primary
concern:
•
Security (corporate espionage, hackers)
m Security (corrupting files, viruses)
•
Bandwidth
•
Rehability
•
Others
•
Don't know
Overall, 65 percent of the respondents were worried about the security issues
of file corruption (39 percent) and corporate espionage (26 percent). Concerns
were also expressed about the reliability of the Internet (11 percent) and
bandwidth (9 percent). Ten percent oftibierespondents were unable to
identify their primary concerns, and 5 percent of the respondents had other
concerns such as employees wasting time plajdng games or using the
Internet for non-work-related activities.
CMEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Q
Of the total number of respondents to the survey, respondents with less than
$50 miUion in annual revenue (51 percent) were most troubled about using
the Internet. The primary concerns for 63 percent of these respondents were
security issues, especially Internet security with regard to fUe corruption and
viruses. Keeping in mind that this survey was aimed at CAD/CAM/CAE
managers, we looked at correlations between concerns about using the
Internet and the respondents' positions within their companies. In the
survey, 58 percent of the respondents identified themselves as being in
engineering and design management, amd of this number 64 percent
identified security as being their primary concern about using the Internet.
Sixteen percent of the respondents identified themselves as being in
company or corporate management, and 65 percent of these respondents
were again most concerned about the secvuity issues related to use of the
Internet. The respondents who identified themselves as being in research
and development management were also primarily worried about Internet
security issues, although they did express concerns about bandwidth and the
reliability of the Internet.
Looking at the correlations between seat count and concerns about using the
Internet, 40 percent of the users were concerned about file corruption and 26
percent about espionage. Those with 20 or fewer seats seemed more
concerned about security than those with large CAD iristaUations. Given that
46 percent of the respondents identified themselves as being at sites with 10
seats or less and 19 percent at sites with 10 to 19 seats, it appears that the
smaller the size of the seat installation and the smaller the CAD budget, the
greater the concern about using the Internet.
Dataquest Perspective
For the second part of our two-pzui: series on management Perspectives in
CAD/CAM/CAE, we have looked at certain aspects of design management
and trends in the industry with regeu-d to tiie design environment, and at the
collaborative environment with respect to the use of the Internet in
concurrent engineering.
Even though vendors are promoting products heavily oriented to 3-D design,
a minority of the users stiU see 2-D design as their main form of design
today, altlnough a high percentage of these visers have indicated tliat they
expect to move into 3-D design by 2000. However, vendors need not lose
hope because the main reason given for not using 3-D design today was lack
of need for 3-D design rather than trouble using the packages or
dissatisfaction v^th the pricing of the software or the hardware. Of course
the results are heavily skewed by industry but are generally in keeping with
other user surveys that Dataquest has conducted in the past.
Users are still dissatisfied with the quality and overall performance of tools
for drafting/detailing as is shov^Ti by the large gaps between the importance
and satisfaction ratings for these two areas. Similarly, there were gaps in the
importance/satisfaction ratings for CAD to CAM and CAD to CAE
integration packages, as well as part modeling and assembly modeling
CMEC-WW-DP-9810
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
capabilities. This dissatisfaction has also been a recurring theme in previous
surveys.
On the whole, users are quite satisfied with the current state of affairs. Major
innovations in collaborative computing and concurrent engineering are not
yet seen as very important by the users if we are to judge by the responses to
the questions about use of the Internet. What stood out was the fact that the
use of the Internet as a mechanism for collaborative engineering or even as
an integral part of the design process is still limited. Half of the users
surveyed did not have access to the Internet, and those who did have access
tised it mainly for e-mail rather than for model viewing or setting up project
Web sites.
While the veilue of CAD/CAM/CAE technology has been proved to discrete
manufacturing companies, it appears that the fritemet has yet to prove its
value.
For More Infonnation...
Inquiry HotUne:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
-fl-408-954-1780
http: / / WTvw.dataquest.eom
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartiwr Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
73197
Perspective
Mechanical CADICAM/CAE Worldwide
End-User Analysis
CAD/CAM/CAE Technology:
Management Perspectives
Abstract: What are some of the decision factors that affect mechanical CAD
system
purchases? How do managers view the technology? In this Perspective, we examine the results
of a recent CAD/CAM/CAE management end user survey. This is the first of two Perspectives
summarizing this joint Computer-Aided ENGINEERING/DataijHest survey.
By Sharon Tan and Daya Nadamuni
Introduction
Computer-Aided ENGINEERING magazine and Dataquest recently completed
a joint end-user survey of mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E managers in North
America. The purpose of the survey was to better understand current usage,
benefits, and management of C A D / C A M / C A E technology across a number
of industries.
BCQ
uu 4
"OC
uj
O
"tl*
&
e^cc g rr
o
° - S CO
so ta «
u-t Z O^_ h—.it:
of^A
_
LLI *-^
•- t- ^
=
•Bl
LO
o>
^
o
«=i: a
O CO
-CO
ai ,iv
o to
£ a > ""55
-J-'Joc*Ccr
cob
u. «{
coo
co-v
Dataquest is summarizing the results of the survey in two Perspectives. This
first Perspective focuses on management viewpoints on CAD technology,
including benefits, justifications, and u p g r a d e / b u d g e t schedules. The second
Perspective will look at Internet/intranet/Web plans and management's
satisfaction with current CAD solutions. The results of the survey will also be
published in the November issue of Computer-Aided ENGINEERING (see
h t t p : / / w w w . p e n t o n . e o m / c a e / for more details on subscribing to ComputerAided ENGINEERING magazine).
Survey Methodology and Respondent Demographics
The four-page survey questioimaire was developed b y both Computer-Aided
ENGINEERING (CAE magazine) and Dataquest. Survey candidates were
randomly pulled from Penton Publication's database of CAE magazine
Dataquest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9809
Publication Date: Octobers, 1998
Filing: Perspective
(For Cross-Teclinology, file in the Client/Server Software and Technical Applications binder)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
subscribers with management titles. CAE magazine published and mailed
the surveys; completed surveys were sent to Dataquest for analysis. In total,
159 surveys were completed. While our intention was to survey North
American C A D / C A M / C A E managers, 24 respondents (or 15 percent of
respondents) identified themselves as nonmanagers. Sixty percent of
respondents were in engineering and design management, 16 percent in
corporate management, 6 percent in manufacturing management, and 5
percent in research and development management. Overall, the survey
respondents had a significant amount of managerial experience, with 64
percent of respondents having 10 or more years of experience in
management.
A variety of industries were represented in the survey. A breakdown of
respondents by industry is given in Figure 1. The "other" category consists
mainly of respondents from government (17 responses), communications
(6 responses), and process manufacturing (5 responses).
Company size varied from fewer than 10 employees at a given location to
9,999 employees. For the purposes of this survey, 57 percent of respondents
were from small comparues (fewer than 200 employees), 31 percent from
mediirm-size companies (200 to 999 employees), and 12 percent from large
companies (1,000 employees or more).
Figure 1
Respondent Breakdown b y Industry
3S576H
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Company revenue also varied greatly, with 30 percent of respondents'
comparues posting revenue less than $10 million. About 23 percent posted
revenue between $10 to $50 million, and 14 percent were respondents from
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
companies with over $1 billion in annual fiscal revenue. On the whole, we
can characterize the majority of survey respondents as managers coming
from small to medium-size companies with less than $100 million in fiscal
revenue.
Seat Counts and CAD Budgets
Large C A D / C A M / C A E seat installations are still somewhat of a rarity in the
CAD world. Of our respondents, 46 percent are at sites with fewer than 10
seats, and 19 percent are at sites with 10 to 19 seats. No respondent had 3,000
or more seats at a site.
Similarly, large budgets for hardware, software, implementation, and
training are also rare in the CAD market. We asked respondents how much
their company spends annually on C A D / C A M / C A E technology. A total of
21 percent of respondents spent less than $10,000 annually; only 4 percent of
respondents spent more than $1 million. Of course, given the small
installation size of ovu: sample population, we would expect smaller CAD
budgets.
In Figure 2, we have shown the percentage of responses for CAD spending
for our three major seat count categories (fewer than 10 CAD seats, 10 to 19
seats, and more than 19 seats). Little difference in spending can be seen
between those companies with fewer than 10 CAD seats and those with 10 to
19 CAD seats. These companies tend to spend less than $50,000 annually for
CAD technology, which puts the highest possible spending at $50,000 per
seat and the lowest possible spending at $2,632 per seat for everything
(hardware, software, training, and implementation services annually). For
those companies with more than 19 seats, about half spend under $250,000
annually, and half spend over that amount.
Looldng closer at these companies that spend less than $50,000 annually on
CAD (where 61 percent of our respondents fell): given the average software
seat price for UNIX-based CAD software of about $20,000 and midrange
CAD systems of under $10,000, it appears as if these companies could only
purchase somewhere in the neighborhood of five new CAD software licenses
each year—and that's on the optimistic side. Indeed, the CAD market is
reaching maturity to the point where we expect growth in new software
licenses to slow considerably from the high double-digit grovvth the market
has shown in previous years.
Frequency of Hardware Upgrades
Respondents in our survey are on a fast-paced hardware upgrade schedule,
with nearly 90 percent of all respondents stating that they upgrade their
C A D / C A M / C A E workstations and PCs every three years or sooner. Full
results by operating system are shown in Figure 3.
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
October 5,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 2
Annual CAD/CAM/CAE Spending by CAD Installation Size
Percentage of Responses
^ ^ "
Less than 10 Seats
lOto 19 Seats
l\/lore than 19 Seats
1
Less than
$10,000
I
$10,000 to
$49,999
1
$50,000 to
$99,999
r
$100,000 to
$249,999
$250,000 to
$499,999
$500,000 to
$999,999
$1 million to
$5 million
More than
$5 million
985763
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Figure 3
Hardware Upgrade Schedule
Percentage of Responses
100-ll
i'M-'.-..--l-V.-'-..-,.-I
90
•*-. \
\
\
''•.
-, v \ W \
80
\s^^
70 i
^\\>.
60
50
0
Five or More Years
•
Four Years
s Three Years
n Two Years
m One Year
40
30
•"oVJAVvVJ',
>-** H> H>V<fcT> 4# • * O •*• ^
frVvtfvjfVv'fv'y
m
20
E'S5'5»5S<-5£<&
H^o^SfT^j%r o ^ iW^iAi
SBCB^E'jyy^i.j
'• - %VAWJVW
iViWi'uyw "
mk
10
DOS/Windows
Windows NT
UNIX
All Respondents
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
As we would expect, upgrade schedules for UNIX-based systems are the
longest, Windows/DOS-based PCs the shortest, and Windows NT-based
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
PCs/workstatlons fall somewhere between the two. We venture tliat there is
a tight correlation between upgrade schedules and typical system costs, with
the higher-priced systems being upgraded less frequently than lower-priced
hardware.
We would have expected respondents in the UNIX camp to upgrade their
systems even less frequently than they revealed in our survey. With an
average workstation turnover of 2.5 years, there is a significant sales
opportunity here for workstation, PC, and software vendors.
Operating System Changes in Store
Table 1 outlines what our survey sites currently have as their primary CAD
operating system and what they expect to have in 2000. Similar to w h a t we
have seen in earlier surveys, users are fully embracing the Windows NT
operating system for their CAD needs. According to our survey respondents,
all operating systems will indeed cede some groimd to Windows NT in
mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E over the next two years. Readers should note
that previous end-user surveys have consistently shown that users tend to be
more optimistic about change than in reality. We expect actual movement to
Windows NT to be somewhat slower than the numbers cited in Table 1.
When asked for the primary reason for choosing the company's CAD
operating system in use today, the top reason was the availabihty of
applications for that operating system (26 percent of respondents), closely
followed by corporate support for that operating system (23 percent), and
hardware performance (22 percent). Interestingly, price of both hardware and
applications fell to the bottom of the Ust (7 percent each). In Table 2 w e have
broken dov^m the top two reasons cited by industry.
Clearly, one of the more revealing splits of the operating system shifts that
wiU occur in the future is by industry (see Table 3), where it is clear that
among automotive and aerospace respondents, these traditional buyers of
C A D / C A M / C A E systems will keep tiheir installed UNIX bases, and
movement to Windows NT will come from the Windows/DOS camp. We
would expect the UNIX camp to remain stable among this group of users, as
both of these industries rely heavily on applications for which their "choice"
vendors may not have aruiounced complete Windows NT-based
C A D / C A M / C A E solutions that have equivalent functionality of their timetested UNIX counterparts. This group of users has already stated in Table 2
that availability of applications is a top reason for their current operating
system choice.
In the fabricated metal industry, there is not a large installed base of UNIX
CAD systems, and movement to Windows NT will come at the expense of
the other Windows-based/DOS systems, according to these end users.
Industrial/commercial machinery and electrical equipment, however, are
another story. Here is where midrange-based systems have their largest nearterm Opportunity, according to our survey respondents, w h o are expecting to
abandon their UNIX-based CAD systems in favor of Windows NT-based
ones.
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
October 5,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 1
Primary CAD Operating System
Primary CAD Operating
System in 1998 (%)
Primary CAD Operating
System in 2000 (%)
Windows S.x/DOS
Windows 95/Windows 98
9
5
27
18
Windows NT
33
56
UNIX
26
19
Others
Total
5
2
100
100
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Table 2
Reasons behind Operating System Choice
Industry
Top Reason
Second Reason
Automotive/Aerospace
Availabilify of applications
Hardware performance/corporate
support for current system
Fabricated Metal
Corporate support for current
system
Hardware performance
Industrial/Commercial Machinery Availabilify of applications
Hardware performance/corporate
support for current system
Electrical Equipment
Availabilify of applications
Design and Consulting Services
Availabilify of applications
Hardware performance
Cost of ownership of hardware
Others
Corporate support for current
system
Availabilify of applications
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Table 3
Operating System Plans by Industry (Percent)
Windows Windows
NT in
NT in
1998
2000
Other
Other
Windows/ Windows/
DOS
DOS
Other
Other
Operating Operating Operating Operating
UNIX
UNIX Systems
Systems Systems Systems
in 1998 in 2000
in 1998
in 2000
in 1998
in 2000
38
39
38
25
4
4
Automotive/
Aerospace
19
33
Fabricated Metal
44
68
17
14
0
Q
31
62
35
18
17
39
Industrial/Commercial
Machinery
28
17
6
4
Electrical Equipment
14
48
36
14
50
38
0
0
Design and Consulting
Services
35
bl
17
14
35
24
13
i
Others
49
67
15
13
30
20
6
0
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
User Training: Not Enough or Too Much?
Figure 4 shows the number of training days the average CAD/CAM/CAE
user gets in the course of one year at a given respondent's company. While
the median response for all users is two to four days of training, the data
does indeed differ by operating system—many Windows 3.x/Windows
95/DOS-based users receive two to six days of training each year, while
UNIX-based users are more spread out—^with some receiving less than one
day and others receiving more than 10 days of training annually. Another
way to look at the data is to observe that 22 percent of Windows
3.x/Windows 95/DOS respondents receive more than six days of training
each year, while 29 percent of UNIX-based users do so. These are not
significant differences, but when it comes to the costs and downtime
associated with an engineer in training for a day, the effect can add up
quickly.
What is interesting is that the influx of Windows NT-based CAD systems has
not significantiy reduced the training time for engineers and designers. While
the CAD software vendors may tout reduced training time as one of their
system benefits, the respondents of this survey have yet to see a significant
reduction in training time at their sites.
Figure 4
Number of CAD/CAM/CAE Training Days
Percentage of Responses
100
TTTTTTTTTTTi
90 1
80
;:^';;^';:^;^;>;v'J</;:.^^^^;
yyyyA —
70
60
50-1
40-|
30
iSsi^
~\ '\ ^ V \
\ \\ \ \
^. H ^. ^ •
10
1
r
Windows NT
•
More than 10 Days
7 to 10 Days
4 to 6 Days
s
2 to 4 Days
D
One Day
m
Less than 1 Day
m
20
DOS/Windows
n
n
UNIX
All Respondents
Source: Dataquest (SepteInber 1998)
Justification for CAD
Like many software applications, CAD technology seems to go through an
elaborate justification process at many end users' sites. Knowing just what
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
that justification process is key to a vendor's success in selhng into an
organization.
We asked our survey respondents how they justify their C A D / C A M / C A E
investments. The results are shown in Figure 5. Clearly, managers feel that
C A D / C A M / C A E technology is one way to differentiate their company from
the competition—45 percent of our respondents stated that they invest in
CAD technology in order to stay competitive. Overall, only 14 percent cited
fiscal reasons (return on investment or ROI calculations) as the motivator for
CAD investments.
However, when we look at the data based on annual CAD spending, the
drivers for CAD investments are clearly different among the respondents.
For those companies with smaller CAD budgets (say, under $10,000 annually
in this example), investment in the technology is clearly driven by the fact
that these organizations feel they must invest to stay one step ahead of their
competition. Recommendations of technical teams and ROI criteria barely
made it to the Ust of reasons to invest in CAD. At the other end of the
spectrtim, those companies whose CAD budgets are greater than $100,000
annually not only cited maintaining a competitive edge as a top reason, but
also that ROI criteria and customer/business contract requirements are key
decision drivers for CAD/C/^M/CAE investments. It is helpful to remember
that most of the respondents in this survey held managerial titles; this same
group of people are more likely to be key influencers in the CAD justification
process than engineers or designers.
Figure 5
C A D Justification
others (3.4%)
^
/ Rigorously
\
/Computed Return \
yC on Investment \
/^\J14.4%)
\
Recommendation ^ ^
1 of Technical Teams / \
\
(18.5%)
/ \
\
We Simply Feel
We Must Invest
to Stay Competitive
jT
\.
Required to Obtain \
Business/Contracts \
N.
(19.2%)
\
(44.5%)
1
1
1
fl
M
^ r
^W
eesTae
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Once Justified, Now Implement
Once the justification for CAD technology or renewed investment in CAD is
made, just how easy is it to get things up and rimning smoothly? We asked
our respondents what is/was the biggest problem in implementing
CAD/CAM/CAE technology at their site. Interestingly, 48 percent of the
respondents cited ansvvers related to keeping up with technological changes
and processes. When presented with the list of reasons shown in Figure 6,
selecting and working with a chosen CAD vendor was not the big hurdle in
implementing CAD. Nor was hiring skilled personnel or company politics. In
fact. Figure 6 seems to indicate that the real hurdle doesn't lie with
implementing the CAD system itself. Instead, it lies with the fact that new
technology is just aroimd the corner, or that integration of the CAD system
with a company's engineering practices still needs some work.
Figure 6
Problems Implementing CAD/CAM/CAE Technology
Working with Selected Vendors (4.5%)
Selecting Vendors (6.6%)
/
^ ^\
others
\ (6.6%)
\
Keeping Up
with Changes
in Technology
(25.7%)
/ Hiring^^"*,.^
/ Skilled
^
/Personnel
(8.6%)
\
Company
\ Politics/Turm Dil
\
(11.8%)
\
\
\
\
Training
\
Existing
Personnel
(14.5%)
/
\
^
Integrating
Technology with
Engineering
Practices
A
(21.7%)
^
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Once Implemented, Reap the Rewards
We asked respondents what the major reason was for implementing
CAD/CAM/CAE technology at their company, and what the major system
benefit was. Surprisingly, answers to the two questions were quite similar,
indicating that users are getting "exactly" what they want (or at least close to
what they want) from their CAD implementations. We have shown the
results for CAD implementation reasons and benefits together in Figure 7.
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
10
The top reason and benefit for implementing CAD was lowering design
costs, closely followed by integration between design and manufacturing.
The only place where the implementation reasons and benefits diverged was
concerrung maintaining and improving product quality. Here, fewer
respondents expected this to be a key reason for implementing CAD
technology, but more respondents found this to be the most valuable benefit
of CAD to the organization.
Figure 7
Benefits of CAD/CAM/CAE
Lower Design Costs
Integration between Design and Manufacturing
Maintaining/Improving Product Quality
.
...
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lf . v . . - ^ . . . • . ^ . . . . . . . . . .
J .
JI-JI-.
f . r ,
.
. .
Shorter Time to IVIarket
Higher Performing Products
Greater Product Innovation
.'^v'i'>'j'':i'/j'AK
k^^ji^j*
Lower Production Costs
Better Customer Interaction before Production
Reason for
implementing
CAO/CAI^CAE
Reduction in Number of Physical Prototypes
Better Styling/Aesthetic Design
Benefit from
Implementing
CAD/CAM/CAE
Ability to Attract Engineering Talent
others
-r
5
—r-
— I —
i&
—r-
—f—
25
— I —
30
35
Number of Responses
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Attitudes toward CAD Technology
We asked respondents to what level they agreed or disagreed with a series of
general statements focused on CAD technology and its role in the company.
The idea is that those comparues that have had more success in deploying
CAD technology are better able to make the cormection (or justification)
between CAD investment (dollars spent) and meeting business objectives
(profits returned).
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE WoMdwide
11_
The specific statements w^e asked respondents to rate (on a scale of 1 to 5
where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree) are as follows:
•
CAD/CAM/CAE has been oversold by the vendors and media,
compared to what can be accomplished for the investment required
•
Information networks are strong in my orgaruzation
•
Our organization's progress to date in making use of CAD/CAM/CAE
technology has been excellent
•
Our CAD software vendor is responsive to our needs
n
The new generation of Windows-based CAD systems have enough
functionality and reHability to handle our design needs
The weighted average of responses for the above statements ranged from 3.0
to 3.2, indicating that overall, respondents in this survey appear to be fairly
content with their CAD/CAM/CAE systems. Figure 8 shows the responses
to the first four staterrients above. The statements that drew the widest range
of responses were "Information networks are strong in my orgaruzation," and
"Our progress to date using CAD technology has been excellent."
Nevertheless, we can safely say there are no seriously disgruntled CAD
managers out there.
In fact, our respondent group might be characterized as highly optimistic.
When we asked for their agreement/disagreement with the statement, "The
new generation of Windows-based CAD systems have enough functionality
and reliability to handle our design needs," we were quite svurprised to see so
little disagreement to that statement—only 18 percent of our survey
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed (see Figure 9). Clearly, this next
generation of Windows-based CAD systems, namely the midrange systems
that have hit the market in full force, have a lot to live up to as expectations
are already high for the performance of these systems.
Dataquest Perspective
Despite the length of time CAD technology has existed, large
CAD/CAM/CAE seat installations are not the norm. Vendors who make a
living in this market must learn to cater to both the small user with a limited
CAD budget as well as the large corporation with a correspondingly larger
budget. Justification for CAD, too, varies by company spending for CAD—
orgaruzations with smaller CAD budgets justify CAD by citing competitive
needs, while organizations with larger budgets will also justify CAD with
ROI criteria and team recommendations.
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 8
CAD Perceptions
Percentage of Responses
45CAD/CAM/CAE Has Been
Oversold by Vendors and
Media*
Information Networks Are
Strong in My Organization
Our Progress to Date in
Using CAD Technology
Has Been Excellent
Our CAD Software Vendor
Is Responsive to Our
Needs
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Note: Rating scale is from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.
*Full Statement is "CAD/CAM/CAE has been oversold by the vendors and media, compared to what can be accomplished for the
Investment required."
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
While we expect to see user migration to NT-based CAD systems, there will
be some difference in migration speeds, depending on a user's industry. The
bellwether industries of mechanical CAD, aerospace and automotive, will be
the UNIX holdouts, while other industries will move more quickly to the new
operating systems.
Nevertheless, our respondent group on the whole is content with their CAD
installations and technology; their systems seem to be delivering exactly
what they want in terms of benefits and CAD perceptions. The 30-year
history of CAD technology has witnessed an amazing progression of
technologies and applications developed for the benefit of engineers,
designers, and technicians. Today, CAD/CAM/CAE technology has proved
its value to discrete manufacturing companies, as evidenced by the survey
responses seen here.
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
13
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 9
New Generation of Windows-Based CAD Systems Has Enough Functionality for Our
Needs
strongly Disagree (3%)
sesTTo
Notes: Rating scale is from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.
Full Statement is "The new generation of Windows-based CAD systems have enough functionality and reliability to handle our design
needs."
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9809
©1998 Dataquest
Octobers, 1998
14
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
I ^CI'TO^^I l ^ ^ ^ t
^^<»i_
A Gartner Group Company
-hl-408-468-8316
oinasinqu[email protected]
-1-1-408-954-1780
http:/ / wvvw.dataquest.com
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1993 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
72453
Perspective
Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Worldwide
Market Analysis
Marl(et Evolution: Engineering Modeling for the Enterprise
Abstract: in this Perspective, we examine the new face of engineering applications. A host of
new technologies are available today that will bring CAD beyond its design-centric view. If
the mechanical and AEC markets are to continue to attract new users, they must evolve into
something beyond just design, perhaps bifurcating into two markets: CAD and engineering
modeling for the enterprise.
By Sharon Tan
Introduction
The 30-year history of CAD technology has witnessed an amazing
progression of technologies and applications developed for the benefit of
engineers, designers, and technicians. While the earliest stages of CAD
technology were focused on drafting (that is, the "electronic pencil"), CAD
technology is now changing its face, evolving into a new set of technologies
catering to a larger audience.
This Perspective discusses this new face of engineering design, how CAD is
evolving, and the various technologies that will affect the transition from
CAD to engineering modeling for the enterprise. Because this Perspective
talks generally about the issues facing enterprise engineering (regardless of
whether the design is architectural, mechanical, or civil in nature), it has been
published to clients of both Dataquest's CAEC and CMEC Worldwide
services.
Dataquest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
ProductCode: CMEC-WW-DP-9808
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
PubiicationDate:September/, 1998
251 River Oaks Parkway
Filing: Perspective
San Jose, CA 9 5 1 3 4
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Software 4ift6Frtffi8itia6CllJlications binder)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Bottlenecks in Current Engineering Processes
Oesign/Construction/Build Processes
Many of the problems in today's design/construction/build processes stem
from the fact that what is being constructed—a building, plant, ship, or
roadway—is essentially a prototjrpe build, the first and only entity built
following initial design. The one-design/one-build model makes the
processes that much more difficult to automate, and CAD products were
never designed to support this one-design/one-build methodology.
Moreover, many of today's CAD solutions for the architecture/engineering/
construction (AEC) community are largely focused on one thing—design. But
the AEC user community actually faces a host of concerns outside of the
design phase of a project, like responding to government and regulatory
requirements, producing timely and accurate bids, and reducing rework at
the constiuction site. Further complicating things, designs are often split
among several companies responsible for different aspects of the design
process. Each of these companies involved in the design often has a different
CAD system, and together these systems do not communicate well with one
another.
Design/Manufacturing Processes
Like the building/constiuction industry, the manufacturing industiy faces
similar process bottlenecks. Here, the problems occur among the fairly serial
processes of design, analysis, and manufacturing. What's important to a
designer may not be relevant to a manufacturing engineer. While
collaborative and concurrent engineering are the latest buzzwords aimed to
describe a more ideal working scenario that gets products out the door faster,
the reality is that collaborative engineering has largely been focused on
design and only design bottlenecks. Previous Dataquest surveys have shown
that some of the real issues in getting a product manufactured and out the
door center on poor interdepartmental comimmications, which ranked
higher in importance than other reasons such as faults in the original design
or last minute engineering change orders.
Tlie Enabling Technologies
Today CAD software is so engrained in engineering design that it is virtually
impossible to develop any products without the assistance of computer-aided
design tools. However, the markets to which CAD caters, namely AEC and
mechanical appUcations, are quite mature, leaving littie opportunity for real
vendor growth. Market share is to be gained only by consolidation, niche
market specialization, or a fundamental change in the way CAD technology
is used. It is this fundamental change, the emergence of a new market—
engineering modeling for the enterprise—that we are focusing on here.
In the past few years, there have been a handful of technologies that have the
potential to shape (or are already shaping) the future of CAD. Dataquest
believes that the CAD market is evolving, and a new market is developing
before our eyes. We have loosely termed this new market "engineering
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
©1998 Dataquest
September?, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
modeling for the enterprise." The enterprise is key to this new market—
design information can no longer stay behind the engineering walls. The
information can, and should, be leveraged throughout the organization. In
this section, we identify the technologies that we believe will most affect the
future engineering landscape.
Internet, Intranets, and Web Technology
To date, the primary use of the Internet in engineering has been for e-mail or
electronic transferring of files, and not for project Web sites, project home
pages, or perusing supplier catalogs. However, this doesn't mean that the
potential isn't there. In fact, a handful of vendors have already integrated
Web technology into their products. For instance, product data management
vendors and project management vendors were among the first to integrate a
Web-based front end to their systems. Other vendors, such as Adaptive
Media, have developed a proprietary data streaming technology to deliver
3-D data over the Internet. Newcomer Cubus is targeting architects with its
design review service through which engineering design teams (primarily
architects) in effect register a project with Cubus, which then hosts the project
on a Cubus server.
What intranets and the Web mean to the engineering community is easier
collaboration. The Internet, intranets, and internal Web sites are knocking
d o w n the traditional walls and barriers within compardes, maldng it easier to
see w^hat other groups, such as marketing, engineering, and technical
publications, are up to and how far along they are. Instead of working in
silos, everyone is exposed. Consequently, collaboration becomes more the
default behavior.
Taking this one step further, central Web sites for engineering projects would
allow everyone involved in a w^orldwide project to simultaneously access upto-date project information from a single central location. These sites may
offer many types of data, including engineering files, site photographs,
reports, project schediiles, project specifications, and meeting minutes.
Companies can begin wiring their far-flung extended enterprises together,
tvxrrung a project Web site into an invaluable project design, management,
communication, and marketing tool.
Objects and Components
Object technology promised to help software vendors bring software to
market faster by exploiting reusable code. However, what object/component
technology in the engineering design worlds has evolved to is the embedding
of smart objects or "components" within a CAD model. The term "smart" is
used to denote objects that carry knowledge about themselves with them.
This knowledge can be business, design or manufacturing, or regulatory
information (for example, a door knows it can't be placed in a firewall, a
sheet metal screw knows it can't be used in wood). In the object scenario, the
engineer or architect begins thir\king less in terms of lines, arcs, and circles
and more in terms of objects—for example, doors, windows, motors, and
pumps.
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
The beauty of objects is that they can contain irvformation—engineering and
nonengineering information, hence providing a vehicle for information to be
brought to all disciplines. Objects in engineering applications are not quite
here yet, but over the next five years there will be a slow but steady
infiltration of software that is increasingly populated by smart objects. We
expect this infiltration to first take place in AEC and then eventually filter
over to the mechanical world.
Role of Java
While we must admit we can't fully predict the impact of Java in engineering
yet, it is worth noting that vendors are coming at it from different schools of
thought. Most notably, Autodesk sees Java as another application
programming language (much like Visual Basic or AutoLISP). On the other
hand, Bentiey Systems sees Java and its Java extensions (specific to
engineering and CAD applications) becoming directly embedded within its
flagship MicroStation products. The reality is that some vendors have begim
selling "Ught" applications developed in Java primarily for delivery via the
Web (hence, easier access to engineering information throughout the
enterprise), but full-blown Java-developed applications for engineering and
CAD—where the Web is not involved—^have not yet hit the market—and vve
don't know if they ever will.
Capturing Design Know-How
Three years ago, we were describing knowledge-based engineering (KBE) as
a productivity multiplier for any CAD system, where rules are developed
that can drive automated applications, capture design intent, and automate
sharing of data between applications and departments. On paper, KBE looks
like the perfect solution for getting products, current and future ones, out the
door faster. In reality, KBE has not taken off (witness Concentra's rise and
stumble), partly because of the fact that the technology has been costiy and
not well understood. For a company to implement KBE in the first place, it
needs to have a good understanding of its design knowledge (in order to
capture it) and design processes (in order to automate them).
Nevertheless, we still believe KBE is a useful technology that will have its
place in the engineering landscape, if it is taken in smaller chunks. Invention
Machine is a good example of a company that has developed a database of
scientific "knowledge," or principles, that can be used to evaluate and solve
design problems at a very high level. Other software vendors, particularly
those focused on mechanical applications, have incorporated KBE-related
technologies into their software. A good example is manufacturing, where
toolpath generation has been tied together with in-house libraries of
machines, schedules, and manufacturing knowledge.
Corporate Repositories of information
In order to further expand what has traditionally been called CAD, the CAD
data and engineering models can no longer sit in isolation. As discussed
earlier, it's easier to see what other groups are up to if silos are removed and
problems are identified earlier. While CAD vendors have always vvanted to
hold onto their proprietary databases, it's becoming apparent that in some
discipUnes, these databases are becoming more "open." The best example of
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
this is in the geographic information systems (GIS) discipline, v^here the likes
of Oracle and Informix have developed technologies that allovv users to
deposit their spatial GIS data into a relational database. It's no different in
CAD, where putting CAD data models on the corporate database w^ill let
others use that information for marketing purposes, supplier purchasing, and
manufacturing process development. The real advantage to any vendor's
teaming with a large database vendor like Oracle is that these database
vendors have the ability to drive the creation of large, enterprisewide
solutions.
Visualization and Simulation Technologies
Although rapid prototyping and physical mock-ups may be a reality in
engineering today, what has been deemed virtual prototyping has not been
widely embraced yet. CAD vendors have ventured in this direction, adding
some capabilities to their software so users can design and visualize
assemblies within a virtual envirorunent. Hardware vendors have seen their
customers use workstations to complete virtual tasks, such as fly-throughs of
complex product assembhes or process plants. But, the likelihood of bringing
a product to market without a physical protot5^e or of building an office
complex without an architectural model is smaU.
There are a number of software vendors that have developed the enabling
technologies to allow engineers to create, interact with, manipulate, share,
and analyze a virtual product in real time. Division, Engineering Animation,
and Tecnomatix are among those vendors with products aimed specifically at
virtual prototjrping. Making CAD models easier to visualize makes the
information that much more accessible to those outside of engineering.
Other Issues
Even if every single technology just outlined was incorporated into an
engineering application, there are other issues that will continue to cause
bottlenecks. These include the following:
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
•
How does an end-user company migrate to a new enterprise engineering
environment when access to legacy data, which nught not be compatible
with the new environment, is still needed?
•
Who really controls CAD and engineering data? Is it the engineering
group, which has traditionally controlled its own data, or is it the IT
organization, which might control the data just as it might control other
corporate information?
•
When does cost become an issue? Much of what we have outlined would
not come cheaply. We have seen the rapid emergence of the midrange
mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market, where solutions are priced
somewhere between the t5^ically higher-priced UNIX-based solutions
and the lower-priced PC-based solutions. Similarly, we have seen the
continued interest in the PC-based CAD market, where solutions might
sell for U.S.$500 or less. Obviously, users are price sensitive, or at least
price aware. At what point do the benefits outweigh the increased costs,
and how do users justify this increase to management?
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Who Is Positioned for Leadership in the Future?
Given the technologies identified, the other issues that still exist, and the
bottlenecks in current design methodologies, just who is positioned for
leadership in the enterprise engineering environment of the future? In this
section, we examine strategies of some of the leading vendors in the CAD
market today. The vendors represented in the following discussion are
currently market-leading companies from a software revenue viewpoint.
Figure 1 shows the position of the market leaders today, from a software
revenue viewpoint. Figure 2 shows their position and growth trend from a
software and software services viewpoint combined. Provided that these
companies begin to look outside of design and to the enterprise
opporturuties, w e fully expect these companies to remain dominant market
players three to five years from now.
Figure 1
Software R e v e n u e of the Leading C A D Vendors
IBM/Dassault Systemes
PTC
Autodesk
Intergraph
ESRI
SDRC
MicroCADAM
Bentley Systems
CoCreate
Unigraphics Solutions
300
400
IVIitllons of U.S. Dollars
700
Note: Software revenue for Dassault Systemes is captured in IBM. PTC revenue does not include Connputervision revenue. Unigraphics
Solutions revenue does not include Solid Edge acquisition. Intergraph revenue includes Solid Edge revenue.
Source: Oataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
©1998 Dataquest
September?, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE WoMdwide
Figure 2
Relative Strengths of the Engineering Applications Vendors
I
IBIVI/Dassault
Systemes
PTC
Autodesk
Intergraph
ESRI SDRC
MicroCADAM
Bentley
Systems
CoCreate
Unigraphics
Solution
Note: We have restated Unigraphics Solutions in this figure to exclude software revenue from its 1996 General Motors contract, in order
to give better insight into Unigraphics Solutions' potential.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
Dassault Systemes and IBM
Dassault Systemes, in conjunction with IBM (sole reseller of Dassault
Systemes' flagship CATIA and CAD AM products), has dominated the CAD
markets for years. Dassault Systemes has had much success selling to large
enterprise accounts in automotive and aerospace. The newest additions to its
product lines, CATweb (a Web-based viewer that allows real time navigation
of a CATIA model) and ENOVIA (enterprisewide product data
management), are further testament to the fact that Dassault Systemes is
making real steps toward getting the design and engineering information out
of the silo in which it has t5rpically sat.
Parametric Technology
Parametric Technology (PTC) stirred up the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
markets when it came onto the scene with its parametric-based design
system, which was unique at that time. Since then, PTC has risen to the top of
the pack from solid growth and acqmsitions (most notably, Computervision).
Prior to its acquisition of Computervision, the company had limited success
selling large, enterprisewide deployments to aerospace and automotive
comparues, the premier buyers of mechanical CAD technology. However,
with the acquisition of Computervision and its customer base, PTC is now
finding itself right smack in the middle of large, top-tier accotmts. PTC
recently unveiled Windchill, its Web-centric enterprisewide PDM system,
based on technology purchased in 1998. FTC's suite of products today rivals
that of anyone else in the market in terms of completeness of vision.
Autodesk
Autodesk's decision to refocus into market groups, its purchase of Softdesk in
early 1997 (and other niche players in GIS and mechanical design), and its
rearchitecting of AutoCAD to incorporate object technology have brought
Autodesk up to the playing level of many of its competitors.
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
It took Autodesk two full releases of AutoCAD to build its underlying object
technology. Autodesk sees object technology as a key to sharing project
information among all disciplines. Further, Autodesk has talked about some
of the issues facing its users (such as addressing problems in communication
among architects and constructors; customer needs for better sharing of
project data; and building owners as market drivers). But there has been only
limited discussion of exactly how to tackle such problems. Of course, that
may change in the future. We hope so—Autodesk is one of the few
companies that can actually influence what users purchase and how they
work.
Intergraph
Intergraph is one of the original pioneers of the CAD market, with offerings
in all design disciplines. Some years ago, Intergraph made the move to its
new product architecture, then called Jupiter, and the company has been
busy building Jupiter-based products while maintaining and further
developing its core product lines.
Intergraph understands the need for project life cycle management, as
evidenced in plant design with its Notia data warehouse, some of the
SmartPlant products, and its alliances with vendors that address plant
operations and maintenance. Intergraph has made siirular strides in the GIS
world, with its GeoMedia technology reaching out to larger audiences of
non-GIS specialists.
Intergraph has always had strongholds in winning large contracts,
particularly as the prime contractor for government procurement. Its
experience can only help to make the company better positioned to address
enterprisewide deployments involving large seat counts and life cycle data
management.
ESRI
ESRI, one of the leading GIS vendors, was a pioneer in the GIS market. While
we have spoken little of the bottlenecks facing users in GIS, they do exist,
particularly in GIS deployment, data management, and interdepartmental
data access. ESRI has two products, Spatial Database Engine and
MapObjects, both of which are aimed at bringing wider access and a bigger
audience to GIS data and information. Spatial Database Engine is a
technology that sits on top of a corporate database (say, Oracle) that allows
multiple users (who may be GIS specialists or not) to access, store, and
manage the spatial data. MapObjects is a collection of mapping and GIS
objects for use in custom applications. Of course, there are other GIS
companies with similar technologies that allow for access to spatial data from
corporate databases. Smallworld and Maplnfo are among these companies.
SDRC
SDRC is another full-Une mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE/PDM player. While
historically a technically strong company, its purchase of product data
management company Metaphase in early 1997 (before that time, SDRC had
an equity investment in Metaphase) gives SDRC a much stronger base from
which to play in the future mechanical landscape.
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Q
MicroCADAM
MicroCADAM is a mechanical CAD/CAM player with a leading market
position in Japan. We must admit that we see little activity from
MicroCADAM regarding the future mechanical design landscape. However,
we should note that MicroCADAM bills itself as a midrange player, where
perhaps, enterprisewide thinking is not as crucial at this time.
Bentley Systems Incorporated
Bentley was among the first companies to begin talking publicly about how it
views the evolution of CAD to enterprise engineering. Over the past two
years, Bentley has slowly been miveiling pieces of its enterprise strategy: It
was the first with server-side software (ModelSeirver technology and
products); it was also the first to fully embrace Java as a native language with
MicroStation/J, which includes the Java Virtual Machine (and extensions)
embedded in it.
The ModelServer products allow engineering data to be managed and
shared, including access via the Internet/intranets, where data is stored and
brokered from an Oracle or proprietary database. Similarly, because of the
embedding of Java into MicroStation/J, applications and components
developed for MicroStation/J can be run across the enterprise and through
project extranets, essentially widening the accessibility to data models
beyond engineering and into the enterprise. Bentley believes that, because
Java is a standard language in IT, these components will tend to travel across
the enterprise with more ease.
CoCreate
CoCreate (formerly Hewlett-Packard's Mechanical Design Division) was
among the first comparues that talked of a truly collaborative environment
intended to work outside of the traditional "electronic whiteboarding" ideas
that were bandied about a few years ago. In late 1996/early 1997, CoCreate
announced its concept of Shared-Space Design, which consists of
technologies that allow for the simultaneous access to the same CAD model
by multiple users via the Internet/intranets. The technology allows users to
alter parts without knowing geometric history. What this means is that a
designer can view a rib in a part as a rib, while a manufacturing engineer can
worry not so much about manufacturing a part with a rib, but creating two
pockets in the part.
CoCreate's vision of and solution for collaborative design is unique, and the
company seems to understand design/manufacturing bottienecks. However,
to work smoothly, most companies would have to make some changes in the
way they currently have implemented their design processes. They wiU at
least be forced to examine their internal design processes, which can only
help identify bottlenecks.
CMEC-WW-DP-9808
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Unigraphics Solutions
Unigraphics Solutions only recently spun off from EDS Unigraphics, after
acquiring Intergraph's mechanical design group and products (Solid Edge).
Unigraphics is in a unique position, in that its solid modeling engine,
Parasolid, is the driver for many of the midrange systems out there today.
Parasolid's prevalence, combined with Unigraphics Solutions' full line of
CAD/CAM/CAE/PDM products, gives the company a secure position for
leadership in the futiire.
Dataquest Perspective
Clearly, most of the leading CAD companies are taking steps to address some
of the issues vve have outlined in this Perspective, in order to position
themselves for the enterprise engineering market. There is still money to be
made in traditional CAD sales to customers, and the vendors must learn to
balance that with their ventures into new areas and new technologies.
We fully expect the design-centric viewpoint, particularly prevalent in the
mechanical and AEG markets, to disappear in the future. Expanded vision by
the CAD solution providers, much as we have outlined here, and use of
newer technologies in different ways will attract a host of interested potential
customers.
During the past five years, the dominant focus of engineering application
investment was centered on capturing, simulating, and coirmiunicating
design intent. During the next five years, we expect that priorities wiU swing
toward leveraging intellectual capital and widening the collaborative
landscape, bringing engineering information throughout the enterprise.
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotiine:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http: / / www.dataquest.com
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our cUents. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. AU rights reserved.
71680
Perspective
Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Worldwide
Competitive Analysis
1998 Mechanical Landscape
Abstract: This Perspective outlines the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market by subapplication
and vendor as it looks in 1998. Subapplication definitions and players under each category
are identified.
By Sharon Tan
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market by Subapplication
To gain a better understanding of what specific areas are driving market
grow^th, Dataquest further subdivides the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
market into a number of subapplications. These technology-based
subapplications have been monitored over the years to give an up-to-date
picture of w^here users are spending their CAD software dollars. Today,
Dataquest tracks 12 subapplications within the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
realm. This Perspective defines the subapplications, shows their respective
1997 software revenue, and outlines the vendors participating in each area.
Generally speaking, companies must have a nninimum of $2 million in
revenue to appear in our database. As always, comments and corrections are
welcomed.
Mechanical Subapplication Definitions
Computer-Alded Design—CAD
• Design applications—Software applications used in the design of
components and assemblies. This is a very broad subapplication that
includes software for styling, conceptual design, assembly modeling,
component design, and manufacturing tool and fixture design
OataQuest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
ProductCode: CH/IEC-WW-DP-9807
PuhticationDate: August 10,1998
INFORMATION RESOUfrJE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Softwar^^li
fiBfflicfl|fe^^|^§iyIder)
408-468-'86Q0
^im
j^fciiWiiiifeiiliiiMM
• 3E1/Eye
;; Intergraph :\^ •;;^;;^
'] AtfraSystems •; ,•% • Jnve^tronica^A =:'
;>!iasResearch/SGt; ^
-!sd Software =
••jApplicon ;
-'
Matra Datavrsiciri ;:= =il
;: Ascad.
:; '^-'^''^ ^=MCS:^ ' ; ' ' | - •[' ^^
^-Astiiat'•;'•• £
V- WlicrbCADAM •'= '':-'^:}y^
Autodesk
NEC
: Bs^sfate Teqlihblog^s
-Nihon Unisys i; '••-.^A
^ B^ntley Systems
^l
'; Parametric Tbchnologyl
Citi Distribution j ^
;PROGADGmbH -=
IXad.Lab ^ „ h2i
: Radan Computeitifflial :ii
rCifnatron — ;•• $^'\\
;.SDRd : :. ^ :: :: X
•Clttilrhc
'^' '^ ¥ 9:
'Serbi:.;./ m :;.= m'
Cotrgate ^,.,
Sharp::
Corrypiitervi^ibri^ ;:;;;
;Tebis^; Vi ^ •
I Dassault Systemes/IBM
;;;Tecnomatix Technologies
•^ Deicam International
Toshiba
' DfiTechnolpgy
Unigiitphrcs Solutions^
;,Gerber Systems
VeroJntemationa! • ;r^
Hitachi Zosen
Wiectiers Datentechnik
: IcemTechnQjogies
Ziegler Informatics :
;. ;3D/Eye,.
;:.,
^^Applicoii
"'' ']
\ ASCAD:;j
; Ashlar -t
'Autodesk
Autotrot
Baystate Technologies
llBCT^mbH
iiBentley Systems
Cad Distribution
Cad. Lab;CIMLINp
Cocreat^
Computervision
Dassault Systemes/IBM
debis Systemhaus
GerterSystents
Hitachi Zosen'
ICEMTeblinologies
JMSI
;|Siii)il^iipliiilin"
. .Gerber Systems
H = Tebis ;
r^- 'i;;-Hilacht^sen ;; i: ^;Toshiba •' A. % ";
ICEMTeChnoioglBs' '<: ::Unigr^phics Solutions I
IM8I .;
I :Viagr^fix
"
=
Intergraph f:
:Wacom
'•'•';; '^i i
ISO Softvtfare : ; j ^ 'WhessoeCoinpLrting; ==:
Just In Time Systems
Systems
MatraDatEivision:::'
.Wiechers Datentechnik
MGS
I :Ziegier informatics ;|
MferoCADAM
NEC
J: ,
•:: U
Nihon Unisys
Omron n=- - • ''''
PAFEC ::
Pafametric Techhology;
PROCAQ|SmbH" '
Radan Computational::
SDRC
Sert)i ^t:-,_ ; . ;• ;•'
Sharp
linkage/Mechanism—$48 Million
^ ^^ -.^ -. *••• ^•^ ^ **=• * ! ^ " r
/Wam Net Adina C
Algor "^;=""=
Altaij- Ccimputing
Ansys :;:
Cadisi '^"^^
GomputetlcBai Mechanics
Compui^rvision
Engihe'efing Mechafiics
ESfGfoup
Hitac:hi Zosen
iCEIV! Technologies
Intergraph
Livermore Sofitware
MacNeal-Schwendler
MARC
NEC
Nihon Unisys
Parametric Technology
SDRC
SRAC
Toshiba
Unigraphics Solutions
Variation Systems Analysis
!•'
>,<,. r > , . .
*
^ ^ ^ . V . ^ ^ X • ^ v v • ^ ^ . • X x S ^ • > X • ^ v^^.y^^-y
^-^ .. X .. * * .. > ^ t •.•^ P-• T ^ . . .^ v ^ *. ^ ' ^ ^ v Bff^.fl|K^ . % ^ ^ •
tJADSN=
.Computervision
:T)assay^ Systemes/iBM
fUnJgraphics Solutions,:
: Mechanical Dynamics/'
Parametric Technology
SDRC iS:
= vpassautt System9s/IBM :;::,;:;|iyief;hanical Dynarriics
Coordinate IVIeasuring IViachines
Numerical ContrQl
: • • • • ' ;
•..
'
• • : d
;OpenMind '::
AdraSiratems;^:
\\
I x a p f .;: -'i
Path race :Engineer!ng'
Anilam Electronics: 1
;FirstCadcarTf!
Radan Computational
Applicon
Gerber Systeriis •:
SDRC
:.. ASCAD''^u ;;: ;: H
Pibb^ & AssOGlates
Sescoi •;"'
::CG.Tec!l^'^; T '' -J^Hitachi Zosen=:
Sharp
Cimatron
ICEIWTectinologtes
Suffware ..'
ISDSoftware;
'Ctmlinc^
i":
.•:;::;:
Tostiiba
:
CNC Software =! ••^^^^•••IWatra Datavision •••
;OnjgraphiGsSolution$i
lytcs
%, •
Computervisiott;;
\h
Verb [ntfirnationa!:: •:''
Dassaiiit Systemes/IB|^
MjrcroCADAMi
Detcam International;;^
NEC..;" ^;;" '•.:;; j - ;
Nihori Unisys'''
^:DP Technology
===
Dassault Systemes/IBM
Delcam International
lyiatraiDatavisipn";-^ '.'',
Paranietri5:Technplog^:
Offline Robotics
; Dassault Systemes/IBM;
Deneb Robotics; ;
Tecnomatij^TechripiogJes
Part Processing Ileslgn
Dassault Systemes/IBM
DP Technology '
I'l
Erapt M; .
:; n
wiatraDatavisJwn;" 1-
Nihon Unisys
f^rametnc
Technotogy
SDRC;;
KriQwIedge^Based
^gineerin^
Concentra
I
-^
App I ieatlo n Pevel op ment
Environments
Dassault Systemes/|SM
Maira Datavision;;
Parametric Technology
SDRC •
UitlomphfcsSplutrons
Tecnomatix Technologies
Unigraphics Solutions
Irodijct l^atal/lanageinent—$277 Million
:Agile Softvifare--::
^;AppNcpn ;; ' f
;Asqad;- ^ l ;
• Autotrol B.A. -t
Autodesk
:; Intelligence Networks
iBGTGmbHW ;r
i-CMstat^ ;; '%^
XoCreate :;•;
'•:;:
iComputervlsipri ^v
: Conser^Sys^Softwati
Dassault Systemes
"iignef;* Fanner ';
: :Fqrmtek i:^^ -^L.
••tBM-'=
Note: Revenue represents 1997 isoftware revenue
Z
''^'%
-ICEM Technologies
Intergraph
,JSD Software ':
:^;MatnxOne
ModultekOY
NEC ;.::: ;::
JNovasoft'i'^ ;^i
PAFEC :>^
Parametric TechnolQjgy
^PROCAD^GmbH /^
^•SI3BC ••;
Sherpa
;Toshiba' . ^
"Unigraphics Solutions i
Workgroup Tecfinolbgy
Component Information Systems
Aspect DeveloprTient/Cadis
Autodesk
Information Handling Systems
984186-7
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
•
Drafting and documentation—Representation of a part in standard
geometric drafting format, including all part geometry dimensions and
notations describing mechanical, functional, and material characteristics.
Also includes schematics and technical illustration
Computer-Aided Engineering—CAE
• Analysis—^Analysis of a physical system, part, or assembly; including
Structural, thermal, vibrational, composite, fatigue, stack-up, and mass
property analysis
•
Linkage/mechanisms—^Motion simtdation and analysis of an assembly
of components with two or more movable parts
Computer-Aided IManufacturing—CAII/I
m Manufacturing process simulation
Q Numerical control (NC) part programming—Programming of an NC
machine tool or automated processing system
•
•
Part processing design—Design of a series of manufacturing steps
Other manufacturing applications
•
Coordinate measuring machines—Software used to program
machines used to measure the physical dimensions of a part
•
Offline robotics—Process simulation that represents the sequence of
Steps to program a robot for a particular operation and downloads
data to a robot to update its control program
Otiier Tools
• BCnowledge-based engineering tools—Tools used to capture design intent
and build standard practices for controlling, modifying, and automating
design and manufacturing activities
•
AppUcation development tools—Frogranuning tools to aid in the
generation of user-defined programs that drive or interface with
CAD/CAM/CAE applications
•
Product data management—^Management of data vdthin an engineering
or manufacturing environment. Product data management includes tools
to manage product structures, workflow and work processes, and
CAD/engineering data, files, and documents.
•
Component information systems—Software used to navigate within and
manage a repository of mechanical engineering parts and associated data
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
I>ataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
-1-1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http: / /www.dataquest.com
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis ofinformationgenerally 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. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©jggg Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
70854
*The Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CA^l^andscape
errr
rafting ahd DocumentatitHis$|65J<lIlia
9gn.Ai»llG»IJonistli497.M)lll<]
3D/Ey8
Intergraph
3D/Eye
Geriter Systems
Tebis
Adra Systems
Investronica SA
Applicon
Hitachi Zosen
Toshiba
Alias Research/SGI
Isd Software
ASCAD
ICEM Technologies
Unigraphics Solutions
Applicon
lUlatra Datavision
Ashlar
IMSI
Viagrafjx
Ascad
MCS
Autodesk
Intergraph
Wacom
Ashlar
IMJcroCADAIi/t
Autotrol
ISD Software
Whessoe Computing
Autodesk
NEC
Baystate Technologies
Just In Time Systems
Baystate Technologies
Nihon Unisys
BCTGmbH
Matra Datavision
Wiechera Datentechnik
Ziegler Informatics
Bentley SystenDs
Parametric Technology
Bentley Systems
MCS
Cad Distribution
PROCAD GmbH
Cad Distribution
MicroCADAM
Cad.L.ab
Radan Computational
Cad.Lab
NEC
Ctmatmn
SDRC
CIMUNC
Nihon Unisys
Cimlinc
Setbi
Cocreate
Omron
Cocreate
Sharp
Computervision
PAFEC
Computervision
Tebis
Dassault Syslemes/tBM
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes/IBM
Tecnomatix Technolooles
debis Systemhaus
PROCAD GmbH
|]elcam International
Toshiba
Geftflr Systems
Systems
Radan Computational
Dp Technolooy
Unigraphics Solutions
Hitachi Zosen
SDRC
Gerbef Systems
Vera International
ICEM Technologies
Serbi
Hitachi Zosen
Wiechers Datentechnik
IMSI
Sharp
Icem Technologies
Ziegler Informatics
•.inkaae/Mechanism—$48 Million: ,
CAE
Adam Net
Engineering Mechanics
NEC
CADSI
Adina
ESI Group
Nihon Unleyt
Computervision
Algor
Hitachi Zosen
Parametric TH:lHiDh>|}y
Dassault Systemes/IBM
Altair Computing
ICEM Technologies
SDRC
Unigraphics Solutions
Ansys
Intergraph
£RAC
Mechanical Dynamics
Cadsi
Livermore Software
iDshibra
Parametric Technology
Computational Mech»iics
MacNeal-Schwendler
UiHQFiphicc Sotothms
SDRC
Computervision
MARC
Vartation Systtms Analysis
CSAR Corporation
Matra Datavision
WhasGOfl ITampirting
Dassault Systemes/IBM
Mechanical Dynamics
Manitfacturitia Process Simulatlan—$3G9 Milllnn | Other Manuracbirins ApplIcatlonST^Sl Million
Numerical Control
Adra Systems
Mtdtlnu
CDQvdiMla
Exapt
Open Mind
Dassaun ^ l e m o / I B M
Anilam Electronics
First Cadcam
Pathrace Engineering
•erearn intafniiljDnai
Applicon
Gerber Systems
Radan Computational
Matra Dalavi^DFi
ASCAD
Gibbs & Associates
SDRC
PifanHiinc: tfichnolQgy
CGTech
Hitachi Zosen
Sescoi
Cimatron
ICEM Technologies
Sharp
OlflliiB R a b o l t t s
Cimlinc
ISD Software
Surtware
QasGaull Siystenve^/tSM
CNC Software
Matra Datavision
Toshiba
Computervision
MCS
Unigraphics Solutions
Dassault Systemes/IBM
MicroCADAM
Vero International
Drli^jliin tnternaliaiHl
NEC
DP TflChnoiogv
fjlhofi U n ^
Din&b Rpbolic^
T u t i o w l n TfchnatDQks
Pafi ProEesElnc D«tlgn
[J^tsaauD SiyBlariU)£/FBM
Nlh«n Unisys
Iduunidtlx
DP TKhnrjiogy
PSFamdrie
UnlQTa^hicS
Exopt
Matr^ DaEiivismii
fWiiliUHii
..
SDRC
MiiI.n,Liw.H.
Knowledge-Based
Engineering
Concentra
Application Development
Environments
•l..MBUIi|i|IIIM.H
Agile Software
- " ^
Inrormatln S|vtems
tCEM TnchnalDgles
Aspect QEvalc>pm»nt^«ILft
Applicon
Inlergf^h
AutDdtSk
Ascad
iSD ^r^rtAarc
IrrlcKma^kifi Handllivfl EysUm^
Autotrol B.A.
MdtriJiOne
Autodesk
Moduhek OY
Dassault Systemes/IBM
Intelligence Networks
Matra Datavision
BCT GmbH
Nouas^rt
Parametric Technology
CMstat
PftFEC
Nff]
SDRC
CoCreate
Unigraphics Solutions
Computervision
PROCAD GmbM
ConsenSys Software
SDF^C
N o t ^ R e v e n u e represents 1997 software r e v e n u e
.••1!.
Product Data ManagemHiil—$277 MIfMon
PaaaiMtric T « h i H r i q ^
Dassault Systemes
Sharpa
Eigner-f Partner
Tci&hiba
Formtek
Unigcaptiice S o l u l ^ -
IBM
WorkgioupTechnflloilr^'
f
Perspective
Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Worldwide
End-User Analysis
CAD Perceptions
among European IVIechanicai Designers
Abstract: in this Perspective, we examine the attitudes and CAD satisfaction of
Europeanbased mechanical designers and engineers. Much of the data is based on a survey of European
designers that was performed in May 1998. The information presented in this Perspective is a
synopsis of a longer report titled, The European Mechanical Designer, published June 1998.
By Sharon Tan
introduction
In this Perspective, we examine the attitudes and CAD perceptions of
European-based users of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE systems in France,
Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The data in this Perspective is
based on the results of a May 1998 telephone survey of 324 European-based
engineering professionals involved in the mechanical design process. The
information presented in this Perspective is a shortened version of a longer
report titled. The European Mechanical Designer (CMEC-WW-UW-9801,
pubUshed June 1998).
In particular, we highlight survey results that reveal what designers think of
the mechaiucal appHcations they use—what benefits they have seen, what
software functionality and characteristics they seek, and what influences
their purchasing decisions. In delving into these issues, Dataquest asked
users a series of questions based on their agreement with certain businessrelated statements, their satisfaction with the mechanical applications
themselves (for example, analysis and assembly design), their satisfaction
with specific design-related tools and technologies (for example, photorealistic imaging and 3-D graphics), and their "wish list" for CAD
applications (for example, application stability and ease of use). The results
are explored here.
i
Dataquest
IMF ]mi\ Tioii RE: ;nuiiCE
zimm
IM DOBPOBAIED
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
DAI^a-OEST
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9806
251 River Oak: jrkway
Publication Date: June 22,1998
Can Jncf! CA
i34
Filing: Perspective
Xjia-468-86QQ
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Sen/er Software and Tecmtrcat ftppncations binder)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Survey Respondents
As w^e Stated earlier, our survey focused specifically on those mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE users in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
A breakdown of survey respondents by country is shown in Figure 1. Our
decision to focus on these countries was driven largely by the fact that these
countries are the biggest purchasers of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
systems in Europe.
Figure 2 gives the respondent breakdown by industry. Because many of the
mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software and hardware purchases are made by
a few key industries, we consequently focused on those industries—
specifically aerospace, automotive, electrical/electronic machinery,
fabricated metal, and industrial machinery—in this survey. While some may
argue that our focus on specific industries may skew the results, our aim in
conducting the survey is to understand users and decision makers involved
in the mechanical design process in key industries. The category "others" in
Figure 2 consists of those respondents in services/design/consulting,
telecommunications, government, and education.
Figure 1
Respondents by Country
Italy
(15%)
Germany
(31%)
1
France
I
(23%)
United Kingdom
(31%)
\
\
^
^
S8339S
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
I
#
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 2
Respondents by Industry
Electrical/Electronic
Machinery
(10%)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Is CAD/CAM/CAE Technology Helping to Meet Business Goals?
Many factors can affect whether a compcuiy or business in discrete
manufacturing succeeds or fails, and CAD/CAM/CAE technology is just
one of them. V\rhile CAD technology has promised many things to many
people, Dataquest decided to investigate just what users think about how
well CAD technology is deployed in a company. The idea is that those
comparues that have had more success in deploying CAD technology are
better able to make the connection between CAD investment (dollars spent)
and meeting business objectives (profits returned).
Dataquest asked respondents to what level they agree or disagree with a
series of general statements concerning CAD/CAM/CAE, its role in the
company, and its benefits—^not just to engineering design, but to the
company's overall business processes. The weighted average of the results,
by country, is displayed in Figure 3. Overall, respondents in this survey are
fairly happy with their CAD/C/VM/CAE systems with respect to their
company's business goals, with the ItaUan respondents clearly the most
satisfied of the group.
The results seen here do not differ greatly from what we have seen in other
end-user surveys. While we could safely say that CAD technology has
helped our European designers and engineers to tackle more complex
designs, we can't say that their engineering management understands the
benefits of design automation. From a country perspective, the widest range
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
of responses was seen when users responded to the statement "Engineering
management thorouglily imderstands the benefits of design software," with
respondents in the United Kingdom falling short of even agreeing (rating of
3) with that statement.
Figure 3
CAD Perceptions, Weighted Average of Responses
Weighted Average of Responses
o.u-
4.5-
Germany
•
United Kingdom
4.0^"^^^^W^^^fc.
L ^ - • -v
' " ' " ^
^^*
rtf>-
3.0-
2.5-
2.0I\/ly Company Can
Solve More Complex
Design Problems
than Two Years Ago
1
1
1
Our Organization's Engineering Management
Our CAD
Progress to Date in Thoroughly Understands Software Vendor Is
Making Use of CAD
the Benefits of
Responsive
Technology Has Been
Design Software
to Our Needs
Excellent
CAD/CAM/CAE
Technology Has
Been Oversold
by Vendors
and Media*
Note: Rating scale is from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree
'Full Statement is "GAD/CAM/CAE technology has been oversold by the vendors and media, compared to what can be accomplished for
the investment required."
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Applications—What Users Think
Designers were asked to rate their mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE appUcations
with respect to importance and satisfaction on a scale of 1 (not important or
not satisfied) to 5 (very important or very satisfied). These appUcations were
as follows:
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
•
Detailing
•
Component design
•
Assembly design
•
Conceptual design
•
Analysis and computer-aided engineering (CAE) applications
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
•
Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) applications and numerical
control (NC) sohwaie
•
Product data management (PDM)
•
Data exchange and translation
Figure 4 provides a visual interpretation of these user importance and
satisfaction ratings. The most important characteristic according to user
rankings—component design—is plotted on a l-to-5 scale at the top of the
chart, and the other applications (for example, detaiUng, assembly design),
are plotted in a counterclockwise manner about the axes in order of
decreasing importance. The satisfaction rating for each application is
mapped along the same axes as its corresponding importance rating. The
gap, or difference, between the importance and satisfaction ratings for each
application is indicated in Figure 4 by gray shading, exposing the areas that
need vendor attention and improvements. In an ideal situation, importance
and satisfaction ratings would be equal, and no gray area would appear in
Figiire 4 because the two circles would coincide. However, when ffie two
circles do not coincide at every point, users are not as happy as they could
be. Vendors should read the gray shaded areas as opportunities for
software/system improvement.
While most of the gaps in Figvire 4 are not large, there are clearly some
unmet needs out there. Once again, the importance of data translation
software to designers and engineers becomes apparent. It was ranked high in
importance by survey respondents, but this same group of people is very
unsatisfied—a negative 1.2 difference, or gap. Data translation is one area
that has always demanded attention from users, and these European users
are much more unsatisfied with their translation and data exchange
mechanisms than we typically see.
The high importance ranking given to detailing (ranking of 4.0) underscores
the importance in mechanical design of this very basic application. However,
in comparison to other applications, the gap here, negative 0.1, is not large.
Contrary to what we have seen in North American survey results, product
data management ranked quite high in importance among these European
survey respondents and low in satisfaction. By country, the German and
French survey respondents showed the greatest dissatisfaction with PDM
technology, where the gaps were negative 1.3 for each group. Data
management is a much larger issue in Europe than in North America, partly
driven by the fact that European governments often incorporate standards as
mandates. Also, CAD investment in Europe is typically part of a global
corporate strategy. This means that when orders are placed in Europe,
generally they are of a much greater magnitude than in the United States,
and data management becomes part of that strategy.
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
e
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 4
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of Mechanical Applications
Component Design
5
Importance
Satisfaction
Analysis/CAE g
Data Exchange and Translation
Assembly Design 5 1
• 5 Product Data l\/lanagement
r^
5
Conceptual Design ^
Detailing
Manufacturing Applications/CAM
Be34ai
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not important/not satisfied, 5 = very impoIlant/very satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Design-Related Tools and Technologies—What Users Want
Getting a product to market is not just about CAD software and design, but it
is also about how CAD and related technologies are used together. A host of
tools and technologies are on the market today—such as photoreaUstic
imaging and 3-D graphics cards—that are targeted at making the lives of
designers easier.
Dataquest asked users to rate the following CAD-related tools and
technologies with respect to importance and satisfaction on a scale of 1 (not
important/not satisfied) to 5 (very important/very satisfied):
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
•
High-performance 3-D graphics
•
Design optimization capabilities
•
Photorealistic imaging
•
Sharing of design files via Internet or intranet
•
Accessing design information via a project Web site
•
CAD to CAM integration
•
CAD to CAE integration
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 5 outlines user ratings for the items Usted above. Clearly, these
designers and engineers want a lot of performance from their CAD
solutions—tight integration among modules (especially CAD to CAM
integration), good graphics, and design optimization capabilities.
Integration of CAD with both CAM and CAE ranked high in importance and
also showed sizable importance-satisfaction gaps. The user-perceived
dissatisfaction with CAD to CAM and, to a lesser extent, CAD to CAE
integration, is consistent with the importance-satisfaction gap we discussed
earlier concerning data exchange and translation.
Better 3-D graphics is one area that UNIX-based workstation vendors tout
over their PC-based and NT-based competitors. And, as our survey shows,
graphics is ranked high in importance to these designers and engineers.
(Surprisingly, however, photoreaUstic imaging is of less importance, and
users are satisfied with their imaging solutions). As companies take on more
complex design problems and become more entrenched in 3-D design, it is
natural that graphics become more of an important factor influencing
purchasing decisions. The same is true for design optimization capabilities;
as users begin to use more analysis and CAE tools in conjunction with CAD
tools, the importance of optimization will rise.
Mecharucal designers are begirming to use the World Wide Web, intranets,
and the Internet for design- and engineering-related activities. Here, survey
respondents are interested in sharing design files via the Internet or intranet
and are interested in project Web sites, but their satisfaction with their
abilities to do so today is less than satisfactory. Readers should note,
however, that such capabilities aren't at the top of these user importance
rankings.
Characterizing the Ideal Software Solution and CAD Vendor
When it comes to CAD/CAM/CAE solutions, one can look at user-rated
importance and satisfaction from one of two angles. The first one is
concerned vvith specific mechanical applications and C AD-related
technologies. Dataquest explored these areas earlier in this chapter. The other
angle is concerned with overall satisfaction with CAD/CAM/CAE
solutions—such as software stabiUty and vendor service.
Dataquest created a "wish list" of items and asked users to rate the
importance and satisfaction of the following 10 characteristics relevant to any
mechanical application:
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
•
Software is bug free and stable
•
Software has advanced features and functionality
•
Software is easy to learn and use
•
Software is compatible with current CAD environment
•
Software performs complex or compute-intensive tasks well
•
Software has a low cost per seat
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 5
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of CAD-Related Technologies
CAD to CAM
Integration
•
Importance
" • — Satisfaction
Photo-Realistic Imaging
5 Design
Optimization
Capabilities
Accessing Design
Information via
Project Web Site
Hjgh-Performance
3-D Graphics
Sharing of Design Files
via Internet or Intranet
CAD to CAE Integration
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 : not innportant/not satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
•
Vendor service and support
•
Software is easy to customize
•
Vendor is flexible in its licensing policies
•
Software apphcations are tightly integrated
It is with this wish list that the real dissatisfaction with CAD/CAM/CAE
solutions among end users becomes apparent. Nearly every item on the list
was ranked with an importance rating of 4.0 or higher (see Figure 6). All of
the issues on the wish list factor into a company's decision to purchase
mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools, and vendors could choose to address
any one of these issues, as all of the gaps are large.
Topping the list in importance was the wish for software that is bug free and
stable. The gap here is quite large—^negative 1.2—and the importance rating
is extremely high (innportance rating of 4.9). Software stabiHty has always
been an issue with the mechanical design community and can sometimes be
an impediment to the adoption of new technologies and methodologies. It
also comes as no surprise that the importance-satisfaction gap for vendor
service and support is similarly large.
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 6
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of an Ideal CAD Solution
Software Is Bug
Free and Stable
5 -i
Software Is Easy
to Customize
Importance
Satisfaction
Vendor Service and Support
Software Has
Advanced Features
and Functionality
Software Is Easy to
Learn and Use
Software Is Compatible
with Current CAD
Environment
Vendor Is Flexible
in Licensing
Software Performs
Compute- Intensive
Tasks Well
U 5
Software Has Low
Cost per Seat
Software Applications
Are Tightly Integrated
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 •• not impoIlant/not satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Software that is easy to leam and use is also important to the European
design community. Engineers are always facing time-to-market pressures,
and they have little time to spend learning new tools or appUcations or going
to training. Only with the onset of the midrange mechanical design packages,
have vendors really begun to concentrate on ease-of-use issues in earnest.
Of particular interest is the relatively large importance-satisfaction gap
(negative 1.0) given to the statement "Software has a low cost per seat." In
previous North American surveys, this item has ranked high, but not quite as
high as the European respondents have ranked it. Nor has the importancesatisfaction gap been as great. Examining the data by country reveals that
respondents in France and Germany are particularly dissatisfied with CAD
cost per seat (importance-satisfaction gaps of negative 1.4 and negative 1.2,
respectively). Further, our European survey respondents, as a whole, appear
to be more price sensitive than their North /American counterparts. This
sensitivity may be related to the tendency to make CAD purchases in large
quantities in Europe (in particular, in Germany), versus the smaller sales that
often occur in North America.
Of all the items on the wish list, the ones with the smallest gaps are ease of
customization and advanced features and functionaUty. While these
technology-driven issues are important, there are clearly other areas in which
CMEC-WW-DP-9806
©1998 Dataquest
June 22,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
10
a vendor can excel to become a commanding player in the mechanical design
market.
Dataquest Perspective
Despite the maturity of the technology, European users are stiU not
completely satisfied with their mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE solutions.
Satisfaction ratings are still lower than importance ratings for all basic
CAD/CAM/CAE software functions, such as assembly design and product
data management. There is plenty of real dissatisfaction with
CAD/CAM/CAE solutions among European end users, when it comes to
such basic issues as bug free, stable software, vendor service and support,
and software cost per seat.
Further, Ettropean designers and engineers want a lot of performance from
their CAD solutions—tight integration among modules (especially CAD to
CAM integration), good graphics, and design optimization capabilities.
Survey respondents show an interest in sharing design files via the Internet
or intranet and in project Web sites, but such capabilities aren't at the top of
user importance rankings.
Clearly, user experiences with CAD are not perfect in the European
mechanical design community. Opportunities exist for those vendors wiUing
to address issues outside of pure design and in areas where real user
dissatisfaction Ues.
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotiine:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
-1-1-408-954-1780
http: / / www.dataquest.com
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the
public or relesised 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. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, inc. All rights reserved.
70187
Perspective
Mechanical CADlCAMICAE Worldwide
Market Analysis
System-Level Design Automation
Abstract: Creating virtual prototypes, streamlining the design and manufacturing process
through greater automation, and promoting system-level integration are very important
issues that companies are facing as they constantly try to reduce the time to market, reduce
design and manufacturing costs, and improve product quality. This Perspective looks at the
forces that are pushing for system-level design and integration, examples of successful systemlevel design automation (SDA) projects, and what software vendors are doing to respond to
the needs of users who are demanding more and more sophisticated tools. This Perspective
also looks at a special market within the electromechanical domain, that of the cabling tool
vendors.
By Daya Nadamuni
The Flow
System-level design automation brings together mechanical design and
electronic design. This Perspective covers the mechanical and electronic
aspects of the system-level design automation market.
The idea of being able to create a virtual product vvith all the associated parts
and subassemblies, integrate the products and processes and test the product
before a physical prototype is created is a very attractive one for the
following reasons:
jifS
•
Market forces are imposing shorter design cycles, faster time to market,
and helping to drive down manufacturing costs, making it easier for
companies to stay competitive.
•
The move to more complex technologies and the increasing use of
electronics in aerospace and automotive applications is magnifying
existing problems and bringing up new problems in design and analysis
at the micro and the macro level. At a micro level, shifts to more complex
u j «3;
" Q C
lA,i
O
t j a. >>
re
cc nr
.^o
™ 1—
CO O Qm
uj Z
05 C^
cc —
J^
C3
5w O o S
p:"J
u-CO
• i "" J *
> W 00
go >c;
o to
—3 -"(Jcc < QC
•>— c CO
u;) cc o
CV CO TT
2 Q
C3 h *
u . reZ*
Dataquest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9805
Publication Date: June 8,1998
Filing: Perspective
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Software and Technical Applications binder)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
ICs and advanced technology packaged into smaller form factors is
causing various interconnect problems, requiring the use of more
sophisticated analysis tools that can solve problems related to power,
time, and electromagnetic interference, among others, simultaneously. At
a macro level, for example, the increasing use of devices such as cellular
phones, laptops, and other portable electrordc devices means that aircraft
cables and control systems need more shielding than ever before from
radio frequency (RE) emissions. The reliability and stability of the
product are important at micro and macro levels.
•
The availability of system-level tools with varying degrees of capabilities
•
The drive toward reuse of existing designs or modifications of existing
designs and greater use of outsourcing
•
The push by various national and commercial consortia to sponsor
research and development in the areas of virtual prototyping and digital
product definition.
It is estimated that there are more than 50 semiconductors in the average
high-end car today: chips that control the ignition, the air-conditioning, the
anti-lock braking system, and GPS system, to name a few.
The increasing use and complexity of devices with ever-increasing electrical
and mechanical content, across industries, is making comparues take a good
look at their design processes with a view to enabling concurrent design in
the electronic and mechanical design of the product. For the purposes of this
Perspective, virtual protot5'ping can be loosely defined as modeling,
simulating, and analyzing a model on a computer.
System-Level Design by Industry
In looking at system-level design, the aerospace and automobile industiies
are two of the biggest areas where mechardcal and electrical systems must be
merged. Not surprisingly, these two industries are among the largest users of
mechanical CAD and electronic design automation (EDA) tools. The market
for mechanical CAD and EDA software accounted for U.S $5.2 billion in
revenue in 1996 as shown in Figure 1. Design cycles in these industries have
been historically between 5 and 10 years and it is only recently that these
industries have begun trying to make their business and engineering
processes more lean and mean and to pull in design and manufacturing
times.
All these different forces are bringing down the walls between what have
essentially been two connected but separate design and test processes:
mechanical design and assembly and electronic design and assembly.
System-level design automation is an attempt to bring these and several
Other related processes together and create a design environment where it is
possible to create a digital version of the product and to integrate and test it
before it ever reaches the manufacturing floor.
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 1
Applications by Industry in 1996 (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Automotive
t
MCAD
EDA
other CAD
Software
Computers and Peripherals
.••>\'..'.j~yj^-^':
Electrical and Electronic
Equipment
Telecom/Datacom
mm>
Aerospace
na«nifHii*P«Kiv««<Miii
B^^^^^^T^
All Industries
— I
0
10
1
1
'1
20
30
40
1
1
50
60
Percent
1
70
1
80
1
—
90
100
962601
Note: All CAD software includes AEC/GIS software.
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
Of course, this is easier said than done. There are several levels of complexity
that irrunediately become apparent. Applications and processes need to be
integrated. Each process is a complex hierarchy of subprocesses reflecting
subassemblies, and all of this needs to be integrated and managed in a
unified environment. There are differences between the mechanical and
electrical worlds in terms of their approach to all these issues. The
mechanical design world operates in 3-D. EDA is a 2-D world. Mechanical
designers deal with very complex part geometries, the EDA designers use
simple shapes and are more concerned with coruiecting components and
dealing with rtunimum physical constraints than the mechanical designers.
Finally, the data generated at each stage of the project needs to be integrated
as well. In an ideal world, the design process would be as shown in Figure 2.
SDA Projects
Some Drivers for Success in Impiementing SDA Projects
Concurrent Engineering and Collaborative Engineering
Any large project, especially in the automotive or aerospace industries, uses
several design teams that are focused on different facets of the design and
assembly process. Collaborative engineering efforts are necessary for
reducing design cycle times by allowing different teams access to the most
recent data at all times and creating a process where there is tight control of
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
the design check-in and check-out. Design teams are often dispersed
geographically, wliich means that the process needs to be tied together even
more tightly. The rapid acceptance of the Internet as a collaborative
environment is helping to solve some of the problems associated with
desigrdng products in different locations. Software is currently available to
create a Web site for a given project within the intranet domain. It can also be
made accessible to third-party suppliers, if necessary, over the Internet.
Tighter Links to Other Parts of the Enterprise
The design and manufacturing process cannot take place in a vacuum. The
workflow needs to incorporate the constraints placed on the design by
manufacturing processes, the business rules of the enterprise, and other
competitive outside influences. This means that there must be tight links to
the financial systems in the company: manufacturing resource planning
(MRP), enterprise resource planning (ERF), accounting, finance, emd sales.
Many software vendors in the CAD industry are now providing interfaces to
the different systems that are used in the enterprise in response to the
growing demand from users for tighter integration with the other parts of
the corporate enterprise.
Standards for Exchanging Data
The use of first- and second-tier suppliers is common in the automotive and
aerospace industries. Electronic data interchange of documents and models
is important. Standards have to be set for the data interchange process to
happen as smoothly as possible so that there is minimal loss of data during
transmission or translation between different CAD systems. Some
automobile and aerospace companies require their premier suppUers to use
the same CAD software as they do. Others are willing to accept parts and
models generated from other CAD software environments so long as the part
meets the required specifications. It goes without saying that the larger the
financial and commercial clout of the company, the more it can dictate to its
suppliers.
Good Product and Process Data Management
Good data management is critical for the success of any such large-scale
integrated project. The amount of data that is generated by a project in the
automotive or aerospace industry is huge. On the Boeing 771 project, it was
estimated that 3TB or more of data were generated by the design process.
This means that the product data management (PDM) system used to
manage all this data has to be very robust. Users have indicated that the
PDM systems that they have bought from commercial CAD vendors have
been inadequate for their needs and they have had to supplement these with
in-house tools to fill the gaps.
Examples of SDA Projects
Aerospace: The Boeing 777
The Boeing 777 project was one of the first examples of a major, large-scale
project that followed the principles of system design automation. According
to the Boeing Company, fhe aircraft was designed, assembled, and tested in a
virtual environment before the complete physical prototjrpe was produced.
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 2
The Design Flow in an Ideal World
Product Concept
Urtanofacturing
Specifications
System Architecture (Specifications)
Manufacturing
Specifications
•-r
Electronic Design
Automation
Mechanical
r"
Design
h
.
Electronic
CAE
Mechanical
CAE
L
1
Analysis
I
Constraints
. Constraints
Constraints
Cabling
Printed Qrcuit
Boards
tC Layout/PCB Layout
Constraints
i!
«
o
Constraints
System-Level
fntegration
Virtual
Prototype
Constraints
Physical Prototype
PhysicaI Tests
Manufacturing
Source: Dataquest( May 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998Dataquest
Junes, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
The process itself was fairly complex, not only because of the magnitude of
the project, but also because of distributed design teams, and the use of
outside suppliers, among other factors. The main design software used for
the mechanical design and assembly was CATIA from IBM/Dassault
Systemes. The body of the plane was built in Kansas, while the rest of it was
designed and manufactured in Seattle. The Boeing Company estimates that
238 design teams collaborated on the project. The project took about five
years to complete, compared to about seven-to-10 years for the previous
design and manufacturing cycle. However, the savings in time was an
additional bonanza, as the primary goal of the 777 project was to focus on the
quality of the end product. Tools from commercial CAD vendors for cabling
to finite element analysis, among others, were supplemented by several
internally developed tools to fill in the gaps that commercial companies
could not provide. These included product data management tools, and
simulation tools that were necessary for creating a virtual prototype. IBM
RS/6000 machines were used for the CATIA software, and high-end UNIX
machines from Silicon Graplucs were used for the most grapliically computeintensive applications.
Functional testing and verification of the different parts, assemblies, and
subassemblies was done for each part, and then abstract models were used
for higher levels of testing. Boeing did make a mock up of the nose of the 777
to verify that digital preassembly would work. Boeing suppliers also opted to
use CATIA as the mechanical CAD software of choice, which simplified part
and data exchange and created fewer translation errors.
As a result of its experience and the outcome of the 777 project, the Boeing
Company has now embarked on the digital prototyping of the 737 family
and on some nrulitary projects as weU. Other programs that are using this
digital approach to aircraft design and construction are the development of
the joint strike fighter with Lockheed Martin, and military aircraft such as the
F-22. Boeing is using more commercially available CAD tools in its test
division and in the commercial and military divisions, while continuing to
improve some of its in-house CAD tools like the Wires 2000 product that is
used in conjunction with LogicalCable from Mentor Graphics for cabhng and
design.
Automotive: Ford C3P
If aerospace is using SDA, can automobiles be far behind? Major automobile
companies have announced their own versions of the digital prototyping
process for the next generation of cars. In the United States, the most notable
of these is the Ford 2000 program, also known as Ford C3P. The three Cs
stand for CAD, CAM, CAE and P stands for product information
management. There are two major forces driving the automobile industry
(no pun intended) to the virtual prototjrping paradigm. One is the
requirement for greater fuel economy and the increasingly power-hxingry
automotive functions in new cars. The second is the statutory requirements
by states like California for a percentage of cars sold in the state to be electric
cars by the year 2000.
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
The Ford C3P program is based on the idea of building cars designed and
manufactured in multiple countries. The lead mechanical CAD provider is
Structureil D5Tiamics Research Corporations I-DEAS Master series. Cabling
tools are being provided by Transcendent Inc. (the new incarnation of
Viewlogic's Quad Design subsidiary). Transcendent's tools have a link to the
Saber tool from Analogy for simulating the power envirorunent. Saber is
being used by university programs that are collaborating with the Ford 2000
project.
C3P aims to be computer design-aided everything: engineering,
manufacturing, and information management. So far, the C3P program has
cost nearly $100 million and the first product is due out in 2000. The ultimate
goal of the project is to integrate the design manufacturing and product
information into a single electronic interface that can be used globally by
Ford and its suppliers. Ford is focusing on tr5dng to simultaneously achieve
the goals of improved quality, shorter time to market, and lower
manufacturing costs by implementing the C3P program. Ford estimates that
it can bring down the design and manufacturing cycle for each new car
model from five years or more before the implementation of the C3P
program to 24 months or less by the time the entire project is implemented.
Other companies such as Chrysler, Toyota, and General Motors have
adopted the paradigm of digital manufacturing to differing degrees.
Chrysler, for example, has embarked on what the company has termed a
digital manufacturing and assembly process applications (DMAPS) program
together with Dassault Systemes, as CATIA is being used for design and
assembly. For visualization, Chrysler has developed and its own tool known
as the Chrysler Data VisuaUzer. Ford has chosen to go with SDRC's I-DEAS
tool suite for mechanical design and assembly.
Consortium/Government-Sponsored Projects
DARPA RaDEO Program
The rapid design exploration and optimization program is funded by
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with the objective of
integrating CAD/CAM/CAE systems in the electromechanical domain. The
program is concerned with developing the comprehensive information
modeling and design tools needed to support rapid design of
electromecharucal systems comparable in capability to the tools being used
in the design of microelectronics. The program has four major objectives:
capturing design intent, design exploration, integration, and the creation of
interfaces for manufacturing simulation, mapping between the requirements
of the design and manufacturing and creating virtual design workspaces.
Capturing the design intent is geared toward the use of more intelligent,
knowledge-based engineering tools. Integration includes and integrated
product design environment and virtual reaUty and simtdation tools for
electromechanical systems.
AIT
The AIT is a consortium of European manufacturers in the automotive and
aerospace sector brought together to develop requirements and specifications
for future information technology tools and to promote the adoption of
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
relevant international standards such as STEP, and CORBA, among others.
The scope of AIT is the complete cycle of the design and manufacturing
process.
The project is now in the second phase, having completed its pilot phase in
late 1997. The goals of the pilot project were to demonstrate interoperability
among different CAD systems and to integrate manufacturing with the
design process.
The pilot project has brought up the same needs that have been identified
elsewhere in this Perspective: the need for advanced workflow management
tools and better tools for product and process data management. Better
visualization and simulation tools are also needed for creating digital mockups and virtual prototypes.
There are also several related projects that are being conducted under the
auspices of the European Strategic Program for R&D in Information
Technology (ESPRIT) framework directly related to putting together a
workable system-level design framework. Some of the projects, such as the
open toolset for the mixed simulation of multidomain systems, the digital
mock-up modeling methodologies, tools for product conception and
downstream processes, and flexible digital signal processor (DSPs) for space
and automotive apphcations, are being conducted under the BRITE/EURAM
(Basic Research in Industiial Technologies for Europe/European Research on
Advanced Materials), which is one of the projects under the ESPRIT
umbrella. The objective of the BRITE/EURAM program is to develop a
technology that allows designers and manufactures to create a digital design
and manufactLiring process that follows the ideal workflow depicted in
Figure 1. Similarly, there are industry-specific initiatives to facilitate and
promote concurrent engineering between European automotive
manufacturers and their suppliers and European aerospace companies and
their suppUers. The goals of these programs are to improve the business
process by reducing time to market, improve the quality of information
exchanged between suppliers and manufacturers, and vice versa to improve
product quality.
What Do Users Want
In talking to companies that are currently engaged in the virtual product
development process, Dataquest has found that engineers, designers, and
project managers all have wish hsts for software products that can help them
to better automate the process. A few of these are as follows:
•
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
Knowledge-based engineering tools to automate the design process and
shorten the product development cycle. Knowledge-based tools can
capture the design and incorporate the rules that drive the design
process. These can be engineering rules, business rules, manufacturing
rules, among others. As functional requirements change during a current
or future design process, the model can automatically generate new
product designs with minimal input. Not only do the tools facilitate
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
j | _
design reuse, but also allow engineers to use alternative scenarios much
more easily.
•
Better data management products that can capture all the data generated
by the process and product. The currently available commercial PDM
systems, according to the users, are not scalable and extensible enough to
handle the enormous volumes of data generated by large-scale projects.
•
Better analysis tools at the micro level and at the system level
•
Better system-level integration tools
How Are CAD Vendors Responding
Software vendors are moving to address the needs of the users in many of
the following key areas:
•
In response to the need for better data management tools, many CAD
and PDM vendors are coming out with new and improved versions of
their PDM software with a view to replacing the in-house tools that have
been used in an ad hoc fashion with previous versions of their data
management tools. The EDA world has also seen several recent
armouncements by leading vendors to provide data management tools
that are able to capture and store the data generated during the process of
design in an integrated circuit (IC) or a printed circuit board (PCB). For
example, one such product is Design Exchange from Viewlogic.
Information generated over the lifetime of the product during its design,
manufacture, use, and disposal needs to be captured, used and reused.
The data can be created by different groups using different computer
systems. It is important to be able to capture and store all of this data and
to be able to share this data when necessary. This is why users are asking
for PDM and electroruc document management systems that have a lot of
ftmctionality.
•
Knowledge-based engineering tools: Leading CAD vendors from both
the mechanical CAD world and the EDA world are rapidly improving
their software packages to capture design intent in a better fashion.
Software packages like IC AD from Concentra Corporation (which has
now been spun off and licensed to Knowledge Technologies
International) and STONErule from Prescient Corporation are tools that
belong to this new generation of knowledge-based engineering tools that
are increasingly being used to efficiently automate the design and
manufacturing process.
•
Industry consortia are working with academic institutions on developing
an electronic system-level description language to be available in 2002
and a mecharucal system-level description language slated to be available
in 2006.
m Vendors like The Mathworks are introducing tools that enable engineers
to model and simulate complex power systems and control systems for
the aerospace and automotive industries. Companies like Engineous
software are providing tools like iSIGHT, which are a first step toward
providing a way for integrating mecharucal, electrical, and electronic
design at the system level. Ansoft has a tool called EMSS that is to be
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
used to analyze the interactions of the control system components and
subsystems. Analogy's Saber software for mixed signal simulation can
now be used with its newly introduced LSA software for control system
design. EDA vendors are moving beyond point-tool solutions and tr5dng
to provide tools that can solve the six analysis problems simultaneously.
Better, cheaper, and more advanced simulation and visualization tools
are available today as compared with what was available at the time of
the Boeing 777 project. For example, companies like Division and
Engineering Animation are providing tools that are able to animate large
virtual models and provide walk throughs and fly throughs.
Better system-level design tools like Statemate Magnum from I-Logix and
RDD-1()0 from Ascent Logic, which treat the entire design as a complex
embedded system.
Cabling Tools
A typical car of today may have 1.2 miles of cables, while a commercial
jetliner has several times that length. As complexities of the electrical
assemblies increase, electromechanical issues such as the design and routing
of wires and cables between connectors become more and more important. In
addition, the Icnowledge that the electrical system accounts for a large
portion, by some estimates 20 percent to 30 percent of the total warranty
costs for tracing electrical faults, for example, has led vendors to provide
design automation tools that can do wire harness design, replace hand-wired
nailboards, and automate cable routing, schematic editing, and signal
tiacing. Table 1 shows the product offerings for this market. This is not
meant to be an exhaustive list. It is just a sample of the tools available today.
Table 1
Cabling Tool Vendors and Products
Vendor
Product
Linius Technologies
EMBassy
Mentor Graphics
LogicalCable
Transcendent Design Technology
Parametric Technology Corporation
TransCable
Pro/Cabling
I-DEAS/Hamess
E3D
SDRC
Dassasult Systemes
Ruplan
Debis
Unigraphics
UG/Harness
Note: This is not a connplete list of all the products or companIes.
Source:Dataquest (May 1998)
The electronic design automation vendors have hnks to the cabling software
modules that are provided by the mechanical software vendors so that there
is a complete transfer of specifications and constraints from one domain to
the Other. Mechanical attributes of a wire such as length, thickness, and
minimum bend radius can be exported to a tool such as LogicalCable or
TransCable and used to perform analyses such as signal tracing and voltage
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998Dataquest
Junes, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
11_
drop calcidatlons. Similarly, electrical cormectivity information from the
electrical tools can be used as specifications for laying the wire harness.
Given the need for increased RE shielding, identif5mig and troubleshooting
the analysis problems that arise at this stage, such as cross talk and
electromagnetic interference (EMI), not only do automated cabling tools
reduce time to market, but they also bring down costs by getting the design
validated in the first run. They also fit into the new paradigm discussed
earlier of automating the entire design process and creating the virtual
prototype before going to manufacturing.
Dataquest estimates that the cabling market is currently about U.S.$50
million, but it has the potential to grow rapidly as the complexity of
electromechanical design systems grows.
Dataquest Perspective
Complex electromechanical systems and devices have equally complex
architectures and state-dependent behaviors, which may not be intuitively
obvious. Virtual prototypes of such systems and devices can eliminate costly
design errors and problems before the product is in production.
The evolution to virtual prototyping before the physical mock-up is
constructed is a reflection of the evolution of the design process from paperbased schematics to the electronic creation and verification of designs.
Design intent that used to be conveyed through drawings it is now being
conveyed through CAD models. Engineers are now designing in a top-down
fashion starting with system-level design, continuing to assembly modeling,
and finishing with part design. New versions of CAD software have evolved
to the point where they are now capable of capturing design intent and
design knowledge, and thus have essentially become the enablers for virtual
prototj^ing today. However, virtual prototypes can still achieve only a
certain level, given the existing technological capabilities. It is not possible to
provide a prototype of aU the assemblies, subassemblies, and parts of an
airplane, and simulate its behavior in a given computer system at a given
time. The best that can be done today is to virtually display and simulate
models of these parts at high levels, or to functionally simulate the behavior
of the aircraft by using abstiact mathematical models. Vendors have found
ways to minimize the processing requirements of large models by using
place holders in the assembly model for each component and loading the
information about those components as needed. Hewlett-Packard's recently
introduced DirectModel software is one such example, a toolkit for creating
3-D graphics for technical applications built around the objective of
managing large 3-D models ffiat tjrpically have millions of polygons.
Companies are in the throes of re-engineering their business process to new
ways of doing business. The move to the new or modified way of doing
business, during the early stages of implementation, will still raise many
questions and be disruptive. But the payoff once the project is completed will
be worthwhile in terms of the efficiencies achieved in the process, cost
controls, and better quality of the fiiushed product.
CMEC-WW-DP-9805
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Physical prototjrpes w^ill still continue to be built and tested in order to
satisfy federal rules and regulations for safety and durability. Virtual
prototjrping is a way of making sure that the physical prototjrpe is correct the
first time around, so there are fewer costly repairs and reworks of the design
and tangible savings in time and money.
A by-product of this move to a digital definition of the design, assembly, and
manufacturing process, paperless cars, and systems on a chip, is the rising
interest in mechatronics, defined as the integration of mechanical and
electrical engineering disciplines.
As the process evolves and becomes more refined and sophisticated, systemlevel design automation will become the paradigm for bringing products to
market. The issue that remains to be seen is how quickly this process will be
adopted as the standard business model and how software tools will evolve
in response to user needs. An interesting trend to watch will be the
continuing consolidation in both the vendor domain and the user domain,
especially in the automotive industry.
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or
disclosvtre in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquesl incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, inc. AH rights reserved.
66882
Perspective
Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Worldwide
Market Analysis
A New Platform Takes Shape
Abstract: Windows NT-based mechanical CADlCAMlCAE applications have stirred up the
market over the last two years. This Perspective provides Dataquest's annual update on just
how far Windows NT-based applications have made it into the traditionally
UNIX-based
mechanical design market and our predictions of just how far they will go.
By Sharon Tan
What We Said Last Year...
Last year, Dataquest predicted that Windows NT-based mechardcal
C A D / C A M / C A E applications would continue to lay down a strong
foundation in the low-end and midrange mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E
market and would begin impacting the high-end market—^but not until 1998
at the earliest. We were partly right. Clearly, these applications have made
their mark on the low end and have really defined the meaning of midrange
mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E . However, their impact on the high end
became apparent last year, with sales of NT-based mechanical applications
growing 138 percent to reach nearly $700 million in 1997.
Although Dataquest believes that $700 million in sales is somewhat
overstated (we will begin to refine this number during our second round of
market share surveying this month), the fact remains that NT-based sales
have skyrocketed, grabbing market share at both ends of the spectrum.
Table 1 shows the percentage of Windows NT-based software sales by CAD
application for 1996 and 1997. It is important for readers to remember that
Dataquest's definition of NT-based CAD software includes only CAD
software that is deployed on a machine running the Windows NT-based
operating system and excludes Windows 95. Sales of Windows 95-based
Dataquest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
mmn...^.-., _
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9804
IMfORMATJOS RESOURCE CENTER
PubIlcatlon Date: April 24, 1998
DATAQUEST! NCORPORATED
Filing: Perspective
251 River Oaks Parkway
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Sottware and TechSftfil /IftflfetrfoAs iSM^A
408-468-8600
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
C A D software deployments are categorized in our "personal computer"
operating system (which includes DOS, Windows 3.x, and Macintosh
operating systems, among others). Market share for the NT-based
mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market is shown in Figure 1.
Table 1
1997 Windows NT-Based Sales in CAD Applications
1996 Windows NT-Based Software Sales 1997 Windows NT-Based Software Sales
(Percentage of Total Market)
(Percentage of Total Market)
Application
AEC
17.3
30.7
GIS
19.1
8.9
23.2
19.6
4.5
10.1
7J
17.9
Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE
EDA
All Applications
Source: Dataquest (April 1998)
Figure 1
1997 Market Share for NT-Based Mechanical CADfCAMlCAE
Matra Datavision (2%)
Software
-
ISO Software (2%)
S D R C (4%)
M I C R O C A D A M (6%)
CoCreate (6%)
W^
Source: Dataquest (April 1998)
Dataquest's Revised Forecast for NT-Based Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Dataquest's forecast for the mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market by
Operating system is shown in Figure 2. As stated earlier, we have upped our
forecast for NT-based sales over the next five years (somewhat at the expense
of UNIX-based sales). Also, we believe our 1997 number for NT-based sales
overrepresents the true NT-based sales for 1997, and we will revise this
number in an upcoming market share report.
CMEC-WW-DP-9804
©1998 Dataquest
April 24,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 2
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast b y Operating S y s t e m
Percentage of Software Revenue
100
m
m
m
n
Host
Personal
Computer
Windows NT
UNIX
40
20 -
1996
1998
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
Source: Dataquest (April 1998)
Based on Dataquest's current numbers, w e expect the market to comprise
about 50 percent UNIX-based software revenue and 40 percent NT-based
software revenue by the year 2002. Our forecast stands in contrast to the
current 1997 mecharucal C A D / C A M / C A E revenue numbers of 63 percent
UNIX-based revenue and nearly 20 percent NT-based revenue. In the next
few sections, we will explore from w^here we expect thus growth to come.
A Designer's Perspective
The speed at which NT-based software becomes a standard in mechanical
design depends on end-user purchases and interest. In early 1997, Dataquest
asked 198 North American mecharucal designers what their main CAD
operating system will be in 1999 and in 2001. According to end users, UNIX
will indeed cede some ground to Window^s NT in mechanical CAD; over the
next two years, 18 percent of users plan to move to the Windows NT
operating system, and by 2001, 28 percent expect NT to be their primary
mechanical CAD operating system. However, these overall numbers do not
give the whole picture. According to end users, NT will make its greatest
gains in electrical and electronic machinery and aerospace, and respondents
in automotive tend to be more guarded about their transition to NT.
User-cited reasons for moving or not moving to an NT-based mechanical
CAD solution are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. It is interesting to
note that NT-based CAD software features were prime reasons in both cases.
f
CMEC-WW-DP-9804
©1998 Dataquest
Apnl 24,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 3
Reasons to Move to NT
others (4%)
Potential to Combine
Business and Engineering
Applications on the Desktop
(15%)
Source: Dataquest (April 1998)
Figure 4
Reasons to Not Move to N T
others (2%)
Legacy Data Issues (4%) — Z ^ — T ^
System Maintenance
j-^
and Networking Issues y^
(9%)
/
\
\
\
\
\
I
/Corporate^v
\ \
/ Edict to
\ ^
W
/ I\/love to NT
\ ^ \ I
Satisfied with \ .
Current UNIX
\
Operating System
\
(19%)
}L
1
(10%)
W . . - " - - ^ T - B a s e d CAD
Availability ot
y^ \ ^
Software Features
\
NT-Based
y^
N^^ and Functionality
\CAD/CAH/I/CAE / /
X .
(•57%)
\ Applications^/
\
(11%l/
\
y^
Cost of
Cost of
\ ^
M
\ y ^
Changing
Changing
\ ^ F
\
Software
Hardware
Jr
N.
(14%)
(14%)
^ ^ ^
1
1
1
f
982133
f
Source: Dataquest (April 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9804
©1998 Dataquest
April 24,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
It is important to keep in mind that survey respondents identified UNIX as
their main CAD operating system today, so these results start from a base of
100 percent UNIX users, and that these responses are from end users and are
not a Dataquest forecast of mechanical CAD operating systems. Previous
end-user surveys have shown that users tend to be much more optimistic
about change in a survey than in reality. Dataquest expects actual movement
to NT within the base of UNIX users to be slower than the rate that users
predict. We still have yet to see these UNIX users actually standardize on an
NT CAD solution companywide in lieu of their UNIX solutions; instead, they
seem to be taking a "seat here, seat there" approach.
A Hardware Perspective
Dataquest still expects the mechanical applications market to remain
dominated by UNIX-based software sales in the near future, at least from a
revenue perspective, much as it is today. Nevertheless, it is important to
examine what is happening on the Windows NT hardware vendor front. In
the past 18 months, three of the top five established workstation vendors—
Digital Equipment Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, and IBM—have
released Intel and Window^s NT-based workstation product families along
with their UNIX-based systems. Other vendors, such as Intergraph and
NeTpower Inc., have adopted an exclusively Intel/Microsoft strategy. What's
more, new players have entered the market, most notably Compaq
Computer Corporation.
Since the introduction of Windows NT, some high-end PC configurations
have been sold into some mechanical applications traditionally considered to
be the domain of RISC/UNIX workstation vendors, blurring the boundaries
between the two market segments. The biggest threat to the strong foothold
of UNIX hardware vendors in mecharucal C A D / C A M / C A E is the
introduction of Intel's Pentium Pro. Here, Intel-based systems could compete
on equal footing with entry-level RISC systems, accelerating the penetration
of Windows NT into the UNIX-dominated workstation market. Nevertheless,
the mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market moves slowly, and toppling the
entrenched market leader for mechanical applications, UNIX, will be a long,
arduous process for any operating system.
Emergence of the Midrange Market
From a product standpoint, the midrange mechanical CAD market emerged
literally overnight with the introduction of the many IMT-based mechanical
design solutions. Generally, the NT-based packages available today offer
solid modeling capabilities, integration with downstream and upstream
design/manufacturing processes, and a midrange price point (about $4,000
to $7,500). This stands in contrast to their UNIX coimterparts, which
generally offer a higher level of functionality, integration, and, of course,
price.
There is no shortage of midrange mechanical design packages on the market
today, ranging from Autodesk's Mecharucal Desktop to Dassault Systemes'
CMEC-WW-DP-9804
©1998 Dataquest
April 24,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
SolidWorks to Matra Datavisions' Euclid products. Table 2 outlines some of
the key NT-based design packages available today, but it does not include
midrange analysis or CAM packages. The following sections identify the
issues facing expansion of the midrange market, which in turn will affect
growth of the NT-based mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market.
Table 2
NT-Based Offerings from Leading Mechanical C A D Vendors
Vendor
Midrange Offering
High-End Offering
Autodesk
Mechanical Desktop
NA
Bentley Systems
Cad.Lab
CoCreate
MicroStation Modeler
NA
Eureka Gold
SolidDesigner
Dassault Systemes
EDS Unigraphics
Matra Datavision
SolidWorks
NA
SolidDesigner
CATIA
Solid Edge, UG/Creator
EUCLID QUANTUM
UG
PRELUDE
MICROCADAM
Helix Design System
Parametric Technology
SDRC
Design Wave, FT/Modeler
I-DEAS Artisan Series
NA
Pro/ENGINEER
I-DEAS Master Series
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (April 1998)
Understanding the Two Tiers
At this time last year, the midrange market was too immature to define
clearly. Although the products were available, the end user w a s not well
defined. What will develop over the next year is a midrange market with two
distinct tiers. The first tier comprises those users who are looking to move
from 2-D design to 3-D design. This group may use one of the various
versions of AutoCAD and may be looldng to move u p to solid modeling for
some of its design work. The second tier consists of those users w h o are
looking to extend CAD into the enterprise. For instance, an automotive
company may use a full-blown UNIX-based system for its primary design
package and a midrange package (with a common solid modeling engine)
among its suppliers.
Selling mechanical CAD systems to the first tier is different from selling to
the second tier. The first tier, those users moving from 2-D to 3-D, is
characteristized by the following:
CMEC-WW-DP-9804
•
Do not have budgets for more expensive UNIX-based CAD systems
•
Do not have a lot of investment in historical, legacy data that would
make switching CAD systems something to be avoided
•
Have limited needs in analysis and CAM, at least today
•
Work in smaller groups or teams of designers
•
Rely on value-added resellers (VARs) and dealers for their CAD needs
and tiaining
©1998 Dataquest
April 24,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
In contrast, those in the second tier, w h o are looking to extend CAD further
into the enterprise, are characterized by the following:
•
Do not have budgets for more UNIX-based CAD systems but have
budgets that are larger than the first tier
•
Have investments in historical and legacy data that must be preserved
•
Are looking for seamless data transfer among CAD systems and
downstream and upstream applications
•
Purchase CAD systems via direct sales as part of a larger compan5rwide
CAD or information technology (IT) strategy
Clearly, among the midrange products mentioned earlier, some fit more
naturally among the first tier than the second tier. In particular, EDS
Urographies, Parametric Technology Corporation, and SDRC all offer
midrange and higher-end packages that are based on a common, proprietary,
solid modeling engine, making data transfer seamless, both upstieam and
downstream. On the other hand, Autodesk Inc. and Bentley Systems Inc. sell
midrange products today almost exclusively through the indirect charmel
and typically in smaller, five-to-10-seat deals.
For some of these vendors—namely, Dassault Systemes, EDS Unigraphics,
and Parametric—future product positioning will be interesting to watch.
Each of these vendors has an interesting mix of a UNIX-based solution, a
scaled-down UNIX/NT-based solution for enterprise midrange, and a native
NT-based midrange solution for the reseller market. Dataquest wonders just
how long this positioning will hold out. Over time, these midrange packages
will approach the functionality of their UNIX-based counterparts.
Indirect Channels, Qualified Dealers
Growth of the midrange mechanical CAD market, as well as any one
vendor's success in that market, will depend heavily on the distribution
channels and strength of the VARs. For years, mechanical VARs and dealers
have taken a back seat in the UNIX-dominated mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E
market that has relied heavily on direct sales. Given the number of midrange
mecharucal design packages being sold through dealers and VARs today,
software vendors undoubtedly have to work to attract and retain quaUfied
dealers. Nevertheless, CAD VARs are becoming more sophisticated, either
offering software products themselves (as Visionary Design Systems is
doing) or expanding their network through acquisition (a la Rand
Technologies). Meanwhile, mechanical CAD users will become more
sophisticated and demanding as well.
One thing is clear on the charmel front: UNIX-based vendors playing in the
midrange will need to define clearly what the direct salesforce can sell and
what VARs can sell. Alienating one at the expense of the other is a risky
proposal.
#
CMEC-WW-DP-9804
©1998 Dataquest
April 24,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Of Special Note: Microsoft's Latest Program
At the Workstation Leadership Forum in early March, Intel and Microsoft
armounced a Migration Assistance Program (MAP) to assist vvorkstation
ISVs in developing and optimizing their applications for the Microsoft
Windows NT operating system and the 32-bit Intel architecture/upcoming
64-bit Intel Merced processor. The MAP will provide direct support to
selected ISVs in various application segments, among them EDA and
mechanical design. To be considered for the program, ISVs must have
submitted an application before the end of March.
It is no secret that CAD ISVs have been busy porting their largely UNIXbased applications to the Windows NT operating system for at least three
years. Although NT-based CAD sales have taken off, it has largely been
through the efforts of independent software vendors (ISVs) taking a
leadership role here and not Microsoft. With the introduction of MAP, it
looks as though things might finally be changing. Dataquest wonders why a
program like this wasn't started a few years ago.
On a side note, it is unfortunate that Intergraph, one of the first CAD ISVs to
develop applications for the Windows NT operating system and a
worldwide leader in CAD software sales, was not part of the announcement.
Although the Intel/Intergraph lawsuit might have been part of that decision,
Intergraph really should have been at the party.
Dataquest Perspective: Where Are the Opportunities for Vendors?
Windows NT is emerging as a real platform for mechanical
C A D / C A M / C A E applications. Although there is room for both NT and
UNIX-based solutions, the uptake of NT-based applications will be strong
over the next five years. There are still many opportunities for software
vendors looking for a piece of this market. Vendors should keep the
following in mind:
•
The Windows NT landscape is nearly complete. Dassault Systemes will
release C-Next before the end of 1998, and most of the historically UNIXbased vendors now have at least one midrange/NT-based offering.
•
Some industries will be easier to penetiate than others. The aerospace
and automotive industries today comprise substantial UNIX-installed
bases, and this is not expected to change dramatically in the near future.
Here, vendors should view the opportunity as one in which UNIX and
NT-based systems will need to coexist.
•
Midrange CAD systems are ideally suited for those 2-D designers looking
to move into solid modeling. Pricing and resellers will be key to
penetrating this group of users.
9
CMEC-WW-DP-9804
©1998 Dataquest
April 24,1998
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
For More Information...
biquiry Hotline:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
| j O T J l / ^ | If^Cl"
^•^^.^
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
63596
#
1
Perspective
Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Worldwide
Channels Analysis
The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market by Channel
Abstract: The mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market is a rich amalgamation of mechanical
applications software sold through a number of different channels. This Perspective presents
several channel-dependent metrics used to rank mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
vendors.
By Sharon Tan
Introduction
Understanding revenue by channel is key to resolving market positioning
statements made by many of the leading CAD vendors. For instance,
comparing revenue between one company that sells primarily tlirough
direct sales with another that sells primarily through resellers distorts the
view of both actual market share and true market opportunity. Dataquest
has been tracking the CAD market by chaimel to help clarify the confusion
caused by extensive use of complex distribution channels throughout the
CAD world. This Perspective provides a quantitative analysis of which
vendors dominate the mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market, depending on
the distribution channel being considered.
The Metrics
In order to accurately represent the market, Dataquest reports revenue as it
accrues in the following ways:
• As direct software revenue for software sold through a direct salesforce
• As indirect software revenue for software sold indirectly via dealers and
Other resellers. Our definition of indirect revenue does not include
revenue from an OEM charmel.
DataQuest
#
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9803
Publication Date: April 6,1998
Filing: Perspective
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Sen/er Software and
ificnB'S'-'T'ni''
llihU
ICE CENTEB
'i*; f^^i:l' 1}^
'ICORPO
RATED
„ / ! ^^-^^" '*.
';5'S Rivsr Oaks Parkway
l^Mdfi^i&^nBMM)
408-468-8600
P
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• As software product revenue (the sum of direct and indirect sales for
products that a company owns)
• As reseller revenue for revenue earned as a reseller of another company's
products (for instance, Fujitsu's reselling of a number of CAD products
developed by other companies)
• As OEM revenue for revenue earned by supplying OEM software
products that are sold under another name by a separate company (for
instance, Autodesk's AutoCAD OEM version)
• As company software revenue for revenue a vendor earns from software
sales through all distribution channels (that is, the sum of direct, indirect,
reseller, and OEM software sales)
• As dealer revenue for revenue earned by a vendor's dealers for selling a
product. Dealer revenue is based on indirect revenue multiplied by a
dealer markup
• As end-user spending, which is the total amount of money actually spent
by end users for a company's products (that is, the sum of direct and
dealer revenue)
Figure 1 shows each of the revenue sources that contribute to the total
mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E software market. The left side of Figure 1 is
revenue that mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E vendors actually accrue in the
bank. Dataquest eliminates double-counting when calculating the total
market size by only summing revenue from the direct and indirect
charmels. We do not add in revenue from dealer and OEM sales in sizing
the total mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market.
However, a given company's individual market share is based on the sum
of software revenue from all channels—direct, indirect, reseller, and OEM.
This means that the sum of all companies' market shares will be somewhat
greater than 100 percent. We have chosen to slightly overstate a company's
market share in order to give representation in our market share statistics
for companies Uke Dassault Systemes, whose main source of revenue is via
the OEM channel.
The right side of Figure 1 is money that end users actually spend for
mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E software. The same methodology used for
vendor-accrued money is used to calculate end-user spending. The only
difference is that instead of using indirect revenue, we use dealer revenue.
Thus, the total market size for end-user spending is the sum of revenue
from the direct and dealer channel.
Dealer revenue is calculated from indirect revenue, and calculation of the
dealer markup coefficient varies by company, region, and platform. Dealer
revenue always exists for every vendor with indirect sales, and it is always
equal to or greater than indirect revenue. Again, a company's individual
end-user market share is based on the sum of direct, dealer, reseller, and
OEM revenue, so that the sum of all companies' end user market shares is
shghtly greater than 100 percent.
#
CMEC-WW-DP-9803
©1998 Dataquest
April 6,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woridwide
Figure 1
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Software Market by Channel, 1997 (Millions of Dollars)
Feictory Revenue
End-User Spending
Direct Software
Revenue: $2,447 Million
Direct Software
Revenue: $2,447 Million
indirect Software
Revenue: Si ,134 Million
Indirect Software
Revenue: S1,134 Million
Direct Software
Revenue: $2,447 Million
CHreci Software
Revenue: $2,447 Million
Dealer Software
Revenue: $2,346 Million
Dealer Software
Revenue: $2,346 Million
OEM Software
Revenue: $299 Million
Reseller Software
Revenue: $373 Million
•
Summed in Software
Factory Revenue
Market Size
MarIcet Size
Total = $3,581 Million
OEM Software
Revenue: $299 Million
Reseller Software
Revenue: $373 Million
4'
•
Reponed in Software
Fachsry Revenue
Market Size
Market Size
Total = $3,581 Million
I'
Summed in End-User
Spending Market Size
Reported in End-User
Spending Market Share
Market Size
Total = $4,793 Million
Market Size
Total = $4,793 Million
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
Who Is the Market Leader in Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE?
Table 1 outlines the market position in software for the top mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE companies. Although the 1997 mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE market is sized at about $3,581 million, users actually spent 1.34 times
more on mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software, once dealer markups are
taken into consideration.
Autodesk and IBM are good examples of companies whose market position
is dependent on the channel metrics being considered. For instance,
Autodesk relies almost exclusively on the dealer channel, whereas many of
the other mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE players sell primarily via a direct
salesforce. Autodesk rarvks as the No. 4 vendor with 6.1 percent market
share when company software revenue is considered, but it jumps up to the
No. 3 spot with 9.4 percent market share when end-user spending is
CMEC-WW-DP-9803
©1998 Dataquest
April 6,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
calculated (see Tables 2 and 3). From this perspective, it is easy to see how
Autodesk can command more mind share in the mechanical market than its
company software revenue would lead one to believe.
•
IBM, too, fluctuates in the rankings depending on the measurement metric
employed. IBM receives revenue credit for selling a number of products,
including direct revenue for selling Dassault Systemes' CATIA and reseller
revenue for selling MicroCADAM. Although IBM holds bragging rights for
the No. 1 ranking in both company software revenue and end-user spending, it drops to the No. 2 spot (and is replaced by Parametric Technology) in
software product revenue (see Table 4). In the software product revenue
scenario, IBM no longer gets revenue credit for reselling MicroCADAM, so
its revenue drop accordingly.
Similar comparisons in market rankings can be made for the other vendors.
For instance, Dassault Systemes appears among the top five companies in
both company software revenue and end-user spending. However, because
it sells very little of its software directly and most of it goes through the
OEM channel (and is sold directly by IBM), Dassault Systemes will not
appear in any top 10 ranking based on software product revenue (sum of
direct and indirect revenue) alone.
Table 1
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Leaders by Channel (Millions of Dollars)
End-User
Spending
Company
Software
Revenue
Direct
Software
Revenue
Indirect
Software
Revenue
OEM
Software
Revenue
IBM
656
656
583
NA
NA
Parametric Technology
648
606
569
36
NA
NA
Autodesk
451
218
23
193
2
NA
426
2
Dassault Systemes
291
291
20
NA
271
NA
NA
45
EDS Unigraphics
275
208
138
70
NA
NA
137
37
SDRC
243
171
112
59
NA
NA
131
181
MicroCADAM
226
157
8
149
NA
NA
218
NA
Hitachi
149
69
24
45
NA
NA
125
23
CoCreate
131
99
20
79
NA
NA
111
37
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
127
127
NA
NA
NA
127
NA
NA
MacNeal-Schwendler
126
99
75
24
NA
NA
51
29
Matra Datavision
125
85
56
29
NA
NA
68
14
Fujitsu
122
104
95
9
NA
NA
27
135
Computervision
93
67
45
22
NA
NA
48
79
NEC
89
71
63
8
NA
NA
26
NA
4,793
3,579
2,447
1,134
299
373
2,346
1472
.All Companies
Reseller
Dealer
Software Software Software
Revenue Revenue
Service
NA
73
281
79
242
NA = Not applicable
Source: Oataquest (March 1998)
#
CMEC-WW-DP-9803
©ig98Dataquest
April 6,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAMlCAE Market Share Based on Company Software Revenue
Ranlc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1997
Revenue ($M)
1996-1997
Growth (%)
Market
Share (%)
580
656
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
606
291
218
13.2
22.4
18.3
495
244
176
EDS Unigraphics
SDRC
MicroCADAM
161
164
208
171
152
117
157
127
107
87
3,284
Company
Name
IBM
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
Fujitsu
CoCreate
All Companies
1996
Revenue ($M)
23.6
28.8
16.9
8.1
6.1
5.8
3.9
3.1
4.8
4.4
104
8.5
-2.7
3.6
2.9
99
3,579
14.4
9.0
2.8
100.0
19.2
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
Table 3
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Based on Software End-User Spending
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Company
Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
1996
Revenue ($M)
580
Autodesk
556
366
Dassault Systemes
EDS Unigraphics
244
184
SDRC
MicroCADAM
Hitachi
256
CoCreate
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
All Companies
220
T7
116
117
4,378
1997
Revenue ($M)
656
648
451
291
275
243
226
149
131
127
4,793
1996-1997
Growth (%)
13.2
Market
Share (%)
13.7
16.5
23.2
13.5
9.4
19.2
6.1
5.7
49.0
-5.4
2.7
93.5
12.6
8.5
9.5
5.1
4.7
3.1
2.7
2.7
100.0
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-DP-9803
©1998 Dataquest
Aprils, 1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE WoMdwide
Table 4
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Based on Software Product Revenue
Rank
Company
Name
1
Parametric Technology
2
IBM
Autodesk
3
4
EDS Unigraphics
1996
Revenue ($M)
495
1997
Revenue ($M)
1996-1997
Growth (%)
606
22.4
486
175
583
216
20.1
208
5
SDRC
161
164
6
7
MicroCADAM
Fujitsu
152
77
8
9
10
CoCreate
MacNeal-Schwendler
Matra Datavision
All Companies
87
23.6
28.8
171
157
3.9
104
35.6
14.4
109
99
99
92
3,284
85
3,579
3.1
-9.0
-7.1
9.0
Market
Share (%)
16.9
16.3
6.0
5.8
4.8
4.4
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.4
100.0
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
Dataquest Perspective
Dataquest has outlined a number of different reporting schemes in this
Perspective, each of which is a sound way of looking at the mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE market. We have been careful not to double-cotmt the
worldwide mechanical market opportunity of $3,581 billion in 1997 software. Although one may argue that overstatmg a vendor's market share (in
those cases where market share is based on revenue from aU distribution
charmels and market size is based on the sum of direct and indirect
revenue) is misleading, we beheve that our methodology is preferable
because it allows aU vendors to be represented. Without such a reporting
scheme, companies Uke Dassault Systemes and Fujitsu would not appear
among the top 10 in our statistics, when clearly these companies are
important to xmderstanding the d5niamics in the mechanical market.
As the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market evolves, the indirect and
dealer channels will become more important, particularly with the
emergence of the so-called "midrange" market. Indirect software revenue
grew slightly faster than direct software revenue in 1997 (10.4 percent
versus 8.4 percent, respectively).
Indeed, leadership in the worldwide mechaniCcd CAD/CAM/CAE market
is dependent on what metiics are being used to rank the vendors. It is not
realistic to reduce market leadership in CAD to a single data point.
Understanding how revenue is accrued from the end user to the vendor is
important to imderstanding the complexities of the mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE market.
CMEC-WW-DP-9803
©1998 Dataquest
April 6,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
For More Information...
hiquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
-1-1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of iivformation 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. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest
©1998 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
60946
Perspective
Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Worldv^ride
Market Analysis
CAD Chugs Along
Abstract: Worldwide CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC/GIS, and EDA markets chugged along in 1997,
according to preliminary market statistics from Dataquest. Growth slowed down in all
markets. GIS grew at 12.8 percent, AEC at 4.6 percent, mechanical CAD at 9.8 percent, and
EDA at 16.2 percent. Asia/Pacific showed the fastest rate of growth, followed by North
America. IBM retained its leadership in the market, and Parametric Technology
Corporation
placed second. This Perspective presents preliminary 1997 market data for the
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC/GIS, and EDA markets by application, region, and vendor.
By Laurie Balch, Emma Gage, Petra Gartzen, Daya Nadamuni, Gary Smith, Sharon Tan, and
Jim Tully
Slower but Steady Growth
Presented here is the first cut of Dataquest's market data for the worldwide
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC/GIS, and EDA markets. Preliminary estimates show
these industries chugged along at a steady pace, but growth slowed down
from the rate set in 1996. Worldwide, the software market grewr 11.2 percent
for the year, and the size of the market was U.S.$7.8 billion.
Growth by Application
Table 1 shows the preliminary estimates by application. Markets continued
to show patterns of growth by application similar to that seen in 1996, except
for the AEC market, which grew at 4.6 percent—a reversal from the negative
growth rate posted last year.
The GIS market, which grew well at a rate of 15.4 percent in 1996, slowed
down to 12.8 percent. EDA and mechanical CAD/C/yvl/CAE continued to
show double-digit growth rates, though again the growth rate was slower
than the rates achieved in 1996. Electronic CAE grew at 16.0 percent as
Dataquest
iNfORMAllUH »tt>t)UHCE CENun
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
DATAQUEST I N C O R P O R A l t U
Product Code: CMEC-ww-DP-9802
251 Rivei Oaks Parkway
Publicalion Date: February 23,1998
San Jose. CA 9 5 1 3 4
Filing: Perspective
408-468-8600
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Software and Technical Applications binder)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
compared with 22.4 percent in 1996, and IC layout grew at 26.6 percent. The
PCB market grew at 1.5 percent as compared with 8.9 percent for 1996.
The trend toward consolidation in some of the markets that was noted in
1996 continued in 1997, especially in mecharucal CAD/CAM/CAE and EDA.
Some of the significant mergers that occurred in 1997 were Dassault
Systemes' merger with SolidWorks and Deneb Robotics, Parametric
Technology Corporation's merger with Computervision, and S5mopsys'
merger with Viewlogic Corporation.
Also noteworthy is the continuing strength of the U.S. dollar against the
Japanese yen and the European Community Unit (ECU), affecting growth in
the Japanese and European markets, respectively. Growth in local currency
terms would have been slightly higher for these regions. For the Japanese
market, the exchange rate at the end of 1997 was ¥119.9 to the U.S. dollar
compared with ¥108.8 at the end of 1996. The exchange rate for the ECU was
at ECU 0.89 at the end of 1997 as compared with ECU 0.80 at the end of 1996.
Table 1
Growth Rates by Application (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Mechanical
AEG
GlS/Mapping
Electronic CAE
IC Layout
1996 Software Revenue
1997 Software Revenue
1996-1997 Growth (%)
3,303
925
3,627
9.8
4.6
927
1,172
1,046
433
PCB/MCM/Hybrid
EDA
295
1,900
7,056
All Applications
968
1,360
548
299
2,207
7,848
12.8
16.0
26.6
1.5
16.2
11.2
Note: Numbers presented in the table are Dataquest's best estimates as of the time of publication.
Source: Dataquesl (February 1998)
Growth by Region
Table 2 shows Dataquest's preliminciry estimates for growth by region. In
terms of software revenue, Asia/Pacific, which accounts for about 7 percent
of the software revenue for aU applications, grew at 16.0 percent, while
North America grew at 14.0 percent. Europe grew at about 9.1 percent, and
the Rest of the World, which includes Africa and Latin America, grew at 13.3
percent.
The European Monetary Union (EMU) planned for 1999 has depressed gross
domestic product (GDP) growth in Europe, increasing consumer uncertainty.
The immediate result of countries attempting to meet convergence criteria is
a restriction on their ability to grow and develop their econorrues according
to national customs. Some of the visible S5rmptoms of convergence are
restrained corporate investment and professional spending and suppression
of goverrunent/public sector spending.
CMEC-WW-DP-9802
©1998 Dataquest
February 23,1998
I
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2
Growth of All Applications by Region (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
1996 Software Revenue
1997 Software Revenue
1996-1997 Growth (%)
North America
2,514
2,866
Europe
Japan
2,199
14.0
9.1
1,748
2,398
1,897
469
127
544
144
7,056
7,848
Region
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
Worldwide
8.5
16.0
13.3
11.2
Note: Numbers presented In the table are Dataquest's best estimates at the time of publication
Source: Dataquest (February 1998)
Growth by Vendor
The top 10 vendors with the most market share are shown in Table 3. The
table includes companies that resell products from other vendors as well as
their own products (primarily Japanese companies) and companies that
resell to other vendors, such as Dassault Systemes. Dataquest believes this
reporting more accurately reflects the activity of all the vendors in the
market.
The market share is calculated based on the company software revenue,
which is the sum of direct, indirect, OEM, and reseller channel revenue.
Market size is based on the sum of direct and indirect market revenue. We
have made this distinction between market share and market size in order to
avoid double-counting the market while showing the activity of all vendors
in the market.
It is important to remember that the sum of the individual software vendor
revenue and market share could be greater than the overall market size. On
an inquiry basis, Dataquest can always produce market share data that
excludes OEM revenue or reports only OEM revenue.
On February 10, Dataquest froze its CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC/GIS, and EDA
database. Begiruung immediately, market statistics for 1997 wUl be available
to our clients through our inquiry service. Inquiries for market statistics
should be directed to Dataquest Industry Analyst Daya Nadamuru at (408)
468-8290 or at [email protected]
Dataquest expects to ship our market statistics books to cUents in March. For
those who wish to store an entire book of our statistics on desktops,
Dataquest can send any volume via the Internet as an attached spreadsheet.
We send out statistics in the form of Microsoft Excel worksheets.
CMEC-WW-DP-9802
©1998 Dataquest
February 23,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 3
T o p 10 CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC/GIS, and EDA Companies Worldwide Software Revenue
(Millions of U.S. Dollars)
1996
1997
1996-1997 Growth (%) 1997 Market Share (%)
IBM
619
697
12.7
8.9
Parametric Technology
495
606
22.4
7.7
Autodesk
510
606
18.8
7.7
Cadence
422
530
25.6
6.7
Synopsys
367
474
29.1
6.0
Intergraph
385
427
10.9
5.4
Dassault Systemes
249
296
19.3
3.8
ESRI
185
223
20.5
2.8
Mentor Graphics
208
220
5.8
2.8
EDS Unigraphics
161
208
28.8
2.6
11.2
100.0
7,056
All Companies
7,848
Note: Nunnbers presented in the table are Dataquest's best estimates at the time of publication.
Source: Dataquest (February 1998)
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline:
Via e-mail:
Via fax:
Dataquest Interactive:
I>ataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the
public or released by responsible individuals in the suljject companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
58592
•
Perspective
k
Mechanical C A D / C A M l C A E Worldwide
Market Analysis
Component Information Systems—Who's Playing?
Abstract: in this Perspective, Dataquest takes a look at component information systems
(CIS) - including Dataquest's definition of CIS, who the players are, and outlook for the
future of CIS.
By Sharon Tan
Dataquest's Definition of CIS
Component irvformation systems (CIS) is a unique application within CAD
that straddles both mecharucal, electronic, and architectural/construction
design. CIS has also been referred to as CSM, or component supplier
management. Dataquest uses the term CIS as opposed to CSM because we
believe that the products and services today are not focused exclusively on
supplier management. CIS is a broader term that enables us to include
vendors that offer content (that is, CD-ROM titles of manufacturers' parts)
software (that is, search engines and tools that enable searches using an inhouse or external database of parts), a n d / o r services. In some cases, vendors
provide all three parts, creating intricate, enterprisewide systems that have
links to things such as product data management systems, purchasing
systems, and accounting systems.
Currently, Dataquest sizes the CIS market within the mechanical
C A D / C A M / C A E space. As a result, most of the CIS vendors we currently
track are focused o n users in discrete manufacturing industries. Our current
vendor coverage includes CADIS Inc. (which was purchased by Aspect
Development Inc. in late 1997) and Autodesk Inc. If Dataquest were to
include CIS vendors geared toward electronic design, the market would
expand to include all of Aspect Development's products and Information
DataQuest
#
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Applications Worldwide
INFORMATION RESOURCE CEN1ER
Product Code: CMEC-WW-DP-9801
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
Publication Date: February 2,1998
251 River Oaks Parkway
Filing: Perspective
K95J3,4
(For Cross-Technology, file in the Client/Server Software and Tec
binder)
ilA
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
^
Handling Services (IHS) products. Including architectural/construction
vendors would add The Sweet's Group and other Autodesk products.
This Perspective covers vendors that supply either content or software to
engineers and designers, regardless of whether they are focused on
mechanical designers, architects and construction engineers, or, to some
extent, electronic designers.
CIS players today differentiate themselves along a number of different lines,
including the following:
•
Mechanical, materials, or electrical components emphasis
•
Interfaces to product data management (PDM), CAD, or MRP systems,
or purchasing and accounting systems
•
Delivery vehicle—Web/Internet/intranet or CD-ROM
•
Search/retrieval methodologies
Business differentiators include the following: a focus on building
customized solutions and in-house CIS systems or providing off-the-shelf
solutions; legacy data conversion projects; and armual subscription-based
services or "pay-as-you-use" services. Vendors are coming out with new
revenue models for their CIS businesses, which Dataquest briefly explores
later in this Perspective.
Who Needs CIS?
Studies have shown that engineers and designers can spend anjrwhere from
5 percent to 25 percent of their time identifying the right part for their design
and redrawing it. What used to be a paper-intensive process is slowly
becoming automated. CIS users, similar to PDM users, fall into two groups:
those in smaller engineering workgroups who might use primarily contentoriented CIS products, and those who are part of a larger, enterprisewide
orgaruzation that might have a CIS system complete with external and
internal parts information, purchasing information, PDM links, supplier tieins, and CAD integration. Dataquest has found that those in AEC tend to
focus more on content-based CIS solutions and those in mechanical design
are interested in both content-based as well as full-blown CIS solutions.
Of course, pricing plays a large role in who buys what. Most content-based
CIS solutions are delivered on CD-ROM (or, more recently, the Internet) and
are priced well under U.S.$500, if not free. Such pricing fits within the tj^ical
AEC user's budget, where an AEC CAD seat might sell for U.S.$3,500 or less.
In contrast, full-blown CIS systems can cost U.S.$100,000 to implement,
which is much more palatable to UNIX-based mechanical users w h o will pay
upwards of U.S.$20,000 per CAD seat.
•
CMEC-WW-DP-9801
©1998 Dataquest
February 2,1998
•
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Major CIS Players
This section briefly discusses key CIS players and their product offerings.
The list here is not meant to be comprehensive. The companies identified in
this section are those that Dataquest considers to be the major or up-andcoming players in this market. We have included both content and
software/service providers.
Aspect Development
Aspect Development is the largest player in the CIS market, given its recent
merger with CADIS in November 1997. Both Aspect's and CADIS' products
are discussed here first, followed by merger issues.
Aspect Development has three main CIS products: Aspect Explore, an
enterprisewide CIS system; Aspect VIP (Very Important Parts reference
databases of mostly electrical components); and AspectOnline, a scaleddown. Web-based version of Aspect Explore. Although Aspect may appear
to cater primarily to electronic designers. Aspect VIP does contain some
electromechanical and mechanical components.
Aspect was one of the pioneers of what Dataquest considers to be the CIS
market today. In addition to providing the software products just
mentioned. Aspect provides services to convert in-house, legacy CIS systems
to be compatible with Aspect Explore, and it has pursued links with PDM
and enterprise resource plaruiing (ERP) vendors. It also has spent time
selling to both engineering and purchasing, and it has carved out a niche for
itself within the organization. What used to be CAD and PDM is now CAD
and PDM and CIS.
CADIS, too, is an early pioneer in CIS. Its two main products are CADISPMX, its enterprisewide CIS solution, and Krakatoa Web Catalog Publisher,
a technology that allows for interactive access to catalog data over the Web.
Sinular to Aspect Explore, the CADIS-PMX solution includes search
software, legacy data conversion services, and implementation services. The
Krakatoa technology has been used to pursue a ntunber of different
partnerships, including one with IHS, where CADIS provides the web search
technology, Krakatoa, and the partner provides the content.
In November, Aspect Development armounced a merger agreement under
which it will acquire CADIS. Under the agreement. Aspect wiU continue
development, maintenance, and support of CADIS software products and
services in addition to its own VIP product line and Explore. However, only
Aspect's Explore wiU be sold to new customers.
The merger is indeed an urdikely one, but it does create one giant among a
handful of smaller players. What were once two fierce competitors have now
become one company. Although Aspect historically played on the electronic
parts side of CIS and CADIS catered to the mecharucal side, the two
comparues were competitors because often the customer did both—that is,
the customer designed discretely manufactured products involving both
electrical and mechanical components.
CMEC-WW-DP-9801
©1998 Dataquest
February 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Nevertheless, Dataquest suspects that Aspect has a keen interest in CADIS'
customer base and, more importantly, its Krakatoa technology. A product
involving Krakatoa as the underl5ang engine and Aspect's content databases
would create some serious competition to existing products. Of course, this
may indeed jeopardize the numerous relationships with content providers
that CADIS has already established.
Information Handling Services
IHS has been in the information business for quite some time, originally
offering microfiche-based catalogs of military specifications, manufacturers'
catalogs, government parts, and electronic components on an annual
subscription basis. Although the company is focused mostly on the
electronic design world, it is worth mentioning here because of its ability to
provide content to engineers. With an earnest effort in marketing and the
appropriate partnerships, IHS could easily cater to AEC or mechanical
designers.
IHS' most recent strategy has been to pursue links between its numerous
databases and key electronic design automation (EDA) CAD vendors. On
the electronic design front, IHS has forged with the likes of Mentor Graphics
Corporation, Viewlogic Systems Inc., and Cadence Design Systems Inc. to
integrate its databases with EDA CAD tools. Of particular interest to these
EDA CAD vendors is IHS' main CIS database, CAPSXpert, a semiconductor
database. Although CADIS used to resell CAPSXpert, its merger with Aspect
has ended that resale agreement.
IHS is also expanding its ability to deliver its databases of information to
users. In March 1997, IHS introduced the IHS Engineering Resource Center,
a Web site that allows users to access many of the IHS databases (including
CAPSXpert, part vendor catalog databases, and federal supply parts
databases) via the Internet. This service was the result of a joint development
effort combining CADIS' Krakatoa technology as the search engine witii IHS'
various databases of component information. Users pay for access to the
information on an aruiual subscription basis. As Dataquest stated earlier, the
nature of the relationship between CADIS and IHS remains unclear at this
time, given Aspect's merger with CADIS.
InPart
InPart is the newest player on the CIS scene, having just unveiled its
DesignSuite product this month. The company describes itself as "an
Intemet-based technical publisher serving the mechanical engineering
market."
Instead of developing customized, in-house CIS systems that reside at the
customer site, InPart is taking a slightly different approach on many fronts.
It maintains a parts Ubrary on its own servers, which the engineer accesses
via the Internet. (Although the database of parts resides at InPart, the
application software resides locally on the user's desktop.) The parts library
consists of 3-D CAD models of (mostiy) mechanical parts from various
manufacturers. What is also different about InPart's DesignSuite is that these
3-D models are delivered in standard file formats (like IGES) and in
CMEC-WW-DP-9801
©1998 Dataquest
February 2,1998
•
I
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Parametric Technology Corporation's Pro/ENGINEER format. InPart can
also customize each model according to a company's design standards in
real time, so that a model conforms to a user's internal CAD standards.
InPart's system architecture and vendor relationships allow^ the company to
create models for delivery over the Internet in real time, ensuring that
engineers have the most up-to-date information from a specific
manufacturer.
InPart's revenue model is split between revenue generated from both end
users and parts suppliers, a structure tj^ically seen with many CIS vendors.
As part of InPart's end-user revenue stream, the company plans to
implement a model fee based on a pay-as-you-download basis.
Autodesk
Autodesk, one of the leading worldwide CAD software players, is a content
player in the world of CIS. Autodesk has a business urdt dedicated
specifically to its content solutions, called Autodesk Data Publishing. Three
main CD-ROM titles form Autodesk's Data Publishing arm today: PartSpec,
aimed at mechanical designers; PlantSpec, aimed at plant designers; and
DesignBlocks, aimed at architects and construction engineers.
In November 1997, Thomas Publishing Company and Autodesk aruiounced
an agreement in which Thomas acquired the rights to produce and publish
CD-ROM and Internet-based libraries developed by Autodesk's Data
Publishing business unit. Thomas also received a nonexclusive license to the
underlying technology. PartSpec and PlantSpec are affected by this
agreement, both of which wiU be offered free of charge by Thomas to buyers
of Mechanical Desktop or AutoCAD Release 14. Autodesk and Thomas will
work to ensure that future releases of both companies' products are
compatible. Thomas will also be releasing a new title covering Construction
Specifications Institute (CSI) Divisions 15 and 16.
This arrangement makes sense for both parties. Rather than having to
cultivate each manufacturer relationship one at a time, as it has had to do in
the past, Autodesk instantaneously expands the number of manufacturers
represented in PartSpec and PlantSpec with its alhance with Thomas.
Moreover, Thomas is better able to make new manufacturer relationships,
given Autodesk's clout in the CAD market.
DesignBlocks, released in early 1997, is the result of a partnership between
Autodesk and The Sweet's Group. DesignBlocks contains predrawn blocks
in Autodesk's DWG format covering several CSI divisions. It also allows the
user to access manufacturers' Web pages from within DesignBlocks. Despite
the fact that Thomas plans to release a CD-ROM title with some potential
overlap with DesignBlocks, Autodesk has stated that both products will
continue to be developed in the future, as the two products will be slightiy
different in their capabilities and offerings.
CMEC-WW-DP-9801
©1998 Dataquest
February 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
CenTOR
CenTOR Software Corporation offers both content, software, and services as
part of its CIS solution. The software product is called CenWARE Docuristics
Software System for creating and searching for product data in CenTOR's
own HMORF format. HMORF, which stands for "h5^ermedia optiiruzed
retrieval format," is what CenTOR describes as an extension to HTML that
allows for full text retrieval within a relational database.
CenTOR's content product, called CenBASE/Materials, is available on CDROM or through the Web. This product also formed the basis for Autodesk's
MaterialSpec, which has now been rolled into PartSpec, as discussed earlier.
CenTOR has also had OEM deals with mechanical software vendors The
MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, Structural Research and Analysis
Corporation, and Structural Dynamics Research Corporation for selling part
or all of the CenBASE materials database.
The Sweet's Group
Although there are several vendors in the AEC space that produce electronic
catalogs (usually on CD-ROM) of various biulding manufacturers' parts, few
are as well known as The Sweet's Group. The Sweet's Group caters primarily
to the construction industry, with CD-ROM-based and online searchable
catalogs of information for products used in the constiuction industry, such
as masoru-y, wood, and windows. Data is searchable by a number of
parameters, including the CSI16 division format. Aside from the searching
capablHties, the online database reads much Uke a paper catalog, with
contact information and product information for each entry. The Sweet's
Group was also closely involved with Autodesk's DesignBlocks product, as
described earlier.
The EDA World
Dataquest has mentioned a few products that are targeted toward electrical
engineers and designers. The EDA world also has Questlink Technology's
EE Design Center, rrhe Questlink EE Design Center includes current
technical information such as data sheets, application notes, frequently asked
questions (FAQs), design and support tools, and reference designs for
analog and logic circuits. It is free of charge to users, vendor-sponsored, and
primarily intended to help engineers research and select integrated circuits
for product and system design. Different from any mechanical-oriented CIS
systems, the QuestLink EE Design Center includes application notes to show
how Others have used a given part. Data sheets are cross-referenced to allow
engmeers to look up statistical and descriptive materials comparing different
components.
Dataquest Perspective
CIS is clearly still in its infancy. Forecasting growth in a market that is
currently sized approximately $50 million in software is not that
meaningful—the CIS market will post healthy growth during the next five
years, and the barriers to entry are not up yet.
CMEC-WW-DP-9801
©1998 Dataquest
February 2,1998
i
i
,
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
\
Players have been entering the market from a content perspective and a
software/service perspective. On the content side of CIS—CD-ROM titles of
manufacturers' catalog information—the value of the information to the
engineer is limited. Just how much is it worth to an engineer if he/she
selects a part but still has to go through the process of redrawing the part?
Here, pricing of the CD-ROM (or whatever the delivery mechanism might
be) has to be low enough (or even free) for engineers to buy the content.
Revenue to vendors offering content will have to come from the
manufacturers' side, who pay to essentially get free advertising of their
products on the CD-ROM.
For enterprise-level CIS, there is still plenty of room for new products and
new^ players. Products will have to add real value to the user—a CD-ROM of
manufacturers' catalog pages may not be the answer here. Otherwise, CIS
vendors will find it to be an even harder sell against the PDM and MRP
budgets for which they are already competing. Thus far, Aspect
Development and CADIS are the only two companies that have been
successful with enterprisewide deployments. InPart's business model of a
completely Internet-based architecture will be an interesting one to watch
during the next few^ years.
CMEC-WW-DP-9801
©1998 Dataquest
February 2,1998
i
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
For More Information...
Sharon Tan, Senior Industry Analyst
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
W ' " \ j l T O / ^ | If^C'T
^"^i»_
A Gartner Group Company
(408) 468-8132
[email protected]
(408)954-1780
http://wwv^.dataquest.com
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or
disclosure in whole or in part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest—Reproduction Prohibited
,
(
DataQuest
Growth Prospects in a Mature Marlcet
Market Trends
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAMfCAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MT-9801
Publication Date: September 28,1998
Filing: Market Trends
INFORf/lATION HtaUUitCE CENTER
OATAQUEST mCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-463-8600
Growth Prospects in a Mature Market
Market Trends
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAMfCAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MT-9801
Publication Date: September 28,1998
Filing: Market Trends
Growth Prospects in a Mature Market
Table of Contents
^.^^^^^.^-^^^^^^^^
1. Executive Summary
Study Objectives
Key Findings and Highlights
Dataquest Perspective
Report Description
2. Market Research Methodology and Market Definitions
Data Collection Process
Supply-Side Data
Demand-Side Data
Market Segmentation
Regions
Operating Systems
Distribution Channels
Mechanical Subapplications
3. The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Today
Performance of the Market Leaders
Regional Differences
Charuiel Differences
Growth by Industry
The Hardware Playing Field
4. Market Drivers
The Market Leaders Tomorrow
Emergence of the Midrange
Understanding the Two Tiers
Indirect Charmels; Qualified Dealers
Prognosis for Europe
Economic Turmoil in Asia/Pactfic and Japan
System-Level Design
The Promise of Objects—If and When
The Confusion about Object Technology
Vendor Offerings Still Not Meeting User Needs
Role of Java
Virtual Prototj^ing
Market Evolution: Engineering Modeling for the Enterprise
Central Repositories for Engineering Information
Capturing Design Know-How and Bringing It
to the Enterprise
5. Mechanical Market by Subapplication
Computer-Aided Design
Design Applications
Drafting and Documentation
Computer-Aided Engineering
Analysis
Linkage/Mechanism
Computer-Aided Manufacturing
Manufacturing Process Simulation
Other Manufacturing Applications
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
7
11
11
12
12
15
16
19
19
21
21
22
22
23
24
24
24
25
26
26
27
27
28
29
29
29
32
33
33
34
34
34
36
September 28,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table of Contents (Continued)
Other Tools
Product Data Management
Component Information Systems
Application Development Environments
Knowledge-Based Engineering
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
37
37
38
39
40
September 28,1998
Growth Prospects in a Mature Market
List of Figures
Figure
Page
2-1 1997 Software Revenue by Distribution Channel, Mechanical
7
2-2 Mechanical Subapplications
9
3-1 Historical Software Performance by Vendor
13
3-2 1997 Market Share, Software and Software Services Combined
14
3-3 1997 Mechanical Market Share by Industry
16
3-4 UNIX Mechanical Hardware Vendor Performance
17
4-1 Mecharucal Applications Software Forecast by Region
19
4-2 Mechanical Applications Software Forecast by
Operating System
20
5-1 Mechcuiical Subapplications
30
5-2 1997 Design Applications Market Share
31
5-3 1997 Drafting and Documentation Market Share
32
5-4 1997 Analysis Market Share
34
5-5 1997 Numerical Control Market Share
35
5-6 1997 Product Data Management Market Share
38
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Iv
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
List of Tables
Table
3-1 Mechanical Market Performance by Region
3-2 1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Leaders
by Channel
5-1 Mechanical Subapplicatlons—Market Size and Forecast
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
14
15
31
September 28,1998
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
^.^^^^^^^^^^.^^^^^
study Objectives
Each year, Dataquest takes a comprehensive look at trends and drivers in
the mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market. Our armual Market Trends
report provides both a quantitative and qualitative look at the state of the
mechanical market today and how it will evolve over the next five years.
The information presented in this report is based on our ongoing research
into mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E .
Key Findings and Higliliglits
The following are key findings and highlights of this report:
• Following two years of high, double-digit growth, the mechanical
C A D / C A M / C A E software market hit a low of 6 percent growth in
1997. Vendor performance was all over the board, ranging from over
20 percent software growth to more than 50 percent decline in software
sales. While North America showed under 4 percent growth, more
robust growth in Europe and Japan is partly because of exchange rate
differences and partly because of actual CAD investment.
• User investment is heavily concentrated in the automotive and aerospace industries, as these industries continue to hold over 32 percent of
the worldwide mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E software market.
• The markets to wluch CAD caters are quite mature, leaving little opportunity for real vendor growth. Market share is to be gained only by consolidation, niche market specialization, or a fundamental change in the
way CAD technology is used. Given the consolidation that occurred in
1997, we expect the big companies to be part of a fierce competitive
environment over the next few years.
• The midrange market continues to take shape, attracting users migrating from 2-D to 3-D as well as making headway into extending the
enterprise.
• Similar to what we saw last year, the promise of objects and objectoriented technology in CAD continues to be just that: a promise. To
date, the object-based architectures and solutions being offered by vendors in the CAD world stiU do not solve the ever-important user concerns of proprietary data models, data exchange, and interoperability.
• Virtual prototyping is becoming a reality, where it can enhance, but not
replace, current design methodologies and physical prototypes. Eventually, virtual prototyping will be able to do everything that physical
mockups can do. But, it will take some time for all of the tools to be
developed and for the technology to win over the confidence of the
engineers and designers.
• What was called concurrent engineering in the 1980s evolved to collaborative engineering in the 1990s and has now evolved into "engineering
modeUng for the enterprise," or EEM. The enterprise is key to this market—design information can no longer stay behind the engineering
walls. This will be an interesting area to watch evolve.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
1
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
While design and drafting applications are still the mainstay of the
mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market, we expect to see healthy growth
in the more nontraditional areas such as linkage/mechanism, off-line
robotics, and component information systems.
Dataquest Perspective
After enjoying two years of high, double-digit growth, the mechanical
applications market is facing market maturity. Recent consolidations in
the market will make it tough for new vendors to topple the big players.
We expect a fierce competitive environment to dominate the landscape
over the next few years, while smaller players look to niche markets for
growth. Nevertheless, mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE technology has
proved its value to discrete manufacturing companies, and there are many
technological advances that are setting the stage for future growth.
Report Description
We have divided this report into four major sections. Chapter 2 includes
an explanation of the market research methodology used in this report.
Our survey methodology and data collection metihods are outlined, and
our market metiics and subapplications are defined. Chapter 3 discusses
the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market as it stands today, and Chapter 4
identifies the trends having the greatest impact on the future shape of the
market. Chapter 5 looks at each of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE subappUcations in greater detail.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Chapter 2
Market Research Methodoiogy and Market Definitions
_
In this chapter, we briefly discuss Dataquest's CAD market research
methodology and data collection methods. We also provide definitions
for the various metrics and market segments that apply to mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE.
Data Collection Process
Fundamental to the way Dataquest conducts its research is an underlying
philosophy that the best data and analysis 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, and balance between the perspectives of industry professionals and market researchers.
Supply-Side Data
Dataquest surveys all major participants in the mechanical C A D / C A M /
CAE market two times each year, in order to obtain preUminary and final
market share data for a given year. At the time of surveying, each vendor
is given the opportunity to self-report the information required. The information in this document is based on final market share data for 1997.
Although there is a primary contact for each company, large companies
are surveyed across product lines and geographic regions. Thus, there is a
corresponding increase in the number of contacts at large companies,
which helps us to cross-check data on that company. Examples of job titles
of people contacted for information include:
• President and chief executive officer
• Vice president and general manager
• Vice president of marketing
• Director of strategic planning
• Director of marketing
• Manager, CAD/CAM/CAE apphcations
n Market research analyst
• Product manager
Data supplied by vendors is evaluated against information drawn from
many sources, including:
• Revenue published by major industry participants
• Government or trade association data
• Annual reports. Securities Exchange Commission documents, and
credit reports
• Company pubhcations and press releases
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
3
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Published product literature and price lists
• Reports from financial analysts
• Reseller and supplier reports and reports from a vendor's competitors
Demand-Side Data
Dataquest also relies heavily on demand-side, or end-user, data for validating vendor market share and identifying mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E
trends. End users are identified using a variety of means, including
databases of past survey respondents, corporate intelligence databases,
mechanical software vendors' registered users lists, and magazine subscriber hsts. At least one major end-user survey is conducted each calendar year, and a number of informal surveys are conducted throughout the
year.
We believe that the estimates presented here are the most accurate and
meaningful estimates generally available today. Dataquest's mechanical
C A D / C A M / C A E market numbers are often higher than those reported
by other sources. We survey vvorldwide, which involves more vendors,
higher total market revenue, lower market share per vendor, and a more
in-depth market picture, which is particularly useful when comparing
regions or applications.
Additionally, in the case that w e learn more information about a company,
we will restate the market size and market share information for all vendors, based on this new information. This change may affect any year
within our database, depending on what new information is discovered.
As a result, our database gives us the most accurate depiction of the market based on what we know at any given point in time.
Market Segmentation
Market share information presented in this report is based on standard
Dataquest market segmentation definitions. The following metrics and
definitions are relevant to this document.
Regions
The following regional hierarchy and definitions are used for Dataquest's
geographic segmentation. Not all product categories and Dataquest services have the entire segmentation. Some may have a greater level and
some may have less. The regions are as follows:
• North America region
• United States: Includes the 48 contiguous states, Washington, D.C.,
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico
• Canada: Single-cotmtry region
• Latin America region: Countries covered include Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela
• Rest of Latin America: Anguilla, Antigua cuid Barbuda, Aruba,
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, BoHvia, Cayman Islands,
CUpperton Islcuid, Costa Rica, Cuba, Domiruca, Dominican RepubHc,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Market Research Methodology and Market Definitions
French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti,
Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Navassa Island, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname,
Tortola (British Virgin Islands), Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and
Caicos Islands, Uruguay, and Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Croix, and
St. Thomas)
Europe region
• Western Europe: Countries covered include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom
a Rest of Western Europe: Andorra, Cyprus, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar,
Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
• Central and Eastern Europe: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, and
Ukraine
• Rest of Eastern Europe: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia,
Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
and Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Japan: Single-country region
Asia/Pacific: Countries covered include Australia, China, Hong Kong,
India, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and
Thailand
• Rest Of Asia/Pacific: American Samoa, Ashmore and Cartier Islands,
Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island, Brunei, Cambodia,
Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Isl£u:ids, Cook Islands, Coral Sea
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam,
Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef,
Kiribati, Laos, Macau, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Midway Islands,
MongoUa, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New
Zealand, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, North
Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Papua New Guinea, Paracel
Islands, Philippines, Pitcaim Islands, Solomon Islands, Spratly
Islands, Sri Lanka, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Wake
Island, Wallis and Futuna, and Western Samoa
Rest of World: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bassas da India,
Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'lvoire, Djibouti,
Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Europa Island, Gabon,
Gambia, Ghana, Glorioso Islands, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq,
Israel, Jordan, Juan de Nova Island, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesoffio,
Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, MaU, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman,
Qatar, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, SomaHa, South Africa, Sudan,
Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tromelin Island, Tunisia, Turkey,
Uganda, Uruted Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia,
and Zimbabwe
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Operating Systems
Dataquest defines the operating systems as follows:
• UNIX—Includes all UNIX variants and older workstation operating
systems
• Host/proprietary—Includes minicomputer and mainframe operating
systems in which the functions of external workstations are dependent
on a host computer
• Windows NT—The Microsoft Windows NT operating system
n Personal computer—Includes DOS, Windows, Windows 95, and Apple
operating systems
Distribution Cliannels
The CAD/CAM/CAE software industiies make extensive use of complex
distribution charmels throughout the world. Our data architecture accurately reflects revenue flow from the CAD software vendor to the end user.
Specifically, our database allows us to report software revenue as it
accrues in the following ways:
• Directly through a company salesforce
• Indirectly from sales to dealers and other resellers
• As revenue earned as a reseller of another company's products (for
example, Intergraph's resale of MicroStation product)
• As revenue earned supplying OEM software products that are sold
vmder another name by a separate company (for example, AutoCAD's
OEM version)
• As company software revenue, or revenue a vendor puts in the bank
(the sum of direct, indirect, reseller, and OEM revenue)
• As dealer revenue (revenue earned by a vendor's dealers for selling the
product)
• As user software spending—the total amount actually spent by end
users, which is the sum of direct and dealer revenue
Figure 2-1 shows how we account for all these elements in the mechanical
applications market whUe not counting revenue twice. To calculate company software revenue for a named company, we add the sum of the
revenue from direct, indirect, reseller, and OEM revenue. The total size of
the market here is equal to the sum of direct and indirect revenue for aU
companies (OEM and reseller revenue are excluded in market size, so as to
avoid double counting the market). This same methodology is used to calculate end-user spending and end-user market size—the only difference is
that, instead of using indirect revenue, we use dealer revenue. Dealer revenue is based on a multiplier of indirect revenue. Calculation of these
multipliers will vary by vendor, by region, and by operating system.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Market Research Methodology and Market Definitions
Figure 2-1
1997 Software Revenue by Distribution Channel, Mechanical
Vendor Software Revenue
End-User Spending
Direct Software
Revenue: $2,391 (Wllion
Direct Software
Revenue: $2,391 Million
Indirect Software
Revenue: $1,125 Million
Indirect Software
Revenue: $1,125 Million
Direct Software
Revenue; $2,391 Million
Direct Software
Revenue: $2,391 Million
Dealer Software
Revenue: $3,026 Million
Dealer Software
Revenue: $3,026 Million
OEM Software
Revenue: $292 Million
OEM Software
Revenue: $292 Million
Reseller Software
Revenue: $408 Million
•
Reseller Software
Revenue: $408 Million
•
Summed in Software
Factory Revenue
Market Size
•
Reported in Software
Factory Revenue
Market Size
MarI(et Size
TotaI = $3,516 MIIIion
MarItet Size
Total = $3,516 Million
•
Summed in End-User
Spending Market Size
Reported in End-User
Spending Market Share
Market Size
Total = $5,417 Million
Market Size
Total = $5,417 Million
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Mechanical Subapplications
Figure 2-2 depicts the mechanical subapplications that Dataquest tracks.
We have adopted the following definitions for the mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE/PDM subappUcations.
Computer-Aided Design—CAD
CAD subapplications include the following:
• Design applications—Software applications used in the design of
components and assemblies. This is a very broad subapplication that
includes software for styling, conceptual design, assembly modeling,
component design, and manufacturing tool and fixture design.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
• Drafting and documentation—Representation of a part in standard
geometric drafting format, including all part geometry dimensions and
notations describing mechanical, functional, and material characteristics. Also includes schematics and technical illustration.
Computer-AJded Engineering—CAE
CAE subapplications include the following:
• Analysis—Analysis of a physical system, part, or assembly; including
structural, thermal, vibrational, composite, fatigue, stack-up, and mass
property analysis
n Linkage/mechanisms—Motion simulation and analysis of an assembly
of components with two or more movable parts
Computer-Aided Manufacturing—CAM
CAM subapplications include the following:
• Manufacturing process simulation
a Numerical control (NC) part programming—Programming of a
numerical control machine tool or automated processing system
a Part processing design—Design of a series of manufacturing
processes or steps. Part processing design typically involves part
processing application software, as well as a library of machines,
schedules, materials, and manufacturing practices.
• Other manufacturing appUcations
• Coordinate measuring machines—Software used to program
machines to measure the physical dimensions of a part
• Off-line robotics—A process simulation that graphically represents
the sequence of steps that a robot goes through for a particular operation and dow^nloads data to a robot to update its control program
Other Tools
This category includes the following:
• Knowledge-based engineering (KBE)—The capturing of design intent
and standard practices for controlling, modifying, and automating
design and manufacturing activities
• Application development environments—Programming tools to aid in
the generation of user-defined programs that drive or interface with
CAD/CAM/CAE apphcations
• Product data management—Management of data within an engineering or manufacturing environment. Product data management typically
includes tools to manage product stiuctures, workflow and work processes, and CAD/engineering data, files, and documents.
• Component information systems—Software used to navigate within
and manage a repository of engineering parts and associated data
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Market Research Methodology and Market Definitions
Figure 2-2
Mechanical Subapplications
Design Applications
CAD
Drafting and Documentation
Analysis
CAE
Linkage/Mechanism
Numerical Control
Manufacturing Process
Simulation
Part Processing Design
CAI^
Other Manufacturing
Applications
Coordinate Measuring
Machines
Offline Robotics
Product Data Management
Component Information
Systems
Other Tools
Knowledge-Based
Engineering
Application Development
Environments
gesEze
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Chapter 3
The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Today
In this chapter, we provide a mostly quantitative assessment of the
mechanical applications market performance in 1997. Overall growth of
slightly under 6 percent in software revenue for 1997 masks some of the
real market dynamics occurring in this market. In this chapter, we look at
some of these differences.
Performance of the Market Leaders
Following two years of high, double-digit growth, the mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE software market hit a low of 6 percent growth in 1997. Vendor
performance was all over the board, ranging from over 20 percent software growth to below 50 percent decline in software sales. The top 10 vendors, as a group, seemed to have slowed down in taking market share at
the expense of everyone else. This group, as a whole, accounted for 73 percent of the $3,510 million in revenue in 1997, about the same percentage as
in 1996. However, readers should note two of the contributing factors to
the somewhat sluggish mecharucal market performance in 1997: Computervision's downfall and Unigraphics Solutions' General Motors contract,
for which the bulk of the revenue (more than $100 million) was taken in
1996, thus causing significant hiccups in the company's revenue stream
and somewhat smaller repercussions for overall mechanical applications
market growth.
Parametric Technology's bid for the No. 1 spot in mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE may finally be over. Figure 3-1 shows software revenue for the top 10
vendors over the past three years. While we still show IBM to be the market leader for 1997, this will change next year when we restate Parametric
Technology's historical revenue to include its Computervision acquisition,
which is not included in the data shown in Figure 3-1 (this was because the
deal was officially closed in calendar year 1998).
Similarly, Urugraphics Solutions' rariking will also inch up, once we
include its acquisition of Intergraph's mechanical CAD business (we will
report the combined Unigraphics Solutions/Intergraph entity next year,
since the deal was officially closed in calendar year 1998). It is also worth
noting that the drop in Unigraphics Solutions software revenue from 1996
to 1997 is somewhat of an anomaly: The company reported that it took
most of the revenue from its General Motors contract in 1996 ($121 milUon
in software revenue) and none of it in 1997.
Dassault Systemes/IBM continues to buck the trend, posting good growth
in 1997, despite the fact that the company has not yet ported its flagship
CATIA product to the NT platform (though Dassault Systemes receives
credit for NT revenue from its Solid Works subsidiary). The results of
Autodesk's vertical market strategy are evident in the mechanical CAD
space. Negative growth in 1996 has turned into high, positive growth in
1997, from sales of both Mechanical Desktop and base AutoCAD. Structural Dynamics (SDRC) has also been in a turnaround mode, now posting
two years of decent growth in software revenue, driven not so much by
sales of its Metaphase product data management software, but more by
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
11
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
sales of its core I-DEAS software. MicroCADAM's essentially flat growth
is a reflection of the effect of exchange rates on market growth. MicroCADAM derives the bulk of its revenue from sales in Japan, where the
exchange rate of the yen against the dollar is masking real, significant
growth in the country in yen terms. CoCreate, MacNeal-Schwendler, and
Information Services International Dentsu (largely a Japanese reseller)
round out the top 10, as shown in Figure 3-1.
While the above analysis is based on software sales alone, the role of software services cannot be ignored in vendor rankings. Figure 3-2 shows
1997 market share by vendor for software and software services combined. Some shuffling by rank occurs, with Parametric Technology (PTC)
taking the top spot, amd SDRC moving up to number three. Of particular
interest is the growth of service revenue compared to software revenue.
While software revenue grew less than 6 percent in 1997, software service
grew 16 percent. Growing service revenue usually means one of two
things: a market in its infancy, or a mature market with a fairly saturated
user base. The latter description certainly fits the mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE market.
Regional Differences
North America, Europe, and Japan are nearly equal in size; all three
regions make up about 30 percent of the market. While the worldwide
growth rate for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE applications was only
6 percent, regional growth varied widely (see Table 3-1). Growth in Europe
and Japan is partly because of exchange rate differences and partly
because of actual CAD investment. The Japanese market grew only
10 percent when measured in U.S. dollars, but because of the yen depreciation against the dollar, it grew a whopping 23 percent in yen terms. Similarly, Europe grew only 2 percent when measured in U.S. dollars but grew
14 percent in ECU terms. In both regions, we expect growth to slow down
over the next few years, because Europe has finished its latest CAD investment cycle, and economic turmoil in Japan will stall CAD purchases.
Cliannel Differences
As we discussed in Chapter 2, the CAD market has evolved from a turnkey market with products sold by a direct salesforce to a rich collection of
channel and packaging schemes worldwide. Comparing revenue of one
company that seUs primarily direct (at retail prices) with another that sells
primarily indirect (at wholesale prices) distorts the picture, both in terms
of market share and in terms of assessing true market opportunity.
Understanding revenue by charmel is key to resolving market positioning
Statements made by many of the leading CAD vendors. Table 3-2 outiines
the market position in software for the leading mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE companies according to these channel metrics.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
o
o
Figure 3-1
Historical Software Performance by Vendor
CO
o
I
n
A
(O
00
•
IBM
k
Li
P
o
>
a
o
A
in
Parametric Technoiogy
?5
>
P
o
Dassault Systemes
"M
^.
IP
>
[ > • >
Autodesk
(U
><
*
SDRC
rn ^
@
(D
CO
OO
»>a
liJIicroCADAM
a
cu
•—ICU
.a
c:
CD
CO
Information Services
Intem^iqnal Dentsu
0>
GoCreate
•
1995
CI 1996
LMitgrpilihics Solutions
" •
MacNesl'-Schwendler
1997
»••
'
]
1
100
'
1
200
1
1
300
•
1
i:
400
1
500
'
1
600
700
C/3
CD
•a
,-+•
CD
3
cr
CD
I\3
c»
CO
CO
00
IUIIIIIons of Dollars
985227
Note: Parametric Technology does not Include Computen/tslon revenue; Unlgraphtcs Sdluttons does not include Intergraph revenuOi
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
14
Figure 3-2
1997 Market Share, Software and Software Services Combined
l\/lacNeal-Schwendler (2.6%) —
MicroCADAM (3.1%)
Computervision (3.1%) —
CoCreate (3.6%)
Unigraphics Solutions (5.0%)
Fujitsu (4.7%)
Autodesk (4.1%)
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Table 3-1
Mechanical Market Performance by Region
Region
Growth in
U.S. Dollars (%)
Growth in
Regional
Currency (%)
1996-1997
10.1
2.0
22.5
13.7
NA
212
3.6
10.9
39
3,512
10.0
5.6
NA
NA
Software
Revenue ($M)
1997
Japan
1,122
Europe
1,106
1,033
North America
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
Worldwide
NA
NA = Not applicable
Note: Regional currency is yen in Japan and ECU in Europe.
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
While IBM and PTC (before Computervision's revenue is included) differ
by about $40 million in software revenue accrued to the parent company
in 1997, they are virtually tied for the No. 1 spot once end-user spending is
considered. Also, both companies lose quite a bit of market share in the
end-user spending scenario. Who gains? Autodesk, which almost exclusively relies on the indirect chaimel, jumps up to the No. 3 spot and gains a
bit more market share in the process.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
15
The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Today
As the mechanical appHcations market evolves, the indirect and dealer
channels will become more important in the future, particularly with the
emergence of the so-called "midrange" market. Indirect software revenue,
for all companies, grew slightly faster than direct software revenue in 1997
(5 percent versus 7 percent, respectively).
Growth by Industry
User investment is heavily concentrated in the automotive and aerospace
industries, because these industries continue to hold over 32 percent of
the worldwide mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software market (see
Figure 3-3), a figure that has remained steady over the last five years.
Particularly in Europe, the automotive companies continued to place some
large orders for CAD tools in 1997 (and some of these contracts are multiyear agreements, with revenue spread out over the agreement period), but
the bulk of the automotive/aerospace cyclical investments in Europe are
over for the next three years. After that time, we will begin to see an
upswing in investment in these industries.
It is worth noting that users in the shipbuilding industry buy both
mechanical and AEC (architecture/engineering/construction) software
for similar design problems. While $39 million in mechanical software was
sold to the shipbuilding industry in 1997, $72 million of AEC software was
also sold. As a result, the shipbuilding opportunity is quite a bit larger,
$112 million, keeping in mind that a significant portion of the revenue is
generated by software normally sold by AEC vendors.
Table 3-2
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Leaders b y Chatinel
( R e v e n u e in M i l l i o n s of Dollars)
IBM
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
Dassault Systemes
SDRC
MicroCADAM
CoCreate
Fujitsu
Unigraphics Solutions
Hitachi
Matra Datavision
MacNeal-Schwendler
All Companies
Direct
Software
Revenue
567
575
22
46
90
8
25
76
77
24
68
91
2,391
Indirect
Software
Revenue
NA
30
183
NA
82
143
100
27
39
44
22
13
1,125
OEM
Software
Revenue
NA
NA
2
258
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
292
Reseller
Software
Revenue
75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
408
Company
Software
Revenue
642
606
206
304
172
150
126
103
115
68
91
104
3,510
User
Dealer
Software Software
Revenue Spending
642
NA
642
66
421
397
304
NA
265
175
217
209
140
166
157
81
154
78
147
124
121
53
120
30
5,417
3,026
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
16
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 3-3
1997 Mechanical Market Share b y Industry
Automotive
(20.8%)
/
/
\
other Industries
(29.0%)
cTf^
Y^v,,,^^^
Consumer Electronics (5.2%) — \
\
^ ^
/
I
\
\
Fabricated l\/letal (5.8%) — \ v /
Aerospace
(11.5%)
1
1
Industrial ^ ~ * ^
Machinery m
\ (10.2%)^^
1
Electrical/Electronic Machinery (8.7%) — ^ ^ ^ " ^
— Computers/Office Equipment (8.8%)
365229
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
The Hardware Playing Field
No analysis of the mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E market is complete
without an understcuiding of fundamental shifts among the hardware
vendors. For every doUar spent on mechanical applications software,
nearly 1.4 times that amount is spent on computing hardware. The two
bigger UNIX players, Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems, continue to
battle it out for market leadership and growth leadership. UNIX hardware
vendor performance for 1997, from boSi a CPU revenue perspective and
shipment perspective, is shown in Figure 3-4.
What is happening on the hardware front is key to the overedl performance of the mechanical applications market over the next five years. The
following information is taken from Dataquest's Advanced Desktops and
Workstations service. For a full analysis of the technical workstation market, please see the report titled Windows NT Sets the Pace as UNIX Continues
to Slide (WKST-WW-MT-9801).
In 1997, the introduction of second-generation Pentium Il-based personal
workstations from market leaders Hewlett-Packard, Digital Equipment,
Compaq, and Intergraph combined with second-generation graphics systems set a new and significantiy lower price/performance level for the
industry, forcing RISC/UNIX vendors to reposition systems and faster,
more expensive technologies at increasingly lower price points.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
17
The Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Today
The trend is set inexorably toward the market being dominated by Intel
architecture (IA)/NT systems. Although Dataquest expects the UNIX
workstation market to experience a steady decline, it will still remain viable for several more years. Dataquest expects a reasonable demand for
UNIX workstations until the second generation of IA-64 processor-based
systems start shipping sometime around 2001 to 2002.
For the era when RISC/UNIX workstations dominated the market, an
individual vendor's technological superiority was assumed to be the key
to success in the workstation market, and the influence of sales and marketing was sometimes dangerously vmderestlmated. The advent of Intel/
Microsoft-based workstations has greatly diminished the potential for
technology-based product differentiation and removed the "vendor lockin" factor caused by proprietary implementations of the UNIX operating
system. While Dataquest expects technological innovation to remain
important in the workstation market and to play an increasingly influential role in the Intel/Microsoft workstation space in the future, for the next
few years the winners and losers will be identified by their sales and marketing expertise and execution far more than any other single factor.
Figure 3-4
UNIX Mechanical Hardware Vendor Performance
Millions of DoIIars
Shipments
1,200-
-60,000
0
1995 CPU Revenue
1,000 -
-50,000
CPU Revenue
•E3 1996
1997 CPU Revenue
800-
-40,000
.... 1995 UNIX Shipments
" ^ 1996 UNIX Shipments
600-
^^ 1997 UNIX Shipments
400
200
985230
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Chapter 4
Market Drivers
In this chapter, we discuss the trends that will most influence the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE landscape over the next five years. While the
market is indeed slowing down, many opportunities for vendors still
exist—with certain emerging technologies, and in specific market segments. The trends we have identified in the following paragraphs give a
flavor of what the mechanical applications market will resemble. As a
point of reference. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 give our forecast for the mechanical
applications market by region and by operating system.
The Market Leaders Tomorrow
Today, CAD software is so engrained in engineering design that it is virtually impossible to develop any products without the assistance of computer-aided design tools. However, the markets that CAD caters to are
quite mature, leaving little opporturuty for real vendor growth. Market
share is to be gained only by consolidation, niche market speciaUzation, or
a fundamental change in the way CAD technology is used.
Figure 4-1
Mechanical Applications Software Forecast by Region
Software Revenue (MiIIions of DoIIars)
i,ouu
1,600 1,400 1,200 -
" « "
m t - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Europe
Japan
1,000 - ^^^^^^^^^^ -* "^ ^* ^'^"^'^'^^^^
-* '^ .^"^^
North America
800600-
—•—
Asia/Pacific
••••
Rest of World
4002000-t——•
1995
g
\
1996
•
I—
1997
•
•
1
1998
1999
2000
•
I
2001
2002
3BK31
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
19
20
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 4-2
Mechanical Applications Software Forecast by Operating System
Percentage of Software Revenue
100
PC-Based Operating
Systems
90
80
D
Windows NT
70
[^
UNIX
I I
Host/Proprietary
60
'-. -. '.. \
''. \
\
'.. V '..
'•. -• "'••..\ • • \ \ ' ' ' i . . W ' \ ' ' ' - ' . . . \ , •
50
•••. X ^ , \''''Os \ \ ' ' \ \ '
>..X'^. '\X%, '••, '•! s •
. \ \ v \ \ v x '•'. \ '•>. '•:
40
•;x\'--.\\'C-vX
, \ V \ SX \ \ X
\X\\\''''NV--."V--'''--
'-., '\ ''''^ \ '-., ";, \ X ^
oC\Vs
20 - •-^c\\\^xc^:• W N X : - >
30
'',.'',.
10
% \
^
^v ^> ^',
^
'',
''
''
••
'. ^'
$#ir^^^:"^'
1995
1996
1997
•--, \
^-
\ X X
\
i> \
V
•, - •'•. ' . . • . . . •
•">vxx\\\v-X.--..•'"-.."• ••.
- ""•- •'•' \ X x X / \ \ , X N X
.
••
'•••""••'•
•. " - - i V X X ' ^ W \ X X X \
••• . ••.
••%'-iXX'^. X X • ^ ^ ' \ ' ^ X \
•- •- ''•• ••--. ."•.'•
..i.
1998
'^. \
\
!.^.
1999
•^.
:
\
••^\
•-,
--.
2000
.
•.
2001
••
•• '•
•
.
2002
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Market consoUdation is already evident. Over the past year or so, we saw
FTC's purchase of Computervision and ICEM Technologies; Dassault
Systemes' acquisition of SolidWbrks, Deneb Robotics, and the ENOVIA
PDM technology; Autodesk's acquisition of Genius; Spatial Technologies'
acquisition of Three-Space Limited; and Engineering Animation's purchase of Variation Systems Analysis and Transom Technologies. In each of
these cases, the acquired companies rounded out product line gaps in the
parent company (with the exception of the Computervision acquisition,
which we beUeve was more of an attempt by PTC to get a stronger foothold in the automotive and aerospace industries).
Still, Other companies streamUned their operations, looking to become
more niche players. Here, Concentra licensed its core ICAD technology to
another company, and Adra Systems renamed itself MatrixOne and sold
off its CAD business to become exclusively a PDM player.
In Hght of all the reshuffling, we saw higher service revenue, a definite
sign of a mature market. So, where does this leave the market leaders
today; who will become leaders in the future?
If CAD/CAM/CAE systems continue to be developed, marketed, and
sold as they are currentiy done so today, we don't see any companies that
are in a position to overtake one of the entrenched leaders in the market
today without acquisition. The smaller, rising stars have all been absorbed
by the bigger players. There are no highly innovative modeling technologies that will catapult one of the smaller players into the Umelight. Nor are
tiriere any earth-shattering technology/marketing/sales partnerships that
will suddenly bring a vendor into the top 10. However, if any one of these
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Market Drivers
21
companies earnestly focuses outside of the traditional CAD/CAM/CAE
technology, embracing some of the technologies we describe at the end of
this chapter, there will be new rising stars, and renewed market vigor.
Emergence of the Midrange
There is no shortage of "midrange" mechanical design packages on the
market today: DesignWave, Mechanical Desktop, MicroStation Modeler,
Solid Edge, the Artisan Series, and SolidWorks, to name a few. In this section, we identify the issues facing the midrange market.
Understanding the Two Tiers
What has clearly been developing in the midrange is a market with two
distinct tiers. The first tier consists of those users who are looking to move
from 2-D design to 3-D design. This group perhaps uses one of the various
versions of AutoCAD and is looking to move up to solid modeling for
some of its design work. The second tier consists of those users who are
looking to extend CAD into the enterprise. For instance, an automotive
company may be using a full-blown UNIX-based system for their primary
design package and a midrange package (with a common solid modeling
engine) among its suppliers.
Selling mechanical CAD systems to the first tier is different from selling to
the second tier. The first tier of users, those moving from 2-D to 3-D, have
the following characteristics:
• Do not have budgets for more expensive UNIX-based CAD systems
• Do not have a lot of investment in historical, legacy data that would
make switching CAD systems something to be avoided
• Have limited needs in analysis today
• Work in smaller groups or teams of designers
• Rely on value-added resellers (VARs) and dealers for their CAD needs
and training
In contrast, those in the second tier, who are looking to extend CAD further into the enterprise, comprises the following:
• Do not have budgets for more UNIX-based CAD systems, but have
budgets that are larger than the first tier
• Have investments in historical and legacy data that must be preserved
• Are looking for seamless data transfer among CAD systems and downstream and upstream applications
• Purchase CAD systems via direct sales as part of a larger companywide
CAD or information technology (IT) strategy
Clearly, among the midrange products that we mentioned earlier, some fit
more naturally in the first tier than in the second tier. In particular. Parametric Technology, SDRC, and Unigraphics Solutions all offer midrange
and higher-end packages that are based on a common, proprietary solid
modeling engine, making data transfer seamless, both upstream and
downstream. On the other hand, Autodesk, Bentley Systems, and Solid-
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
22
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Works (now part of Dassault Systemes) sell midrange products today
almost exclusively through the indirect channel and typically in smaller
seat count deals.
One of the more interesting repricing/repackaging issues this year has
been PTC's repackaging of Pro/ENGINEER, effectively offering it at a
sUghtly lower price point, while hoping to make up the revenue difference
through increased seat sales. So far, this repricing seems to be an anomaly
in an otherwise price-steady market.
indirect Channels; Qualified Dealers
Growth of the midrange mechanical CAD market, as well as any one vendor's success in that market, will depend heavily on the distribution channels and strength of the VARs. For years, mechanical VARs and dealers
have taken a back seat in the UNIX-dominated mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE market that has relied heavily on direct sales. Given the number of
midrange mechanical design packages being sold through dealers and
VARs today, software vendors are undoubtedly having to work to attract
and retain quaUfied dealers. Nevertheless, CAD VARs today are becoming
more sophisticated, either offering software products themselves (as
Visionary Design Systems is doing) or expanding their network through
acquisition (like Rand Technologies). At the same time, mechanical CAD
users will become more sophisticated and demanding in their needs, as
well.
One thing is clear on the channel front: vendors playing in both the UNIXbased high-end and the midrange markets will need to define clearly who
can sell what. AUenating the VARs at the expense of the direct salesforce
(or vice versa) is a risky proposition.
Prognosis for Europe
Over the last three years (1995 through 1997) there has been heavy investment in mechcuiical CAD/CAM/CAE tools from the automotive and
aerospace industries across Europe. Most of the European companies have
now completed their CAD renewal, and we expect that these sectors wiU
begin to slow down in 1998 and through 2000. We expect the machinery
industry to pick up growth by investing in mainly NT-based solutions.
Particularly for Europe, Dataquest does not expect NT to play a significant
role in the mechanical applications market until 1998 or 1999. Even then,
growth for NT-based solutions will not come from the traditional users in
automotive and aerospace, but instead from other industry sectors made
up by small to medium-size companies. In the major industries, NT adoption will result in a mixture of NT and UNIX-based systems at these
companies.
When looking at the economic statistics, it becomes evident that Germany
plays a leading role in the European manufacturing industiy, both in
terms of the number of people employed in this industry and in terms of
production output. It is no surprise that Germany is among the largest
buyers of mechanical appUcations software in Europe. Any change in the
German manufacturing industry has a direct impact on mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE European market growth.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Market Drivers
23
Generally speaking, CAD investment in Europe is tj^pically part of a global corporate strategy. This means that when orders are placed in Europe,
they are of a much bigger magnitude than in the United States. The various large orders that came in from Europe over the last three years show
this. But, this also means that the IT investment cycles are longer in
Europe—in automotive and aerospace, they are five to 10 years long.
Because most of the large companies in these key industries have made
their CAD renewal investments, Dataquest does not expect the mechanical
applications market to continue to grow at its current pace. From 1998
onward, things will go back to normal, and the market will again display
aU the signs of a mature replacement market.
Economic Turmoil in Asia/Pacific and Japan
Just last year, we were expecting the Asia/Pacific region to grow faster
than any other region of the world over the next five years. A mixture of
local government, multinational companies, and industry initiatives was
driving mecharucal applications software growth in this region. However,
times have changed, and we have had to adjust our forecast for these
regions, in light of the economic turmoil in ffie area. In essence, we are
expecting lower growth for both Asia/Pacific and Japan over the next few
years, with growth picking up toward the end of our forecast period.
This does not mean that there is a lack of opportunity in Asia/Pacific and
Japan. Instead, the same fundamental needs for CAD/CAM/CAE software still exist, such as the following:
• Throughout Japan and Asia/Pacific, if CAD is used at all, designs still
tend to be done in 2-D, with the paper drawing being the key. There
exists a large number of 2-D users that can be migrated to 3-D design
methodologies.
• Particularly in southeast Asia, mechanical designers are not as
advanced in their use of CAD as are their counterparts worldwide, nor
have they had as much experience with CAD systems. Training will be
an important factor in these users' successes with the technology.
• In regions where labor is cheap, corporations believe it is more costeffective to hire more workers than to automate portions of the design
and manufacturing processes.
• Many Asia/Pacific users will need implementation and consulting
services to get the most from their CAD systems. Typically, there is no
"CAD guru" who fully understands CAD/CAM/CAE technology and
can oversee its deployment.
• For Japan, a weU-integrated CAD/CAM system is key to penetrating
this market. Japanese engineers have always had a very strong focus on
CAM, using elaborate manufacturing systems while still doing design
work in 2-D.
• The concept of design teams is very strong in Japan and Asia/Pacific,
where collaboration tends to be more the norm than, say, in the United
States. Products with a collaborative focus might be more accepted than
products focused on individual productivity.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
24
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
System-Level Design
Since we wrote about system-level design automation (SDA) one year ago,
not a lot has happened. We have been talking about system-level design
for the past few years, but we are still waiting for the tools and design
methodologies to come to market. Much of the SDA work today remcuns
project oriented, though these programs are funding some new tool development. Two well-known SDA programs are the Ford C3P program (also
known as the Ford 2000 program) and the European AIT consortium; a
well-known "precursor" to SDA (before the term SDA was coined) was the
Boeing 777 project.
Only a few SDA tools are commercially available today. They are primarily high-level architectural system design and modeling tools and tend to
be academic in their approach to SDA. There is stiU a discormect between
translating those system requirements to actual design requirements,
whether they are electrical or mechanical. There is a System-Level Design
Language Working Group, whose goal is to come u p with a mechanical
systems language by 2006 (and an electrical systems language by 2002).
Much Of the impetus for system-level design is coming from the automotive and aerospace manufacturers themselves—^witness many automotive
manufacturers' proclamations of getting automotive design time down to
18 months. This goal is not possible wiffi today's existing C A D / C A M /
CAE tools. System-level design is an attempt to bring together several
processes into an environment, where a digital version of the product is
created, integrated, and tested before it even reaches the manufacturing
floor. In order for it to happen, users need better knowledge-based engineering tools, better data management, and system-level (not point tool)
integration.
The Promise of Objects—if and Wtien
Beginning in 1995 and continuing through 1997, CAD vendors began
unveiling products or architectures based on object-oriented technology,
including Autodesk (ObjectARX), Bentley Systems (MicroStation/J),
Computervision (Pelorus), Intergraph Qupiter), and Matra Datavision
(CAS.CADE). The promise of objects and object-oriented technology in
CAD is moving slowly ahead, albeit faster in architecture/engineering/
construction (AEC) and more slowly in mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E .
The discussion that foUows is largely based on a Dataquest Perspective
sent to our worldwide AEC CAD clients titled "Smart Objects in CAD
Software: How Far, How Fast?" (CAEC-WW-DP-9708). While the
extracted text focuses on CAD in general and was pubUshed one year ago,
we feel that readers of this report wiU find the discussion of interest, as
talk Of objects continues (though concrete, tangible results are nowhere to
be seen).
The Confusion about Object Technology
Objects seek to represent real world entities by encapsulating their
attributes and behavior. The term smart is used to denote that the objects
carry all the knowledge about themselves with them; this knowledge can
include business rules, design rules, or manufacturing processes. For
instance, a smart door object is more than just a collection of lines and arcs.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Market Dnvers
25
It knows that it can't be placed on a window or in a firewall. For mechanical designers, this would mean that a sheet metal screw knows it shouldn't
be used in wood.
The object-oriented world promised to help software vendors bring products to market faster by exploiting reusable code while dramatically
reducing user design time by increasing certainty of design outcome and
freeing users from the worries of data translation and integration with
other CAD programs. The dividing lines among objects, object-oriented
architectures, component technology, and object-oriented programming
are not easy to ascertain. Adding to the confusion, some CAD vendors
have taken the liberty of calhng their software object oriented, while the
amount of "object orientedness" in their software might actually be quite
small. This has given vendors the freedom to market their products as
being object oriented even if the software has only a few smart objects or
only has portions of the code written using an object-oriented programming language Uke C+-I-.
Today, object-oriented CAD applications seem to be divided in two camps.
There are those applications that are built using object-oriented programming languages. Benefits to the end user are limited, but benefits to the
application developers are theoretically greater (in terms of code reuse
and faster application development). In addition, there are those applications that actually allow the user to place "smart" objects within their CAD
drawings. This is the "object world" that we care about. Here is where end
users begin to see the benefits of object technology. The user begins
designing less with Unes, arcs, and circles and more, with doors, windows,
and walls. Of course, this is a very simplified view of where vendors are
coming from today in marketing object technology to the CAD world.
Vendor Offerings Still Not Meeting User Needs
The bottom hne is that users would also like software solutions that can be
extended with ease, instead of having to invest in programming resources
to develop a custom solution, and the ability to access objects or CAD
applications across platforms without having to work around interoperability issues. To date, the object-based architectures and solutions
being offered by vendors in the CAD world still do not solve the everimportant user concerns of proprietary data models, data exchange, and
interoperabiUty. The promise of objects in CAD will have reached its
promise once smart objects are able to carry knowledge from one appUcation to another and users will be able to operate in a hybrid environment
where legacy (nonsmart) data is involved.
Last year we said, "Objects in CAD are not quite here yet, but over the next
five years we wiU see a slow but steady infiltration of software that is
increasingly populated by smart objects. This infiltration will first take
place in AEC and will eventually filter over to the mechanical world."
However, we now wonder whether objects will truly ever have their place
in the design world. The uptake of objects in CAD would go faster if vendors would focus more on the interoperability of objects and solutions—
and interoperabiUty has been bandied about for years, but has only been
inching forward painfully slowly.
CMEC-WW-IVIT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
26
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Role of Java
While w e must admit we can't fully predict the impact of Java in mechanical design and manufacturing processes, it is worth noting that vendors
are coming at it from different schools of thought. Most notably, Autodesk
sees Java as another appUcation programming language (much hke Visual
Basic or AutoLISP). Qn the other hand, Bentley Systems sees Java and its
Java extensions (specific to engineering and CAD applications) becoming
directly embedded within its flagship MicroStation products.
The reality is that some vendors have begun selling "light" applications
developed in Java primarily for delivery via the Web (hence, easier access
to engineering information throughout the enterprise). Good examples of
these applications are product data management products with Javabased front ends, sort of acting as a Ughtweight client for viewing product
data. But, full-blown Java-developed applications for engineering and
CAD—where the Web is not involved—have not yet hit the market, and
we don't know if they will over the next few years.
Virtual Prototyping
Although rapid prototyping and physical mockups may be a reality in
engineering today, what has been deemed virtual prototyping has not yet
been widely embraced. Engineers have long been building physical prototypes Of their designs in order to test those ever-important qualities of fit,
form, and function. But product design has become much more than just
fit, form, and function—there are time-to-market issues, cost issues, and
manufacturing issues, among other things. While CAD/CAM/CAE software has advanced, so too have the expectations of products designed
using these tools.
While virtual prototyping can be thought of as analysis, it really takes
traditional analysis techniques and combines them with other tools (like
soUd modeling, visualization, and arumation) to answer the same questions that physical protot5^ing would answer, such as, can I reduce the
cost Of the design without affecting its performance? By how much will
changing this component affect the design specifications? Which design
variables can I change without affecting intended product performance?
Dataquest believes that the concept of virtual protot5rping is just beginning, n o w that all of the tools are falhng into place.
Why is virtual prototyping talked about today, instead of say, five years
ago? Whereas design intent used to be conveyed through drawings, it's
now being conveyed through CAD models. Whereas engineers used to
design parts and then pieced them together to see if the final product
worked as intended, they are now designing in a more top-down fashion.
Starting with system-level requirements, continuing to assembly modeling, and finishing with part design. Electronic CAD models, wiffi all of the
design data and knowledge captured right there in the model, have essentially become the enabler for virtual prototyping today.
Of course, we don't believe that designers and engineers today can get
away without physical prototypes—virtual prototyping is meant to
enhance, not replace, current design methodologies. With real-life
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Market Drivers
27
prototypes, the engineer can see exactly how it will function in the field.
However, this doesn't mean that physical prototyping is all thumbs up. In
fact, the drawbacks range from the cost of creating a prototype to the fact
that prototypes are like "one shot" deals—if it breaks, that's it. A simulation-gone-wrong on a real prototype can set a project back by weeks, but a
simulation gone wrong on a virtual prototype might just require hitting
the tweak model-reset-rerun button (of course, we realize that is a bit of a
simplification).
With today's tools, both physical and virtual prototyping have their place
in design and engineering. Perhaps, further down the, virtual prototyping
will be able to do everything that physical mockups can do. But, it will
take some time for all of the tools to be developed and for the technology
to win over the confidence of the engineers and designers.
IVIaricet Evolution: Engineering Modeling for the Enterprise
What was called concurrent engineering in the 1980s evolved to collaborative engineering in the 1990s and has now evolved into EEM. The enterprise is key to this market—design information can no longer stay behind
the engineering walls. The information can and should be leveraged
throughout the organization.
The convergence of several factors we have discussed in this chapter and
over the year, for example, the Internet and intranet technology, objects,
and system-level design are paving the way for EEM. Over the next five
years, we expect vendors and users to begin to talk about leveraging intellectual capital and corporate knowledge, rather than the fairly serial (or
more ideally, concurrent) processes of design, analysis, and manufacturing. The enterprise will expand to encompass customers, suppliers, and
business partners, collocated or spread out geographically, all of whom
will have influence on the engineering process. Two key elements of EEM
are discussed in the following section.
Central Repositories for Engineering Information
In order to evolve the fairly stagnant CAD market toward EEM, the CAD
data and engineering models can no longer sit in isolation. Product data
management systems have tried to get design data in front of the eyes of
Others in manufacturing and management, but these systems have met
Umited success so far. A few CAD vendors are trying to push in this direction; time will tell what tweaks need to be made to tiieir initial visions.
One idea is to create central Web sites for engineering projects that would
allow everyone involved in a worldwide project to simultaneously access
up-to-date project information from a single central location. These sites
may offer many types of data, including engineering files, site photographs, reports, project schedules, project specifications, and meeting
minutes. Companies can begin wiring their far-flimg extended enterprises
together, turning a project Web site into an invaluable project design,
management, communication, and marketing tool. Of course, not all engineers want 100 pairs of eyes on their work; there has to be a reasonable
working scenario set up in conjunction with simply letting loose engineering information on the corporate databases.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
28
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Capturing Design Know-How and Bringing It to tlie Enterprise
Three years ago, we were describing knowledge-based engineering as a
productivity multiplier for any CAD system, where rules are developed
that can drive automated applications, capture design intent, and automate sharing of data between applications and departments. On paper,
KBE looks like the perfect solution for getting products, current and future
ones, out the door faster. In reality, KBE has not taken off, partly because of
the fact that the technology has been costly and not well understood. For a
company to implement KBE in the first place, it needs to have a good
understanding of its design Icnowledge (in order to capture it) and design
processes (in order to automate them).
Nevertheless, we still believe KBE is a useful technology that will have its
place in the future engineering landscape, if it is taken in smaller chunks.
Software vendors, particularly those focused on manufacturing, have
incorporated KBE-related technologies into their software. A good
example here is manufacturing, where tool-path generation has been tied
together with in-house libraries of machines, schedules, and manufacturing knowledge.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Chapter 5
Mechanical Market by Subapplication
In Chapter 2, we defined our mechanical subapplication structure. In this
chapter, we provide a detailed look at the market by subapplication. For
the convenience of our readers, we have reprinted our subapplication outline from Chapter 2 in Figure 5-1. Table 5-1 gives the 1997 market size by
subappUcation and forecast five year compotmd armual growth rate
(CAGR).
There is one important distinction to be made about our subapplication
database. While we report a vendor's market share and revenue based on
company software revenue, or the sum of direct, indirect, OEM, and reseller
revenue, we report a vendor's subapplication revenue based on software product revenue, or the sum of direct and indirect revenue. Thus, for some comparues, in particular IBM, the sum of aU subapplication revenue will be
lower than what we normally report in our standard market share tables
(because of the exclusion of OEM and reseller revenue in the subapplication database).
Computer-Aided Design
Design Applications
Design applications are the mainstay of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
market. Investment in basic CAD tools by end users hit a significant slowdown in 1997, after two years of high, double-digit growth. Parametric
Technology and IBM continue to lead the pack in design applications
software revenue. Figure 5-2 shows the 1997 software market share of the
leaders in design applications. We expect that much of the slowdown in
1997 was an anomaly, caused by Computervision's downfall and Unigraphics Solutions' irregular revenue streams for 1996 and 1997.
Dataquest believes that this subapplication will continue to grow steadily
over ffie next five years, slightly above the average market growth each
year. We forecast a five-year CAGR of slightly under 11 percent through
2002 for design appUcations.
What will drive this steady growth? Over the next two to three years,
much of the growth will come from the midrange market, where users will
begin adopting the new tools, replacing some of their older 2-D tools, and
in some cases, replacing their higher-end systems. Much of the investment
will go to industries outside of aerospace and automotive, such as fabricated parts, industrial machinery, and consumer electronics. After that
time frame, the automotive and aerospace companies will begin their
CAD investment cycles, thus driving growth in 2001 and 2002, where the
midrange market left off.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
29
30
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 5-1
Mechanical Subapplications
Design Applications
CAD
Drafting and Documentation
^^^^^
Analysis
CAE
Linkage/Mec hanis m
Numerical Control
IWanLIfacturing Process
Simulation
Part Processing Design
CAM
o t h e r Manufacturing
Applications
Coordinate Measuring
Machines
Offline Robotics
Product Data Management
Component Information
Systems
Other Toois
Knowledge-Based
Engineering
Application Development
Environments
eeszjs
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
31
Mechanical Market by Subappllcation
Table 5-1
Mechanical Subapplications—Market Size and Forecast
Software
Revenue
(Millions of
Dollars) 1997
Growth (%)
1996-1997
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Design Applications
Drafting and Documentation
1,494.5
758.6
7.1
10.6
6.3
Computer-Aided Design
Analysis
2,253.1
467.6
6.8
-0.2
2.9
8.2
47.0
514.7
7.8
Linkage / Mechanism
Computer-Aided Engineering
Manufacturing Process Simulation
Other Manufacturing
379.2
50.7
Applications
Computer-Aided Manufacturing
Product Data Management
Component Information Systems
429.9
275.3
6.7
23.1
Application Development Environments
Knowledge-Based Engineering Tools*
7.0
312.1
Other Tools
All Subapplications
3,510.5
8.2
14.8
8.9
0.5
3.0
22.2
10.3
16.5
4.9
-1.1
11.1
11.9
41.9
321
-6.1
-68.6
8.8
-5.4
4.4
122
9.1
'Because of the limited number of competitors In this subappllcation, we are not showing forecast Information at this time.
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Figure 5-2
1997 Design Applications Market Share
Dassault Systemes (1.6%) —
Computervision (1.9%
SDRC (2.3%)
MicroCADAM (2.8%
Matra Datavision (3.1%) Unigraphlcs Solutions (3.7%)
CoCreate (4.7%)
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
32
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Drafting and Documentation
Similar to design applications, drafting cuid documentation is the breadand-butter of the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market; in the earliest
days of CAD, drafting was the only subapplication in the market. This
subapplication has continued to be one of the largest (comprising over
20 percent of the 1997 mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software revenue). In
previous years, we had expected this subapplication to be stagnant in
growth, but the new midrange packages on the market have revived drafting sales. In 1997, drafting and documentation grew slightly over 6 percent, which was greater than the overall market rate of growth. Figure 5-3
gives the market share of the top players in this subapplication.
We forecast that this subapplication will continue its steady growth over
our forecast period. While drafting is not an area of rapid change or iimovation, drafting's large market size confirms that, even after 25 years of
mechanical CAD development, this subapplication is still essential to the
design process, and in some regions of the world, it is the key to the design
process. We wait for the day when 3-D and solid models become more
common in the design process, and these models are sent directly to
downstream manufacturing applications, leaving out the intermediate
drafting and drawing step.
Figure 5-3
1997 Drafting and Documentation Market Share
Unigraphics Solutions (1.7%)
Wacom (1.8%)
NIhon Unisys (2.9%) —^
Toshiba (3.6%)
Parametric Technology (6.1%)
CoCreate (6.1%)
NEC (4.2%)
985g3a
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Mechanical Market by Subapplication
33
Computer-Aided Engineering
Analysis
We have been waiting for the analysis market to take off; so far, it stiU
hasn't happened. In previous years, revenue from this subapplication has
hovered around the average mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market growth
rate, performing neither well above nor well below the average growth.
However, in 1997, this subapplication posted no growth. Although
MacNeal-Schwendler and SDRC still lead this market (see Figure 5-4), no
single vendor is growing largely at the expense of another. This is one
subapplication that features a host of smaller niche players and specialty
analysis vendors.
Analysis vendors have been responding to designers' needs by developing
better user interfaces, error-checking codes, and automatic mesh generators and healers. The next step is to pursue tighter integration of these
analysis packages with solid modelers, something at least one vendor is
already pursuing. Additionally, there are still untapped areas within this
market to pursue, such as nonlinear analysis and nontraditional industries, such as in electronic packaging (though we can no longer consider
this area "untapped").
Despite vendor efforts, why isn't this subappUcation growing faster? In
Other words, how can these vendors attract new users, because the traditional users/purchasers of analysis tools are a fairly well-penetrated
group? Why have we forecast this market to grow at sUghtly under the
average market growth rate over the next five years? A little informal
surveying of analysis users revealed some interesting things.
Analysis is being used mostly for exploring design possibilities and
Optimizing designs, rather than achieving faster time to market or reduced
product development costs, which is usually the focus of marketing
pitches from the analysis vendors. These engineers felt that analysis was
allowing them to do more what-if simulations than they normally would
do.
Tight integration with CAD is key to acceptance of CAE tools within the
engineering group. Users told us that the abiUty to import data directiy
from the CAD model is a boon to analysis, as is the ability to make geometry changes from within the CAE model. Tight integration speeds up the
modeling and geometry creation, which already consunie much of the
analysis process. While we agree that strides are being made in this direction, either users feel that tight integration is still lacldng or perhaps they
haven't seen the latest offerings from vendors.
The technology stiU isn't foolproof. There are plenty of problems, such as
setting boundary conditions, that might escape the nonexpert analyst.
Others want more feedback from their tools that helps them correctly set
loading conditions and understand the results.
We will be able to raise our forecast for this area once more vendors start
addressing these issues (as some are already doing so today). For now,
many of them seem satisfied catering to niche areas/users, which is fine
for a limited amotmt of time.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
34
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 5-4
1997 Analysis Market Share
'^
MacNealSchwendler
(22.2%)
others
(21.8%)
\
\
\
Adam Net (2.0%) — /
Algor Interactive Systems (2.3%)
1
Adina R&D (2.4%)
\\.
r .
\
AltairComputing (2.8%) —
SDRC
\
(15.3%)
1
m
\ ^
MARC (4.6%) — \
v /
\
Ansys
/
(7.5%) /
Nv
/
IBM
X^y
(9-1%
\ Parametric >v
^F
\ Technology
jW
\ {10.0%)^^r
98633B
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Linkage/Mechanism
Linkage/mechanism reached $47 million in 1997, up 8 percent from the
previous year. We have revised our forecast for this subapplication
upward, largely as a result of the strong interest we are seeing in virtual
manufacturing and visualization/simtilation for product designs, and the
movement of vendors in this space to integrate their products more tightly
with CAD. We see real benefits in an engineer's ability to do quick Simulations, what-if scenarios, and analysis of designs before the design and any
associated problems move further downstream.
Computer-Aided Manufacturing
Manufacturing Process Simulation
Numerical Control
Figure 5-5 shows the 1997 software revenue market share of the leading
vendors. Nearly all of the leading mechanical applications vendors play in
this subapplication, including several Japanese companies (like Hitachi
Zosen and Nihon Unisys) with their own in-house developed products, as
well as a number of NC-only vendors (like CGTech, Pathtrace, CNC
Software, and Surfware). What is readily apparent from Figure 5-5 is the
highly fragmented nature of this subappUcation, as represented by the
"others" category, which makes up over 42 percent of the market. Despite
the continuing fragmented nature of this subapplication, we do not expect
a shakeout anytime soon.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
35
Mechanical Market by Subapplication
It can be expected that increased sales in CAD software translate to
increased sales in NC software. We have found that growth of NC software typically lags that of CAD software, but not by much. We expect NC
sales to show a five-year CAGR of 10 percent, slightly under our forecast
revenue growth for design applications.
There are two key growth factors for this subapplication. One factor is the
ability of these tools to close the gap between design and manufacturing.
More specifically, a key driver will be the ability to extract information
from design data and bring that intelHgent information to the manufacturing process, and vice versa. This is one area where new software, in the
form of "intelligent" or "smart" objects as we discussed earlier in
Chapter 4, could really find a niche in the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
market. (Such systems could include feature recognition knowledge for
machining user-defined and standard features). We are already seeing
steps in more tightly integrating in-house loiowledge, business practices
design activities, and manufacturing with software packages that incorporate manufacturing rule checking and design rule checking, as weU as generative machining principles (closely linked to part processing design,
which will be discussed in the next section).
The second key factor is the uptake of midrange CAD systems into the
first tier we described in Chapter 4, the tier of users moving from 2-D to
3-D design (for example, a machine shop). If this group of users begin
switching CAD systems in earnest, undoubtedly CAM system updates
will follow on. Further, if these users indeed do move to 3-D soUds-based
design methods, this movement may drive solids-based machining onto
the shop floor.
Figure 5-5
1997 Numerical Control Market Share
— Matra Datavision (7.0%)
•— Unigraphics Solutions (4.7%)
Tebis (2.7%)
Sescoi (2.9%) —'
Cimatron (3.3%)
CGTech (3.6%)
SDRC (3.3%)
965237
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
36
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Part Processing Design
Part processing design is concerned with the design of a series of manufacturing Steps needed to manufacture a part, which can include tool-path
optimization, material speed and feed rates, machine tool definitions, and
machining operations. Few vendors actually offer tools that can be considered in this subapplication; hence, we are not showing market share of the
part processing design players. Today's players and products include
Dassault Systemes' Prismatic Machining Assistant, Matra Datavision's
Euclid Machinist, SDRC's I-DEAS Generative Machining, and Tecnomatix
Technologies FART.
We expect this subapplication to take shape over the next few years,
morphing into a category that includes Icnowledge-based machining and
capturing of design and manufacturing practices within a given company—"smart" CAM. The high growth that we are forecasting for this
subapplication is driven by the fact that much of the CAM work today is
still done manually or with a patchwork of different programs. The real
impediment to growth will be capturing mind share in the fragmented
collection of job shops and manufacturing outfits, particularly in the
United States, where users are accustomed to a lot of manual processes.
Other Manufacturing Applications
Coordinate measuring machines and off-line robotics round out the CAM
subapplications. Because of the small size of these subappUcations, we
have chosen not to show market share of the vendors. VVe do not expect to
see any large growth opportunity in coordinate measuring machine software as it exists today.
On the Other hand, off-line robotics presents some real opportunities for
vendors—enough potential opportunity that Dassault Systemes purchased Deneb Robotics in late 1997. In return, Tecnomatix forged tight
relationships with many of the other CAD vendors. Currentiy, Dassault
Systemes, IBM, and Tecnomatix Technologies compete in this space. Revenue for this subapplication was at $47 million in 1997, but the real market
opportunity today is sHghtly larger than that, as we currently do not tiack
all players (such as SILMA). Because of the small size of this
subapplication, we have chosen not to show market share information at
this time.
This subapplication is just heating u p . A streamlined progression from
CAD to manufacturing has been a desire of many discrete manufacturing
companies. Both computer-aided process engineering (CAPE) and virtual
manufacturing have been targeted as solutions to the problem. To date,
plant floor simulations and layouts have not been tightiy linked to C A D /
CAM systems; only NC programming information has that "tight" Unk
(and some may even argue ffiat). With the right tools and positioning (one
that focuses on process, not product), we anticipate that this subapplication will post healthy growth. And, it is the big CAD spenders—ffiose in
automotive, aerospace, and industrial machinery—that will fuel growth in
this subapplication.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Mechanical Market by Subapplication
37^
Other Tools
Product Data Management
The influx of new players that began in 1996 and trickled over into 1997
(most notably Agile Software, ConsenSys, Right Angle, and Smart Solutions) has slowed down. The biggest PDM news in 1997 was major repositioning of products and new products offered by the major CAD vendors
(for example, Dassault Systemes' ENOVIA and FTC's Windchill).
Figure 5-6 shows the 1997 market share of the leading PDM vendors. It is
important to note that Dataquest tracks only those vendors that specifically offer PDM functionality, that is, a combination of vault, workflow,
and product structure. We do not track systems integrators, consultants,
companies offering conversion services, companies offering redlining/
markup software, or hardvvare providers (for example, companies offering
scarming devices). Nor do we track those companies that are primarily
document management vendors (like Documentum and Cimage). As a
result, our market size of $275 miUion in PDM software is smaller than
what is typically quoted by other market research companies.
In a change from previous years, Computervision, which held the No. 1
spot last year, has been replaced by SDRC. The market as a whole was
essentially flat in 1997. PDM purchases are still largely being made by discrete manufacturing companies, and a sizable chunk of the revenue generated in this market is still going to the mechanical CAD vendors. Of
course, as some of these vendors become more PDM-focused and less document management-focused, we will begin to include those vendors in
our PDM subapplication.
Product data management has never exploded as many have hoped, and
we continue to be conservative in our growth estimates. We expect PDM's
software growth to remain slightly above the overall mechanical applications growth rate. We still suspect that one of the big factors inhibiting
growth in this market is CAD-to-PDM integration, according to a PDM
end-user survey we conducted in early 1997. Users rated CAD-to-PDM
integration the most important in a series of PDM features. Further, the
difference between their importance ratings and their satisfaction ratings
for CAD-to-PDM integration was the greatest (mearung they were highly
dissatisfied) of all the features. PDM systems are also fighting the same
organizational/cultural barriers they have fought since the beginning.
With the refocusing on PDM by the major mechanical CAD vendors in
1998, we expect the C A D / P D M integration problem to be tackled head-on
over the next few years.
In 1996, we could have said that integration of PDM with manufacturing
resource plarming (MRP) solutions from compEUiies like SAP and Baan
was the "trendy" thing to do. In 1997, it has been Web enabhng the PDM
solution (that is, creating a Web-based interface for the PDM cUent).
Neither "trend" will create explosive growth in the market. The PDM
vision must be revisited to incorporate elements of collaborative engineering (which we discuss below) within an intianet or Internet environment.
Even then, it will still be a missionary sale. On a positive note, some of the
vendors understand this need and are rolling out products that are more
than just Web-enabled solutions of their old PDM solutions.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
38
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Companies that are solely PDM players (that is, they don't have a CAD
side of the business) are the ones looking outside of discrete mechanicaloriented manufacturing as a growth opportunity for PDM. Two targeted
areas are electronic design and process plant design. While we can argue
that electronic design is somewhat similar to mechcuiical design and PDM
vendors may have an easier time making the transition to sell to this
group of users, plant design/construction is an industry that could benefit
from a standards-based approach to PDM. Plant design can be characterized as large, one-design/one-build projects with a need for standards and
persistent data. Nevertheless, PDM caruiot simply be brought into new
markets or industries without understanding what the end-user needs
and industry-specific processes are. Until that changes, PDM will largely
be a solution that resides with discrete manufacturers.
Component Information Systems
Component information systems (CIS) is a unique subapplication that
straddles mechanical, electrical, and architectural design/construction.
Dataquest recognizes the players in this market as Aspect Development
(which now owns CADIS), CenTOR Software, Information Handling Systems (IHS), newcomer InPart, and Thomas Publishing Company (which
purchased Autodesk Data Publishing products PartSpec, PlantSpec, and
CADBlocks). We do not include those companies that make a living at
simply making electronic versions of their catalogs. Because of the small
size Of this subapplication the w a y we have defined it today, we are not
reporting market share information at this time. Furthermore, our market
size reflects only those vendors (or a portion of those vendors) that are
positioned for discrete manufacturing CIS.
Figure 5-6
1997 Product Data M a n a g e m e n t Market Share
/
Matrix One (2.5%)
—-
Eigner-1-Partner (3.1%)
—-
CoCreate (3.4%) — A
\^
y \
/
Parametric \
Technology \
(11.5%)
1
others
(21.0%)
/
Agile Software (2.3%) — f
SDRC
(12.7%)
y
~^-.--____^
/
\ N ^
\ ^
^.^^^
/
//
/
Unigraphics Solutions (6.0%) — ^ ^ ^ _
Sherpa
(10.0%)
1
f
/
VNEC
\f5.1%]X/
N.
\
••:•
\
\
IBM \
(7.6%)
Formtek
^^
^.Wk)M
^
\^^r
Gomputervision (7.0%)
8B5S3S
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
Mechanical Market by Subapplication
39
The CIS players differentiate themselves from one another based on a
number of factors, including the following:
• Electrical, mechanical, or materials component emphasis
• Revenue generated from legacy data conversion services, content or
subscription services, and search/retrieval engines
• Search/retrieval capabilities
• Interfaces to PDM, CAD, or MRP systems
• Web/Intemet/intranet capabiUties
Our current market size reports CIS software revenue of $7 milUon,
though this number does not include Aspect Development and IHS (both
of which are focused on electronics components). Nor does it include
InPart (which did not have a shipping product until 1998). In short, the
market is bigger than we show, and we will be working in 1999 to improve
our coverage here.
This subapplication will be a rising star over the next five years, with
growth much greater than any other mechanical subapplication we currently track. Both low-end and high-end CIS applications are expected to
do well. On one hand, there is still a lot of component and part selection
done manually (with the engineer searching through paper-based catalogs). We expect much of this to be automated over the next five years,
provided the prices of these lower-end CIS systems stay low. High-end
CIS deployments that involve corporate re-engineering and a significant
amount of database development will also show healthy growth.
Here, particularly in discrete manufacturing environments, the rising
interest in corporate intranets as a delivery vehicle for information will
further advance the market. The only limit to growth at the high end is the
fact that these high-end CIS systems are often competing for dollars with
PDM deployment and MRP systems.
Application Development Environments
Application development environments are the programming tools used
to aid in the generation of user-defined, custom programs. These tools
include CAD customization tools like Unigraphics Solutions' UG/GRIP
and Parametric Technology's Pro/DEVELOP. It also includes some of the
new architectures announced over the past few years, like Matra Datavision's CAS.CADE and Computervision's now-defunct Pelorus. Virtually
every CAD vendor has an application development environment, largely
used for application customization. Again, because of the small size of this
market ($23 million in 1997) we have chosen not to show any market share
information at this time.
The newer application development environments are closely ahgned
with object-oriented software and architectures for CAD applications. As
the concept of object-oriented technology and component software technology for CAD takes off, so will this new breed of application development environments. When we begin to see this happen, we can raise our
forecast for this subapplication.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
40
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Knowledge-Based Engineering
Generative teclmologies, expert systems, and KBE or rule-based engineering (RBE) can be best envisioned as technologies to automate repetitive
portions of the engineering design process. For instance, a company can
use an RBE system to develop a model that captures the full spectmm of
engineering rules, industry standards, manufacturing constraints, cost
information, and scheduling constraints. As a result of capturing these
processes and knowledge, new designs can be generated directly from
functional specifications.
RBE technologies have existed for quite some time, and vendors have
come and gone in this market. Today, the way we have defined KBE, the
market has two mainstay players—Concentra and Stone & Webster—and
a handful of small players offering knowledge-based engines or larger
players (like Trilogy) that are building applications on top of KBE
technology. The only player that we track in this market today is Concentra. Thus, we will not show market share or a growth forecast for this
subapplication.
Three years ago, we were describing KBE as a productivity multiplier for
any CAD system where rules are developed that can drive automated
applications, capture design intent, and automate sharing of data between
applications and departments. On paper, KBE looks like the perfect solution for getting products, current and future ones, out the door faster. In
reality, RBE/KBE has not taken off, partly because of the fact that the technology has been costly and not well understood. Furthermore, the systems
today require a significant amount of programming, typically in a vendorproprietary language, and a fair amount of consulting work, to develop a
usable application for the end user. For a company to implement KBE in
the first place, it needs to have a good understanding of its design knowledge (in order to capture it) and design processes (in order to automate
them).
We expect growth in the rule-based engineering subapplication to come
when the task of building (which today means programming) applications
becomes easier or more robust applications are developed based on the
technology.
CMEC-WW-MT-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 28,1998
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http: / / wwv^.dataquest.com
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
72198
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AMERICA
EUROPE
ASIA/PACIFIC
Worldwide Headquarters
Dataquest/Gartner Group
251 River Oaks Parkw^ay
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: -f 1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: -(-1-408-954-1780
European Headquarters
Gartner Group Ltd.
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: -1-44-1784-431-611
Facsimile: -F44-1784-488-980
East Coast Research Center
Gartner Group Lowell
900 Chelmsford Street
Tower Two, Floor Nine
Lowell, Massachusetts 01851
United States
Asia Headquarters
Gartner Group Hong Kong
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: -1-852-2824-6168
Facsimile: -F852-2824-6138
Dataquest France
Immeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: •f33-l-41-35-13-00
Facsimile: -t-33-1-41-35-13-13
Phone: -H1-978-323-6900
Facsimile: - F 1 - 9 7 8 - 3 2 3 - 6 9 3 3
Dataquest Germany
Martin-KoUar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -(-49-89-42-70-4-0
Facsimile: -F49-89-42-70-4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
Japan
Phone: -(-81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: +81-3-3481-3644
Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Group Pacific
80 Alfred Street - 6th Floor
MUsons Point, NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: 4-61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: -(-61-2-9941-4868
Korea
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 1-35-729
Korea
Phone: -(-82-2-551-1331
Facsimile: -H82-2-551-1330
Taiwan
Gartner Group Taiwan Ltd.
llF-2,188, Section 5
N a n King East Road
Taipei 105
Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: -(-886-2-2756-0389
Facsimile: -(-886-2-2756-2663/4122
Thailand
Gartner Group Thailand Ltd.
29 Vanissa Building, 12F
Soi Chidlom, Ploenchit Road
Pathumviran, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: -(-662-655-0577
Facsimile: -(-662-655-0576
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest
Singapore
Gartner Group/DQ Research n e Ltd.
6 Temasek Boulevard #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: 4-65-333-6773
Facsimile: -^65-333-6787
i
DataQuest
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Worldwide Market Definitions
Dataquest Guide
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
information Resource Center
Gartner Group / Dataquest
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-GU-g801
Publication Date: Marcli 2,1998
Fiiing: Guides
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Worldwide Market Definitions
Dataquest Guide
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-GU-9801
Publication Date: March 2,1998
Filing: Guides
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Market Definitions
>
Table of Contents
Page
1. Market Share Survey Overview
Methodology
2. G A D / G A M / G A E , AEG and GIS, and EDA Companies
The North American Gompanies
The European Companies
The Japanese Companies
3. Research Metrics
Revenue and Channel Definitions
4. C A D / C A M / C A E , AEG and GIS, and EDA Software Apphcations
Definitions
5. G A D / G A M / G A E Applications Segmentation
Mechanical
CAD—Gomputer-Aided Design
CAE—Computer-Aided Engineering
CAM—Computer-Aided Manufacturing
Miscellaneous
Electronic Design Automation
CAE
IGCAD
Printed Circuit Board Design
AEG and GIS
AEG/Architectural, Engineering, and Construction
GIS/Mapping Software
6. C A D / C A M / C A E , AEG and GIS, and EDA Operating Systems
Group Definitions
7. C A D / C A M / C A E , AEG and GIS, and EDA Operatmg System
and Industry Segmentation
Operating Systems
Industry Sectors
8. Regional IDefirutions
9. Exchange Rate Policy for Financial Reporting
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
1
1
3
3
7
10
13
13
15
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
21
22
23
23
23
25
27
27
28
31
33
March 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
List of Tables
Table
Page
9-1 Average 1996 and 1997 Exchange Rates against the U.S. Dollar
33
i
i
i
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
I
Chapter 1
Market Share Survey Overview
Each year, Dataquest surveys C A D / C A M / C A E , AEG and GIS, and EDA
vendors in order to estimate their annual revenue. The survey for 1997
covers 286 vendors w^orldwide by six main applications segments, four
Operating systems groups, four world regions, European and Asian countries, hardware, software, services, and distribution channels. This exercise
provides input for Dataquest's dynamic database of GAD/GAM/GAE,
AEG and GIS, and EDA shipments/revenue by world region/country,
operating systems, and applications segment. The information gained is
supplemented by, and cross-checked with, Dataquest's other information
sources.
The CAD/CAM/GAE market share survey takes place twice each year.
The first survey in the fourth quarter is to prepare early estimates for the
calendar year. This is followed by a second survey in the spring in order to
finalize estimates for the previous calendar year. The first survey takes
place from October to December. Our preliminary estimates are completed
by January of the following year, and the results are summarized in a fax
report that is released in February and pubhshed in a Dataquest document
in March.
The second survey takes place during April. Our final GAD/GAM/GAE,
AEG and GIS, and EDA market share estimates are again published in a
Dataquest document by the end of June. There is usually minimal difference between early and final rankings, as Dataquest makes every effort to
ensure preUminary estimates are as accurate as possible. However, there
are usually some surprises at year-end, and our numbers do change. It
should also be noted that when new information becomes available concerrung a previous year's numbers, the database is updated to reflect the
best information available.
The categories for which GAD/GAM/GAE, AEG and GIS, and EDA revenue is reported are defined comprehensively for the purpose of clarity and
guidance to survey participants. These definitions may occasionally be
revised, altered, or expanded to reflect changes in the industry. To support
these definitions, Dataquest will send an annual survey guide to all participants in its GAD/GAM/GAE, AEG and GIS, and EDA market share survey program. This document comprises the 1997 survey guide.
Methodology
Dataquest utilizes both primary and secondary sources to produce market
share data. In addition to the annual market share survey, Dataquest uses
the following sources in order to accurately quantify market activity:
• Irvformation published by major industry participants
• Estimates made by knowledgeable and rehable industry spokespersons
• Government data or trade association data
• Published product literature and price lists
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Interviews with knowledgeable manufacturers, distributors, and users
• Relevant economic data
• Information and data from online or CD-ROM data banks
• Articles in both the general and trade press
• Reports from financial analysts
• Armual reports. Securities and Exchange Commission documents, and
credit reports
• Reseller and supplier reports and reports from vendors' competitors
• User studies
Dataquest also sums vendor revenue across other industries covered by
Dataquest to make sure 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
tools described to get the most accurate information possible on a particular company (such as what to use when, and what industry averages are).
It is the C A D / C A M / C A E , AEC and CIS, and EDA 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.
We survey worldwide, which involves more vendors and therefore presents higher total market revenue, lower market share per vendor, and a
more accurate overall market picture.
Despite the care taken in gathering, analyzing, and categorizing the data
in a meaningful way, careful attention must be paid to the definitions and
assumptions used herein when interpreting the estimates presented in 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 data provided by Dataquest and data provided by other
suppliers.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
I
Chapter 2
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Companies
Dataquest will survey the following CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and
EDA comparues throughout the world for 1997 data.
The North American Companies
The following companies to be surveyed are headquartered in
North America.
•
•
•
•
•
3D/Eye
Abstract Hardware
Accel Technologies
Accugraph
AdinaR&D
• Agile Software
•
•
•
•
ALDEC
Algor Interactive Systems
Alias Reseeu-ch
Altair Computing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AMBIT Design Systems
Analogy
Ansoft
Ansys
Applicon
Applied Simulation Technology
APTIX
• Artisan Components
• Ashlar
• Aspec Technology
•
•
•
•
•
Aspect Development
Auto-Trol
Autodesk
Autometric
AVANT!
• B.A. Intelligence Networks
• Baystate Technologies
• Bentley Systems
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Boothroyd Dewhurst
• Cadence
• Cadis Software
• CADSI
• CAEPlus
• Cascade Design Automation
• CGTech
• Chronology
• Chrysalis Symbolic Design
• CIMLINC
• CMstat
• CNC Software
• CoCreate
• Computervision
li Concentra
• ConsenSys
•
•
•
•
•
•
CoreLogic
CSAR
DATACADLLC
Design Acceleration
Diehl Graphsoft
Digital Equipment
• DP Technology
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eh-awbase Software
DSP Group
Dynamic Graphics
EA Systems
Eagle Point
Earth Resource Mapping
• EDS Unigraphics
• Enghouse Systems Ltd.
• Engineered Software
• Engineering Mechanics
• ERDAS
• ESRI
• Fintronic
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998Dataquest
March 2,1998
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Companies
• First Cadcam
li Formtek
• Gambit Automated Design
• GDS
• Genasys II
• Geo/SQL
• GEOMAXIntL
• Gerber Systems
• Gibbs and Assoc.
• Hewlett-Packard
• i-Loglx
• IBM
• IKOS Systems
• IMSI
• Interactive Image Technology
• Intergraph
• InterHDL
• International Software Systems
•
fritusoft
• Isicad
• KNIGHT
• Landmark Graphics
• Livermore Software Tech.
• Logic Vision
• Lucent Technology
• MacNeal-Schwendler
• Maplnfo
• MARC
• MatrixOne
• MCS
• Mechanical Dynamics
• Mentor Graphics
• MICROCADAM
• Microsim
• Mine Software
• NOVASOFT Systems
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
• O E A International
g
• Optem Engineering
"
• OrCADEDA
• Pacific N u m e r i x
• PADS Software
• P a r a m e t r i c Technology
• PCI G r o u p
•
Precedence
• Protel Technology
• Quantic Laboratories
• Q u l c k t u m Design S y s t e m s
• Radian Corporation
•
Rebls
• Research Engineers—Clvllsoft
•
Rublcad
• S a n d Micro
• Savantage
• Sente
j
• SES
1
• Sherpa
• S H L Vision Solutions
• Sigma D e s i g n
• Silicon G r a p h i c s
• Silicon Valley Research
•
SILVACO
•
SIMUCAD
• S i m u l a t i o n Technology
• Spati^al Technology
•
SRAC
• Structural D y n a m i c s Research C o r p o r a t i o n
• Summit Design
• Svm M i c r o s y s t e m s
•
Surfware
• Sweet's Electronic P u b l i s h i n g
CIVIEC-WW-GU-9801
• Syriario D e s i g n A u t o m a t i o n
A
m Syrropsys
^
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Companies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
Synplicity
Syntest
Systems Science
T D Technology
Tactician
Tanner Research
Tecnomatix Technology
Terr-Mar Resource Info Svs.
Terra Sciences
TMA Incorporated
UNISYS
Variation Systems Analysis
Veritools
Viagrafix
• Virtual Chips
• Workgroup Tech.
• X5metix
\
The European Companies
The following companies to be surveyed are headquartered in Europe.
• ACALtd.
• Advanced RISC Machines
• ALS Design
• Anilam Electronics
• APICSA
• ARKTEC
• ASCAD
• Assigraph International
• BCTGmbH
• CAD-UL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
CAD Centre
CAD Distribution
CAD Lab
CADdy Spain
Cadtronic
Catalpa groupe Missler
Cimatron
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• CIMTEK
• Complansoft CAD
"
• Computational Mechanics
• Computer Services Consultants
• Concurrent Engineering
• Dansk Data Elektronik
•
•
•
•
•
•
DapcoSA
Dassault Systemes
debis Systemhaus
Delcamplc
Eigner + Partner
Elstree Computing
• ESI Group
•
•
•
•
Exapt
FHECOR
Flomerics
Graphisoft Group
• Ground Modeling Systems
• Han Dataport
•
•
•
•
.
"
Hochtief
ICEM Technologies
ICL
lEZ-Speedikon
• INCASES
• Investronica SA
•
•
•
•
•
ISD Software
ISDATA
ISKA
Just In Time Systems
Kockums Computer Systems
• Laser-Scan
•
•
•
•
M.O.C.
Macon
Matra Datavision
mb Programme
i
• Modultek
• MOSS Systems Group
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIB, and EDA Companies
• Nemetschek
• Network Management Tools
• Norlinvest Ltd.
• N o . 1 Systems
• Open Mind
• PAFEC
• Pathtrace Engineering Systems
• Poppenhaeger Grips
• PROCAD GmbH & Co. KG
• Radan Computational
•
RIB/Bausoftware
• RoboCAD Solutions
• Sagantec
• Sener Ingiruera y Sistemaus
• Serbi
• Sescoi
• Siemens Nixdorf Info systeme
• Smallworld Systems
n Soft-Tech Software Technologies
•
.
Softronics
• Speed
• Star Informatic
• Straessle Informationssysteme
•
Superdraft
• Sysdeco Irmovation
• Tebis
• Triplan
• ULTImate Technology
• VEDA
• Vero International Software
• Whessoe Computing Systems
• Wiechers Datentechiuk
• Ziegler Informatics
The Japanese Companies
The following companies to be surveyed are headquartered in Japan.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
20
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Adam Net .
^
• Andor
"
• Argo Graphics
• C. Itoh Techno-Science
• CADIX
• Century Research Center
• CPU
• Design Automation
• Fujitsu
• Graphtec Engineering
• Hakuto
• Hitachi
• Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
• Info. Services International Dentsu
• Informatix
• Kanematsu Computer Systems
• Kozo Keikaku Engineering
• Kubota Computer
i
• Marubeni Hytech
• Mitsubishi Electric
• Mitsui Engineering
• Mutoh Industries
• NEC
• Nihonltek
• Nihon Unisys
• Okura
• Omron
• Pasco
• Ricoh
• Seiko
• Sharp
• Sony
• Sophia Systems
• Sumisho Electronics
Sumitomo Denko Workstation
i
Technodia
CM EC-WW-G U-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Companies
11^
• TECHSPERT
• Tokyo Electron
• Toshiba
• Toshiba Engineering
• Toyo Information Systems
• TSSI Japan
• UchidaYoko
• Wacom
• Yokogawa Digital Computer
• Zuken-Redac
Of the 286 companies to he surveyed, 153 are North American, 87 are
European, and 46 are Japanese.
CMlEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
Chapter 3
Research Metrics
Definitions for the research metrics used in this survey are as follows:
• Compound annual growth rate (CAGR): A computed, compounded
growth rate used in forecasting.
• Average selling price (ASP): The average amount of money received by
the factory for the sale of a turnkey/hardware system. The database
forces reconciUation of a company's revenue and tmit shipments with
the average selling prices of each application and platform.
• Installed base: The total number of seats/CPUs in use; calculated by
forecasting the previous year's installed base plus the year's unit/CPU
shipments, less retirements.
• Seats: The number of possible simultaneous users.
• Unit shipments: The number of seats delivered, excluding those sold to
another compcuiy for resale (OEM). CPU shipments are defined as the
number of CPUs delivered, which is the same as unit shipments for aU
platforms but host-dependent platforms.
Revenue and Channel Definitions
• Total distribution revenue: The total amotmt of money received by a
company for all goods and services sold into the CAD/CAM/CAE/
GID market. It is the sum of factory revenue, OEM revenue, and reseller
revenue.
• Channels:
• Direct channel: The channel through which product moves directly
from the manufacturer or vendor to the end user, usually by means of
a professionally trained salesforce.
• OEM: The channel through which vendors or manufacturers sell
their finished product to other companies for resale through an agreement. Once sold, the product is usually modified slightly and then
resold directly to the end user or through an indirect channel.
Vendors that resell nonbranded product differ from VARs in that they
often add their name to the product and back up its warranties.
• Indirect charvnels: All other channels through which the finished
product moves to the end user, including VARs, dealers, and mass
merchandisers.
• Dealer revenue: Dealer revenue is based on a multipHer of indirect
revenue. Dealer revenue always exists for every vendor with indirect
sales, and it is always equal to, or greater than, indirect revenue.
Calculation of these dealer multipliers vary by vendor, by region, and
by platform.
• Reseller revenue: The revenue a named company in the CAD/CAM/
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA database receives for selling another
company's product, such as Intergraph's revenue from Bentley
Microstation products, IBM's revenue for reselling MICROCADAM,
or Fujitsu's revenue for reselling software from several U.S. vendors.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
13
14
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Total factory revenue: Money received by a company for its goods,
excluding OEM revenue or consulting revenue.
• Hardware revenue: Revenue derived from the sales of CPUs (including
operating systems), terminals (for host-dependent systems), and
peripherals.
• Software revenue: Revenue derived from the sales of bundled (part of a
turnkey system) and imbundled applications software. It does not
include operating systems revenue, which is part of the hardware
revenue.
The following cure the three types of software revenue reported in the
C A D / C A M / C A E , AEC and CIS, and EDA database:
• Product software revenue: Direct and indirect software revenue combined, excluding OEM and reseller sales. This metric is used to determine market size.
• Company software revenue: The sum of revenue from the direct, indirect, OEM, and reseller channels for any given company.
• End-user software revenue: The sum of revenue from the direct, dealer,
OEM, and reseller channels for any given company.
To avoid double-covmting the market, market size based on company software revenue is the sum of revenue from the direct and indirect channels,
and market size based on end-user spending is the sum of revenue from
the direct and dealer charmels.
• Service revenue: Revenue derived from the service and support of
C A D / C A M / C A E , AEC and GIS, and EDA systems. Service revenue
can be calculated in the market share tables by subtracting hardware
and software revenue from total factory revenue. Service revenue
includes the following:
• Applications development: Adding new functionality for a specific
customer who pays for the design and development of new customized CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA software applications, or the modification, enhancement, or customization of existing
software applications.
• Consulting: Including an assessment of a company's C A D / C A M /
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA business IT needs and formulation of a
plan based on needs identification.
a Integration services: Planning, implementing, migrating, and integrating software products.
• Maintenance: Fees for hardware and software.
a Management and operations services: Includes help desk, education
and training, disaster recovery, vaulting, facilities management, configuration management, and relocation services.
• Service bureau: Includes construction of database, data conversion,
product design, analysis, or manufacturing.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
I
Chapter 4
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Software
Applications Definitions
^^^^—^^^—
Dataquest segments data by application types. They are as follows:
• Mechanical: This segment refers to computer-aided tools used by engineers, designers, analysts, and drafters working predominantly in discrete manufacturing industries. Common design applications include
conceptual design, industrial design, stixictural or thermal analysis, and
detail design. Common manufacturing applications include tool and
fixture design and numerical control.
• Electronic design automation (EDA): This segment covers computerbased tools that are used to automate the process of designing an electronic product, including printed circuit boards, ICs, and systems. EDA
includes electronic CAE, IC layout, and PCB/hybrid/MCM, as foUows:
• Electronic computer-aided engineering (CAE): These are computeraided 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 applications 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.
• 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 computerbased technology, composed of hardware, software, a n d data used to
capture, edit, display, and analyze spatial (tagged by location)
information.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
15
I
Chapter 5
CAD/CAM/CAE Applications Segmentation
Additional surveys are conducted to further segment the industry with
software revenue sales by application. The applications divisions are set
forth in the following sections.
Mechanical
The modeling technology applications are as follows:
• Solid modeling: The representation of a part or assembly capturing all
relevant data describing solid characteristics of a project. This can
include shape, weight, color, surface texture, and mass properties.
Boolean operations are commonly used to add and subtract volumes
together to define the final shape of the object.
• 2-D modeling: The representation of a part in two dimensions (it has an
x and y coordinate). This format requires three or more views (top,
front, and side) to depict aU aspects of the part. 2-D is the most common
geometric modeling format and is used extensively with a drafting
function.
• 3-D modeling: The representation of a part in three dimensions, usually
in a wire-frame format (it has an x, y, and z coordinate). This format is
commonly used in high-level CAD systems to determine the placement
and fit of components in an assembly. It is generally not used for final
drafting, although some systems have the capability to translate the 3-D
image to a 2-D standard drafting format.
CAD—Computer-Aided Design
Definitions for the CAD application segment are as follows:
• Conceptual design: Initial design process that includes industrial
design, styUng, conceptual modeling, rendering, and visualization.
• Functional design:
• Component design: Design of the individual components in an
assembly.
• Assembly modeling: Integration of component designs into an
assembly to test size/shape and functional characteristics.
• Manufacturing tool and fixture design: Design of custom-made tooling
to facilitate a manufacturing process or structural aids to hold a component or assembly during manufacturing.
• Drafting and documentation: Representation of a part in standard
geometric drafting format, including all part geometry dimensions and
notations describing mechanical, functional, and material characteristics. Also includes schematics and technical illustration.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
17
;I8
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
CAE—Computer-Aided Engineering
Definitions for the CAE application segment are as follows:
• Analysis: Analysis of a physical system, part, or assembly; including
structural, thermal, vibrational, composite, fatigue, stack-up, and mass
property analysis.
• Linkage/mechanism: Motion simulation and analysis of an assembly of
components with two or more movable parts.
CAM—Computer-Aided Manufacturing
Definitions for the CAM application segment are as foUows:
• Manufacturing process simulation:
• Numerical control (NC) part programming: Programming of a
numerical control machine tool or automated processing system.
• Part processing design: Design of a series of manufacturing steps.
• Other manufacturing applications:
• Coordinate measuring machines: Programming of machines used to
measure the physical dimensions of a part.
• Offline robotics: Process simulation that represents the sequence of
steps to program a robot for a particular operation and downloads
data to a robot to update its control program.
Miscellaneous
Definitions for the miscellaneous application segment are as follows:
• Knowledge-based engineering tools: Tools used to capture design intent
and build standard practices for controlling, modifying, and automating design and manufacturing activities. Also known as rule-based
engineering.
• Application development tools: Programming tools to aid in the generation of user-defined programs that drive or interface with CAD/CAM/
CAE appUcations.
• Product data management: Software typically used in an engineering or
manufacturing environment to manage product data. PDM includes
product structure management, workflow, and vault/document
management.
• Component information systems: Software used to navigate within and
manage a repository of engineering parts and associated data.
Electronic Design Automation
For the past few years, Dataquest has subdivided the electroruc CAE market in an entirely new way. The subdivisions are based on design method-
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
CAD/CAM/CAE Applications Segmentation
19
ologies such as gate-level design, register transfer (RT)-level design, and
electionic system (ES)-level design.
Under the methodology, a design is first entered and simulated, usually at
the RT level. It is then synthesized or compiled down to the level below it.
This process continues (simulation and synthesis) until the design is
placed and routed at the physical design level, at which point timing
information is extracted from the physical design. At this point, the verification process begins.
For verification, the process flows in an upward direction. From the physical design level, timing information is extracted, and design rule checkers
and logic rule checkers are used to ensure a correct design at the physical
level. Verification continues in this upward fashion until the level at which
the design process originally began is reached.
CAE
Definitions for the CAE application segment are as follows:
• Electionic system (ES) level:
• Electronic system level design: Design at the conceptual level including hardware/software codesign, design partitioning, and specification; it includes no register transfer or logic level descriptions.
• Behavioral simulation: Nontiming based simulation.
• Behavioral synthesis: Synthesis of an ES-level design description to
tire RT level.
• Formal verification: The process of mathematically proving that an
RT-level description equates to an ES-level description (or less specifically, that any design representation equates to another).
• ESL emulators: Dedicated hardware/software that allows a designer
to observe the function of a circuit or design at the behavioral level
prior to prototype.
• Register tiansfer (RT) level:
• RT level design: Tools designed to assist engineers in entering a
design or analyzing the simulated results of that design. This
includes the use of graphical symbols to represent RT-level VHDL or
Verilog.
• RT-level simulation: Simtdation at the RT level.
• VHDL: Simulation using the VHSIC Hardware Description
Language.
• Verilog: Simulation using the Verilog Hardware Description
Language.
• Cycle-based simulation: Simulation that does not use time steps as
the basis of measurement but uses clock cycles.
• Mixed-signal simulation: Simulation in which both digital and
analog inputs are used.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
20
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Accelerators: Dedicated hardware/software or optimized software
used to speed up simulation, typically at the RT level.
a Emulators: Dedicated hardware/software that allows a designer to
observe the function of a circuit or design at the RT level prior to
prototype.
• Logic synthesis: Synthesis or translation of an RT-level description to
a gate-level description.
a Target compiler: A translation of an RT-level description to a silicon
implementation. Sometimes called model generation.
• RTL analysis: Tools used for the analysis of designs at the RT level.
• Timing analysis: Verification of the timing of a design; the process
usually involves providing inputs to a physical circuit model or
computer simulation to test the nondynamic functions of a design;
static timing verification does not require the use of test vectors to
determine timing violations.
• Signal analysis (including transmission line and cross-talk analysis): Analysis of high-speed coupling effects between signal line
and reflection/degradation of high-speed signals on PCBs, MCMs,
or ICs.
• Power analysis: Analysis of the power consumption of PCBs, ICs,
multichip modules (MCMs), and systems.
• Thermal analysis: Analysis of heat distribution in PCBs, ICs, multichip modules (MCMs), and systems. Possibly not applicable at the
RT level.
i
• EMI: Analysis of electromagnetic generation and interference for
PCBs, ICs, and cables/connectors/packaging.
• Metal or electro migration: The unauthorized movement of metal
in an IC because of excessive current density.
a Design for test tools: Tools used to determine, improve, or add to the
testability of electronic circuits.
• Silicon virtual protot5rpe: Tools that estimate silicon level performance at the RT level. This is done by synthesizing the RT level
description to a virtual silicon implementation of fiiat code and
reflecting the estimated silicon performance back up to the RT level.
This is the essence of the new RTL methodology. A new configiu-ation
of all six analysis tools will plug into the RTL floorplanner to bring
back the verification issues into the design team.
• PCS virtual prototype: A process that uses a virtual representation of
the PC board to estimate physical effects, bringing those effects back
up to the CAE level of design. As is happening with silicon design,
the design engineer will take on more of the responsibility of the end
physical design.
• Hardware/software virtual prototype: A tool that allows the simultaneous design and simulation of both the hardware, typically in
Verilog or VHDL, and the software, typically in C or C-n-.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
M
^
CAD/CAM/CAE Applications Segmentation
21
• Gate level:
a Schematic capture: A design process that consists of grapliical schematic entry and net-list extraction.
• Simulation: The use of representative or artificial data to reproduce
conditions in a model that could occur in the performance of a system; simulation is used to test the behavior of a system under different operating conditions.
• Gate-level simulation: Simulation based upon a gate-level netlist
(not VHDL or Verilog).
• Analog simulation: Simulation in which only analog inputs are
used.
• Spice simulation: Simulation using a derivative of the Berkeley
Spice transistor-level simulator.
• RF simulation: Frequency based simulation.
• Accelerators: Dedicated hardware/software or optimized software
used to speed up simulation, typically at the gate level.
• Emulators: Dedicated hardware/software that allows a designer to
observe the function of a circuit or design prior to prototype.
• Miscellaneous:
• Fault simulation/grading: A process that determines which nodes in
a design can be detected by a given set of test vectors.
• Interoperability tools: Software used for database, library, and tool
management. Also includes backplanes, file translators, and design
environments. In general all tools used specifically to integrate a set
of EDA tools.
• Libraries: Description of elements used in EDA designs (for example,
components, simulation models, and symbols) and the tools that
automate the development of libraries.
• FPGA tool set: Dedicated EDA software sold as a package for
FPGA/CPLD design.
ICCAD
Definitions for the IC CAD appUcation segment are as follows:
• Physical verification: The design rule and logic rule checkers used to
perform final verification on an IC design prior to making masks. Previously, we called this subapplication DRC. We are now seeing the migration of the analysis tools into this category forming a physical
verification tool suite.
• Extractors: A utility that extracts information out of the laid out or
completed design, typically resistance and capacitance values.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
22
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
• Delay calculators: A tool that calculates the timing delays in a laid out
or completed design.
• Analysis tools: Tools used for the physical analysis of designs.
• Timing analysis: Verification of the timing of a design; the process
usually involves providing inputs to a physical circuit model or computer simulation to test the nondynamic functions of a design; static
timing verification does not require the use of test vectors to determine timing violations.
• Signal analysis (including transmission line and cross-talk analysis):
Analysis of high-speed coupling effects between signal line and
reflection/degradation of high-speed signals on PCBs, MCMs, or ICs.
• Power analysis: Analysis of the power consumption of PCBs, ICs,
multichip modules (MCMs), and systems.
• Thermal analysis: Analysis of heat distribution in PCBs, ICs, multichip modules (MCMs), and systems.
• EMI: Analysis of electromagnetic generation and interference for
PCBs, ICs, and cables/connectors/packaging.
• Metal or electro migration: The tmauthorized movement of metal in
an IC because of excessive current density.
• Floor planner: A tool that allows a designer to place elements of his
design so that he may look at estimations of the effects of the final place
and route.
• FPGA place and route: Tools used to implement your design into the
targeted FPGA or CPLD. These are also called fitters as they fit your
design into the already existing logic structure of the targeted FPGA or
CPLD.
• IC place and route: Tools used to implement (lay out) your design into
silicon.
• Gate array layout: Tools used to lay out your design into a fixed base
array.
a Cell-based layout: Tools used to lay out nonfixed cell-based designs.
• Custom IC layout: Silicon design tools that v^^ork at the transistor
level. These tools can size transistors, accomplish analog design, and
in general handcraft your siUcon implementation. Sometimes called
layout editors.
Printed Circuit Board Design
Definitions for the printed circuit board design application segment are as
follows:
• PCB Design: Those tools used to design and place and route a printed
circuit board.
• MCM and hybrid design: Those tools used to design and place and
route a multichip module or hybrid substrate.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
CAD/CAM/CAE Applications Segnfientation
23
AEC and GIS
AEC/Architectural, Engineering, and Construction
Definitions for the AEC, or architectural, engineering, and construction,
applications are as follows:
• Architectural: Software used in the design and drafting of buildings and
grounds.
• Civil: Software for both site and structural engineering, typical for
design and drafting of sites for buildings, roads, bridges, and airports
and for the design of steel and concrete structures.
• Facilities design/management: Software used to lay out, inventory, and
manage assets such as personnel space, equipment, and utilities within
a building or geographic service area.
• Process plant design: Software used in design, analysis, drafting, and
management of process, power, and manufacturing plcuits as well as
ships.
GIS/Mapping Software
GIS/mapping software is used to capture, edit, display, and anedyze
spatial (tagged by location) information. It can be categorized as follows:
• Base data: Software used to create baseline geographic data.
• Photogrammetry and surveying: Software used in developing original data for a GIS system based on ground surveying or on remotely
sensed data. Examples include aerial photography or satellite
imagery.
• Data for resale: Includes both GIS softwcu-e used to create data for
resale to end users and revenue from the sale of geographic data.
• Land information: Software used to gather and manage land data.
• Land records: GIS software used to manage land ownership or parcel
information; the typical user is a tax assessor.
• Planning and land use: GIS software used to mcuiage land use; the
tj^ical user is a city planner.
• Biological: Software used to manage and analyze plant and animal life.
• Environmental public health and safety: GIS software used to manage natural resources emd to monitor and analyze environmental factors that contribute to the welfare of the earth and its people.
• Forestry and agriculture: GIS software used for the management of
forests and crops.
• Geoscience (formerly energy exploration): GIS software used to manage
on, gas, and mineral exploration projects. The emphasis of geoscience is
typically on subsurface data.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
24
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Infrastructure management: Management and analysis of man-made
assets (not including utilities).
a Transportation and logistics: GIS software used in transportation
applications such as road or rail network modeling or route plarming.
• Emergency and dispatch services: GIS softwcire used to manage
emergency services such as "911" services and also for-profit dispatch
management systems.
Automated mapping/facility management: GIS software used for managing utility industry networks, based on the following categories:
•
•
a
•
Telecommunications/telephone
Electric
Water and waste water
Other utilities (primarily gas)
Business marketing and sales: GIS software used to promote and sell
services and products, and to identify and evaluate opportunities in a
competitive environment.
• Demographic and location analysis: GIS software used to cmalyze
problems in demographics or site characteristics. Examples include
sales territory selection, site selection, or population analysis. Typical
users are in advertising, marketing, insurance, banking, and real
estate.
• Sales and directional support: GIS software used to help salespeople
locate targets of a sales effort (for example, to locate potential customers, specific properties for sale and driving routes to the properties).
This also includes software used to help customers locate establishments, typically used as travelers' aids.
Geopolitics: The sum of software used in defense/military and political
districting applications.
• Defense/mihtary: GIS software used to manage military or defense
projects for the purpose of command and control.
• Political districting: GIS software used to manage the redistricting
process based on census data.
Cartography: GIS software used in mapmaking appUcations.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
Chapter 6
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Operating Systems
Group Definitions
—^^—^^^^^^—^^^^^^^
Dataquest segments CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA data by
four main operating system groups. These groups are as follows:
• UNIX: UNIX is a 32-bit, multitasking, multiuser operating system,
originally developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories. It is portable and can
be found on most CISC and RISC MPUs, including the Intel SOxxx,
Motorola 68xxx, and Sun SPARC. UNIX uicludes all UNIX variants. A
complete list of UNIX operating systems can be found in Chapter 7.
• Host-dependent systems: These systems include all minicomputer and
mainframe operating systems in which the functions of external workstations are dependent on a host computer. The dominant operating
systems in this group are IBM's VM and Digital Equipment's VMS operating systems.
• Windows NT: Windows NT is Microsoft's multiplatform, 32-bit operating system (either Windows NT or Windows NT Advanced Server) for
high-end PCs, servers, and workstations.
• Personal computer (PC): This group includes MS-DOS, PC-DOS, or
DR-DOS operating systems. MS-DOS was designed by Microsoft for the
original IBM PC. It is the dominant operating system on PC and
PC-clone computing systems. PC-DOS is IBM's version of the disk
Operating system for PC and PC clones. DR-DOS is the Digital Research
(Novell) version of this operating system. Other proprietary DOS variants such as NEC-DOS and J-DOS are included in this category. Also
included are the following:
• Mac OS: Apple's proprietary graphical user interface (GUI) operating
system.
• OS/2: IBM's GUI operating system for high-end PCs and PC servers.
• Windows 3.1: Microsoft's GUI 16-bit operating system that runs on
top of DOS. It is the dominant GUI operating system for PC and PC
clones.
• Windows 95: Windows 95 is Microsoft's 32-bit version of Windows.
Windows 95 is intended to replace Windows 3.1 and does not require
a DOS foimdation.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
25
Chapter 7
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Operating System
and Industry Segmentation
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^
Additional surveys segment the software revenue by operating systems
and by industry, providing yet another look at the CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC
and GIS, and EDA software market. These segments are as follows:
Operating Systems
Operating systems are broken down as foUows:
• Apollo AEGIS
• Apple AUX
• Apple Macintosh/OS
• AT&T Systems V Derivatives
• CDC CYBER NOX/VE
•
•
•
•
•
•
CONVEX UNIX
CRAY UNIX
Digital Equipment Corporation OSF
Digital Equipment Corporation ULTRIX
Digital Equipment Corporation VMS
DOMAIN/ApoUo UNIX
•
•
•
•
DOS
DOS with Windows
Fujitsu—host/proprietary
Hewlett-Packard UX
• Hitachi HI-UX/G (UNIX)
• Hitachi—host/proprietary
• IBMAIX
•
•
•
•
IBMVM/VMS
Intergraph UNIX
MIPS UNIX
NEC EWS-UX (UNIX)
• OS2
•
•
•
•
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
Prime PRIMOS
Siemens—host/proprietary
Siemens-UNIX
SiUcon Graphics UNIX
©1998 Dataquest
27
28
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Solaris
• Sony NEWS-OS (UNIX)
•
Sun—UNIX/OS
• Windows
• Windows NT
• XENIX/SCO UNIX
• Others—UNIX
• Others
• All Operating Systems
Industry Sectors
The C A D / C A M / C A E , AEC and CIS, and EDA database tracks the
following industry sectors:
• Aerospace, guided missiles, and space vehicles
• Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
• Automotive, motorcycles, and bicycles
• Chemical, allied, and petroleum products
• Computers, office equipment, and computer peripherals
• Construction, contractors, and building
• Consumer electronics (TV, VCR, and CD)
• Education
• Electrical/electronic equipment (power, appliances, test, and
measurement)
• Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation
• Finance, insurance, and real estate
• Government: environment and public health resource
• Government: general, executive, public order, and taxation
• Government: national security (defense)
• Government: public works and engineering
• Industrial and commercial machinery (engines and heavy equipment)
• Industrial controls, robotics, and AGVs
• Manufacturing not elsewhere classified (textiles, furniture,
foundries)
and
• Medical manufacturing (instrument/x-ray)
• Mining
• Semiconductors
• Service companies (including architecture firms, engineering consulting
firms, and design services firms)
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Operating System and Industry Segmentation
29
• Shipbuilding, ship repairing, and developing offshore rigs
• Telecommunications and data communications (telephone, radio,
television, and cable)
• Transportation (rail, public transit, and freight transport)
• Utilities and pipelines (electric, gas, sanitary services, and water)
Industries that do not correspond to an above sector are categorized as
"others."
The above industry sectors can be grouped according to standard
Dataquest industry sectors. C A D / C A M / C A E , AEC and GIS, and EDA
industry sectors are listed below under the corresponding standard
Dataquest industry sector.
• Agriculture, mining, and construction (SIC codes 01-19)
• Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
• Construction, contractors, and building
a Mining
• Process manufacturing (SIC codes 20-22,26, 28-30, 32,33)
• Chemical, alUed, and petroleum products
• Discrete manufacturing (SIC codes 23-25,27, 31, 34-39)
• Aerospace, guided missiles, and space vehicles
• Automotive, motorcycles, and bicycles
• Computers, office equipment, and computer peripherals
• Consumer electronics
• Electrical/electronic equipment
• Fabricated metal products
• Industrial and commercial machinery
• Industrial controls, robotics, and AGVs
• Manufacturing not elsewhere classified (textiles, furniture,
foundries)
and
• Medical manufacturing
• Semiconductors
• Shipbuilding, ship repairing, and developing offshore rigs
• Transportation (SIC codes 40-47)
• Transportation
• Communications (SIC code 48)
• Telecommunications and data communications
• Utilities (SIC code 49)
• Utilities and pipelines
• Wholesale ti-ade (SIC codes 50-51)
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
30
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Retail trade (SIC codes 52-59)
• Finance, banking, and real estate (SIC codes 60-62,65-67)
Q Finance and real estate
• Insurance (SIC codes 63-64)
• Miscellaneous services (SIC codes 70-79)
• Health care (SIC code 80)
• Other services (SIC codes 81, 83-89)
• Service companies
• Education (SIC code 82)
• Education
• Government (SIC codes 90-97)
• Government: environment and public health resource
• Government: general, executive, public order, and taxation
• Government: national security (defense)
• Government: public works and engineering
Results from these surveys and the applications' surveys are scheduled to
be published in mid-1998.
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
Chapter 8
Regional Definitions
The foUovving regional hierarchy and definitions are used for all
Dataquest's geographic segmentation. Not all product and service coverage have the entire segmentation. Some may have a greater level and some
may have less.
• North America:
a United States: Single-country region
• Canada: Single-country region
• Europe:
• Western Europe: Includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany
(including former East Germany), Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), Spain,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
• Rest of Western Europe: Includes Andorra, Cj^rus, Faroe Islands,
Gibraltar, Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey,
Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
• Central euid Eastern Europe: Includes Albarua, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lilhuarua, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and the
republics of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
• Japan: Single-covmtry region
• Asia/Pacific:
• Asia/Pacific: Includes China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and
Taiwan
• Rest of Asia: Includes Australia, American Samoa, Ashmore and
Cartier Islands, Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island,
Brunei, Cambodia, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands,
Cook Islands, Coral Sea IslcUids, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji,
French Polynesia, Guam, Howland Island, India, Indonesia, Jarvis
Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Kiribati, Laos, Macau,
Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Midway Islands, Mongolia,
Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand,
Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, North Korea,
Pakistan, Palau, Pahnyra Atoll, Papua New Guinea, Paracel Islands,
Philippines, Pitcaim Islands, Solomon Islands, Spratly Islands,
Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam,
Wake Island, WaUis and Futuna, and Western Samoa
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
31
32
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Rest of World:
a Latin America: Includes Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, Cayman
Islands, Chile, Clipperton Island, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland
Islands (Islas Malvinas), French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe,
Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico,
Montserrat, Navassa Island, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tortola (British
Virgin Islands), Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands,
Uruguay, Venezuela, and Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Croix and
St. Thomas)
• Middle EastlAfrica: Includes Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain,
Bassas da India, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote
d'lvoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Europa
Island, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Glorioso Islands, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Juan de Nova Island, Kenya, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Reuruon, Rwanda, Saint Helena,
Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania,
Togo, Tromelin Island, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United
Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
March 2,1998
Chapter 9
Exchange Rate Policy for Financial Reporting
When converting a company's local currency sales into U.S. dollars, or
vice versa, it is important to use the 1997 exchange rates provided in
Table 9-1. These rates will prevent inconsistencies in the conversion of offshore sales between each company. These are the exchange rates that wiU
be used in the final 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS market share survey.
Exchange rates for historical years are available on request.
Table 9-1
Average 1996 and 1997 Exchange Rates against the U.S. Dollar
Country
Austria
1996 Rate
10.59
1997 Rate
12.20
Schilling
30.96
1.36
5.81
35.79
1.38
Belgian franc
Canadian dollar
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
European Union
Finland
0.80
4.59
France
5.12
Germany
Hong Kong
1.50
7.73
Italy
Japan
1,542.72
108.81
Mexico
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
5.19
5.84
1.73
7.74
1703.02
121.10
7.60
1.69
1.41
7.92
805.16
954.14
146.45
Netherlands
Singapore
South Korea
6.61
0.89
126.68
6.71
27.47
7.64
1.45
28.79
0.64
0.61
1.24
United Kingdom
1.95
1.49
Currency Name
Danish krone
ECU
Markka
French franc
Deutsche mark
Hong Kong dollar
Lira
Yen
Peso
Gulden
Singapore dollar
Won
Peseta
Swedish krona
Swiss franc
NT
Poimd
Note: The annual rate is estimated as the arlthmefIc mean of the 12 monthly rates.
Source: Dataquest (February 1998)
CMEC-WW-GU-9801
©1998 Dataquest
33
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
^^
ljOTO/^1 l^^^f
^^^.
A Gartner Group Company
-Fl-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
57799
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AMERICA
Worldwide Headquarters
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: 1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: 1-408-954-1780
EUROPE
European Headquarters
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone:-t-44 1784 431 611
Facsimile: -i-44 1784 488 980
ASIA/PACIFIC
Asia/Pacific Headquarters
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road, Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: 852-2824-6168
Facsimile: 852-2824-6138
East Coast Research Center
Nine Technology Drive
RO. Box 5093
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581-5093
United States
Phone: 1-508-871-5555
Facsimile: 1-508-871-6262
Dataquest France
Immeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: -h33 1 41 35 13 OO
Facsimile: -(-33 1 41 35 13 13
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: 822-551-1331
Facsimile: 822-551-1330
Dataquest Global Events
3990 Westerly Place, Suite lOO
Newport Beach, California 92660
United States
Phone: 1-714-476-9117
Facsimile: 1-714-476-9969
Dataquest Germany
Martin-KoUar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -f-49 89 42 70 4-0
Facsimile: -(-49 89 42 70 4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153
Japan
Phone: 81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: 81-3-3481-3644
Dataquest Taiwan
llF-2, No. 188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Phone: 8862-2756-0389
Facsimile: 8862-2756-0663
Dataquest Singapore
6 Temasek Boulevard, #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: 65-333-6773
Facsimile: 65-333-6768
Dataquest ThalIand
12/F, Vanissa Building
29 Soi Chidlom
Ploenchit Road
Patumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: 662-655-0577
Facsimile: 662-655-0576
Dataquest AustraIla
80 Alfred Street
Milsons Point NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: 61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: 61-2-9941-4868
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest
i
DataQuest
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Market Forecast
Market Statistics
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Product Code: CMEC-AP-MS-g802
Publication Date: November 2,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
INFORMATIOH RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-468-8600
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Marlcet Forecast
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Product Code: CMEC-AP-MS-9802
Publication Date: November 2,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Forecast
Table of Contents
1. 1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Introduction
Worldv^ide Forecast Assumptions
All Applications
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
CAD Investinents Are Cyclical
Tier Two Investments
New Software, New Platforms, and New Users
Continued Economic Turmoil in Asia/Pacific
Meeting User Needs beyond Design
AEC Forecast Assumptions
CAD Is Becoming a Business Requirement
New Features in AEC CAD Products Are Achievable
A More Tailored Focus
Design Is Only Part of the Problem
GIS/Mapping Forecast Assumptions
Abimdant Supply of Prospective Buyers
New Technologies
Indispensability of GIS
High Cost of Entry Remahis a Barrier
Price Pressures Inhibit Growth
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assumptions
Electronic CAE
IC Layout
PCB Design
History and Forecast for All Applications and
Operating Systems
Forecast Methodology
Changes to the Forecast Database
Segmentation Definitions
Operating Systems
Line Items
Regions
Asia/Pacific
2. 1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Tables
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
13
l\lovenfiber 2,1998
Mechanical CADlCAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
List of Figures
Figure
1-1 CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Forecasting Model
CMEC-AP-l\/IS-g802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
10
November 2,1998
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Forecast
List of Tables
Table
Page
1-1 CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Revenue Growth Comparison
2
1-2 Foreign Currency Exchange Rates against the U.S. DoUar
3
1-3 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue History and Forecast 8
1-4 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue Growth Rate
History and Forecast
8
2-1 Top-Level Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating
Systems
13
2-2 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems. 14
2-3 Detail Mechanical Forecast, China, All Operating Systems
15
2-4 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Hong Kong, AU Operating Systems... 16
2-5 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Korea, All Operating Systems
17
2-6 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Singapore, All Operating Systems
18
2-7 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Taiwan, All Operating Systems
19
2-8 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Rest of Asia, All Operating Systems.. 20
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Chapter 1
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Introduction
This document contains Dataquest's detailed forecast information on the
mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA markets at the
country level. This report is meant to supplement the worldwide forecast
books for each service by providing forecast detail for Asia/Padfic
countries.
Although Dataquest does not forecast currency exchange rates, we do forecast wifii the best information available. The exchange rate is calculated as
the simple arithmetic mean of the 12 average monlhly rates for each country. For the purpose of this forecast, Dataquest assumes the July 1998
exchange rate wiU remain stable in the future (see Tables 1-1 and 1-2).
Additional meirket statistics pubHcations for Dataquest's mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA services for 1998 are as follows:
• Dataquest's 1997 preliminary market share docxrments (pubUshed as
CAEC-WW-MS-9801, CEDA-WW-MS-9801, CMEC-WW-MS-9801) were
sent to our clients in April.
• Dataquest's 1998 preliminary forecast documents were released in June
(published as CAEC-WW-MS-9802, CEDA-WW-MS-9802, CMEC-WWMS-9802).
• Dataquest's 1997 market share data was verified, updated, and sent to
our clients in August as market share update reports (published as
CAEC-WW-MS-9803, CEDA-WW-MS-9803, CMEC-WW-MS-9803).
Country-level data was also made available at this time.
Worldwide Forecast Assumptions
The following sections describe the main forces driving the CAD/CAM/
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worldwide software forecasts.
All Applications
As CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA becomes more of a replacement market, market leaders wovild appear to have the upper hand—the
cost of switching is high. However, software that lets users get a better
product to market faster and helps eliminate business risks wOl always be
in demand, regardless of market share. Thus, there is always an opportunity for new vendors in technical markets.
The primary trend in design software function is toward operating at a
higher level of abstraction. In all appUcations, Dataquest has seen an evolution of focus from electronic paper to component modeling and now to systems modeling, with the eventual goal being to fully simulate, evaluate,
redesign, and test the design inside the computer before manufacture.
Meanwhile, increased computing power is edlowing the nature of design to
evolve to include constituencies in manufacturing, product support, and
from users themselves. Thus the engineering process is being expanded to
include input from a broader base.
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
1
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Table 1-1
CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Revenue Growth Comparison (U.S. Dollars versus Local
Currency for both Europe and Japan)
1996
1997
Forecast
2002
Growth (%)
1996-1997
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2,192.20
2,736.77
2,288.68
2,639.54
3,780.26
3,491.73
4.4
10.6
-3.6
1,166.77
1,160.33
1,678.11
5.8
7.7
6,095.75
0.80
6,088.55
0.89
8,950.11
0.91
1,748.45
2,182.78
930.59
2,036.92
2,349.19
3,440.04
3,177.47
1,032.70
5,418.81
Europe ($M)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
ECU/U.S. Exchange Rate*
Europe (ECU Million)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
Japan ($M)
4,861.82
Software Revenue
1,830.17
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
2,870.44
2,022.25
2,818.60
1,276.08
1,085.79
Total Factory Revenue
5,976.69
108.81
5,926.64
199,140.77
244,894.41
312,332.11
341,332.56
131,489.22
Japan/U.S. Exchange Rate*
Japan (¥M)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
North America ($M)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
Worldwide ($M)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
138,850.70
650,323.58
2,544.84
2,963.65
1,428.64
121.10
717,716.19
2,786.35
3,075.77
-0.6
-0.1
11.6
8.0
0.4
16.5
11.0
1,527.08
8,144.60
7.6
11.0
6.2
8.1
11.5
8.5
3,445.40
10.5
3,722.89
1,646.51
-1.8
-14.9
11.2
5.7
8.7
8,814.80
140.79
485,077.23
524,146.26
231,812.50
1,241,035.99
5,317.84
-0.8
•
11.3
8.3
3.1
23.0
14.6
9.3
-5.3
9.0
12.0
11.6
10.4
5.3
13.8
9.4
12.0
11.7
13,665.55
13,098.21
8.1
-0.2
12.0
7.1
6,375.98
33,139.73
-4.0
1.9
9.6
9.5
6,937.12
1,441.18
7,303.29
4,822.15
2,537.79
12,677.77
7,168.51
9332.07
7,748.89
9,315.86
4,197.99
20,698.57
4,031.59
21,096.34
9.5
3.8
0.9
'Assuming a stable currency, the 2002 exchange rate Is July 1998 monthly rate.
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
o o o o o o o o o o o
CD
CD
s
CO
O
to
^
EN,
o
»o
-J
CO
m
>n
CO
in
o a^
CO
s
S
O
CM
in
!§
TH
\D
Ov
O^
^l'
^
in
00 ON vc
CO vo ^
^
in
t-5
cvj
o
r-
tv
00
CO
f-j
t^
00
CO
o
CO
CM
IX
CM
00
VC
OS
CM
O
^
f t
b^
CM
r-t
OO
CN
tv
rH
O
O
CO
00
CO
CT\
1—t ^ — I T-H
in
CS
OS
K
ID
rH
\0
O
ON
CJ
s
i i
O
O
tv
^
in
CO
O
NO
O
00
rH
CM
^
CN
CO
O
CN
m
NO
i-H
CN
CN
O
8 S
E5
t—1
r-H
s
t-^
NO
tx
•«)|
T-H
ON
T-H
00
00
in
0^
o
>*
r-t
S
CO
"*
[•N
- - S
T)i
vO
lg.
T—I
CD
00
t>. o
in
T^
tv
351
o
S
CM
t-«
in
r^
00
in
CO
ON
m
>-(
CN
ON
m
•<i<
o
CJS
o
O
CM
CD
v£)
cs
o o
T-H
•>Ji
CM
in
CD
^
00
in
CO
0>
CM
CM
m
o
(Jv
g 00
o m
vC in
00
p
ON
NO
rJ
o
s
c^ o
o
^ o
in
IC
o
o
cs
in
T—1
00
^
o
in
m so
\0
>-;
CM
NO
tx
>*
R
Ss
P
^
CD
o
00
[>.
o
m
'J'
r-
ON
CM
^
CM
t-l
TJ"
m
ON
OO
in
o
o
t-H
00
D
en
ON
in
NO
ON
^H
oo
o
o
iri
i-i
CO
O
in
r-;
CO
00
V
ja
w
*p^
5
IS
oo
rH
CO
CO
NO
NO
o
^
^
CM
Ti"
t-t
ix
00
1-1
.-!
CO
NO
d
tx
^s
o
m
CO
oo
TT
tv
t<
O
ON
CO
ON
t^»
in
d
CN
.-
r-.
rH
r<
CN
CO
00
.-;
NO
CM
(S
60
CO
to
9i
**
o
i ;
»-*
T-<
NO
NO
CO
CO
m
CO
NO
i-H
CM
iri
Tf
in
in
CM
NO
r-*
•*
CO
ON
CN
00
T-i
o
o
o
00 rv
NO
(S
Pi
m
oo
V
60
(Q
vD
in
in
<-i
K
NO
00
r-;
tv ri o o m
O
Ov
TH
ON
f*
tN.
u
X
C
g
a
c
e •£
j ;
10
g
s =3
<8
en u, i>$ S u. D
r^U
'iS'
4J . I H
,«8
H fe
eg
TS
J£
«
E
S "o
•Z
3
C
s -a g .2
5 "S =; .E
<
CO Q
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
P
J3
o
e
C
-•
£
••^
<u
~
aj
U ;2 2
II
i I
M B.
I
U
M
m oi
Ill
,}' I
I .s -s I I s .s III
O
O
D
D
<
Z
B. S
en en
£
en
3
j ;
w
U
rtl
Ml
J5
5
.5 ;s
en
H
I
•I
B.
©ig98Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CADlCAM/CAE AsialPacific
At the same time, the nature of design data itself is expanding from a focus
on geometry to include multiple data t5^es, making the challenge of system modeling even more complex. Also, the World Wide Web holds the
potential to expand the nature of collaborative design by harnessing the
joint power of anticipated increases in both computing power and communications bandwidth. Thus, there is httle limit to the problems that
design or GIS software can tackle. The primary challenge will continue to
be to develop robust, leading-edge software ahead of competitors. During
the forecast period, Dataquest anticipates significant, but not revolutionary, advances in the ability of the existing programmer pool to produce
new software.
In addition to technology trends, it is also necessary to consider exchange
rate fluctuations, especially as the dollar has continued to strengthen
against most major currencies of the world, such as the deutsche mark, the
won, and the yen, over the past year. Growth rates in cotmtries where the
doUar has strengthened against the local ciurency are likely to be
adversely affected when considered in dollar-denominated terms.
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
The following factors wiU affect growth in the mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE market over our forecast period.
CAD investments Are Cyclical
The major aerospace and automotive companies, particularly in Europe,
had been significant drivers of the double-digit mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE growth in previous years. However, these companies have now completed their investment cycles in CAD technology for the next four or five
years. Investment in CAD by these large companies will slow vmtil the
next investment cycle begins, bringing down the overall market growth.
Tier Two investments
Related to the above assumption, now that these companies have completed their investment cycles, Dataquest expects to see corresponding
investment by their suppher bases as a significant driver of the market.
New Software, New Platforms, and New Users
Despite tiie fact that it is still a UNIX-based world, there is a very strong
interest in NT-based mechanical design solutions. The prospects of lowercost software on lower-cost platforms have sparked renewed interest in
CAD technology among designers who have not been purchasing CAD
systems in recent years and who are looking to upgrade from their
2-D-based systems. Based on what we saw in 1997, we are shifting the
peak of our NT-based mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE sales forecast to
earlier in our five-year forecast period.
Continued Economic Turmoil in Asia/Pacific
The Asia/Pacific region will be a mixed bag of high and low growth over
OUT forecast period, fueled by CAD investments from local and national
governments and expansion by multinational companies, but also tempered by economic and political turmoil in Southeast Asia. We have lowered oiu: forecast for Asia/Padfic in light of the economic uncertainty in
some of that region.
CMEC-AP-IUlS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Meeting User Needs beyond Design
For the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market to show the high growth
that it has of recent years, designers need applications that do more than
just design. Design needs to become more tightly integrated with manufacturing and analysis, and beyond that, the whole process of bringing a
product to market carmot continue to live in isolation within the engineering walls. Vendors are begiiming to address this issue today, but it will
take some time before users as well as vendors determine exactly what is
needed and how it can work within the business processes of a company.
If they can come up with the "right" solution, we can significantly raise our
forecast.
AEC Forecast Assumptions
The following factors wiU affect the long-term expansion of the AEC CAD
industry.
CAD Is Becoming a Business Requirement
Large design companies are growing at the expense of smaller companies,
and these large end users increasingly require their employees and suppUers to adopt automation tools in the design and construction process.
Smaller design companies must increasingly buy CAD systems or risk
being dropped from consideration as a partner.
New Features in AEC CAD Products Are Achievabie
Better, lower-cost visualization tools wiU be in increasing demand as sales
and communication tools. Data and database functions are growing in
importance in AEC design, creating opportunities to sell users significant
new functionality. Some vendors will create products that foster communications in the entire design, construction, and maintenance process—
products that wiU increase the payoff in CAD investments.
A IMore Tailored Focus
If vendors stay focused on not selling generic CAD solutions but rather on
selling more tailored solutions to fit different needs in AEC (such as architectural needs, plant design needs), then we can begin to raise our forecast
upward. Over the years, AEC sales have largely been driven by vanilla
sales of CAD products. Solutions that meet specific needs of users will
help drive the market forward at a faster rate.
Design Is Only Part of the Problem
AEC's one-design/one-buQd structure means CAD provides fewer economic benefits to these users than does the one-design/bvuld-many structure of manufacturing. Construction, which is essentially a prototype
buUd, is fraught with tmcertainties and delays that are not weU-addressed
by AEC systems today. Design tools can only thrive in the AEC structure
when they support more of Qie entire business problem. Commitment to
and cooperation on the problem from multiple vendors wiU allow
Dataquest to increase the forecast growth rate further.
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
GIS/Mapping Forecast Assumptions
The following sections identify those factors that wUl affect growth in the
worldwide GIS market.
Abundant Supply of Prospective Buyers
Penetration is stiU moderately low among core users. Bread-and-butter
prospects in govemnient and utilities are charged with maintaining information on land and assets in perpetuity. Many of these prospective buyers
are still using paper maps or have only entry-level systems in terms of
value delivered.
New Technologies
Faster, cheaper computers wUl be continually leveraged to support new
software products. Widespread computer industry developments in open,
distributed systems supporting high-speed networking wiU make it possible for GIS technology to broadly expand the user base. Advances in aerial
photography, global positioning systems, and satellite imagery are making
it possible to create GISs that are significantiy less expensive, more accurate, and more complete than existing paper maps, giving experienced
users some compelling reasons to reinvest. Portable and pen-based computers are bringing GB to new users in field operations. Finally, database
companies themselves are gaining a better vmderstanding of spatial analysis, a key factor in spreading use of GIS systems more broadly.
Indispensability of GIS
GIS has attained a certain indispensability, particularly among federal
users and those in utilities. As a result, users are beginning to expect to
share the data that lies in their various GIS systems. Within three years,
Dataquest expects data to be readily exchangeable across different systems. At that point, shareable data wiU help drive market growth.
High Cost of Entry Remains a Barrier
There will remain an uncertain, but certainly high, cost of creating a
working GIS in traditional environments. No magic will emerge to create a
low-cost, meaningful data set for mainstream customers in government
and utilities. Data conversion will remain costly because the significant
cost of correcting prior errors and omissions on paper maps is inevitably
bimdled into the cost of "conversion."
Price Pressures Inhibit Growth
Price pressure will hold down total revenue in the GIS meirket. Irmovation
is the oiUy way to maintain prices in any software industry, and GIS vendors will Struggle in their attempt to create compelling new applications
and improved investment payoff for customers.
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assumptions
Our final siuvey showed even slower growth than reported in the Preliminary Forecast. Total EDA growth was 14.6 percent. This spring Dataquest
did a considerable amoimt of work modeling the end-user design market.
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
The breakthrough happened when we broke the mainstream into upper
and lower mainstream segments. With these new models we foimd that all
our previous survey work converged. This gave us a clear picture of the
actual growth by segment, explaining in greater detail the reason for the
slowdown in EDA growth. The top of the p5n:amid, the power users, only
grew 4.5 percent. This was the group that in essence had run out of tools to
buy. This also explains the reason the slowdown was far more pronoimced
in the Uiuted States than in other geographic regions. On the other hand,
the upper mainstream grew 12.8 percent and the lower mainstream a
whopping 130.4 percent. These are the markets that kept EDA from falUng
into the 4 percent growth area of the early 1990s, another period when we
ran out of tools. Just to give you a comparison picture, in 1991,75 percent
of all money spent on EDA tools was spent by the power users. This year,
for the first time, the upper mainstream alone will spend more dollars on
EDA tools than the power users.
It has become clear that this is not a semiconductor recession; this is a true
technology inflection point. The last time we saw this was in the early
1980s when the impact of the microprocessor caused a double-dip recession. If you remember, it was the time of explosive growth in EDA. We are
a much larger industry today so the growth won't be explosive but it wiU
be significant and, as 1997 has shown, it wiU be driven by supply, not
demand. The need is there, the money is there, now where are the needed
new tools?
Electronic CAE
CAE was by far the area where the lack of new tools hit the hardest. Where
is the RTL Virtual Prototype? What are we going to do about the verification crisis? Why has ES Level tool development been de-emphasized by
the EDA industry? The only bright spots have been hardware and software coverification and formal verification, at least at the equivalency
checking level. The best news this year has been an answer to the verification crisis. At least we think we Isnow the answer. Until we see the new
test bench, a test bench that coordinates the work of not just simulation
but multiple t5^es of simulation while also using formal verification and
formal analysis, we won't know. Uivfortvmately, we've yet to see much
progress on the RTL Virtual Prototype front. There are some new start-ups
now attacking the problem, and they are showing an extremely broad
level of technical expertise. We can only hope.
IC Layout
The IC CAD world is catching up with the sificon. This is obviously the
most exciting news to come out of EDA in years. Announcements by
Avant! and Cadence plus the progress on the Sematech CHDs, Physical
Verification program have excited the industry. We're one generation
behind and closing! This wiU keep the IC CAD market growing at about
20 percent for the foreseeable future.
PCB Design
The final PCB numbers showed a completely different picture than the
preliminary PCB nvmibers. The Asia/Padfic region grew an extremely
Strong 22.2 percent. The major dowirfall weis in Japan, foUowed by Europe.
This is a continuation of the flow of maniifacturing to Asia from these
areas. North America grew at a strong 12 percent. Again the new highspeed bvises will continue to drive this market.
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
History and Forecast for All Applications and Operating Systems
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 show the history and forecast of all applications.
Table 1-3
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue History and Forecast
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
6,197
7,169
7,749
8,639
9,718
10,948
12,280
13,666
12.0
4,135
401
4,670
4,670
1,626
4,853
5,158
5,541
5,975
6,427
6.6
2350
1,401
3,090
5,653
1,580
28.3
2.6
155
61
35
1,449
21
3,902
1,492
4,761
1,392
5
-38.2
2,098
2,000
2,545
2,192
3,190
1,613
377
1,830
2,786
2,289
2,022
2,501
2,239
479
526
110
123
126
Software Revenue ($M)
Worldwide, AU
Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
All Operating Systems
North America
Eiurope
Japan
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
1,485
176
836
1,429
13
1,536
8
3,677
4,206
4,748
3,074
570
2,480
619
2,786
709
3,402
3,112
5318
3,780
3,445
13.8
2,787
825
907
11.5
139
155
173
192
215
11.3
10.6
11.2
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
Table 1-4
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue Growth Rate History and Forecast
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
15.7
8.1
11.5
12.5
12.7
12.2
113
14.8
108.7
-1.7
6.3
7.4
94.4
3.9
44.5
26.2
7.6
18.7
-3.8
-12.1
-2.6
-60.5
0.6
-42.7
31.5
3.4
7.8
22.0
3.0
-37.6
2.9
-35.6
-34.5
21.3
9.5
4.4
14.5
14.4
10.3
1Z4
12.9
10.7
11.7
12.0
11.1
10.7
14.6
11.4
163
11.0
10.0
12.0
Year-to-Year Software Revenue Growth Rate (%)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNDC
\Atodows NT
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
All Operating Systems
North America
Europe
Japan
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
9.6
13.5
27.0
11.5
10.5
9.9
2.4
9.3
10.7
8.4
11.0
-40.3
15.3
11.4
10.8
8.6
11.3
2.8
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Forecast Methodology
Fundamental to the way Dataquest conducts its research is the underl5ang
philosophy that the best data and analyses come from a weU-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 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 gross national product (GNP)
growth, interest rate fluctuation, business expectations, and capital spending plans. In the geopoUtical arena, the group looks at trade issues, poHtical Stability or lack thereof, tariffs, nontariff barriers, and such factors as
the effect on Asia/Pacific and Europe of the events of 1997.
Figure 1-1 shows the CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA forecasting model. The overall forecasting process uses a combination of techniques, such as time series and technological modeling. Market estimates
and forecasts are derived using the following research techniques:
• Segment forecasting—Individual forecasts are derived for each appUcatiion segment tracked by the CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA
groups. Specifically, each application, segmented by region and platform, is forecast and rolled up. In this way, each appUcation 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 model
and a satisfied available market figure to assess the levels of penetration
acaorately. Dataquest analysts also factor in the acceptance or ability for
users to consimie new technology.
• Capacity-based analysis—This method involves identif5nng 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.
Changes to the Forecast Database
Within this forecasting model, Dataquest has made numerous assvraiption
changes that better reflect the reaMty in the changing mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worlds. These changes include
updating the hardware retirement model and altering the average selling
prices (ASPs) for software, service, and hardware.
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Figure 1-1
CAD/CAM/CAE and CIS Forecasting Model
Vendoi/Supply-Side Data
• Product Shipment ProjedJons
• Factory Revenue
• Strategic Alliances
• Marketing Strategies
UsenfDemand-Side Data
• Projected Budget Growth and Allocations
• Business and System Requirements
• Purchasing Procedures
• Criteria for Selection
• Regular Application End-User Surveys
1
Market Sizing
and
Market Projections
~
Environmental Analysis
• Economic Forecasts
• Industry/Competitve Climate
Technology Assessments
• Technology Development
• Standards Development
• Price/Performance Development
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
Segmentation Definitions
Operating Systems
The following defines the operating systems:
• UNIX—Includes all UNIX variants and older workstation operating
systems
• Host—Includes minicomputer and mainframe operating systems in
which external worlcstations' functions are dependent on a host
computer
• Windows NT—The Microsoft operating system
• PC—Includes DOS, VNfedows, VStadows 95, OS/2, and Apple operating
systems
Line Items
Line item definitions are as follows:
• ASP is defined as the average price of a product, inclusive of any
discotmts.
• CPU revenue is the portion of revenue derived from a system sale that
is related to the value of the CPU.
CIVIEC-AP-IVlS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
11
CPU shipment is defined as the number of CPUs deHvered.
CPU installed base is defined as the total number of CPUs in active,
day-to-day use.
Unit shipment is defined as the number of products deUvered (that is,
seats).
Seats are defined as the number of possible simvdtaneous users.
Installed seats are defined as the total niimber of seats in active,
day-to-day use.
Hardware revenue is defined as the sum of the revenue from the
hardware system components: CPU revenue, terminal revenue, and
peripherals revenue.
Peripherals revenue is defined as the value of all the peripherals from
turnkey sale. (Peripherals in this category t5^ically are input and
output devices.)
Terminal revenue is defined as revenue derived from the sale of terminals used to graphically create, analyze, or manipulate designs. The
term is applicable only to the host systems.
Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of application
software.
Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and
support of CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, or EDA systems. Service is
followed as software service and hardware service.
Total factory revenue is defined as the amount of money received for
goods meastired in U.S. dollars and is the stun of hardware, software,
and service revenue.
Regions
Asia/Pacific
• Asia/Padfic—Includes China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and
Taiwan
• Rest of Asia—Includes Australia, American Samoa, Ashmore and
Cartier Islands, Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island,
Brunei, Cambodia, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook
Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French
Polynesia, Guam, Howland Island, India, Indonesia, Jarvis Island,
Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Kiribati, Laos, Macau, Malaysia,
Maldives, Marshall Islands, Midway Islands, Mongoha, Myanmar
(Burma), Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Norfolk
Island, Northern Mariana Islands, North Korea, Pakistan, Palau,
Palmyra Atoll, Papua New Guinea, Paracel Islands, Philippines,
Htcaim Islands, Solomon Islands, Spratly Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, 'N^etnam, Wake Island, WaUis and
Futtma, and Western Samoa
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Chapter 2
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Tables
Table 2-1
Top-Level Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2,830
3328
3,513
3,843
4,228
4,607
4,996
5,417
9.0
2,057
2376
315
2,186
739
2,199
2,249
1,414
2353
2,064
2,435
2393
12
26.5
539
550
38
2,293
1,744
562
573
585
8
6
4
1.2
-35.9
1,453
1,572
1,685
1326
1391
1,453
1,515
1,571
1,686
1,679
103
8.8
8.4
224
44
235
49
256
54
280
305
7.5
58
63
9.9
9.4
10.0
9.0
8.4
8.4
-
0.6
45.9
2.3
31.2
2.0
-0.7
-45.9
1.2
1.6
-33.1
1.9
-30.5
3.5
15.9
2.1
-28.4
-
23.3
2.6
18.4
-
9.8
7.5
8.1
8.9
7.2
-
11.3
9.6
8.9
9.7
8.1
9.5
6.9
8.8
-
8.8
7.5
Software Revenue ($M)
Worldwide, AU
Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
All Operating Systems
North America
Europe
Japan
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
116
545
111
99
788
997
987
1,084
1,033
1,106
883
141
1,019
192
1,122
212
31
36
39
Year-to-Year Software Revenue Growth Rate (%)
Worldwide, All
17.6
5.6
Operating Systems
Worldwide
15.5
UNIX
-8.0
170.1 134.9
W n d o w s NT
-1.1
2.1
Personal Computer
-11.5
Host/Proprietary
-61.8
1,078
546
20
1,166
1,188
1,222
553
12
1,323
1,295
-39.8
-
All Operating Systems
North America
Europe
Japan
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
26.6
9.9
15.5
35.9
13.0
3.6
2.0
10.1
10.9
10.0
12.9
7.4
13.5
8.9
9.0
8.5
5.3
11.7
5.0
11.7
-
•
-
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
13
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
14
Table 2-2
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
23,140 26,527 26,285 26308 26,852 27,261 28,789 30,441
23,909 27,445 26,340 26,212 26,241 27,406 28,908 30,544
Seats
5
6
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
27
15
-4
0
0
4
Installed Base
3
3
52,534 65,984 74,918 80,080 83,261 85,228 87,681 91,079
54,884 68,746 77,143 81,495 83,509 85,267 87,795 91280
Seats
25
12
6
2
2
4
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
36
3
4
CPUs
CPUs
-
3
-
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
237
284
272
266
267
277
293
311
3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
43
141
20
192
-4
212
-2
0
235
4
224
256
6
280
6
305
7
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
SoftwtUje Service
42
36
5
81
9
87
9
-
63
54
117
5
77
10
54
11
74
96
104
55
129
51
127
51
132
56
152
60
164
10
614
-1
617
3
53
140
7
7
2
633
673
8
725
8
780
5
4
1
3
6
8
8
-
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
42
97
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
56
475
21
593
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
45
25
5
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
15
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Tables
Table 2-3
Detail Mechanical Forecast, China, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1,973
3,590
3,474
3,767
3,787
4,627
33
33
3,153 3,320
3,153 3,296
5
18
4,142
2,002
2,668
2,665
5
9
4,158
10
4,643
12
4,706
4,914
6,211
7,882 9,305 10,501
7,970 9,331 10,389
11,411
12,297
13,367
11,312
12,241
13,351
9
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
26
6,351
29
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
27
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
11
11
17
11
9
8
37
41
42
45
49
54
50
17
35
26
10
32
3
37
6
10
47
10
54
60
12
63
42
26
14
13
16
15
15
20
26
12
39
6
11
Software Service
8
Hardware Service
6
14
8
18
9
23
75
58
28
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-
25
54
9
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
8
8
53
80
39
15
9
41
12
17
-
8
14
14
24
9
26
10
30
23
11
34
29
96
6
103
10
112
14
126
14
142
14
162
11
19
7
9
13
13
14
-
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
16
Table 2-4
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Hong Kong, All Operating Systems
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1,883
2,662
3,092
2,638
3,250
3,221
3,174
1,891
3,323
3,314
0
39
26
-3
3,100
1
3,246
3,251
25
3,078
-4
3,198
3,204
3
1
^
4,790
4,911
6,140
6,197
7,875
9,721
9343
9,730
5
4
19
26
1
9,861
9,785
1
9,874
7,892
27
9,098
9,069
24
27
65
14
14
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
0
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
15
9,593
6
29
27
26
25
26
26
-2
8
21
-7
21
-6
20
-2
20
3
21
0
22
1
-3
6
-2
2
7
20
7
-1
5
11
4
11
4
10
5
12
6
4
11
2
7
5
12
6
4
5
7
11
-4
-2
78
47
24
57
2
63
-10
59
-1
5
56
56
59
0
59
-1
66
20
10
-6
-4
0
4
1
-
60
5
5
18
29
11
-4
9,831
0
-
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
17
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Tables
Table 2-5
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Korea, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
5,281
5,486
27
6,036
6,195
6,700
6,646
6,669
-1
6,748
6,646
6,810
6,877
7,173
7,228
7,612
7,657
3
3
0
3
5
6
-
11,692 14,856 17,677 19,551 20,899 21,772 22,598 23,548
12,302 15,500 18,230 19,960 21,069 21,909 22,749 23,709
40
26
18
9
4
4
6
4
6
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
13
6,763
9
5
-
•
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
55
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
47
33
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
66
14
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
10
23
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
72
112
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
57
63
14
85
83
83
85
90
95
2
46
35
68
-3
71
0
75
3
82
5
89
6
97
39
48
9
24
6
27
8
15
12
27
6
25
17
29
18
47
31
19
9
34
8
-
21
7
2
51
55
5
16
7
8
229
7
8
247
5
7
-
136
22
19
43
42
18
44
58
195
-1
196
4
202
214
44
1
3
6
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
18
Table 2-6
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Singapore, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
1,552
1,711
2,009
1,926
1,860
1,887
1,922
-1
Seats
1,760
2,009
-4
1,919
-4
1,830
1,891
-5
0
3
1,925
2
-1
24
2,096
19
1,823
1,828
CPUs
4,014
4,697
5,887
5,961
5,449
22
6,334
12
4
-1
6,149
-2
6,058
-1
5,956
6,017
2
4,451
17
6,042
6,297
6,002
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
5,440
6,083
23
29
19
18
17
16
29
12
25
15
-33
17
-9
16
-6
16
-3
16
31
6
9
6
-2
-2
5
4
5
3
9
10
10
5
3
9
40
44
16
55
28
25
-9
45
-17
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-
Installed Base
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
18
5
4
-1
0
-
17
17
-3
4
1
IS
18
2
3
5
8
3
-
6
6
2
3
9
-5
-1
-1
41
8
43
3
9
2
43
8
-3
41
3
8
44
o
-6
-4
0
6
2
-
-9
-
SouIx^e: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
19
1998 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Tables
Table 2-7
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Taiwan, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
5,141
5,344
5,398
3,708
3,702
3,655
3,631
-2
3,572
3,602
3,489
3,517
3,525
3,609
3,656
3,661
-4
1
2
1
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
30
5,710
7
-35
0
0
-
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
11,436 13,981 13,815 12,989 12,168 11,568 11,350 11,369
11,898 14,673 14,385 13,358 12,311 11,628 11,388 11,396
42
23
-2
-7
-2
-8
-6
0
-4
-5
•
-
-
:
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
41
49
34
32
55
25
17
32
-31
-4
30
31
49
25
8
7
9
-6
8
7
3
8
31
-1
35
0
36
4
5
9
3
9
^^
8
6
9
6
31
-4
31
31
1
1
33
31
1
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
15
8
17
15
6
14
6
14
15
6
15
6
15
3
-3
0
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
49
82
16
97
-12
78
-5
77
-1
76
4
78
3
81
1
82
1
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
52
19
-19
-2
-2
3
3
2
-
Source: Oataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Oataquest
November 2,1998
20
IVlechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Table 2-8
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Rest of Asia, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
7,309
7,426
8,052
7,511
7,907
8,253
5
7,723
24
10
-9
7,476
1
8,288
7
8,788
8,819
9,379
8,142
7,392
7,399
9,408
7
5
-
15,895 20,098 22,229 23,249 23,930 24,631 25,615 26,965
16,407 20,576 22,583 23,443 23,851 24,539 25,575 26,975
25
4
2
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
40
10
4
3
5
4
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
3
6
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
4
-
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
66
79
64
65
66
71
30
41
-19
45
1
48
7
3
52
6
57
26
20
56
37
7
11
14
17
16
17
12
26
16
16
11
27
11
27
11
28
-18
136
0
140
4
-19
3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
40
133
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
31
33
27
168
27
-19
146
4
75
7
81
5
63
8
69
9
10
10
18
20
12
30
7
12
33
22
14
7
36
4
6
158
9
171
10
186
6
8
8
9
-
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
For More Infonnatlon...
Inqviiry Hotlii\e
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
I ] ^ T ^ V * ) | I^^^T
^^>
AGartnerGfOUpCompany
-1-65-333-6773
[email protected]
-t-65-333-6768
http://www.dataquestcom
The content oftttisreport represents our interpretation 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.
'* '^°^ ""^ contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. .Allrightsreserved.
723S0
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AMERICA
EUROPE
ASIA/PACIFIC
Worldwide Headquarters
Dataquest/Gartner Group
European Headquarters
Gartner Group Ltd.
Asia Headquarters
Gartner Group Hong Kong
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: --44-1784-431-611
Facsimile: --44-1784-488-980
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: -(-852-2824-6168
Facsinule: -^852-2824-6138
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: -hi-408-468-8000
Facsimile: -Hl-408-954-1780
East Coast Research Center
Gartner Group Lowell
900 Cheknsford Street
Tower Two, Floor Nine
Lowell, Massachusetts 01851
United States
Phone: -1-1-978-323-6900
Facsimile: -1-1-978-323-6933
Dataquest France
Immeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: -1-33-1-41-35-13-00
Facsimile: -1-33-1-41-35-13-13
Dataquest Germany
Martin-Kollar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -(-49-89-42-70-4-0
Facsimile: -49-89-42-70-4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguio-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
Japan
Phone: -(-81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: •f81-3-3481-3644
Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Group Pacific
80 Alfred Street - 6th Floor
Milsons Point, NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: -H61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: -t-61-2-9941-4868
Korea
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: -(-82-2-551-1331
Facsimile: -(-82-2-551-1330
Taiwan
Gartner Group Taiwan Ltd.
llF-2,188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei 105
Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: -(-886-2-2756-0389
Facsimile: -(-886-2-2756-2663/4122
Thailand
Gartner Group Thailand Ltd.
29 Vanissa Building, 12F
Soi Chidlom, Ploenchit Road
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: -(-662-655-0577
Facsimile: -(-662-655-0576
Singapore
Gartner Group Advisory (S) Pte Ltd.
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
ei998 Dataquest
6 Temasek Boulevard #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: -t-65-333-6773
Facsimile: -f65-333-6787
DataQuest
1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share
Market Statistics
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Product Code: CMEC-AP-MS-9801
Publication Date: September 7,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-468-8600
1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Product Code: CMEC-AP-MS-9801
Publication Date: September?, 1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Marl<et Share
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
About This Document
Definitions
Asia/Pacific
Publishing Schedule
A Final Note
it 1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market
Share Tables
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
List of Tables
Table
2-1 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
2-2 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific,
All Operating Systems
2-3 Top 24 Mechanical Software Companies, China,
All Operating Systems
2-4 Top 23 Mechanical Software Companies, Hong Kong,
All Operating Systems
2-5 Top 30 Mechanical Software Comparues, Korea,
All Operating Systems
2-6 Top 27 Mechanical Software Companies, Singapore,
All Operating Systems
2-7 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Taiwan,
All Operating Systems
2-8 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of Asia,
All Operating Systems
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
September 7,1998
Chapter 1
Introduction
About This Document
This Market Statistics report contains Dataquest's detailed market share
information on the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE industry at the country
level. This document is meant to supplement the worldwide mecharucal
C A D / C A M / C A E market share book by providing mechanical C A D /
CAM/CAE market share detail for countries in the Asia/Pacific region.
Definitions
This section lists the definitions specific to this document. For other definitions, please see the worldwide Market Statistics book.
Asia/Pacific
• Asia Pacific: Includes China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and
Taiwan
• Rest of Asia: Includes Australia, American Samoa, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island, Brunei,
Cambodia, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands,
Coral Sea Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia,
Guam, Rowland Island, India, Indonesia, Jarvis Island, Johnston AtoU,
Kingman Reef, Kiribati, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall
Islands, Midway Islands, MongoUa, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Nepal,
New Caledonia, New Zealamd, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana
Islands, North Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Papua New
Guinea, Paracel Islands, PhiUppines, Pitcairn Islands, Solomon Islands,
Spratiy Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu,
Vietnam, Wake Island, Wallis and Futuna, and Western Samoa
Publishing Schedule
Dataquest publishes market share and forecasts at the country level once
each year. Our delivery schedule is as follows:
• Asia/Pacific coimtry-level market sheu-e tables for 1997, based on data
collection and analysis beginning in January 1998, are presented in this
report. At this point, the market share database is frozen and wiU not be
changed until the end of 1998.
• Forecast tables will be available electronically by mid-September, and
books will be shipped in October. These forecast tables will contain
country-level information for the Asia/Pacific region.
A Final Note
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. Our ongoing conmutment
is to maintain an accurate and complete model of the entire C A D / C A M /
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worldwide markets, and we welcome your
input. Please feel free to contact any member of the CAD/CAM/CAE,
AEC and GIS, or EDA team if you have any questions or concerns.
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
1
Chapter 2
1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Market Share Tables
^^^^^^^^^^
Table 2-1
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MicroCADAM
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
CoCreate
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
Fujitsu
Matra Datavision
NEC
Hitachi
Toshiba*
Computervision
Nihon Unisys
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Ansys
Tecnomatix Technology
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Delcam Pic
Sherpa Corp.
Marubeni Hytech*
Sumisho Electronics*
MARC
Tokyo Electron*
Formtek
Seiko*
ISO Software
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
1996
1997
449.0
563.5
641.8
321.2
495.0
605.8
204.9
249.5
303.8
192.9
174.2
206.4
124.7
1721
153.1
129.2
152.0
150.0
85.2
117.2
125.9
107.3
113.4
125.5
89.1
209.5
115.5
114.0
106.3
104.0
97.0
107.3
103.5
87.4
91.8
90.6
72.9
62.9
70.9
70.9
63.7
68.1
66.7
62.5
65.0
174.4
149.0
61.7
52.8
54.4
54.6
38.7
39.3
42.7
32.6
37.0
35.1
20.1
26.3
34.2
30.8
30.8
32.5
16.7
22.0
30.8
20.6
26.2
27.5
19.9
23.0
24.9
18.8
21.6
23.4
18.2
19.5
21.8
17.4
20.0
21.8
18.9
20.6
21.7
19.7
19.0
21.1
14.5
22.7
20.1
2,010.1 2,504.8 2,573.6
339.5
345.6
390.9
481.5
475.4
545.7
2,831.1 3,325.7 3,510.3
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Growth (%)
1996-1997
13.9
22.4
21.8
18.5
12.4
-1.3
7.5
10.7
-44.9
-2.2
-3.6
-1.2
12.7
6.8
3.9
-64.6
0.3
8.8
-5.2
30.0
5.5
40.0
5.0
8.5
8.4
11.7
8.5
5.1
11.0
-11.4
2.7
13.1
14.8
5.5
Market
Share (%)
1997
18.3
17.3
8.7
5.9
4.9
4.3
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.0
29
26
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
73.3
11.1
15.5
100.0
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Table 2-2
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
Parametric Technology
32.7
52.7
2
IBM
9.6
35.5
42.0
48.6
3
4
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
16.9
17.8
21.1
5
Unigraphics Solutions
22.6
18.2
28.8
23.7
6
7
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
8
9
Delcam Pic
2.8
Matra Datavision
MicroCADAM
7.0
10
11
12
Computervision
Formtek
Intergraph
9.1
16.8
2.4
3.9
10.3
18.4
6.4
3.3
4.6
4.6
17.1
16.6
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Market
Share (%)
1997
61.3
15.9
24.8
61.6
13.6
11.2
4.8
-6.3
-9.5
2.7
22.9
8.0
7.8
6.6
4.6
40.0
3.1
22
4.6
0.6
2.2
4.5
4.0
-1.3
-60.4
2.1
1.9
1.1
1.1
0.8
10.1
21
2.3
10.0
1.4
1.7
2.3
2.1
64.5
20.0
13
14
Alias Research
0.5
1.7
15
MCS
1.8
1.8
1.8
3.7
0.9
16
17
Gerber Systems
Cimatron
1.2
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.7
18.5
-10.3
0.8
0.8
18
Sharp*
2.1
1.9
1.7
-10.1
19
.Ansys
Sherpa Corp.
2.0
1.9
-24.1
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
5.0
31.7
4.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
0
-72.9
0.6
0.5
17.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
30.5
5.2
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.9
19.5
-33.4
0.4
0.4
2.8
0.4
0.3
90.8
7.7
20
21
Mechanical Dynamics
22
23
24
Tecnomatix Technology
25
26
MARC
PAFEC
27
Open Mind
ADRA Systems
1.1
Investronica S A
3.9
1.3
0.8
1.6
120.3
1.8
174.3
192.9
-59.9
10.7
17.8
4.1
13.5
3.8
16.3
3.2
20.6
-14.4
142.2
191.6
212.4
10.9
28
29
30
Concentra
Bentley Systems
Design Automation
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.9
-
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.5
1.5
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
"Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/dlstrlbutor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-3
Top 24 Mechanical Software Companies, China, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1
2
3
4
1995
1996
1997
Parcunetric Technology
Unigraphics Solutions
0.8
4.1
2.5
102.0
12.5
25.9
24.1
IBM
4.6
2.3
2.2
6.9
5.4
1.7
8.4
7.8
5.8
6.9
17.9
2.3
0.7
3.5
3.3
1.2
31.0
47.1
10.9
10.2
3.7
5
6
7
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
MacNeal-Schwendler
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Market
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
78.9
2.7
1.1
1.1
MicroCADAM
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
-9.1
2.3
Matra Datavision
Gerber Systems
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
145.0
34.1
2.3
2.3
Computervision
1.5
0.2
1.5
0.2
0.6
-60.4
1.8
88.1
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
1.3
1.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Delcam Pic
Ansys
Intergraph
Mechanical Dynamics
Open Mind
Investronica SA
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Spatial Technology
20
21
Pacific Numerix
Bentley Systems
22
23
24
Engineered Software
Cimatron
Applicon
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
••
0.3
-
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
-:
0.3
0.1
14.4
0.3
0.1
24.0
29.9
1.0
1.1
1.4
16.5
25.7
32.4
• ^ •
-43.1
91.2
15.2
19.5
3.6
-32.2
-55.5
537.0
17.9
3.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
3.6
0.1
0
-100.0
-100.0
24.5
92.4
31.6
NA
4.3
26.3
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: Ail numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Table 2-4
Top 23 Mechanical Software Companies, Hong Kong, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Market
Share (%)
1997
1995
1996
1997
Grov»Ath (%)
1996-1997
Parametric Technology
IBM
1.4
2.8
4.2
5.8
3.1
37.6
5.9
3
4
Autodesk
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
0.8
1.8
96.9
2.9
0.9
28
15.1
8.9
1.8
-35.1
8.9
5
1.3
0.5
0.7
1.2
6
7
Dassault Systemes
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
1.8
1.2
8.7
5.6
8
Matra Datavision
0.5
0.3
45.8
-10.8
NA
9
PAFEC
MicroCADAM
0.7
0.7
08
Computervision
1.7
Rank
Company Name
1
2
10
11
12
13
14
Investronica S A
Intergraph
15
Gerber Systems
Ansys
16
17
Vero International Software
Just In Time Systems
18
CNC Software
19
CIMLINC
20
21
Open Mind
Bentley Systems
22
Gibbs and Assoc.
Cimatron
All N.A. Companies
23
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
-
•
0.1
0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.1
^
•
2.9
1.3
1.7
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
150.8
28.2
5.3
3.7
4.4
-9.1
3.7
-60.4
3.3
2.7
150.7
3.2
1.7
3.6
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.3
7.7
1.4
0.3
01
0.3
0.2
NA
0.1
0.1
-67.5
1.7
0.9
0.5
01
0.1
1.7
01
0
0.1
9.4
0.5
0.3
0.1
0
19.5
17.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
-
0
0.6
^
0.1
11.9
0.7
0
01
15.0
2.2
0
17.1
30.6
-100.0
14.1
2.4
13.4
17.6
20.6
8.9
NA
17.3
0.5
82.9
11.6
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-gSOl
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-5
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Korea, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Ranlc
Company Name
1
1995
1996
1997
8.2
2.2
3
4
Dassault Systemes
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
3.7
9.3
8.0
3.9
23.2
2
IBM
Parametric Technology
5
6
Autodesk
MacNeal-Schwendler
Formtek
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
5.7
5.2
3.2
2.1
13.3
6.5
5.5
3.3
Delcam Pic
1.5
1.2
2.3
1.4
Tecnomatix Technology
Intergraph
1.2
0.2
1.2
1.1
Matra Datavision
0.1
0.9
0.8
MCS
MicroCADAM
OA
0.7
0.6
0.7
Altair Computing
Computervision
-
•
0.8
0.8
0.8
-:
1.7
0.6
1.7
0.7
0.7
ADRA Systems
0.9
1.1
0.6
Unigraplrics Solutions
Mechanical Dynamics
2.0
0.2
-
0.5
0.4
0.5
Pacific Numerix
20
21
Sherpa Corp.
Ansys
22
23
Open Mind
Bentley Systems
24
CIMLINC
Gerber Systems
Applicon
25
26
17
4.2
5.2
.-:
15.3
-
•
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
28
PAFEC
C A D Lab
29
CNC Software
30
Just In Time Systems
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
26.1
3.8
0.1
41.8
2.7
All Asian Companies
0.1
33.5
45.6
All Companies
0.5
0.5
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Market
Share (%)
1997
150.1
91.6
34.3
22.7
244.3
19.7
13.0
4.7
2.7
9.6
10.0
13.5
0
401.5
24.4
8.1
4.8
3.4
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.1
3.7
1.1
-9.1
14.0
1.1
1.0
-60.4
1.0
-46.5
8.5
0.9
0.8
15.2
0.8
0.7
537.0
5.0
0.7
0.3
-43.1
19.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
17.9
14.4
13.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
31.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
6.2
18.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.7
0.1
0.1
62.7
2.7
2.7
49.7
0.1
92.8
4.0
0
1.0
NA
67.6
48.2
. • * •
0
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
Table 2-6
Top 27 Mechanical Software Companies, Singapore, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1
1995
1996
1997
2
Parametric Technology
Urugraphics Solutions
1.3
0.7
3.0
2.6
4.0
2.3
3
4
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
IBM
3.7
3.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
20
5
6
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.7
7
MicroCADAM
Matra Datavision
0.7
0.8
-
^
8
9
10
Fujitsu
Delcam Pic
0.2
11
Computervision
0.7
0.2
0.7
12
13
B.A. Intelligence Networks
.Ansys
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
14
Intergraph
15
16
17
Mechanical Dynamics
Just In l i m e Systems
CNC Software
18
Pacific Numerix
19
Concentra
DP Technology
20
21
Vero International Software
Gibbs and Assoc.
24
Bentley Systems
ISO Software
Cimatron
26
27
Applicon
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
^
0.1
0.1
•
^
0.1
0
0.3
-
0.1
0
0.1
-
0.2
0
-
Open Mind
22
23
25
•
1.2
Growth (%)
1996-1997
30.1
-11.4
-32.1
-16.1
Market
Share (%)
1997
23-4
13.5
13.5
12.1
0.8
0.8
15.5
11.4
-9.1
6.9
4.8
4-4
0.7
NA
4.4
0.5
0.4
NA
67.2
3.1
2.2
-60.4
1.7
-15.6
NA
1.2
0.1
91.2
0.1
125.0
2.7
2.7
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
537.0
-78.2
5.4
19.5
0.1
-71.5
0
0
0
0.1
0
0.1
0
-
30.6
17.9
-46.7
-100.0
0
10.4
0
14.2
13.1
-100.0
-7.7
DA
0.6
1.3
11.4
15.2
0.5
99.8
NA
16.9
11.2
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0-4
0-4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
77.6
7.6
3.1
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-gSOl
©1998 Dataquest
September/, 1998
1997 Asia/Pacific Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-7
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Taiwan, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
1995
1996
1997
2.0
4.6
4.1
5.2
6.9
31.9
4.7
4.4
5.5
3.8
3.8
3.5
2.5
16.3
-19.8
1.9
0.6
...
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.1
-11.5
2.7
3.7
1.0
47.0
3.6
3.3
-
0.8
-
0.8
0.7
-9.1
NA
2.5
2.5
0.4
1.2
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.5
8.8
-60.4
1.7
1.6
Sherpa Corp.
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
-"
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
5.0
1.5
1-4
Intergraph
0.1
Bentley Systems
^
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
Rank
Company Name
1
2
Parametric Tedmology
Autodesk
3
4
IBM
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
5
6
7
Dassault Systemes
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
8
9
MCS
Delcam Pic
10
11
MicroCADAM
Matra Datavision
12
13
Gerber Systems
Computervision
14
15
16
17
18
19
DP Technology
Open Mind
20
21
B.A. Intelligence Networks
CNC Software
22
23
24
Ansys
25
26
27
Market
Share (%)
1997
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Mechanical Dynamics
SRAC
Livermore Software Tech.
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
-.
-
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
0
0
Vero International Software
28
ISD Software
Cimatron
29
30
Spatial Technology
Ricoh
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.3
1.1
5.5
0.2
0.2
19.5
-16.4
2.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
-43.1
0.6
125.0
NA
0-4
0-4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
18.9
1.8
0
25.4
0.4
0.4
1.9
0.4
25.3
31.6
29.7
1.8
3.7
0.2
0.3
-
6.7
4.8
0.8
0.9
•
8.8
91.2
11.8
8-4
17.9
0
1.0
•
-33.6
10.4
23.0
18-4
0
•
-
-
:^-.
25.2
8.8
13.8
-46.3
-100.0
-100.0
0.2
0.1
-
-100.0
-0.8
4.2
84.7
6.7
1.4
-6.0
100.0
6.4
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Asia/Pacific
10
Table 2-8
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of Asia, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1
Parametric Technology
2
IBM
Autodesk
3
4
5
6
7
Dassault Systemes
Unigraphics Solutions
Delcam Pic
Computervision
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Market
Share (%)
1997
1995
1996
1997
1.9
12.4
53.5
27.4
11.0
9.0
-37.3
-13.7
24.3
9.3
8.1
17.5
10.4
6.6
7.3
6.3
2.6
0.5
3.4
5.3
1.0
3.9
1.5
-13.8
-27.2
13.9
8.6
51.4
3.3
3.5
3.4
1.3
-60.4
3.3
2.9
1.0
0.9
-72.8
-74.3
0.4
0.8
73.1
1.9
1.7
13.6
-
19.8
2.1
8
9
10
Concentra
Matra Datavision
MicroCADAM
5.1
0.4
11
Intergraph
0.2
0.6
0.6
-1.3
1.2
12
Sherpa Corp.
Bentley Systems
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
5.0
17.9
1.0
1.0
31.9
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
30.5
1.9
110.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.2
-43.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
35.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
11.0
30.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.9
11.9
0.1
5A
NA
13
14
15
Mechanical Dynamics
ADRA Systems
16
17
CNC Software
Algor Interactive Systems
0.1
18
Ansys
0.3
19
Research Engineers
20
21
IMSI
Gibbs and Assoc.
0.1
0.1
22
Just In Time Systems
23
24
PAFEC
DP Technology
25
26
SRAC
0.2
0.2
0.1
--
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0
0
27
28
Open Mind
RoboCAD Solutions
Diehl Graphsoft
29
MacNeal-Schwendler
0.8
1.1
30
Cimatron
All N.A. Companies
0.1
32.6
0.1
50.0
4.7
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0
0
6.0
42.1
0
56.0
0.1
0.1
0
0
41.0
2.6
45.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
19.5
0.1
1.9
23.2
0.1
0.1
-100.0
90.6
5.7
-100.0
-18.0
-45.0
NA
-19.1
lOO.O
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-AP-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
For More Information...
Liquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
-H65-333-6773
[email protected]
+65-333-6768
http://www.dataquest.eom
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
71751
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AMERICA
EUROPE
ASIA/PACIFIC
WorIdwIde Headquarters
Dataquest/Gartner Group
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: -)-1-408-468-8000
European Headquarters
Gartner Group Ltd.
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: -H44-1784-431-611
Facsimile: -H44-1784-488-980
Asia Headquarters
Gartner Group Hong Kong
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: -h852-2824-6168
Facsimile: -^852-2824-6138
Facsimile: -H1-408-954-1780
East Coast ResearcIi Center
Gartner Group LoweII
900 Chelmsford Steeet
Tower Two, Floor Nine
Lowell, Massachusetts 01851
United States
Phone: -^1-978-323-6900
Facsimile: -t-1-978-323-6933
Dataquest France
Immeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: -H33-1-41-35-13-00
Facsimile: -f33-l-41-35-13-13
Dataquest Germany
Martin-KoUar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -1-49-89-42-70-4-0
Facsimile: -1-49-89-42-70-4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Flills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
Japan
Phone: -H81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: -^81-3-3481-3644
Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Group Pacific
80 Alfred Street - 6th Floor
Milsons Point, NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: -^61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: -^61-2-9941-4868
Korea
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: -^82-2-551-1331
Facsimile: -1-82-2-551-1330
Taiwan
Gartner Group Taiwan Ltd.
llF-2,188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei 105
Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: -H886-2-2756-0389
Facsimile: -1-886-2-2756-2663/4122
Tliailand
Gartner Group Thailand Ltd.
29 Vanissa Building, 12F
Soi Chidlom, Ploenchit Road
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: -f662-655-0577
Facsimile: -H662-655-0576
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest
Singapore
Gartner Group/DQ Research Pte Ltd.
6 Temasek Boulevard #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: -H65-333-6773
Facsimile: -1-65-333-6787
DataQuest
1998 European Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Market Statistics
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Product Code: CMEC-EU-MS-9802
Publication Date: November 2,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose. CA 95134
408-468-8600
1998 European Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CADfCAM/CAE Europe
Product Code: CMEC-EU-MS-g802
Publication Date: November 2,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Table of Contents
1. 1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Introduction
Worldw^ide Forecast Assumptions
AU Applications
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
CAD Investments Are Cyclical
Tier Two Investments
New Software, New Platforms, and New Users
Continued Economic Turmoil in Asia/Padfic
Meeting User Needs beyond Design
AEC Forecast Assumptions
CAD Is Becoming a Business Requirement
New Features in AEC CAD Products Are Achievable
A More Tailored Focus
Design Is Only Part of the Problem
GIS/Mapping Forecast Asstimptions
Abundant Supply of Prospective Buyers
New Technologies
Indispensability of GIS
High Cost of Entry Remains a Barrier
Price Pressvu-es Inhibit Growth
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assvmiptions
Electronic CAE
IG Layout
PGB Design
Flistory and Forecast for All AppUcations and
Operating Systems
Forecast Methodology
Changes to the Forecast Database
Segmentation Definitions
Operating Systems
Line Items
Regions
Europe
2. 1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Forecast Tables
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
List of Figures
Figure
1-1 CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Forecasting Model
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
10
November 2,1998
1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
List of Tables
W
^..^.^—^^^.^^-.^^.^^..^^
Table
1-1 CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Revenue Growth Comparison
1-2 Foreign Currency Exchange Rates against the U.S. Dollar
1-3 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue History
and Forecast
1-4 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue Growth Rate
History and Forecast
2-1 Top-Level Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
2-2 Detail Mechardcal Forecast, Europe,
All Operating Systems
2-3 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Benelux,
AH Operating Systems
2-4 Detail Mechajoical Forecast, France,
All Operating Systems
2-5 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Germany,
AU Operating Systems
2-6 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Italy,
All Operating Systems
2-7 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Scandinavia,
AU Operating Systems
2-8 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Spain,
All Operating Systems
2-9 Detail Mechanical Forecast, United Kingdom,
All Operating Systems
2-10 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Austria/Switzerland,
All Operating Systems
2-11 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Russia,
AU Operating Systems
2-12 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Central Europe,
AU Operating Systems
2-13 DetaQ Mechanical Forecast, Rest of Europe,
AU Operating Systems
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
2
3
8
9
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
November 2,1998
Chapter 1
1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Introduction
This document contains Dataquest's detailed forecast information on the
mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA markets at the
country level. This report is meant to supplement the worldwide forecast
books for each service by providing forecast detail for European countries.
Although Dataquest does not forecast currency excheinge rates, we do
forecast with the best information available. The exchange rate is
calculated as the simple arithmetic meeui of the 12 average monthly rates
for each country. For the purpose of this forecast, Dataquest assumes the
July 1998 exchange rate will remain stable in the future (see Tables 1-1
and 1-2).
Additional market statistics pubUcations for Dataquest's mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA services for 1998 are as
foUows:
• Dataquest's 1997 preliminary market share doctmients (pubUshed as
CAEC-WW-MS-9801, CEDA-WW-MS-9801, and CMEC-WW-MS-9801)
were sent to our clients in April.
• Dataquest's 1998 preliminary forecast documents were released in June
(pubUshed as CAEC-WW-MS-9802, CEDA-WW-MS-9802, and
CMEC-WW-MS-9802).
• Dataquest's 1997 market share data was verified, updated, and sent to
our chents in August as market share update reports (published as
CAEC-WW-MS-9803, CEDA-WW-MS-9803, and CMEC-WW-MS-9803).
Coimtry-level data was also made available at this time.
Worldwide Forecast Assumptions
The following sections describe the main forces driving the CAD/CAM/
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worldwide software forecasts.
All Applications
As CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA becomes more of a
replacement market, market leaders would appear to have the upper
hand—the cost of switching is high. However, software that lets users get
a better product to market faster and helps eliminate business rislcs will
always be in demand, regardless of market share. Thus, there is always an
opportunity for new vendors in technical markets.
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Table 1-1
CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Revenue Growth Comparison (U.S. Dollars versus Local
Currency for both Europe and Japan)
1996
1997
Forecast
2002
Growth (%)
1996-1997
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Software Revenue
2,192.20
2,288.68
3,780.26
4.4
10.6
Hardware Revenue
2,736.77
2,639.54
3,491.73
-3.6
5.8
Service Revenue
1,166.77
1,160.33
1,678.11
-0.6
7.7
Total Factory Revenue
6,095.75
6,088.55
8,950.11
-O.l
8.0
0.80
0.89
0.91
11.6
0.4
Software Revenue
1,748.45
2,036.92
3,440.04
16.5
ll.O
Hardware Revenue
2,182.78
2,349.19
3,177.47
7.6
6.2
930.59.
1,032.70
1,527.08
ll.O
8.1
4,861.82
5,418.81
8,144.60
11.5
8.5
Europe ($M)
ECU/U.S. Exchange Rate*
Europe (ECU Million)
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
Japan ($M)
Software Revenue
1,830.17
2,02225
3,445.40
10.5
Hardware Revenue
2,870.44
2,818.60
3,722.89
-1.8
11.2
5.7
Service Revenue
1,276.08
1,085.79
1,646.51
-14.9
8.7
Total Factory Revenue
5,976.69
5,926.64
8,814.80
-0.8
8.3
108.81
121.10
140.79
11.3
3.1
Software Revenue
199,140.77
244,894.41
485,077.23
23.0
14.6
Hardware Revenue
312,332.11
341,332.56
524,146.26
9.3
9.0
Japan/U.S. Exchange Rate*
Japan (¥M)
Service Revenue
138,850.70
131,489.22
231,812.50
-5.3
12.0
Total Factory Revenue
650,323.58
717,716.19
1,241,035.99
10.4
11.6
Software Revenue
2,544.84
2,786.35
5,317.84
9.5
13.8
Hardware Revenue
2,963.65
3,075.77
4,822.15
3.8
9.4
Service Revenue
1,428.64
1,441.18
2,537.79
0.9
12.0
Total Factory Revenue
6,937.12
7,303.29
12,677.77
5.3
11.7
Software Revenue
7,168.51
7,748.89
13,665.55
8.1
12.0
Hardware Revenue
9,332.07
9,315.86
13,098.21
-0.2
7.1
4,197.99
4,031.59
6,375.98
-4.0
9.6
20,698.57
21,096.34
33,139.73
1.9
9.5
North America ($M)
Worldwide ($M)
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
*Assunr)ing a stable currency, the 2002 exchange rate Is July 1998 monthly rate.
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
1
o
O
o
o
o
O
00
en
ON
CO
in
en i n
CO
m
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
o
o
f^
t s
ON
00
T-H
m
•«1<
T-H
t>:
•>*
o
o
o
o
in
CN
o
o
O
CO
so
o
o
O
IH
i
CO
2:
r^
S
^
"^
ss
^^
v
bO
c
i
t>
CT^
S
Ov
VO
in
CO
ci
VO
CN
o VoO E^ t>. N O
o o
n en C O
iri i1—i
•*
C-J
,—t
•*
o
• *
T-H
•*
CO
CO
ON
00
CO
in
eo
O
T-H
T-H
CO
CM
O
O
ON
CN4
CO
TI!
in
T-H
iri
o
T-H
NO
NO
ON
iri
T-H
T-H
•*
•<*
NO
00
TJ<
ON
ON
NO
CO
NO
CNJ
ON
in
T-H
T-H
'^
T-H
T-H
CN
O
00
O
ON
00
in
in
NO
iri
T-H
CO
1
T-H
CN
d
1
d
eo
in
CN
00
Cs
ts
NO
iri
• ^
T-H
T-H
THH
en
• ^
ON
•^
ts
T-H
T-H
CN
o
CN
in
NO
CO
d
d
T-H
T-H
CO
iri
•<*
CN
CO
00
00
ON
•<tl
o
• *
O
d
iri
•>*
1
ON
<£>
« a<
»
X
U
u
a
QJ
>:
o
,1
h
<a
<u
>
tH
ve
£
cr>
c-~
(N
CM
s
s
a>
iri
in
in
in
•*
o\
CO
o
in
m
m eo
o oq
iri es
CM
NO
T-^
!>.
s
S ,-:
«*
2
S
1
s
2:
IT)
T—1
C-j
1
o
t^
CM
VO
ON
T-H
cs
T-H
T-^
NO
T—1
ON
r;i
T--t
\o
l-H
•^
T-H
1
£^
(•^
T-H
ON
ON
t v
O
o
T-H
T-H
T-H
CN
o
o
T—1
T-H
00
ON
o
CNl
ON
1
ir>
Cv.
in
tx
VO
o so
c< \o
m
in
pj
ON
CM
• *
S
1—1
00
in
tv
in
tx
25
vO
o
00
•«t
VO
in
CN
1
CO
o
NO
^
•>*
CNJ
T-H
1
o
o
CN
m
T-H
esi
1
o
1
I
00
ON
o
1
w
C
m
bO
CO
CO
O)
t-H
!>:
o
NO
o
o\
2;
CN
!>«.
in
oi
l-H
CN
Ul
NO
CN
^
f^
T-H
1
00
•St
ON
ON
T-H
T-H
T-H
in
NO
ON
CO
IS:
T-H
o
d
o6 ts:
CO
NO
00
t>:
CN
00
T-H
ON
•<*
CO
eN
T-*
00
ts.
uS
in
T-^
o
en
p
t>.^
T-H
m
1
ts
'
1
T-H
•*
T-H
i n
t s
CO
d
t^:
T *
CO
00
CO
CO
d1
tr>
Cs
1
• *
T-H
T-H
CNJ
ON
m
ON
tx
tN
00
T-H
tv
o
in
I"
^
d
C-J
CO
in
d
in
T-H
ON
iP
t v
T-H
ON
ts.
to
iri
ON
T-H
• ^
tx
d
• ^
K
,_,
in
T-H
in
T-H
T-H
T-H
NO
ON
CO
o
d
eo t~:
t s
T-H
ON
1
00
T-H
eo
T-H
00
m
o
NO
CN^
CO
NO
m
1
in
o6
1
T-H
CO
•>* o
f:i
m
1
o
• *
NO
t>:
in
• * .
T-H
^
ON
CN
NO
OO
o
d
eo t-.
o6 t~:
•^
T-H
ON
(3N
CO
NO
t s
T-H
ts
d
iri
T-H
•T>- H
*
ON
S
o
Tf
ON
C3N
ts
'TH
-T
^ H
T-H
•^
m
T-H
CN
ts
• *
T-H
00
CM
C3N
T—I
«
OV
S
o
c5
r—1
2;
in
vo
T-H
ON
IN
Ov
00
in
T—1
in
•>3<
iri
en
es
o
"O t-~
T-H
CN
ON
NO
NO
T-H
NO
•>*
•^
00
NO
T-H
• *
T *
NO
NO
CO
CO
Cs
T-H
fH
O
00
•"*
Cs
00
T-H
NO
CN|
NO
T-H
o
d
CO
IS:
o6
o
T-H
tri
0o0
00
CO
NO
ts
Cs
in
• ^
Cs
o
Cs
in
o
d
eo
CO
IS:
T-H
T-H
ts
• ^
T-H
•*
tN:
CN|
T-H
in
n
2
<
U
^
2; o
S or^
M
ON
• ^
in
in
a\
IS
C-.
CO
tv
ON
•^
^
•<*
T-H
,_
es
o6
cs
NO^
O
NO
CO
O
'St"
eo
T-H
NO
•^
T-H
T-H
ts:
T-H
'j'
CN
ON
CO
ON
T-H
CO
d •^
OO
• ^
T-H
NO
tN
CO
in
t s
t s
T-T
rf
2;
S
o
• *
,-H
1—1
VD
VO
CO
CO
in
CO
NO
^
CNJ
iri
• *
in
in
CN
NO
s
^ o
ON
CM
00
T-H
Tf<
00
o
"*
IS:
CO
CO
o
t^
ts:
ts
en
r-
eo
in
•5i<
• *
NO
00
in
t s
in
o
d
o6
tN:
,—H
T-H
NO^
Ci
m
2: vq
S
[•^
vO
^ ^
ON
•*
NO
eo t ^
tN.
NO
in
iri
NO
NO
in
T-H
IS:
00
'"'
NO
T-H
ts
rNi
oq
T—<
00
oo
T-H
ts
t>:
CN
T-H
NO
O
T-H"
(Q
01
bO
ON
ON
t s
CN
4->
C!^
5
T-H
1
O
NO
en
CO
irj
eo
T-H
NO
ON
CO
1
• ^
[•^
t^«
^^
CO
CS
cs
o6
CN
00
CO
es
eo o
CN
CN
Cs
00
T-H
f^.
£N
Cs
CN
NO
00
—"
S
a
«5
p
S
rj
o
00
1
T-H
s
U
c<5
TH
1
c
ts
T-H
T-H
T-H
• M
•>*
t>:
00
• ^
T-H
ts
NO
NO
00
NO
Cs
o
d
iri
• *
t^
ts:
in
00
d
O
OO
in
•<l<
iri
o
OO
r-H
g
CN|
NO
T-H
ON
T-H
NO
NO
CN
in
(Q
X
X
fa
C
t:
ts•
1
I
C/3
c
(S
UH
U-i
<u
c
o
}H
U
IS
i4
u
C
to
u
tt,
»H
(S
s
1
Q
a>
CO
VH
2
u
SH
bO
(U . ?
H £
t
o
U
ra
'B
V5
3
B
CO
3
E
|3: c5 "c
'^
< m D
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
1
il:
1
(H
CQ
u
tu
u
C
ta
tu
c
E _>!
CO
01
u
13
<u
c
"5 o
l~l
U 1^
n
C
T^
IS
C
0)
BH
Z
s
u
c
(B
}H
T3
CO
OJ
CS
(IH
T3
.5
o
z
1bH
0
C
a
(9
a.
VI
tn
'c
P
c
1i
u
.2
"o "o
D D
CO
<u
bC
l-i
0)
s3
W
I
tJO
£
o.
cu
1
u
IH
•§
§ D
"o
U
o w c Q
g
o
.C
0*
IS
m
C
X
U
©1998Dataquest
HD
c
ra
to
a
X
P~
CO
D
1^
a c
Cu
CO
tiC
c
(f5
(0
^
1
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAO/CAM/CAE Europe
The primary trend in design software function is toward operating at a
higher level of abstraction. In all appfications, Dataquest has seen an
evolution of focus from electronic paper to component modeling and now
to systems modeling with the eventual goal being to fully simulate,
evaluate, redesign, and test the design inside the computer before manufacture. Meanwhile, increased computing power is allowing the nature of
design to evolve to include constituencies in manufacturing, product
support, and from users themselves. Thus the engineering process is being
expanded to include input from a broader base.
At the same time, the nature of design data itself is expanding from a focus
on geometry to include multiple data types, making the challenge of
system modeling even more complex. Also, the World Wide Web holds the
potential to expand the nature of collaborative design by harnessing the
joint power of anticipated increases in both computing power and
conununications bandwidth. Thus, there is httle limit to the problems that
design or GIS software can tackle. The primary challenge will continue to
be to develop robust, leading-edge software ahead of competitors. Ehiring
the forecast period, Dataquest anticipates significant, but not revolutionary, advances in the abflity of the existing programmer pool to produce
new software.
In addition to technology trends, it is necessary to consider exchange rate
fluctuations, espededly as the dollar has continued to strengthen against
most major currencies of the world, such as the deutsche mark, the won,
and the yen, over the past year. Growth rates in countries where the dollar
has Strengthened against the local currency are likely to be adversely
affected when considered in dollar-denominated terms.
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
The following factors will affect growth in the mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE market over our forecast period.
CAD Investments Are Cyclical
The major aerospace and automotive companies, particularly in Europe,
had been significant drivers of the double-digit mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE growth in previous years. However, these companies have now
completed their investment cycles in CAD technology for the next four or
five years. Investment in CAD by these large companies wHl slow until the
next investment cycle begins, bringing down the overall market growth.
Tier Two Investments
Related to the above assumption, now that these companies have
completed their investment cycles, Dataquest expects to see
corresponding investment by their supplier bases as a significant driver
of the market.
CI\llEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 European IWecharticalCAD/CAM/CAEForecast
New Software, New Platforms, and New Users
Despite the fact that it is stUl a UNIX-based world, there is a very strong
interest in NT-based mechanical design solutions. The prospects of lowercost software on lower-cost platforms have sparked renewed interest in
CAD technology among designers who have not been purchasing CAD
systems in recent years and who are looking to upgrade from their 2-Dbased systems. Based on what we saw in 1997, we are shifting the peak of
our NT-based mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE sales forecast to earlier in our
five-year forecast period.
Continued Economic Turmoii in Asia/Pacific
The Asia/Pacific region will be a mixed bag of high and low growth over
oxir forecast period, fueled by CAD investments from local and national
governments and expansion by multinational companies, but also
tempered by economic and political turmoil in Southeast Asia. We have
lowered our forecast for Asia/Pacific in Hght of the economic vmcertainty
in some of that region.
Nieeting User Needs beyond Design
For the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market to show the high growth
that it has of recent years, designers need applications that do more than
just design. Design needs to become more tightly integrated with manufacturing and analysis, and beyond that, the whole process of bringing a
product to meirket carmot continue to Uve in isolation within the engineering walls. Vendors are begirming to address this issue today, but it wiU
take some time before users as well as vendors determine exactly what is
needed and how it can work within the business processes of a company.
If they can come up with the "right" solution, we can significantly raise our
forecast.
AEC Forecast Assumptions
The following factors will affect the long-term expansion of the AEC CAD
industry.
CAD Is Becoming a Business Requirement
Large design companies are growing at the expense of smaller companies
and these large end users increasingly require employees and suppliers to
adopt automation tools in the design and coristruction process. Smaller
design companies must increasingly buy CAD systems or risk being
dropped from consideration as a partner.
New Features in AEC CAD Products Are Aciiievabie
Better, lower-cost visualization tools will be in increasing demand as sales
and commvtnication tools. Data and database functions are growing in
importance in AEC design creating opportunities to sell users significant
new functionality. Some vendors will create products that foster communications in the entire design, construction, and maintenance process—
products that wiU increase the payoff in CAD investments.
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
IVIechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
A More Tailored Focus
If vendors stay focused on not selling generic CAD solutions but rather
on selling more tailored solutions to fit different needs in AEC (such as
architectural needs, plant design needs), then we can begin to raise our
forecast upward. Over the years, AEC sales have largely been driven by
varulla sales of CAD products. Solutions that meet specific needs of users
will help drive the market forward at a faster rate.
Design is Oniy Part of tlie Problem
AEC's one-design/one-buUd structure means CAD provides fewer
economic benefits to these users than does the one-design/bviild-many
Structure of manufacturing. Construction, which is essentially a protot5^e
build, is fraught with uncertainties and delays that are not well-addressed
by AEC systems today. Design tools can only thrive in the AEC structure
when they support more of fiie entire business problem. Commitment to
and cooperation on the problem from multiple vendors wiU allow
Dataquest to increase the forecast growth rate further.
GIS/Mapping Forecast Assumptions
The following sections identify those factors that will affect growth in the
worldwide GIS market.
Abundant Supply of Prospective Buyers
Penetration is still moderately low among core users. Bread-and-butter
prospects in government and utilities are charged with maintaining information on land and assets in perpetuity. Many of these prospective buyers
are still using paper maps or have only entry-level systems in terms of
value dehvered.
New Technologies
Faster, cheaper computers will be continually leveraged to support new
software products. Widespread computer industry developments in open,
distributed systems supporting high-speed networking will meike it possible for GIS technology to broadly expand the user base. Advances in aerial
photography, global positioning systems, and sateUite imagery are making
it possible to create GISs that are significantly less expensive, more accurate, and more complete than existing paper maps, giving experienced
users some compelling reasons to reinvest. Portable and pen-based
computers are bringing GIS to new users in field operations. Finally, database companies themselves are gaining a better imderstanding of spatial
analysis, a key factor in spreading use of GIS systems more broadly.
Indispensability of CIS
GIS has attained a certain indispensability, particularly among federal
users and those in utilities. As a result, users are beginning to expect to
share the data that Ues in their various GIS systems. Within three years,
Dataquest expects data to be readily exchangeable across different
systems. At that point, shareable data will help drive market growth.
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 European IVIechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
High Cost of Entry Remains a Barrier
There will remain an vmcertain, but certainly high, cost of creating a
working GIS in traditional enviroimients. No magic wUl emerge to create a
low-cost, meaningful data set for mainstream customers in government
and utilities. Data conversion wUl remain costly because the significant
cost of correcting prior errors and omissions on paper maps is inevitably
bundled into the cost of "conversion."
Price Pressures inliibit Growtli
Price pressure will hold down total revenue in the GIS market. Innovation
is the only way to maintain prices in any software industry, and GIS
vendors wUl struggle in their attempt to create compelling new
applications and improved investment payoff for customers.
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assumptions
Chir final survey showed even slower growth than reported in the
Preliminary Forecast. Total EDA growtik was 14.6 percent. This spring
Dataquest did a considerable amoimt of work modeling the end-user
design market. The breakthrough happened when we broke the mainstream into upper and lower mainstream segments. With these new
models we found that all our previous survey work converged. Tliis gave
US a clear picture of the actual growth by segment, explaining in greater
detail the reason for the slowdown in EDA growth. The top of the
P5a'amid, the power users, only grew 4.5 percent. This was the group that
in essence had run out of tools to buy. This also explains the reason the
slowdown was far more pronounced in the United States rather than in
Other geographic regions. On the other hand, the upper mainstream grew
12.8 percent and the lower mainstream a whopping 130.4 percent. These
are the markets that kept EDA from falling into the 4 percent growth area
of the early 1990s, another period when we ran out of tools. Just to give
you a comparison picture, in 1991,75 percent of aU money spent on EDA
tools was spent by the power users. This year, for the first time, the upper
mainstream alone wUl spend more dollars on EDA tools than tiie power
users.
It has become dear that this is not a semiconductor recession; this is a true
technology inflection point. The last time we saw this was in the early
1980s when the impact of the microprocessor caused a double-dip
recession. If you remember, it was the time of explosive growth in EDA.
We are a much larger industry today so the growth won't be explosive but
it wUl be significant and, as 1997 has shown, it wUl be driven by supply,
not demand. The need is there, the money is there, now where are the
needed new tools?
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Electronic CAE
CAE was by far the area where the lack of new tools hit the hardest. Where
is the RTL Virtual Prototype? What are we going to do about the verification crisis? Why has ES Level tool development been de-emphasized by
the EDA Industry? The only bright spots have been hardware and software coverification and formal verification, at least at the equivalency
checking level. The best news this year has been an answer to the verification crisis. At least we think we know the answer. Until we see the new
test bench, a test bench that coordinates the work of not just simulation
but mviltiple types of simulation while also using formal verification and
formal analysis, we won't know. Unfortunately, we've yet to see much
progress on the RTL Virtual Prototype front. There are some new start-ups
now attacking the problem, and they are showing an extremely broad
level of technical expertise. We can only hope.
IC Layout
The IC CAD world is catching up with the siUcon. This is obviously the
most exciting news to come out of EDA in years. Announcements by
Avant! and Cadence plus the progress on the Sematech CHDs, Physical
Verification program have excited the industry. We're one generation
behind and closing! This wiU keep the IC CAD market growing at about
20 percent for the foreseeable future.
RGB Design
The final PCB nvmibers showed a completely different picture than the
preliminary PCB nvmibers. The Asia/Pacific region grew an extremely
strong 22.2 percent. The major downfall was in Japan, followed by Europe.
This is a continuation of the flow of manufacturing to Asia from these
areas. North America grew at a strong 12 percent. Again the new highspeed buses will continue to drive this market.
History and Forecast for All Applications and Operating Systems
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 show the history and forecast of all applications.
Table 1-3
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue History and Forecast
Software Revenue ($M)
Worldwide, .AU Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host /Proprietary
All Operating Systems
North America
Europe
Japan
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
6,197
7,169
7,749
8,639
9,718
10,948
12,280
13,666
12.0
4,135 4,748 4,670 4,853 5,158
401
836 1,626 2,350 3,090
1,485 1,429 1,392 1,401 1,449
21
176
155
61
35
5,541
3,902
1,492
13
5,975
4,761
1,536
8
6,427
5,653
1,580
5
6.6
28.3
2.6
-3S2
3,190 3,677
2,501 2,787
2,239 2,480
619
570
139
155
4,206
3,074
2,786
709
173
4,748
3,402
3,112
825
192
5,318
3,780
3,445
907
215
13.8
10.6
11.2
11.5
11.3
2,098 2,545 2,786
2,000 2,192 2,289
1,613 1,830 2,022
377
526
479
110
123
126
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 European iWechanica! CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Table 1-4
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue Growth Rate History and Forecast
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
15.7
8.1
11.5
12.5
12.7
12:2
11.3
14.8
-1.7
3.9
6.3
7.4
7.8
7.6
108.7
94.4
44.5
31.5
26.2
22.0
18.7
-3.8
-2.6
0.6
3.4
3.0
2.9
2.8
-12.1
-60.5
-42.7
-40.3
-37.6
-35.6
-34.5
21.3
9.5
14.5
15.3
14.4
12.9
12.0
9.6
4.4
9.3
11.4
10.3
10.7
11.1
Japan
13.5
10.5
10.7
10.8
12.4
11.7
10.7
Asia/Pacific
27.0
9.9
8.4
8.6
14.6
16.3
10.0
Rest of World
11.5
2.4
ll.O
11.3
11.4
11.0
12.0
Year-to-Year Software Revenue Growth Rate (%)
Worldwide, AU Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
All Operating Systems
North America
Evirope
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
Forecast Methodology
Ftmdamental to the way Dataquest conducts its research is the tmderlying
philosophy that 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 eiided 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 macroenvirorunent, which can have
major influences on both supply-side and demand-side forecasting. In
addition to demographics, analysts look at gross national product (GNP)
growth, interest rate fluctuation, business expectations, and capital spending plans. In the geopolitical arena, the group looks at trade issues, political Stability or lack thereof, tariffs, nontariff barriers, and such factors as
the effect on Asia/Pacific and Evu-ope of the events of 1997.
Figure 1-1 shows the CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, and EDA
forecasting model. The overall forecasting process uses a combination of
techniques, such as time series and technological modeling.
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
10
Figure 1-1
CAD/CAM/CAE and CIS Forecasting Model
Vendor/Supply-Side Data
• Product Shipment Projections
• Factory Revenue
• Strategic Alliances
• Marketing Strategies
User/Demarxl-Side Data
• Projected Budget Growth and Allocations
• Business and System Requirements
• Purchasing Procedures
• Criteria for Selection
• Regular Application End-User Surveys
|l
1
•Market Sizing
and
Market Projections
Environmental Analysis
• Economic Forecasts
* Industry/Competilve Qimate
Technology Assessments
• Technology Development
• Standards Development
• Price/Performance Development
9S BB5
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
Market estimates and forecasts are derived using the following research
techniques:
• Segment forecasting—Individual forecasts are derived for each
application segment tracked by the CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS,
and EDA groups. Specifically, each application, segmented by region
and platform, is forecast and roUed up. In this way, each appUcation
segment incorporates its own set of tmique 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 model
and a satisfied available market figure to assess the levels of penetration
accurately. Dataquest analysts also factor in the acceptance or ability for
users to consume new technology.
• Capacity-based analysis—^This method involves identif5dng 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.
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
11
Changes to the Forecast Database
Within this forecasting model, Dataquest has made numerous assumption
changes that better reflect the reahty in the changing mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worlds. These changes include
updating the hardware retirement model and altering the average selling
prices (ASPs) for software, service, and hardware.
Segmentation Definitions
Operating Systems
The following defines the operating systems:
IIi UNIX—Includes aU UNIX variants and older workstation operating
systems
• Host—Includes minicomputer and mairtframe operating systems in
which external workstations' functions are dependent on a host
computer
• Windows NT—The Microsoft operating system
• PC—Includes DOS, Windows, Windows 95,05/2, and Apple operating
systems
Line Items
Line item definitions are as follows:
• Average selling price (ASP) is defined as the average price of a product,
inclusive of any discovmts.
• CPU revenue is the portion of revenue derived from a system sale that
is related to the value of the CPU.
• CPU shipment is defined as the nvunber of CPUs delivered.
• CPU installed base is defined as the total number of CPUs in active,
day-to-day use.
• Unit shipment is defined as the nttmber of products deUvered (that is,
seats).
• Seats are defined as the number of possible simviltaneous users.
• Installed seats are defined as the total number of seats in active,
day-to-day use.
• Hardware revenue is defined as the sum of the revenue from the
hardware system components: CPU revenue, terminal revenue, and
peripherals revenue.
• Peripherals revenue is defined as the value of all the peripherals from
turnkey sale. (Peripherals in this category t5rpically are input and output
devices.)
• Terminal revenue is defined as revenue derived from the sale of
terminals used to graphically create, analyze, or manipulate designs.
The term is applicable only to the host systems.
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of application
software.
Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and
support of GAD/GAM/GAE, AEG and GIS, or EDA systems. Service is
followed as software service and hardware service.
Total factory revenue is defined as the amount of money received for
goods measured in U.S. dollars and is the sum of hardware, software,
and service revenue.
Regions
Europe
• Western Europe—Includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany
(including former East Germany), Greece, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal, Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway,
Sweden), Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
• Rest of Western Europe—Includes Andorra, G5^rus, Faroe Islands,
Gibraltar, Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey,
Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
• Central and Eastern Europe—Includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, K5nrgyzstan, Latvia,
Litiiuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and the
repubUcs of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
November 2,1998
Chapter 2
1998 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast
Tables
^^^^..^^_^^-^^_.^^^.
CMEC-EU-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
13
o
m
o
Table 2-1
Top-Level Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
I
m
c:
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2,830
3,328
3,513
3,843
4,228
4,607
4,996
5,417
9.0
2,057
2,376
2,186
2,199
2,249
2,293
2,353
2,435
2.2
Windows NT
116
315
739
1,078
1,414
1,744
2,064
2,393
26.5
Personal Computer
545
539
550
546
553
562
573
585
1.2
Host/Proprietary
111
99
38
20
12
8
6
4
-35.9
North America
788
997
1,033
1,166
L323
1,453
1,572
1,685
10.3
Europe
987
1,084
1,106
1,188
1,295
1,391
1,515
1,686
8.8
Japan
883
1,019
1,122
1,222
1,326
1,453
L571
1,679
8.4
Asia/Pacific
141
192
212
224
235
256
280
305
7.5
31
36
39
44
49
54
58
63
9.9
-
17.6
5.6
9.4
10.0
9.0
8.4
8.4
-
UNIX
-
15.5
-8.0
0.6
2.3
2.0
2.6
3.5
-
Windows NT
-
170.1
134.9
31.2
23.3
18.4
15.9
-
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
-
-1.1
-45.9
1.2
-39.8
1.6
-33.1
1.9
-30.5
2.1
-28.4
-
-11.5
2.1
-61.8
45.9
-0.7
26.6
3.6
12.9
13.5
9.8
8.1
7.2
-
9.9
2.0
7.4
9.0
7.5
8.9
11.3
I
Crt
CO
oo
o
Software Revenue ($M)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
All Operating Systems
@
CO
CO
c»
o
01
£3
c
CD
en
Rest of World
Year-to-Year Software Revenue Growth Rate (%)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Worldwide
-
AU Operating Systems
North America
Europe
o
<
CD
KJCD
-
•
-
Japan
-
15.5
10.1
8.9
8.5
9.6
8.1
6.9
-
Asia/Pacific
-
35.9
10.9
5.3
5.0
8.9
9.5
8.8
-
Rest of World
-
13.0
10.0
11.7
11.7
9.7
8.8
7.5
.
J
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CO
CO
CO
I
o
o
Table 2-2
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Europe, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Shipments
CPUs
107,803
111,940
115,356
120,289
126,910
130,297
136,954
146,988
5
Seats
111,887
114,390
115,619
120,120
125,718
130,543
137,123
147,107
5
5
7
-
Crt
I
CO
00
o
INJ
Hardware Shipment Data
15
2
1
4
5
4
309,387
331,677
351,099
368,053
384,523
397,545
411,587
430,496
4
329,303
348,677
363,438
375,822
387,953
399,206
412,534
431,101
3
8
6
4
3
3
3
3
5
-
1,453
1,447
1,335
1,334
1,386
1,422
1,503
1,640
4
10
0
-8
0
4
3
6
9
-
987
1,084
1,106
1,188
1,295
1,515
1,686
9
20
10
2
7
9
1,391
7
9
11
-
Software Service
350
370
380
389
419
442
480
529
7
Hardware Service
275
279
267
244
252
257
272
296
2
Service Revenue
625
648
647
633
671
699
752
825
5
6
4
8
10
-
3,352
3,513
4,152
6
6
5
3,771
7
10
-
Year-lo-YearIntCBeisse!(%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
@
-A
CO
CO
00
o
Ef
X3
C
CO
(/)
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source; Dataquest (October 1998)
o
<
CD
3
CO
(O
00
8
4
0
3,065
3,179
4
3,089
-2
3,155
-3
2
13
o
o
Table 2-3
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Benelux, All Operating Systems
C/J
I
(O
oo
o
IV3
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
4,216
5,126
5,775
5,825
5,993
6,268
6,810
7,053
4
4,366
5,160
5,756
5,810
5,945
6,271
6,813
7,055
4
4
18
12
1
2
5
9
4
-
12,935
13,756
14,204
15,965
17,328
18,294
19,052
6
16,358
17,538
18,352
19,058
19,985
19,979
20,871
14,823
20,863
5
3
8
10
7
5
4
5
4
-
64
67
67
68
72
79
84
4
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Incasease (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
@
(O
Revenue Data ($M)
5
5
68
1
-2
3
5
10
6
-
42
48
52
55
58
63
71
75
8
19
13
10
5
6
8
12
7
-
Software Service
19
15
16
17
18
19
21
23
7
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
13
32
38
13
28
-11
14
30
6
12
29
-3
13
31
5
13
32
6
14
36
11
15
38
6
2
5
-
138
143
151
151
157
167
186
197
5
16
4
5
0
4
6
11
6
-
Hardware Revenue
CO
oo
o
.a
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source. Dataquest (October 1998)
o
<
CD
3
aCO
CO
CO
CX)
o
Table 2-4
o
Detail Mechanical Forecast, France, All Operating Systems
I
o
ro
oo
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
17,486
17,364
17,314
18,392
20,355
20,991
21,539
22,409
5
Seats
18,352
17,909
17,384
18,359
19,993
21,099
21,606
22,463
5
16
-2
-3
6
9
6
2
4
-
CPUs
48,318
52,730
55,492
57,874
61,158
64,005
66,296
68,410
4
Seats
51,857
55,911
57,873
59,402
61,715
64,279
66,495
68,587
3
13
8
4
3
4
4
3
3
-
w
(O
00
CO
CO
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Irictease (%)
Installed Base
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
@
to
<o
00
o
Dl
s
X3
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
CD
3
lo
(O
CO
CO
o
>
a
o
>
o
>
CD
O
01
(/>
Revenue Data ($M)
Service Revenue
o
<
CD
W
276
261
228
230
247
256
263
277
4
15
-6
-13
1
7
4
3
5
-
187
195
190
208
235
256
271
291
9
22
4
-3
9
13
9
6
7
7
63
70
66
69
81
53
117
53
123
48
114
44
113
76
47
122
86
48
129
49
135
91
52
144
2
5
5
5
-7
-1
8
5
5
6
-
580
15
579
0
531
-8
550
4
- 604
641
6
669
4
712
6
6
-
10
CU
CT
o
o
Table 2-5
Detail IVIechanical Forecast, Germany, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
39,426
41,454
39,445
40,931
43,148
45,336
45,991
48,965
53,629
6
40,816
43,143
44,928
46,075
49,020
53,666
5
20
-2
41,155
1
5
4
3
6
9
-
110,908
119,040
118,717
126,182
131,677
135,437
137,532
139,447
141,531
142,571
146,643
147,255
154,629
154,997
4
3
10
6
125,495
131,173
4
3
3
2
3
5
-
565
16
369
534
-5
487
-9
499
2
503
1
537
7
385
445
468
515
596
11
584
4
-
383
488
0
414
25
4
0
7
8
5
10
13
-
Software Service
139
134
140
144
152
158
173
193
7
Hardware Service
105
243
96
107
2
243
4
91
249
97
236
0
89
232
-2
91
270
300
19
101
235
-3
3
8
11
5
-
1,177
1,153
1,108
1,134
1,187
1,219
1,321
1,480
6
19
-2
-4
2
5
3
8
12
-
C/J
I
to
00
o
fO
Hardware Shipmeitt Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Ini^reaaa (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-tO'Year Increasct (%)
@
C£>
CO
00
o
s.
0>
.o
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
o
<
CD
3
IV5
CO
CO
00
9
o
o
C/5
I
CO
00
o
ISJ
Table 2-6
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Italy, All Operating Systems
Shipments
CPUs
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
(O
00
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
10,558
10,609
25
10,954
11,093
11,080
1
11,584
12,341
13,053
14,039
11,550
4
11,919
11,814
2
12,346
5
13,055
6
14,041
8
30,377
33,608
34,971
36,074
34,213
35,278
36,115
37,063
37,017
38,395
38,331
40,306
40,255
4
31,927
32,158
33,154
4
4
3
3
2
2
4
5
-
144
5
10
-
Hardware Shipment Data
Seats
Year-to-Year Inere^se (%)
@
Year-to-Year Increstse (%)
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
£3
C
CD
118
114
115
118
123
0
6
-4
1
2
4
131
7
79
90
93
101
107
117
129
146
9
14
13
4
8
7
9
11
13
-
Software Service
24
29
30
29
31
33
36
40
6
Hardware Service
20
44
20
20
18
19
19
21
23
2
50
50
48
57
63
5
-14
12
1
-5
50
4
52
9
11
-
235
257
257
264
275
5
292
317
353
7
1
9
0
3
4
6
9
11
-
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source; Dataquest (October 1998)
o
CD
3
CD
CO
00
3
111
Service Revenue
<
10,926
3
5
5
-
•i
C£>
a
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1995
o
Table 2-7
Detail IMechanical Forecast, Scandinavia, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Shipments
CPUs
7,415
8,006
8,159
8,445
8,810
9,569
10,011
10,780
6
Seats
7,675
8,156
8,164
8,405
8,634
9,605
10,051
10,802
6
30
6
0
3
3
11
5
7
-
19,040
21,660
23,778
25,365
26,601
28,037
29,447
31,130
6
20,442
22,819
24,593
25,836
26,687
28,036
29,462
31,165
12
12
8
5
3
5
5
6
5
-
Hardware Revenue
88
95
89
100
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
SoftwareRevenue
8
70
-6
89
-1
91
9
59
2
5
-
80
85
105
6
107
115
9
75
10
99
120
10
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
26
17
8
6
7
16
9
12
-
Software Service
18
24
24
24
26
29
32
35
8
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
16
34
18
42
18
42
16
41
17
43
18
47
19
51
21
56
-6
23
0
-2
4
11
8
9
3
6
-
181
206
206
209
218
246
264
291
7
11
14
0
2
4
13
7
10
-
C/3
I
to
00
o
^^
Hardware Shipment Data
Year-to-Year IndirfeEiie; (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Incre^e (%)
@
(O
(D
00
a
ja
c:
CD
C/>
Revenue Data ($M)
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
o
<
CD
3
CO
(£>
00
o
m
o
Table 2-8
Detail iVlechanical Forecast, Spain, All Operating Systems
o
IS3
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
CPUs
3,103
4,090
4,521
5,039
5,424
5,567
5,874
6,497
8
Seats
3,241
4,181
4,538
5,042
5,423
5,568
5,874
6,497
7
1
29
9
11
8
3
6
11
-
9,931
10,770
12,129
13,728
15,188
16,235
17,082
18,201
8
10,547
12,545
14,008
15,360
16,334
17,138
18,231
8
-3
11,320
7
11
12
10
6
5
6
-
39
44
46
49
53
54
58
66
7
6
13
3
8
7
2
7
14
-
27
33
36
41
47
49
54
63
12
9
22
11
14
13
6
10
16
-
Software Service
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
18
8
Hardware Service
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
11
5
19
19
21
21
23
23
25
29
7
13
5
7
0
8
4
9
14
-
85
96
103
112
122
127
138
158
9
9
14
7
9
9
4
8
15
-
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Hv&mm (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increjtete (%)
@
(£>
CO
00
o
o>
ET
.a
c
CD
C/l
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
o
3
(O
(O
00
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1995
I
(O
00
2002
2001
Crt
o
o
Table 2-9
Detail Mechanical Forecast, United Kingdom, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
16,138
18,829
18,629
18,834
20,137
20,688
21,708
23,248
5
16,666
19,088
18,600
18,790
20,062
20,697
21,710
23,248
5
3
15
-3
1
7
3
5
7
-
CPUs
49,066
53,451
56,685
58,911
61,260
63,181
65,224
68,150
4
Seats
51,532
55,511
58,095
59,733
61,651
63,368
65,316
68,186
3
5
8
5
3
3
3
3
4
-
208
0
233
12
203
-13
197
-3
211
7
217
3
231
6
253
145
7
186
29
188
5
249
10
48
63
65
212
13
71
227
7
Software Service
180
-3
64
10
280
12
5
-
76
83
92
8
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
42
90
-11
47
38
102
-4
40
111
9
41
117
5
44
110
22
42
106
-3
126
8
48
140
11
3
6
-
Total Factory Revenue
442
528
488
487
535
561
606
672
7
-1
19
-8
0
10
5
8
11
-
w
I
CO
00
o
ro
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Iqei>ea!sei (%)
Installed Base
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
@
-jk
CO
(O
00
131
X3
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Yea r-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
O
<
CD
3
oCD
rv3
CO
CO
cx>
9
-
o
o
Table 2-10
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Austria/Switzerland, All Operating Systems
1995
en
CO
00
o
ro
1996
1997
1998
CO
CO
00
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Hardware Shipment Data
4,947
3,696
3,500
Seats
4,978
3,700
92
CPUs
Seats
3,602
3,658
3,741
3,888
2
3,598
0
3,658
2
3,741
2
3,888
4
2
-26
3,501
-5
3,583
3,582
2
8,306
10,470
11,290
11,513
11,478
11,444
11,571
11,795
1
8,475
10,593
11,375
11,568
11,506
11,457
11,575
11,796
1
102
25
7
2
-1
0
1
2
-
-
Installed Base
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
@
(O
(O
oo
K.
fu
S3
tz
43
42
38
37
37
37
38
40
-3
-10
-2
0
1
3
5
-
34
38
14
40
6
45
11
47
6
51
8
55
7
60
9
8
98
Software Service
9
11
12
13
14
14
15
17
6
Hardware Service
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
16
19
20
20
20
21
22
24
4
39
19
2
-1
4
4
6
7
-
93
99
7
98
101
105
109
115
124
5
3
4
5
7
-
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
CD
<n
1
66
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
O
2
o
c5
>
o
>
CD
n
cti
CO
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
CD
CD
O
Shipments
CPUs
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
E
•a
70
-1
3
fa
CD
V)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
o
<
CD
CO
CO
00
M
o
m
o
CO
I
CO
00
o
ISJ
Table 2-11
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Russia, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
525
509
578
562
429
338
307
356
-9
Seats
525
524
583
564
429
338
307
356
-9
Year-to-Year IndSEtMig (%)
340
0
11
-3
-24
-21
-9
16
-
CPUs
655
1,090
1,456
1,677
1,665
1,503
L328
1,250
-3
Seats
655
1,104
1A75
1,695
1,678
1,512
1,333
1,254
-3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Revenue Data ($M)
361
69
34
15
-1
-10
-12
-6
-
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
5
8
9
8
7
6
6
8
-3
116
60
12
-7
-13
-7
1
17
-
4
8
27
2
8
3
2
7
7
7
148
2
6
64
2
-11
2
-3
2
4
2
8
19
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
-1
3
94
4
4
3
-2
3
4
1
6
3
-7
4
19
11
44
17
4
-7
20
20
17
16
17
20
0
120
58
16
-3
-11
-5
3
18
-
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Installed Base
©
(O
(O
00
o
J3
c
CD
c/>
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source: Oataquest (October 1998)
O
<
CD
3
aCD
CO
CO
oo
o
o
Table 2-12
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Central Europe, All Operating Systems
I
m
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
1,864
1,924
2,069
2,263
2,418
2,467
2,546
2,685
5
Seats
1,898
64
1,938
2
2,075
7
2,262
2,410
7
2,469
2
2,547
3
2,688
6
5
9
4,055
5,127
5,930
6,575
7,091
7,427
7,695
7,973
6
4,146
5,997
6,622
7,111
7,437
6
15
10
7
5
7,700
4
7,979
48
5,210
26
4
-
25
23
24
25
27
28
29
31
5
35
-9
5
5
7
2
4
8
-
18
43
18
-1
21
24
27
29
34
10
6
15
9
12
10
18
8
10
7
11
31
7
12
10
13
10
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
2
15
10
13
13
15
16
17
18
7
90
-34
28
5
10
5
7
9
-
58
51
58
63
69
72
76
83
8
5
6
9
-
en
(O
oo
a
IS3
Hardwate Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Irii#BfiSe (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Scats
@
(O
CO
00
o
JQ
Year-to-Year Incre*^ (%)
Revenue Data {$M)
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
O
<
CD
3
N5
CO
CO
00
49
-13
14
9
10
-
o
o
Crt
I
CO
oo
o
rvj
Table 2-13
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Rest of Europe, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2,127
1,998
2,786
2,615
2,486
2,418
2,399
2,404
-3
2,124
2,784
2,483
-5
2,418
-3
2,399
-1
-3
40
2,613
-6
2,404
' -59
1,991
-6
0
-
CPUs
15,798
11,301
9,271
8,433
8,182
8,068
7,921
7,783
-3
Seats
16,926
12,052
9,740
8,706
8,333
8,138
7,949
7,788
-4
-25
-29
-19
-11
-4
-2
-2
-2
-
29
22
31
28
17
26
26
26
-3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-40
-23
40
-8
-4
-4
-1
1
-
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
23
18
26
25
25
25
25
26
0
-25
-23
45
-2
0
-1
1
3
-
Software Service
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
Hardware Service
6
12
4
6
5
5
5
5
-4
8
6
12
10
10
10
10
10
-2
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year hwifi^isfe (%)
Installed Base
Year-to-Year IncreM* (%)
@
(O
(O
00
o
cu
s.£3
Revenue Data ($M)
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-20
-33
40
-9
-1
-2
0
3
-
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
64
48
68
64
63
61
61
62
-2
-32
-25
42
-6
-2
-3
0
2
-
Source: Dataquest (October 1998)
O
<
CD
3
oCD
(O
(O
oo
For More Information...
Inqviiry Hothne
Litemet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+44-1784-431-611
[email protected]
+44-1784-488-980
http://vvww.dataquest.eom
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. M rights reserved.
727-W
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AIVIERICA
EUROPE
ASIA/PACIFIC
Worldwide Headquarters
Dataquest/Gartner Group
European Headquarters
Gartner Group Ltd.
Asia Headquarters
Gartner Group Hong Kong
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: +44-1784-431-611
Facsimile: --44-1784-488-980
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: -1-852-2824-6168
Facsimile: -1-852-2824-6138
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: -hi-408-468-8000
Facsimile: -t-1-408-954-1780
East Coast Research Center
Gartner Group Lowell
900 Chelmsford Street
Tower Two, Floor Nine
Lowell, Massachusetts 01851
United States
Phone: -1-1-978-323-6900
Facsimile: -1-1-978-323-6933
Dataquest France
knmeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: •4-33-1-41-35-13-00
Facsimile: •4-33-1-41-35-13-13
Dataquest Germany
Martin-Kollar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: •4-49-89-42-70-4-0
Facsimile: -49-89-42-70-4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
Japan
Phone: -1-81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: -^81-3-3481-3644
Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Group Pacific
80 Alfred Street - 6th Floor
Milsons Point, NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: -^61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: -(-61-2-9941-4868
Korea
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: -t-82-2-551-1331
Facsimile: -^82-2-551-1330
Taiwan
Gartner Group Taiwan Ltd.
llF-2,188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei 105
Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: -1-886-2-2756-0389
Facsinule: •4-886-2-2756-2663/4122
Tlialland
Gartner Group Tliailand Ltd.
29 Vanissa Building, 12F
Soi Chidlom, Ploenchit Road
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: -1-662-655-0577
Facsinule: -1-662-655-0576
Singapore
Gartner Group Advisory (S) Pte Ltd.
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest
6 Temasek Boulevard #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: 4-65-333-6773
Facsimile: -1-65-333-6787
DataQuest
1997 European Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share
Market Statistics
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Product Code: CMEC-EU-MS-QSOI
Publication Date: September?, 1998
Filing: Market Statistics
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-468-8600
1997 European Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Product Code: CMEC-EU-MS-9801
Publication Date: September?, 1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
About This Document
Definitions
Europe
Publishing Schedule
A Final Note
2. 1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market
Share Tables
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
List of Tables
Table
2-1 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-2 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-3 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-4 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-5 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-6 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-7 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-8 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-9 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-10 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-11 Top 12 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-12 Top 22 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
2-13 Top 30 Mechanical Software
All Operating Systems
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
Companies, Worldwide,
3
Companies, Europe,
4
Companies, France,
5
Companies, Germany,
6
Companies, Benelux,
7
Companies, United Kingdom,
8
Companies, Austria/Switzerland,
9
Companies, Spain,
10
Companies, Italy,
11
Companies, Scandinavia,
12
Companies, Russia,
13
Companies, Central Europe,
14
Companies, Rest of Europe,
15
September 7,1998
Chapter 1
Introduction
.
About This Document
This Market Statistics report contains Dataquest's detailed market share
information on the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE industry at the country
level. This document is meant to supplement the worldwide mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE market share book by providing mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE market share detail for coimtries in the Europe region.
Definitions
This section lists the definitions specific to this document. For other definitions, please see the worldwide Market Statistics book.
Europe
• Western Europe: Includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany (including former East Germany), Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Portugal, Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), Spain,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
• Rest of Western Europe: Includes Andorra, Cyprus, Faroe Islands,
Gibraltar, Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
• Central and Eastern Europe: Includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and the republics of the
former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Publishing Schedule
Dataquest pubUshes market share and forecasts at the country level once
each year. Our deUvery schedule is as follows:
• European cotmtry-level market share tables for 1997, based on data collection and analysis begirming in January 1998, are presented in this
report. At this point, the market share database is frozen and will not be
changed until the end of 1998.
• Forecast tables will be available electronically by mid-September, and
books wUl be shipped in October. These forecast tables will contain
country-level information for the European region.
A Final Note
Dataquest's policy is to continually update its market information for current and past years with euay new data received in order to arrive at the
most accurate market representation possible. Our ongoing commitment
is to maintain an accurate and complete model of the entire CAD/CAM/
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worldwide markets, and we welcome your
input. Please feel free to contact any member of the CAD/CAM/CAE,
AEC and GIS, or EDA team if you have any questions or concerns.
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
1
Chapter 2
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Market Share Tables
^_^^^^^^Table 2-1
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
Structural D)mamics Research Corporation
MICROCADAM
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
CoCreate
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
Fujitsu
Matra Datavision
NEC
Hitachi
Toshiba*
Computervision
Nihon Unisys
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Ansys
Tecnomatix Technology
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Delcam Pic
Sherpa Corp.
Marubeni Hytech*
Sumisho Electronics*
MARC
Tokyo Electron*
Formtek
Seiko*
ISD Software
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
1997
1996
449.0
641.8
563.5
321.2
605.8
495.0
204.9
249.5
303.8
192.9
174.2
206.4
124.7
172.1
153.1
129.2
152.0
150.0
85.2
117.2
125.9
107.3
113.4
125.5
89.1
209.5
115.5
114.0
106.3
104.0
97.0
107.3
103.5
87.4
91.8
90.6
72.9
62.9
70.9
70.9
63.7
68.1
66.7
62.5
65.0
149.0
174.4
61.7
54.4
52.8
54.6
38.7
42.7
39.3
32.6
35.1
37.0
34.2
20.1
26.3
30.8
30.8
32.5
16.7
22.0
30.8
20.6
26.2
27.5
19.9
23.0
24.9
23.4
18.8
21.6
18.2
21.8
19.5
17.4
20.0
21.8
21.7
18.9
20.6
19.7
21.1
19.0
22.7
14.5
20.1
2,010.1 2,504.8 2,573.6
339.5
345.6
390.9
481.5
475.4
545.7
2,831.1 3,325.7 3,510.3
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Growth (%)
1996-1997
13.9
22.4
21.8
18.5
12.4
-1.3
7.5
10.7
-44.9
-2.2
-3.6
-1.2
12.7
6.8
3.9
-64.6
0.3
8.8
-5.2
30.0
5.5
40.0
5.0
8.5
8.4
11.7
8.5
5.1
11.0
-11.4
2.7
13.1
14.8
5.5
Market
Share (%)
1997
18.3
17.3
8.7
5.9
4.9
4.3
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
73.3
11.1
15.5
100.0
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Table 2-2
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
227.3
109.2
225.5
171.3
238.1
113.2
140.7
70.0
68.8
54.5
54.4
1
IBM
2
Parametric Technology
3
Dassault Systemes
Matra Datavision
4
5
Autodesk
61.5
6
7
CoCreate
Structural D3mamics Research Corporation
8
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
59.0
33.2
32.1
43.1
59.3
32.0
30.8
Computervision
73.6
11.6
12
Tecnomatix Technology
ISO Software
81.1
15.8
13
14
15
9
10
11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
203.5
150.8
72.7
64.0
60.3
52.5
37.9
28.3
27.1
7.2
13.6
5.6
17.5
10.7
6.6
5.8
5.4
21.8
-36.0
-8.2
4.7
3.4
31.1
1.9
-11.2
19.2
1.8
1.8
40.0
1.6
1.2
ASCAD
Delcam Pic
16.5
125
19.7
Tebis
C A D Lab
12.5
13.6
14.0
Radan Computational
7.6
10.4
Sherpa Corp.
21.5
18.4
20.7
19.9
Ansys
MICROCADAM
5.6
18.8
2.6
2.4
22.4
ICEM Technologies
Applicon
Marlcet
Share (%)
1997
-66.6
14.5
14.9
7.7
10.9
8.2
Growth (%)
1996-1997
17.6
13.1
12.9
-6.4
18.2
1.1
1.1
11.9
11.8
11.7
12.4
121
10.6
10.1
11.1
12.2
10.5
10.5
-12.5
-5.2
-13.7
9.2
9.6
8.2
5.0
-5.0
8.1
12.8
11.8
0.7
-5.2
0.6
0.6
10.3
7.2
23
24
Investronica S A
BCT G m b H
6.0
4.2
8.6
7.2
25
Eigner -i- Partner
6.3
6.8
26
27
Sescoi
Bentley Systems
6.0
6.2
28
5.8
29
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
MARC
5.9
6.5
30
Mechanical Dynamics
4.5
4.9
5.9
5.7
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
724.5
262.4
826.5
257.8
All Asian Companies
All Companies
987.0 1,084.2 1,106.3
7.5
7.6
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.2
6.1
824.8
281.6
43.5
1.2
-1.9
17.9
5.3
5.3
7.0
-0.2
9.2
NA
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
74.6
25.4
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-3
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, France, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
2
IBM
Dassault Systemes
51.6
34.2
53.2
41.9
3
4
Parametric Technology
Matra Datavision
24.9
38.5
30.0
49.5
39.3
35.7
5
6
7
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Autodesk
Computervision
6.0
7.5
17.4
8
9
CoCreate
Serbi
5.4
5.9
10
11
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
3.5
4.9
5.6
5.7
3.5
4.3
12
13
14
Sherpa Corp.
MICROCADAM
2.3
2.6
3.7
29
3.0
1.6
2.1
1.9
1.2
15
16
17
8.2
5.9
23.1
17.9
-66.6
5.3
4.3
5.5
5.0
10.7
-10.8
4.5
4.2
-20.9
18.1
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.4
1.8
1.4
1.2
-4.0
16.5
0.9
0.8
1.2
1.2
-16.5
-42.9
0.6
0.6
1.0
17.9
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
18.2
8.0
0.5
0-4
1.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
-59.1
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
B.A. Intelligence Networks
PAFEC
0.3
-
0.3
0.4
Delcam Pic
0.2
-
0.2
0.2
126.2
52.3
187.8
Catalpa groupe Missler
21
22
CAD Lab
29
30
18.8
1.2
ADRA Systems
Bentley Systems
28
18.8
2.7
34.4
10.0
3.7
ESI Group
Ansys
Sescoi
19
20
26
27
-6.3
26.1
20.7
2.2
Applicon
25
17.8
-7.0
Market
Share (%)
1997
-1.4
5.0
-13.7
18
23
24
33.5
8.1
7.0
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Mechanical Dynamics
Concentra
Adkia R&D
ICEM Technologies
Radan Computational
Gibbs and Assoc.
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.0
0.4
-
23
1.4
2.0
0.9
3.0
2.6
2.4
2.1
0.6
-2.2
-16.7
29.4
1.6
1-4
1.1
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
39.4
-7.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
40.0
0.2
141.5
47.3
0.3
133.7
47.9
30.6
-5.5
0.1
70.5
25.2
195.1
189.6
NA
-2.8
1.3
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Table 2-4
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Germany, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1
IBM
105.9
2
Dassault Systemes
3
4
Parametric Technology
CoCreate
ASCAD
5
55.0
60.3
10.3
9.7
34.8
29.7
15.7
41.4
18.8
10.7
32.2
14.1
32.9
18.7
10.7
19.2
8.5
4.9
16.5
15.6
20.5
4.3
-4.5
-14.8
23.2
4.0
3.7
-6.9
3.0
2.4
39.9
21.4
16.4
13.7
Matra Datavision
14.0
8
9
ISD Software
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
11.3
16.3
16.8
9.7
10
Tebis
11
12
8.9
13
Unigraphics Solutions
Applicon
Eigner -i- Partner
14
BCT GmbH
3.5
5.6
6.0
15
ICEM Technologies
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
Computervision
6.3
7.2
4.6
15.2
5.3
16.5
debis Systemhaus
MacNeal-Schwendler
Wiechers Datentechnik
3.0
8.2
4.1
3.5
Ziegler Informatics
2.6
2.5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
Ansys
MICROCADAM
31.6
15.7
121.7
Autodesk
18
19
Marlcet
Share (%)
1997
1996
110.4
6
7
16
17
1997
Growth (%)
1996-1997
7.5
11.0
7.8
4.9
123
19.9
8.2
14.3
11.9
11.5
9.3
7.1
6.9
6.8
6.7
5.6
5.5
4.7
10.6
3.7
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.1
3.0
4.4
3.8
23.9
13.2
-6.3
5.7
-66.6
33.0
-60.6
2.0
-4.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
-13.7
-40.1
0.8
0.7
0.7
5.8
0.7
ADRA Systems
2.6
3.8
Mechanical Dynamics
Sherpa Corp.
2.2
1.7
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.3
5.0
0.6
Cimatron
Intergraph
1.3
1.6
2.2
1.5
1.4
2.1
1.9
1.9
21.9
33.8
0.5
0.5
1.8
-13.3
0.5
Open Mind
All N.A. Companies
230.6
1.5
264.2
120.0
368.9
106.8
19.5
-1.1
0.5
0.5
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
1.8
261.3
107.3
-
-
383.3
384.9
NA
0.4
Exapt
All Companies
2.6
-53.2
-14.1
3.1
67.9
27.9
lOO.O
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September?, 1998
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-5
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Benelux, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1995
1996
1997
Parametric Technology
IBM
11.4
8.7
17.7
7.9
21.1
Unigraphics Solutions
6.4
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
3.8
4.4
1.2
6.6
4.2
ISD Software
MacNeal-Schwendler
Matra Datavision
0.6
1.4
1.7
Bentley Systems
Radan Computational
Cimatron
13
14
ASCAD
15
16
17
PAFEC
.Ansys
Delcam Pic
18
Intergraph
19
20
Investronica SA
Computervision
0.2
0.1
0.3
1.0
-
4.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.4
1.6
1.2
20.9
0.6
0.5
4.6
17.9
2.0
1.8
1.1
0.9
40.0
0.6
24.9
-12.8
-12.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
13.3
26.0
0.4
0.4
0.2
13.3
-16.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
5.0
-62.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
-4.4
19.5
0.3
0.3
NA
0.1
0.3
0.3
85.4
5.0
-
44.7
5.5
-
2.5
8.9
9.3
NA
47.6
52.4
10.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
23
24
ICEM Technologies
Applicon
0.2
0.2
25
Sherpa Corp.
0.2
0.2
0.1
26
17
Han Dataport
0.4
Gerber Systems
Open Mind
Modultek Oy
0.2
-
Wiechers Datentechnik
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
0.1
4.8
42.0
6.5
-1.4
8.1
3.1
2.3
-10.0
-49.4
0.4
0.2
All Asian Companies
All Companies
2.5
4.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
35.1
13.0
8.3
-66.6
0.1
30
3.7
16.0
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.2
28
29
40.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
Vero International Software
21
22
18.8
6.2
4.4
4.3
1.0
0.9
Market
Share (%)
1997
26.5
204.8
19.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
RoboCAD Solutions
MCS
8.4
6.8
Growth (%)
1996-1997
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.1
-;
0.1
41.0
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
10.5
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Table 2-6
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, United Kingdom, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
GroMfth (%)
1996-1997
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
Parametric Technology
IBM
22.3
43.7
21.0
36.8
15.8
Dassault Systemes
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Radan Computational
11.4
6.2
10.9
8.4
6.8
24.7
7.3
29.2
10.6
9.7
8.6
2.2
7.5
8.5
-66.6
12.8
2
3
4
5
6
7
Computervision
Autodesk
18.1
12.1
10.7
18.8
14.6
10.2
27.0
45.4
8
Delcam Pic
9
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
6.8
5.7
18.1
8.0
8.0
40.0
-56.0
7.0
7.4
-1.4
Matra Datavision
2.6
5.4
3.4
7.3
6.5
10
11
12
CoCreate
Whessoe Computing Systems
13
14
PAFEC
15
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
16
17
MICROCADAM
Anilam Electronics
18
Sherpa Corp.
Sescoi
Applicon
19
20
21
22
4.5
1.3
2.6
2.2
1.3
1.2
4.9
4.5
4.0
1.7
3.0
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.1
5.5
4.6
4.1
3.6
2.6
2.3
1.8
2.3
2.0
109.1
-13.7
0.2
5.0
7.9
-10.1
1.0
1.3
1.2
13.3
17.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
19.5
9.9
23
24
25
.Ansys
1.3
1.4
1.1
-24.4
26
27
Concentra
0.9
3.5
0.9
1.0
-72.8
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.8
ICEM Technologies
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
0.5
113.4
0.8
0.5
146.2
23.6
33.8
0.8
126.9
45.1
All Asian Companies
144.3
186.1
179.6
All Companies
0.9
4.5
4.4
4.1
2.5
0.9
1.0
30
5.9
5.4
4.7
3.4
Bentley Systems
CGTech
CIMLINC
29
6.0
0.7
MCS
28
10.1
6.7
3.6
1.6
1.4
0.9
0.9
24.3
89.2
10.7
1.5
1.0
RoboCAD Solutions
Mechanical Dynamics
Formtek
Market
Share (%)
1997
8.0
6.9
51.1
-13.2
33.2
NA
-3.5
3.1
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
70.7
25.1
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-7
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Austria/Switzerland, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1995
1996
1997
5.4
5.6
4.9
IBM
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
5.1
4.3
2.2
4.4
4.1
6.6
5.5
4.7
Autodesk
4.2
Dassault Systemes
ISD Software
BCT GmbH
1.9
0.6
0.7
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
MacNeal-Schwendler
1.2
Company Name
Parametric Technology
CoCreate
C A D Distribution
Han Dataport
Matra Datavision
Unigraphics Solutions
Ansys
ICEM Technologies
1.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
Tebis
0.4
19
20
21
Just In Time Systems
Computervision
0.4
0.6
Intergraph
0.1
22
Bentley Systems
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Mechanical Dynamics
25
28
29
30
-
0.6
ASCAD
26
27
1.2
1.2
2.6
0.9
18
23
24
2.0
1.4
2.2
0.6
0.4
16
17
3.1
2.3
-
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.1
4.3
3.8
2.5
2.1
1.6
1.3
1.2
10.7
3.4
6.3
5.2
4.0
3.2
6.6
1.2
2.4
1.7
0.6
0.6
-15.0
19.2
1.5
1.5
0.4
-9.0
-12.1
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
-66.6
0.8
0.5
0.2
35.3
17.9
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
44.9
8.0
0.2
19.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
2.5
-2.9
Ziegler Informatics
Gibbs and Assoc.
0.1
-
0.1
Spatial Teclinology
0.1
0
17.1
22.4
14.9
14.5
26.1
12.4
33.6
38.1
40.2
All Asian Companies
All Companies
11.3
2.8
18.4
10.8
9.4
2.4
2.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
22.6
13.6
11.6
-63.0
4.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
-
Vero International Software
6.1
6.7
16.5
NA
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
18.8
10.7
Market
Share (%)
1997
3.1
2.6
0.2
0.1
Open Mind
Wiechers Datentechnik
Growth (%)
1996-1997
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
30.6
-11.1
NA
16.5
-14.6
NA
5.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
64.8
30.9
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Table 2-8
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Spain, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
1995
1996
1997
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Parametric Technology
IBM
3.5
7.3
6.6
7.8
18.8
Dassault Systemes
3.8
6.5
4.2
7.0
4.4
7.4
4.1
Autodesk
Investronica SA
2.6
3.3
1.9
4.1
5
26.3
2.7
6
7
CIMTEK
Matra Datavision
1.2
1.6
2.0
1.8
8
9
CADdy Spain
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
0.9
1.4
0.9
1.4
1.8
1.7
99.4
17.2
1.2
1.6
22.1
10
11
ICEM Technologies
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.4
12
Unigraphics Solutions
Delcam Pic
29.5
11.2
13
14
Computervision
MacNeal-Schwendler
0.8
2.7
0.9
3.2
1.3
1.1
15
Softronics
16
17
ISD Software
FHECOR
1.0
0.3
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.6
18
Cimatron
0.3
19
20
Tebis
Sescoi
0.3
0.4
21
Bentley Systems
22
23
Ansys
Applicon
Intergraph
Rank
Company Name
1
2
3
4
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
•
•
Vero International Software
MCS
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
-
,
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
-
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
i.
0.1
0.3
Open Mind
ADRA Systems
Gerber Systems
Ziegler Informatics
«
0.3
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
13.9
40.0
-66.6
-1.4
2.7
-11.2
2.7
52.4
0.5
6.4
• 0.4
10.6
17.9
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Market
Share (%)
1997
21.5
19.3
12.0
11.4
5.4
5.0
5.0
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.2
3.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
67.0
18.2
0.5
0.5
19.5
-50.0
0.5
0.4
12.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
20.1
0.1
0.1
-:
0.1
-3.8
NA
0
23.9
0
24.9
13.3
4.1
0.1
68.5
5.4
7.8
9.9
27.3
26.8
27.0
NA
32.7
0.1
-
•
36.3
11.0
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
11
Table 2-9
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Italy, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1
2
Parametric Technology
3
4
5
6
7
C A D Lab
IBM
Autodesk
Dassault Systemes
Matra Datavision
8
CoCreate
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
9
10
Investronica S A
Computervision
11
12
Cimatron
13
14
Delcam Pic
Vero International Software
Unigraphics Solutions
15
Formtek
16
17
Mechanical Dynamics
1995
9.2
1996
15.4
12.2
9.8
9.9
6.9
5.7
10.3
6.9
7.7
6.1
5.4
8.1
4.9
1.7
•
-
•
7.1
1.8
1.2
1.1
1.2
3.3
4.0
7.2
2.9
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Market
Share (%)
1997
18.8
18.2
19.5
12.3
8.2
7.9
5.8
19.8
1.7
11.6
8.8
5.9
5.5
-28.1
10.7
3.9
3.7
17.3
-6.9
2.4
2.2
-66.6
1997
18.3
11.6
10.9
1.5
1.2
1.4
2.2
2.1
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.5
0.4
0.9
1.2
1.1
Ansys
MacNeal-Schwendler
1.0
1.0
1.1
3.8
Bentley Systems
Aduia R&D
^
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
Tebis
CGTech
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
ICEM Technologies
ADRA Systems
0.3
0.5
26
27
ISD Software
Applicon
0.3
28
29
Sescoi
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
Sherpa Corp.
MCS
Open Mind
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.6
0.4
-25.1
40.0
73.8
6.6
8.4
6.3
5.8
4.1
3.9
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.2
-0.7
1.6
1.5
8.0
5.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
NA
1.1
17.9
1.1
1.1
2.0
-3.6
0.8
0.7
19.5
70.0
0.7
OA
-25.0
-11.2
0.4
OA
11.3
0.2
0.3
13.3
62.3
0.2
66.7
0.3
71.2
19.5
6.9
13.0
20.2
18.5
79.3
89.8
93.7
-8.3
NA
4.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
76.0
19.8
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
12
Table 2-10
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Scandinavia, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Market
Share (%)
1997
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
Growth (%)
1996-1997
1
Parametric Technology
17.0
20.2
18.8
26.9
2
IBM
Dassault Systemes
9.6
14.7
15.6
8.4
16.5
5.9
2.0
21.9
11.4
6.9
8.3
5.5
4.4
20.7
10.7
11.0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
5.7
Autodesk
CoCreate
7.6
5.4
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
3.0
MICROCADAM
Modultek Oy
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.1
4.0
MacNeal-Schwendler
Computervision
Ansys
Formtek
Delcam Pic
1.3
0.9
Matra Datavision
0.3
2.2
15
Sherpa Corp.
0.5
16
17
ISO Software
0.3
0.2
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Mechanical Dynamics
Bentley Systems
4.9
3.6
8.6
7.3
5.8
21.0
-13.7
3.5
2.1
NA
-1.4
2.9
2.8
4.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
-66.6
1.2
1.9
1.0
0.7
1.0
-4.4
0.9
40.0
2.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
-71.3
5.0
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.6
-11.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
8.0
17.9
=
•
2.6
2.2
1.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
126.7
-10.4
0.5
0.5
ICEM Technologies
Investronica S A
0.2
-
Intergraph
0.5
10.7
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
FAFEC
0.4
0.4
-7.5
0.5
-
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
Whessoe Computing Systems
Auto-Trol
0.3
-
0.3
0.2
0.2
-4.5
-10.4
0.3
Anilam Electronics
Applicon
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
109.1
52.3
-10.7
Ziegler Informatics
Exapt
All N.A. Companies
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
51.7
4.7
0.2
61.0
6.7
0.2
64.8
7.2
59.4
70.0
75.2
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Gibbs and Assoc.
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
-16.5
-14.5
-10.7
6.3
7.6
NA
7.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
86.2
9.6
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
13
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-11
Top 12 Mechanical Software Companies, Russia, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1
Delcam Pic
IBM
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Parametric Technology
Matra Datavision
Autodesk
Computervision
Ziegler Informatics
Grov^th (%)
1996-1997
1996
1997
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.7
40.0
1.9
2.0
-
0.9
1.4
1.0
-31.5
NA
18.8
4.7
1995
1.7
•
^
-
•
•
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0
0.1
0
10
11
Intergraph
Diehl Graphsoft
12
IMSI
All N.A. Conipanies
All European Companies
0
0.9
2.6
0
3.5
2.2
All Asian Companies
All Companies
3.7
6.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
4.4
2.8
7.6
-7.6
Market
Share (%)
1997
24.3
22.0
18.5
13.8
13.5
6.8
12.5
8.4
-66.6
-2.9
2.0
1.2
23.0
57.4
0.8
0.3
10.9
25.3
25.6
58.5
37.2
NA
26.8
0.2
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
14
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Europe
Table 2-12
Top 22 Mechanical Software Companies, Central Europe, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
1995
1996
1997
Unigraphics Solutions
IBM
5.1
3.9
5.0
3.6
5.0
Rank
Company Name
1
2
3
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
2.0
2.9
3.8
3.3
4
5
Autodesk
Matra Datavision
1.8
0.9
1.8
0.9
2.2
1.8
6
7
MacNeal-Schwendler
0.6
8
CNC Software
Investronica SA
9
ISD Software
0.6
10
11
Bentley Systems
Gerber Systems
0.3
12
Ansys
Delcam Pic
0.3
0.5
Spatial Technology
0.1
0.2
13
14
15
16
17
ICEM Technologies
ADRA Systems
18
Vero International Software
Intergraph
19
20
Computervision
Diehl Graphsoft
21
22
ESI Group
IMSI
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
-
•
•
1.0
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-0.3
5.6
13.1
24.2
99.4
NA
0.6
0.4
-1.9
0.3
0.4
0.4
-40.8
17.9
0.3
0.4
7.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
1.2
40.0
0.6
0.4
0.7
-1.9
0.1
0.3
0.2
166.8
0.2
0.2
13.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
-50.0
26.0
19.4
0.1
0
0
0
-
0
14.2
Market
Share (%)
1997
23.9
18.1
15.7
10.8
8.7
5.0
2.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0
-66.6
57.4
NA
0
14.7
0
16.7
10.9
13.5
0.1
80.5
2.8
2.3
3.2
-
20.7
35.6
NA
15.3
17.9
0
-
•
17.6
17.7
0.1
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are [}ataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
15
1997 European Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-13
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of Europe, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1995
1996
1997
Parametric Technology
MacNeal-Schwendler
7.0
4.1
6.5
4.3
7.8
4.2
Matra Datavision
1.5
1.1
1.9
Sescoi
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Delcam Pic
Eigner + Partner
Cimatron
Camcentre
Sherpa Corp.
Autodesk
Wiechers Datentechnik
0.8
-
-
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
13
14
ADRA Systems
Vero International Software
15
Unigraphics Solutions
16
17
Spatial Technology
SRAC
18
19
20
MCS
Ziegler Informatics
Computervision
21
B.A. Intelligence Networks
0.1
22
23
24
Intergraph
CIMLINC
Research Engineers
0.1
0.1
0
Investronica SA
ESI Group
0.1
28
debis Systemhaus
Ansys
0.4
0.5
29
30
ISD Software
Applicon
25
26
27
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1.3
0.6
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Market
Share (%)
1997
29.9
3.9
1.4
1.4
18.8
-1.4
NA
-22.9
2.0
0.9
0.7
40.0
NA
5.6
5.2
3.4
2.7
0.6
NA
NA
2.4
2.1
5.0
-8.4
1.9
0.6
16.1
14.9
1.9
0.5
0.5
0.4
-15.2
0.4
0.4
NA
NA
0.3
0.2
0.2
2.3
1.2
166.8
NA
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
13.3
30.4
-66.6
NA
12.7
-21.4
1.7
1.7
1.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
28.3
-28.4
-99.7
-
0
NA
0
-
NA
NA
-
0.1
-
15.9
14.1
NA
11.7
6.2
3.2
15.8
9.1
23.2
17.9
26.0
182.1
NA
44.8
0
0
60.8
34.9
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Source: Dataquest (August 1998)
CMEC-EU-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
September 7,1998
For More Information...
Inqmry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
-1-44-1784-431-611
[email protected]
+44-1784-488-980
http: / / www.dataquest.com
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
71748
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AMERICA
EUROPE
ASIA/PACIFIC
Worldwide Headquarters
Dataquest/Gartner Group
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: -i-1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: -(-1-408-954-1780
European Headquarters
Gartner Group Ltd.
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: -^44-1784-431-611
East Coast Research Center
Gartner Group Lowell
900 Chelmsford Street
Tower Two, Floor JSTine
Lowell, Massachusetts 01851
United States
Phone: -t-1-978-323-6900
Facsimile: -hi-978-323-6933
Asia Headquarters
Gartner Group Hong Kong
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: -(-852-2824-6168
Facsimile: -^852-2824-6138
Dataquest France
Immeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: -(-33-1-41-35-13-00
Facsimile: -^33-1-41-35-13-13
Facsimile: -H44-1 784-488-980
Dataquest Germany
Martin-Kollar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -(-49-89-42-70-4-0
Facsimile: -F49-89-42-70-4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
Japan
Phone: -H81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: -(-81-3-3481-3644
Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Group Pacific
80 Alfred Street - 6th Floor
Milsons Point, NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: -(-61-2-9941-4860
Facsunile: +61-2-9941-4868
Korea
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: -(•82-2-551-1331
Facsimile: -^82-2-551-1330
Taiwan
Gartner Group Taiwan Ltd.
llF-2,188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei 105
Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: -(-886-2-2756-0389
Facsimile: H-886-2-2756-2663/4122
Thailand
Gartner Group Thailand Ltd.
29 Vanissa Building, 12F
Soi Chidlom, Ploenchit Road
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: -(-662-655-0577
Facsimile: -(-662-655-0576
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest
Singapore
Gartner Group/DQ Research R e Ltd.
6 Temasek Boulevard #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapoi« 038986
Phone: -^65-333-6773
Facsimile: -1-65-333-6787
DataQuest
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Worldwide Forecast Update
Market Statistics
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-9804
Publication Date: October 12,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
IMFOflHATlON RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose. CA 95134
408-468-8600
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Forecast Update
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-9804
Publication Date: October 12,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
Table of Contents
Page
1. 1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
1
Introduction
1
Worldwide Forecast Assumptions
1
All AppUcations
1
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
4
CAD Investments Are Cyclical
4
Tier Two Investments
4
New Software, New Platforms, and New Users
4
Continued Economic Turmoil in Asia/Pacific
4
Meeting User Needs beyond Design
5
AEC Forecast Assumptions
5
CAD Is Becoming a Business Requirement
5
New Features in AEC CAD Products Are Achievable
5
A More Tailored Focus
5
Design Is Only Part of the Problem
5
GIS/Mapping Forecast Assumptions
5
Abundant Supply of Prospective Buyers
6
New Technologies
6
Indispensability of GIS
6
High Cost of Entry Remains a Barrier
6
Price Pressures Inhibit Growth
6
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assumptions
6
Elecfa-onic CAE
7
IC Layout
7
PCB Design
7
History and Forecast for All Applications and Operating
Systems
7
Forecast Methodology
9
Changes to the Forecast Database
10
Segmentation Definitions
11
Operating Systems
11
Line Items
11
Regional Definitions
12
2. 1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast
Update Tables
15
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
List of Figures
Figure
1-1 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA
Forecasting Model
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
Page
10
October 12,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
iii
List of Tables
Table
Page
1-1 CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Revenue Growth Comparison
2
1-2 Foreign Currency per U.S. Dollar
3
1-3 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue History and Forecast 8
1-4 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue Growth Rate
History and Forecast
9
2-1 Top-Level Mecharucal Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating
Systems
16
2-2 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating
Systems
17
2-3 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, UNIX
18
2-4 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, Windows NT
19
2-5 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, Personal Computer
20
2-6 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
21
2-7 Detail Mechanical Forecast, North America, AU Operating
Systems
22
2-8 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Europe, All Operating Systems
23
2-9 Detail Mecharucal Forecast, Japan, All Operating Systems
24
2-10 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems. 25
2-11 Detail Mechanical Forecast, Rest of World, All Operating
Systems
26
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
Chapter 1
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast
Update
^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Introduction
Dataquest's CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA forecasts are based
on market share software revenue gathered primarily during the first
quarter of 1998. Dataquest's software forecast for all applications include
the following:
• Three-year historical software and hardware revenue by region and
Operating system
• Five-year forecast of software, hardware, and service revenue by region
and operating system
• Three-year history and five-year forecast of hardware shipments and
installed base data
Although Dataquest does not forecast currency exchange rates, we do
forecast with the best information available. The exchange rate is calculated as the simple arithmetic mean of the 12 average monthly rates for
each country. For the purpose of this forecast, Dataquest assumes the July
1998 exchange rate will remain stable in the future (see Tables 1-1 and 1-2).
Dataquest's 1997 market share documents for these markets (published as
CAEC-WW-MS-9803, CEDA-V\^W-MS-9803, and CMEC-WW-MS-9803)
were published and sent to our clients in August.
Worldwide Forecast Assumptions
The following sections describe the main forces driving the CAD/CAM/
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worldwide software forecasts.
All Applications
As CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA becomes more of a replacement market, market leaders would appear to have the upper hand—the
cost Of switching is high. However, software that lets users get a better
product to market faster and helps eUminate business risks will always be
in demand, regardless of market share. Thus, there is always an opportunity for new vendors in technical markets.
The primary trend in design software function is toward operating at a
higher level of abstiaction. In all applications, Dataquest has seen an evolution Of focus from electionic paper to component modeling and now to
systems modeling, with the eventual goal being to fully simulate, evaluate, redesign, and test the design inside the computer before manufacture.
Mecuiwhile, increased computing power is allowing the nature of design
to evolve to include constituencies in manufacturing, product support,
and from users themselves. Thus the engineering process is being
expanded to include input from a broader base.
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 1-1
CAD/CAM/CAE and CIS Revenue Growth Comparison
(U.S. Dollars versus Local Currency for Both Europe and Japan)
Forecast
2002
Growth (%)
1996-1997
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2,288.68
2,639.54
3,780.26
4.4
-3.6
10.6
1,166.77
1,160.33
6,095.75
6,088.55
0.89
1,678.11
8,950.11
-0.1
0.91
11.6
3,440.04
3,177.47
16.5
1996
1997
2,192.20
2,736.77
Europe (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
ECU/U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate*
0.80
3,491.73
-0.6
5.8
77
8.0
0.4
Europe (ECU Million)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
1,748.45
2,182.78
2,036.92
930.59
4,861.82
1,032.70
5,418.81
8,144.60
7.6
11.0
11.5
Software Revenue
1,830.17
2,022.25
3,445.40
10.5
11.2
Hardware Revenue
2,870.44
2,818.60
3,722.89
5.7
1,276.08
5,976.69
1,085.79
5,926.64
1,646.51
8,814.80
-1.8
-14.9
-0.8
108.81
121.10
140.79
11.3
3.1
199,140.77
244,894.41
485,077.23
23.0
14.6
Hardware Revenue
312,332.11
9.3
9.0
138,850.70
650,323.58
341,332.56
131,489.22
524,146.26
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
231,812.50
1,241,035.99
-5.3
10.4
12.0
11.6
5,317.84
9.5
1,441.18
7,303.29
4,822.15
2,537.79
3.8
0.9
13.8
9.4
12,677.77
5.3
12.0
11.7
7,168.51
9,332.07
7,748.89
13,665.55
9,315.86
12.0
7.1
4,197.99
20,698.57
4,031.59
21,096.34
13,098.21
6,375.98
33,139.73
8.1
-0.2
-4.0
1.9
9.6
9.5
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
2,349.19
1,527.08
11.0
6.2
8.1
8.5
Japan (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
Japan/U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate*
8.7
8.3
Japan (Yen Million)
Software Revenue
717,716.19
North America (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Software Revenue
2,544.84
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
2,963.65
1,428.64
Total Factory Revenue
6,937.12
2,786.35
3,075.77
Worldwide (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
'Assuming a stable currency, the 2002 exchange rate is the July 1998 monthly rate.
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
i
i
ON
o
o
ON
NO
00
o
o
O
o
o
O
in
in
00
o
«
a<
ON
r-t
CO
cn O N
m NO C O
c6 en i n
PNI
o
en ' t
' • '
..^ tv
g i
01
o
o
O
o
f5
ON
rH
00
'J*
IN
•^
• *
O
NO
rH
NO
NO
00
'J<
ON
iri
T~^
cri
rH
NO
rH
cn
CN
00
rH
o
NO
I
O
o
o
o
o
in
CN
T—t
o
o
o
O
o
o
E^ m
^
.*
""'
I-l
S^
o
o
CM
NO
LT)
in
IN
IN
IH
rH
T-H
rH
cn
rH
,i^
«
l^^
(N
cn
• ^
IN
NO
o o
• ^
en
r-^
t—I
o
^
cn O N
en cn
ifi
T-H
•5I<
00
cn
irj
rH
d
r^
o
in
CM
NO
in
CN
>*
ifi
in
CN
T-H
in
X—t
'^
ON
en
1—t
NO
IN
d
d
NO
r-t
"2
cn
ON
• *
cn
ON
if5
rA
CN
r-i
d
d
o
m
T—1
ON
00
in
in
CN
rH
en
r-t
00
00
d
iri
CN
d
CN
ON
NO
i
'
r-t
1
(N
r-i
00
ON
r-t
tN
NO
r-t
00
iri
TH
<3N
o
• ^
• ^
?f
tN
• *
r-^
cn
tN
• *
en
in
rH
r~t
00
r-t
bO
e
(4
d
ki
n
o
IS
OS
ON
1
i
Js
i
in
ON
ON
LO
(N
in
cn
o
en i n
ON
in
tv
o
tN
ON
(N
NO
rH
CN
T—f
NO
T—t
CN
O
cn
ON
CN
d
ON
00
o
in
rH
en
d
1
r-t
cn tv
ON
ON
IN
r-*
o
r-*
(N
o
r-l
o
00
tN
CN
IN
00
d
NO
IN
en
1
r-i
1
1
^
o
00
o
en
r*
IN
CM
CN
Op
(N
1
NO
rH
ON
rH
ON
NO
ON
ifi
•<*l
in
(N
CN
CN
ON
r^
(N
CN
CN
d
cn
ON
ON
CN
r-t
en en
• ^
O
O
00
CN
(NJ
o
in
T-H
T—i
ON
00
ON
ON
IH
«*
r-H
IN
CN
r-H
1
00
ON
Ol
ON
I-l
LO
NO
I^N
cn
o
O
Ql
00
ON
ON
NO
T—t
ON
r-t
00
CN
IN
NO
r^
CN
cn
d
00
T—I
d
Ln
o
1
1
in
IN
00
• ^
NO
iri
1
^^
en en
NO
o
r4
IN
in
CN
1
tN
r-i
in
rA
in
1
^
cn
cn
rH
•^
in
d
t^
en
00
o
cn
00
rH
<3
^
IN
tN
1
rH
^IN
?^
IN
iri
d
ON
•^
rH
^-t
Is
g
QO
ON
Ov
rH
in
NO
<N
rH
CN
o
K
en
in
IN
00
• ^
NO
iri
en
o
O
00
NO
r^
u
o>
O^
rH
o
ON
CN
rH
NO
ON
CN
ts
in
NO
in
r-i
T—t
en
^
en
00
IN
in
rH
(N
in
iri
r-^
CN^
en
r-H
1
r-t
tN
—
.^
ON
en
•<*
en
r-^"
en en
NO
o
00
i n
ON
ON
CN
CN
IN
IN
T—t
in
rA
in
T-i
^^
^^
13
IN
5!
d
1
op d
rH
NO
CN
O
in
ON
cn
p
t--^
o
T-A
IN
00
rH
T-t
ON
d
d
en
00
y^
tN
ON
tN
NO
IN
t N
d
iri
ON
'H
rH
en
IN
r-t
^
• ^
ON
ON
r-t
^ S i^n
r-i
NO
r^
NO
IN
•=*<
rH
NO
ON
00
IN
d
d
00
cn
Jt N*
O
rH
r-t
IN
rH
CN
T~i
T-^
ON
• *
tN
•^
in
r-^
00
CN
ON
r-H*
NS
0(
O^
IH
O H
(4
.3
u
<:
m
o\
ON
TH
CTN
in
d
rH
NO
o
d
rH
>o
ON
d
en
cs
• ^
ON
CN
r-^
00
ON
in
in
• ^
o
CN
r-^
lf5
in
r-3
K
^
ON
NO
NO
r-H
NO
r-i
CN
O
^
in
r-T
ON
IN
in
in
cn
• ^
Cv
ON
• ^
en
• ^
r-H
00
CN
NO^
NO
rH
00
NO
T—*
• ^
o
5?
cn
tN
r^
00
NO
r-t
tN
CN
3
rH
IN
NO
r-^
d
d
00
IN
00
r-^
o
rH
iri
o
00
'^
•5)<
NO
IN
r—t
en
IN
tN
in
tN
O
ON
tN
en
NO
in
• ^
d
d
00
tN
cri
d
tN
(3N
'^
en
cn
o
• ^
T—i
00
rH
NO
• ^
IN
r-i
(N
rH
00
en
•^
ON
ON
IH
(Q
• *
NO
CN
tN
o
• *
r-i
r-f
NO
NO
cn
en
^^
m
en
NO
CN
in
CN
NO
^
in
i n
T-^
ON
• ^
CN
00
rA
• ^
00
o
• *
IN
O
NO
O
tN
en
tN
CO
rH
tN
•*
in
m
NO
00
tN
in
d
00
tN
rH
tN
NO
NO
00
NO
tN
d
d
in
in
en N O
rA d
• *
o
rH
rH
^^
o
00
rH
r-n"
^
1-H
IN
IN
m
ON
Ov
rH
in
K
ON
NO
NO
^
rH
rH
D
t
en
IN
in
in
IN
NO
NO
>o >o
T-^
in
00
IN
tN
NO
00
r—f
rH
tN
00
CN
00
00
rA
IN
tN
CN
r-^
tN
rH
in
• ^
cn
in
00
ir;
• *
iri
o
oo
r-^
NO
CN
o
^
in
5i
CN
VO
in
00
tN
d
ON
,—4
NO
CSI
T-t
tN
tN
T-<
?N
r^
r—t
c«
1-1
tr
u
>>
u
a
IE
bO
1
o
CD
VH
Rl
(J
c
(0
u
u
01
1
;^ c
u
(0 £
to
U
a
s
OJ
OJ
a
.4->
nj
•U
r J
1
•p
u
D
1
tu
to
C
U
to
(A
01
o
;3
U
c
u .?
bO
H fe
§
o
P H
CL,
ft
p^
xi
^
a
s
o
U
1U
<
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
"QJ
CO
p-l
CO
e
a;
c
D
-g
CO
1
u
C
s
g
^
2 ^ ^
(i-
e
T^
u
1^
<u
>•.
«
1
z Zo
IH
XI
N
'ro
e^ 1
1
B
w
"i "o
Ki
D
c
Lt
to
0
0
1D
do
C
^
1
C
D
01
60
ra
tH
lU
13
>,
to
»H
Ol
i-
a
lU
g'c w
ID
to
c
6
©1998Dataquest
0
s
0-
CO
eo
Q
(X
CO
tiO
tJ5
c
CO
'^
n(1)
E
0)
Q.
(1)
CO
I
October 12,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
At the same time, the nature of design data itself is expanding from a focus
on geometry to include multiple data types, making the challenge of system modeling even more complex. Also, the World Wide Web holds the
potential to expand the nature of collaborative design by harnessing the
joint power of anticipated increases in both computing power and communications bandwidth. Thus, there is Uttle limit to the problems that
design or GIS software can tackle. The primary challenge will continue to
be to develop robust, leading-edge software ahead of competitors. During
the forecast period, Dataquest anticipates significant, but not revolutionary, advances in the ability of the existing programmer pool to produce
new software.
Also to technology trends, it is also necessary to consider exchange rate
fluctuations, especially as the dollar has continued to strengthen against
most major currencies of the world, such as the deutsche mark, the won,
and the yen, over the past year. Growth rates in countries where the dollar
has Strengthened against the local currency are likely to be adversely
affected when considered in dollar-denominated terms.
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
The following factors will affect growth in the mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE market over our forecast period.
CAD Investments Are Cyclical
The major aerospace and automotive companies, particularly in Europe,
had been significant drivers of the double-digit mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE growth in previous years. However, these companies have now completed their investment cycles in CAD technology for the next four or five
years. Investment in CAD by these large companies will slow until the
next investment cycle begins, bringing down the overall market growth.
Tier Two Investments
Related to the above assumption, now that these companies have completed their investment cycles, Dataquest expects to see corresponding
investment by their supplier bases as a significant driver of the market.
New Software, New Platforms, and New Users
Despite the fact that it is still a UNIX-based world, there is a very strong
interest in NT-based mechanical design solutions. The prospects of lowercost software on lower-cost platforms have sparked renewed interest in
CAD technology among designers who have not been purchasing CAD
systems in recent years and who are looking to upgrade from their 2-Dbased systems. Based on what we saw in 1997, we are shifting the peak of
our NT-based mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE sales forecast to earlier in our
five-year forecast period.
Continued Economic Turmoil in Asia/Pacific
The Asia/Pacific region will be a mixed bag of high and low growth over
our forecast period, fueled by CAD investments from local and national
governments and expansion by multinational companies, but also tempered by economic and poUtical turmoil in Southeast Asia. We have lowered our forecast for Asia/Pacific in Ught of the economic uncertainty in
some of that region.
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
Meeting User Needs beyond Design
For the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market to show the high growth
that it has of recent years, designers need appUcations that do more than
just design. Design needs to become more tightly integrated with manufacturing and analysis, and beyond that, the whole process of bringing a
product to market cannot continue to five in isolation within the engineering walls. Vendors are begirming to address this issue today, but it will
take some time before users as well as vendors determine exactly what is
needed and how it can work within the business processes of a company.
If they can come up with the right solution, we can significantly raise our
forecast.
AEC Forecast Assumptions
The following factors will affect the long-term expansion of the AEC CAD
industry.
CAD Is Becoming a Business Requirement
Large design firms are growing at the expense of smaller firms, and these
large end users increasingly require their employees and suppliers to
adopt automation tools in the design and construction process. Smaller
design firms must increasingly buy CAD systems or risk being dropped
from consideration as a partner.
New Features in AEC CAD Products Are Acliievable
Better, lower-cost visualization tools will be in increasing demand in addition to sales and communication tools. Data and database functions are
growing in importance in AEC design, creating opportunities to sell to
users a significant new functionality. Some vendors wiU create products
that foster communications in the entire design, construction, and
maintenance process—products that will increase the payoff in CAD
investments.
A IMore Tailored Focus
If vendors stay focused on not selling generic CAD solutions but rather on
selling more tailored solutions to fit different needs in AEC (such as architectural needs, plant design needs), then we can begin to raise our forecast
upwards. Over the years, AEC sales have largely been driven by varuUa
sales of CAD products. Solutions that meet specific needs of users will
help drive the market forward at a faster rate.
Design is Only Part of the Problem
AEC's one-design/one-build structure means CAD provides fewer economic benefits to these users than does the one-design/build-many structure of manufacturing. Construction, which is essentially a prototype
bund, is fraught with uncertainties and delays that are not weU-addressed
by AEC systems today. Design tools can only thrive in the AEC structure
when they support more of fiie entire business problem. Commitment to
and cooperation on the problem from multiple vendors will allow
Dataquest to increase the forecast growth rate further.
GIS/MappIng Forecast Assumptions
The following sections identify those factors that will affect growth in the
worldwide GIS market.
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12.1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Abundant Supply of Prospective Buyers
Penetration is still moderately low among core users. Bread-and-butter
prospects in goverrunent and utilities are charged with maintaining information on land and assets in perpetuity. Many of these prospective buyers
are stiU using paper maps or have only entry-level systems in terms of
value deUvered.
New Technologies
Faster, cheaper computers wiU be continually leveraged to support new
software products. Widespread computer industry developments in open,
distributed systems supporting high-speed networking will make it possible for GIS technology to broadly expand the user base. Advances in aerial
photography, global positioning systems, and satellite imagery are making
it possible to create GISs that are significantly less expensive, more accurate, and more complete than existing paper maps, giving experienced
users some compelling reasons to reinvest. Portable and pen-based computers are bringing GIS to new users in field operations. Finally, database
companies themselves are gaining a better understanding of spatial analysis, a key factor in spreading use of GIS systems more broadly.
indispensabiiity of GIS
GIS has attained a certain indispensabiiity, particularly among federal
users and those in utiHties. As a result, users are beginning to expect to
share the data that lies in their various GIS systems. Within three years,
Dataquest expects data to be readily exchangeable across different systems. At that point, shareable data will help drive market growth.
High Cost of Entry Remains a Barrier
There will remain an uncertain, but certainly high, cost of creating a working GIS in traditional environments. No magic will emerge to create a lowcost, meaningful data set for mainstream customers in government and
utihties. Data conversion will remain costly because the significant cost of
correcting prior errors and omissions on paper maps is inevitably bundled
into the cost of "conversion."
Price Pressures inhibit Growth
Price pressure will hold down total revenue in the GIS market. Innovation
is the only way to maintain prices in any software industry, and GIS vendors will struggle in their attempt to create compelling new applications
and improved investment payoff for customers.
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assumptions
Our final survey showed even slower growth than reported in the preHminary forecast total EDA growth, which was 14.6 percent. This spring we
did a considerable amount of work modeling the end-user design market.
The breakthrough happened when we broke the mainstream into upper
and lower mainstream segments. With these new models we found that all
our previous survey work converged. This gave us a clear picture of the
actual growth by segment, explaining in greater detail the reason for the
slowdown in EDA growth. The top of the pyramid, the power users, only
grew 4.5 percent. This was the group that in essence had run out of tools to
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
buy. This also explains the reason the slowdown was far more pronounced
in the Uruted States than in other geographic regions. On the other hand,
the upper mainstream grew 12.8 percent and the lower mainstream a
whopping 130.4 percent. These then are the markets that kept EDA from
falling into the 4 percent growth area of the early 1990s, another period
where we ran out of tools. Just to give you a comparison picture, in 1991,
75 percent of all money spent on EDA tools was spent by the power users.
This year, for the first time, the upper mainstream alone will spend more
dollars on EDA tools than the power users.
The other thing that has become clear is that this is not a semiconductor
recession, this is a true technology inflection point. The last time we saw
tliis was in the early 1980s when the impact of the microprocessor caused a
double-dip recession. If you remember back then, it was the time of explosive growth in EDA. We are a much larger industry today so the growtih
won't be explosive, but it will be significant and, as 1997 has shown, it will
be driven by supply not demand. The need is there, the money is there,
now where are the needed new tools?
Electronic CAE
CAE was by far the area where the lack of new tools hit the hardest. Where
is the RTL virtual prototj^e? What are we going to do about the verification crisis? Why has ES-level tool development been de-emphasized by
the EDA industry? The only bright spots have been hardware/software
coverification and formal verification, at least at the equivalency checking
level. The best news this year has been an answer to the verification crisis.
At least we think w^e know the answer. Until we see the new test bench, a
test bench that coordinates the work of not just simulation but multiple
types of simulation while also using formal verification and formal analysis, we won't Icnow. Unfortunately, we've yet to see much progress on the
RTL virtual prototj^pe front. There are some new start-ups now attacking
the problem, and ihey are showing an extremely broad level of technical
expertise. We can only hope.
IC Layout
The IC CAD world is catching up with the siUcon. This is obviously the
most exciting news to come out of EDA in years. Announcements by
Avant! and Cadence plus the progress on the Sematech CHDs, physical
verification program have excited the industry. We're one generation
behind and dosing! This will keep the IC CAD market growing at around
20 percent for the foreseeable future.
PCB Design
The final PCB numbers showed a completely different picture than the
preHminary PCB numbers. The Asia/Pacific region grew an extremely
Strong 22.2 percent. The major downfall was in Japan, followed by Europe.
This is a continuation of the flow of manufacturing to Asia from these
areas. North America grew at a strong 12 percent. Ageiin the new highspeed buses will continue to drive this market.
History and Forecast for All Applications and Operating Systems
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 show the history and forecast of all applications.
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
o
o
en
I
CO
00
C3
Table 1-3
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue History and Forecast
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
6,197
7,169
7,749
8,639
9,718
10,948
12,280
13,666
120
4,135
4,748
4,670
4,853
5,158
5,541
5,975
6,427
6.6
401
836
1,626
2,350
3,090
3,902
4,761
5,653
28.3
1,485
1A29
1,392
1,401
1,449
1,492
1,536
1,580
26
176
155
61
35
21
13
8
5
-38.2
2,098
2,786
3,190
3,677
4,206
5,318
13.8
2,289
2,501
2,787
3,074
4,748
3,402
3,780
10.6
3,445
907
11.2
215
11.3
1995
Software Revenue ($M)
Worldwide, AU Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
All Operating System*
North America
©
—k
to
CO
c»
o
.a
c
CD
C«
O
S
o
CT
CD
IO
CO
CO
CO
Europe
2,000
2,545
2,192
Japan
1,613
377
1,830
479
2,022
2,239
2,480
2,786
526
570
619
709
3,112
825
110
123
126
139
155
173
192
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
11.5
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
Table 1-4
C A D / C A M / C A E / G I S Software Revenue G r o w t h Rate History and Forecast
1996 1997
Year-to-Year Software Revenue Growth Rate (%)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
-
8.1
11.5
12.5
12.7
12.2
11.3
14.8
108.7
-1.7
3.9
44.5
0.6
-42.7
7.4
26.2
7.8
94.4
6.3
31.5
22.0
7.6
18.7
3.4
3.0
-40.3
-37.6
29
-35.6
2.8
-34.5
15.3
11.4
14.4
12.9
10.7
12.0
11.1
11.7
10.7
16.3
11.0
10.0
12.0
-2.6
-60.5
North America
Europe
21.3
9.6
9.5
4.4
Japan
13.5
27.0
10.5
9.9
11.5
2.4
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
1999
15.7
-3.8
-12.1
Host/Proprietary
All Operating Systems
1998
14.5
9.3
10.7
8.4
11.0
10.8
8.6
11.3
10.3
12.4
14.6
11.4
-
•
-
:
•
•
-
•
•
~
^
~
-
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
Forecast Methodology
Fundamental to the way Dataquest conducts its research is the underlying
philosophy that 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 professionals and rigorous, disciplined techniques of seasoned market
researchers.
Dataquest also analyzes trends in the macroenvironment, which cam have
major influences on both supply-side and demand-side forecasting. In
addition to demographics, analysts look at gross national product (GNP)
growth, interest rate fluctuation, business expectations, and capital spending plans. In the geopolitical arena, the group looks at trade issues, political Stability or lack thereof, tariffs, nontariff barriers, and such factors as
the effect on Asia and Europe of the events of 1997.
Figure 1-1 shows the C A D / C A M / C A E , AEC and CIS, and EDA forecasting model. The overall forecasting process uses a combination of techniques, such as time series and technological modeling. Market estimates
and forecasts are derived using the following research techniques:
• Segment forecasting—Individual forecasts are derived for each application segment tracked by \he CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, and EDA
groups. Specifically, each application, segmented by region and platform, is forecast and rolled u p . In this way, each application segment
incorporates its own set of unique assumptions.
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
10
• 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 model
and a satisfied available market figure to assess the levels of penetration
accurately. Dataquest analysts also 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, manufacturing capacity, or distribution
capacity. In any case, capacity limitations are capable of keeping shipments below the demand level.
Changes to the Forecast Database
Within this forecasting model, Dataquest has made numerous assumption
changes that better reflect the reality in the changing mecharucal CAD/
CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worlds. These changes include
updating the hardware retirement model and altering the average selling
prices (ASPs) for software, service, and hardware.
Figure 1-1
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEG and GIS, and EDA Forecasting Model
User/Demand-Side Data
Vendor/Supply-Side Data
Projected Budget Growth and Allocations
Business and System Requirements
Purchasing Procedures
Criteria for Selection
Regular Application End-User Surveys
Product Shipment Projections
Factory Revenue
Strategic Alliances
Marketing Strategies
Market Sizing
and
Market Projections
Technology Assessments
Environmental Analysis
Technology Developments
Standards Development
Price/Performance Development
Economic Forecasts
Industry/Conrpetitive Climate
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide Forecast Update
11
Segmentation Definitions
Operating Systems
The following defines the operating systems:
• UNIX—Includes all UNIX variants and older workstation operating
systems
• Host—Includes minicomputer and mainframe operating systems in
which external workstations' functions are dependent on a host computer
• Windows NT—The Microsoft operating system
• PC—Includes DOS, Windows, Windows 95, OS/2, and Apple operating
systems
Line Items
Line item definitions are as follows:
• Average selUng price (ASP) is defined as the average price of a product,
inclusive of any discounts.
• CPU revenue is the portion of revenue derived from a system sale that
is related to the value of the CPU.
• CPU shipment is defined as the number of CPUs delivered.
• CPU installed base is defined as the total number of CPUs in active,
day-to-day use.
• Unit shipment is defined as the number of products delivered (that is,
seats).
• Seats are defined as the number of possible simultaneous users.
• Installed seats are defined as the total number of seats in active, day-today use.
• Hardware revenue is defined as the sum of the revenue from the hardware system components: CPU revenue, terminal revenue, and peripherals revenue.
• Peripherals revenue is defined as the value of all the peripherals from
turnlcey sale. (Peripherals in this category t5^ically are input and output
devices.)
• Terminal revenue is defined as revenue derived from the sale of terminals used to graphically create, analyze, or manipulate designs. The
term is appUcable only to the host systems.
• Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of appUcation
software.
• Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and
support of CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, or EDA systems. Service is
followed as software service and hardware service.
• Total factory revenue is defined as the amount of money received for
goods measured in U.S. dollars and is the sum of hardware, software,
and service revenue.
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Regional Definitions
The following regional hierarchy and definitions are used for all
Dataquest's geographic segmentation. Not all product categories and
Dataquest services have the entire segmentation. Some may have a greater
level and some may have less. In particular, the Latin America region is
included in the Rest of World region for all mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE,
AEC and GIS, and EDA market statistics.
• North America region
• United States: Includes the 48 contiguous states, Washington, D.C.,
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico
• Canada: Single-country region
• Latin America region: Countries covered include Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela
• Rest of Latin America: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba,
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, BoUvia, Cayman Islands,
CHpperton Islamd, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican RepubUc,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), French
Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti,
Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Navassa Island,
Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Puerto Rico,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Suriname, Tortola (British Virgin Islands), Trinidad and Tobago, Turks
and Caicos Islands, Uruguay, and Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Croix,
and St. Thomas)
• Europe region
• Western Europe: Countries covered include Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and
United Kingdom
• Rest of Western Europe: Andorra, Cyprus, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar,
Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
• Central and Eastern Europe: Belcurus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, and
Ukraine
a Rest of Eastern Europe: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia,
Moldova, Romarua, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turlanenistan, Uzbekistan,
and Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
• Japan: Single-country region
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast Update
13
Asia/Pacific: Countries covered include Australia, China, Hong Kong,
India, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and
Thailand
• Rest of Asia/Pacific: American Samoa, Ashmore and Carrier Islands,
Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island, Brunei, Cambodia,
Christmas Island, Cocos (KeeUng) Islands, Cook Islands, Coral Sea
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam,
Rowland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston AtoU, Kingman Reef,
Kiribari, Laos, Macau, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Midway Islands,
MongoUa, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New
Zealand, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, North
Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Palmyra AtoU, Papua New Guinea, Paracel
Islands, PhiUppines, Pitcaim Islands, Solomon Islands, Spratly
Islands, Sri Lanka, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam,
Wake Island, WalUs and Futuna, and Western Samoa
Rest of World: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bassas da India,
Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burtindi, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'lvoire,
Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Europa Island,
Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Glorioso Islands, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, bran,
Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Juan de Nova Island, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria,
Oman, Qatar, Reuruon, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Sao Tome and Principe,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, SomaHa, South Africa,
Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tromelin Island, Tunisia,
Turkey, Uganda, Uruted Arab Enurates, Western Scdiara, Yemen, Zaire,
Zambia, and Zimbabwe
CMEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
October 12,1998
Chapter 2
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Forecast
Update Tables
^^^^^^^^^^^—^^^—
CMIEC-WW-MS-9804
©1998 Dataquest
15
o
in
o
Table 2-1
Top-Level Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Oi
I
I
I
CO
00
C3
-U
Software Revenue ($M)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2,830
3,328
3,513
3,843
4,228
4,607
4,996
5,417
9.0
2,057
116
2,186
739
2,199
2,249
2,353
2,064
2,435
2,393
2.2
1,414
2,293
1,744
Worldwide
Personal Computer
545
2,376
315
539
550
1,078
546
553
562
573
585
26.5
1.2
Host/Proprietary
111
99
38
20
12
8
6
4
-35.9
North America
788
997
1,033
1,166
1,323
1,453
1,572
1,685
10.3
Europe
987
1,084
1,106
1,188
1,295
1,391
1,515
1,686
8.8
Japan
883
1,019
1,122
1,222
1,326
1,453
1,571
1,679
8.4
Asia/Pacific
141
192
212
224
235
256
280
305
7.5
31
36
39
44
49
54
58
63
9.9
17.6
5.6
9.4
10.0
9.0
8-4
8.4
-
2.6
18-4
3.5
-
1.9
15.9
2.1
UNIX
Windows NT
All Operating Systems^:
@
(O
CO
CO
a
cu
5r
.a
Rest of World
Year-to-Year Software Revenue Growth Rate (%)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Worldwide
15.5
-8.0
0.6
2.3
2.0
Windows NT
Personal Computer
170.1
45.9
-0.7
31.2
-1.1
134.9
2.1
1.2
23.3
1.6
Host/Proprietary
-11.5
-61.8
-45.9
-39.8
-33.1
-30.5
-28.4
-
26.6
3.6
12.9
13.5
9.8
8.1
7.2
-
9.9
2.0
7.4
9.0
7.5
8.9
11.3
-
Japan
15.5
10.1
8.9
8.5
9.6
8.1
6.9
-
Asia/Pacific
35.9
10.9
5.3
5.0
8.9
9.5
8.8
-
RestofWorid
13.0
10.0
11.7
11.7
9.7
8.8
7.5
-
UNIX
-
AH Operating Systems
North America
Europe
O
o
i-+
o
CT
CD
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
CO
CO
CO
o.
o!
CD
o
§:
In
o
Table 2-2
Detail JVIechanical Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
CO
CO
oo
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
333,268
367,577
412,540
441,688
472,077
492,527
518,084
547,480
6
Seats
343,129
375,239
413,313
440,994
468,635
493,164
518,542
547,836
6
15
9
10
7
6
5
5
6
-
CPUs
918,419
1,027,962
1,150,362
1,264,795
1,368,407
1,450,759
1,523,402
1,596,836
7
Seats
971,201
12
1,073,576
1,183,553
1,285,530
1,377,215
1,454,802
1,525,646
1,598,297
6
11
10
9
7
6
5
5
-
3,861
4,167
4,026
4,115
4,330
4,526
4,769
5,077
5
154
135
14
9
5
3
2
1
-37
-6
I
I
C/5
I
CO
oo
a
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year I n c n ^ ^ ( ^ )
Installed Base
Year-to-Year Increase {%)
@
CO
CO
C»
o
Ei
(U
.a
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
350
345
355
320
301
287
276
267
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
4,365
11
4,647
6
4,394
4,636
4
4,817
4
5,047
5
5,345
6
4
-5
4,444
1
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
2,830
3,328
3,513
3,843
4,228
4,607
4,996
5A17
9
18
18
6
9
10
9
8
8
-
Peripheral Revenue
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
o
o
I—«o
CO
CO
00
Source: Dataquest (SepteInber 1998)
-
1,008
1,133
1,067
1,117
1,211
1,304
1,412
1,520
7
808
879
853
790
818
846
888
940
2
1,816
2,012
1,920
1,907
2,029
2,151
2,300
2,461
5
13
11
-5
-1
6
6
7
7
-
9,011
9,987
9,827
10,194
10,893
11,574
12,343
13,222
6
14
11
-2
4
7
6
7
7
-
o
m
o
Table 2-3
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, UNIX
I
Crt
I
CO
oo
C3
•t^
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CPUs
121,676
130,837
126,544
115,977
114,324
112,983
113,558
115,160
-2
Seats
121,676
130,837
126,544
115,977
114,324
112,983
113,558
115,160
-2
12
8
-3
-8
-1
-1
1
1
-
371,573
418,318
447,560
453,676
449,794
440,807
433,269
430,294
-1
371,573
418,318
447,560
453,676
449,794
440,807
433,269
430,294
-1
16
13
7
1
-1
-2
-2
-1
-
2,814
2,886
2,634
2,419
2,396
2,380
2397
2,423
-2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
267
254
267
225
206
190
177
164
-9
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
3,081
3,140
2,644
2,602
2,570
2,574
2,587
-2
16
2,057
2
2,376
2,901
-8
2,186
-9
2,199
-2
2,249
-1
2,293
0
2,353
0
2,435
2
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
16
15
-8
1
2
2
3
3
-
Software Service
819
892
822
834
853
873
897
929
2
Hardware Service
673
726
704
613
1,466
1,490
630
1,527
645
1,575
-2
1
16
6,630
1,618
9
7,134
610
1,444
617
1,526
-6
6,614
-5
6,287
2
6,317
2
6,354
2
6,454
3
6,597
0
16
8
-7
-5
0
1
2
2
-
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
©
CO
CO
00
C3
03
.o
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
I
CO
CO
00
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1995
1,491
o
>
m
o
t
o
o
Table 2-4
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, Windows NT
00
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
6,011
33,112
176,278
18
33,112
125,401
143,074
143,074
158,697
6,011
102,546
102,546
125,401
Seats
77,577
77,577
158,697
176,278
18
165
451
134
32
22
14
11
11
-
CPUs
8,097
39,905
111,673
194,263
274,773
344,046
401,225
452,824
32
Seats
8,097
39,905
111,673
194,263
274,773
344,046
401,225
452,824
32
247
393
180
74
41
25
17
13
-
70
365
697
971
1,221
1,428
1,650
1,930
23
Terminal Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
Peripheral Revenue
6
10
18
24
27
30
32
36
15
Crt
I
(O
00
Hardware Shipment Data
•t^
Shipments
o
(£>
CO
Year-to-Year Inc^fejjS^ (%)
Installed Base
Year-to-Year Increases (%J
©
-Jk
CO
CO
00
IZ7
03
5?
.o
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
oo
2,393
26
46
31
23
18
16
553
28
23
26
-
995
39
Software Revenue
116
315
739
179
170
135
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
CO
CO
2,064
715
90
Total Factory Revenue
I—h
1,744
376
401
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
O
1,965
17
75
130
Software Service
o
1,683
15
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
o
1,458
17
1,078
1,248
25
1,414
22
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
162
236
316
390
476
86
247
80
350
42
146
462
32
173
563
22
202
39
47
61
137
253
114
679
20
240
793
17
230
827
1,701
2,423
3,124
3,765
4,425
5,152
25
128
259
106
42
29
21
18
16
-
30
9
76
o
o
Table 2-5
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, Personal Computer
o
I
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
202,758
202,941
18
199,389
206,585
221,015
228,002
236,470
206,688
4
221,015
7
228,002
3
236,470
4
245,829
245,829
4
256,043
256,043
4
4
199,689
-2
CPUs
522,272
553,593
577,250
656,256
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
631,129
6
5
4
656,256
4
709,673
709,673
11
577,250
4
682,427
682,427
4
553,593
604,972
604,972
631,129
522,272
4
4
-
694
692
615
682
689
704
712
718
3
-
CO
I
CO
00
Hardware Shipment Data
o
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
4
-
Installed Base
©
CO
CO
00
•
03
c:
CD
C/>
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
-
-
-
-
44
54
60
61
63
64
65
NA
48
741
736
669
742
750
766
775
783
3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
16
-1
-9
11
1
2
1
1
-
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
545
539
550
546
553
562
573
585
1
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
Hardware Revenue
4
19
-1
2
-1
1
2
2
2
Software Service
77
82
32
31
27
53
32
52
32
Hardware Service
53
39
52
32
52
32
53
-10
6
107
109
92
85
83
83
84
84
-2
9
2
-7
-2
1
1,384
1,373
1,386
0
1,411
1
1,393
-16
1,311
1,432
1,452
2
16
-1
-5
5
1
2
1
1
-
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
I
4
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
o
Q.
CO
CO
d.
c»
CD
o
m
o
Table 2-6
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
CO
CO
CO
I
CO
00
o
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CPUs
2,824
4,239
1,834
2,150
4,351
-
12,501
2,503
1,457
908
458
-15
11,601
-7
356
NA
Seats
637
-78
-42
-38
-30
-28
-22
-
CPUs
16,477
16,146
13,878
11,884
12,710
9,650
6,481
-22
Seats
69,259
61,760
47,070
32,619
21,519
13,693
8,725
4,045
5,506
-10
-11
-24
-31
-34
-36
-36
-37
-
CPU Revenue
283
224
79
44
24
15
10
6
-40
Terminal Revenue
154
135
14
9
5
3
2
1
-37
3
2
-32
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year
Installed Base
@
_x
CO
CO
00
o
03
i-4GO
,o
CD
C/3
Incgm^i%)
Year-to-Year Increase (^)
Revenue Data ($M)
37
17
11
6
396
109
64
36
23
15
10
-38
-24
-15
-72
-42
-44
-36
-34
-34
-
111
99
38
20
12
8
6
4
-36
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-15
-11
-62
-46
83
96
179
83
65
147
30
24
54
15
13
28
-33
9
-30
8
-28
Software Service
-40
11
7
18
4
14
3
10
6
2
8
-27
-6
-18
-63
-48
-37
-23
-23
-24
757
642
201
112
66
45
31
22
-36
-41
-32
-30
-30
-
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
o
ET
CD
CO
CO
00
-35
30
467
Peripheral Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
CJ
i-l-
-32
5
Software Revenue
O
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1995
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
-19
-15
-69
-44
-40
-32
o
in
o
Ui
Table 2-7
Detail Mechanical Forecast, North America, All Operating Systems
IS3
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
116,892
126,249
129,562
138,137
150,019
156,367
162,176
168,173
5
Seats
Year-tO'Year Increase (%)
118,607
127,199
129,500
137,797
149,027
156A73
162,258
168,239
5
10
7
2
6
8
5
4
4
-
332,090
361,768
385,772
410,112
438,144
463,095
484,526
503,792
5
I
CO
CO
Hardware Shi^nStent Data
a
Shipments
Installed Base
CPUs
347,944
373,748
393,757
414,617
439,563
463,399
484,517
503,742
5
8
7
5
5
6
5
5
4
-
992
1,155
1,123
1,183
1,285
1,356
1,428
1,507
6
Terminal Revenue
33
25
3
2
1
1
0
0
-37
Peripheral Revenue
35
34
41
37
36
35
34
32
-4
1,060
1,215
L166
1,222
1,322
1,391
1,462
1,539
6
6
15
-4
5
8
5
5
5
-
788
997
1,033
1,166
1,323
1,453
1,572
1,685
10
12
27
4
13
13
10
8
7
-
Software Service
277
314
320
353
396
434
473
506
10
Hardware Service
205
482
247
236
227
257
561
580
272
745
289
794
4
7
12
16
556
-1
243
640
4
10
8
8
7
-
2,329
2,773
2,756
2,967
3,285
3,535
3,779
4,018
8
9
19
-1
8
11
8
7
6
-
Seats
@
CO
CO
oo
o
03
5r
.a
c
CD
CO
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
o
o
n-^
O
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
691
o
>
aCD
CO
CD
CX)
I
o
I
Table 2-8
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Europe, All Operating Systems
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
107,803
111,887
111,940
114,390
115,356
115,619
120,289
126,910
130,297
136,954
120,120
125,718
130,543
137,123
146,988
147,107
5
15
2
1
4
5
4
5
7
-
CPUs
309,387
331,677
351,099
368,053
384,523
397,545
411,587
430,496
4
Seats
329,303
348,677
363,438
375,822
387,953
399,206
412,534
431,101
3
8
6
4
3
3
3
3
5
-
1,300
1,313
1,245
1,253
1,311
1,354
1,438
1,576
5
58
94
44
5
2
1
1
0
-37
85
72
67
65
64
-6
1,453
90
1,447
4
77
1,335
1,334
1,386
1,422
1,503
1,640
4
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
10
987
0
1,084
-8
1,106
0
1,188
4
3
1,391
6
1,295
1,515
9
1,686
9
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
20
10
2
7
9
7
9
11
-
350
370
442
480
529
7
279
648
389
244
419
275
625
380
267
257
633
699
272
752
296
825
2
647
252
671
4
8
10
-
Hardware Shipment Data
o
Shipments
.t^
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1995
C/3
I
CO
00
c»
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Inc^eaajife! ( ^
5
Installed Base
@
CO
CD
CX3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
o
Tenninal Revenue
sr
Peripheral Revenue
cu
.o
cr
CD
(/>
Hardware Revenue
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase {%)
i
5
8
4
0
-2
6
3,065
3,179
3,089
3,155
3,352
3,513
3,771
4,152
6
13
4
-3
2
6
5
7
10
-
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
ro
CO
CO
00
rva
CO
o
o
Table 2-9
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Japan, All Operating Systems
.t^
I
I
CO
CO
o
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
77,839
133,651
148,517
7
134,176
37
148,456
11
169,327
7
180,253
180,334
7
191,421
81,003
20
159,281
158,733
7
169,197
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
94,875
98,152
21
191,482
7
6
-
205,536
246,966
315,707
382,463
437,023
478,108
511,437
541,843
11
219,115
18
260,014
325,801
440,679
480,163
512,654
25
13
9
7
542,563
6
11
19
389,206
19
1,320
1,404
1,357
1,379
1,428
L497
1,564
1,633
4
48
46
5
2
1
1
0
0
-46
201
206
210
187
176
169
162
155
-6
1,569
1,656
1,571
1,568
1,605
1,667
1,726
1,789
3
11
6
-5
0
2
4
4
4
-
883
1,019
1,122
1,222
1,326
1,453
1,571
1,679
8
19
15
10
9
9
10
8
7
-
320
377
284
262
567
351
277
5
286
569
329
270
599
368
292
670
288
261
549
305
278
599
628
285
653
0
3
17
12
-15
-4
3
6
5
4
-
3,050
3,345
3,339
2
3,719
3,925
4,120
5
14
3,263
-2
3,498
10
5
6
6
5
-
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Installed Base
CPUs
@
CO
CO
00
a
Ol
I—I-
09
CD
CO
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Revenue Data ($M>
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase {%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase {%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase {%)
o
o
o
cr
l - ^
CD
CO
CO
(»
-
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
a
>
a.
a.
CD
o
o
Table 2-10
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems
CO
I
(O
00
Hardware Shipment Data
o
Shipments
-Ci.
CPUs
Seats
00
•
a
f-¥-
CU
.a
CD
CO
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
23,140
26,527
26,285
26,308
26,852
27,261
28,789
30,441
3
28,908
30,544
3
27,445
26,340
26,212
26,241
27
15
-4
0
0
4
5
6
-
CPUs
52,534
65,984
74,918
80,080
83,261
85,228
87,681
91,079
4
Seats
54,884
68,746
77,143
81,495
83,509
85,267
87,795
91,280
3
36
25
12
6
2
2
3
4
-
208
253
256
252
253
265
281
299
3
14
18
1
1
1
1
1
0
-19
16
13
15
13
12
12
11
11
-5
Hardware Revenue
237
284
272
266
267
277
293
311
3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
43
141
20
192
-4
0
235
4
6
212
-2
224
256
280
6
305
7
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
42
36
11
5
5
9
10
9
-
Software Service
54
63
74
77
81
87
96
104
7
42
54
55
56
129
152
60
164
2
117
21
51
132
53
97
51
127
8
725
8
780
5
8
8
-
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
o
1996
23,909
Year-to-Year IncreasIg'0):
CO
CO
1995
27,406
Year-to-Year I n d i ^ ^ (^jj
Installed Base
©
CO
CO
00
Year-to-Year Increase {%)
Total Factory Revenue
56
475
593
10
614
-1
617
3
633
140
7
673
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
45
25
4
1
3
6
5
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
o
f-^
O
CO
CO
C30
I\3
Ol
o
in
o
C/5
I
CO
Table 2-11
Detail Mechanical Forecast, Rest of World, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
7,595
7,986
7,687
8,438
9,016
9A06
9,911
10,457
6
Seats
7,723
8,054
7,679
8,409
8,915
9,414
9,919
10,463
6
22
4
-5
10
6
6
5
5
-
18,870
21,567
22,865
24,087
25,456
26,783
28,171
29,626
5
19,955
22,392
23,414
24,390
25,512
26,766
28,145
29,610
5
19
12
5
4
5
5
5
5
-
41
45
0
5
55
0
5
58
0
5
62
0
4
49
0
4
52
1
4
42
1
3
0
5
6
-17
1
46
45
50
53
57
60
63
66
6
8
-2
9
7
7
5
5
5
-
31
36
39
44
49
54
58
63
10
12
13
10
12
12
10
9
8
-
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
13
8
00
Hardware Shipment Data
o
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
@
CO
CO
c»
a
5r
£3
cr
CD
c/>
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
O
o
r-h
rsi
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
11
5
14
16
18
18
20
3
9
6
91
97
9
106
23
7
6
19
21
7
24
-18
115
125
134
144
153
8
4
6
9
8
9
7
7
6
-
Source: Dataquest (September 1998)
o
o
cr
CD
CO
CO
a.
€
ai
oo
CD
For More Information...
biquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
OataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
-1-1-408-954-1780
http: / / w^w^v^.dataquest.com
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 companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
72147
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AIVIERICA
EUROPE
ASIA/PACIFIC
Worldwide Headquarters
Dataquest/Gartner Group
European Headquarters
Gartner Group Ltd.
Asia Headquarters
Gartner Group Hong Kong
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: --44-1784-431-611
Facsimile: -1-44-1784-488-980
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: -1-852-2824-6168
Facsimile: -1-852-2824-6138
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: -1-1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: 4-1-408-954-1780
East Coast Research Center
Gartner Group Lowell
900 Chelmsford Sti:eet
Tower Two, Floor Nine
Lowell, Massachusetts 01851
United States
Phone: -1-1-978-323-6900
Facsimile: -1-1-978-323-6933
Dataquest France
Immeuble Defense Bergeies
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
Freuice
Phone: -1-33-1-41-35-13-00
Facsimile: 4-33-1-41-35-13-13
Dataquest Germany
Martin-Kollar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -1-49-89-42-70-4-0
Facsimile: -49-89-42-70-4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills ^^l-l
Aobadai
MeguTO-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
Japan
Phone: -1-81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: -1-81-3-3481-3644
Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Group Pacific
80 Alfred Street - 6th Floor
Milsons Point, NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: 4-61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: -1-61-2-9941-4868
Korea
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: -1-82-2-551-1331
Facsimile: -1-82-2-551-1330
Taiwan
Gartner Group Taiwan Ltd.
llF-2,188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei 105
Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: -1-886-2-2756-0389
Facsimile: -1-886-2-2756-2663/4122
Thailand
Gartner Group Thailand Ltd.
29 Vanissa Building, 12F
Soi Chidlom, Ploenchit Road
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330
rrhailand
Phone: -1-662-655-0577
Facsimile: -1-662-655-0576
Singapore
Gartner GroupIDQ Research n e Ltd.
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
©199S E>ataquest
6 Temasek Boulevard #26-02/03
Simtec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: -1-65-333-6773
Facsimile: -1-65-333-6787
DataQuest
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Worldwide Market Share Update
Market Statistics
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-g803
Publication Date: August 17,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
INFORMATION RESOUffJE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-468-8600
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Worldwide Market Share Update
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-9803
Publication Date: August 17,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide Market Share Update
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
About This Document
Segmentation Definitions
AppUcations
Regions
Operating Systems
Metrics
Market Share Methodology
The Audit Process
Reporting Changes
A Final Note
Pubhshing Schedule
% 1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE
Market Share Tables
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
3
5
5
6
8
8
12
13
14
14
14
17
August 17,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
List of Figures
Figure
1-1 CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, and EDA Database
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
August 17,1998
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide Market Share Update
ill
List of Tables
Table
1-1 Market Summary for All CAD Applications, 1996 to 1997
1-2 Average 1995,1996, and 1997 Exchange Rates
against the U.S. Dollar
1-3 Companies Renamed in 1997
1-4 Companies (or CAD Portions of Companies)
Sold/Merged in 1997
1-5 Top 25 Product Software Revenue, Software Companies,
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
1-6 Top 25 Company Software Revenue, Software Companies,
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
2-1 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
AU Operating Systems
2-2 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
UNIX
2-3 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
Windows NT
2-4 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
Personal Computer
2-5 1997 Top 24 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
Host/Proprietary
2-6 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
North America, All Operating Systems
2-7 1997 Top 30 Mechaiucal Software Companies,
North America, UNIX
2-8 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
North America, Windows NT
2-9 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
North America, Personal Computer
2-10 1997 Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies,
North America, Host/Proprietary
2-11 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe,
All Operating Systems
2-12 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe,
UNIX
2-13 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe,
Windows NT
2-14 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe,
Personal Computer
2-15 1997 Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe,
Host/Proprietary
2-16 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan,
All Operating Systems
2-17 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan,
UNIX
2-18 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan,
Windows NT
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
Page
2
3
4
4
10
11
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
August 17,1998
iv
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
List of Tables (Continued)
Table
2-19 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan,
Personal Computer
2-20 1997 Top 20 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan,
Host/Proprietary
2-21 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems
2-22 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Asia/Pacific, UNIX
2-23 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Asia/Pacific, Windows NT
2-24 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Asia/Pacific, Personal Computer
2-25 1997 Top 10 Mecharucal Software Companies,
Asia/Pacific, Host/Proprietary
2-26 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Rest of World, AU Operating Systems
2-27 1997 Top 29 Mechanical Software Companies,
Rest of World, UNIX
2-28 1997 Top 22 Mechaitical Software Companies,
Rest of World, Wmdows NT
2-29 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Rest of World, Personal Computer
2-30 1997 Top Seven Mechanical Software Companies,
Rest of World, Host/Proprietary
2-31 AU Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
2-32 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Worldwide, AU Operating Systems
2-33 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Worldwide, UND(
2-34 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Worldwide, Windows NT
2-35 1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies,
Worldwide, Personal Computer
2-36 1997 Top 23 Mechanical Software Companies,
Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
Page
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
51
52
53
54
55
August 17,1998
Chapter 1
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 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 large
database of industry information. The type of information contcuned in the
database is depicted in Figure 1-1.
Table 1-1 sununarizes the performance in various segments of the CAD/
CAM/CAE/GIS markets in 1997 versus 1996. Table 1-2 shows the
exchange rates used to convert a company's local currency sales into
U.S. dollars for consistent reporting.
Figure 1-1
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEG and GIS, and EDA Database
> I^ore than 300 Active Compan
' Over 100 Subapplications
127 Industries
' 27 Operating Systems
' 18 Countries/Regions
'Histoiy from 1989
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
o
m
O
Table 1-1
Market Summary for All CAD Applications, 1996 to 1997 (Millions of Dollars)
Hardware Revenue
Software Revenue
Cfl
1996
I
ID
00
o
CO
1997
Growth (%)
1996-1997
1996
Total Factory Revenue
1997
Growth (%)
1996-1997
1996
1997
Seat Shipments
Growth (%)
1996-1997
1996
1997
1.52
381,025.14
432,555.13
13.52
-3.76 222,239.95
199,109.75
-10.41
Growth (%)
1996-1997
Applications—For All Opeiadng Systems and Regions
Mechanical
AEC
GIS/Mapping
Electmnic CAE
3325.74
3,510-31
5.55
5,024.63 4,814.02
-4.19
10,519.05
10,679.00
958JJ4
933.09
961.01
0.29
1,277.91 1,196.89
-6.34
2,644.38
2,544.87
1,039.47
11.40
1,096.02
1,126.98
2.82
2,626.20
2,839.61
8.13
129,798.19
142,640.45
9.89
1,216.84
1,403.27
15.32
1,188.64
1,377.31
15.87
3,344.71
3,800.06
13.61
96,232.56
105,362.43
9.49
423.03
24.86
509.11
20.35
338.71
408.25
20.53
1,113.49
1,328.66
19.32
17,383.68
21,704.88
3.90
384.53
386.74
0.58
919.79
963.27
4.73
35,796.64
37,678.09
5.26
EleelTonic Itesign Automation
321.74
309.65
1,949.51 2,234.12
14.60
1,911.88 2,172.30
13.62
5,377.99
6,091.99
13.28
149,412.87
164,745.40
10.26
AH Applications
7,166.58 7,744.91
8.07
9,310.44 9,310.19
0
21,167.61 22,155.48
4.67
882,476.16
939,050.73
6.41
IC Layout
PCB/MCM/Hybrid
Region—For All Applications All Operating Systems
9.49 2,995.30 3,198.53
6.78
7,312.28
7,910.20
8.18
341,202.15
352,820.60
3.41
4.40
2,992.48 2,858.52
-4.48
6,560.14
6,618.67
0.89
291,434.76
287,829.33
-1.24
1,830.17 2,022.30
10.50
2,734.23 2,694.54
-1.45
5,767.15
6,039.14
4.72
166,871.90
220,623.65
32.21
479.99
526,09
9.60
461.05
427.15
-7.35
1,212.60
1,257.50
3.70
61,195.41
57,332.93
-6.31
122.64
125,50
2.34
132.05
137.17
3.88
335.08
4.16
21,837.98
20,534.70
-5.97
7,166.58 7,744-91
8.07
9,310.44 9,310.19
0
321.70
21,167.61
22,155.48
4.67
882,476.16
939,050.73
6.41
-1.63 6,261.97 6,146.17
@
Europe
2,544.84 2,786.26
2,192.20 2,288.63
CO
CO
japan
oo
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
North America
o
Si
09
.a
c=
CD
tn
Worldwide
Operating S y s t e m — F i n r j ^ i j t ^ l cations an d Regions
UNIX
Host / Proprietary
Windows NT
Personal Computer
AU Operating Systems
Source; Dataquest (July 1998)
f
CO
CO
00
-1.85
14,766.86
14,689.70
154.82
61.08
-60.55
530.15
177.12
-66.59
914.42
313.79
-65.68
834.45
1,622,94
94.49
780.45
1,412.49
80.98
2,019.40
3,838.16
90.06
-2.73 1,737.87 1,574.41
8.07 9,310.44 9,310.19
-9.41
3,466.93
0
21,167.61
3,313.83
22,155.48
-4.42
4.67
882,476.16
939,050.73
4,746.79 4,669.38
1,430.52 1,391.51
7,166.58 7,744.91
-0.52 264,584.09 272,395.33
8,987.28
2.95
3,874.95
-56.88
68,176.28
144,697.92
112.24
540,728.50
518,082.52
-4.19
6.41
Introduction
Table 1-2
Average 1995,1996, and 1997 Exchange Rates against the
U.S. Dollar
Country
1995 Rate
1996 Rate
Austria
Belgium
10.06
29.42
10.59
12.20
30.96
Canada
Denmark
1.37
5.59
1.36
5.81
35.79
1.38
European Union
0.77
4.37
0.80
4.59
5.12
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Singapore
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Uruted Kingdom
4.97
1.43
7.74
1,628.21
93.90
6.41
1.60
1.43
770.57
124.40
7.14
1.50
7.73
1,542.72
108.81
7.60
1.69
1.41
805.16
126.68
1.18
6.71
1.24
26.48
0.63
27.47
0.64
1997 Rate
Currency Name
SchilIing
Belgian franc
Canadian dollar
6.61
0.89
Danish krone
5.19
5.84
Marldta
French franc
1.73
7.74
Deutsche mark
Hong Kong dollar
1703.02
121.10
7.92
1.95
ECU
Lira
Yen
Peso
Gulden
1.49
954.14
Singapore dollar
Won
146.45
7.64
Peseta
Swedish Icrona
1.45
28.79
0.61
Swiss franc
NT
FoLurd
Notes: The annual rate is estimated as the arithmetic mean of the 12 monthly rates.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
About This Document
This document contains Dataquest's detailed market share information on
the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS industry. Numbers presented in this book represent Dataquest's best estimate of the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS markets at
this time. Each vendor surveyed is given the opportunity to self-report
revenue information for the company (see the Market Share Methodology
section for a detailed explanation of how^ market numbers are compiled
and scrubbed). See Tables 1-3 and 1-4 for changes in the companies
tracked from our 1996 report. Companies deleted or added to our database are also Usted later in this chapter. The following is a Ust containing
descriptions of the companies included in the Market Share books:
• Mechanical appUcations—All companies in database with mechanical
revenue
• GIS and AEC applications—All companies in the database with GIS
revenue and aU companies in database with AEC revenue. We also have
added GIS data companies.
• Electronic design automation appUcations—All companies in the database with EDA (electronic CAE, IC layout, PCB/hybrid/MCM) revenue
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
• Europe—AU companies with European revenue
• Asia—All companies with Asian revenue
We no longer publish top-level market statistics for the entire CAD/
CAM/CAE/GIS industry. This data is available by calling Daya
Nadamuni at (408) 468-8290. More detailed data on these markets may
be requested through our client inquiry service.
This document represents our market share of 1997 shipments and
revenue.
Table 1-3
Companies Renamed in 1997
Original Company Name
EDS Unigrapliics
Harris EDA
Virtual Chips
VLSI Libraries
New Company Name
Unigraphics Solutions
Xynetix
Phoenix Technology Limited
Artisan Components
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
Table 1-4
Companies (or CAD Portions of Companies) Sold/Merged in 1997
Original Company Name
Cimtel Ltd.
Clemessy Geocity
Compact Software
Compass Design Automation
Cooper & Chyan Technology
Deneb Robotics
Eagle Design Automation
EPIC Design Technology
Framasoft
Simulation Technology
Softdesk
SolidWorks
SpeedSim
Viewlogic Systems
Acquired bylMerged with
Concurrent Engineering
Network Management Tools
.Ansoft
Avant!
Cadence
Dassault Systemes
Synopsys
Synopsys
ESI Group
Summit Design
Autodesk
Dassault Systemes
Quicktum Systems Design
Synopsys
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
Companies deleted from our database in 1997 are as foUows:
• Actel
• Altera
• Precedence
• Straessle Informationssysteme
• Xilinx
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Introduction
Companies added to our database in 1997 are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
AMBIT Design Systems
Argonaut RISC Cores
CAD Corporation
Camcentre
CoreLogic
DSP Group
• Flomerics
• Gambit Automated Design
• Innovative Semiconductors
• ModultekOy
• Open Mind
• Simplex Solutions
• Tekla Oy
• Western Design Center
Dataquest's poUcy 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.
Segmentation Definitions
This section Usts the definitions specific to this document. The following
defines the segments.
Applications
Mechanical
The mechanical segment refers to computer-aided tools used by engineers,
designers, analysts, technicians, and draftspeople working predominantly
in the discrete manufacturing industries, but includes government and
education. Common design appUcations include conceptual design,
industrial design, structural or thermal analysis, detail design, and electromechanical design. Common manufacturing applications include tool zmd
fixture design and numerical control part prograrruning. Product data
management and appHcation development environments are also
included in this segment.
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC)
The AEC 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.
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)/Mapping
GIS is computer-based technology, and the segment comprises hardware,
software, and data used to capture, edit, display, cuid analyze spatial
(tagged by location) information.
Electronic Design Automation (EDA)
The EDA segment covers computer-based tools used to automate the
design of 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 (ECAE)—These are computeraided 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 appUcations are schematic capture and simulation.
• IC layout—This is a software appHcation tool used to create and
validate the physical implementation of an IC. The IC layout category
comprises polygon editors, symbolic editors, placement and routing
(gate array, cell, and block), and design verification tools (DRC/ERC/
logic-to-lay out).
• PCB/hybrid/MCM—This segment covers products 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.
Regions
The following regional hierarchy and definitions are used for aU
Dataquest's geographic segmentation. Not eill product categories and
Dataquest services have the entire segmentation. Some may have a greater
level and some may have less.
• North America Region
• United States: Includes the 48 contiguous states, Washington, D.C.,
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico
• Canada: Single-country region
• Latin America Region: Cotmtiies covered include Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela
• Rest of Latin America: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba,
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, BoUvia, Cayman Islands,
Clipperton Island, Costa Rica, Cuba, Domiiuca, Dominican Repubhc,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), French
Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Flaiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Navassa Island, Netherlands
Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname,
Tortola (British Virgin Islands), Triiudad and Tobago, Turks and
Caicos Islands, Uruguay, and Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Croix,
and St. Thomas)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
introduction
Europe Region
a Western Europe: Countries covered include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom
• Rest of Western Europe: Andorra, C5^rus, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar,
Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
• Central and Eastern Europe: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech RepubHc,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, and
Ukraine
• Rest of Eastern Europe: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosiua and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazalchstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia,
Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Tajildstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
and Yugoslavia (Serbia cuid Montenegro)
Japan: Single-country region
Asia/Pacific: Countries covered include Australia, China, Hong Kong,
India, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and
Thailand
• Rest of Asia/Pacific: American Samoa, Ashmore and Cartier Islands,
Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island, Brunei, Cambodia,
Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Coral Sea
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam,
Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef,
Kiribati, Laos, Macau, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Midway Islands,
MongoUa, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New
Zealand, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, North
Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Papua New Guinea, Paracel
Islands, Philippines, Pitcaim Islands, Solomon Islands, Spratly
Islands, Sri Lanka, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam,
Wake Island, Wallis and Futuna, and Western Samoa
Rest of World: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bassas da India,
Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Bunmdi, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'lvoire,
Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Europa Island,
Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Glorioso Islands, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran,
Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Juan de Nova Island, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Lesotho, Lil^eria, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman,
Qatar, Reuruon, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan,
Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tromelin Island, Tunisia, Turkey,
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia,
and Zimbabwe
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Operating Systems
Dataquest defines the operating systems as follows:
n UNIX—liicludes all UNIX variants and older workstation operating
systems
• Host—Includes minicomputer and mainframe operating systems in
which the functions of external workstations are dependent on a host
computer
• Windows NT—A Microsoft operating system
• PC—Includes DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, and Apple operating
systems
Metrics
The following define measurements:
• Total distribution revenue—^The total amount of money received by a
company for all goods and services sold into the CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS
market. It is the sum of factory revenue, OEM revenue, and reseller
revenue.
• Total factory revenue—^The amovmt of money received by a manufacturer for its goods and services, 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).
Total factory revenue is the sum of hardware revenue, software revenue, and service revenue.
• Hardware revenue—Derived from the sales of CPUs (including operating systems), terminals (for host-dependent systems), and peripherals
• Software revenue—Derived from the sales of bundled (part of a turnkey
system) and unbvmdled applications software that exists on a company's Standard price Ust. It does not include operating systems revenue, which is part of the hardware revenue.
• Service revenue—Derived from the service and support of CAD/
CAM/CAE/GIS systems. Service revenue can be calculated in the market share tables by subtracting hardware and software revenue from
total factory revenue. Service revenue includes the following:
• Applications development—Adding new functionality for a specific
customer who pays for the design and development of new customized CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS software applications, or the modification, enhancement, or customization of existing software
appUcations.
• Consulting—Including an assessment of a company's CAD/CAM/
CAE/GIS business IT needs and formulation of a plan based on
needs identification
• Integration services—Planning, implementing, migrating, and integrating software products
• Maintenance—Fees for hardware and software
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Introduction
• Management and operations services—Includes help desk, education
and trairung, disaster recovery, vaulting, facilities management, configuration management, and relocation services
• Service bureau—Includes construction of database, data conversion,
product design, analysis, or manufacturing
• Unit shipment—Defined as the number of seats delivered (number of
possible simultaneous users of product deUvered), excluding OEM
shipments. CPU shipments are defined as the number of CPUs delivered, which is the same as unit shipments for all platforms but hostdependent platforms.
• Distribution charmels are defined as follows:
• Direct—Sales direct to the end user
• Indirect—Sales to resellers, from which dealer revenue is calculated
• Dealer revenue—Dealer revenue is based on a multiplier of indirect
revenue. Dealer revenue always exists for every vendor with indirect
sales, and it is always equal to, or greater than, indirect revenue. Calculation of these dealer multipliers vary by vendor, by region, and by
platform.
• OEM—A channel through which vendors sell their finished product
to Other companies for resale through an agreement. Once sold, the
product is usually modified slightly, relabeled, and rebranded by the
new original equipment manufacturer, and then resold directiy to the
end user or through an indirect channel. Revenue as sold by that final
vendor (who, from the perspective of the original component suppher, is also popularly known as the OEM) is then credited as revenue to the final supplier.
• Reseller—The revenue a named company in the CAD/CAM/CAE/
GIS database receives for selHng another company's product, such as
Intergraph's revenue from Bentiey Microstation products, IBM's revenue for reseUing MicroCADAM, or Fujitsu's revenue for reselling
software from several U.S. vendors.
The apphcation of these distribution channel definitions to software revenue allows US to calculate vendor market share based on a combination of
any of the above bvilleted items. Typical reporting metrics for market share
will be as follows:
• Company software revenue is the sum of revenue from the direct, indirect, OEM, and reseller channels for any given company.
• Product software revenue is the sum of revenue from the direct and
indirect channels for any given company.
• End-user spending is the sum of revenue from the direct, dealer, OEM,
and reseller channels for any given company.
To avoid double-counting the market, market size for company software
revenue is the sum of revenue from the direct and indirect channels, and
market size for end-user spending is the sum of revenue from the direct
and dealer charmels. Table 1-5 and Table 1-6 provide views of the market,
including market share by product software revenue and company software revenue for the entire CAD market. Statistics on end-user spending
are available by inquiry.
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
10
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 1-5
Top 25 Product Software Revenue, Software Companies, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Company Name
Parametric Technology
IBM
Autodesk
Cadence
Synopsys
Intergraph
Mentor Graphics
Fujitsu
ESRI
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MicroCADAM
Bentley Systems
Avant!
CoCreate
Unigrapliics Solutions
Quicktum Design Systems
NEC
MacNeal-Schwendler
Landmark Graphics
Matra Datavision
Hitachi
Siemens Nixdorf Infosysteme
Toshiba*
Nihon Unisys
Computervision
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
321.2
464.0
558.1
283.0
283.6
333.8
183.3
151.4
122.1
124.8
129.2
89.4
103.1
107.3
89.1
72.0
110.0
117.6
89.9
87.4
94.5
93.2
88.5
77.1
163.7
4,590.5
764.4
879.5
6,234.3
1996
495.0
522.2
498.9
411.5
361.0
373.4
205.7
160.5
160.0
153.1
152.0
100.8
124.6
113.4
209.5
88.6
94.9
106.3
98.3
91.8
85.0
75.2
78.0
79.3
191.7
5,464.0
829.6
873.0
7,166.6
1997
605.8
602.7
567.9
524.0
442.1
402.1
217.6
197.0
190.1
172.1
150.0
140.6
132.5
125.5
115.5
104.6
104.4
104.0
102.8
90.6
85.1
83.5
82.8
78.3
67.8
5,923.7
877.3
944.0
7,744.9
Growth (%)
1996-1997
22.4
15.4
13.8
27.4
22.5
in
5.8
22.8
18.8
12.4
-1.3
39.4
6.3
10.7
-44.9
18.0
10.0
-2.2
4.5
-1.2
0.2
10.9
6.3
-1.3
-64.6
8.4
5.7
8.1
8.1
Market
Share (%)
7.8
7.8
7.3
6.8
5.7
5.2
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
76.5
11.3
12.2
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Introduction
11
Table 1-6
Top 25 Company Software Revenue, Software Companies, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
Cadence
Synopsys
Intergraph
Dassault Systemes
Mentor Graphics
Fujitsu
ESRI
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MicroCADAM
Bentley Systems
Avant!
Information Services International Dentsu*
CoCreate
Unigraphics Solutions
Quicktum Design Systems
NEC
MacNeal-Schwendler
Landmark Graphics
Matra Datavision
Toshiba*
Hitachi
Siemens Nixdorf Info systeme
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
530.6
321.2
563.3
293.9
295.3
395.5
208.8
185.0
210.8
122.1
124.7
129.2
89.4
106.0
85.2
107.3
89.1
72.0
110.0
117.6
89.9
87.4
97.3
94.5
93.2
4,590.5
764.4
879.5
6,234.3
1996
602.7
495.0
503.6
421.7
367.2
417.3
254.1
207.9
225.0
160.0
153.1
152.0
100.8
127.4
117.2
113.4
209.5
88.6
94.9
106.3
98.3
91.8
85.7
85.0
75.2
5,464.0
829.6
873.0
7,166.6
1997
682.2
605.8
573.3
531.4
450.4
426.8
309.1
219.3
197.0
190.1
172.1
150.0
140.6
134.3
125.9
125.5
115.5
104.6
104.4
104.0
102.8
90.6
87.1
85.1
83.5
5,923.7
877.3
944.0
7,744.9
Growth (%)
1996-1997
13.2
22.4
13.8
26.0
22.7
2.3
21.6
5.5
-12.4
18.8
12.4
-1.3
39.4
5.4
7.5
10.7
-44.9
18.0
10.0
-2.2
4.5
-1.2
1.6
0.2
11.0
8.4
5.7
8.1
8.1
Market
Share (%)
8.8
7.8
7.4
6.9
5.8
5.5
4.0
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
76.5
11.3
12.2
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
This reporting scheme means that the sum of vendor revenue (and market
shares) w^ill total to more tham the sum of the market. We have used similar reporting for European and Asian cUents for years, in response to the
realities of market requirements. We beUeve the best way to accurately
report market opporturdties and positioning worldwide is through this
method. Advantages to this approach include the following:
• We do not double-count any total market opportunity, and we will
continue to avoid overstating the actual revenue available, which will
help our cHents make the most reasonable investments.
• The high level of activity of vendors who are active in multiple channels
will show up in market share tables, again without double-counting
revenue. For example, it will be possible to understand the status of
Bentiey Systems vis-a-vis Intergraph. We can report Bentley's company
software revenue, end-user spending for Bentiey products (some of
which will be sold by Intergraph), Intergraph's sales from Intergraph
products, Intergraph reseller sales from Bentiey products, and sales
made by Intergraph's own dealers. In general, this model will aUow us
to better detail market contributions by companies with complex business models, such as Fujitsu, IBM, and NEC.
Market Share Methodology
Dataquest uses both primary and secondary sources to produce our
market share data. In the fourth quarter of each year and second quarter
of the subsequent year, we survey all 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 aU sotirces of information.) Examples of the job tities 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
Director of strategic planning
Director of marketing
• Director of market development
• Manager, CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS marketing programs
• Market research analyst
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Introduction
13
The Audit Process
Data supplied by vendors is evaluated against information drav^m from
many sources, including the following:
•
•
•
•
Revenue published by major industry participants
Estimates made by Icnowledgeable and reUable industry spokespersons
Government data or trade association data
Published product literature and price hsts
• Interviews with Icnowledgeable manufacturers, distributors, and users
• Relevant economic data
• Information and data from online data banks
• Articles in both the general and trade press
• Annual reports. Securities and Exchange Commission documents, and
credit reports
• Company publications and press releases
• Reports from financial analysts
n User studies
• Reseller and suppUer reports and reports from a vendor's competitors
Dataquest also 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.
The company statistics published by Dataquest are estimated based on the
data supplied by vendors along with the numerous sources Usted above.
Dataquest analysts have many years of experience in how to apply the
tools described to get the most accurate information possible on a particular company (such as what to use when and what industry averages are).
We beheve 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—which is partictdarly useful
when comparing regions or applications.
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
14
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Reporting Changes
Beginning with our March 4,1996, pubUcation, we published market share
data that reports OEM revenue for all regions. Also, for the first time in the
Uiuted States our market share tables included comparues that resell products from other vendors as well as their own products (these are primarily
Japanese companies), and comparues that sell products primarily to other
vendors (such as Dassault). In ttie past, this reporting was standard only in
our products for Japan, Europe, and Asia/Pacific. We believe that this
reporting accurately reflects the activity of all the vendors in the CAD/
CAM/CAE and GIS market. To prevent double-counting of the market,
we will continue to count the total market size by excluding OEM and
reseller revenue. As a result, the sum of the individual software vendors
wiU be greater than the total market size in all market share tables. On an
inquiry basis, we can produce market share tables that exclude OEM revenue, or report only OEM revenue.
These reporting changes primarily reflect our efforts to both accurately
depict markets while accounting for revenue by distribution channel.
Dataquest's CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS database was first developed in the
turnkey era of CAD/CAM, when channel reporting was relatively unimportant. Today, of course, worldwide distribution and PC-based products
require us to better report revenue by channel. While our existing database
does account for much of this information, we beUeve improvements are
necessary.
A Final Note
The tables we choose to pubUsh in statistics books are those we beHeve
useful for the greatest number of cUents. However, given the rich dynamics in distribution channels, it is not possible to understand the fuU opporttmity from a single viewpoint. On request, we are happy to deliver
alternative views of the market, as detailed tables—we do prefer to deliver
these as Excel workbooks via e-mail. Any cUent needing an electronic version of our market statistics should contact Daya Nadamuni via e-mail at
[email protected] Our ongoing commitment is to maintain
an accurate and complete model of the entire CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS market, worldwide, and we welcome your input.
Publisliing Scliedule
We pubUsh market share and forecasting twice each year for each,
allowing for both timely distribution of data and thorough analysis and
forecasting. Our annual delivery schedule is as follows:
• Market share data for 1997 was pubfished and distributed to clients on
April 13.
• A five-year forecast for CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS was shipped to dients
on June 8.
• Final updated market share tables, based on additional data collection
and analysis, are presented in this report. At this point, the market share
database is frozen and will not be changed imtil the end of the year.
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Introduction
15
We have finalized our 1997 market share data, including country-level
data, end-user spending, industry-level data, and subapplication information. For the next six months, supplementary market data will be
based on this final market data.
We will provide complete final forecast tables by September 30. These
tables take into consideration changes in the market share during the
previous six months.
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
Chapter 2
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share
Tables
Table 2-1
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Tedmology
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
Structural Dynamics Research
Corporation
MicroCADAM
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
CoCreate
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
Fujitsu
Matra Datavision
NEC
Hitachi
Toshiba*
Computervision
Nihon Unisys
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Ansys
Tecnomatix Technology
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Delcam pic
Sherpa Corp.
Marubeni Hytech*
Sumisho Electronics*
MARC
Tokyo Electron*
Formtek
Seiko*
ISD Software
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
494.5
321.2
204.9
192.9
124.7
1996
563.5
495.0
249.5
174.2
153.1
1997
641.8
605.8
303.8
206.4
172.1
Growth (%)
1996-1997
13.9
22.4
21.8
18.5
12.4
129.2
85.2
107.3
89.1
114.0
97.0
87.4
72.9
70.9
66.7
149.0
52.8
38.7
32.6
20.1
30.8
16.7
20.6
19.9
18.8
18.2
17.4
18.9
19.7
14.5
2,049.9
339.5
481.5
2,870.9
152.0
117.2
113.4
209.5
106.3
107.3
91.8
62.9
63.7
62.5
174.4
54.4
39.3
37.0
26.3
30.8
22.0
26.2
23.0
21.6
19.5
20.0
20.6
19.0
22.7
2,504.8
345.6
475.4
3,325.7
150.0
125.9
125.5
115.5
104.0
103.5
90.6
70.9
68.1
65.0
61.7
54.6
42.7
35.1
34.2
32.5
30.8
27.5
24.9
23.4
21.8
21.8
21.7
21.1
20.1
2,573.6
390.9
545.7
3,510.3
-1.3
7.5
10.7
-44.9
-2.2
-3.6
-1.2
12.7
6.8
3.9
-64.6
0.3
8.8
-5.2
30.0
5.5
40.0
5.0
8.5
8.4
11.7
8.5
5.1
11.0
-11.4
2.7
13.1
14.8
5.5
Market
Share (%)
1997
18.3
17.3
8.7
5.9
4.9
4.3
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.9
26
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
73.3
11.1
15.5
lOO.O
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
17
18
Mechanical CAO/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-2
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, UNIX
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric TecJinology
Dassault Systemes
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu"*
Structural Dynamics Research
Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
Unigraphics Solutions
Matra Datavision
Computervision
Nihon Unisys
CoCreate
NEC
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Tecnomatix Technology
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Toshiba*
Sherpa Corp.
Marubeni Hytech*
Delcam pic
MicroCADAM
Ansys
Tokyo Electron*
Fujitsu
MARC
Alias Research
ICEM Technologies
Sumisho Electrorucs*
Mitsui Engineering
Gerber Systems
Formtek
All North American Companies
All Euiopean Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
405.2
269.8
160.6
80.9
116.5
1996
493.3
386.1
215.1
111.3
136.5
1997
613.5
454.3
261.4
119.6
119.5
Growth (%)
1996-1997
24.4
17.7
21.5
7.5
-12.5
86.6
89.1
75.5
142.4
51.8
80.5
43.7
38.7
20.1
28.4
50.0
20.4
19.9
16.0
51.7
24.5
17.4
65.0
18.2
17.3
17.6
14.2
13.5
13.1
13.3
1,474.0
243.0
374.5
2,091.4
78.1
188.5
79.2
166.7
53.6
76.1
37.7
39.3
26.3
28.4
42.5
26.0
23.0
17.8
45.6
27.8
20.0
72.7
17.7
17.3
19.6
16.4
15.5
14.9
14.4
1,811.0
208.8
356.0
2,375.7
93.1
80.8
65.8
59.0
53.6
53.1
40.9
38.5
34.2
30.8
29.2
25.9
24.9
24.9
22.5
21.8
21.8
19.7
18.9
18.6
18.5
17.8
16.9
16.2
15.4
1,707.5
201.3
277.2
2,186.0
19.2
-57.1
-16.9
-64.6
0.1
-30.2
8.5
-2.0
30.0
8.5
-31.2
-0.4
8.5
39.8
-50.7
-21.6
8.5
-73.0
6.7
7.9
-5.9
8.5
8.5
8.8
7.1
-5.7
-3.6
-22.1
-8.0
Market
Share (%)
1997
28.1
20.8
12.0
5.5
5.5
4.3
3.7
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
78.1
9.2
12.7
lOO.O
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEIVI revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
•Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VArVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
19
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-3
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Windows NT
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
Fujitsu
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
CoCreate
MicroCADAM
Unigraphics Solutions
Dassault Systemes
Matra Datavision
ISD Software
Bentley Systems
Wacom
Ansys
MCS
Omron
Radan Computational
Graphtec Engineering
Applicon
NEC
Intergraph
Toshiba*
Hitachi
Delcam pic
Seiko*
Toshiba Engineering*
C A D Lab
Agile Software
C A D Distribution
MacNeal-Schwendler
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
51.4
4.8
4.4
6.4
:9.6
5.1
4.9
3.9
1.4
5.8
5.2
1.5
0.7
1.0
3.5
1.1
85.5
15.0
15.9
116.4
1996
108.9
28.7
15.3
9.8
18.2
20.9
6.5
10.1
12.3
6.4
7.1
4.8
3.7
5.8
5.1
2.6
4.5
4.1
•
"
4.2
2.5
4.4
1.2
4.8
1.1
.^
239.9
50.7
22.2
312.8
1997
151.4
103.2
55.9
51.2
49.3
45.0
34.6
24.3
18.7
14.8
13.5
12.0
11.2
10.3
10.0
8.7
8.7
8.3
7.6
6.7
6.5
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.4
5.2
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.3
525.4
94.0
117.4
736.8
Growth (%)
1996-1997
39.1
259.1
NA
234.7
406.1
146.8
65.4
273.6
85.6
19.6
109.4
70.0
133.4
176.7
72.5
72.0
235.0
NA
70.0
63.7
NA
NA
41.0
NA
111.2
18.2
321.7
2.4
337.7
NA
119.0
85.3
428.7
135.5
Market
Share (%)
1997
20.6
14.0
7.6
7.0
6.7
6.1
4.7
3.3
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
71.3
12.8
15.9
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
20
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 2-4
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Personal Computer
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Autodesk
MicroCADAM
Hitachi
Toshiba*
Fujitsu
CoCreate
NEC
Andor*
Cimatron
Design Automation
Investronica S A
CNC Software
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Tebis
Baystate Technologies
Surfware
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
Formtek
Ashlar
Viagrafix
Sumisho Electronics*
PAFEC
Serbi
Algor Interactive Systems
Applicon
Wiechers Datentechnik
Matra Datavision
Ziegler Informatics
Whessoe Computing Systems
BCT GmbH
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
182.9
71.1
10.2
16.7
24.2
22.4
24.0
15.9
8.9
11.6
11.1
8.4
3.2
8.0
1.3
5.0
4.3
5n
5.7
5.6
4.6
2.4
5.9
6.0
4.2
4.5
2.3
3.3
4.1
3.8
388.1
78.5
79.2
545.8
1996
140.4
88.2
9.2
20.0
26.9
27.6
20.8
17.8
12.9
13.3
10.6
8.7
4.2
8.9
4.1
5.4
5.9
6.2
5.9
5.4
5.1
5.3
5.6
6.3
4.6
4.8
2.5
4.6
4.2
4.7
368.8
83.9
85.9
538.6
1997
103.2
82.5
48.1
29.2
25.9
23.1
22.4
19.2
15.8
14.2
10.3
8.8
8.7
8.0
7.2
6.5
6.3
6.2
5.9
5.6
5.6
5.2
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
311.2
92.4
146.2
549.8
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-26.5
-6.4
424.0
46.2
-3.9
-16.3
8.0
8.0
22.3
7.5
-3.2
1.8
109.1
-9.5
76.0
20.0
73
0.5
-0.4
2.6
8.0
-1.2
-10.8
-21.1
6.0
1.2
78.1
-3.8
-0.4
-10.4
-15.6
10.2
70.1
2.1
Market
Share (%)
1997
18.8
15.0
8.8
5.3
4.7
4.2
4.1
3.5
2.9
2.6
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
56.6
16.8
26.6
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
*Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/dlstrlbutor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CI\llEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
21
1997 Woddwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-5
1997 Top 24 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Company Name
IBM
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Fujitsu
Matra Datavision
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Hitachi
Exapt
Mitsubishi Electric*
Toyo Information Systems*
Nihon Unisys
.Ansys
Kubota Computer
Whessoe Computing Systems
Sherpa Corp.
Computational Mechanics
Mechanical Dynamics
Century Research Center
Altair Computing
ESI Group
debis Systemhaus
Technodia*
Access Corp.
CIMTEK
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
89.3
44.2
25.1
7.8
2.4
3.3
4.5
1.2
0.8
1.1
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.9
0.3
0.4
0.2
0
0.4
0.1
102.3
3.1
11.9
117.3
1996
69.2
27.2
23.2
7.7
2.4
3.0
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
1.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0.1
85.1
2.2
11.3
98.6
1997
27.3
15.5
4.8
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
29.5
3.2
5.0
37.7
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-60.6
-43.1
-79.2
-73.1
NA
-30.0
-45.5
-25.1
-30.0
-30.0
-51.8
-68.4
-32.3
-19.2
12-4
-25.4
-89.1
-30.0
-45.1
-49.7
-79.5
-30.0
-100.0
-100.0
-65.4
45.9
-55.7
-61.8
Market
Share (%)
1997
72.3
41.0
12.8
5.5
4.5
4.5
4.3
2.5
1.6
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0-4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
78.2
8.6
13.2
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-l\/IS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
22
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-6
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Parametric Technology
IBM
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
CoCreate
Computervision
Ansys
Sherpa Corp.
Formtek
MCS
Altair Computing
Tecnomatix Technology
MicroCADAM
Gerber Systems
Intergraph
Alias Research
Algor Interactive Systems
Applicon
CGTech
Bentley Systems
ADRA Systems
Mechanical Dynamics
Matra Datavision
ICEM Technologies
CNC Software
DP Technology
Agile Software
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
160.6
95.1
57.8
85.4
59.1
45.1
50.0
16.1
48.1
15.4
13.4
10.0
8.6
6.0
7.4
9.0
8.3
8.2
8.6
9.7
8.3
5.5
6.0
8.1
4.3
4.4
6.2
5.6
3.8
1.4
762.0
32.2
1.6
795.8
1996
218.3
100.8
74.7
72.3
73.3
125.9
46.8
22.7
64.0
18.7
14.4
10.5
8.8
10.0
8.1
10.6
9.4
8.1
8.6
9.0
8.8
5.8
5.8
9.2
4.8
5.5
7.4
5.8
4.3
1.8
950.6
44.6
1.8
996.9
1997
277.4
120.6
98.0
94.9
83.8
53.2
44.2
25.1
23.4
17.2
15.1
11.3
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.5
10.2
9.6
9.4
8.6
8.3
7.1
6.9
6.2
6.1
6.1
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.7
966.3
64.2
2.2
1,032.7
Growth (%)
1996-1997
27.1
19.7
31.3
31.3
14.4
-57.7
-5.5
10.7
-63.5
-8.2
5.0
7.1
23.5
8.3
31.6
-1.3
9.0
18.7
9.0
-5.2
-5.9
22.2
17.9
-33.0
27.6
11.3
-19.2
2.5
34.6
224.0
1.7
43.9
26.5
3.6
Market
Share (%)
1997
26.9
11.7
9.5
9.2
8.1
5.2
4.3
2.4
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
93.6
6.2
0.2
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distrlbutor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
23
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-7
1997 Top 30 IMechanical Software Companies, North America, UNIX
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Parametric Technology
IBM
Dassault Systemes
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
Unigraphics Solutiorrs
Computervision
Sherpa Corp.
Tecnomatix Technology
Ansys
CoCreate
Altair Computing
Gerber Systems
Alias Research
Formtek
ICEM Technologies
Mechanical Djmamics
Intergraph
CGTech
Matra Datavision
ADRA Systems
Cadis Software
CIMLINC
First Cadcam Inc.
Adkia R&D
MARC
Delcam pic
Applicon
Concentra
CSAR Corp.
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
134.9
77.2
46.7
54.0
38.0
45.1
46.0
13.3
7.4
11.6
12.1
5.9
8.3
8.6
7.0
6.2
3.4
7.6
3.9
3.8
5.9
1.1
3.4
2.6
2.7
2.6
3.2
6.6
8.0
1.7
540.1
27.8
1.4
569.3
1996
170.3
88.8
60.7
65.3
34.4
113.3
61.2
14.3
8.1
14.0
15.2
9.5
9.4
8.6
7.4
7.1
3.7
5.9
4.0
4.8
6.2
3.3
3.4
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.1
6.9
8.1
2.6
688.2
30.1
1.6
719.9
1997
208.1
115.8
73.9
58.2
39.6
37.3
22.3
14.2
10.7
10.7
10.6
10.3
10.2
9.4
8.0
5.5
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.5
616.8
32.3
1.8
651.0
Growth (%)
1996-1997
22.2
30.3
21.9
-11.0
15.1
-67.1
-63.5
-0.4
31.6
-24.1
-30.2
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
-22.4
36.0
-17.6
15.2
-7.2
-31.1
15.0
9.0
11.2
9.0
9.0
39.8
-60.7
-66.9
-2.4
-10.4
7.4
11.8
-9.6
Market
Share (%)
1997
32.0
17.8
11.4
8.9
6.1
5.7
3.4
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
94.7
5.0
0.3
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
24
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-8
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, Windows NT
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Parametric Teclinology
Autodesk
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Dassault Systemes
Urugraphics Solutions
CoCreate
MCS
Bentley Systems
Ansys
Agile Software
Applicon
Intergraph
MicroCADAM
3D/Eye Inc.
Algor Interactive Systems
DP Technology
MacNeal-Schwendler
Spatial Technology
CGTech
Matra Datavision
Gibbs and Assoc.
Mechanical Dynamics
Sherpa Corp.
NOVASOFT Systems
Delcam pic
Auto-Trol
Ricoh
CSAR Corp.
Open Mind
SRAC
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
25.7
3.0
0.7
0.9
2.3
1.9
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
•
^
0.2
-
•
-.
0.4
39.3
0.5
39.7
1996
48.0
11.9
7.3
6.5
12.6
2.0
2.2
29
2.4
1.2
2.2
1.3
1.8
1.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.1
...
0.4
0.4
101.8
8.3
110.1
1997
69.4
47.5
24.9
18.2
16.0
9.9
6.5
6.0
5.5
4.6
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
218.6
21.6
O.l
240.4
Growth (%)
1996-1997
44.4
298.0
240.4
180.2
26.8
406.1
191.0
109.4
126.1
279.5
NA
54.3
146.7
72.0
NA
84.6
322.8
102.4
122.3
107.2
95.8
107.5
NA
49.3
41.0
311.2
NA
NA
19.5
10.1
114.8
159.4
NA
118.4
Market
Share (%)
1997
28.8
19.7
10.4
7.6
6.6
4.1
1.7
2.5
2.3
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
90.9
9.0
0.1
loo.o
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
25
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-9
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, Personal Computer
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Autodesk
CNC Software
MicroCADAM
Baystate Technologies
Ashlar
Viagrafix
CoCreate
Surfware
Alger Interactive Systems
Cimatron
Formtek
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
DP Technology
SRAC
MCS
Gibbs and Assoc.
Applicon
Dassault Systemes
3D/Eye Inc.
ADRA Systems
Spatial Technology
Workgroup Tech.
Intergraph
Variation Systems Analysis
Consensys
Engineering Mechanics
CGTech
Boothroyd Dewhurst
Computervision
Agile Software
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
80.3
5.6
5.0
1.1
3.0
5.0
3.4
3.6
5.8
1.2
3.0
1.5
1.9
1.5
4.7
2.2
1.7
2.2
2.7
1.8
1.3
0.5
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.1
0.4
155.0
3.7
0.1
158.8
1996
58.2
5.8
6.2
3.5
3.1
5.1
5.5
3.8
5.4
2.1
3.2
2.0
2.1
2.2
5.2
1.9
1.8
0.7
1.8
2.4
2.7
2.9
1.3
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.0
2.8
0.5
138.9
6.1
0.1
145.0
1997
47.5
5.9
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.3
4.6
4.5
3.9
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
124.2
10.0
0.2
134.5
Market
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
-18.4
35.3
4.4
2.5
-6.4
4.3
57.0
4.1
3.9
69.1
2.5
3.9
3.4
-16.3
3.4
20.0
2.9
-28.9
2.6
65.5
2.4
2.5
55.7
2.3
34.6
2.1
1.8
10.1
1.6
-58.3
1.6
14.2
10.4
1.5
180.2
1.5
1.3
2.5
1.2
-31.4
1.2
-42.2
1.0
-52.3
1.0
NA
1.0
2.5
0.9
50.0
0.8
2.5
-8.3
0.8
0.8
2.5
0.8
-63.5
94.4
0.8
92.4
-10.5
64.4
7.5
0.2
278.5
-7.3
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEIVI revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/dlstrlbutor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
26
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-10
1997 Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, Host/Proprietary
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Conipany Name
IBM
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Ansys
Matra Datavision
Sherpa Corp.
Altair Computing
Mechanical Dynamics
Kubota Computer
Computational Mechanics
Fujitsu
debis Systemhaus
ESI Group
Access Corp.
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
17.9
11.1
11.0
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.4
27.7
0.2
0.1
28.0
1996
11.8
6.8
10.2
06
01
0.2
0.5
01
0
0
0
0.2
21.7
0.1
0.1
21.9
1997
4.6
3.9
2.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
6.6
0.2
o
6.8
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-60.6
-42.8
-79.9
-69.4
NA
12-4
-50.0
-88.6
-50.0
-50.0
NA
-93.2
-43.7
-100.0
-69.8
163.5
-32-4
-68.9
Market
Share (%)
1997
68.2
56.9
30.2
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.5
0.9
0-4
0.4
0.2
0
0
96.5
2.9
0.6
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
27
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-11
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Ranlc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes
Matra Datavision
Autodesk
CoCreate
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Unigraphics Solutions
MacNeal-Schwendler
Computervision
Tecnomatix Technology
ISD Software
ASCAD
Delcam pic
Tebis
C A D Lab
Radan Computational
ICEM Technologies
Applicon
Ansys
MicroCADAM
Sherpa Corp.
Investronica S A
BCT GmbH
Eigner -(- Partner
Sescoi
Bentley Systems
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
MARC
Mechanical Djmamics
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
249.5
109.2
113.2
70.0
61.5
59.0
33.2
32.1
32.0
73.6
11.6
14.5
14.9
1.1
12.5
13.6
7.6
10.4
12A
10.1
10.3
1.1
6.0
4.2
6.3
6.0
6.2
5.8
4.5
4.9
744.0
262.4
1,006.5
1996
225.5
171.3
140.7
68.8
54.5
54.4
43.1
59.3
30.8
81.1
15.8
22.4
16.5
12.5
14.0
10.9
8.2
11.9
12.1
11.1
12.2
9.2
8.6
7.2
6.8
7.5
5.9
6.5
5.9
5.7
826.5
257.8
1,084.2
1997
238.1
203.5
150.8
72.7
64.0
60.3
52.5
37.9
28.3
27.1
20.7
19.9
19.7
17.6
13.1
12.9
11.8
11.7
10.6
10.5
10.5
9.6
8.2
8.1
7.6
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.2
6.1
824.8
281.6
1,106.3
Market
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
21.5
5.6
18.4
18.8
13.6
1.1
6.6
5.6
5.8
17.5
5.4
10.7
4.7
21.8
3.4
-36.0
2.6
-8.2
2.4
-66.6
1.9
31.1
1.8
-11.2
1.8
19.2
1.6
40.0
1.2
-6.4
1.2
18.2
1.1
43.5
1.1
-1.9
1.0
-12.5
1.0
-5.2
0.9
-13.7
0.9
5.0
0.7
-5.0
0.7
12.8
0.7
11.8
0.6
-5.2
0.6
17.9
0.6
5.3
0.6
5.3
0.6
7.0
74.6
-0.2
25.4
9.2
NA
2.0
loo.o
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MIS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
28
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-12
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, UNIX
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes
Matra Datavision
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Unigraphics Solutions
Computervision
CoCreate
MacNeal-Schwendler
Tecnomatix Technology
Delcam pic
ASCAD
ICEM Technologies
Sherpa Corp.
Eigner -i- Partner
Ansys
C A D Lab
Sescoi
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
ESI Group
MARC
Tebis
Mechanical Dynamics
debis Systemhaus
Alias Research
Radan Computational
Formtek
Applicon
ADRA Systems
Adina R&D
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
206.0
91.7
87.6
60.4
31.5
32.1
70.4
44.3
24.3
11.6
7.4
12.8
10.4
7.1
6.3
7.6
7.5
4.8
5.2
6.5
4.5
4.6
3.9
3.0
4.3
7.5
3.2
10.0
5.0
2.3
567.6
186.0
753.7
1996
199.0
133.6
123.3
59.4
38.4
53.3
77.5
36.5
22.7
15.8
10.1
14.1
11.5
9.1
6.8
8.3
5.4
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.3
4.4
3.2
4.3
3.7
3.6
9.6
5.2
2.6
632.0
153.0
785.0
1997
227.6
152.7
135.7
53.0
36.5
26.5
25.9
25.5
25.3
20.7
14.2
13.9
10.9
9.1
7.6
6.5
6.4
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.5
1.7
580.1
145.6
725.7
Market
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
31.4
14.4
21.0
14.3
18.7
10.1
7.3
-10.8
5.0
-5.1
3.7
-50.3
3.6
-66.6
3.5
-30.2
3.5
11.8
2.9
31.1
2.0
39.8
1.9
-2.0
1.5
-4.9
1.2
-0.4
1.1
11.8
0.9
-21.6
0.9
18.2
0.8
-3.5
0.8
-1.9
0.8
-0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
-1.0
0.7
14.1
0.7
48.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
8.4
0.5
1.2
0.5
-63.5
0.5
-33.5
0.4
2.1
79.9
-8.2
20.1
-4.8
NA
lOO.O
-7.6
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
29
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-13
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, Windows NT
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Parametric Teclinology
Autodesk
CoCreate
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Matra Datavision
ISD Software
Unigraphics Solutions
Radan Computational
Dassault Systemes
Bentley Systems
C A D Lab
C A D Distribution
Applicon
BCT GmbH
Delcam pic
Ansys
ASCAD
MicroCADAM
Vero International Software
Open Mind
MCS
Intergraph
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
MacNeal-Schwendler
Modultek Oy
Mechanical Dynamics
ICEM Technologies
Catalpa groupe Missler
Spatial Technology
MARC
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
17.5
2.4
1.0
7.7
•^
2.3
0.7
3.5
:0.4
1.2
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.3
.
• ^
27.6
13.1
40.7
1996
37.7
9.0
4.7
4.3
7.5
12.2
5.9
4.5
0.9
2.9
4.4
4.8
2.5
2.4
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.5
76.0
38.0
114.0
1997
50.9
32.0
23.7
15.6
15.0
14.7
11.4
7.8
6.1
6.1
5.2
4.9
4.5
3.9
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
165.7
65.6
231.4
Growth (%)
1996-1997
35.0
256.2
406.1
262.7
99.2
19.8
91.9
72.2
567.2
109.4
18.2
2.4
NA
56.0
41.0
133.3
220.6
115.9
80.5
19.5
167.0
98.7
55.9
310.6
NA
74.1
75.0
73.5
131.2
60.0
118.2
72.6
NA
103.0
Market
Share (%)
1997
22.0
13.8
10.2
6.8
6.5
6.3
4.9
3.4
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
71.6
28.4
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAi^distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
30
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 2-14
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, Personal Computer
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Ran](
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Autodesk
CoCreate
Investronica S A
Tebis
MicroCADAM
Cimatron
Serbi
Wiechers Datentechnik
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Ziegler Infonnatics
BCT GmbH
Whessoe Computing Systems
PAFEC
Matra Datavision
Anilam Electronics
ISO Software
Applicon
ASCAD
Just In Time Systems
CADdy Spain
RoboCAD Solutions
Formtek
ADRA Systems
Sescoi
C A D Lab
Veto International Software
Computervision
CNC Software
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Superdraft
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
59.1
12.3
6.0
7.9
5n
3.3
5.9
4.5
1.6
3.3
3.8
3.8
1.8
2.6
4.0
2.4
1.2
2.5
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.8
1.2
5.4
1.7
3.2
1.3
0.8
1.2
104.8
60.7
165.5
1996
43.8
13.3
8.6
8.8
7.1
4.5
5.6
4.6
2.1
4.6
4.7
3.9
3.7
1.9
2.7
2.6
2.6
1.3
2.1
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.1
1.2
3.6
1.2
0.7
1.1
88.6
64.8
153.4
1997
32.0
11.1
8.2
7.9
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.6
3.6
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
68.6
67.8
136.4
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-27.0
-16.3
-5.0
-9.6
-18.1
20.6
-10.8
0.2
109.1
-3.8
-10.4
-0.5
-3.0
91.1
-1.2
-1.0
1.7
90.1
-10.5
17.2
-4.1
-7.6
-33.7
-12.0
18.2
0.8
-66.6
-3.9
54.1
-3.5
-22.5
4.6
NA
-11.1
Market
Share (%)
1997
23.5
8.1
6.0
5.8
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
50.3
49.7
-
loo.o
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
31
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-15
1997 Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, Host/Proprietary
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Company Name
IBM
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Matra Datavision
Exapt
Whessoe Computing Systems
Computational Mechanics
Ansys
Sherpa Corp.
ESI Group
Mechanical Dynamics
debis Systemhaus
CIMTEK
Access Corp.
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
43.6
25.6
7.0
3.0
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.1
0
44.0
2.6
46.6
1996
26.2
16.4
6.7
r-
1.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0
29.9
2.0
31.9
1997
10.1
8.4
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
10.3
2.5
12.8
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-61.5
-48.6
-80.5
NA
-25.1
-18.6
-21.2
-68.4
12-4
-45.8
-90.5
-78.6
-100.0
-100.0
-65.4
25.7
NA
-59.8
Market
Share (%)
1997
78.5
65.6
10.2
8.6
7.4
1.7
1.3
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0-4
80.5
19.5
lOO.O
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/dlstributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1996)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
32
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 2-16
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
MicroCADAM
Fujitsu
Parametric Technology
NEC
Hitachi
Toshiba*
Nihon Urusys
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
CoCreate
C. Itch Techno-Science*
Dassault Systemes
Marubeni Hytech*
Sumisho Electronics*
Tokyo Electron*
Seiko*
MacNeal-Schwendler
Structural IDynamics Research Corporation
Andor*
Autodesk
Mitsui Engineering
Design Automation
Wacom
Omron
MARC
Graphtec Engineering
Mutoh Industries*
Toyo Information Systems*
Adam Net
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
106.0
85.2
104.7
97.0
41.8
72.9
70.9
66.7
52.8
38.3
31.1
30.8
17.0
19.9
18.8
17.4
19.7
29.6
15.5
15.9
19.2
14.0
10.0
6.0
7.8
11.1
8.6
13.1
8.1
7.5
396.6
19.4
475.8
891.7
1996
193.2
117.2
123.1
107.3
72.8
62.9
63.7
62.5
54.4
38.9
32.9
30.8
18.2
23.0
21.6
20.0
19.0
21.3
18A
17.8
19.6
16.1
11.5
8.4
7.7
9.8
8.6
9.3
9.0
8.5
525.5
23.9
469.8
1,019.3
1997
232.5
125.9
123.0
102.4
72.1
70.9
68.1
65.0
54.6
42.3
36.4
32.5
28.3
24.9
23.4
21.8
21.1
20.8
19.3
19.2
18.6
17.5
13.5
13.5
11.9
11.1
10.8
10.5
9.5
9.2
558.8
22.9
540.3
1,122.0
Growth (%)
1996-1997
20.4
7.5
-0.1
-4.6
-0.9
12.7
6.8
3.9
0.3
8.8
10.7
5.5
55.8
8.5
8.4
8.5
11.0
-2.2
4.8
8.0
-5.2
8.5
17.9
60.1
54.0
13.4
25.4
13.4
6.0
8.5
6.3
-4.3
15.0
lO.l
Market
Share (%)
1997
20.7
11.2
11.0
9.1
6.4
6.3
6.1
5.8
4.9
3.8
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
49.8
2.0
48.2
lOO.O
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquesf s best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/dlstributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
33
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-17
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, UNIX
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Info. Services IntT. Dentsu*
Parametric Technology
Nihon Unisys
NEC
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Toshiba*
Dassault Systemes
Marubeni Hytech*
Tokyo Electron*
Fujitsu
MacNeal-Schwendler
MicroCADAM
Sumisho Electronics*
Mitsui Engineering
CoCreate
Seiko*
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Hitachi
MARC
Toyo Information Systems*
Adam Net
Kubota Computer
Nihon Itek*
Sharp*
Computervision
Unigraphics Solutions
AdUia R&D
Technodia*
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
86.1
80.9
35.1
51.8
43.7
38.3
28.4
50.0
13.4
19.9
17.4
65.0
22.5
41.9
14.2
13.5
23A
19.7
14.8
57.3
11.1
7.3
7.2
6.6
5.5
8.3
13.4
2.8
4.1
3.9
267.4
14.2
370.2
651.8
1996
167.8
111.3
56.8
53.6
37.7
38.9
28.4
42.5
15.8
23.0
20.0
72.7
15.6
36.9
16.4
15.5
22.1
19.0
16.4
51.6
8.9
8.4
7.7
7.6
6.4
7.5
15.0
5.5
4.7
4.4
352.1
15.6
352.0
719.7
1997
222.2
119.6
54.1
53.6
40.9
38.1
30.8
29.2
25.6
24.9
21.8
19.5
18.6
18.5
17.8
16.9
15.4
15.2
13.3
12.3
9.6
9.1
8.4
8.2
6.9
6.7
5.3
5.1
5.1
4.8
365.5
11.2
273.2
649.9
Growth (%)
1996-1997
32.4
7.5
-4.7
0.1
8.5
-2.0
8.5
-31.2
62.2
8.5
8.5
-73.2
19.2
-50.0
8.5
8.5
-30.2
-19.9
-18.7
-76.2
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
-10.1
-64.6
-6.9
8.5
8.5
3.8
-28.1
-22.4
-9.7
Market
Share (%)
1997
34.2
18-4
8.3
8.2
6.3
5.9
4.7
4.5
3.9
3.8
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2-4
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.5
1-4
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
56.2
1.7
42.0
lOO.O
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquesf s best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-l\/IS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
34
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-18
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, Windows NT
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Fujitsu
MicroCADAM
Parametric Technology
CoCreate
Wacom
Omron
Autodesk
Graphtec Engineering
NEC
Toshiba*
Hitachi
Seiko*
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Toshiba Engineering*
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Ricoh
Mutoh Industries*
Kozo Keikaku Engineering
Unigraphics Solutions
Ansys
MARC
Matra Datavision
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Radan Computational
Mechanical Dynamics
Spatial Technology
Vero Intemational Software
CGTech
IBM
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
5.2
6.7
1.3
4.9
5.8
5.2
'
0.4
2.3
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.2
-
•
14.9
0.6
15.9
31.3
1996
14.8
16.0
2.8
7.1
5.8
3.2
2.6
4.5
.-:
1.8
2.5
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.3
42.3
3.2
22.2
67.7
1997
55.3
36.9
18.0
14.3
12.0
10.0
9.3
8.7
7.6
6.5
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.4
4.2
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
93.1
4.4
116.9
214.4
Market
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
25.8
NA
17.2
149.8
8.4
12.6
6.7
406.1
5.6
70.0
4.6
72.5
4.3
187.3
4.0
235.0
70.0
3.6
3.0
NA
NA
2.8
2.7
NA
2.7
210.8
111.2
2.5
2.0
NA
1.4
NA
21.7
1.4
1.3
NA
1.0
259.3
0.8
169.3
0.6
70.0
0.6
-2.9
0.5
161.5
0.4
337.7
0.3
70.0
0.3
123.7
0.3
118.7
0.2
-13.3
0.2
58.1
0.2
7.4
43.4
120.1
2.0
38.1
54.5
426.7
100.0
216.8
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distnbutor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
35
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-19
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, Personal Computer
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
MicroCADAM
Hitachi
Toshiba*
Fujitsu
NEC
Andor*
Design Automation
Autodesk
CoCreate
Info. Services IntT. Dentsu*
Sumisho Electronics*
Mutoh Industries*
Cimatron
Argo Graphics*
Kozo Keikaku Engineering
Mitsubishi Electric*
Toshiba Engineering*
Wacom
Anilam Electronics
Graphtec Engineering
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Surfware
Adam Net
Investronica SA
Formtek
Mitsui Engineering
ADRA Systems
Spatial Technology
Nihon Unisys
Uchida Yoko
All Noiih American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
57.6
10.2
16.7
24.2
24.0
15.9
10.0
18.3
6.5
4.3
4.6
3.5
0.8
2.0
3.3
1.7
1.1
1.2
0
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.8
1.2
0.8
90.8
4.5
77.9
173.2
1996
71.4
9.2
20.0
26.9
20.8
17.8
11.5
16.0
8.0
5.9
5.1
3.6
1.8
2.3
4.2
1.9
-
•
1.3
1.3
2.6
0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.3
104.8
5.1
84.4
194.2
1997
67.7
48.1
29.2
25.6
22.4
19.2
13.5
9.3
6.7
6.3
5.6
3.9
2.9
2.4
2.3
2.0
1.9
lA
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
90.6
7.0
145.2
242.8
Marlcet
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
-5.3
27.9
19.8
424.0
46.2
12.0
-4.8
10.5
9.2
8.0
7.9
8.0
17.9
5.6
-41.8
3.8
2.8
-16.3
7.5
2.6
2.3
8.0
1.6
7.6
1.2
56.7
1.0
8.0
-44.3
1.0
0.8
8.0
NA
0.8
8.0
0.6
0.6
8.0
-59.0
0.4
0.4
2409.1
20.0
0.4
8.0
0.3
0.3
8.0
8.0
0.3
8.0
0.3
0.2
-27.2
0.2
-37.5
NA
0.2
-61.2
0.2
-13.6
37.3
38.3
2.9
72.1
59.8
25.0
lOO.O
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
36
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 2-20
1997 Top 20 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, Host/Proprietary
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Company Name
IBM
Fujitsu
C. Itoh Techno-Science"*
Hitachi
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Mitsubishi Electric*
Toyo Information Systems*
Nihon Unisys
Kubota Computer
Matra Datavision
Century Research Center
.Ansys
Mechanical Djmamics
Whessoe Computing Systems
Altair Computing
Technodia*
Computational Mechanics
Sherpa Corp.
ESI Group
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
20.0
7.8
2.4
3.3
3.6
6.5
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
'
0
0
•
^
0
23.5
0.1
11.7
35.4
1996
25.0
7.7
lA
3.0
1.9
4.6
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
26.4
0.1
11.2
37.7
1997
9.9
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.7
0.3
4.9
15.0
Market
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
66.3
-60.3
13.7
-73.4
11.3
-30.0
10.9
-45.5
-21.9
10.1
6.5
-79.2
4.0
-30.0
2.7
-30.0
2.7
-51.8
2.1
-30.0
NA
1.6
1.0
-30.0
0.4
-63.5
-87.8
0.3
0.3
-30.0
0.1
-30.0
0.1
-30.0
0.1
-30.0
12.4
0.1
-93.4
0
65.0
-63.1
1.9
242.4
33.1
-55.9
lOO.O
-60.3
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
37
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-21
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Parametric Tedmology
IBM
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
Unigraphics Solutions
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
Delcam pic
Matra Datavision
MicroCADAM
Computervision
Formtek
Intergraph
Alias Research
MCS
Gerber Systems
Cimatron
Sharp*
Ansys
Sherpa Corp.
Mechanical Dynamics
Tecnomatix Technology
Concentra
Bentley Systems
MARC
PAFEC
Open Mind
ADRA Systems
Investronica SA
Design Automation
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
9.6
38.8
16.9
21.1
9.1
16.8
2.4
2.8
7.0
3.9
10.3
0.8
0.5
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.7
2.1
2.0
0.8
0.3
0.9
1.1
3.9
1.6
123.2
17.8
4.1
145.1
1996
32.7
42.0
17.8
22.6
18.2
18.4
6.4
3.3
4.6
4.6
10.1
2.1
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.0
1.2
4.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.3
0.8
1.8
174.3
13.5
3.8
191.6
1997
52.7
48.6
28.8
23.7
17.1
16.6
6.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.0
2.3
2.3
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
192.9
16.3
3.2
212.4
Growth (%)
1996-1997
61.3
15.9
61.6
4.8
-6.3
-9.5
2.7
40.0
0.6
-1.3
-60.4
10.0
64.5
20.0
3.7
18.5
-10.3
-10.1
-24.1
5.0
31.7
0
-72.9
17.9
30.5
5.2
19.5
-33.4
2.8
-59.9
10.7
20.6
-14.4
10.9
Market
Share (%)
1997
24.8
22.9
13.6
11.2
8.0
7.8
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
90.8
7.7
1.5
lOO.O
Notes: Ail numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
38
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-22
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, UNIX
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes
Unigraphics Solutions
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
Computervision
Delcam pic
Matra Datavision
Alias Research
Gerber Systems
Sharp*
Formtek
Sherpa Corp.
Tecnomatix Technology
Intergraph
Mechanical Dynamics
Concentra
Ansys
MARC
MicroCADAM
Altair Computing
Pacific Nimierix
ADRA Systems
ICEM Technologies
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
MCS
PAFEC
Eigner + Partner
CIMLINC
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
31.9
8.1
13.0
9.1
16.1
1.8
9.8
2.7
6.0
1.7
1.2
2.1
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.3
1.5
1.6
0.4
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.3
86.0
10.8
2.8
99.7
1996
36.0
25.5
15.4
16.4
16.4
4.7
9.7
2.7
4.0
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.8
4.0
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
123.8
7.1
2.3
133.2
1997
46.0
39.5
26.2
11.9
11.6
5.9
3.8
3.7
3.3
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
130.0
8.6
2.2
140.9
Growth (%)
1996-1997
27.9
55.1
70.4
-27.2
-29.4
25.1
-60.4
39.8
-16.9
20.0
18.5
-10.1
13.2
-0.4
0
26.6
39.0
-72.9
-37.3
20.0
-50.7
13.2
537.0
-31.6
NA
-2.0
35.8
10.4
NA
12.1
5.0
21.1
-4.0
5.7
Market
Share (%)
1997
32.7
28.1
18.6
8.5
8.2
4.2
2.7
2.6
2.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
92.3
6.1
1.5
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
•Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
39
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-23
1997 Top 30 JVlechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, Windows NT
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
Unigraphics Solutions
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MicroCADAM
MCS
Bentley Systems
Matra Datavision
Delcam pic
Dassault Systemes
Intergraph
Open Mind
Ansys
MacNeal-Schwendler
Fujitsu
DP Technology
Mechanical Dynamics
Vero International Software
MARC
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Applicon
IBM
Algor Interactive Systems
Ricoh
Gibbs and Assoc.
Sherpa Corp.
Spatial Technology
C A D Lab
CSAR Corp.
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
1.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.1
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
^
•
-
•
3.3
0.8
4.0
1996
7.2
3.7
1.8
1.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
0
0.1
0
17.5
2.2
19.7
1997
13.2
11.9
5.1
5.0
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
41.1
3.3
0.3
44.7
Growth (%)
1996-1997
83.3
217.6
181.0
169.9
146.7
144.4
109.4
85.6
41.0
161.5
70.2
19.5
86.7
359.6
NA
44.6
119.5
-54.9
150.0
-53.4
NA
6.5
NA
NA
95.8
NA
-28.9
18.2
NA
NA
134.5
50.1
NA
126.6
Market
Share (%)
1997
29.5
26.5
11.5
11.1
3.0
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
91.9
7.4
0.7
lOO.O
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
40
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-24
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, Personal Computer
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Autodesk
MicroCADAM
Cimatron
Investronica S A
Design Automation
CNC Software
FAFEC
Formtek
Baystate Technologies
Just In Time Systems
MCS
Intergraph
B.A. Intelligence NetworJcs
Surfware
ADRA Systems
Matra Datavision
DP Technology
Computervision
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Gibbs and Assoc.
Research Engineers
Open Mind
Fujitsu
Bentley Systems
Algor Interactive Systems
SRAC
IMSI
Dassault Systemes
Structural D5mamics Research Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
19.9
2.1
1.4
3.9
1.6
0.6
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0
0.1
0.5
0
0.1
0.3
0
27.5
6.2
1.2
34.9
1996
18.2
2.6
1.7
0.8
1.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
26.4
4.2
1.5
32.1
1997
11.9
2.5
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
19.2
4.2
0.8
24.2
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-34.9
-6.4
-5.4
2.8
-59.9
2.4
2.7
2.7
NA
2.5
-65.0
NA
5.9
20.0
-31.8
78.1
5.5
-60.4
318.2
14.2
31.9
19.5
NA
-74.4
57.8
-50.9
4.4
161.5
-36.6
-60.9
-27.1
0.2
-50.4
-24.7
Market
Share (%)
1997
49.1
10.2
6.7
3.4
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
79.6
17.3
3.1
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
"Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
41
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-25
1997 Top 10 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, Host/Proprietary
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Company Name
IBM
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Matra Datavision
Ansys
Sherpa Corp.
Mechanical Dynamics
Altair Computing
Fujitsu
ESI Group
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1996
5.9
2.1
1.4
1995
6.9
3.9
0.5
-
-
;
•
0.1
0.1
•
^
0
6.4
0
6.4
-
•
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
6.6
0
6.6
1997
2.5
1.7
0.3
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
0.2
0
2.7
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-57.3
-20.3
-78.1
NA
-74.7
12.4
-87.7
0.7
NA
-76.8
-61.3
2,776.8
NA
-58.6
Market
Share (%)
1997
92.2
61.4
11.2
6.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
OA
0.4
0
93.3
6.3
0.4
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAF^distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
42
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-26
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Engineering Mechanics
Autodesk
MacNeal-Schwendler
CoCreate
Delcam pic
Cimatron
Intergraph
IBM
Computervision
MicroCADAM
NOVASOFI Systems
Matra Datavision
Formtek
MCS
.Ansys
Investronica S A
CNC Software
Whessoe Computing Systems
Algor Interactive Systems
Baystate Technologies
Open Mind
DP Technology
Viagrafix
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Bentley Systems
Camcentre
Tebis
Computational Mechanics
Surfware
CGTech
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
4.5
5.8
2.2
2.7
1.1
5.0
3.0
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
24.1
7.7
31.8
1996
5.2
5.2
1.1
3.4
2.2
3.1
1.7
2.1
3.5
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
27.9
7.6
35.5
1997
5.3
5.2
4.2
3.8
3.1
2.6
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
30.9
8.2
39.1
Market
Growth (%) Share (%)
1997
1996-1997
13.5
0.3
13.2
-1.3
10.6
291.3
10.7
9.6
40.0
7.9
-16.7
6.6
5.8
31.3
-6.0
5.0
4.3
-52.3
-0.7
3.8
3.4
19.7
2.3
-1.2
2.1
0.3
1.9
3.3
1.8
35.5
1.5
1.0
lA
1.0
1.2
-0.2
110.4
1.1
0.7
84.9
0.7
19.5
5.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.4
6.0
0.4
17.9
0.4
NA
OA
0.6
0.4
-1.9
0.3
20.0
0.3
22.0
10.4
78.9
21.1
8.5
NA
lOO.O
10.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
•Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
43
1997 Woddwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-27
1997 Top 29 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, UNIX
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Company Name
MacNeal-Schwendler
Engineering Meclranics
Delcam pic
IBM
Computervision
CoCreate
Intergraph
NOVASOFT Systems
Matra Datavision
Formtek
Ansys
MicroCADAM
MCS
Camcentre
Cimatron
Computational Mechanics
Algor Interactive Systems
CGTech
Whessoe Computing Systems
Open Mind
Tebis
First Cadcam Inc.
SRAC
B.A. Intelligence Networlcs
ADRA Systems
ESI Group
DP Technology
Bentley Systems
Autodesk
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
3.0
2.1
4.1
2.8
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
-
•
0
0
0.3
12.8
4.1
16.9
1996
0.8
3.6
1.8
1.7
3.3
2.3
1.2
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0.2
14.8
3.0
17.8
1997
3.7
3.6
2.5
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.1
3.6
18.7
Growth (%)
1996-1997
376.7
39.8
3.8
-52.3
-30.2
-6.6
14.9
-16.9
12.0
-50.7
35.3
NA
-63.0
'
5.2
7.5
19.5
11.2
-1.8
1.1
-68.3
NA
-75.2
-29.2
-100.0
2.0
19.7
NA
4.9
Market
Share (%)
1997
19.9
19.2
13.3
9.7
8.5
8.5
6.1
3.5
3.5
3.1
2.3
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
81.0
19.0
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers sfiown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distrlbutor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MIS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
44
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-28
1997 Top 22 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, Windows NT
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Company Name
Autodesk
CoCreate
Intergraph
Delcam pic
MCS
MicroCADAM
NOVASOFT Systems
Ansys
Matra Datavision
MacNeal-Schwendler
Open Mind
Algor Interactive Systems
Bentley Systems
DP Technology
Vero International Software
B.A. Intelligence Networks
CGTech
IBM
SRAC
IMSI
Research Engineers
ADRA Systems
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
-.
0.1
^ •
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0.6
0.1
0.7
1996
09
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.4
0.6
3.0
1997
2.6
1.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.9
1.0
7.8
Growth (%)
1996-1997
199.2
406.1
60.7
41.0
143.5
159.7
127.8
233.5
85.6
1,650.9
19.5
NA
109.4
44.6
301.4
-6.7
406.0
NA
227.4
48.0
66.8
-79.2
188.5
53.1
NA
159.9
Market
Share (%)
1997
32.9
18.9
10.3
7.6
5.8
5.7
3.6
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
87.6
12.4
lOO.O
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater tlian total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
45
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-29
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, Personal Computer
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Autodesk
Cimatron
Engineering Mechanics
MicroCADAM
CoCreate
Investronica SA
CNC Software
NOVASOFT Systems
Whessoe Computing Systems
Intergraph
Baystate Technologies
Formtek
Algor Interactive Systems
Viagrafix
MCS
Surfware
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Tebis
DP Technology
Computervision
SRAC
MacNeal-Schwendler
IMSI
Matra Datavision
Ziegler Informatics
Superdraft
Open Mind
Diehl Graphsoft
Ansys
Engineered Software
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
5.4
2.2
1.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0
0.2
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
"
10.0
3.4
13.4
1996
4.2
2.8
1.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.2
3.9
14.1
1997
2.6
2.5
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.6
3.6
12.2
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-38.7
-12.2
1.0
-6.4
-16.3
1.0
1.0
-6.4
1.0
NA
84.9
1.0
57.8
1.0
-65.1
20.0
13.9
1.0
5.5
-52.3
-1.8
48.8
4.4
78.1
-3.8
1.0
19.5
23.2
-24.7
1.0
-16.1
-7.3
NA
-13.7
Market
Share (%)
1997
21.1
20.3
13.6
6.8
5.7
4.7
4.4
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
70.1
29.9
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
46
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 2-30
1997 Top Seven Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, Host/Proprietary
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Company Name
MacNeal-Schwendler
IBM
Whessoe Computing Systems
Computational Mechanics
Matra Datavision
Ansys
ESI Group
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
0.9
0.1
0
0
0.8
0.1
0.9
1996
0.2
0.3
0
0
:-:
0
0.5
0.1
0.6
1997
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.1
0.4
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-16.7
-61.5
-10.0
-10.0
NA
-54.8
NA
-41.4
20.8
NA
-35.4
Marlcet
Share (%)
1997
50.6
34.1
11.3
6.8
4.5
1.8
0.1
82.1
17.9
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
I
47
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-31
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Company Name
3D/Eye Inc.
Access Corp.
Adam Net
Adina R&D
ADRA Systems
Agile Software
Algor Interactive Systems
Alias Research
Altair Computing
Andor*
Anilam Electronics
Ansys
Applicon
Argo Graphics*
ASCAD
Ashlar
Auto-Trol
Autodesk
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Baystate Technologies
BCT GmbH
Bentley Systems
Boothroyd Dewhurst
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
CAD Distribution
CAD Lab
CADdy Spain
Cadis Software
CADD(
CADSI
Camcentre
Catalpa groupe Missler
Century Research Center
CGTech
Cimatron
CIMLINC
CIMTEK
CMstat
CNC Software
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
1995
0.6
7.5
9.0
19.0
1.4
10.0
17.3
8.0
15.9
3.8
32.6
21.5
3.8
14.9
5.7
4.1
192.9
2.7
1.3
4.2
13.4
1.6
30.8
5.8
13.6
1.4
1.2
4.7
3.1
1.5
1.1
10.0
10.7
5.8
1.2
0.7
8.4
©1998Dataquest
1996
3.5
0.5
8.5
10.3
21.7
1.8
10.5
17.3
12.0
17.8
4.1
37.0
21.8
4.3
16.5
5.9
4.2
174.2
3.3
4.1
7.2
13.1
1.6
30.8
5.1
11.0
1.4
3.3
7.3
3.2
1.3
1.1
10.4
14.2
5.9
1.6
1.9
8.7
1997
4.8
^
9.2
11.1
14.5
6.3
11.0
18.6
13.0
19.2
4.1
35.1
19.7
4.7
19.7
5.9
4.0
206.4
3.9
7.2
8.1
15.5
1.6
32.5
4.9
13.0
1.7
3.8
5.3
3.8
1.9
1.5
1.1
11.9
16.4
6.4
1.8
2.1
8.8
Growth (%)
1996-1997
37.3
-100.0
8.5
7.0
-33.4
260.0
5.2
7.9
8.6
8.0
1.8
-5.2
-9.7
8.2
19.2
-0.4
-4.5
18.5
18.5
76.0
12.8
17.9
4.7
5.5
-2.7
18.2
17.2
15.0
-27.6
18.8
NA
17.0
1.0
14.2
16.0
8.4
13.9
9.0
1.8
Market
Share (%)
1997
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.5
0-4
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
5.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
0-4
0
0.9
0.1
0-4
0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
August 17,1998
48
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-31 (Continued)
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Company Name
CoCreate
Computational Mechanics
Computervision
Concentra
Concurrent Engineering
Consensys
CSAR Corp.
Dassault Systemes
Database Applications
debis Systemhaus
Delcam pic
Design Automation
Diehl Graphsoft
DP Technology
Drawbase Software
Eigner + Partner
Engineered Software
Engineering Mechanics
ESI Group
Exapt
FHECOR
First Cadcam Inc.
Formtek
Fujitsu
Gerber Systems
Gibbs and Assoc.
Graphtec Engineering
Hakuto*
Han Dataport
Hitachi
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
IBM
ICEM Technologies
IMSI
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
Intergraph
Investronica S A
ISD Software
ISKA
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
1995
107.3
2.1
149.0
12.7
1.0
0.6
3A
204.9
0.5
3.5
16.7
11.6
1.5
4.8
0.2
6.3
0.6
7.6
9.2
5.7
0.6
3.7
18.9
97.0
13.1
2.2
8.6
29.8
7.8
70.9
38.7
494.5
17.6
1.0
85.2
14.8
11.1
14.5
1.1
1996
113.4
2.1
174.4
19.6
1.0
1.6
5.2
249.5
0.7
4.0
22.0
13.3
1.5
5.7
0.1
7.0
0.6
8.6
7.9
2.6
0.6
3.8
20.6
107.3
14.9
3.6
8.6
0.2
6.5
63.7
39.3
563.5
20.3
1.4
117.2
15.1
10.6
22.7
1.2
©1998Dataquest
1997
125.5
2.1
61.7
6.4
0.8
2.4
6.1
303.8
4.9
30.8
14.2
1.9
7.5
0.1
8.7
0.6
8.8
7.8
2.3
0.6
4.3
21.7
103.5
16.2
4.7
10.8
0.2
2.5
68.1
42.7
641.8
19.8
1.5
125.9
18.8
10.3
20.1
1.2
Growth (%)
1996-1997
10.7
0.6
-64.6
-67.3
-22.0
50.0
17.1
21.8
-100.0
23.2
40.0
7.5
21.5
30.2
29.5
23.9
0.5
2.9
-1.5
-12.6
2.7
11.2
5.1
-3.6
8.8
30.6
25.4
-4.5
-62.0
6.8
8.8
13.9
-2.6
11.0
7.5
25.1
-3.2
-11.4
-1.5
Market
Share (%)
1997
3.6
0.1
1.8
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
8.7
•r
0.1
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.6
2.9
0.5
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
1.9
1.2
18.3
0.6
0
3.6
0.5
0.3
0.6
0
August 17,1998
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
49
Table 2-31 (Continued)
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Company Name
Just In Time Systems
Kozo Keikaku Engineering
Kubota Computer
Livermore Software Tech.
MacNeal-Schwendler
MARC
Marubeni Hytech*
Matra Datavision
MCS
Mechanical Dynamics
MicroCADAM
Mitsubishi Electric*
Mitsui Engineering
Modultek Oy
Mutoh Industries*
NEC
Nihon Itek*
Nihon Unisys
NOVASOFT Systems
Omron
Open Mind
Pacific Numerix
PAFEC
Parametric Technology
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
Radan Computational
Research Engineers
Ricoh
RoboCAD Solutions
Seiko*
Serbi
Sescoi
Sharp*
Sherpa Corp.
Softronics
Spatial Technology
SRAC
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
1995
2.5
7.3
8.9
1.6
114.0
18.2
19.9
87.4
13.6
12.6
129.2
6.3
14.0
13.1
72.9
5.5
52.8
4.8
7.8
^
6.0
321.2
3.2
5.8
8.2
0.6
4.8
1.9
19.7
5.9
8.0
10.4
20.6
2.0
6.4
4.8
©1998Dataquest
1996
2.4
8.4
9.8
1.5
106.3
19.5
23.0
91.8
14.7
14.7
152.0
6.7
16.1
9.3
62.9
6.4
54.4
3.9
77
4.7
0.3
7.9
495.0
4.2
6.5
9.2
0.8
3.9
1.6
19.0
5.6
10.0
9.4
26.2
1.0
7.2
5.6
1997
2.2
5.1
10.5
1.6
104.0
21.8
24.9
90.6
17.2
17.9
150.0
6.9
17.5
2.9
10.5
70.9
6.9
54.6
4.7
11.9
5.6
2.5
8.1
605.8
8.7
6.8
13.2
1.1
3.9
1.6
21.1
5.0
9.8
8.4
27.5
1.0
7.3
5.5
Growth (%)
1996-1997
-8.5
-39.6
6.4
6.1
-2.2
11.7
8.5
-1.2
17.4
22.0
-1.3
3.4
8.5
NA
13.4
12.7
8.5
0.3
18.8
54.0
19.5
696.2
1.6
22.4
109.1
5.3
43.4
34.0
-0.3
-4.0
11.0
-10.8
-2.0
-10.1
5.0
2.7
2.2
-1.6
Market
Share (%)
1997
0.1
0.1
0.3
0
3.0
0.6
0.7
2.6
0.5
0.5
4.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.3
2.0
0.2
1.6
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
17.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.8
0
0.2
0.2
August 17,1998
50
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-31 (Continued)
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Company Name
Structural Dynamics Research
Corporation
Sumisho Electronics*
Superdraft
Surfware
Tebis
Technodia*
Tecnomatix Technology
Tokyo Electron*
Toshiba Engineering*
Toshiba*
Toyo Information Systems*
Uchida Yoko
Unigraphics Solutions
Variation Systems Analysis
Vero International Software
Viagrafix
Wacom
Whessoe Computing Systems
Wiechers Datentechnik
Workgroup Tech.
Yokogawa Digital Computer
Ziegler Informatics
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1995
124.7
1996
153.1
1997
172.1
18.8
1.4
5.0
12.6
3.9
20.1
17.4
11.8
66.7
8.1
1.4
89.1
2.6
2.1
5.6
6.0
5.4
5.0
6.3
0.2
3.3
21.6
1.3
5A
14.2
4.5
26.3
20.0
4.2
62.5
9.0
2.2
209.5
2.8
4.5
5.4
8.4
5.5
4.8
7.8
0.2
4.6
23.4
1.2
6.5
13.3
4.8
34.2
21.8
9.0
65.0
9.5
2.6
115.5
3.0
5.1
5.6
13.5
5.5
4.8
3.7
0.2
4.4
2,049.9
339.5
2,573.6
481.5
2,504.8
345.6
475.4
2,870.9
3,325.7
3,510.3
390.9
545.7
Growth (%)
1996-1997
12.4
8.4
-2.5
20.0
-6.3
8.3
30.0
8.5
112.7
3.9
6.0
16.4
-44.9
5.8
14.1
2.6
60.1
-0.2
1.2
-52.3
-7.4
-3.8
2.7
Market
Share (%)
1997
4.9
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.3
1.9
0.3
0.1
3.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
13.1
73.3
11.1
14.8
5.5
lOO.O
15.5
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CI\llEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
51
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-32
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars, Shipments in Actual Units)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Hewlett-Packard
SLm Microsystems
Parametric Technology
Digital Equipment
Silicon Graphics
Fujitsu
Structural Dynamics
Research Corporation
Dassault Systemes
Unigraphics Solutions
NEC
Autodesk
CoCreate
Nihon Unisys
Computervision
MicroCADAM
Intergraph
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
Argo Graphics*
Toshiba*
Svunisho Electronfcs*
Hitachi
MacNeal-Schwendler
Mitsubishi Electric*
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Matra Datavision
Technodia*
Mitsui Engineering
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Tecnomatix Technology
Other Companies
All North American
Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
CPU
Shipments
85,039
71,320
47,809
80,291
24,038
14,146
5,158
18,241
1A77
T
'
•
4,505
3,663
1,847
1,416
59,956
1,156
7,931
1,380
335
216
823
323
40,042
263,916
10,783
117,814
432,555
Service
($M)
377.4
173.0
266.0
242.5
80.5
56.4
143.8
182.0
Total
Distribution
($M)
2,061.8
1,238.9
1,237.3
848.3
652.7
564.3
400.0
354.1
Market
Share (%)
1997
19.3
11.6
11.6
7.9
6.1
5.3
3.7
3.3
61.3
127.4
64.9
61.2
22.9
72.0
80.7
43.2
50.1
44.3
37.8
20.3
25.3
8.9
15.6
6.6
95.4
44.9
137.8
32.9
3.3
55.9
26.3
93.9
5.0
49.1
4.7
30.3
14.2
17.3
13.6
27.3
5.3
15.3
-
352.1
314.6
285.0
209.7
181.4
175.3
155.6
155.0
151.1
148.9
147.7
145.7
138.4
137.5
134.3
116.4
103.6
91.3
79.8
62.5
56.4
56.1
95.4
3.3
2.9
2.7
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
2,573.6 3,371.3
390.9
104.6
874.2
545.7
3,510.3 4,445.4
1,913.7
168.3
319.9
2,401.9
8,026.0
656.3
1,901.3
10,679.0
75.2
6.1
17.8
100.0
CPU
Software
($M)
($M)
641.8
906.1
- 1,066.0
971.3
605.8
572.2
507.9
103.5
152.8
172.1
303.8
115.5
70.9
206.4
125.5
54.6
61.7
150.0
18.8
125.9
4.7
65.0
23.4
68.1
104.0
6.9
42.7
90.6
4.8
17.5
32.5
34.2
-
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue and shipments, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
52
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-33
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, UNIX (Revenue in Millions
of U.S. Dollars, Shipments in Actual Units)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Sun Microsystems
Hewlett-Packard
Parametric Technology
Silicon Graphics
Dassault Systemes
Structural Dynamics
Research Corporation
Unigraphics Solutions
Digital Equipment
Nihon Unisys
Computervision
NEC
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
MacNeal-Schwendler
Simiisho Electronics*
Mitsubislii Electric*
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Intergraph
Fujitsu
CoCreate
Technodia*
Argo Graphics*
Matra Datavision
Toshiba*
Mitsui Engineering
Tecnomatix Technology
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Tokyo Electron*
ASCAD
Gerber Systems
All North American
Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
CPU
Shipments
29,547
47,809
30,775
24,038
-
Software
($M)
613.5
454.3
261.4
119.5
CPU
($M)
654.6
971.3
834.7
507.9
-
Service
($M)
339.6
266.0
147.3
181.9
56.4
42.2
126.4
Total
Distribution
($M)
1,717.0
1,237.3
982.0
636.2
564.3
306.9
245.9
Market
Share (%)
1997
23.5
17.0
13.5
8.7
7.7
4.2
3.4
5,158
10,274
1,475
3,765
2,622
223
578
7,931
1,372
1,057
335
340
1,138
158
323
764
179
866
502
80.8
53.6
59.0
40.9
119.6
93.1
17.8
4.3
38.5
9.5
19.7
53.1
4.8
2.2
65.8
29.2
16.9
34.2
30.8
21.8
13.9
16.2
42.9
168.4
64.5
53.3
21.8
33.4
40.1
34.0
31.6
35.1
25.3
35.5
15.1
36.3
8.1
6.6
14.5
9.9
21.2
13.2
96.5
27.4
18.3
89.8
18.1
27.8
12.8
30.7
27.7
28.6
13.6
13.3
27.0
15.3
4.8
10.2
3.9
8.8
220.2
195.8
159.4
148.8
148.7
141.4
120.9
108.7
103.2
93.2
87.6
82.5
81.6
79.8
74.1
65.8
65.6
59.9
56.1
52.9
43.9
43.3
40.2
3.0
2.7
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
1,538.2
5,871.5
366.7
80.5
31,079
1,707.5 2,491.2
63.2
201.3
499.4
277.2
146,558
2,186.0 3,053.9
1,820.9
1,055.9
7,294.1
14.5
lOO.O
111,848
3,632
121.8
160.9
5.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue and shipments, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
53
1997 Woddwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-34
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Windows NT (Revenue in
Millions of U.S. Dollars, Shipments in Actual Units)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
Digital Equipment
Fujitsu
Parametric Technology
Hewlett-Packard
Structural Dynamics
Research Corporation
Autodesk
Urugraphics Solutions
CoCreate
IBM
MicroCADAM
Intergraph
ISD Software
Dassault Systemes
NEC
Matra Datavision
Radan Computational
Graphtec Engineering
Omron
Ansys
Bentley Systems
Toshiba*
Applicon
Toshiba Engineering*
Wacom
MCS
Hitachi
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Delcam pic
C A D Lab
Seiko*
Other Companies
All North American
Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
CPU
Shipments
23,761
8,249
20,338
t;
14,040
1,215
490
1,638
148
362
153
342
• - • •
•^•.•
- - . • :
284
5,989
•
-
204
59,354
1,123
16,896
77,577
;
Software
($M)
55.9
151.4
51.2
CPU
($M)
251.4
82.5
189.6
-
Service
($M)
42.4
77.7
60.6
21.1
54.2
Total
Distribution
($M)
293.7
216.0
212.1
210.6
105.4
Market
Share (%)
1997
16.0
11.7
11.5
11.4
5.7
103.2
34.6
49.3
1.0
45.0
6.7
14.8
24.3
7.6
18.7
8.7
8.7
10.0
11.2
13.5
6.5
8.3
5.4
12.0
10.3
6.0
4.3
5.9
5.2
5.9
-
18.4
-.
70.2
17.6
24
9.2
3.3
5.7
6.8
5.7
8.1
5.1
4.3
3.8
1.4
2.0
2.5
1.7
41.3
23.2
1.5
12.1
6.7
2.1
2.8
3.4
0.8
5.0
1.6
5.8
3.7
1.1
2.1
0.3
1.4
3.2
1.6
2.1
-
104.9
94.4
72.6
71.2
46.5
42.3
25.1
24.3
20.8
18.7
18.2
17.8
17.3
16.2
15.1
14.6
14.2
14.2
13.1
12.4
12.0
10.4
9.5
8.8
8.3
2.5
5.7
5.1
3.9
3.9
2.5
2.3
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
525.4
94.0
548.6
284.7
19.6
1,365.4
125.1
74.2
15.0
117.4
131.0
697.1
92.1
396.4
348.0
1,841.0
736.8
-
•
6.8
18.9
lOO.O
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEI\^ revenue and shipments, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
54
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 2-35
1997 Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Personal Computer
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars, Shipments in Actual Units)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Digital Equipment
NEC
Autodesk
Fujitsu
Hitachi
MicroCADAM
Argo Graphics*
Toshiba*
Hewlett-Packard
Investronica SA
Andor*
Sumisho Electronics*
CoCreate
Intergraph
Tebis
Design Automation
Cimatron
Pathtrace Engineering
Systems
Mutoh Industries*
Mitsubishi Electric*
CNC Software
Formtek
Nihon Unisys
Wiechers Datentechnik
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu*
Siurfware
Baystate Technologies
Computervision
Serbi
Other Companies
All North American
Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
CPU
Shipments
41,242
43,788
12,838
4,840
45,715
1,507
20,208
4,183
545
1,193
1,918
180
424
52
Software
($M)
22.4
103.2
25.9
48.1
82.5
2.4
29.2
10.3
19.2
5.6
23.1
2.6
8.0
14.2
15.8
8.7
CPU
($M)
129.4
113.4
64.9
35.1
34.6
36.5
36.3
41.7
12.5
5.8
9.8
12.0
2.5
2.6
0.3
378
569
120
74
1,041
^
530
39,839
3.9
2.0
8.8
6.2
0.6
4.8
6.3
6.5
7.2
2.7
5.0
-
3.9
3.1
0
0.2
1.4
1.1
1.6
92.9
91,318
5,957
69,472
206,585
311.2
92.4
146.2
549.8
259.2
24.9
238.4
615.4
Service
($M)
4.1
12.7
1.7
35.7
2.7
2.8
4.6
9.0
4.1
6.3
5.2
0.3
2.9
0.3
1.8
4.0
1.3
-:-:
1.0
4.1
45.3
23.0
58.8
127.1
Total
Distribution
($M)
129.4
117.5
115.5
104.9
96.7
96.1
85.3
73.5
65.6
46.3
45.4
30.1
29.7
27.2
21.2
17.4
17.2
15.8
11.9
Market
Share (%)
1997
9.7
8.8
8.6
7.8
7.2
7.2
6.4
5.5
4.9
3.5
3.4
2.2
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.9
9.8
9.4
8.8
8.0
8.0
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.6
92.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
6.9
614.7
154.7
477.1
1,339.4
45.9
11.6
35.6
100.0
Notes: Ail numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue and shipments, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
55
1997 Worldwide Mechancial CAD/CAM/CAE Market Share Tables
Table 2-36
1997 Top 23 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
(Revenue in Millions of U.S. Dollars, Shipments in Actual Units)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Company Name
IBM
Digital Equipment
Dassault Systemes
Nihon Unisys
MacNeal-Schwendler
Fujitsu
Hitachi
Mitsubishi Electric*
Exapt
C. Itoh Techno-Science*
Matra Datavision
Toyo Information Systems*
Century Research Center
Kubota Computer
Ansys
Sherpa Corp.
Altair Computing
debis Systemhaus
Whessoe Computing
Systems
Mechanical Dynamics
Computational Mechanics
ESI Group
Technodia*
All North American
Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
Software
($M)
27.3
15.5
OA
4.8
2.1
1.6
286
0.6
9
0.9
41
1.7
59
1.7
31
0.4
9
0.1
1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0
----0.3
CPU
($M)
51.9
39.1
0.2
1.9
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
-
Service
($M)
37.8
6.6
2.7
4.0
0.5
2.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
-
Total
Distribution
($M)
144.3
45.7
18.2
8.0
5.4
4.7
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.6
2.4
1.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Market
Share (%)
1997
70.6
22.3
8.9
3.9
2.6
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.2
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
-
0.1
0.1
-
0.3
0.2
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
1,396
71
29.5
3.2
72.3
1.5
45.4
174.5
85.3
3.9
4.8
366
1,834
5.0
37.7
5.3
79.0
8.1
57.5
9.8
20.2
204.5
CPU
Shipments
211
2,468
2
•
;
-
^
•
-
•
•
-
P
—
•
9.9
lOO.O
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue and shipments, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
'Vendor software revenue contains at least 90 percent VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (July 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9803
©1998 Dataquest
August 17,1998
i
For More Information...
hiquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
•
I JJlTHf^l l^^'Cl
^^fc.AGartnerGrOUpCOmpany
-1-1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public
° 'releasedby responsible individuals in the subject companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
^* "^"^^ " ° ' contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All
rights
reserved.
70921
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AMERICA
EUROPE
ASIA/PACIFIC
Worldwide Headquarters
Dataquest/Gartner Group
European Headquarters
Gartner Group Ltd.
Asia Headquarters
Gartner Group Hong Kong
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: --44-1784-431-611
Facsimile: -1^4-1784-488-980
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: -1-852-2824-6168
Facsimile: -t-852-2824-6138
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: •+-1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: -1-1-408-954-1780
East Coast Research Center
Gartner Group LoweiI
900 Chelmsford Street
Tower Two, Floor Nine
Lowell, Massachusetts 01851
United States
Phone: -1-1-978-446-0006
Facsimile: -1-1-978-323-6933
Dataquest France
Inuneuble Defense Berg^res
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: -1-33-1-41-35-13-00
Facsimile: -H33-1-41-35-13-13
Oataquest Germany
Martin-Kollar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: --49-89-42-70-4-0
Facsimile: --49-89-42-70-4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
Japan
Phone: -1-81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: +81-3-3481-3644
Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Group Pacific
80 Alfred Street - 6th Floor
Milsons Point, NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: -1-61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: -1-61-2-9941-4868
Korea
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsxmg-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: -1-82-2-551-1331
Facsimile: -I-82-2-551-1330
Taiwan
Gartner Group Taiwan Ltd.
llF-2,188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei 105
Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: +886-2-2756-0389
Facsimile: +886-2-2756-2663/4122
Thailand
Gartner Group Thailand Ltd.
29 Vanissa Building, 12F
Soi Chidlotn, Ploenchit Road
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: +662-655-0577
Facsimile: +662-655-0576
Singapore
Gartner Group/DQ Research Pte Ltd.
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest
6 Temasek Boulevard #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: +65-333-6773
Facsimile: +65-333-6787
DataQuest
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Preliminary Forecast
Market Statistics
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-9802
Publication Date: June 8,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-468-8600
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Preliminary Forecast
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-9802
Publication Date: June 8,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Preliminary Forecast
Table of Contents
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
Introduction
Worldwide Forecast Assumptions
All Applications
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
AEC Forecast Assumptions
GIS/Mapping Forecast Assumptions
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assumptions
History and Forecast for All Applications and
Operating Systems
Forecast Methodology
Changes to the Forecast Database
Segmentation Definitions
Operating Systems
Line Items
Regions
Preliminary Market Forecast Tables
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
1
1
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
11
12
13
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
List of Figures
Figure
1
Mechanical GAD/GAM/GAE, AEG and GIS, and EDA
Forecasting Model
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
10
June 8,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Preliminary Forecast
iii
List of Tables
Table
1
CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Revenue Growth Comparison
2
Foreign Currency/U.S. DoUar
3
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue
History and Forecast
4
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue Growth Rate
History and Forecast
5
Top Level Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
6
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
7
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, UNIX
8
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, NT
9
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide,
Personal Computer
10
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide,
Host/Proprietary
11
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, North America,
All Operating Systems
12
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Europe,
All Operating Systems
13
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Japan,
All Operating Systems
14
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Asia/Pacific,
All Operating Systems
15
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Rest of World,
All Operating Systems
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Page
2
3
8
9
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
June 8,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
Introduction
Dataquest's mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, and EDA
forecasts are based on market share software revenue gathered primarily
during the first quarter of 1998. Dataquest's software forecast for all
applications includes the following:
• Three-year historical software and hardware revenue by region and
operating system
• Five-year forecast of software, hardware, and service revenue by region
and operating system
• Three-year history and five-year forecast of hardware shipments and
installed base data
Although Dataquest does not forecast currency exchange rates, we do
forecast with the best information available. The exchange rate is calculated as the simple arithmetic mean of the 12 average monthly rates for
each cotmtry. For the purpose of this forecast, Dataquest assumes the
March 1998 exchange rate will remain stable in the future (see Tables 1
and 2).
Dataquest's 1997 market share documents for these three markets
(CAEC-WW-MS-9801, CEDA-WW-MS-9801, and CMEC-WW-MS-9801)
were published and sent to our cHents in April.
The market share data for 1997 is being verified and updated, and it will
be available in a July document. Coimtry-level, industry, and subapplication data will be available at that time.
Dataquest will also perform an updated forecast that wiU be expanded to
include country-level information, additional metrics, and in-depth
analysis. This forecast update will be available in September.
Worldwide Forecast Assumptions
The following sections describe the main forces driving the mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, and EDA worldwide software forecasts.
All Applications
As tiie mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, and EDA markets
become more replacement-oriented, market leaders appear to have the
upper hand—the cost of switching is high. However, software that lets
users get a better product to market faster and helps eliminate business
risks will always be in demand, regardless of market share. Thus, there is
always an opportunity for new vendors in technical markets.
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 1
CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS Revenue Growth Comparison (U.S. Dollars versus Local
Currency for Both Europe and Japan)
1996
1997
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
2,180.75
2,764.52
2,362.94
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
Euro/U.S.$ Exchange Rate*
1,372.43
Forecast Growth (%) CAGR (%)
1996-1997 1997-2002
2002
Europe (U.S.$ Million)
6,317.70
0.80
2,861.61
1,540.69
3,872.28
3,232.61
2,095.02
8.4
10.4
3.5
2.5
12.3
7.1
6.3
11.6
6.3
0.7
3,562.49
20.9
11.1
2,974.00
1,927.42
8,463.92
15.5
3.1
25.3
19.5
7.0
8.4
11.1
5.4
6,765.23
0.89
9,199.91
0.92
2,103.01
2,546.83
Europe (Euro Million)
Software Revenue
1,739.31
Hardware Revenue
2,204.91
1,094.61
5,038.84
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
Japan (U.S.$ Million)
1,371.21
6,021.05
Software Revenue
1,745.84
1,892.92
Hardware Revenue
2,739.72
2,762.65
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
1,319.53
5,805.09
1,386.72
Japan/U.S.$ Exchange Rate*
Japan (Yen Million)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
3,203.78
3,595.34
2,411.11
9,210.23
0.8
5.1
7.0
11.7
4.1
11.3
8.8
126.16
229,233.21
404,189.17
20.7
143,578.39
334,557.03
167,932.18
453,588.01
304,185.14
12.2
17.0
12.0
6.3
631,652.23
731,722.43
1,161,962.33
15.8
2,481.55
2,823.60
3,278.24
5,178.81
4,789.38
13.8
1,959.44
3,369.52
12.0
14.2
8,061.29
13,337.70
13.2
10.6
6,993.63
9,187.11
4,794.74
7,754.46
13,399.64
11.6
9,730.81
5,331.02
12,741.57
10.9
5.9
20,975.48
22,816.29
34,708.93
108.81
189,965.00
298,108.84
6,042.30
121.10
0.8
12.6
9.7
North America (U.S.$ Million)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
Worldwide (U.S.$ Million)
Software Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Service Revenue
Total Factory Revenue
2,925.91
1,715.51
7,122.98
8,567.75
11.2
8.8
12.9
7.9
11.5
5.5
10.0
8.8
'Assuming a stable currency, the 2002 exchange rate is March 1998 exchange rate.
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
CM
o o o o p g o o o o o o o o
o
"* VO
d
d
A
^
.:j5
II
CM
in
^
^
Ln
rl^
O
VO
rH VC
- ^ rP
>o
00
m
r^
CO
•-^
CO
rt-
in
in
T-H
VO
VD
• *
• *
o
in
cnrjONOOCTscn'^
iriifSmiripS'^uStfJ
CO
rH
a\ ^
'J"
(N
rH
CO O
r-I v©
1-H
Ov
NO
CO
1^
CO
T-H
CO
s s
5
'"! ^ "^
Ifi
o
in
rj IN
T-H
o\
VC
t-N
NO
iri o
o
m
in
rH CO
CM
o
CM
ON CO
CO i n
5
1-1
bs
(N
T-l
»
rJ
00
CM
00 CM
00
tN^
S
in
in
i<
fO
00
vo
r^
NO
CM
ON
d
d
00
5q
o
NO r^
in
CM
00
00
t^^
r^
NO
CO
• > *
rH
^
CO
in
s
00
r-t
o
o
o to ^
in
in
in
!<
NO
CO
in
r-t
in
00
5i
S
CM
OC)
CM
NO^
r-^"
CO
1-H
rH
CO
00
s:
ts iri
VO
rH
vo CM
ON
d d
CO
00
CO
CO
^
NO
ts
NO
CM
r^
r-*
r-I"
1o
s
CM
CN
l-H
R
in
CO
rH
NO
NO
ON
*-H
s R
iri iri
r-;
CM
O
CO
o
is.^
in
00
ON
o
r-i IS:
m
N
•O*
•
in
•«1<
NO
[<
rH
NO
Ov
00
d
d
CM
CO
00
^
O
ts;
rH
*
r-t
00
• ^
'^
r-5
in
rH
ts
O
00
IS.
in
rr
vo
C>4
m
•*
s
o
r^
O
CM
.<1<
• *
0\ 1—•
CO CO
rH*"
•2
CO
'vO C) r-J
(N CSJ SO
CN
T-4
o
ON t-» vo
vo t S
i-H
(N
GO
ON
^
• *
CO
a\
in
C N ( N C M a N r ^ l P v | ( N C S
i
s
o
o
VO
0^
VO
f>
in
1-t
Ov
Ov
• *
r.;
in
Ov
csi
CO
«
T-H
CO
NO^
m
CO
o
CO
r-I"
j - ^
CM
m
rH
Ov
rH
00
VO
5
!R
r^
00
CM
r-n"
1d
ON
vo
in
s
rH
rH
00
d iri
Ov
in
• *
CM
I-*
iri
s
V-;
CM
ON
NO
CM
rH
NO
•>*
NO
• *
CO
in
00
NO
NO
CM
rH
CM
3
o
r-H
d
d
T-f
NO
00
CO
00
K
ts; 00
o
T-t
rH'
i
1 s
CM
ON
t-
fs
o
d "i
CM
in
in
co
• *
ON
NO
• *
• ^
l-H
5
r^
T-t
CM
00
CM
r-t
5!
iri rJ
o
t•
*
ts
CM
00
O
NO
CO
CO
o
r-i NO
CM
r-t
00
rH
CO
NO
ts
ts
ts:
r^
d
d
• *
in
CO
00
S
K
r-t
NO^
o
ON
CO
Cv
ts
in
5
r-i
ts
00
•
*
NO
CM
r-I"
<
o
1
5
rH
rH
>o in
VO
CO
CO
CO
NO
l-H
CM
• *
in
iri iri
S
S
r-;
g
00
r^
s
K
OO
• *
CO
CO
rH
R
O.
CO
NO
S
Cs
rH
d
d
s
00
E:?
ts
NO
in
rH
O
r~*
>«
O
00
s !5
iri rJ
o
NO
ts
00
I-H"
i s
(Q
s
1-^
VO
•
*
CO
ON
•
^
NO
R
NO
iri iri
^r^ g
IS:
ts
NO
00
r^
r-i t<
IN
00
IS;
OO
CM
00
•
IS;
*
rH
CM
l-s
NO
vo
d
d
00
s s: s
iri
ts
^
Ov
o ?>
rH
2
r-i
in
r^
VO
CM
^H
"o
D
•i
3
•B O
S s 2 a
«
PlH
i»<
£
I
K
"^
u
,.(0 O
H til
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
i
!
&
U
csi a
V .SP
1—I ft)
•2 o o
^ O D
I •§
tiO
c
o
I.
QJ
H .S -73 u o g_ ^
U ii Z Z
e- I
crt w
T]
ij £
S..S
a 3
Q
!
11 ^
s;
O
CIH
G
E A ii
©1998Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
The primary trend in design software function is toward operating at a
higher level of abstraction. In aU appUcations, Dataquest has seen an evolution Of focus from electronic paper to component modeling and now to
systems modeling, with the eventual goal being to fully simulate, evaluate, redesign, and test the design inside the computer before manufacture.
Meanwhile, increased computing power is allowing the nature of design
to evolve to include constituencies in manufacturing, product support,
and even users. Thus the engineering process is being expanded to include
input from a broader base.
At the same time, the nature of design data itself is expanding from a focus
on geometry to include multiple data types, making the challenge of system modeling even more complex. Also, the World Wide Web holds the
potential to expand the nature of collaborative design by harnessing the
joint power of anticipated increases in both computing power and communications bandwidth. Thus, there is little limit to the problems that
design or GIS software can tackle. The primary challenge will continue to
be to develop robust, leading-edge software ahead of competitors. During
the forecast period, Dataquest anticipates significant, but not revolutionary, advances in the ability of the existing programmer pool to produce
new software.
In addition to technology trends, it is also necessary to consider exchange
rate fluctuations, especially as the dollar has continued to strengthen
against most major currencies of the world, such as the deutsche mark, the
won, and the yen, over the past year. Growth rates in covmtries where the
doUar has strengthened against the local currency are likely to be
adversely affected when considered in dollar-denominated terms.
Mechanical Forecast Assumptions
The following factors will affect growth in the mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE market over the forecast period.
CAD Investments Are Cyclical
The major aerospace and automotive companies, particularly in Europe,
have been significant drivers of the double-digit mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE growth in years past. However, these companies have now completed their investnnent cycles in CAD technology for the next four or five
years. Investment in CAD by these large companies will slow until the
next investment cycle begins, bringing down the overall market growth.
Tier-Two Investments
Related to the above assumption, now that these companies have completed their investment cycles, Dataquest expects to see corresponding
investment by their supplier bases as a significant driver of the market
going forward.
New Software, New Platforms, and New Users
Even though it is still a UNIX-based world, there is a very strong interest
in NT-based mecharucal design solutions. The prospects of lower-cost software on lower-cost platforms have sparked renewed interest in CAD technology among designers who have not been purchasing CAD systems in
recent years and are looking to upgrade from their 2-D-based systems.
Based on what Dataquest has seen in 1997, we are shifting the peak of our
NT-based mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE sales forecast to arrive earUer in
our five-year forecast.
CI\/IEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
Continued Economic Turmoil in Asia/Pacific
The Asia/Pacific region will be a mixed bag of high and low growth over
the forecast period, fueled by CAD investments from local and national
governments and expansion by multinational companies, but also tempered by economic and political turmoil in southeast Asia. We have lowered our forecast for Asia/Pacific in light of the economic uncertainty in
some of that region.
Meeting User Needs beyond Design
For the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE market to show the high growth it
has achieved in recent years, designers need applications that do more
than just design. Design needs to become more tightly integrated with
manufacturing and analysis, and, beyond that, the whole process of bringing a product to market carmot continue to live in isolation within the
engineering walls. Vendors are beginning to address this issue today, but it
will take some time before users as well as vendors determine exactly
what is needed and how it can work within the business processes of a
company. If they can come up with the "right" solution, Dataquest will be
able to raise the forecast significantly.
AEC Forecast Assumptions
The following factors will affect the long-term expansion of the AEC CAD
industry.
CAD Is Becoming a Business Requirement
Large design firms are growing at the expense of smaller firms, and these
large end users increasingly require their employees and suppliers to
adopt automation tools in the design and construction process. Smaller
design firms must increasingly buy CAD systems or risk being dropped
from consideration as a partner.
New Features in AEC CAD Products Are Achievable
Better, lower-cost visuaUzation tools will be in increasing demand as sales
and communication tools. Data and database functions are growing in
importance in AEC design, creating opportunities to sell users significant
new functionality. Some vendors will create products that foster communications in the entire design, construction, and maintenance process—
products that will increase the payoff in CAD investments.
A More Tailored Focus
If vendors stay focused on not selling generic CAD solutions but rather on
selling more tailored solutions to fit different needs in AEC (such as architectural and plant design needs), then Dataquest can begin to elevate the
forecast. Over the years, AEC sales have largely been driven by vanilla
sales of CAD products. Solutions that meet specific needs of users will
help drive the market forward at a faster rate.
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Design Is Only Part of the Problem
AEC's "one-design, one-build" stiructure means CAD provides fewer
economic benefits to these users than does the "one-design, build-many"
Structure of manufacturing. Construction, which is essentially a prototype
build, is fraught with uncertainties and delays that are not well-addressed
by AEC systems today. Design tools can only thrive in the AEC structure
when they support more of the entire business problem. Commitment to
cuid cooperation on the problem from multiple vendors will allow
Dataquest to increase the forecast growth rate further.
GIS/MappIng Forecast Assumptions
The following sections identify those factors that will affect growth in the
worldwide GIS market.
Abundant Supply of Prospective Buyers
Penetration is still moderately low among core users. Bread-and-butter
prospects in government and utilities are charged with maintaining information on land and assets in perpetuity. Many of these prospective buyers
are still using paper maps or have only entry-level systems in terms of
value dehvered.
New Technologies
Faster, less-expensive computers will be leveraged continually to support
new software products. Widespread computer industry developments in
open, distributed systems supporting high-speed networking wiU make it
possible for GIS technology to expand the user base broadly. Advances in
aerial photography, global positioning systems, and satellite imagery are
making it possible to create GISs that are significantly less expensive, more
accurate, and more complete than existing paper maps, giving experienced users some compelling reasons to reinvest. Portable and pen-based
computers are bringing GIS to new users in field operations. Finally, database companies themselves are gaining a better understanding of spatial
analysis, a key factor in spreading use of GIS systems more broadly.
Indispensabillty of GIS
GIS has attained a certain indispensabillty, particularly among federal
users and those in utiHties. As a result, users are beginning to expect to
share the data that Ues in their various GIS systems. Within three years,
Dataquest expects data to be readily exchangeable across different
systems. At that point, shareable data will help drive market growth.
High Cost of Entry Remains a Barrier
There will remain an uncertain, but certainly high, cost of creating a working GIS in traditional environments. No magic will emerge to create a lowcost, meaningful data set for mainstieam customers in government and
utiUties. Data conversion wiU remain costiy because the significant cost of
correcting prior errors cuid omissions on paper maps is inevitably bundled
into the cost of "conversion."
Price Pressures Inhibit Growth
Price pressure wiU hold down total revenue in the GIS market. Innovation
is the only way to maintain prices in any software industry, and GIS vendors will Struggle in their attempts to create compelling new applications
and improved investment payoff for customers.
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
Electronic Design Automation Forecast Assumptions
The preliminary numbers show that Dataquest missed the percentage
growth by 6.5 percent—quite a bit compared to our historical hit rate.
Upon investigation, we found that the problem somewhat mimics the
issue we had in the early 1990s. The customer base has run out of tools to
buy. Power users are waiting impatiently for the tools needed to fill out
the new register transfer level (RTL) methodology, and the semiconductor
companies are waiting, even less patiently, for the IC CAD tools needed to
lay out 0.25-micron silicon. The good news is that the mainstream has
become much more of a factor in today's EDA market. This will cause the
base EDA business to continue at about 10 percent a year rather than the
2 percent to 3 percent of the early 1990s.
It appears that there has been a shift in the battle between UNIX and NT
The war is all but over in the mainstream, with NT the declared winner.
Up until last October Dataquest believed that NT would also win the
64-bit battle because of the introduction of four separate versions of 64-bit
UNIX. Since then it has become apparent that the war is reaUy between
Sun and Microsoft, as the other UNIX players are rapidly losing position
in the EDA market place. Two events have greatly enhanced Sim's chance
of maintaining control in the power user market. First has been the continual slip in the delivery date for 64-bit NT, now expected sometime in 1999,
and by then the battle could be over. The second event was BiU Gates'
performance before Congress. It became evident that the operating system
(OS) issue is much more of an emotional issue than an engineering issue.
Engineers need an OS they can trust, and Microsoft is losing the "trust me"
war.
Electronic CAE
CAE was where the industry saw the slowdown because of the lack of
tools to fill the new RTL methodology. The RTL virtual prototype is now
almost six months later than expected. Industry growth didn't slow down
badly as there has been increased activity by mainstream users. Dataquest
is now predicting the CAE market to grow at a 15.7 percent compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) over the next five years. A possible upside
could be Europe, as we have been conservative because of Europe's past
lumpy performance in EDA.
IC Layout
The major hit was in IC CAD. The slowdown was in the Uruted States and
in Asia/Pacific. Japan came in 1.7 percent under Dataquest's forecast, and
Europe exceeded our forecast by 1.1 percent. The miss came because of the
financial situation in Korea and because we were unable to predict the
"wall." We had thought that the wall was the point where folks will have
to extract inductance along with resistance and capacitance, and this had
been predicted to be at 0.18 micron. We even felt better about the forecast
when the major semiconductor companies were able to solve their 0.18
micron problems without extracting inductance; that meant the wall
wouldn't have come up imtil 0.13 micron.
CI\llEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
As it turns out, we were wrong: The wall was at 0.25 micron. Yes, the
major semiconductor companies can do 0.25 micron. However, "major"
nowadays means those compeuiies with an advanced internal CAD group.
So far, only 10 semiconductor companies are getting acceptable yields, and
they are doing it with new methodologies partially populated with internal tools. The rest of the semiconductor world is in trouble, and until the
EDA world can produce the IC CAD tools needed, the other companies
wiU remain on the outside looking in. Because of that, Dataquest has
lowered the five-year CAGR to 19.8 percent.
PCB Design
Dataquest missed the PCB design forecast by 7.3 percent, and again the
miss was primarily in the United States and Asia/Pacific markets. The
culprit this time was the delay in the 100-MHz bus introduction. We have
lowered the CAGR to 6.3 percent, but that still is much better than historical growth. Actually, the PCB market is healthier than it has been in a long
time.
History and Forecast for All Applications and Operating Systems
Tables 3 and 4 show the history and forecast of all applications.
Table 3
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue History and Forecast (Millions of Dollars)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
6,214
6,994
7,754
8,703
9,653
10,838
12,029
13,400
11.6
4,213
4,700
4,723
4,970
5,201
5,598
6,000
6,511
6.6
4,211
5,004
29.2
Worldwide
UNIX
336
709
1,391
2,089
2,758
3,487
1,485
1,433
1,519
1,564
1,638
1,716
1,794
1,869
4.2
181
153
121
79
57
37
24
16
-32.9
North America
2,107
2,482
2,824
3,236
3,624
4,119
4,602
5,179
12.9
Europe
2,004
2,181
2,363
2,623
2,919
3,217
3,531
3,872
10.4
Japan
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
All Operating S y s t e m s
1,623
1,746
1,893
2,115
2,322
2,618
2,896
3,204
11.1
Asia/Pacific
371
462
534
574
616
693
791
911
11.3
Rest of World
109
124
141
156
172
190
211
234
10.7
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
I
Table 4
CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Revenue Growth Rate History and Forecast (Percent)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
12.5
10.9
12.2
10.9
12.3
11.0
11.4
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host / Proprietary
11.6
0.5
5.2
4.6
7.6
7.2
8.5
110.8
96.3
50.2
32.0
26.5
20.7
18.8
-3.5
6.0
3.0
4.7
4.8
4.6
4.1
-15.7
-20.5
-34.5
-28.7
-35.2
-33.4
-32.6
17.8
13.8
14.6
12.0
13.7
11.7
12.5
8.8
8.4
ll.O
11.3
10.2
9.8
9.7
9.8
12.8
10.6
10.6
A l l Operating Systems
North America
Europe
7.6
8.4
11.7
Asia/Pacific
24.6
15.7
7.4
7.3
12.6
14.0
15.2
Rest of World
13.7
13.7
10.8
10.3
10.6
10.6
11.0
Japan
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
Forecast Methodology
Fundamental to the way Dataquest conducts its research is the underlying
philosophy that the best data and analyses come from a weU-balanced
program. This program includes the following: balance between primary
and secondary collection techruques; 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 macroenvirorunent, which can have
major influences on both supply-side and demand-side forecasting. In
addition to demographics, analysts look at gross national product (GNP)
growth, interest rate fluctuation, business expectations, and capital spending plans. In the geopolitical arena, the group looks at trade issues, political stability or lack thereof, tariffs, nontariff barriers, and such factors as
the effect on Asia and Europe of the events of 1997.
Figure 1 shows tiie mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIB, and EDA
forecasting model. The overall forecasting process uses a combination of
techniques, such as time series and technological modeling. Market estimates and forecasts are derived using the following research techniques:
• Segment forecasting—Individual forecasts are derived for each
appUcation segment tracked by the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC
and GIS, and EDA groups. Specifically, each application, segmented by
region and platform, is forecast and rolled up. In this way, each
appUcation segment incorporates its ov^m set of unique assumptions.
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
10
Figure 1
Mechanical GAD/GAM/GAE, AEG and GIS, and EDA Forecasting Model
User/Demand-Side Data
Vendor/SuppIy-Side Data
Projected Budget Growth and Allocations
Business and System Requirements
Purchasing Procedures
Criteria for Selection
Regular Application End-User Surveys
Product Shipment Projections
Factory Revenue
Strategic Alliances
l\/larketing Strategies
Marlcet Sizing
and
Market Projections
Environmental Analysis
TechnoIogy Assessments
Technology Developments
Standards Development
Price/Performance Development
Economic Forecasts
Industry/Competitive Climate
973«96
Source: Dataquest (l^ay 1998)
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 model
and a satisfied available market figure to assess the levels of penetration
accurately. Dataquest analysts also 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 "ceihngs," can be the
result of component availabiUty, manufacturing capacity, or distribution
capacity. In any case, capacity Umitations are capable of keeping shipments below the demand level.
Changes to the Forecast Database
Within this forecasting model, Dataquest has made numerous assumption
changes that better reflect the reahty in the changing mechanical CAD/
CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA worlds. These changes include
updating the hardware retirement model and altering the average selling
prices (ASPs) for software, service, and hardware.
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
.
11
Segmentation Definitions
Operating Systems
The following defines the operating systems:
• UNIX—Includes aU UNIX variants and older workstation operating
systems.
• Host—Includes mmicomputer and mainframe operating systems in
which external workstations' functions are dependent on a host
computer.
• Windows NT—The Microsoft operating system.
• PC—Includes DOS, Windows, Windows 95, OS/2, and Apple operating
systems.
Line Items
Line item definitions are as foUows:
• Average selling price (ASP) is defined as the average price of a product,
inclusive of any discounts.
• CPU revenue is the portion of revenue derived from a system sale that
is related to the value of the CPU.
• CPU shipment is defined as the number of CPUs delivered.
• CPU installed base is defined as the total number of CPUs in active,
day-to-day use.
• Unit shipment is defined as the number of products delivered (that is,
seats).
• Seats are defined as the number of possible simultaneous users.
• Installed seats are defined as the total number of seats in active, day-today use.
• Hardware revenue is defined as the sum of the revenue from the hardware system components: CPU revenue, terminal revenue, and
peripherals revenue.
• Peripherals revenue is defined as the value of all the peripherals from
turnkey sale. (Peripherals in this category typically are input and output
devices.)
• Terminal revenue is defined as revenue derived from the sale of
terminals used to graphically create, analyze, or manipulate designs.
The term is appUcable only to the host systems.
• Software revenue is revenue derived from the sale of application software.
• Service revenue is defined as revenue derived from the service and support of mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, or EDA systems.
Service is followed as software service and hardware service.
• Total factory revenue is defined as the amount of money received for
goods measured in U.S. doUars and is the sum of hardware, software,
and service revenue.
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Regions
The following defines the different regions Dataquest tracks:
• North America:
• United States: Single-country region
• Canada: Single-country region
• Europe:
• Western Europe: Includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany
(including former East Germany), Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), Spain,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
• Rest of Western Europe: Includes Andorra, C5^rus, Faroe Islcuids,
Gibraltar, Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey,
Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
a Central and Eastern Europe: Includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Repubhc, Estonia, Georgia, Himgary, Kazakstan, K5nrgyzstan, Latvia,
Litiiuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and the
republics of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
• Japan: Single-country region
• Asia/Pacific:
• Asia/Pacific: Includes China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore,
and Taiwan
• Rest of Asia: Includes Australia, American Samoa, Ashmore and
Cartier Islands, Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island,
Brunei, Cambodia, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook
Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French
Poljniesia, Guam, Howland Island, India, Indonesia, Jarvis Island,
Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Kiribati, Laos, Macau, Malaysia,
Maldives, Marshall Islands, Midway Islands, Mongolia, Myanmar
(Burma), Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, North Korea, Pakistan, Palau,
Palmyra Atoll, Papua New Guinea, Paracel Islands, Philippines,
Pitcatm Islands, Solomon Islands, Spratly Islands, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Wake Island,
WaUis and Futuna, and Western Samoa
• Rest of World:
a Latin America: Includes Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, Cayman
Islands, Chile, CUpperton Island, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland
Islands (Islas Malvinas), French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe,
Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico,
Montserrat, Navassa Island, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua,
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
13
Panama, PcU"aguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tortola (British
Virgin Islands), Trirudad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands,
Uruguay, Venezuela, and Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Croix, and
St. Thomas)
• Middle East/Africa: Includes Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain,
Bassas da India, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote
d'lvoire, Djibouti, Eg5rpt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Europa
Island, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Glorioso Islands, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Juan de Nova Island, Kenya, Kuw^ait,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Sao
Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone,
SomaUa, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzarua, Togo,
Tromelin Island, Turusia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates,
Western Sahara, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
Preliminary Marlcet Forecast Tables
Tables 5 to 15 present Dataquest's preliminary forecast for the mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE market.
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
14
Table 5
Top Level Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2,939 3,284 3,579 4,004 4,436 4,856 5,253 5,662
9.6
2,166 2,358 2,246 2,309 2,385 2,467 2,531 2,600
115
294
700 1,084 1,443 1,784 2,113 2,446
602
540
551
563
575
588
536
540
117
60
45
21
14
97
92
30
3.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Software Revenue ($M)
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Worldwide
UNIX
Windows NT
Personal Computer
Host/Proprietary
28.4
2.2
-31.1
All Operating Systems
North America
Europe
Japan
Asia/Pacific
848
983 1,122 1,289 1,449 1,583 1,709 1,830
1,014 1,139 1,213 1,343 1,478 1,603 1,735 1,892
901
987 1,100 1,217 1,349 1,462 1,565
948
227
289
314
139
177
242
265
216
62
36
36
42
46
50
54
58
Rest of World
Year-to-Year Software Revenue Growth Rate (%)
10.3
9.3
9.7
7.8
8.3
9.0
11.9
10.8
9.5
8.2
7.8
-
2.8
3.4
23.7
2.6
18.4
-
2.1
-
-
-17.2
-4.9
-24.8
-33.8
2.3
-30.7
15.8
2.4
Host/Proprietary
2.0
-35.4
3.3
33.1
2.2
2.7
Windows NT
Personal Computer
8.9
-4.7
- 154.1 138.6
-0.9
0.8
-30.1
-
North America
Europe
-
15.9
14.1
14.9
12.4
9.3
7.9
7.1
-
-
6.4
4.1
10.0
8.5
8.2
9.1
-
12.4
5.2
10.7
Japan
11.4
10.6
8.3
7.1
27.1
22.1
-0.6
15.9
6.8
9.6
9.0
7.5
8.5
6.5
-
-
5.1
9.5
10.9
9.5
8.2
Worldwide, All Operating Systems
-
Worldwide
UNIX
-
11.7
54.8
All Operating Systems
Asia/Pacific
Rest of World
-
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
15
Table 6
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CPUs
335,416
345,486
403,791
425,700
454,300
469,400
491,600
515,600
Seats
344,469
354,812
408,525
427,200
450,700
471,900
493,400
517,000
16
3
15
5
6
5
5
5
C A G R (%)
1997-2002
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
M
s
if-
Installed Base
CPUs
890,330
975,916 1,090,737 1,206,700 1,313,600 1,394,800 1,462,600 1,526,000
.7
Seats
940,772 1,021,243 1,127,999 1,233,800 1,327,700 1,404,300 1,470,400 1,532,700
6
-
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
12
9
10
9
8
6
S
4
Revenue Data ($M)
3,935
4,030
4,213
4,135
4,283
4,428
4,586
4,774
3
Terminal Revenue
154
136
40
30
21
14
9
5
-33
Peripheral Revenue
342
346
356
311
296
282
267
254
-7
Hardware Revenue
4,431
4,511
4,609
4,477
4,600
4,723
4,862
5,034
2
13
2
2
-3
3
3
3
4
-
2,939
3,284
3,579
4,004
4,436
4,856
5,253
5,662
10
23
12
9
12
11
9
8
8
-
953
1,251
1,464
1,534
1,698
1,861
2,029
2,179
8
CPU Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software R e v e n u e
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
H a r d w a r e Service
Service R e v e n u e
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
913
940
834
848
868
894
923
2,164
2,403
2,368
2,546
2,729
2,923
3,102
11
21
11
-1
8
7
7
6
-
9,155
9,959
10,591
10,849
11,582
12,308
13,037
13,798
5
15
9
6
2
7
6
6
6
-
NA = Not applicable
Source; Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
o
832
1,785
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
5
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
16
Table 7
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, UNIX
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
121,100 121,400
122,100 123,000
-2
121,100 121,400
122,100 123,000
-2
o
1
-
362,528 409,960 445,340 459,100 462,700 461,000 459,000 458,500
362,528 409,960 445,340 459,100 462,700 461,000 459,000 458,500
t
1996
1997
1998
CPUs
125,030 131,991
133,526
121,600
Seats
125,030 131,991 133,526 121,600
1995
1999
2000
2001
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
15
6
1
-9
o
1
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
o
1
18
13
9
3
1
2,898
2,876
2,805
2,561
2,568
2,591
2,612
2,622
-1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
Peripheral Revenue
259
254
249
210
196
184
171
158
-9
Hardware Revenue
3,158
3,130
3,054
2,771
2,764
2,775
2,783
2,781
-2
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
0
0
-
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
19
-1
-2
-9
o
o
o
o
-
2,166
2,358
2,246
2,309
2,385
2,467
2,531
2,600
3
23
9
-5
3
3
3
3
3
-
761
995
1,036
1,049
1,085
1,129
1,160
1,194
3
696
758
779
671
682
698
713
726
-1
1,457
1,753
1,815
1,720
1,768
1,826
1,873
1,919
1
13
20
4
-5
3
3
3
2
-'
6,781
7,241
7,115
6,801
6,916
7,068
7,187
7,300
X
19
7
-2
-4
2
2
2
2
-
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
17
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
Table 8
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, N T
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
5,981
14,791
44,536
60,500
74,800
85,600
94,900
104,800
19
Seats
5,981
14,791
44,536
60,500
74,800
85,600
94,900
104,800
19
163
147
201
36
24
14
11
10
'
CPUs
7,847 20,777
60,286
110,000
160,100
203,600
239,300
270,000
35
Seats
7,847 20,777
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Installed Base
60,286
110,000
160,100
203,600
239,300
270,000
35
245
165
190
82
46
27
17
13
-
69
167
454
645
822
963
1,112
1,294
23
Terminal Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
--
Peripheral Revenue
6
10
14
18
22
24
26
29
15
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
•
^
-
r-^:-
NA
75
178
469
663
843
987
1,138
1,323
23
129
138
164
42
27
17
15
16
115
294
700
1,084
1,443
1,784
2,113
2,446
28
176
154
139
55
33
24
18
16
-
Software Service
30
76
252
383
516
642
785
907
29
Hardware Service
9
31
45
63
82
97
114
135
25
39
107
297
446
598
739
899
1,042
29
46
176
177
50
34
24
22
16
229
578
1,466
2,193
2,884
3,511
4,150
4,811
17
127
153
153
50
31
22
18
16
-
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
18
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 9
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, Personal Computer
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
201,671 195,856 223,474 240,600 251,300 262,400 274,600 287,900
5
Seats
201,855 196,156 223,577 240,600 251,300 262,400 274,600 287,900
5
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
17
-3
14
8
4
4
5
5
-
CPUs
504,078 530,951 572,650 625,800 675,000 717,300 755,600 792,000
7
Seats
504,078 530,951 572,650 625,800 675,000 717,300 755,600 792,000
10
5
8
9
5
5
8
6
7
Installed Base
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
691
668
684
760
779
802
816
828
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
Peripheral Revenue
48
44
50
52
54
56
57
58
3
Hardware Revenue
739
713
734
812
832
857
873
886
4
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
15
-4
3
11
2
3
2
2
-
540
536
540
551
563
575
588
602
2
18
-1
1
2
2
2
2
2
-
Software Service
80
90
88
52
53
54
54
55
-9
Hardware Service
31
29
38
52
52
52
53
53
7
no
118
126
105
105
106
107
109
-3
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
o
13
7
7
-17
1
1
1
-
1,389
1,366
1,400
1,468
1,500
1,538
1,568
1,597
3
16
-2
2
5
2
3
2
2
-
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
19
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
Table 10
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
1995
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2,734 2,848
CPUs
Seats
11,603 11,874
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-21
2
2,255
3,000
4,500
-34
7,100
3,500
-22
2,500
1,800
NA
-28
-30
-28
1,400
-24
15,877 14,228 12,462 11,800 15,800 12,700 8,800 5,600
66,319 59,555 49,724 38,900 29,800 22,200 16,500 12,200
-11
-17
-22
-26
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-10
-23
-25
-26
Revenue Data ($M)
277
270
CPU Revenue
318
169
115
73
46
29
154
40
14
5
Terminal Revenue
136
30
21
9
42
Peripheral Revenue
30
37
31
24
18
9
13
352
44
Hardware Revenue
460
491
230
161
104
68
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-25
7
-28
-35
-35
-35
-30
-35
117
97
92
14
Software Revenue
60
45
30
21
-15
-24
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
6,885
-42
-
•
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
Hardware Service
-10
-17
-5
83
96
90
88
78
179
95
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
-6
756
186
4
774
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-19
2
165
-11
609
-21
-35
49
-25
43
48
97
33
-41
387
-37
-34
-36
-33
-26
-34
-31
37
21
-31
30
14
-30
24
-23
8
-36
32
-26
-28
76
-22
58
44
-24
282
-27
191
-32
-24
132
-31
90
-32
-32
-
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
20
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 11
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, North America, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
119,674
118,375 121,967 131,800 140,500 144,800
150,400 156,200
5
Seats
121,380 120,089 123,224 132,100 139,600 145,200
150,700 156,400
5
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
13
-1
3
7
6
4
4
4
-
Installed Base
CPUs
334,873 356,548 373:3,16 394,200 418,700 440,100 459,300 476,800
5
Seats
350,716 369,281 383,385 401,200 422,200 442,200 460,800 478,100
5
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
9
5
1,050
1,115
1,240
33
17
10
4.i
5
5
4
4
1,267
1,329
1,380
1,440
1,502
4
6
3
2
1
1
-37
3:-
-^
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
32
38
47
39
36
33
32
30
-8
Hardware Revenue
1,115
1,180
1,297
1,313
1,369
1,416
1,473
1,533
3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
12
6
10
1
4
3
4
4
-
848
983
1,122
1,289
1,449
1,583
1,709
1,830
10
9
21
16
14
15
12
9
8
7
252
380
476
527
586
639
693
740
Hardware Service
220
259
287
264
271
280
292
304
1
Service Revenue
473
640
762
791
857
919
985
1,044
6
Software Service
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
9
35
19
4
8
7
7
6
2,436
2,802
3,181
3,393
3,674
3,918
4,167
4,407
7
14
15
14
7
8
7
6
6
-
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
21
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
Table 12
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Europe, All Operating Systems
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
CPUs
106,955 106,653 106,267 100,200 106,200 105,800 109,300
113,700
1
Seats
110,620
110,200
114,300
1
3
4
--
1995
1997
1996
1998
1999
2000
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
14
110,278 108,713 101,400 105,000 107,200
o
-1
-7
4
2
Installed Base
CPUs
278,303 293,595 304,095 314,500 327,400 335,700 343,300 351,900
3
Seats
296,268 310,209 318,530 325,900 333,800 340,600 347,500 355,600
2
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
-
8
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
1,310
1,351
1,395
1,251
1,278
1,291
1,326
1,384
o
58
49
20
17
13
8
5
3
-32
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
91
105
108
86
82
74
69
64
-10
Hardware Revenue
1,459
1,504
1,523
1,355
1,373
1,373
1,399
1,451
-1
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
11
3
1
-11
1
1,014
1,139
1,213
1,343
1,478
o
1,603
2
4
-
1,735
1,892
9
23
12
6
11
10
9
8
9
Software Service
324
429
514
495
538
576
619
664
5
Hardware Service
280
312
328
272
274
274
280
289
-3
Service Revenue
604
741
842
767
812
850
898
953
3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
4
23
14
-9
6
5
6
6
3,078
3,385
3,578
3,464
3,663
3,827
4,033
4,296
4
13
10
6
-3
6
4
5
7
-
^
•
•
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
22
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 13
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Japan, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
2002
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
77,837
88,763 143,240
Seats
80,628
91,553 143,848 160,500 172,300 184,400
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
20
57
160,600 173,100 184,100 195,700 207,600
12
7
7
8
6
195,800 207,700
6
6
-
205,535 240,850 319,660 398,700 463,600 512,000 549,800 582,900
13
218,740 253,038 329,071 405,000 466,700 513,700 550,800 583,600
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
10
7
6
18
30
23
15
16
12
14
Installed Base
CPUs
Seats
ir:
Revenue Data ($M)
1,327
1,292
1,270
1,314
1,372
1,444
1,496
48
41
6
3
2
1
1
o
-42
Peripheral Revenue
200
188
184
169
163
160
153
147
-4
Hardware Revenue
1,575
1,520
1,459
1,487
1,537
1,604
1,649
1,696
3
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
1,549
4
11
-3
-4
2
3
4
3
3
-
901
948
987
1,100
1,217
1,349
1,462
1,565
10
21
5
4
11
11
11
8
7
^
Software Service
330
365
376
410
466
529
591
639
11
Hardware Service
282
279
255
236
240
249
254
259
o
Service Revenue
612
644
631
646
706
778
844
898
7
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
20
5
-2
2
9
10
9
6
3,088
3,113
3,077
3,233
3,460
3,732
3,955
4,159
6
16
1
-1
5
7
8
6
5
-
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
1998 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Forecast Update
23
Table 14
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
Hardv\rare Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
22,812 24,044 24,589 24,700 25,800 25,600 26,900 28,300
23,577 25,128 24,939 24,900 25,100 26,000 27,200 28,600
Seats
0
-1
5
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
7
4
5
25
1
Installed Base
CPUs
52,206 63,189 70,671 75,200 78,700 80,800 83,000 85,900
54,552 66,112 73,354 77,200 79,500 81,400 83,800 86,800
Seats
21
11
3
2
3
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
5
4
35
3
3
4
3
-
Revenue Data ($M)
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
Peripheral Revenue
Hardware Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
230
259
252
253
18
12
261
3
14
3
2
12
276
39
139
13
177
268
-3
227
267
6
216
40
41
27
22
84
5
87
7
60
144
54
93
54
141
-2
201
14
15
230
65
53
Hardware Service
41
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
82
32
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
451
45
556
38
23
119
22
636
14
13
0
242
261
2
272
11
11
284
275
3
1
3
265
10
289
9
101
110
57
285
1
10
296
4
314
2
-19
-6
1
8
8
119
7
60
179
0
4
4
-
146
4
55
157
7
168
7
636
656
697
741
7
789
0
3
6
6
6
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
June 8,1998
24
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 15
Detail Mechanical Software Forecast, Rest of World, All Operating Systems
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
CAGR (%)
1997-2002
8,138
7,651
8,800
9,000
9,400
9,900
5
8,264
7,729
7,801
8,300
7,765
8,400
5
30
-6
0
7
9,500
4
9,900
5
19,414 21,734 22,985 24,100 25,200 26,200 27,300 28,400
Seats
20,497 22,603 23,660 24,600 25,400 26,400 27,400 28,600
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
23
10
5
4
4
4
4
4
Revenue Data ($M)
4
CPU Revenue
Terminal Revenue
47
54
2
Peripheral Revenue
Hardwcure Revenue
3
52
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Revenue
20
-10
36
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Software Service
30
7
Hardware Shipment Data
Shipments
CPUs
Seats
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
8,700
4
9,100
4
Installed Base
CPUs
Hardware Service
Service Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
Total Factory Revenue
Year-to-Year Increase (%)
1
8
15
-10
103
17
42
1
48
1
3
4
47
53
13
54
2
36
-1
12
42
16
14
8
20
10
24
35
103
18
118
0
15
49
-
4
-
50
52
53
1
0
0
-17
4
54
0
3
0
4
1
3
58
2
-4
55
2
3
56
2
46
50
54
58
62
9
14
10
15
8
16
8
17
7
9
10
10
10
18
11
23
-2
25
6
129
26
27
28
4
5
135
5
142
4
148
5
5
5
5
4
-
123
4
2
8
5
2
NA = Not applicable
Source: Dataquest (May 1998)
CMEC-WW-MlS-9802
©1998 Dataquest
Junes, 1998
i
For More Information...
hiquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
-Hl-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
I J J l T H f H I^^^T
^^k
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of information generally available to the public
orreleasedby responsible individuals in the subject companies, but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
' ' ^°^ ™" contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
64130
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AIVIERICA
Worldwide Headquarters
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: 1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: 1-408-954-1780
EUROPE
European Headquarters
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone: -H44 1784 431 611
Facsimile: -^44 1784 488 980
ASIA/PACIFIC
Asia/Pacific Headquarters
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road, Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: 852-2824-6168
Facsimile: 852-2824-6138
East Coast Researcli Center
Nine Technology Drive
RO. Box 5093
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581-5093
United States
Phone: 1-508-871-5555
Facsimile: 1-508-871-6262
Dataquest France
Immeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: -H33 1 41 35 13 OO
Facsimile: -t-33 1 41 35 13 13
Dataquest Korea
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: 822-551-1331
Facsimile: 822-551-1330
Dataquest Global Events
3990 Westerly Place, Suite lOO
Newport Beach, California 92660
United States
Phone: 1-714-476-9117
Facsimile: 1-714-476-9969
Dataquest Germany
Martin-KoUar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -t-49 89 42 70 4-0
Facsimile: +A9 89 42 70 4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4^7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153
Japan
Phone: 81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: 81-3-3481-3644
Dataquest Taiwan
llF-2, No. 188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Phone: 8862-2756-0389
Facsimile: 8862-2756-0663
Dataquest Singapore
6 Temasek Boulevard, #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: 65-333-6773
Facsimile: 65-333-6768
Dataquest Thailand
12/F, Vanissa Building
29 Soi Chidlom
Ploenchit Road
Patumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: 662-655-0577
Facsimile: 662-655-0576
Dataquest Australia
80 Alfred Street
Milsons Point NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: 61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: 61-2-9941-4868
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
©1998 Dataquest
DataQuest
\
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Worldwide Market Share
Market Statistics
library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-9801
Publication Date: April 13,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-468-8600
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
Worldwide Market Share
Market Statistics
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-MS-9801
Publication Date: April 13,1998
Filing: Market Statistics
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE WoMdwide Market Share
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
About This Documerit
Segmentation Definitions
Applications
Regions
Operating Systems
Metrics
Marlcet Share Methodology
The Audit Process
Reporting Changes
A Final Note
Publishing Schedule
2. Market Statistics
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
3
5
5
6
7
7
12
12
13
14
14
15
April 13,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
List of Figures
Figure
1-1 CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and CIS, and EDA Database
Page
1
i
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Apnl 13,1998
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide Market Share
ill
List of Tables
Table
Page
1-1 Market Summary for All CAD AppUcations, 1996 to 1997,
2
1-2 Companies Renamed In 1997
3
1-3 Companies (or CAD Portions of Companies) Sold/
Merged in 1997
4
1-4 Top 25 Product Software Revenue, Software Companies,
Worldwide, All Operating Systems, 10
1-5 Top 25 Company Software Revenue, Software Companies,
Worldwide, All Operating Systems, 11
A-1 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
15
A-2 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Unix
16
A-3 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, NT
17
A-4 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechcmical Software Companies, Worldwide,
Personal Computer
18
A-5 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 24 Mechanical Software Compaiues, Worldwide,
Host/Proprietary
19
A-6 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America,
AU Operating Systems
20
A-7 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America,
Unix
21
A-8 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, NT
22
A-9 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America,
Personal Computer
23
A-10 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies, North America,
Host/Proprietary
24
A-11 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, All
Operating Systems
25
A-12 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, Unix
26
A-13 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, NT
27
A-14 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, Personal
Computer
28
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
iv
Mechanical CAO/CAM/CAE Worldwide
List of Tables (Continued)
Table
Page
A-15 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe,
Host/Proprietary
29
A-16 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, All Operating
Systems
30
A-17 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, Unix
31
A-18 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, NT
32
A-19 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, Personal
Computer
33
A-20 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 19 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan,
Host/Proprietary
34
A-21 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia-Pacific,
All Operating Systems
35
A-22 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia-Pacific, Unix
36
A-23 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia-Pacific, NT
...37
A-24 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia-Pacific,
Personal Computer
38
A-25 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 9 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia-Pacific,
Host/Proprietary
39
A-26 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World,
All Operating Systems
40
A-27 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, Unix
41
A-28 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 20 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, NT
42
A-29 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World,
Personal Computer
43
A-30 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
Top Seven Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World,
Host/Proprietary
44
B-1 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share,
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
45
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
AprillS, 1998
1997 Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woridwide Market Share
List of Tables (Continued)
Table
Page
C-1 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
All Operating Systems
49
C-2 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share ,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Unix
50
C-3 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share Table,
Top 30 Mechaiucal Software Companies, Worldwide, NT
51
C-4 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share Table,
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
Personal Computer
52
C-5 1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market ShareTable,
Top 23 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide,
Host/Proprietary
53
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Chapter 1
Introduction
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA 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, AEC and GIS, and EDA
systems continue to decrease in cost, they become more available and
cost-justifiable to new users.
TO provide a comprehensive view of the CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS,
and EDA industry, Dataquest's CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA
group maintains a large database of industry information. The type of
information contained in the database is depicted in Figure 1-1.
Table 1-1 summarizes the performance in various segments of the CAD/
CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA markets in 1997 versus 1996.
Figure 1-1
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA Database
•
•
•
•
•
•
IVIore than 300 Active Companies
Over 100 Subappllcations
27 Industries
27 Operating Systems
18 Countries/Regions
History from 1989
Applications
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
i
Table 1-1
Market Summary for All CAD Applications, 1996 to 1997 (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
CO
I
CO
00
o
1996
CO
CO
oo
o
Dl
i-l{U
.a
c:
CD
CO
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1996
1997
Total Factory Revenue
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1996
1997
Seat Shipments
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
Applications—Far the Selected Operating System and Region:
3,2S3.84
3,578.53
8.97
4,874.55
4,873.55
(0.02)
10311.75
10,920.85
5.91
356,294.6
343,996.8
(3.45)
AEC
903.32
943.79
4.48
1,261.55
820.52
(34.96)
2,584.88
2,175.35
(15.84)
223,485.2
84,428.6
(62.22)
CIS/Mapping
908.75
1,023.85
12.67
1,155.72
1,024.71
(11.34)
2,730.90
2,769.93
1.43
128,650.7
79,063.4
(38.54)
1,170,69
1,383 J23
18.16
1,163.20
1,252.69
7.69
3,260.44
3,662.89
12.34
96,459.6
78,253.0
(18.87)
IC Layout
432.53
524.17
21.19
349.75
375.50
7.36
1,136.66
1,318.24
15.97
16,084.0
16,083.8
(0.00)
PCB/MCM/Hybrid
294.42
299,20
1.62
362.79
309.65
(14.65)
878.99
861.74
(1.96)
29,919.3
16,856.1
(43.66)
EDA
1,897.64
2,206.60
16.28
1,875.75
1,937.85
3.31
5,276.09
5,842.87
10.74
142,463.0
111,192.9
(21.95)
All AppUcaticins
6,993,55
7,752.78
10.86
9,167.57
8,656.63
(5.57)
20,903.62
21,709.00
3.85
850,893.5
618,681.8
(27.29)
Mechanical
Electronic CAE
q
Hardware Revenue
Software Revenue
Region—For All ApplictrtionB in the selected Operating System:
North Ameiicfl
2,481.55
2,823.60
13.78
2,964.35
2,838.61
(4.24)
7,249.98
7,686.02
6.01
328,734.1
186,127.4
(43.38)
Europe
2,180.75
2362.94
8.35
2,978.46
2,783.76
(6.54)
6,585.36
6,774.33
2.87
278,873.2
166,113.6
(40.43)
japan
1,745.84
1,892.92
8,42
2,632.97
2,575.09
(2.20)
5,547.03
5,734.63
3.38
160,427.8
232,551.9
44.96
Asia/Pacific
463.06
534.35
15.40
454.72
346.99
(23.69)
1,189.44
1,183.24
(0.52)
60,686.5
24,845.6
(59.06)
Rest of World
123.76
140.73
13.71
139.47
112.59
(19.27)
335.46
334.09
(0.41)
22,237.8
9,044.8
(59.33)
6,993.5S
7,752.78
10,86
9,167.57
8,656.63
(5.57)
20,903.62
21,709.(X)
3.85
850,893.5
618,681.8
(27.29)
Worldwide
Operating System—For AU Applications in the Sel ectnl Region:
4,698.53
4,723,03
0,52
6,241.82
6,430.96
3.03
14,698.13
15,148.61
3.06
264,963.1
279,795.6
5.60
Host/ Proprietary
152.56
121.31
(20,48)
661.36
464.80
(29.72)
1,081.37
797.02
(26.29)
5,489.1
3,703.1
(32.54)
NT/Hybrid
708.57
1,389,60
96.11
524.60
699.29
33.30
1,638.31
2,827.62
72.59
40,712.5
58,334.8
43.28
Personal Computer
1,433.89
1,518.84
5.92
1,739.80
1,061.58
(38.98)
3,485.81
2,935.75
(15.78)
539,728.7
276,848.4
(48.71)
All Operating Systems
6,993.55
7,752.78
10,86
9,167.57
8,656.63
(5.57)
20,903.62
21,709.00
3.85
850,893.5
618,681.8
(27.29)
UNIX
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
(O
CO
(»
Introduction
About This Document
TJiis document contains Dataquest's detailed market share information on
the mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE industry. Numbers presented in this
book represent Dataquest's best estimate of the CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC
and GIS, and EDA markets at this time. Each vendor surveyed is given the
opportunity to self-report revenue information for the company. (See the
Market Share Methodology section for a detailed explanation of how
market numbers are compiled and scrubbed.) The following Ust contains
descriptions of the companies included in the Market Share books. See
Tables 1-2 and 1-3 for changes in the companies tracked from our 1996
report. Companies deleted or added to our database are also Usted in this
chapter.
• Mechanical applications—All companies in database with mechanical
revenue
• GIS and AEC applications—All companies in the database with GIS
revenue and aU companies in database with AEC revenue. Dataquest
has added GIS data companies.
• Electronic design automation (EDA) appUcations—AU companies in the
database with EDA (electronic CAE, IC layout, PCB/hybrid/MCM)
revenue
• Europe—All companies with European revenue
• Asia—All companies with Asian revenue
Dataquest no longer pubUshes top-level market statistics for the entire
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA industries. This data is
available by calling Daya Nadamuni at (408) 468-8290 or by e-mail at
[email protected] More detailed data on these markets
may be requested through our cUent inquiry service.
Table 1-2
Companies Renamed In 1997
Original Company Name
Harris EDA
VLSI Libraries
New Company Name
Xynetix
Artisan Components
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table 1-3
Companies (or CAD Portions of Companies) Sold/Merged in 1997
Original Company Name
Cuntel Ltd.
Clemessy Geocity
Compact Software
Compass Design Automation
Cooper & Chyan Technology
Deneb Robotics
Eagle Design Automation
EPIC Design Technology
Framasoft
Simulation Technology
Softdesk
SolidWorks
SpeedSim
Viewlogic Systems
Acquired bylMerged with
Concurrent Engineering
Network Management Tools
Ansoft
Avant!
Cadence
Dassault Systemes
Synopsys
S)mopsys
ESI Group
Simunit Design
Autodesk
Dassault Systemes
Quicktum Systems Design
Synopsys
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
Companies deleted from our database in 1997 are as follows:
• Actel
• Altera
• XiUnx
Companies added to our database in 1997 are as follows:
• AMBIT Design Systems
• Camcentre
• CoreLogic
• DSP Group
• Romerics
• Gambit Automated Design
• Iimovative Semiconductors
• ModultekOy
• Open Mind
• Precedence
• Simplex
• Western Design Center
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.
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
i
Introduction
Segmentation Definitions
This section Usts the definitions specific to this document. The following
paragraphs define the segments.
Applications
Mechanical
The mechanical segment refers to computer-aided tools used by engineers,
designers, analysts, technicians, and draftspeople working predominantly
in the discrete manufacturing industries, but it includes government and
education. Common design applications include conceptual design,
industrial design, structural or thermal analysis, detail design, and electromechanical design. Common manufacturing appUcations include tool and
fixture design and numerical control part programming. Product data
management and apphcation development environments are also
included in this segment.
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC)
The AEC 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
GIS is computer-based technology, and the segment comprises hardware,
software, and data used to capture, edit, display, and analyze spatial
(tagged by location) information.
Electronic Design Automation (EDA)
The EDA segment covers computer-based tools used to automate the
design of 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 (ECAE)—These are computeraided 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 used to create and validate the physical implementation of an IC. The IC layout category comprises polygon editors, S5mibolic editors, placement and routing (gate
array, ceU, and block), and design verification tools (DRC/ERC/logicto-layout).
• PCB/hybrid/MCM—This segment covers products 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.
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Regions
The following paragraphs define the regions.
• North America:
a United States: Single-country region
• Canada: Single-country region
• Europe:
• Western Europe: Includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany
(including former East Germany), Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Svveden), Spain,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
• Rest of Western Europe: Includes Andorra, Cj^rus, Faroe Islands,
Gibraltar, Greenland, Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man, Jersey,
Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Svalbard
• Central and Eastern Europe: Includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
RepubUc, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovalda,
Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and the
republics of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
• Japan: Single-country region
• Asia/Pacific:
• Asia/Pacific: Includes China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and
Taiwan
a Rest of Asia: Includes AustraUa, American Samoa, Ashmore and
Cartier Islands, Baker Island, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bouvet Island,
Brunei, Cambodia, Christmas Island, Cocos (KeeUng) Islands, Cook
Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French
Pol5mesia, Guam, Howland Island, India, Indonesia, Jarvis Island,
Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Kiribati, Laos, Macau, Malaysia,
Maldives, Marshall Islands, Midway Islands, Mongolia, Myanmar
(Burma), Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue,
Norfolk Island, Nortiiem Mariana Islands, North Korea, Pakistan,
Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Papua New Guinea, Paracel Islands,
Philippines, Pitcaim Islands, Solomon Islands, Spratly Islands, Sri
LaiUca, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, VcUiuatu, Vietnam, Wake
Island, WaUis emd Futuna, and Western Samoa
• Rest of World:
• Latin America: Includes AnguiUa, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, BoUvia, Brazil, Cayman
Islands, Qule, CUpperton Island, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Domiruca, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland
Islands (Islas Malvinas), French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe,
Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico,
Montserrat, Navassa Island, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tortola (British
Virgin Islands), Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands,
Uruguay, Venezuela, and Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Croix and St.
Thomas)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Introduction
• Middle East/Africa: Includes Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain,
Bassas da India, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote
d'lvoire, Djibouti, Egjrpt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Europa
Island, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Glorioso Islands, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Juan de Nova Island, Kenya, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Reuiuon, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Sao
Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone,
SomaUa, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Togo,
Tromelin Island, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates,
Western Sahara, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
Operating Systems
Dataquest defines the operating systems as foUows:
• UNIX—Includes all UNIX variants and older workstation operating
systems
• Host—Includes minicomputer and mainframe operating systems in
which the functions of external workstations are dependent on a host
computer
• Windows NT—A Microsoft operating system
• PC—Includes DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, and Apple operating
systems
Metrics
The following paragraphs define measurements:
• Total distribution revenue—The total amount of money received by a
company for all goods and services sold into the CAD/CAM/CAE,
AEC and GIS, and EDA market. It is the sum of factory revenue, OEM
revenue, and reseller revenue.
n Total factory revenue—The amount of money received by a manufacturer for its goods and services 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).
Total factory revenue is the sum of hardware revenue, software revenue, and service revenue.
• Hardware revenue—Derived from the sales of CPUs (including
operating systems), terminals (for host-dependent systems), and
peripherals
• Software revenue—Derived from the sales of bundled (part of a turnkey
system) and unbundled applications software that exists on a
company's standard price list. It does not include operating systems
revenue, which is part of the hardware revenue.
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Service revenue—Derived from the service and support of CAD/
CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA systems. Service revenue can be
calculated in the market share tables by subtracting hardware and softvvare revenue from total factory revenue. Service revenue includes the
following:
• Applications development—Adding new functionality for a specific
customer who pays for the design and development of new customized CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA software applications, or the modification, enhancement, or customization of existing
software applications
• Consulting—Including an assessment of a company's CAD/CAM/
CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA business IT needs and formulation of a
plan based on needs identification
• Integration services—Planning, implementing, migrating, and integrating software products
a Maintenance—Fees for hardware and software
• Management and operations services—Includes help desk, education
and training, disaster recovery, vaulting, facilities management,
configuration management, and relocation services
• Service bureau—Includes construction of database, data conversion,
product design, analysis, or manufacturing
Unit shipment—Defined as the number of seats deUvered (number of
possible simultaneous users of product delivered), excluding OEM
shipments. CPU shipments are defined as the number of CPUs
delivered, which is the same as imit shipments for all platforms but
host-dependent platforms.
Distribution channels are defined as foUows:
• Direct—Sales made directiy to the end user
• Indirect—Sales to resellers, from which dealer revenue is calculated
• Dealer revenue—Dealer revenue is based on a multiplier of indirect
revenue. Dealer revenue always exists for every vendor with indirect
sales, and it is always equal to, or greater than, indirect revenue.
Calculation of these dealer multipliers vary by vendor, by region, and
by platform.
• OEM—A channel through which vendors sell their finished product
to Other companies for resale through an agreement. Once sold, the
product is usually modified slightly, relabeled, and rebranded by the
new original equipment manufacturer, and then resold directly to the
end user or through an indirect channel. Revenue as sold by that final
vendor (who, from the perspective of the original component
supplier, is also popularly known as the OEM) is then credited as
revenue to the final supplier.
• Reseller—^The revenue a named company in the CAD/CAM/CAE,
AEC and GIS, and EDA database receives for selling another
company's product, such as Intergraph's revenue from Bentley
Microstation products, IBM's revenue for reselling MicroCADAM, or
Fujitsu's revenue for reselling software from several U.S. vendors.
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Introduction
The appUcation of these distribution channel definitions to software revenue allows us to calculate vendor market share based on a combination of
any of the above buUeted items. Typical reporting metrics for market share
wiU be as follows:
• Company software revenue is the sum of revenue from the direct,
indirect, OEM, and reseller channels for any given company.
• Product software revenue is the sum of revenue from the direct and
indirect channels for any given company.
• End-user spending is the sum of revenue from the direct, dealer, OEM,
and reseller channels for any given company.
To avoid double counting the market, market size for company software
revenue is the sua\ of revenue from the direct and indirect channels, and
market size for end-user spending is the sum of revenue from the direct
and dealer chaimels. Tables 1-4 and 1-5 provide views of the market,
including market share by product software revenue and company software revenue for the entire CAD market. We will be reporting end-user
spending in our June market share update.
This reporting scheme means that the sum of vendor revenue (and market
shares) will total to more than the sum of the market. We have used similar reporting for European and Asian cUents for years, in response to the
realities of market reqtiirements. We beHeve the best way to accurately
report market opportunities and positioning worldwide is through this
method. Advantages to this approach include the following:
• Dataquest does not double-count any total market opportunity, and we
will continue to avoid overstating the actual revenue available, which
wiU help our cUents make the most reasonable investments.
• The high level of activity of vendors who are active in multiple channels
will show up in market share tables, again without double counting
revenue. For example, it will be possible to understand the status of
Bentiey Systems vis-a-vis Intergraph. We can report Bentley's company
software revenue, end-user spending for Bentiey products (some of
which will be sold by Intergraph), Intergraph's sales from Intergraph
products, Intergraph reseller sales from Bentiey products, and sales
made by Intergraph's own dealers. In general, this model will allow us
to better detail market contributions by compaiues with complex
business models, such as Fujitsu, IBM, and NEC.
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Aprill 3,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
10
Table 1-4
Top 25 Product Software Revenue, Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating
Systems (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank
Company
1995
1996
1
2
IBM
464.0
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
321.2
518.6
495.0
3
4
Cadence
1996-1997 1997 Market
1997 Growth (%)
Share (%)
619.5
19.5
8.0
22.4
18.8
7.8
7.7
551.6
283.0
505.0
605.9
600.0
411.5
522.3
26.9
6.7
361.0
465.5
29.0
12.7
6.0
5
6
7
Synopsys
Intergraph
ESRI
283.6
292.5
124.1
282.9
184.9
318.7
222.7
8
9
10
Mentor Graphics
183.3
133.4
205.9
218.5
208.0
151.4
160.5
11
12
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MICROCADAM
144.9
129.2
164.3
152.0
13
14
Bentley Systems
AVANT!
89.4
100.8
103.1
15
Quicktum Design Systems
72.0
125.8
89.3
16
17
NEC
110.0
EDS Unigraphics
Fujitsu
18
19
Landmark Graphics
CoCreate
89.9
79.0
MacNeal-Schwendler
117.6
20
21
Hitachi
Matra Datavision
94.5
87.4
22
Siemens Nixdorf Info systeme
23
24
Nihon Unisys
93.2
77.1
25
Toshiba
Computervision
88.5
163.7
161.4
198.9
170.7
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
28.8
23.9
3.9
2.7
2.6
2.2
3.1
140.6
126.3
39.4
0.4
17.2
94.9
104.6
104.4
98.3
102.8
99.2
4.5
14.4
1.3
86.8
109.0
99.2
-9.0
85.0
85.9
85.3
1.1
-7.1
1.3
1.1
83.5
10.9
79.1
74.7
-0.3
91.8
75.2
79.3
78.0
191.7
73.3
10.0
-4.2
-61.7
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
12.3
77.1
4.5
943.2
8.0
10.7
12.2
6,217.3 6,993.5 7,752.8
10.9
100.0
879.5
All Companies
6.1
2.9
2.8
156.8
4,583.9 5,327.4 5,980.4
793.2
829.2
753.8
All North American Companies
20.5
4.1
873.0
Note: All numbers shown are Dataquesf s best estimates.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Introduction
11
Table 1-5
Top 25 Company Software Revenue, Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating
Systems (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Rank Company
1995
1996
1996-1997
1997 Growth (%)
1997 Market
Share (%)
1
IBM
530.6
618.7
697.2
12.7
2
3
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
321.2
605.9
605.7
22.4
18.8
4
Cadence
Synopsys
556.8
293.9
495.0
509.7
421.7
9.0
7.8
529.6
25.6
295.3
367.2
342.3
203.7
315.6
473.9
355.7
29.1
12.7
296.5
222.7
19.3
124.1
248.6
184.9
220.2
20.5
5.8
28.8
2.8
2.7
-11.6
3.9
2.6
2.2
2.0
5
6
Intergraph
7.8
6.8
6.1
4.6
3.8
7
8
Dassault Systemes
ESRI
9
Mentor Graphics
EDS Unigraphics
185.0
133.4
208.1
161.4
Fujitsu
210.8
225.0
12
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
164.3
13
14
MICROCADAM
Bentley Systems
144.8
129.2
89.4
208.0
198.9
170.7
152.0
100.8
156.8
140.6
3.1
39.4
15
AVANT!
106.0
1.8
1.7
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
Quicktum Design Systems
128.0
127.1
-0.5
16
17
128.6
117.2
8.5
1.6
NEC
104.6
104.4
17.2
10.0
1.3
18
89.3
94.9
19
Landmark Graphics
CoCreate
MacNeal-Schwendler
98.3
86.8
102.8
99.2
4.5
14.4
109.0
99.2
85.0
91.8
85.9
-9.0
1.1
-7.1
10
11
20
21
22
23
24
25
85.2
72.0
110.0
89.9
79.0
117.6
94.5
Hitachi
Matra Datavision
Siemens Nixdorf Info systeme
87.4
93.2
Toshiba
97.3
75.2
85.7
85.3
83.5
82.9
4,583.9 5327.4 5,980.4
753.8
793.2
829.2
All North American Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Compaiues
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
12.3
77.1
4.5
943.2
8.0
10.7
12.2
6,217.3 6,993.5 7,752.8
10.9
100.0
879.5
All Companies
11.0
-3.2
2.9
873.0
Note: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Market Share Methodology
Dataquest uses both primary and secondary sources to produce our market share data. In the fotirth quarter of each year and second quarter of the
subsequent year, we survey all 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 cU"e 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, AEC and GIS, and EDA marketing
programs
• Market research analyst
The Audit Process
Data supplied by vendors is evaluated against information drawn from
many sources, including the following:
• Revenue published by major industry participants
• Estimates made by knowledgeable and reUable industry spokespersons
• Government data or trade association data
• Published product Uterature and price lists
•
•
•
Ii
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
• Annual reports. Securities and Exchange Commission documents, and
credit reports
• Company publications and press releases
• Reports from financial analysts
• User Studies
• Reseller and suppUer reports and reports from a vendor's competitors
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Introduction
13
Dataquest also 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.
The company statistics published by Dataquest are estimated based on the
data supplied by vendors along with the numerous sources listed above.
Dataquest analysts have many years of experience in how to apply the
tools described 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, AEC and
GIS, and EDA groups' poUcy 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, AEC and GIS, and EDA 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—^which is
particularly useful when comparing regions or applications.
Reporting Changes
Beginning with our March 4,1996, pubUcation, Dataquest pubhshed
market share data that reports OEM revenue for all regions. Also, for the
first time in the United States our market share tables included companies
that resell products from other vendors as weU as their own products
(these are primarily Japanese companies), and companies that sell products primarily to other vendors (such as Dassault). In the past, this reporting was Standard only in our products for Japan, Europe, and Asia/
Pacific. We believe that this reporting accurately reflects the activity of all
the vendors in the CAD/CAM/CAE and GIS market. To prevent double
counting of the market, we will continue to coimt the total market size by
excluding OEM and reseller revenue. As a result, the sum of the individual software vendors wiU be greater than the total market size in aU
market share tables. On an inquiry basis, we can produce market share
tables that exclude OEM revenue, or report only OEM revenue.
These reporting changes primarily reflect our efforts to both accurately
depict markets while accounting for revenue by distribution channel.
Dataquest's CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA database was first
developed in the turnkey era of CAD/CAM, when channel reporting was
relatively imimportant. Today, of course, worldwide distribution and PCbased products require us to better report revenue by channel. While our
existing database does account for much of this information, we beUeve
improvements are necessary.
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
14
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
A Final Note
The tables we choose to pubUsh in statistics books are those Dataquest
beUeves to be the most useful for the greatest number of clients. However,
given the rich dynamics in distribution channels, it is not possible to
imderstand the full opportunity from a single viewpoint. On request, we
are happy to deliver alternative views of the market, as detailed tables—
we do prefer to deliver these as Excel workbooks via e-mail. Any client
needing an electronic version of our market statistics should contact Daya
Nadamuni via e-mail at [email protected] Our ongoing
commitment is to maintain an accurate and complete model of the entire
CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA market, worldwide, and we
welcome your input.
Publishing Schedule
Dataquest pubUshes market share and forecasting twice each year for
each, allowing for both timely distribution of data and thorough analysis
and forecasting. Our annual delivery schedule is as follows:
• Market share 1997 is presented in this report.
• A five-year forecast for CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, and EDA will
be available to clients by April 30.
• Final updated market share tables, based on additional data collection
and analysis, will be available to clients by Jtme 30. At this time we will
finalize our 1997 market share data, including country-level data, enduser spending, industry-level data, and subappUcation information. 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 this final market data.
• Dataquest will provide complete final forecast tables by September 30.
These tables take into consideration changes in the market share during
the previous six months.
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
Chapter 2
Market Statistics
Table A-1
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
Parametric Technology
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
EDS Unigraphics
Structural Djmamics Research Corporation
MICROCADAM
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
Fujitsu
CoCreate
MacNeal-Schwendler
Matra Datavision
NEC
Hitachi
Computervision
Toshiba
Nihon Unisys
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Tecnomatix Technology
C. Itch Techno-Science
Ansys
Sherpa Corp.
Delcam Pic
Intergraph
Marubeni Hytech
Applicon
Sumisho Electronics
ISD Software
MARC
Tokyo Electron
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1997
1995
1996
494.5
579.7
656.4
321.2
495.0
605.9
199.9
244.0
290.9
190.5
176.5
218.1
133.4
161.4
208.0
170.7
144.8
164.3
129.2
152.0
156.8
127.1
85.2
117.2
104.4
107.3
97.0
99.2
79.0
86.8
99.2
114.0
109.0
85.3
87.4
91.8
70.9
72.9
62.9
68.7
70.9
63.7
66.7
174.4
149.0
60.5
66.7
62.5
55.1
54.4
52.8
43.2
38.7
39.3
34.4
20.1
26.3
32.5
30.8
30.8
32.2
37.0
32.6
27.5
20.6
26.2
16.7
27.0
21.9
25.8
54.0
27.1
24.9
19.9
23.0
21.5
24.0
21.8
23.4
21.6
18.8
22.8
14.5
22.7
18.2
21.8
19.5
17.4
21.8
20.0
2,124.0 2,458.2 2,673.1
366.4
334.9
350.3
539.1
475.4
481.5
2,940.4 3,283.8 3,578.5
1996-1997
Grov^th (%)
13.2
22.4
19.2
23.6
28.8
3.9
3.1
8.5
-2.7
14.4
-9.0
-7.1
127
7.8
-61.7
-3.2
1.2
9.9
31.0
5.5
-13.0
4.8
23.7
-5.0
8.5
10.4
8.4
0.7
11.7
8.5
8.7
4.6
13.4
9.0
1997
Market
Share (%)
18.3
16.9
8.1
6.1
5.8
4.8
4.4
3.6
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
74.7
10.2
15.1
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
15
16
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-2
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, UNIX
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1
2
IBM
405.2
269.8
577.0
454.4
13.3
17.7
25.7
Parametric Technology
509.1
386.1
3
4
Dassault Systemes
155.6
209.5
250.9
19.8
11.2
EDS Unigraphics
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
133.4
145.3
6.5
136.6
80.9
156.4
145.6
144.6
0.2
-7.5
6.4
5.4
5
6
7
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
MacNeal-Schwendler
120.8
86.6
111.3
80.1
63.8
63.5
78.6
8.5
-1.9
-61.7
20.2
3.5
8
9
Computervision
142.4
166.7
Matra Datavision
75.5
79.2
10
Nihon Unisys
11
12
CoCreate
51.8
59.3
53.6
58.2
43.7
38.7
37.7
42.0
40.9
39.3
38.8
-1.1
1.8
1.7
20.1
51.7
26.3
34.4
31.0
1.5
45.6
28.4
31.4
-31.3
8.5
1.4
1.4
5.3
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
NEC
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Tecnomatix Tedmology
MICROCADAM
C. Itoh Techno-Science
Sherpa Corp.
28.4
20.4
Toshiba
Marubeni Hytech
50.0
19.9
20
21
Delcam Plc
Tokyo Electron
16.0
17.4
22
Ansys
24.5
23
24
Fujitsu
Intergraph
65.0
52.2
25
26
27
MARC
Alias Research
18.2
20.2
17.7
17.3
17.3
ICEM Technologies
28
29
Siunisho Electronics
17.6
14.2
30
Gerber Systems
All N . A . Companies
13.5
13.1
18
19
Mitsui Engineering
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
54.1
-19.8
1.0
-27.8
8.5
2.8
2.8
2.4
1.9
26.0
30.8
27.4
42.5
27.2
-36.0
1.2
23.0
20.8
24.9
23.2
8.5
11.8
1.1
1.0
20.0
21.8
8.5
1.0
27.8
72.7
20.0
-28.1
-72.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
18.9
-5.0
6.7
18.6
7.9
0.8
19.6
16.4
18.5
17.8
-5.9
0.8
0.8
15.5
19.8
19.2
8.5
0.8
16.9
8.5
14.9
16.2
1,553.6 1,782.7 1,765.8
237.9
219.2
204.6
8.8
-0.9
-6.7
78.6
9.1
374.5
356.0
275.6
2,166.0 2,357.8 2,245.9
-22.6
-4.7
12.3
100.0
0.8
0.7
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
17
Market Statistics
Table A-3
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, NT
Ranl(
1
2
3
4
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
51.4
108.9
-
29.1
151.5
109.0
39.1
274.5
-
16.1
286.5
3.2
6.4
7.5
18.2
62.4
56.4
40.2
39.2
439.0
115.0
6.6
12.3
24.8
17.0
276.8
37.5
3.5
2.4
2.0
1.7
EDS Unigraphics
Fujitsu
NA
5
6
7
CoCreate
8
ISO Software
4.8
-
9
Matra Datavision
Wacom
9.6
4.9
10.1
7.1
14.1
39.9
12.0
C A D Lab
0.7
5.2
12
Ansys
3.9
4.8
13
14
ADRA Systems
Omron
5.8
15
Bentley Systems
5.1
5.8
6.4
10.5
10.3
10.2
70.0
102.9
16
17
Graphtec Engineering
Radan Computational
-
18
NEC
Applicon
10
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
1997
Market
Share (%)
1996-1997
Growth (%)
MICROCADAM
Structural IDynamics Research Corporation
C A D Distribution
Intergraph
25
26
27
Agile Software
ASCAD
28
29
Toshiba Engineering
30
BCT GmbH
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
8.1
5.7
5.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
74.1
39.4
2.6
9.0
8.7
5.2
5.1
8.7
4.5
7.6
3.5
7.4
7.4
1.8
4.8
6.9
6.6
-
6.3
6.3
-
-
6.1
6.1
5.9
5.7
NA
876.2
0.8
5.7
461.5
70.0
0.8
0.6
NA
0.6
56.0
126.9
0.6
73.2
56.3
10.1
426.5
138.6
100.0
-
-
1.0
0.6
0.9
1.0
2.5
-
4.3
4.3
0.4
2.5
3.9
84.6
15.0
225.9
45.4
512.5
15.9
22.2
293.5
-
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
All N . A . Companies
15.6
8.9
10.1
Dassault Systemes
Hitachi
Toshiba
Seiko
114.1
NA
21.6
115.5
71.0
116.9
700.3
238.1
1.3
1.2
72.0
70.0
1.2
1.1
NA
1.1
53.5
-5.0
1.1
NA
NA
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
16.7
NA = Not Available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
18
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table A-4
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Personal Computer
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1
2
Autodesk
180.7
107.1
-24.7
MICROCADAM
86.2
-2.2
19.8
16.0
3
Hitachi
71.1
10.2
142.3
88.2
9.2
48.6
428.9
9.0
4
Toshiba
16.7
20.0
27.2
36.1
5.0
5
Fujitsu
NEC
.Andor
24.2
26.9
24.0
20.8
26.1
22.4
-3.0
8.0
4.8
4.2
15.9
19.2
16.5
11.6
8.0
-19.4
3.6
CoCreate
Design Automation
17.8
21.1
6.6
2.6
2.4
6
7
8
9
10
Cimatron
13.3
17.0
14.1
9.3
13.0
12.9
-0.4
11.1
8.4
10.6
8.7
10.3
-3.2
1.8
39.4
3.2
11
Investroruca S A
12
CNC Software
13
14
Bentley Systems
Tebis
7.2
6.0
8.8
8.4
8.0
8.9
8.0
-9.5
1.5
15
16
17
Ashlar
5.7
6.9
16.5
Baystate Technologies
Surfware
1.3
5.0
5.9
4.1
58.9
20.0
1.2
18
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
4.3
5.9
6.5
6.5
6.4
1.3
1.2
19
20
Formtek
5.7
6.2
6.2
8.5
0.5
1.2
1.2
Matra Datavision
Viagrafix
2.3
5.6
2.5
5.4
6.0
5.6
139.1
1.1
1.0
Sumisho Electronics
4.6
5.1
5.6
2.6
8.0
24
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
PAFEC
3.2
2.4
4.2
5.3
5.3
5.2
28.1
-1.2
1.0
1.0
25
Serbi
5.9
5.6
5.0
0.9
26
17
Applicon
4.2
4.6
5.0
28
Algor Interactive Systems
Wiechers Datentedmik
6.0
4.5
6.3
4.8
5.0
4.8
-10.8
9.1
-21.1
29
Whessoe Computing Systems
4.1
4.2
30
BCT GmbH
4.2
4.2
21
22
23
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
5.4
3.8
4.7
383.5
366.1
78.9
79.2
83.5
85.9
541.6
535.5
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.9
-0.4
0.8
-10.4
0.8
311.3
87.1
-15.0
4.3
57.6
16.1
141.6
540.0
64.8
0.8
26.2
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFVdistributor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (Inarch 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
19
Market Statistics
Table A-5
1997 CAD/CAIVI/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 24 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
Rank
1
2
3
4
1997
Market
Share (%)
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
IBM
Dassault Systemes
89.3
44.2
69.6
27.4
78.3
33.0
12.6
20.2
84.8
35.7
MacNeal-Schwendler
25.1
23.8
7.7
-37.9
-72.8
16.0
7.8
2.4
14.8
2.1
-
NA
lA
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.8
-30.0
-45.5
1.8
1.8
5
Fujitsu
Matra Datavision
6
7
C. Itoh Techno-Science
Hitachi
3.3
3.0
1.6
8
Exapt
Mitsubishi Electric
4.5
1.2
1.3
0.9
0.9
-25.1
1.0
Toyo Information Systems
Nihon Unisys
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.4
12
13
Kubota Computer
0.8
1.3
0.8
0.5
-30.0
-30.0
-51.4
0.3
0.3
-32.3
-71.0
14
Whessoe Computing Systems
Computational Mechanics
0.3
0.2
-19.2
-25.4
9
10
11
15
Ansys
0.5
-88.8
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
-30.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
-40.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
-45.1
-49.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0
0.4
0.0
0.2
0
0
-79.5
-30.0
0.1
102.3
0.1
83.6
-100.0
-100.0
3.7
71.8
5.0
92.3
-55.5
-4.9
0.5
1.9
Century Research Center
18
19
Sherpa Corp.
Altair Computing
20
21
ESI Group
debis Systemhaus
22
Technodia
23
24
Access Corp.
CIMTEK
AU Asian Companies
All Companies
0.3
0.2
Mechanical Dynamics
0.3
0.3
1.5
0.2
16
17
All N . A . Companies
AU European Companies
1.1
OA
0-4
0.4
3.1
83.6
2.2
11.9
117.2
11.3
97.0
-0.0
0.1
0.1
0
90.5
4.0
5-4
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
20
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-6
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, All Operating Systems
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Grovrth (%)
1
2
Parametric Technology
IBM
160.6
95.1
217.8
123.9
285.4
31.0
25.4
14.8
EDS Unigraphics
Autodesk
80.1
95.2
165.8
122.7
33.8
3
4
28.8
10.9
84.3
73.2
Dassault Systemes
54.1
74.3
25.1
17.7
8.2
5
6
7
91.6
87.4
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
68.3
73.3
48.0
82.6
12.8
-9.2
64.0
25.3
19.8
-60.5
27.1
2.3
1.8
17.1
8.4
1.5
-19.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
7.8
7.4
3.9
Computervision
50.0
48.1
CoCreate
Sherpa Corp.
11.9
13A
15.6
15.7
11
12
.Ansys
15.4
18.7
Intergraph
24.8
14.1
15.1
13.4
13
Formtek
10.5
11.3
14
MICROCADAM
10.0
9.0
-5.0
7.1
10.6
11.0
3.1
6.0
7.4
10.0
8.6
10.8
8.3
8.3
8.3
9.4
10.8
10.2
24.5
9.0
8.8
10.1
15.0
9.4
9.0
-5.2
0.8
54.9
8
9
10
15
Altair Computing
16
17
18
Tecnomatix Technology
Gerber Systems
Applicon
19
Alias Research
20
21
Algor Interactive Systems
Matra Datavision
8.6
9.7
4.4
8.6
9.0
22
23
Bentley Systems
Mechanical Dynamics
6.0
4.7
24
ADRA Systems
CGTech
25
26
27
28
29
30
Agile Software
Ashlar
DP Technology
ICEM Technologies
CNC Software
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
5.5
8.1
5.8
5.5
9.2
5.5
1.4
5.8
0.8
3.0
3.8
6.2
3.1
4.8
7.4
5.6
818.4
5.8
43.5
8.6
8.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
8.1
7.2
39.4
0.8
0.7
32.4
0.6
6.9
-25.8
14.1
0.6
650.0
0.6
0.6
6.6
6.3
6.2
0.6
6.1
97.8
26.4
5.9
-19.2
0.5
0.5
2.5
0.5
942.0
5.9
1,075.4
28.4
39.5
43.8
14.2
11.0
95.9
3.9
1.6
848.4
1.8
983.3
2.3
1,121.6
30.8
0.2
14.1
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-I\1IS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April13,1998
Market Statistics
21
Table A-7
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, UNIX
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
2
Parametric Technology
IBM
134.9
77.2
169.9
109.4
214.0
146.3
3
4
EDS Urugraphics
80.1
85.7
Dassault Systemes
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
MacNeal-Schwendler
43.1
63.2
61.6
69.7
35.2
Computervision
38.0
46.0
Sherpa Corp.
Tecnomatix Technology
13.3
7.4
15.6
8.6
Altair Computing
5.9
Gerber Systems
Intergraph
8.3
9.5
9.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Alias Research
24.0
8.6
14
.Ansys
11.6
15
CoCreate
Formtek
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Matra Datavision
7.0
3.8
Mechanical Dynamics
ICEM Technologies
3.8
6.2
Applicon
CGTech
6.6
Cadis Software
24
CIMLINC
First Cadcam Inc.
28
29
30
3.9
Concentra
23
25
26
27
8.9
61.2
70.0
34.5
24.2
0.4
-2.1
9.8
9.4
17.0
10.8
10.3
10.2
-60.5
9.0
24.5
2.3
1.4
9.0
1.4
9.0
-5.0
1.4
1.3
9.0
-33.2
1.3
1.3
-19.7
1.1
1.1
9.0
33.7
5.9
41.0
5.5
4.9
-22.4
7.1
6.9
4.0
3.3
3.4
MARC
CSAR Corp.
2.6
1.7
3.1
2.8
Auto-Trol
3.7
3.2
2.6
4.3
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
11.5
4.6
3.2
8.0
6.4
3.0
1.4
622.3
18.9
7.4
2.7
All Asian Companies
All Companies
73.3
9.4
8.4
12.0
24.2
85.9
8.6
2.6
All European Companies
19.6
14.0
10.5
4.8
4.2
1997
Market
Share (%)
28.7
33.8
0.2
10.0
9.4
8.0
1.1
3A
596.7
26.0
10.5
Adkia R&D
Delcam Pic
All N . A . Companies
1996-1997
Growth (%)
-29.6
7.5
-64.5
15.0
9.0
11.2
9.0
9.0
17.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
2.6
2.8
7.2
0.4
2.5
686.0
2.8
0.4
713.9
29.6
11.8
4.1
6.7
1.8
745.2
4.2
27.8
1.6
715.4
in
95.8
4.0
0.2
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/dlstrlbutor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMIEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April13,1998
22
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woridwide
Table A-8
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, NT
1996
1997
47.9
12.1
71.3
48.9
45.8
279.0
31.5
20.2
3.0
9.5
36.8
286.5
16.3
2.9
12.0
308.9
5.3
CoCreate
Agile Software
0.5
1.3
0.6
8.0
5.2
498.9
3.6
Ansys
1.9
2.4
4.7
4.8
4.7
778.6
98.9
2.3
2.1
4.4
2.1
1.9
2.3
2.9
NA
4.0
39.4
1.8
0.8
3.6
3.4
-5.0
----1.8
3.1
3.0
NA
1.5
1.4
1.3
3.0
2.7
1.5
2.6
1.4
Rank
Company Name
1
2
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
3
EDS Unigraphics
4
Structural Djmamics Research Corporation
5
6
7
8
1995
25.7
-
1.0
9
Dassault Systemes
ADRA Systems
10
11
Bentley Systems
Intergraph
12
Applicon
-
13
14
3D/Eye, Inc.
Algor Interactive Systems
-^
-
15
MICROCADAM
0.5
16
17
DP Technology
Matra Datavision
0.8
0.5
18
CGTech
0.6
19
20
21
MacNeal-Schwendler
0.5
-
22
23
24
Mechanical D3mamics
Gibbs and Assoc.
Spatial Technology
NOVASOFT Systems
25
Auto-Trol
Delcam Pic
26
SRAC
27
MARC
28
ICEM Technologies
B.A. Intelligence Networlcs
29
30
1997
Market
Share (%)
1996-1997
Growth (%)
C A D Lab
All N . A . Companies
All European Compaiues
All Asian Companies
All Companies
-
0.2
72.0
NA
1.3
114.8
1.3
1.2
72.0
1.2
0.6
1.3
133.1
107.4
1.1
137.7
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
115.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
118.5
96.7
49.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.7
409.1
0.5
0.4
260.5
10.1
0.4
72.0
-
0.2
0.2
0.4
89.9
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
39.2
94.1
0.3
218.4
-24.3
NA
132.2
96.6
0.5
5.9
7.5
39.7
100.0
0.3
226.2
27.0
NA
3.3
0.1
126.3
100.0
-
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
-
-
•
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
NA = Not available
Notes: Ail numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
23
Market Statistics
Table A-9
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, Personal Computer
1996-1997
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
Grov>?th (%)
1
2
Autodesk
79.3
3.0
58.9
3.1
44.9
6.2
-23.9
Ashlar
3
MICROCADAM
5.0
6.2
6.0
97.8
-2.2
4
CNC Software
Viagrcifix
5.6
5.0
5.8
5.1
5.9
2.5
1.1
3.6
3.5
5.3
4.9
2.5
41.8
4.2
Baystate Technologies
Surfware
5.8
4.5
3.9
20.0
Algor Interactive Systems
3.8
5.4
3.6
3.1
Bentley Systems
CoCreate
3.3
2.5
2.7
3.8
3.7
3.4
Formtek
3.0
3.2
3.2
2.5
SRAC
Applicon
Cimatron
1.5
1.7
2.2
2.4
2.1
0.9
1.8
2.0
10.1
13.6
15
16
17
DP Tedmology
1.9
2.0
Gibbs and Assoc.
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
2.2
1.5
1.6
2.0
-7.3
18
3D/Eye, Inc.
-
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.4
2.5
1.4
19
MacNeal-Schwendler
0.6
1.8
1.4
1.1
20
21
Variation Systems Analysis
Agile Software
1.3
0.4
1.3
0.3
1.3
1.1
-18.3
2.5
2.8
1.1
1.1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2.0
2.0
2.0
-28.9
39.4
-10.5
2.5
2.5
27.4
350.0
-60.5
35.5
4.9
4.8
4.7
3.9
3.0
2.7
2.6
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.1
0.9
22
Computervision
2.1
23
24
Engineering Mechanics
ADRA Systems
1.0
2.2
25
26
27
Workgroup Tech.
Boothroyd Dewhurst
CGTech
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
28
NOVASOFI Systems
29
Diehl Graphsoft
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
-20.0
30
Consensys
All N . A . Companies
0.5
0.8
138.2
0.8
119.7
2.5
-13.4
5.8
0.1
144.0
6.4
11.2
94.8
5.1
0.2
126.3
281.1
-12.3
0.2
100.0
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
154.8
3.5
0.1
158.4
2.5
2.2
1.1
LI
1.1
2.5
-57.0
-52.3
2.5
-14.4
-2.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
24
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-10
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies, North America, Host/Proprietary
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
Ranlc
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
IBM
3
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
14.3
7.4
19.2
2
17.9
11.1
4
Matra Datavision
11.0
-
10.5
-
6.5
0.2
5
Ansys
Altair Computing
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.2
NA
-73.1
0.1
-50.0
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.1
-50.0
0.3
6
7
8.9
33.9
20.2
-38.1
80.2
37.3
27.2
0.7
8
Mechanical Dynamics
0.1
0.7
9
Kubota Computer
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0
-88.0
-50.0
0.3
0.1
10
11
Computational Mechanics
Fujitsu
0.2
0
0.0
0.1
debis Systemhaus
ESI Group
Access Corp.
0.0
-93.2
0.4
0
0
0
12
13
-
-50.0
NA
0.0
-43.7
0
0
0.2
-
-100.0
-
27.7
23.7
-0.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
23.5
0.3
98.5
1-4
28.0
23.9
14
Sherpa Corp.
All N . A . Companies
All European Compaiues
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0
23.9
434.8
-32.3
0.1
0
0.2
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: Ail nunnbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
25
Market Statistics
Table A-11
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, All Operating Systems
Ranl(
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
IBM
Parametric Technology
249.5
298.5
2
109.2
173.3
347.5
209.6
3
4
Dassault Systemes
Autodesk
112A
60.7
133.3
55.2
160.1
67.6
5
EDS Unigraphics
Matra Datavision
37.4
46.8
68.8
60.3
55.4
54.3
40.8
81.1
6
7
1996-1997
Growth (%)
16.4
21.0
20.1
5.6
48.5
-19.5
-10.7
4.6
4.0
47.6
16.8
29.3
27.0
-63.9
-14.6
3.9
2.4
22.6
0.7
20.8
16.0
27.8
-3.0
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
8
CoCreate
43.5
9
10
Computervision
MacNeal-Schwendler
73.6
32.0
11
ISD Software
14.5
12
13
Tecnomatix Technology
ASCAD
11.6
14.9
16.3
14
Delcam Pic
7.7
15.4
19.4
15
C A D Lab
13.6
12.9
12.8
14.0
16
17
Tebis
Applicon
Radan Computational
12.5
12.4
14.0
12.1
13.1
13.0
8.9
-6.4
7.6
10.4
8.2
18
19
20
21
ICEM Technologies
MICROCADAM
22
23
24
Ansys
Bentley Systems
Investroruca SA
25
BCT GmbH
26
27
Straessle Informationssysteme
CAD Distribution
28
A D l ^ Systems
Sescoi
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
29
30
Sherpa Corp.
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
10.3
16.5
11.9
12.2
17.3
13.2
22.5
28.8
70.0
38.7
31.6
22.4
1997
Market
Share (%)
28.7
5.0
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
7.0
1.1
11.8
11.7
43.5
1.0
1.0
-9.8
-0.6
-7.2
-1.9
0.9
7.2
10.1
10.5
11.0
10.4
11.1
10.3
6.2
5.9
8.6
8.2
8.2
39.4
-5.0
0.7
0.7
7.2
8.1
10.3
5.1
8.0
7.6
12.8
-21.6
0.7
0.7
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.1
50.2
-4.1
0.6
0.6
-5.2
0.6
5.8
6.5
875.4
6.8
945.0
5.3
752.5
261.4
0.6
77.9
264.1
267.8
7.9
1.4
1,013.9 1,139.5 1,212.8
NA
6.4
6.0
4.2
12.0
5.8
6.8
6.0
0.9
0.8
22.1
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
26
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woridwide
Table A-12
1997 CAD/CAIVI/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, UNIX
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
206.0
91.7
86.7
263.5
135.1
306.8
157.2
116.5
37.4
60.4
1
IBM
2
Parametric Technology
3
4
Dassault Systemes
EDS Unigraphics
5
6
7
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Computervision
8
9
Matra Datavision
37.0
37.5
19.2
140.0
20.2
17.1
42.1
42.2
0.2
5.2
59.4
51.7
41.3
-30.5
5.0
41.1
5.0
77.5
-20.5
-63.9
MacNeal-Schwendler
23.2
28.0
21.4
Tecnomatix Technology
11.6
16.3
20.8
10
CoCreate
32.6
11
Delcam Pic
27.3
12.3
20.2
13.2
12
ICEM Technologies
Sherpa Corp.
10.4
7.1
10.9
ASCAD
12.8
11.5
10.4
14.1
Straessle Informationssysteme
Eigner -i- Partner
12.0
6.3
10.3
6.8
7.6
7.8
10.0
13
14
15
16
17
Ansys
1997
Market
Share (%)
16.3
70.4
24.3
7.4
1996-1997
Growth (%)
16.4
-8.0
27.8
-26.2
3.4
2.6
2.5
2.5
8.0
1.6
10.4
-4.9
-0.3
1.3
1.3
9.6
-32.3
1.2
8.0
6.7
-21.6
-1.9
1.0
8.3
6.5
6.4
-23.3
0.8
0.8
6.3
-2.5
0.8
9.6
6.0
6.3
5.8
-34.5
5.7
-3.5
NA
0.8
0.7
18
19
Han Dataport
20
21
Sescoi
Open Mind
4.8
-
22
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
5.2
5.7
23
24
ESI Group
6.5
5.5
5.6
5.4
-1.9
-0.5
MARC
Tebis
4.5
4.6
5.3
5.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
3.0
5.2
4.7
-1.0
debts Systemhaus
5.3
3.2
4.6
48.1
-5.0
0.6
4.8
4.3
0.6
4.3
4.2
15.1
-34.7
25
26
27
28
29
30
Applicon
Intergraph
Alias Research
19.1
4.3
Mechanical Dynamics
3.0
4.3
3.7
CAD Lab
All N.A. Companies
7.5
6.4
580.1
184.9
680.1
All European Companies
162.6
674.0
143.7
All Asian Companies
All Companies
765.0
842.6
817.7
-0.9
-11.6
NA
-3.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
82.4
17.6
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/dlstributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April13,1998
27
Market Statistics
Table A-13
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, NT
1997
-
1996
38.1
9.1
1996-1997
GroMTth (%)
52.4
33.8
37.5
271.5
1.8
3.5
19.3
450.5
0.7
4.7
12.2
5.1
18.1
286.5
37.4
7.7
7.5
4.5
9.1
7.8
7.4
Rank
Conipany Name
1995
1
2
Parametric Technology
Autodesk
17.5
3
CoCreate
4
EDS Unigraphics
ISD Software
5
6
7
C A D Lab
Matra Datavision
8
Radan Computational
9
C A D Distribution
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
10
11
3.5
ASCAD
1.0
1.0
2.9
7.0
5.7
223.9
461.5
4.0
0.4
2.5
4.0
3.9
39.4
NA
1.2
1.4
3.6
0.5
-
1.5
14
15
BCT GmbH
ADRA Systems
16
17
Ansys
18
19
20
Vero International Software
Delcam Pic
Intergraph
21
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
22
23
Modultek Oy
-
0.8
-
Dassault Systemes
24
25
ICEM Technologies
Catalpa groupe Missler
-
0.9
0.4
-
26
27
MARC
0.5
0.5
29
MacNeal-Schwendler
Mechanical Dynamics
CIMTEK
30
IBM
72.2
0.9
2.3
Bentley Systems
Applicon
28
90.6
21.2
4.8
2.2
12
13
MICROCADAM
16.8
9.8
-
•
0.6
0.6
0.3
-
1.3
0.6
1.7
0.3
0.4
3.3
2.7
53.5
56.0
NA
128.4
1997
Market
Share (%)
23.8
15.3
8.7
8.2
7.6
4.4
4.1
3.5
3.3
3.2
2.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
88.0
1.5
1.2
2.2
2.2
71.2
1.0
235.8
1.6
1.3
-5.0
55.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
NA
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
-
0.7
0.5
0.6
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
27.0
13.1
73.0
35.1
164.6
55.9
All Asian Companies
All Companies
40.1
108.1
220.5
75.0
73.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
60.0
0.3
123.5
0.3
75.6
NA
17.1
0.3
0.3
125.5
74.6
25.4
59.5
NA
104.1
0.3
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
28
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-14
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, Personal Computer
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1
Autodesk
44.4
2
CoCreate
58.4
9.1
9.9
33.1
8.2
-25.4
-17.7
25.0
6.2
3
Investronica S A
Tebis
6.0
7.9
8.6
8.2
6.1
7.9
MICROCADAM
Serbi
Wiechers Datentechnik
5.7
8.8
7.1
-5.0
-9.6
6.0
-14.4
5.9
5.6
5.0
4.5
3.8
3.3
4.6
4.6
4.2
4.1
-10.8
0.2
BCT GmbH
Ziegler Informatics
4.6
4.7
Cimatron
3.4
4.4
4.1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Matra Datavision
1.8
1.9
12
Whessoe Computing Systems
3.8
13
Bentley Systems
PAFEC
3.3
3.9
2.7
2.1
14
3.9
-0.5
39.4
3.7
3.6
-3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
1.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
119.3
2.3
28.1
5.7
2.0
2.0
2.7
-1.2
-3.7
2.0
CADdy Spain
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Applicon
1.6
2A
18
Anilam Electronics
2.6
2.6
2.7
19
ISO Software
4.0
2.6
Just In Time Systems
RoboCAD Solutions
2.5
1.9
2.1
1.6
1.4
23
Formtek
ADRA Systems
1.5
2.1
24
Sescoi
25
Computervision
26
27
Vero International Software
28
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Superdraft
29
30
CNC Software
Softronics
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
3.1
3.8
3.8
16
17
1.5
3.6
3.2
1.7
3.5
3.2
3.1
15
1.8
1.2
4.5
3.8
-7.5
107.2
1.4
20
21
22
-10.4
-10.2
6.0
1.2
2.6
1.9
1.5
1.4
-10.5
-4.1
2.9
1.9
1-4
1.1
-7.6
1.1
1.3
-35.6
-12.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
-63.9
-4-4
1.0
1.1
-3.9
54.1
1.4
1.3
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.0
1.0
1.0
-3.5
2.7
101.6
60.8
86.5
67.2
-22.3
64.5
65.4
162.4
151.0
132.6
1.5
NA
-12.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
50.7
49.3
100.0
NA = Not Available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFVdIstributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
29
Market Statistics
Table A-15
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 14 Mechanical Software Companies, Europe, Host/Proprietary
' •
1996-1997
Grov»rth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
16.4
20.2
95.8
45.5
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
2
IBM
43.6
25.6
34.5
15.9
40.2
7.0
-
6.9
4.0
1.1
-41.8
9.6
NA
1.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
-25.1
-48.6
-21.2
2.6
2.3
0.1
0.1
3
4
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Matra Datavision
-
5
6
7
Exapt
Whessoe Computing Systems
Computational Mechanics
3.0
8
9
Ansys
ESI Group
0.4
0.4
0.3
10
11
Sherpa Corp.
Mechanical Dynamics
0.1
0.1
0.5
12
debis Systemhaus
CIMTEK
13
14
Access Corp.
All N . A . Companies
0.3
0.2
19.1
0.2
0.5
0-4
0.2
0.2
0.1
-69.1
-45.8
-25.2
0.1
-90.2
0.1
0.2
0
-78.6
0.1
0.1
0
0.0
35.9
.-
-400.0
-100.0
0.1
-
0.6
0.2
All European Companies
43.8
2.6
All Asian Companies
All Companies
46.4
0.1
2.0
37.9
39.1
9.0
2.8
41.9
42.0
NA
10.7
0.2
93.4
6.6
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/dlstributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
30
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-16
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, All Operating Systems
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
104.7
85.2
123.1
117.2
128.5
127.1
4.4
8.5
13.0
12.9
97.0
107.3
103.4
-3.7
10.5
106.0
72.9
109.8
86.8
8.8
62.9
63.7
70.9
68.7
-20.9
12.7
7.8
7.0
62.5
71.1
60.5
-3.2
58.2
-18.2
1.2
6.1
5.9
1
MICROCADAM
2
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
3
Fujitsu
IBM
4
5
6
7
NEC
Hitachi
8
Toshiba
Parametric Tedmology
9
Nihon Unisys
10
11
70.9
66.7
41.8
52.8
54.4
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
38.3
38.9
30.8
30.8
12
C. Itoh Techno-Science
CoCreate
30.4
13
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
22.9
31.3
14
Dassault Systemes
Marubenf Hytech
20.0
25.9
21.4
19.9
23.0
16
17
Autodesk
19.0
18.8
19.8
18
19
Tokyo Electron
MacNeal-Schwendler
20
21
Seiko
Andor
22
23
15
24
Sumisho Electronfcs
17.4
29.6
19.7
21.6
20.0
21.8
15.9
19.0
17.8
Mitsui Engineering
14.0
16.1
Wacom
Design Automation
6.0
10.0
8.4
55.1
42.7
32.5
28.8
28.0
25.5
24.9
24.0
23.4
21.8
7.2
5.6
9.9
4.3
5.5
3.3
2.9
-5.2
8.2
2.8
19.2
2.6
8.5
20.8
2.5
2.4
8.4
2.4
21.3
21.3
8.5
-22
2.2
2.2
121
2.2
19.2
8.0
1.9
17.5
13.5
8.5
60.1
1.8
1.4
12.2
6.6
55.4
1.2
7.8
11.5
7.7
5.2
11.9
12.0
11.9
28
MARC
Graphtec Engineering
11.1
8.6
9.8
8.6
11.1
10.9
26.5
1.1
29
Mutoh Industries
13.1
10.6
14.5
1.1
30
Toyo Information Systems
All N.A. Companies
8.1
9.3
9.0
454.0
24.4
6.0
-5.9
ALl European Companfes
406.8
18.8
9.5
427.5
26.9
10.3
1.0
43.3
2.7
All Asian Companfes
All Companies
475.8
901.4
469.8
532.3
986.7
13.3
4.1
53.9
100.0
25
26
27
Omron
Matra Datavision
948.3
0.1
13.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquesf s best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
31
Market Statistics
Table A-17
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, UNIX
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
8.5
-20.9
23.1
14.4
1.0
10.3
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
IBM
80.9
86.1
111.3
120.8
Nihon Unisys
51.8
95.5
53.6
75.6
54.1
Parametric Technology
35.1
43.7
55.4
37.7
43.6
-21.3
8.3
38.9
28.4
40.9
38.4
8.5
-1.1
7.8
7.3
C. Itoh Techno-Science
Toshiba
MICROCADAM
38.3
28.4
50.0
41.9
42.5
36.9
30.8
27.2
8.5
-36.0
5.9
5.2
25.7
-30.4
10
11
Marubeni Hytech
19.9
30.6
24.9
23.7
8.5
-3.7
4.9
4.8
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
23.0
24.6
12
Dassault Systemes
Tokyo Electron
15.6
17.4
18.6
22.2
19.5
Fujitsu
Sumisho Electronics
MacNeal-Schwendler
20.0
72.7
21.8
65.0
14.2
19.6
8.5
-73.0
16.4
8.5
5.4
3-4
3.2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
NEC
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
15.5
19.0
16.9
15.4
8.5
3.2
-19.1
12.4
-76.0
2.9
2-4
12.2
9.6
-40.1
8.5
9.1
8.5
-13.6
Seiko
19
Hitachi
CoCreate
57.3
17.2
51.6
20.4
MARC
11.1
7.3
8.9
8.4
4.5
7.2
10.3
7.7
8.9
8.4
6.6
7.6
8.2
8.3
7.5
6.4
22
23
24
25
26
27
Toyo Information Systems
Matra Datavision
Adam Net
Kubota Computer
Sharp
Nihon Itek
Computervision
28
29
Aduia R&D
30
Technodia
5.5
13.4
4.1
3.8
16.0
18
20
21
4.2
4.2
17.8
16.9
22.5
13.5
19.7
Mitsui Engineering
4.5
15.0
4.7
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.7
8.5
1.6
7.6
6.9
5.7
8.5
1.1
1.6
1-4
8.5
-61.7
1.3
1.1
5.1
8.5
1.0
3.9
4.4
4.8
8.5
0.9
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
279.1
13.7
291.4
-18.9
-4.8
45.1
3.0
All Asian Companies
All Companies
370.2
663.0
236.3
15.7
271.4
523.4
-22.9
-20.7
51.9
100.0
16.5
352.0
660.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFI/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
32
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-18
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, NT
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1
Fujitsu
MICROCADAM
14.8
55.8
32.1
117.5
27.3
15.7
15.6
14.5
-7.0
7.1
NA
3
4
Parametric Technology
5.2
6.7
Wacom
4.9
7.1
12.0
70.0
5.9
5
6
7
Autodesk
0.9
3.3
2.6
12.0
11.7
266.2
346.6
5.9
5.7
5.8
5.8
10.1
74.1
4.9
5.2
8.7
238.1
7.6
6.1
70.0
NA
4.3
3.7
2
8
9
CoCreate
Omron
Graphtec Engineering
10
NEC
Hitachi
-
2.6
4.5
-
11
Toshiba
-
-
6.1
NA
12
Seiko
Toshiba Engineering
-.
-
NA
-
2.5
5.9
4.3
3.0
2.9
70.0
NA
2.1
2.1
0.4
2.3
1.0
2.4
292.2
2.0
-
1.3
22.8
NA
1.5
1.4
50.6
1.0
0.9
13
14
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
15
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
16
17
Mutoh Industries
18
Kozo Keikaku Engineering
Matra Datavision
19
EDS Unigraphics
20
21
Ricoh
ADRA Systems
22
Ansys
MARC
23
24
25
26
17
0.6
-
•
0.5
0.6
3.0
2.8
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
286.5
NA
NA
147.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
1.3
70.0
0.9
0.7
60.9
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6
70.0
156.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
107.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
87.6
0.4
-5.0
0.2
0.2
-
•
-
CGTech
-
4.3
4.1
0.8
0.6
Vero International Software
Radan Computational
MacNeal-Schwendler
0.5
•
28
Mechanical Dynamics
-
29
Dassault Systemes
Intergraph
-
30
-
3.0
0.1
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
14.5
0.6
All Asian Companies
All Companies
15.9
31.0
0.3
40.7
0.3
83.6
4.4
105.6
2.8
22.2
116.3
65.7
204.3
423.8
211.1
58.3
0.2
40.9
2.2
56.9
100.0
NA = Not Available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
33
Market Statistics
Table A-19
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, Personal Computer
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
2
MICROCADAM
Hitachi
57.6
10.2
71.4
9.2
70.7
3
Toshiba
4
Fujitsu
16.7
24.2
20.0
26.9
5
6
24.0
20.8
17.8
11.5
29.4
48.6
27.2
36.1
25.8
22.4
-3.9
11.3
10.7
7
8
Autodesk
9
10
11
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
Sumisho Electronics
4.3
4.6
CoCreate
4.8
12
Mutoh Industries
13
14
Argo Graphics
Kozo Keikaku Engineering
3.5
2.0
Mitsubishi Electric
Cimatron
4.2
1.9
2.4
15
3.3
1.7
0.7
1.8
Wacom
1.1
18
Anilam Electronics
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.0
1.4
19
Graphtec Engineering
Surfware
0.3
0.1
0.2
16
17
20
21
22
Matra Datavision
Adam Net
10.0
18.0
1997
Market
Share (%)
-1.0
428.9
NEC
Andor
Design Automation
15.9
1996-1997
Growth (%)
8.0
8.0
20.2
6.6
9.3
8.0
5.1
16.2
5.9
12.0
-25.9
5.0
6.4
5.1
2.6
2.3
7.4
5.6
4.9
8.5
8.0
3.9
2.4
-33.3
8.6
2.1
3.6
2.3
19.2
122
2.0
8.0
-43.8
8.0
8.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.4
8.0
8.0
2.6
1.1
-58.6
0.8
0.3
1.0
0.8
20.0
157.5
0.8
0.7
8.0
8.0
-12.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Investronica SA
MacNeal-Schwendler
Formtek
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
8.0
26
27
Mitsui Engineering
0.5
0.6
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
0
29
Nihon Unisys
CADIX
-
0.6
0.6
8.0
1437.6
28
0.6
0.0
-
0.5
NA
NA
30
Uchida Yoko
0.8
1.3
89.6
4.4
105.3
0.5
94.7
-61.8
-10.1
5.0
84.3
194.7
6.4
28.4
39.3
2.7
139.6
240.7
65.5
23.7
58.0
100.0
23
24
25
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
-
77.9
172.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
Notes: Aii numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
AprinS, 1998
34
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-20
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 19 Mechanical Software Companies, Japan, Host/Proprietary
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Grov»rth (%)
1
2
IBM
MacNeal-Schwendler
20.0
14.1
11.1
-20.9
6.5
4.8
3.2
-33.3
3
4
Dassault Systemes
4.4
2.4
7.8
2.4
7.7
2.9
2.1
20.2
-73.1
15.7
Fujitsu
1.7
9.3
3.3
2.2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
C. Itoh Techno-Science
Hitachi
Mitsubishi Electric
3.3
1.2
0.9
0.6
-30.0
Toyo Information Systems
Nihon Unisys
0.8
1.1
-30.0
-51.4
Kubota Computer
0.6
-
Matra Datavision
12
Century Research Center
13
14
Ansys
Whessoe Computing Systems
15
Mechanical Dynamics
16
17
Altair Computing
18
19
1.6
-30.0
-45.5
lA
3.0
Technodia
Computational Mechanics
ESI Group
11.3
8.9
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.4
-
0.4
0.3
0.2
-30.0
NA
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
-30.0
0.1
0
-66.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
0
0.3
0
0
0.0
-30.0
-89.5
0.2
0.0
0
-30.0
-30.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0
0.1
0.0
16.7
0
12.9
-30.0
-93.4
0.1
11.2
0.3
-22.3
311.0
-55.7
71.0
1.8
27.2
-34.8
100.0
0
0
0
All N . A . Companies
23.6
All European Companies
0.1
11.7
35.4
All Asian Companies
All Companies
61.0
17.4
28.0
5.0
18.2
2.2
1.7
1.3
0.8
0.3
0.2
0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMIEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
35
Market Statistics
Table A-21
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, All Operating Systems
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
Parametric Technology
IBM
9.6
38.8
32.9
42.3
52.7
Autodesk
20.9
22.9
EDS Unigraphics
Dassault Systemes
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
13.3
13.3
14.5
28.3
18.7
15.0
10.9
17.9
11.6
4.6
8.5
6.2
4.7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Matra Datavision
MacNeal-Schwendler
6.5
7.0
2.4
48.2
3.9
6.5
4.6
10.3
10.1
Delcam Pic
Intergraph
2.8
2.1
3.1
2.8
Formtek
Alias Research
0.8
1.7
2.1
1.7
Cimatron
Sharp
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.2
1.8
1.5
1.9
1.9
MICROCADAM
Computervision
Design
Automation
4.3
4.1
2.6
2.3
2.1
24.4
23.6
13.1
8.7
28.8
19.7
7.1
85.9
-4.4
1.9
10.0
20.0
3.9
6.6
0.9
18.5
65.6
2.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.5
1.1
Ansys
2.0
0.9
1.3
1.9
1.3
1.3
-30.4
0.9
1.3
1.3
39.4
NA
1.0
1.0
30.5
5.2
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.8
2.8
53.7
0.7
MARC
FAFEC
25
26
27
Investronica S A
DP Technology
28
29
CNC Software
Altair Computing
30
Concentra
All N.A. Companies
3.9
0.3
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.3
0.6
1.2
All European Companies
118.6
17.8
158.9
14.1
All Asian Companies
All Companies
4.1
140.4
3.8
176.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.1
0.9
24
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
2.9
32.6
-5.0
Mechanical Dynamics
ADRA Systems
-
8.3
5-4
4.0
2.2
2.0
Gerber Systems
Bentley Systems
Tecnomatix Technology
22.3
3.1
-57.1
19
22
23
1997
Market
Share (%)
60.4
13.9
18
20
21
1.8
1996-1997
Growth (%)
2.4
0.7
14.0
-43.7
192.1
20.9
19.3
4.5
215.8
36.3
18.0
22.1
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0-4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
89.0
8.9
2.1
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Apnl13,1998
36
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-22
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, UNIX
1996-1997
Grovrth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1
IBM
Parametric Technology
31.9
36.4
41.4
39.5
13.9
54.2
29.8
28.5
15.5
20.2
11.1
13.1
9.9
0.2
9-4
-4.7
60.4
7.1
3
4
Dassault Systemes
8.1
10.2
25.6
12.9
EDS Unigraphics
13.3
13.1
5
6
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Matra Datavision
5.7
10.3
4.0
7
MacNeal-Schwendler
1.8
8
Computervision
Delcam Pic
9.8
1.7
2
4.6
3.6
-57.1
3.0
19.8
2.5
2.0
20.0
-5.0
1.5
1-4
1.9
1.1
1-4
18.5
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.2
0.7
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.7
0.9
0.9
-31.3
0.9
0.7
20.0
0.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.7
-42.5
-43.7
0.6
0.5
1.4
0.7
-52.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
13.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
537.0
NA
0.5
0-4
0.5
-49.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
-1.1
10.4
12.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
4.8
9.7
4.9
4.1
2.9
1.7
3.5
21
2.1
1.2
1.9
1.5
0.5
9
10
Alias Research
1.7
11
Intergraph
12
13
14
Sharp
Gerber Systems
Formtek
2.0
2.1
15
Tecnomatix Technology
16
17
Mechanical Dynamics
18
19
20
21
22
MICROCADAM
MARC
-
•
0.8
1.6
-
Ansys
1.5
Concentra
0.3
1.6
Straessle Informationssysteme
Altair Computing
6.4
3.0
6.0
23
24
Pacific Numerix
25
26
27
ADRA Systems
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
28
CIMLINC
Autodesk
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
CSAR Corp.
0.2
0.2
81.3
10.8
2.8
29
30
ICEM Technologies
PAFEC
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.8
0.4
-
95.0
1.0
0.4
13.2
NA
76.3
0.9
0-4
0.2
0.3
-58.8
17.1
109.9
8.7
124.5
11.9
13.3
37.6
89.7
2.3
120.8
2.4
5.1
14.9
138.8
0.2
8.6
1.7
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-I\1IS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
37
Market Statistics
Table A-23
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, NT
Rank
Company Name
1
2
Autodesk
3
4
5
6
1995
1996
1997
1.5
3.8
7.2
14.2
-
1.5
0.4
0.4
5.6
1.7
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.4
1.2
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.2
Parametric Technology
EDS Unigraphics
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Matra Datavision
MICROCADAM
7
Intergraph
8
9
Bentley Systems
ADRA Systems
10
11
Delcam Pic
Ansys
0.2
12
DP Technology
0.1
13
14
Dassault Systemes
Vero International Software
15
16
17
Fujitsu
18
19
20
21
22
C A D Lab
Mechanical Djmamics
1.6
1.3
71.3
1.0
0.2
0.4
137.3
-
0.3
-
0.4
0.3
0.3
-22.7
1.0
0.7
0.7
-
-
0.3
0.2
NA
0.7
305.8
169.0
150.2
0.5
0.4
150.0
-53.4
OA
Algor Interactive Systems
25
Gibbs and Assoc.
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
r
Ricoh
-
29
ICEM Technologies
IMSI
30
CGTech
28
3.3
2.8
286.2
23
24
26
27
114.8
-5.0
4.0
0.4
-.
-
Applicon
288.1
179.7
31.0
13.2
0.6
0.6
0.1
-
IBM
Spatial Technology
286.5
33.3
1.5
1.4
-
MARC
B.A. Intelligence Networks
0.6
274.5
82.2
1997
Market
Share (%)
39.4
NA
0
MacNeal-Schwendler
13.2
1996-1997
Growth (%)
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0
0
--
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
14.5
96.7
0.1
0.1
NA
NA
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
130.8
0.1
NA
0.2
0
0
0
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
48.0
0.1
0.0
0
0.1
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
3.3
39.6
0.8
16.0
1.4
406.0
147.2
2.6
87.0
All Asian Companies
All Companies
4.0
17.4
0.3
42.5
NA
144.2
93.1
6.1
0.8
100.0
NA = Not Available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAFVdistributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
ApnIlS, 1998
38
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table A-24
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, Personal Computer
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1
2
Autodesk
MICROCADAM
19.6
2.1
18.5
13.9
-24.8
2.6
2.6
-2.2
50.6
9.4
3
Design
1.6
6.9
Cimatron
1.4
1.9
1.7
6.6
4
1.8
1.7
2.8
6.3
5
Investronica S A
3.9
CNC Software
0.6
0.8
0.7
2.8
2.4
8
9
FAFEC
Formtek
Matra Datavision
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
3.0
6
7
0.2
0.6
0.1
378.2
10
Bentley Systems
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
2.3
2.2
39.4
2.1
11
Baystate Technologies
-
-
0.5
NA
12
Just In Time Systems
0.4
B.A. Intelligence Networks
Surfware
0.4
0.3
2.5
13
14
0.2
1.9
1.4
1.1
15
ADRA Systems
MacNeal-Schwendler
Automation
0.6
0.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
5.9
20.0
0.3
0.4
0.2
-31.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
-14.0
DP Technology
0
0.2
0.9
0.8
18
Computervision
0.5
OA
0.2
2.6
-57.1
0.7
0.7
19
Vero International Software
0.3
0.3
0.1
-56.8
0.5
20
21
Gibbs and Assoc.
Research Engineers—Civilsoft
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fujitsu
-
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
22
23
0.1
-
34.6
27.4
NA
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Algor Interactive Systems
0
0
0.0
0.1
156.3
0.5
0.4
-
0.1
0.1
57.8
SRAC
IMSI
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
28
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
Spatial Technology
0.1
0.1
-43.8
0.3
0.3
29
Drawbase Software
0.1
0.1
37.3
0.3
30
Ansys
0.2
0.1
0.2
26.7
0.1
21.2
0.2
77.2
4.1
4.5
-61.3
-20.5
11.2
1.2
1.5
34.9
32.3
1.8
27.5
15.2
-14.8
6.4
100.0
16
17
24
25
26
27
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
27.5
6.1
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.1
-50.9
4.4
7.1
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
16.4
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
39
Market Statistics
Table A-25
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 9 Mechanical Software Companies, Asia/Pacific, Host/Proprietary
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Company Name
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
1995
1996
1997
6.9
3.1
5.9
1.8
6.7
13.9
2.1
20.2
95.6
30.2
1.4
Matra Datavision
Mechanical D5mamics
0.5
^
0.9
0.2
-34.8
NA
13.3
2.4
0.2
-84.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
Ansys
0
0.0
-76.8
0.7
0.2
0.2
0
0
NA
0.1
IBM
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
8
Altair Computing
Fujitsu
9
ESI Group
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
.
»
.••_-.
0
•
0
6.4
0.0
6.4
0
6.4
-76.8
6.5
0
0.0
6.8
0.2
12198.9
97.0
2.9
6.4
0
7.0
NA
9.8
0.1
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors Is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
40
Mechanical CAD/CAMI/CAE Worldwide
Table A-26
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, All Operating Systems
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
Rank
Company Name
1
2
Autodesk
5.0
5.7
3
Engineering Mechanics
4.5
5.3
5.2
4
Cimatron
5
CoCreate
Delcam Plc
3.5
-
3.4
-
2.2
2.2
3.0
1.7
23.8
6.5
4.9
2.4
2.3
-5.0
5.6
3.0
1.3
3.5
1.8
1.5
1.6
-48.3
3.7
4.3
3.8
1.1
1.3
1.1
19.7
3.2
0.1
-7.1
2.6
6
7
8
9
10
IBM
Intergraph
Computervision
MICROCADAM
NOVASOFT Systems
1995
1996
1997
5.2
8.1
6.5
55.6
5.3
0.3
3.4
0.9
NA
11
12
MacNeal-Schwendler
1.0
-
Matra Datavision
0.9
13
Formtek
0.8
14
Ansys
Investronica SA
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.2
0
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
CNC Software
Whessoe Computing Systems
Algor Interactive Systems
Baystate Technologies
DP Technology
Straessle Informatiorissysteme
0.5
0.5
23
24
Bentley Systems
Viagrafix
B.A. Intelligence NetworJcs
25
Camcentre
0.1
-
26
27
Tebis
0.1
Computational Mechanics
28
29
Siurfware
CGTech
30
SRAC
All N.A. Compcmies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.2
1.1
0.9
23.6
19.4
15.7
12.6
8.2
7.1
0.3
2.0
2.0
24.3
1.0
1.5
1.4
0.5
1.0
-0.2
1.3
1.1
0.4
110.4
1.1
66.9
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
23.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
-34.3
39.4
0.5
0.5
-
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
6.0
NA
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-1.9
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
20.0
22.0
0.1
0.1
27.8
8.2
0.1
6.4
33.1
8.6
19.0
27.7
8.5
36.2
36.0
41.7
5.3
NA
15.9
0.4
0.3
0.3
79.4
20.6
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data Includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/dlstrlbutor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
41
Market Statistics
Table A-27
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, UNIX
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1995
1996
1997
1996-1997
Grovrth (%)
IBM
Engineering Mechanics
4.1
3.0
4.4
3.6
6.9
57.6
Delcam Pic
2.1
2.1
Intergraph
Computervision
4.7
1.8
11.8
-5.0
2.8
r-
3.3
^
3.6
2.3
1.7
1.7
-
0.8
0.6
Company Name
CoCreate
8
MacNeal-Schwendler
NOVASOFT Systems
9
10
Matra Datavision
Formtek
11
12
13
.Ansys
MICROCADAM
Cimatron
14
Straessle
15
16
17
Camcentre
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
OA
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
Computational Mechanics
Algor Interactive Systems
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
18
19
CGTech
0.1
Autodesk
0.3
0.1
0.2
20
21
Whessoe Computing Systems
Tebis
DP Technology
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
First Cadcam Inc.
SRAC
B.A. Intelligence Networks
0
0
0.1
0.0
22
23
24
25
Informationssysteme
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.0
26
27
ESI Group
0
-
0.0
-
Bentley Systems
0
28
29
MCS
Cadcentre
0
0
0.0
0.1
30
ADRA Systems
0.1
-48.3
NA
7.9
14.9
-49.8
2.7
-31.3
-
1997
Market
Share (%)
33.1
17.3
11.2
8.3
8.3
6.1
4.2
3.2
3.1
2.8
1.9
1.5
1.5
-34.3
NA
0.9
0.7
0.1
5.2
0-4
0.4
0.1
7.5
0.1
0.1
-59.2
0-4
0.3
-:
0.3
0.3
•
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
11.2
-1.8
0
1.1
NA
0
0
^
39-4
-100.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
-
-100.0
-
-100.0
11.7
82.2
17.8
-
0.9
NA
20.8
9.6
0.1
0.1
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
16.4
4.3
15.3
3.7
-.
17.1
3.7
All Asian Companies
All Companies
20.6
19.0
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VArVdistrlbutor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April13,1998
42
Mechanical CAO/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-28
1997 CAD/CAIVI/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 20 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, NT
Rank
Company Name
1
Autodesk
2
CoCreate
3
4
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
1995
1996
1997
0.9
274.5
-
3.3
1.2
Intergraph
MICROCADAM
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.4
-5.0
126.2
5.8
5
6
Delcam Pic
NOVASOFT Systems
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
5.6
4.2
7
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
260.5
127.8
3.0
'
0.1
0.1
-
0.2
205.9
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
39.9
2.3
2.1
39.4
1.3
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.1
0
-
0.0
0
100.0
-6.7
0
0
0.0
162.1
0.6
OA
0.0
406.0
0.3
0
0
NA
227.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
48.0
0.2
0.0
^
61.1
0.1
-100.0
.-
-100.0
188.5
92.5
119.6
NA
7.5
8
Ansys
Algor Interactive Systems
9
Matra Datavision
10
11
Bentley Systems
DP Technology
12
B.A. Intelligence Networks
MacNeal-Schwendler
13
14
CGTech
-
•
15
IBM
-
-
16
17
SRAC
0
-
0.0
18
19
20
IMSI
Research Engineers—Civilsoft
0
0
MCS
Vero International Software
All N.A. Companies
-
0.2
0.6
0
2.2
6.3
All European Companies
0.1
0.2
0.5
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.7
2.4
6.8
-
NA
181.8
48.0
17.7
8.7
100.0
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April13,1998
43
Market Statistics
Table A-29
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, Personal Computer
1996
4.3
1997
3.2
-24.8
3.1
3.1
1.7
1.0
25.0
24.4
1.0
-2.2
13.0
6.7
1.0
4.4
4.2
Rank
Company Name
1
Autodesk
Cimatron
5.4
2.9
3
4
Engineering Mechanics
MICROCADAM
1.5
0.7
5
Investronica SA
CNC Software
0.5
0.5
CoCreate
NOVASOFT Systems
0.4
9
10
Whessoe Computing Systems
0.3
Baystate Technologies
0.2
11
Formtek
Algor Interactive Systems
0
0.2
0
2
6
7
8
12
13
1995
1997
Market
Share (%)
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.5
-
•
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.0
NA
-6.4
1.0
4.0
3.0
0.3
0.2
66.9
2.9
2.0
1.0
1.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
57.8
1.0
1.5
1.4
0.2
Viagrafix
0.2
Surfware
B.A. Intelligence Networks
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
20.0
1.0
0.1
Tebis
0.1
13.9
1.0
0.8
0.7
Bentley Systems
Computervision
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
39.4
-48.4
0.7
DP Technology
0.1
0.1
0.6
SRAC
Matra Datavision
0.1
0
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.0
-1.8
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
0
0.1
0.1
139.1
NA
23
24
IMSI
Ziegler Informatics
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
4.4
25
26
Superdraft
MacNeal-Schwendler
0
-
0.0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
0.0
-10.0
27
Engineered Software
Ansys
Research Engineers—Civilsoft
0.1
0
0.0
0.0
1.0
-31.0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
28
29
30
Diehl Graphsoft
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
0.2
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0
34.9
0.0
0
8.5
4.3
66.5
4.1
9.4
4.2
-18.4
-9.4
2.6
33.5
14.0
13.6
12.8
NA
-5.7
100.0
0
0
10.0
0.2
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquesfs best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
AprillS, 1998
44
Mechanical CAO/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table A-30
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
Top Seven Mechanical Software Companies, Rest of World, Host/Proprietary
Rank
Company Name
1
IBM
2
MacNeal-Schwendler
3
4
Whessoe Computing Systems
5
6
7
1996-1997
Grovt^th (%)
1997
Market
Share (%)
1995
1996
1997
0.9
1.2
-
0.8
0.2
0.2
42.9
-31.7
0.1
0
0.0
-10.0
0
0.0
0
2.0
Ansys
0
0.0
0
0
-10.0
NA
ESI Group
^
-58.6
NA
0.5
0
29.0
20.8
94.6
5.4
NA
100.0
Computational Mechanics
Matra Datavision
•
^
.
0
All N.A. Companies
All European Companies
0.8
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.1
All Asian Companies
0.9
1.0
1.3
All Companies
1.2
28.5
93.6
12.8
3A
1.3
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
45
Market Statistics
Table B-1
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Rank
Company Name
1
2
3D/Eye, Inc.
Access Corp.
Adam Net
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Adina R&D
ADRA Systems
Agile Software
Algor Interactive Systems
Alias Research
Altair Computing
1995
1996
1997
0.6
7.5
3.5
0.5
4.8
9.0
10.3
21.8
0.8
11.1
7.0
0.3
18.3
7.0
11.0
-16.1
733.3
5.2
0.5
0.2
18.6
7.9
13.0
19.2
8.6
8.0
1.8
37.0
4.1
32.2
0.5
0.1
21.8
4.3
24.0
4.7
-13.0
10.4
0.9
0.7
8.2
0.1
16.5
16.0
-3.0
0.4
5.7
4.1
5.9
4.2
6.9
16.5
18.2
0.2
0.1
190.5
176.5
23.6
6.1
3.3
4.1
7.2
218.1
3.9
18.5
58.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
19.0
1.4
10.0
17.3
10.5
17.3
12.0
15.9
17.8
4.1
Anilam Electrorucs
12
13
Ansys
Applicon
32.6
21.5
14
Argo Graphics
ASCAD
3.8
14.9
Auto-Trol
Autodesk
8.5
8.0
11
Ashlar
0.1
8.5
Andor
16
17
37.3
-100.0
1997
Market
Share (%)
0.3
10
15
9.2
1996-1997
Grov^^th (%)
3.8
5.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
18
19
B.A. Intelligence Networks
2.7
20
Baystate Technologies
1.3
21
22
BCT GmbH
Bentley Systems
4.2
13.4
23
24
Boothroyd Dewhurst
C. Itch Techno-Science
1.6
30.8
25
CAD Distribution
26
27
CAD Lab
Cadcentre
28
CADdy Spain
1.4
1.2
4.7
3.3
3.8
15.0
0.1
0.1
7.3
-26.9
0.1
3.1
3.2
-
5.3
3.8
18.8
NA
0.1
29
Cadis Software
30
CADDC
31
32
CADSI
Camcentre
33
34
Catalpa groupe Missler
Century Research Center
35
36
37
CGTech
Cimatron
38
CIMLINC
CIMTEK
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
5.8
13.6
0.9
1.5
13.1
1.6
18.3
12.8
39.4
1.6
4.7
0.5
0
30.8
5.1
32.5
7.6
5.5
50.2
0.9
0.2
13.0
15.0
-
15.9
0.4
-100.0
119.3
-
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1
10.0
1.1
10.4
11.3
5.8
14.3
1.2
©iggSDataquest
6.5
8.1
3.1
1.9
1.5
1.1
17.2
11.9
1.0
14.2
5.9
14.3
6.4
0.1
8.4
1.6
2.0
23.1
0.1
0
0
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
AprillS, 1998
46
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table B-1 (Continued)
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Rank
Company Name
39
CMstat
40
41
CNC Software
CoCreate
42
Computational Mechanics
43
44
Computervision
Concentra
45
Concurrent Engineering
Consensys
CSAR Corp.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Dassault Systemes
Database Applications
1996
1997
1996-1997
Growth (%)
2.1
9.0
8.4
1.9
8.7
8.8
79.0
86.8
99.2
1.8
14.4
1995
0.7
2.8
2.1
2.1
174.4
2.1
66.7
0.6
-61.7
19.6
7.3
-62.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.2
0.8
-22.0
14.1
0
6.1
290.9
17.1
0.2
19.2
8.1
4.9
-100.0
-
23.2
23.7
6.6
0.1
0.8
0.4
0
0.2
0.6
3.4
199.9
0.5
244.0
0.7
4.0
1.1
0.1
1.9
0.2
0
debis Systemhaus
Delcam Pic
3.5
16.7
21.9
Design
11.6
13.3
1.5
6.0
7.6
-19.5
27.2
0.1
161.4
0.1
208.0
29.5
28.8
7.0
0.6
6.9
-1.6
0.6
8.6
7.9
8.8
7.8
0.5
2.9
2.6
2.3
0.6
0.6
3.8
20.6
4.3
21.7
97.0
13.1
107.3
104.4
16.2
2.2
2.6
8.6
0.2
6.5
63.7
6.3
68.7
39.3
579.7
43.2
9.9
1.9
1.2
656.4
13.2
18.3
20.3
1.4
19.8
1.5
-2.6
11.0
0.6
117.2
127.1
8.5
3.6
Automation
Diehl Graphsoft
1.5
DP Technology
55
Drawbase Software
4.8
0.2
56
57
58
EDS Urugraphics
Eigner + Partner
Engkieered Software
59
Engineering Mechanics
0.6
7.6
60
61
62
ESI Group
Exapt
9.2
5.7
FHECOR
63
64
First Cadcam Inc.
Formtek
0.6
3.7
65
Fujitsu
66
67
Gerber Systems
68
69
Graphtec Engineering
Hakuto
70
71
Han Dataport
Hitachi
72
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
IBM
75
76
0.1
0.2
149.0
12.7
53
54
73
74
1997
Market
Share (%)
Gibbs and Assoc.
ICEM Technologies
IMSI
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
133.4
6.3
18.9
8.6
29.8
7.8
70.9
38.7
494.5
17.6
1.0
85.2
©1998Dataquest
14.9
27.0
14.1
1.2
0
5.8
0.2
0
-1.5
0.2
0.2
-12.6
2.7
0.1
0
11.2
0.1
0.6
5.1
-2.7
2.9
8.8
0.5
4.0
53.8
0.1
10.9
26.5
0.2
-3.6
-2.5
0.3
0
0.2
7.8
0
AprillS, 1998
47
Market Statistics
Table B-1 (Continued)
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Rank
Company Name
T7
Intergraph
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
1995
54.0
1996
1997
27.1
Investronica SA
11.1
ISD Software
ISKA
14.5
1.1
10.6
22.7
25.8
10.3
Just In Time Systems
Kozo Keikaku Engineering
Kubota Computer
Livermore Software Tech.
MacNeal-Schwendler
MARC
2.4
8.4
8.9
9.8
1.6
1.5
109.0
114.0
18.2
88
Marubeni Hytech
Matra Datavision
19.9
87.4
89
MCS
13.6
90
91
Mechanical Dynamics
MICROCADAM
92
Mitsubishi Electric
Mitsui Engineering
93
94
Modultek Oy
95
Mutch Industries
96
97
NEC
Nihon Itek
98
Nihon Unisys
NOVASOFT Systems
99
100
Omron
101
102
Pacific Numerix
103
104
PAFEC
Parametric Technology
105
106
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
PROCAD GmbH & Co KG
107
Radan Computational
108
109
Research Engineers—Civilsoft
Ricoh
110
RoboCAD Solutions
111
112
Seiko
Serbi
113
Sescoi
Open Mind
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
1.2
2.5
7.3
12.6
129.2
6.3
22.8
1.2
2.2
5.1
10.5
1996-1997
Growth (%)
-5.0
-3.2
0.7
1997
Market
Share (%)
0.7
0.3
0.6
-1.5
0
-8.5
-39.0
6.4
0.1
0.1
1.6
6.1
0.3
0
99.2
21.8
-9.0
11.7
2.8
0.6
24.9
8.5
0.7
91.8
14.7
85.3
-
-7.1
-100.0
2.4
14.0
17.2
22.7
152.0
156.8
6.9
3.1
3.4
19.5
23.0
14.0
6.7
16.1
13.1
9.3
72.9
62.9
6.4
0.5
4.4
17.5
8.5
0.2
0.5
2.0
NA
0.1
10.6
70.9
6.9
14.5
127
0.3
2.0
8.5
1.2
0.2
18.8
55.4
5.5
52.8
54.4
4.8
7.8
-
3.9
7.7
-
NA
0.1
0.3
0.2
-
0.3
2.5
696.2
0.1
6.0
7.9
321.2
3.2
495.0
4.2
8.1
605.9
1.6
22.4
0.2
16.9
5.3
28.1
0.1
5.8
8.2
6.5
6.8
13.2
5.3
43.4
0.2
1.1
29.4
3.5
-120
0
0.1
1.6
21.3
-4.0
121
5.0
-10.8
0.6
0.1
9.8
-2.0
0.3
0.6
4.8
1.9
19.7
5.9
8.0
©ig98Dataquest
9.2
0.9
3.9
1.6
19.0
5.6
10.0
55.1
4.7
12.0
5.7
1.5
0.4
0
April 13,1998
48
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table B-1 (Continued)
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Software Market Share (Revenue in Millions of Dollars)
All Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
Rank
Company Name
114
Sharp
1995
10.4
1996
9.4
115
Sherpa Corp.
20.6
26.2
116
117
Softronics
2.0
Spatial Technology
3.9
1.0
3.7
118
119
SRAC
StraessIe Informationssysteme
4.8
16.4
5.6
14.1
120
121
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation
144.8
164.3
Superdraft
18.8
lA
21.6
122
123
Surfware
5.0
1.3
5.4
124
Tebis
Technodia
12.6
14.2
3.9
20.1
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
Siunisho Electronics
Tecnomatix Teclmology
Tokyo Electron
Toshiba
Toshiba Engineering
Toyo Infonnation Systems
17.4
66.7
11.8
8.1
1.4
4.8
1.0
2.7
0
3.2
-12.6
0.1
5.5
9.9
-1.6
-29.4
0.2
0.3
170.7
3.9
4.8
23.4
1.2
8.4
-2.5
0.7
0
6.5
20.0
0.2
-6.3
0.4
4.5
13.3
4.8
0.1
26.3
34.4
8.3
31.0
20.0
62.5
21.8
8.5
60.5
6.2
-3.2
45.4
0.6
1.7
0.2
4.2
6.0
0.3
2.5
14.6
3.0
5.5
5.8
22.2
0.1
0.1
5.6
2.6
13.5
5.5
60.1
-0.2
0.4
4.8
3.7
1.2
0.1
-52.3
-6.6
0.1
0
-10.1
8.7
0.1
74.7
10.2
lOO.O
133
134
Vero International Software
Viagrafix
5.6
135
Wacom
6.0
8.4
136
137
Whessoe Computing Systems
Wiechers Datentechnik
5.4
5.5
4.8
138
139
Workgroup Tech.
Yokogawa Digital Computer
5.0
6.3
140
Ziegler Informatics
All N.A. Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
7.8
0.2
3.3
4.6
2,124.0 2,458.2
334.9
350.3
481.5
2,940.4
1.0
9.5
2.8
4.5
5.4
All European Comparues
9.5
27.5
9.0
2.2
132
0.2
1996-1997
Growth (%)
1.1
0.3
0.8
Uchida Yoko
Variation Systems Analysis
2.6
2.1
1997
1997
Market
Share (%)
0.2
4.1
2,673.1
366.4
475.4
539.1
4.6
13.4
3,283.8
3,578.5
9.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
15.1
NA = Not available
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distrlbutor revenue not counted In total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
49
Market Statistics
Table C-1
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars, Actual Units)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, All Operating Systems
1997
Total
Service Distribution
Market
CPU Software
CPU
Shipments Revenue Revenue Revenue
Revenue Share (%)
656.4
1,027.7
434.5
2,299.4
21.1
82,429
Ran
k
Company Name
1
IBM
2
Hewlett-Packard
54,662
-
1,130.5
277.1
1,407.6
12.9
3
4
Sim Microsystems
50,565
1,027.3
281.4
1,308.7
5
Parametric Technology
Silicon Graphics
564.3
242.5
62.7
848.3
627.0
12.0
7.8
5.7
6
7
Digital Equipment
Fujitsu
26,708
37,430
605.9
514.6
154.2
81.3
145.2
595.8
8
Structural Dynamics
Research Corporation
9
10
Dassault Systemes
EDS Unigraphics
11
12
NEC
13
Autodesk
Nihon Unisys
14
MICROCADAM
15
16
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
Argo Graphics
17
Computervision
18
19
Hitachi
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Sumisho Electronics
CoCreate
Toshiba
MacNeal-Schwendler
Intergraph
Matra Datavision
Mitsubishi Electric
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Technodia
14,279
104A
-
170.7
-
180.6
6,285
290.9
-
208.0
18,241
-
70.9
218.1
85.5
127.4
45.3
38.2
1A91
3,697
331.6
285.0
-
1.6
219.6
55.1
65.5
26.5
23.1
-
1,847
156.8
127.1
4.7
177.0
156.8
72.0
-
66.7
60,518
1,416
68.7
23.4
50.5
43.2
79.0
-
99.2
60.5
75.2
1,877
99.2
25.8
41.0
1,380
85.3
20.3
28.5
51.2
13.7
1,156
6.9
43.2
44.3
38.2
14.3
104.6
4.8
25.3
13.6
79.8
8.9
15.2
27.3
12.2
62.5
8,005
335
4.8
37.5
-
Mitsui Engineering
216
17.5
29
Delcam Pic
721
27.0
30
C. Itoh Techno-Science
823
213,219
32.5
2,673.1
15.6
5.3
3,485.0
1,982.6
11,935
366.4
128.9
118,843
343,997
539.1
3,578.5
870.0
4,483.9
168.0
318.2
2,468.8
All Asian Companies
All Companies
339.2
32.9
28
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
403.8
351.3
150.3
147.7
5.5
3.7
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
145.7
1.3
138.8
138.4
1.3
1.3
136.7
1.3
135.7
127.7
1.2
1.2
127.2
1.2
1.1
119.3
116.4
56.6
56.4
8,342.9
688.9
1,889.1
10,920.9
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
76.4
6.3
17.3
100.0
Notes: Ail numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/dlstributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Aprilia, 1998
50
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Table C-2
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars, Actual Units)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, UNIX
Ran
k
1
IBM
32,030
577.0
687.6
2
Hewlett-Packard
33,251
1,065.9
3
4
Sun Microsystems
50,565
-
Parametric Technology
Silicon Graphics
26,708
6
Structural Dynamics
Research Corporation
-
144.6
7
Dassault Systemes
EDS Unigraphics
-
250.9
6,285
11,847
145.6
5
Company Name
CPU Software
CPU
Shipments Revenue Revenue
454.4
Total
1997
Distribution
Service
Market
Revenue
Revenue Share (%)
1,691.2
324.9
21.8
17.1
265.7
1,331.6
281.4
1,308.7
16.8
181.8
62.7
636.2
564.3
627.0
8.2
8.1
-
152.9
297.6
3.8
40.1
26.7
291.0
232.1
3.7
29.2
208.5
3.0
2.7
1,027.3
-
. • • - •
-
59.9
179.4
10
Nihon Unisys
1,489
54.1
65.1
18.5
160.9
2.1
11
12
NEC
3,765
2,646
40.9
120.8
53.3
22.0
18.1
-
148.7
142.7
1.9
-
63.8
17.8
4.3
33.4
75.5
-
139.3
223
1.8
1.4
8
9
13
14
15
Digital Equipment
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
Computervision
Sumisho Electronics
Mitsubishi Electric
578
-
40.1
• T
78.6
-
22.6
35.4
12.9
16
17
MacNeal-Schwendler
Intergraph
1,217
19.2
31.9
18
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Matra Datavision
8,005
1,138
38.8
63.5
34.4
15.1
Fujitsu
1,067
19.8
335
19
20
21
22
Tedmodia
Argo Graphics
23
24
CoCreate
Toshiba
25
Mitsui Engineering
26
Tecnomatix Technology
27
28
C. Itoh Techno-Science
Delcam Pic
29
Tokyo Electron
30
Gerber Systems
108.7
103.2
1.8
1.3
101.1
94.1
1.3
1.2
94.1
1.2
10.2
88.8
1.1
35.5
28.0
1.1
4.8
2.2
25.3
13.6
83.3
79.8
35.5
74.1
-
42.0
1.0
0.8
27.2
33.8
19.5
158
289
16.9
8.1
340
27.0
13.3
61.5
61.1
1.0
59.9
0.8
0.8
53.2
52.9
0.7
0.7
48.1
0.6
0.6
764
34.4
30.8
5.5
14.5
721
23.2
12.8
179
502
21.8
16.2
9.9
13.2
10.2
8.8
43.9
40.2
All N . A . Companies
All European Companfes
121,625
1,765.8
2,818.9
1,609.0
6,313.6
3,980
204.6
31,281
156,886
275.6
2,245.9
115.3
161.6
400.7
All Asian Companfes
All Companies
75.5
498.7
81.3
5.2
3,393.1
1,885.8
1,054.4
7,768.7
13.6
100.0
4.8
10.2
0.5
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
51
Market Statistics
Table C-3
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars, Actual Units)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, NT
Ran
k
Company Name
1
Fujitsu
2
Parametric Technology
3
4
Autodesk
Digital Equipment
5
EDS Unigraphics
6
7
CoCreate
Structural Dynamics
Research Corporation
8
MICROCADAM
Intergraph
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1997
Total
CPU
Market
Service Distribution
CPU Software
Revenue Share (%)
Shipments Revenue Revenue Revenue
56.4
83.3
78.4
218.1
16.8
8,327
212.1
16.3
151.5
60.6
8.4
109.0
0.8
109.8
87.7
7.9
14.8
102.5
8,673
25.7
7.6
62.4
11.4
99.5
54.7
4.2
40.2
14.5
-
24.8
-
-
39.2
-
660
6.6
ISD Software
CAD Lab
1,136
-
17.0
NEC
ADRA Systems
1,638
10.5
7.6
9.1
3.1
4.4
9.2
148
10.2
14.1
349
362
5.7
8.7
155
342
8.7
Matra Datavision
ASCAD
16
17
Radan Computational
18
19
Omron
Ansys
20
21
Toshiba
Wacom
-
22
23
Hitachi
6,046
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Graphtec Engineering
Applicon
Hitachi Zosen Info Systems
Bentley Systems
Tosliiba Engineering
Dassault Systemes
Delcam Pic
Seiko
Agile Software
All N . A . Companies
ALl European Companies
ALl Asian Companies
All Companies
•
^
10.1
10.3
6.1
12.0
6.1
7.4
0.2
3.3
10.4
5.7
6.8
5.7
7.5
4.4
-
26.2
50.9
3.9
39.2
3.0
15.8
33.1
6.9
5.7
28.7
2.5
2.2
21.9
1.7
2.1
10.4
20.8
20.8
1.6
2.3
2.8
3.4
19.7
19.0
18.2
1.5
1.5
1.4
0.8
18.0
1.4
4.5
17.5
14.8
1.3
1.1
13.6
1.0
13.1
12.1
1.0
-
•
-
•
1.1
0.3
4.6
1.4
4.3
3.8
290
9.0
4.3
1.1
1.7
:-
6.3
3.5
-
3.8
2.4
5.9
5.7
2.0
2.1
2.5
184.5
20.7
•^
9,903
2,119
512.5
133.4
71.0
28.0
17,040
29,061
116.9
700.3
129.8
291.2
12.0
10.5
10.0
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
9.6
0.8
0.7
-
9.0
0.7
2.0
8.5
8.4
0.7
90.4
295.6
8.2
833.4
122.8
344.8
1,300.9
0.6
0.6
64.1
9.4
26.5
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April 13,1998
52
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table C-4
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars, Actual Units)
Top 30 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Personal Computer
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Company Name
IBM
NEC
Autodesk
Fujitsu
Hitachi
MICROCADAM
Argo Graphics
Hewlett-Packard
Toshiba
Investronica S A
Digital Equipment
Andor
Sumisho Electronics
CoCreate
Design Automation
Tebis
Cimatron
Mutoh Industries
Mitsubishi Electric
Bentley Systems
CNC Software
Matra Datavision
Nihon Unisys
Formtek
Info. Services Int'l. Dentsu
Wiechers Datentedmik
Surfware
Pathtrace Engineering Systems
Asfdar
Serbi
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
1997
Total
Market
Service Distribution
CPU
CPU Software
Revenue Share (%)
Shipments Revenue Revenue Revenue
188.7
15.2
188.7
49,750
115.5
12.7
22.4
9.3
64.9
12,838
8.7
107.9
0.8
107.1
97.7
7.9
36.1
26.1
35.5
4,885
7.8
97.0
2.8
48.6
35.0
46,145
86.2
6.9
86.2
73.5
2.4
1,507
5.9
36.5
69.0
5.6
10.3
58.6
20,841
._.
.-:
61.1
27.2
4.9
33.8
45.4
3.7
9.0
10.3
12.5
4,183
34.6
1.2
2.8
33.3
14,478
2.4
30.1
19.2
5.8
545
29.7
2.4
5.6
1,193
9.8
20.5
.1.7
3.5
17.0
18.2
14.1
1.5
0.3
3.7
614
1.4
17.4
5.2
8.0
2.5
180
1.4
16.8
12.9
3.9
9.9
0.3
3.9
0.8
4.0
382
9.4
0.8
2.0
569
3.1
9.4
8.4
0.8
1.0
8.8
0.7
8.8
8.3
0.7
1.0
1.4
6.0
63
8.0
4.0
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.6
8.0
1.8
0
6.2
120
7.5
6.4
0.6
1.2
1,051
0.6
7.5
1.3
1.4
4.8
74
7.4
0.6
1.0
6.5
0.6
6.9
1.6
5.3
'
^
•
530
79,874
5,765
70,156
155,794
:
6.9
5.0
311.3
87.1
141.6
540.0
•
•
-
.•r
1.6
269.8
23.9
236.2
529.9
38.7
25.6
58.0
122.2
6.9
6.6
619.8
152.7
469.6
1,242.0
0.6
0.5
49.9
12.3
37.8
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
AprillS, 1998
53
Market Statistics
Table C-5
1997 CAD/CAM/CAE/GIS Total Vendor Market Share
(Revenue in Millions of Dollars, Actual Units)
Top 23 Mechanical Software Companies, Worldwide, Host/Proprietary
Rank Company Name
1
IBM
2
Digital Equipment
3
4
5
6
7
Dassault Systemes
MacNeal-Schwendler
Nihon Unisys
1997
Total
Market
Service Distribution
CPU
CPU Software
Revenue Share (%)
Shipments Revenue Revenue Revenue
68.7
649
78.3
109.6
151.3
418.3
41.1
2,432
214.2
36.1
250.3
5.2
6.3
33.0
38.2
14.8
4.2
3.1
19.0
0.4
1.3
2
0.2
4.0
8.0
1.9
1.1
2.7
0.9
1.1
0.4
8
9
Exapt
41
0.6
0.9
10
59
1.7
11
C. Itoh Techno-Science
Matra Datavision
12
13
Toyo Information Systems
Century Research Center
31
9
1
1.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
14
Kubota Computer
^
0.3
-
15
Ansys
Altair Computing
-
0.3
0.1
•r-
0
0.1
0.3
r-
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
debis Systemhaus
Whessoe Computing Systems
Mechanical Dynamics
Computational Mechanics
Sherpa Corp.
ESI Group
Technodia
All N . A . Companies
All European Companies
All Asian Companies
All Companies
-
2.1
Fujitsu
Hitachi
Mitsubishi Electric
286
9
-
•
1.6
--
0.2
0
0.2
1,817
71
366
2,255
0.1
0.7
:
:
.
-
•
-
•
•
-
•
-
•
.
4.8
4.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
3.8
3.7
0.5
3.6
0.3
0.2
2.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
-
0.1
0.2
0.6
1.6
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
-
0.3
0.1
-
0.3
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0
0
0.1
0
0
-
0.1
-
0.2
0
83.6
3.7
262.9
150.5
6.4
576.1
1.5
5.0
92.3
5.3
269.6
8.2
165.1
12.8
20.3
609.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
94.6
2.1
3.3
100.0
Notes: All numbers shown are Dataquest's best estimates.
Vendor data includes OEM revenue, so sum of vendors is greater than total.
Company statistics contain VAR/distributor revenue not counted in total.
Source: Dataquest (March 1998)
CMEC-WW-MS-9801
©1998 Dataquest
April13,1998
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
DataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http://www.dataquest.eom
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of informatian 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. Reproduction or disclosure in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express consent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights
reserved.
58768
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AIHERICA
Worldwide Headquarters
EUROPE
European Headquarters
ASIA/PACIFIC
Asia/Pacific Headquarters
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: 1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: 1-408-954-1780
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Surrey TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone:+441784 431 611
Facsimile: -i441784 488 980
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road, Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: 852-2824r6168
Facsimile: 852-2824-6138
East Coast Research Center
Dataquest France
Dataquest Korea
Nine Technology Drive
P.O. Box 5093
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581-5093
United States
Phone: 1-508-871-5555
Facsimile: 1-508-871-6262
Immeuble Defense Berg^res
345, avenue Georges Cl^menceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterce CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: H-33 141 3513 OO
Facsimile: -i-33141 35 1313
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: 822-551-1331
Facsimile: 822-551-1330
Dataquest Germany
llF-2, No. 188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Phone: 8862-2756-0389
Facsimile: 8862-2756-0663
Dataquest Global Events
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 100
Newport Beach, California 92660
United States
Phcme: 1-714-476-9117
Facsimile: 1-714-476-9969
Dataquest Taiwan
Martin-Kollar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Munchen
Germany
Phone:--49 89 42 70 4-0
Facsimile: --49 89 42 70 4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153
Japan
Phone: 81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: 81-3-3481-3644
Dataquest Singapore
6 Temasek Boulevard, #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: 65-333-6773
Facsimile: 65-333-6768
Dataquest Thailand
12/F, Vanissa Building
29 Soi Chidlom
Ploenchit Road
Patumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: 662-655-0577
Facsimile: 662-655-0576
Dataquest Australia
80 Alfred Street
Milsons Point NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: 61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: 61-2-9941-4868
Dataquest
A Gartner Group Company
Q1998 Dataquest
DataQuest
The European Mechanical Designer
User Wants and Needs
Library Copy
DO NOT REMOVE!
Program: Mechanical CAD/CAMfCAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-UW-9801
Publication Date: July 6,1998
Filing: Reports
INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
DATAQUESTINCORPORATED
251 River Oal<s Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
408-468-8600
The European IVIechanical Designer
User Wants and Needs
Program: Mechanical CADfCAMfCAE Worldwide
Product Code: CMEC-WW-UW-9801
Publication Date: July 6,1998
Filing: Reports
The European Mechanical Designer
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
Introduction
Study Objectives
Key Survey Highlights
Dataquest Perspective and Recommendations
2. Study Foundations and Methodology
Survey Methodology
Sample Criteria
Interviewing Procedures
Definitions
Structure of the Document
Respondent Demographics
By Country
By Industry
By Company Size
By Job Title
By CAD Experience
3. CAD Design in Europe
Familiarity with CAD Software Packages
Is Mechanical CAD Reaching Saturation?
Customization and Integration
New Designs or Modifications
Designing in 2-D or 3-D?
Reasons for Staying with 2-D
CAD File Types
Methods for Transferring Design Files
The STEP Standard
4. Fuhire C A D / C A M / C A E Plans
Level of System Operation
Migration Plans to NT
What Is Driving the NT Decision
CAD Purchasing Decisions
CAD/CAM/CAE Seat Counts
CAD Software Retirements
CAD Spending Plans
Plotters and Printers
5. Mecharucal Application Perceptions
Is CAD/CAM/CAE Technology Helping to Meet
Business Goals?
Mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E Applications—
What Users Think
Design-Related Tools and Technologies—What Users Want
Characterizing the Ideal Software Solution and CAD Vendor
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
1
1
1
1
2
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
11
11
12
12
14
14
15
17
18
18
21
21
22
24
24
25
27
29
30
33
33
34
35
37
July 6,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
List of Figures
Figure
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
Page
Respondents by Country
Respondents by Industry
Respondents by Company Size
Experience Base of Respondents
Number of Mechanical Software Applications Used
CAD Penetration by Country and Industry
Customization of CAD/CAM/CAE Systems
2-D or 3-D in 2000?
Reasons for Staying with 2-D Design
Data Files Stored by Type
Main Method for Transferring Design Files
STEP Plans
STEP Plans by Country
Level of System Operation
Future Operating System Plans Based on Survey Responses
Reasons to Move to NT, All Respondents
Reasons to Move to NT, UNIX Respondents
Reasons to Not Move to NT, All Respondents
Reasons to Not Move to NT, UNIX Respondents
CAD Purchasing Decision Drivers
Anticipated Seat Count Changes by Country and Industry
Plarmed Plotter and Printer Purchases over Next Two Years
CAD Perceptions, Weighted Average of Responses
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of Mechanical
Applications
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of CAD-Related
Technologies
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of an Ideal
CAD Solution
©1998 Dataquest
8
8
9
9
11
13
14
16
16
17
19
20
20
21
23
25
26
27
28
28
29
32
34
36
38
40
July 6,1998
The European Mechanical Designer
III
List of Tables
Table
3-1 Is 3-D Design the Main Method of Design?
4-1 Adoption of Windows NT by Country and Industry
4-2 Anticipated Spending Patterns for Mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE Technology
4-3 Plotter Technology
5-1 Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of Mechanical
Applications
5-2 Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of CAD-Related
Technologies
5-3 Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of an Ideal
CAD Solution
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Page
15
23
31
32
36
38
40
July 6,1998
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
Introduction
Each year, Dataquest's Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide program
performs an extensive survey of mechanical designers and reports on their
shifting priorities, needs, and demands. For mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
vendors to be successful, they must have a thorough understanding of
their customer base. Our research of mechanical engineers, designers, and
engineering CAD managers provides us with an insightful look into their
preferences, application satisfaction, and spending plans. In particular,
this year's survey focuses on those mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE users in
Europe.
Study Objectives
This study examines European-based users of mechanical CAD/CAM/
CAE systems in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. This
report is based on the results of a May 1998 telephone survey of 324 European-based engineering professionals involved in the mechanical design
process. The specific objectives of this study are the following:
• To characterize European-based mechanical designers and managers,
their CAD working environments, and their spending plans
• To compare and contrast how individual European countries and
industries differ in their mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE usage and
attitudes
• To advance the imderstanding of what these users need to be successful
Key Survey Highlights
Major findings of our survey include the following:
n Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE technology is a mature technology in
Europe. In some industries, mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE technology is
now facing the prospect of saturation and growth by replacement seats
instead of completely new sales.
• While 3-D design methods are pervasive throughout Europe, there is
still plenty of 2-D design work being done. Those survey respondents
not planning to move to 3-D over the next few years overwhelmingly
cite that 2-D CAD is enough to meet their design needs. Data is most
commonly stored as 2-D files.
• Standard for Exchange of Product Data (STEP) still has many years to
go until it is widely accepted, vmderstood, and used. It is quite apparent
that awareness of the STEP stcuidard varies greatly by country. We can
characterize the French and German respondents in our survey as having the most awareness of STEP, and the Italian and U.K. respondents as
having the least awareness.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998Dataquest
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
According to our European survey respondents, UNIX will indeed cede
groimd to V\/indows NT ui mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE. hi 2000 and
2002, slightly over one-half of our survey respondents expect Windows
NT to be their primary operating system. The two top user-cited
reasons to move to NT were the prospects of easier system/networking
maintenance and reduced hardware costs. Each European country and
industry will adopt the NT operating system at very different rates.
European CAD users, on the whole, are expecting the total number of
C A D / C A M / C A E seats at their site to increase or remain the same from
1998 to 2000, with little variation seen by country or industry. Retirement rates for existing software modules are also expected to be high.
User responses to our questions about plarmed spending/budget
changes for C A D / C A M / C A E technology bode well for nearly everyone involved in CAD deployment: software developers, hardware
vendors, and consultants.
Despite the maturity of the technology, European users are still not
completely satisfied with their mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E solutions.
Satisfaction ratings are still lower than importance ratings for all basic
C A D / C A M / C A E software functions, such as assembly design and
product data management.
European designers and engineers want a lot of performance from their
CAD solutions—tight integration among modules (especially CAD to
CAM integration), good graphics, and design optimization capabilities.
Survey respondents show an interest in sharing design files via the
Internet or intranet and in project Web sites, but such capabilities aren't
at the top of user importance rankings.
There is still plenty of real dissatisfaction with C A D / C A M / C A E solutions among European end users, when it comes to such basic issues as
bug-free, stable software, vendor service and support, and software cost
per seat.
Dataquest Perspective and Recommendations
While design automation has become indispensable to many European
manufacturing companies, European designers and engineers are looking
beyond CAD and into such things as integration issues, data exchange
and management, and larger IT investment strategies. End-user experiences are still not flawless, because satisfaction ratings are lower than
importance ratings for basic C A D / C A M / C A E software functions. There
are still large gaps on the wish lists of system characteristics.
The prospects for increased mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE sales in Europe
are indeed healthy, as users in our survey reveal plans for increased CAD
spending, high software retirement rates, and significant changes in operating systems. There is a clear indication that the European manufacturing
industry is going through a major transformation to remain competitive in
an increasingly global economy. High labor costs have forced European
industries to radically change and increase productivity. This change in
the Structure of the European manufacturing industry is one of the factors
behind the large CAD and IT investments we expect to see in the near
future.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Executive Summary
Opportunities exist for those vendors willing to address issues outside of
purely design, and for those vendors who recognize that there are clear
dffferences among the countries in Europe. It is not sufficient to lump all of
the European designers and engineers into one category called "Europe;"
instead, vendors need to examine how CAD technology usage and CAD
buying habits in Germany differ from those in France. Indeed, European
mechanical designers and engineers will keep vendors on their toes for
many years to come.
Project Analyst: Sharon Tan
Primary Research Manager: Simon Bradford
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Chapter 2
Study Foundations and Methodology
Survey Methodology
The survey questionnaire was developed by analysts from Dataquest's
Mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E Worldwide program and consisted of about
130 questions. The end-user data was gathered via a telephone survey
conducted in May 1998. The results were entered into a statistical analysis
package for analysis of the data. In total, 324 surveys were completed.
Countries surveyed included France, Germany, Italy, and the
United KingdomAll of the percentages in this report are estimates and are subject to the
usual limitations of survey research. The characteristics of noncontacted
and noncooperating sites could have changed the survey results.
Any data point collected in the survey can form the basis of a crosstabulation. Because of the scope and length of the survey, this report does
not examine every single data point collected. Special cuts of the data (for
example by operating system used or software package) are available to
Dataquest's Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide program clients by
special request. However, the identities of the end users surveyed are
strictly confidential.
Sample Criteria
In this survey, the respondents needed to meet specific criteria (namely,
having a mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE system in development or in
place) to qualify. Interview candidates were generated from a variety of
sources, including magazine subscriptions, in-house databases, and
previous respondents to end-user surveys.
Interviewing Procedures
The 20- to 30-minute telephone surveys were conducted in each country's
native language by trained interviewers at Dataquest's primary research
facilities in Europe. The interviews were conducted using an online Computer-Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. The interviewing
facility is equipped with monitoring stations that are used for qualitycontrol purposes throughout the data collection process.
Definitions
Some questions asked respondents to evaluate opinion-based statements
on the extent of agreement with certain statements or software vendor
attributes in terms of importance and satisfaction. These questions asked
the individual to respond using a five-point scale. The following rating
system was used:
• 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree
• 1 = Not at all important and 5 = Very important
• 1 = Not at all satisfied and 5 = Very satisfied
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
The terms "mean" and "median" are used periodically in presenting survey
results. These terms are defined as follows:
Mean: The arithmetic mean, or average, of responses
Median: The midpoint of the distribution of responses (that is, half of
the responses are above and half are below this midpoint of the
distribution)
Structure of the Document
Throughout this document, vve analyze the data by European country and
European industry, where appropriate. While the tendency is to lump all
European designers into one category called "Europe," we find that each
country in Europe has very distinct C A D / C A M / C A E technology usage
and buying habits. Readers should keep this in mind. The remainder of
this document is orgamized as follows:
• Chapter 3, "CAD Design in Europe," characterizes the European
mechanical designer today. We begin by examining the use of C A D /
CAM/CAE within a company, including CAD penetration rates and
data transfer methods. We investigate 3-D design and hindrances to its
more widespread use, and we question users about their prospects for
the STEP standard.
• Chapter 4, "Future C A D / C A M / C A E Plans," characterizes the C A D /
CAM/CAE spending plans at the respondents' companies. We discuss
expected CAD seat count changes and anticipated future budgets for
CAD-related hardware, software, and service. We also examine operating system plans for the future.
• Chapter 5, "Mechanical Application Perceptions," reveals what designers liiink of the mechanical appHcations they use—what benefits have
they seen, what CAD functionality and characteristics they seek, and
what influences their purchasing decisions. Users rate the importance
and satisfaction of a number of factors related to C A D / C A M / C A E and
the engineering design process.
Respondent Demographics
By Country
As we Stated earUer, our survey focused specifically on mechanical C A D /
CAM/CAE users in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
A breakdown of survey respondents by country is shown in Figure 2-1.
Our decision to focus on these countries was driven largely by the fact that
these countries are the biggest purchasers of mechanical C A D / C A M /
CAE systems in Europe. Many of the analyses in tliis report will use country as a metric for comparison among respondents.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
study Foundations and Methodology
By Industry
Figure 2-2 gives the respondent breakdown by industry. Because many of
the mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E software and hardware purchases are
made by a few key industries, we consequently focused on those industries, specifically aerospace, automotive, electrical/electronic machinery,
fabricated metal, and industrial machinery, in this survey. While some
may argue that our focus on specific industries may skew the results, our
aim in conducting the survey is to understand users and decision makers
involved in the mechanical design process in key industries. The category
"others" in Figure 2-2 consists of those respondents in services/design/
consulting, telecommunications, government, and education. Many of the
analyses in this report will use industry as a metric for comparison among
respondents.
By Company Size
Respondent company size varied from fewer than 10 employees to more
than 10,000 employees in that country (see Figure 2-3). About 55 percent of
the respondents came from small to medium-size companies with fewer
than 500 employees in that country. Further, the category "200 to 499
employees" was identified by 44 percent of our respondents.
By Job Title
Our survey had a high proportion of engineers and designers who use
C A D / C A M / C A E tools in their daily jobs as well as CAD and information
technology (IT) managers and supervisors. Again, the focus was to survey
users who either use mechanical design software or are involved in
mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E system purchases. We will not be showing
survey results by job titles, as each job title may have a different meaning
and associated responsibilities, depending on the country in which the
respondent resides.
By CAD Experience
The respondent group as a whole is well experienced with several years of
hands-on use (see Figure 2-4). The experience base of survey respondents
was, on average, 9.8 years, with about 38 percent of the respondents having eight to 10 years of experience with mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE systems. Little variation w a s seen by industry. The median for years of
experience was 10 years; the maximum was 30 years.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 2-1
Respondents b y Country
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Figure 2-2
Respondents b y Industry
^"-"^Others
j / ^
\(6.5%)
Electrical/Electronic
lyiachinery
(10.5%)
Industrial
Machinery
(26.5%)
\
\
\
Fabricated ^ \ ^ \
Metal
^ ; ^
(13.3%)
^^^-."--^
\
\
Aerospace
(18.5%)
I
1
Automotive
(24,7%)
m
M
963303
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
study Foundations and Methodology
Figure 2-3
Respondents by Company Size
Company Size
;-i
Less than 50 Employees
50 to 99 Employees
-
100 to 149 Employees
J^
150 to 199 Employees
200 to 499 Employees
500 to 999 Employees
1,000 to 1,999 Employees
2,000 to 2,999 Employees
fel
•
:
.
;
&
•
•
•
•
"
•
"•
'^W^
.•••:-:i
h
N
5,000 or More Employees
' ? ^ ^ ^ 5;^s^^m*<bs.^s. '^li:mfifmyl^0-0^
1
-
4,000 to 4,999 Employees
«
^
-
3,000 to 3,999 Employees
;
•.:^J
r
I
20
]
40
1
60
80
100
Number of Respondents
120
I
T
140
160
983304
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Figure 2-4
Experience Base of Respondents
Years of Experience Using Mechanical CADlCAMlCAE Software
One Year
2 to 4 Years
1
5 to 7 Years
*WHW
8 to 10 Years
mm0^^-
11 to 13 Years
14 to 16 Years
17 to 20 Years
I\/lore than 20 Years
—I
20
40
1
1—
60
80
Number of Respondents
100
120
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Chapter 3
CAD Design in Europe
Familiarity with CAD Software Paclcages
We asked respondents how many C A D / C A M / C A E packages they have
learned and use on a regular basis. The results, by industry, are shown in
Figure 3-1. On average, respondents have learned to use 2.9 mechanical
CAD packages (with respondents in automotive having learned the most).
Respondents regularly use 2.1 packages, again with those in automotive
using the most, followed by those in electrical/electronic machinery. The
higher-than-average number of mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E software
applications used by respondents in those two industries reflects the
nature of design work in those two industries—designers often have to
deal with both mechanical and electrical/electronic design problems (such
as cabhng and signal analysis). Little variation was seen by country in
terms of either the number of packages leeurned or used, though German
respondents tended to have learned and use more CAD/CAM/CAE software than their European counterparts.
Figure 3-1
N u m b e r of Mechanical Software Applications U s e d
Industry
PipHMq^p*^pB|l|p||i;Hfai«pp
Aerospace
Number of
Packages
Used on
Regular Basis
Automotive
Electric/Electronic
iViachinery
Number of
Packages
Learned
Fabricated Metal
Industrial Machinery
others
All Respondents
Number of Packages Learned or Used
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
11
12
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Is Mechanical CAD Reaching Saturation?
No doubt, mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE is a mature technology that is
now facing the prospect of growth by replacement seats instead of new
sales. The difference between the number of people currently working on
a C A D / C A M / C A E system at a site and the number who would ideally
(that is, where budgets a n d / o r training are not issues) work on the system
is indicative of just how close CAD is to reaching its saturation point.
Dataquest asked respondents how many people work on a CAID/CAM/
CAE system and how many would work on a CAD system under ideal
circumstances (where budgets and training are not issues). The results, by
country and industry, are summarized in Figure 3-2.
For all respondents, the average number of professionals working on a
C A D / C A M / C A E system at a given site was 54 professionals, and the
ideal number was somewhat higher at 66 professionals. These two numbers imply that, among our sample respondents, there is some, but not
much, room for deploying additional C A D / C A M / C A E seats. However,
the total number of technical professionals for all respondents was 96 professionals at a site, nearly twice the number of professionals working on
CAD. Optimistic readers would interpret this as a large opportunity to put
a CAD system on every technical professional's desk.
Interestingly, the data from this survey hints at CAD saturation levels in
France and Italy, and in the industries aerospace, fabricated metal, and
industrial machinery. Here, these respondents indicated that the ideal
number of people working on a CAD system would be fewer than are currently working on the system. In contrast, the data reveals significant
growth opportunities in Germany and the United Kingdom, and in the
industries automotive and electrical/electroruc machinery, where there are
fewer people currently working on a CAD system than would occur under
ideal circumstances.
Customization and Integration
Customization is nothing new to users of mechanical CAD systems. Most
vendors have realized this and include customization tools in their software offerings. The majority of mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E users continue to do some customization of their systems—22 percent of
respondents said that they do "a lot" of customization and 48 percent said
they do "some" customization. In contrast to North American designer
responses from earlier surveys, European designers appear more likely to
use systems off the shelf, witii no customization. Here, in this survey, 30
percent of our European respondents said they do no customization, versus 18 percent of North American respondents in our 1997 survey. Results
by cotmtry and industry are shown in Figure 3-3.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
13
CAD Design in Europe
Figure 3-2
CAD Penetration by Country and Industry
Country or Industry
France
Technical
Professionals on
CAD/CAM/CAE
System
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
Ideal Number of
Technical
Professionals on
CAD/CAM/CAE
System
Aerospace
Automotive
Electrical/Electronic Machinery
Fabricated Metal
Industrial Machinery
Other Industries
All Respondents
T
20
I
I
1
1
1
r
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Average Number of Professionals
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
There is a marked difference in the extent of customization among individual coimtries and industries. In general, Germans appear to do less
customization than, for instance, their French counterparts. Contrary to
what we would have expected, 41 percent of the respondents in electrical/
electroiuc machinery said they do no customization of their mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE systems. Given the fact that engineers in this industry
are often having to deal with both electrical and mechanical design problems, we would expect more customization, at least in the area of integration among various software design packages. Similarly, 74 percent of
respondents in fabricated metal said that they do a lot or some customization of their systems. We would have expected this percentage to be less,
especially in light of the fact that many CAD software vendors have been
focusing on offering functionality specifically for designers in this
industry.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Julys, 1998
14
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 3-3
Customization of CAD/CAM/CAE Systems
Country or Industry
France
No
Customization
Germany
Italy
Some
Customization
United Kingdom
Aerospace
Automotive
A Lot of
Customization
Electrical/Electronic Machinery
Fabricated Metal
Industrial Machinery
other Industries
All Respondents
20
30
40
(
T^
50
60
1
80
r
90
100
Percent
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
New Designs or Modifications
Not all discretely manufactured products are based on completely new
designs. On the contrary, mechanical designers and engineers must spend
part Of their time modifying existing parts and assemblies instead of
designing new part, assemblies, and products from scratch. We asked
respondents about the proportion of new parts designed to existing parts
that are modified. On average, 45 percent of their designs are modifications of existing designs, and 55 percent are completely new designs.
There was little difference seen by country or by industry, though respondents in industrial machinery tended to design products from scratch
more often than those in fabricated metal. The amount of modifications
done points to a need to preserve legacy data in a form that will be accessible in the future and to tools that address editing rather than creation from
scratch.
Designing in 2-D or 3-D?
For the most part, European mechanical designers in this survey design in
both 2-D and 3-D. Details by country and industry are given in Table 3-1.
The French report the highest percentage of 3-D design work, and Italians
report the lowest. From an industry perspective, those in automotive tend
to design more often in 3-D than those respondents in fabricated metal or
industrial machinery. For those respondents who said that 3-D was their
primary form of design today, we asked them what percentage of the 3-D
functions available on their CAD/CAM/CAE system are used. The
answers, shown in Table 3-1, are in line with what we have seen in previous North American-based surveys.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
15
CAD Design in Europe
While the results shown in Table 3-1 are not surprising, they underscore
the fact that there is still plenty of 2-D design work being done. While vendors would like to beUeve that the world has gone 3-D, users are clearly
Still working in 2-D, and their software needs cannot be ignored. Of
course, optimistic vendors can see the high number of 2-D seats out there
as an opportunity to convert those seats into 3-D.
Table 3-1
Is 3-D Design the Main Method of Design?
Yes (%)
No (%)
59
44
41
Percentage of 3-D
Functions Used
By Country
France
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
29
42
56
71
51
57
82
58
69
53
44
62
56
63
65
53
62
64
48
55
80
62
By Industry
Aerospace
47
Automotive
Electrical/Electronic Machinery
56
44
Fabricated Metal
Industrial Machinery
37
Other Industries
All Respondents
35
52
45
60
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Reasons for Staying with 2-D
Of those users who do not consider 3-D to be their main form of design,
Dataquest asked if it would become the main form by 2000. Forty-two
percent of these respondents said yes, and 58 percent said no. If we factor
these results into the results from our question about whether a respondent's main design methods are 2-D or 3-D, we see that 2-D is clearly here
for the long run (see Figure 3-4).
Among those respondents who are currently 2-D users and are not planning to move to 3-D by 2000, little difference among respondents was seen
by country, except with the Italian respondents, for whom ordy 21 percent
expect to move to 3-D by 2000. Similarly, by industry, orUy 30 percent of
aerospace respondents expect to move to 3-D, while 58 percent of fabricated metal respondents expect to move to 3-D.
Overall, users cited many reasons for not planning to change to 3-D CAD
by 2000. By far, the most commonly cited reason was that 2-D CAD is
enough to meet their needs. AU reasons are summarized in Figure 3-5.
Interestingly, despite the proliferation of relatively inexpensive 3-D
mechanical design packages with graphical user interfaces and multimedia-based learning tools, there is still the perception out there that 3-D
CAD systems are expensive.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Julys, 1998
16
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 3-4
2-D or 3-D in 2000?
/
Plan to Remain
2-D in 2000
(30.7%)
/
/
Design in
3-D Today
(46.6%)
I
\^
\
\
\ .
*
1
1
Expect to Be
Designing in
3-D by 2000
(22.7%)
9B330S
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Figure 3-5
Reasons for Staying w i t h 2-D Design
3-D Data Is Not Used
at Client Site or with Suppliers (2!.8%)
\^--i—I
3-D Data Is Not Used
in Next Design Step (4.6%)
3-D Systems Are
Difficult to Learn and Use
(8.8%)
3-D Design
Is Not Compatible
with Current
Design Work
(13.9%)
v /
\
\
\
2-D CAD
Is Enough
(50.0%)
1
1
1
V / 3 - D Systems
\
Are Expensive
\^(15.3%)
SS3310
Note: Multiple responses allowed
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
17
CAD Design in Europe
CAD File Types
The mix of data file types is key to gaining an understanding of the level of
use of various modeUng technologies, including 3-D, and also points to
the level of graphics performance and storage requirements necessary to
view and edit design data as it is retrieved. Figure 3-6 shows the mix of
files stored by modeling technology and industry. All respondents have a
mix of 2-D or 3-D wire frame, surface, and soUd modeling files. Despite
the high percentage of respondents indicating 3-D design as their primary
design method, data is most commonly stored as 2-D files, particularly in
industrial machinery and fabricated metal, and in Germany. As indicated
in Figure 3-6, those in the automotive industry store more files as surface
models than any other industry. We would expect this high storage of surface models, given the nature of automobile design and the "competitive"
advcuitage one automobile manufacturer deems over another in its automobile surfacing capabilities. Similarly, respondents in France and Italy
indicated a higher-than-average storage of surface models, reflective of the
liigh amount of industrial design work that occurs in these two countries.
Figure 3-6
Data Files Stored by Type
Country or Industry
France
Germany
Italy
0
Solid Model
H
Surface
S
Wireframe
D
2-D
United Kingdom
Aerospace
Automotive
Electrical/Electronic Machinery
Fabricated Metal
Industrial Machinery
other Industries
All Respondents
100
Percent
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
18
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Methods for Transferring Design Files
Dataquest asked respondents to identify the main method for transferring
design files from one system to another. Despite the relative sophistication
of our survey sample, file transfer methods appear to be one step behind,
with slightly more than one-half of our respondents indicating that the
primary transfer method for design data was electronic means (such as
through the Internet or via a direct link with a supplier or other site).
However, while electronic methods dominate, files are still being transferred the manual way (on paper) or via "sneakernet" (on diskette or tape).
The results for all responses are given in Figure 3-7.
From a country perspective, respondents in the United Kingdom indicate
the highest use of electronic means for transferring files (60 percent of
respondents said that electronic methods were the primary method),
while those in France indicate the lowest (45 percent of respondents).
Similarly, from an industry perspective, those respondents in the automotive industry use electronic methods for tiansferring design data more
(61 percent of respondents) than those in fabricated metal (45 percent of
respondents). The highest use of paper was seen in the United Kingdom
(19 percent of respondents) and in fabricated metal and industiial machinery (14 percent of respondents in each industry).
Again, w e caution vendors to not throw all their eggs into one basket,
despite how enticing it might be for a vendor to be able to say, "Yes, our
software lets engineering companies design project home pages where
everyone can get access to the information." These vendors need to keep in
mind that roughly half of the designers in our survey do not even have
electionic means for transferring files.
Tlie STEP Standard
Standards have always been a more important issue in Europe, where they
are often mandated by local governments, than k\ North America. STEP
(aimed at management of data throughout the life cycle of a product) is no
exception. While STEP is an international standard, much of the development work for the STEP standard, as well as requirements and specifications for future IT tools, has been occurring in Europe, through ffie efforts
of the Advanced Information Technology (AIT) and European Strategic
Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology
(ESPRIT).
Users want the ability to transfer data between different C A D / C A M / C A E
systems with a minimum of fuss and rework, something that can't be done
with translators today. Further, users are interested in being able to access
data throughout the life cycle of a product, where that product cotdd be a
computer (which has a relatively short life cycle) or a ship (which has a
much longer life cycle). STEP has been drawing the interest of the CAD
community for quite some time, but this survey, similar to survey results
in earlier years, shows that STEP still has many years to go before it is
widely accepted and used.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
19
CAD Design in Europe
Figure 3-7
Main Method for Transferring Design Files
other IVlethods (1.6%)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Specifically, Dataquest asked users what their plans for the STEP standard
are. The results are given in Figure 3-8. The highest rates of STEP use or
plcins, as well as awareness of the STEP standard, are among designers in
the automotive industry. This comes as no surprise, as much of the STEP
development has been spearheaded by efforts in the automotive arena.
(These results are similar to what we saw in North America in 1997).
Respondents in aerospace, fabricated metal, and industrial machinery
reported the least awareness of the STEP standard. We expected those in
aerospace to show higher awareness of STEP, as some of the STEP development efforts have also focused on the aerospace industry.
Figure 3-9 shows STEP plans by coimtry, where it is quite apparent that
awareness of the STEP standard varies greatly by country. We can characterize the French and German respondents in our survey as having the
most awareness of STEP, and the Italian and U.K. respondents as having
the least awareness. In any case, the lack of awareness of STEP is stiU quite
high for aU respondents. The results in Figures 3-8 and 3-9 regarding STEP
awareness show little change from an earUer 1995 European mechanical
user survey.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
20
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 3-8
STEP Plans
- Don't Know What
STEP Plans Are (8.1%)
Currently Use STEP
(8.7%)
9B33t3
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Figure 3-9
STEP Plans b y Country
France
pm Don't Know
• ^ What STEP Is
•mmm^mM
•
Don't Know
What STEP
Plans Are
pn
"^
No STEP
Plans
Germany
'^•'^<S:<<:
^^MF
Have Plans
CH to Implement
STEP
:••'!•'•
•<IH.
fJms-
^^mi4smmmi^miy.-M. ^k
^^^M^S
United Kingdom
—I
10
1
20
I
I
.HKVNXSS:-.^
i?!'i'fA?;'
••m$$m
i
1
1
30
40
50
60
70
Percentage of Respondents
1
r
80
90
^
^
Currently
Use STEP
^
100
983914
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Chapter 4
Future CAD/CAM/CAE Plans
Level of System Operation
Respondents indicated a number of levels of CAD/CAM/CAE system
operation. Eighty-six percent of respondents are in some type of networked environment, as indicated in Figure 4-1. As in previous surveys,
few respondents (6 percent) have reached the point where they have
implemented a network with suppliers and clients tied into their system.
Such an elaborate network may soon become more commonplace, given
the developments being made in intranet technology, client/server
technology, and networking capabilities of CAD/CAM/CAE software.
Readers should also note that results to this question may be somewhat
skewed, given our focus on certain industries in this survey. As we would
expect, automotive respondents drove up the response rate to a networked system with suppliers and others tied in (15 percent had such a
network), whereas fabricated metal respondents pulled that rate down
(no respondents had such a network).
Figure 4-1
Level of System Operation
Standalone System
Not Connected to
Any other System
(13.9%)
Multicompany System with Suppliers
and others Tied In (6.2%)
Multisite System
Geographically
Spread Out
(15.2%)
Workgroup or
Teamwide System
(11.8%)
993315
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
21
22
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Migration Plans to NT
Dataquest asked users what their current CAD operating system is and
what it will be in 2000 and in 2002. The results are summarized in
Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1. It is important to keep in mind that these are
responses from end users and not a Dataquest forecast of mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE operating systems.
According to our survey respondents, UNIX will indeed cede ground to
Windows NT in mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E . Currently, 59 percent of
our respondents use UNIX as their primary operating system for CAD. In
2000 and 2002, slightly over one-half of our survey respondents expect
Windows NT to be their primary operating system, with UNIX as the
main operating system falling to 30 percent in 2000 and 15 percent in 2002.
Moreover, 26 percent of respondents are unsure what their main CAD
operating system will be in 2002. While there are certainly users who
already have operating system plans in place for the next five years, it is
this 26 percent of "undecided" users who could be persuaded to go any
way: UNIX, Windows NT, or other operating system. Readers should note
that previous end-user surveys have consistently shown that users tend to
be more optimistic about change than in reality. Expect the actual movement to NT to be slower thcui the numbers cited.
The overall numbers do not give the whole picture. It appears as though
each country and industry will adopt the NT operating system at very different rates. Table 4-1 illustrates some of these differences. It appears as if
the UNIX holdouts over the near term will be in Italy and in the automotive industry. Automotive users appear more guarded about their transition to N T The automotive industry also relies heavily on applications for
which their "choice" vendors have not yet announced complete NT-based
CAD/CAM/CAE solutions that have equivalent functionality to their
time-tested UNIX counterparts.
We continue to be surprised by the NT plans shown by aerospace respondents. Similar to our 1997 North American end-user survey results, a high
percentage of aerospace users expect Windows NT to be their main operating system by 2002. This comes as a surprise, because aerospace sites
tend to be larger sites that are well entrenched in UNIX and have the
expertise and resources to maintain a UNIX-based system. Also, the aerospace industry relies heavily on applications for which vendors have not
yet armounced a fuU-fledged NT solution.
We suspect that in the major industries such as automotive and aerospace,
adoption of NT-based solutions will take longer than users are stating
here, as most of the large companies are investing right now in UNIXbased systems. Looking at the long IT investment cycles in these industries, it will take a number of years until these new installations will be
replaced.
The low anticipated deployment rate for Windows NT-based systems in
Italy, and the high deployment rate in the United Kingdom, is probably
reflective of the NT-based systems available on the market today. Many
(but certainly not aU) of these systems have been developed by U.S.-based
vendors who typically develop an English version first, and then roll out
versions for German, French, and Japanese. Other languages, such as
Italian, are not first or second priority for these vendors.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
23
Future CAD/CAM/CAE Plans
Figure 4-2
Future Operating System Plans Based on Survey Responses
N u m b e r of Responses
350-
300
m
m
n:4l'''i'U.lUUIMUlll
V„-i.-.,.jyj-j-„v.,-j-.,-,-„-„-a-„-„-
250
\ W\ \ \ \
\-\X\V\V
200
•.•••^.•••'•^N'^vVsV
\ \ \ W
150
\ \ \
100
50
^ ^ ^ - ^ • - - • • - • - • - - • • - - ^•^^^^^>^^^
1998
Don't Know/
Uncertain
Mainframe
n
Windows 3.x,
Windows 95,
DOS
n
Windows NT
,
Equal Mix of
UNIX and
Windows NT
m
UNIX
^--
2000
2002
Source; Dataquest (June 1998)
Table 4-1
Adoption of Windows NT by Country and Industry (Percent)
UNIX UNIX UNIX
i n 1998 in 2000 in 2002
Windows NT
in 1998
Windows NT
in 2000
Windows NT
in 2002
6.76
9.90
17.33
15.84
54.05
60.40
45.95
54.46
44.90
10.20
6.12
30.85
26.53
56.57
32.65
63.27
18.33
20.51
8.82
24.14
48.33
53.33
12.82
17.65
40.51
64.71
50.00
64.71
2.33
25.58
69.77
62.79
13.95
19.05
14.60
20.00
14.29
19.12
55.81
42.86
52.63
44.19
42.86
51.86
By Country
France
Germany
Italy
Uruted Kingdom
By Industry
64.00
32.43
60.40
81.63
19.80
57.14
24.24
42.55
Aerospace
Automotive
Electrical/Electronic
Machinery
48.28
76.92
31.67
67.65
20.59
Fabricated Metal
46.51
55.29
13.95
22.09
28.57
29.72
Industrial Machinery
Other Industries
All Respondents
52.38
59.25
49.37
Note: Numbers will not add to 100 percent because responses to operating systems other than UNIX and Windows NT are not depicted.
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Ci\/IEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
24
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
What Is Driving tlie NT Decision
Dataquest asked respondents about their reasons for moving to the Windows NT operating system for their mechanical design work. The results
are summarized in Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4, where we have shown the
results by all respondents, and by those respondents who identified UNIX
as their primary operating system today. In either case, the two top reasons to move to NT were the prospects of easier system/networking
maintenance and reduced hardware costs. But, UNIX hardware vendors
should take note that the prospect of reduced hardware costs appears to
be more of a driving factor among our UNIX-based respondents, where
32 percent of these respondents said it was the No. 1 reason to make the
move to Windows N T
Dataquest also investigated the reasons users did not expect to adopt Windows NT as their primary operating system. The results, by all respondents and by UNIX respondents, are shown in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6,
respectively. Here, the top reasons were satisfaction with current operating
system, followed by a corporate edict to stay with current operating system/not move to N T Little difference was seen between all respondents
and UNIX-based respondents, except for the slightly higher percentage of
UNIX-based respondents citing satisfaction with their current operating
system as the main reason to not move to Windows N T
While just last year, we saw NT-based CAD software features and functionality (or lack thereof) as a top reason for not moving to NT, this year
that reason commanded only 9 percent of the responses. NT-based CAD
software applications are clearly catching u p in functionality. Similarly,
hardware and software cost incurred with operating system changes did
not factor highly in this year's survey, compared to last year's survey
results. Legacy data issues continue to rank low among the areas of concern against moving to N T Mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E software and
hardware vendors with a substantial installed base of UNIX licenses
should look to maintaining a technological edge on NT-based CAD applications as well as keeping current users satisfied.
CAD Purchasing Decisions
Generally speaking, mechanical C A D / C A M / C A E purchase decisions in
Europe tend to be less driven by corporate edict than in North America.
Forty-two percent of our European respondents stated that CAD purchasing decisions are made based on corporate edict or a policy to standardize
on one CAD system, versus 67 percent for North American respondents in
1997. There was some difference by country; for instance, CAD purchases
at the ItaHan sites we surveyed appear to purchase CAD based more on
corporate edict than sites in France, where purchases are more projectdriven.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
25
Future CAD/CAM/CAE Plans
Figure 4-3
Reasons to Move to NT, AH Respondents
Prospect of Reduced
Software Costs
(4.3%)
Corporate Edict
to Move to NT
(7.1%)
Increased NT-Based
CAD Software Features
and Functionality
(13.8%)
Potential to Combine Business
and Engineering Applications
on One System
(16.1%)
963317
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
What is more interesting, however, is that European sites, in comparison
to their North American counterparts, will purchase CAD to upgrade their
existing systems. Thirty-four percent of our European respondents said
that CAD/CAM/CAE purchases at their company tend to be driven by a
desire/need to upgrade old systems, while only 6 percent of North American respondents said that last year. This is in line with oLtr belief that CAD
purchases in Europe are quite cyclical, with companies going through
CAD reinvestment periods every five to seven years, and that these piirchases are often part of a larger IT investment strategy. A summary of
results by country is given in Figure 4-7.
CAD/CAM/CAE Seat Counts
Users, on the whole, are expecting the total number of CAD/CAM/CAE
seats at their site to increase or remain the same from 1998 to 2000, with little variation seen by country or industry (see Figure 4-8). The only areas
where respondents indicated a much higher-than-average anticipated seat
count increase is in Germany and in the automotive industry. The industry
showing little opportunity for seat count growth is electrical/electronic
machinery, where little change is expected over the next two years.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
26
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 4-4
Reasons to Move to NT, UNIX Respondents
Corporate Edict to Move
to NT (1.8%)
Prospect of Reduced
Software Costs (3.6%
Increased NT-Based
CAD Software Features
and Functionality
(14.5%)
Potential to Combine Business
and Engineering Applications
on One System
(14.6%)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
The data in Figure 4-8 is roughly in line with what we presented in Figure
3-2, where we examined CAD/CAM/CAE penetration rates. There, we
saw some opportunity for increased CAD seat counts at respondent sites,
though we can say that the results in Figure 4-8 are slightly more optimistic than what respondents revealed in Figure 3-2.
The anticipated percentage change of seat count increases ranged from
19 percent in electrical/electronic machinery to 50 percent in fabricated
metal, with the average overall responses being a 33 percent increase.
From a country perspective, the anticipated percentage change of seat
count increases ranged from 21 percent among Italian respondents to
44 percent among French respondents. Responses for the amount of
change in seat count decrease were too few to analyze.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
27
Future CAD/CAM/CAE Plans
Figure 4-5
Reasons to Not Move to NT, All Respondents
Legacy Data Issues
(5.1%)
Cost of Changing
Hardware (5.1%)
Cost of Changing
Software (6.2%)
System (Maintenance
and Networking Issues
Become More Difficult
(6.2%)
Limited Availability or
Functionality of NT-Based
CAD Solutions Today
(9.3%)
eB331S
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CAD Software Retirements
Fewer software retirements affect the capacity to absorb new modules in
the future. Users were asked what percentage of their existing mechanical
CAD/CAM/CAE modules they believe wiU be retired over ttie next two
years. Overall, this year's survey respondents are expecting to retire
24 percent of their current CAD software, compared to 20 percent in our
1997 survey, and 10 percent in our 1996 survey. The automotive industry is
expecting ffie greatest amount of software retirements (28 percent), while
the fabricated metal respondents expect the least (15 percent). Likewise,
Italian respondents expect to retire ffie most software (31 percent) while
French respondents expect to retire the least (20 percent). No matter from
what perspective we examine the data, the percentage of CAD software
that users expect to retire over the next two years is high, which bodes
well for continued growth in this market.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
28
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 4-6
Reasons to Not Move to NT, UNIX Respondents
Cost of Changing
Software (4.2%)
.K
y ^ \
Legacy Data Issues — ^
(5.6%)
Cost of Changing _
Hardware (5.6%)
/
/
>^
I
System Maintenance
\
and Networking Issues — \
Become More Difficult
\
(7.0%)
others
(9.9%)
^'"'^
Satisfied with
Current Operating
System
(47.9%)
\
1
1
1
f
^ ^
^
\
Limited Availability or
Functionality of NT-Based
GAD Solutions Today
(8.5%)
\^
N^
/
Corporate
/
Edict
X,,,^^^ (11.3%)
I
.^^r
983320
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Figure 4-7
CAD Purchasing Decision Drivers
Upgrade of Old
System
France
Corporate Edict
to Standardize
on One CAD
System
Project-Specific
Purchase
All Respondents
T
0
10
20
I
I
f
I
I
r^
r
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CI\/IEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
29
Future CAD/CAM/CAE Plans
Figure 4-8
Anticipated Seat Count Changes by Country and Industry
Country or Industry
Seat Count
Decrease
France
Germany
Seat Count
Increase
Italy
United Kingdom
No Change
in Seat
Count
Aerospace
Automotive
Electrical/Electronic Machinery
Fabricated Metal
Industrial MachineIy
other Industries
All Respondents
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CAD Spending Plans
Dataquest asked respondents about planned increases or decreases in
CAD spending for the next year. Specifically, respondents were asked if
spending (that is, budgets) will increase, decrease, or remain the same for
five areas:
• Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE software
• Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE hardware
• Service and maintenance for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE systems
• Application development
• Consulting and systems integration
The results are summarized by industry in Table 4-2, where there is some,
but not a lot, of variation by country, industry, and spending category. As a
group, more Itafian respondents are expected to increase spending (for all
categories examined in this section) than other respondents in our survey.
Likewise, more French and German respondents are expected to decrease
spending (for all categories examined in this section) than other groups in
our survey.
User responses to our questions about plarmed spending/budget changes
for CAD/CAM/CAE technology bode well for nearly everyone involved
in CAD deployment: software developers, hardware vendors, and consultants. Similar to previous surveys, this survey reveals that European
mechanical CAD users are expecting increased mechanical CAD/CAM/
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Julys, 1998
30
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
CAE software and hardware spending over the next year. About 40 percent of our survey respondents indicate that software and hardware
spending will increase from today's levels. Further, spending for mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE service and maintenance, application development,
and consulting is expected to remain at about the same levels for many
respondents.
Dataquest expects that, over the next few years, CAD users in Europe will
be seriously re-evaluating their existing mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE
systems, with careful consideration given to the new operating systems
available and how much value/functionality they can get out of their software for the money they spend on it. More specifically, some of this
increased software and hardware spending is a reflection of the expected
future transition toward NT-based CAD/CAM/CAE software in all of the
countries and industiies examined here. Looking to the future, as objectoriented CAD software, interoperable CAD objects, and new CAD architectures become market realities, Dataquest expects application development spending to rise accordingly.
Plotters and Printers
Any increase in the number of CAD/CAM/CAE seats leads to a corresponding increase in peripherals such as printers and plotters. As a point
of reference, this report includes a summary of respondents' current plotter technologies in Table 4-3. Ink jet plotters were the most frequently mentioned, followed by laser and electiostatic. Users in this survey plan to
purchase, on average, five printers and two plotters over the next two
years (see Figure 4-9 for results by country and by industry). These figures
are quite a bit higher than the usual one or two plaimed plotter or printer
purchases that we typically see.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
o
m
o
Table 4-2
Anticipated Spending Patterns for Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Technology
I
Software
CO
oo
o
Increase
Decrease
(%)
(%)
CAD/CAM/CAE Application Development
Service/Maintenance
Hardware
Remain
Same (%)
Increase
Decrease
(%)
(%)
Remain
Same (%)
Increase
Decrease
(%)
(%)
Remain
Same (%)
Increase
Decrease
%)
(%)
Remain
Same (%)
Consulting/Systems Integral on
Increase
Decrease
(%)
(%)
Remain
Same (%)
51
By Country
FrsJioe
36
20
44
40
25
35
22
24
54
28
17
55
29
20
Germany
40
16
44
31
30
39
30
21
49
29
16
55
23
16
61
Italy
50
7
43
50
7
43
44
10
46
43
9
48
32
9
59
United KingdoTti'
46
9
45
45
16
39
38
13
49
30
6
64
20
7
73
By Industry
@
_L
CO
CO
oo
o
03
r-t09
.a
><
CT>
CO
CO
03
Aerospace
41
12
47
39
17
44
36
15
49
28
14
58
24
14
62
Automotive
49
11
40
43
15
42
38
18
44
33
14
53
30
14
56
EIectrical/ Electronic Machinery
47
16
37
43
33
24
36
18
46
31
13
56
18
12
70
FabricatBd Metal
40
17
43
33
29
38
23
21
56
36
2
62
22
5
73
Industrial Machinery
37
18
45
40
24
36
30
18
52
32
14
54
22
16
62
Other Industries
40
0
60
47
11
42
25
15
60
25
10
65
29
14
57
43
13
44
40
21
39
33
17
50
31
12
57
25
13
62
AH Respondents
Note: Percentages in Table 4-2 are not the amount of Increases or decreases in budgets, but are the number of respondents, expressed as a percentage, indicating an increase or decrease.
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
32
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Table 4-3
Plotter Technology (N = 563)
Number of Responses
InkJet
171
Laser
152
Electrostatic
70
Color Ink Jet
66
Pen
51
Thermal
37
Others
10
Total
563
Note: Multiple responses allowed
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Figure 4-9
Planned Plotter a n d Printer Purchases over Next Two Years
Country or Industry
France
Number of
Plotters to
Be Purchased
Germany
Italy
Number of
Printers to
Be Purchased
United Kingdom
Aerospace
Automotive
Electrical/Electronic Machinery
Fabricated Metal
Industrial Machinery
All Respondents
2
3
4
5
Number to Be Purchased
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Chapter 5
Mechanical Application Perceptions
This chapter reveals what designers think of the mechanical applications
they use, what benefits they have seen, what software functionahty and
characteristics they seek, and what influences their purchasing decisions.
In delving into these issues, Dataquest asked users a series of questions
based on their agreement with certain business-related statements, their
satisfaction with the mechanical applications themselves (for example,
analysis and assembly design), their satisfaction with specific designrelated tools and teclmologies (for example, photo-realistic imaging and
3-D graphics), and their "wish lists" of items (for example, application stability and ease of use). The results are explored in the following sections.
While we do not present the data in this chapter by country or industry,
Dataquest clients should be reminded that any specific cuts of data are
available through their inquiry service.
Is CAD/CAM/CAE Technology Helping to Meet Business Goals?
Many factors can affect whether a company or business in discrete manufacturing succeeds or fails, and C A D / C A M / C A E technology is just one of
them. While CAD technology has promised many things to many people,
Dataquest decided to investigate just what users think about how well
CAD technology is deployed in a company. The idea is that those companies that have had more success in deploying CAD technology are better
able to make the connection between CAD investment (dollars spent) and
meeting business objectives (profits returned).
Dataquest asked respondents to what level they agree or disagree with a
series of general statements concerning C A D / C A M / C A E , its role in the
company, and its benefits—not just to engineering design, but to the company's overall business processes. The weighted average of the results, by
country, are displayed in Figure 5-1. Overall, respondents in this survey
are fairly happy with their C A D / C A M / C A E systems with respect to their
company's business goals, with the Italian respondents clearly the most
satisfied of the group.
The results seen here do not differ greatly from what we have seen in other
end-user surveys. While we could safely say that CAD technology has
helped our European designers and engineers tackle more complex
designs, we can't say that their engineering management understands the
benefits of design automation. From a country perspective, the widest
range of responses was seen when users responded to the statement "Engineering management thoroughly understands the benefits of design software," with respondents in the United Kingdom falling short of even
agreeing (rating of 3) with that statement.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
33
34
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Woddwide
Figure 5-1
CAD Perceptions, Weighted Average of Responses
weighted Average of Responses
5.0
2.5
••••
France
Italy
All Respondents
Germany
United Kingdom
2.0-1
My Company Can
Solve More Complex
Design Problems
than Two Years Ago
Our Organization's
Progress to Date in
Making Use of CAD
Technology Has
Been Excellent
Engineering
Management
Thoroughly
Understands the
Benefits of Design
Software
Our CAD Software
Vendor Is
Responsive to Our
Needs
CAD/CAM/CAE
Technology Has
Been Oversold by
Vendors and Media*
Note: Rating scale is from 1 to 5, where 1 Is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.
"Full Statement is "CAD/CAM/CAE technology has been oversold by the vendors and media, compared to what can be accomplished for
the investment required."
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Applications—What Users Think
Designers were asked to rate their mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE applications with respect to importance and satisfaction on a scale of 1 (not
important or not satisfied) to 5 (very important or very satisfied). These
applications were as follows:
• Detailing
• Component design
• Assembly design
• Conceptual design
• Analysis and computer-aided engineering (CAE) applications
• Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) applications and numerical
control (NC) software
• Product data management (PDM)
• Data exchange and translation
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Mechanical Application Perceptions
35
Figure 5-2 provides a visual interpretation of these user importance and
satisfaction ratings. The most important characteristic according to user
rankings—component design—is plotted on a l-to-5 scale at the top of the
chart, and the other applications (for example, detailing, assembly design),
are plotted in a counterclockwise manner around the axes in order of
decreasing importance. The satisfaction rating for each application is
mapped along the same axes as its corresponding importance rating. The
gap, or difference, between the importance and satisfaction ratings for
each application is indicated in Figure 5-3 by gray shading, exposing the
areas that need vendor attention and improvements. In an ideal situation,
importance and satisfaction ratings would be equal, and no gray area
would appear in Figure 5-3 because the two circles vvould coincide. However, when the two circles do not coincide at every point, users are not as
happy as they could be. Vendors should read the gray shaded areas as
opportunities for software/system improvement.
The numerical values of the gaps (the difference between satisfaction and
importance ratings, where a negative difference implies unhappy users,
and a positive difference implies satisfied users) are given in Table 5-1.
While most of the gaps in Table 5-1 are not large, there are clearly some
unmet needs out there. Once again, the importance of data translation
software to designers and engineers becomes apparent. It was ranked high
in importance by survey respondents, but this same group of people is
very unsatisfied—a negative 1.2 difference, or gap. Data translation is one
area that has always demanded attention from users, and these European
users are much more unsatisfied with their translation and data exchange
mechanisms than we typically see.
The high importance rarJcing given to detailing (ranking of 4.0) underscores the importance in mechanical design of this very basic application.
However, in comparison to other applications, the gap here, negative 0.1,
is not large.
Contrary to what we have seen in North American survey results, product
data management ranked quite high in importance among these European
survey respondents and low in satisfaction. By country, the German and
French survey respondents showed the greatest dissatisfaction with PDM
technology, where the gaps were negative 1.3 for each group. Data management is a much larger issue in Europe than in North America, partly
driven by the fact that European governments often incorporate standards
as mandates. Also, CAD investment in Europe is typically part of a global
corporate strategy. This means that when orders are placed in Europe,
generally they are of a much bigger magnitude than in the United States,
and data management becomes part of that strategy.
Design-Related Tools and Technologies—What Users Want
Getting a product to market is not just about CAD software and design,
but it is also about how CAD and related technologies are used together. A
host of tools and technologies are on the market today—such as photorealistic imaging and 3-D graphics cards—that are targeted at making the
lives of designers easier.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
36
Mechanical CAD/CAIW/CAE Woddwide
Figure 5-2
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of Mechanical Applications
Component Design
5
Data Exchange and Translation
Analysls/CAE
Assembly Design
5\
f*
5
Conceptual Design
Product Data IVIanagement
Importance
Detailing
Satisfaction
Manufacturing Applications/CAIVI
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not important/not satisfied, 5 = very importantA/ery satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Table 5-1
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of Mechanical
Applications
Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Component Design
4.2
3.9
-0.3
Data Exchange and Translation
4.2
3.0
-1.2
Product Data Management
4.1
3.0
-1.1
Detailing
4.0
3.9
-0.1
3.9
3.4
-0.5
Conceptual Design
3.8
3.6
-0.3
Assembly Design
3.7
3.6
-0.2
Analysis/CAE
3.4
3.1
-0.3
Manufacturing
Applications/CAM
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not important/not satisfied, 5 = very importantA/ery satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
Mechanical Application Perceptions
37
Dataquest asked users to rate the following CAD-related tools and technologies with respect to importance and satisfaction on a scale of 1 (not
important/not satisfied) to 5 (very important/very satisfied):
• High-performance 3-D graphics
• Design optimization capabilities
• Photo-realistic imaging
• Sharing of design files via Internet or intranet
• Accessing design information via a project Web site
• CAD to CAM integration
• CAD to CAE integration
Figure 5-3 and Table 5-2 outline user ratings for the items listed above.
Clearly, these designers and engineers want a lot of performance from
their CAD solutions—tight integration among modules (especially CAD
to CAM integration), good graphics, and design optimization capabilities.
Integration of CAD with both CAM and CAE ranked high in importance
and also showed sizable importance-satisfaction gaps. The user-perceived
dissatisfaction with CAD to CAM and, to a lesser extent, CAD to CAE
integration, is consistent with the importance-satisfaction gap we discussed earlier concerning data exchange and translation.
Better 3-D graphics is one area that UNIX-based workstation vendors tout
over their PC-based and ]*^T-based competitors. And, as our survey
shows, graphics is ranked high in importance to these designers and engineers. (Surprisingly, however, photo-realistic imaging is of less importance, and users are satisfied with their imaging solutions). As companies
take on more complex design problems and become more entrenched in 3D design, it is natural that graphics become more of an important factor
influencing purchasing decisions. The same is true for design optimization
capabilities—as users begin to use more analysis and CAE tools in conjunction with CAD tools, the importance of optimization will rise.
Mecharucal designers are beginning to use the World Wide Web, intranets,
and the Internet for design- and engineering-related activities. Here, survey respondents are interested in sharing design files via the Internet or
intranet and are interested in project Web sites, b u t their satisfaction with
their abiUties to do so today is not high. Readers should note, however,
that such capabiUties aren't at the top of these user importance rankings.
Characterizing the Ideal Software Solution and CAD Vendor
When it comes to C A D / C A M / C A E solutions, one can look at user-rated
importance euid satisfaction from one of two angles. The first one is concerned with specific mechanical applications and CAD-related technologies. Dataquest explored these areas earlier in this chapter. The other angle
is concerned with overall satisfaction with C A D / C A M / C A E solutions,
such as software stability and vendor service.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
38
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Figure 5-3
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of CAD-Related Technologies
CAD to CAIVI Integration
5
Photo-Realistic Imaging
Design Optimization Capabilities
Accessing
Design Information
via Project Web Site
High-performance 3-D Graphics
Importance
Satisfaction
CAD to CAE Integration
Sharing of Design Files
via Internet or Intranet
e8332S
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not important/not satisfied, 5 : very important/very satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Table 5-2
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of CAD-Related
Technologies
Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
C A D to CAM Integration
4.0
3.3
-0.7
Design Optimization Capabilities
3.9
3.3
-0.6
High-Performance 3-D Graphics
3.6
3.5
-0.2
Sharing of Design Files via Internet or
Intranet
3.6
2.9
-0.7
C A D to C A E Integration
3.6
2.9
-0.7
Accessing Design Information via Project
Web Site
3.1
2.6
-0.5
Photo-Realistic Imaging
2.8
3.0
0.3
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 : not importanfnot satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
Julys, 1998
Mechanical Application Perceptions
39
Dataquest created a "wish list" of items and asked users to rate the importance and satisfaction of the following 10 characteristics relevant to any
mechanical application:
•
•
•
•
•
Software
Software
Software
Software
Software
is bug free and stable
has advanced features and functionality
is easy to learn and use
is compatible with current CAD environment
performs complex or compute-intensive tasks well
• Software has a low cost per seat
• Vendor service and support
• Software is easy to customize
• Vendor is flexible in its licensing policies
• Software applications are tightly integrated
It is with this wish list that the real dissatisfaction with CAD/CAM/CAE
solutions among end users becomes apparent. Nearly every item on the
list was ranked with an importance rating of 4.0 or higher (see Figure 5-4
and Table 5-3). All of the issues on the wish list factor into a company's
decision to purchase mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE tools, and vendors
could choose to address any one of these issues, as all of the gaps are large.
This report discusses only some of these issues in the following paragraphs.
Topping the list in importance was the wish for software that is bug free
and Stable. The gap here is quite large—negative 1.2, and the importance
rating is extremely high (4.9). Software stability has always been an issue
with the mechanical design community and can sometimes be an impediment to the adoption of new technologies and methodologies. It also
comes as no surprise that the importance-satisfaction gap for vendor
service and support is similarly large.
Software that is easy to learn and use is also important to the European
design community. Engineers are always facing time-to-market pressures,
and they have little time to spend learning new tools or applications or
going to training. Only with the onset of ttie midrange mechanical design
packages, have vendors begun to concentrate on ease-of-use issues in
earnest.
Of particular interest is the relatively large importance-satisfaction gap
(negative 1.0) given to the statement "software has a low cost per seat." In
previous North American surveys, this item has ranked high, but not
quite as high as the European respondents have ranked it. Nor has the
importance-satisfaction gap been as great. Examining the data by covmtry
reveals that respondents in France and Germany are particularly dissatisfied with CAD cost per seat (importance-satisfaction gaps of negative 1.4
and negative 1.2, respectively). Further, our European survey respondents,
as a whole, appear to be more price sensitive than their North American
counterparts. This sensitivity may be related to the tendency to make CAD
purchases in large quantities in Europe (in particular, in Germany), versus
the smaller sales that often occur in North America.
CMEC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
40
Mechanical CAD/CAM/CAE Worldwide
Of all the items on the wish Ust, the ones with the smallest gaps are ease of
customization and advanced features and functionality. While these technology-driven issues are important, there are clearly other areas in which
a vendor can excel to become a commanding player in the mechanical
design market.
Figure 5-4
Importance/Satisfaction Gap Analysis of an Ideal CAD Solution
Software Is Bug Free and Stable
5
Software Is Easy to Customize
5 Vendor Service and Support
5
Software Has Advanced
Features and Functionality
Software Is Easy to Learn and Use
Software Is Compatible with
5 Current CAD Environment
Vendor Is Flexible
in Licensing
Software
Applications
Are Tightly
Integrated
Software Performs
Compute-Intensive Tasks Well
Inportance
Satisfaction
Software Has Low Cost per Seat
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not impoIlant/not satisfleiJ, 5 = very Important/very satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
Table 5-3
Importance/Satisfaction Cap Analysis of an Ideal CAD Solution
Software Is Bug Free and Stable
Vendor Service and Support
Software Is Easy to Learn and Use
Importance Satisfaction Gap
3.6 -1.2
4.9
4.5
3.3 -1.2
4.5
4.5
3.7
3.9
-0.8
-0.7
4.2
4.1
3.4
-0.8
3.1
Software Performs Compute-Intensive Tasks
WeU
4.0
3.5
-1.0
-0.5
Vendor Is Flexible in Licensing
4.0
3.9
3.2
3.5
-0.8
-0.4
3.8
3.3
-0.5
Software Is Compatible with Current C A D
Environment
Software Applications Are Tightly Integrated
Software Has Low Cost per Seat
Software Has Advanced
Functionality
Features and
Software Is Easy to Customize
Note: Ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not impoIlant/not satisfied, 5 = veiy impoIlantA^eIy satisfied)
Source: Dataquest (June 1998)
CI\/1EC-WW-UW-9801
©1998 Dataquest
July 6,1998
For More Information...
Inquiry Hotline
Internet address
Via fax
Dataquest Interactive
Dataqyest
A Gartner Group Company
+1-408-468-8316
[email protected]
+1-408-954-1780
http: / / www.dataquest.com
The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of irrformation 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. Reproduction or disclosute in whole or in
part to other parties shall be made upon the written and express corwent of Dataquest.
©1998 Dataquest Incorporated, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
68^8
DATAQUEST WORLDWIDE OFFICES
NORTH AMERICA
Worldwide Headquarters
EUROPE
European Headquarters
ASIA/PACIFIC
Asia/Pacific Headquarters
251 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, California 95134-1913
United States
Phone: 1-408-468-8000
Facsimile: 1-408-954-1780
Tamesis, The Glanty
Egham, Suney TW20 9AW
United Kingdom
Phone:-t-441784 431 611
Facsimile: --441784 488 980
Suite 5904-7, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road, Wanchai
Hong Kong
Phone: 852-2824-6168
Facsimile: 852-2824-6138
East Coast Research Center
Dataquest France
Dataquest Korea
Nine Technology Driye
PO. Box 5093
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581-5093
United States
Phone: 1-508-871-5555
Facsimile: 1-508-871-6262
Immeuble Defense Bergeres
345, avenue Georges Clemenceau
TSA 40002
92882 - Nanterre CTC Cedex 9
France
Phone: -1-331 41 35 13 OO
Facsimile: -f331 41 35 13 13
Suite 2407, Trade Tower
159 Samsung-dong, Kangnam-gu
Seoul 135-729
Korea
Phone: 822-551-1331
Facsimile: 822-551-1330
Dataquest Global Events
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CaUfomia 92660
United States
Phone: 1-714-476-9117
Facsimile: 1-714-476-9969
Dataquest Taiwan
Dataquest Germany
Martin-Kollar-Strasse 15
D-81829 Miinchen
Germany
Phone: -F49 89 42 70 4-0
Facsimile: --49 89 42 70 4-270
JAPAN
Japan Headquarters
Aobadai Hills 4-7-7
Aobadai
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153
Japan
Phone: 81-3-3481-3670
Facsimile: 81-3-3481-3644
llF-2, No. 188, Section 5
Nan King East Road
Taipei
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Phone: 8862-2756-0389
Facsimile: 8862-2756-0663
Dataquest Singapore
6 Temasek Boulevard, #26-02/03
Suntec City Tower 4
Singapore 038986
Phone: 65-333-6773
Facsimile: 65-333-6768
Dataquest Thailand
12/F, Vanissa Building
29 Soi Chidlom
Ploenchit Road
Patumwan, Bangkok 10330
Thailand
Phone: 662-655-0577
Facsimile: 662-655-0576
Dataquest Australia
80 Alfred Street
Milsons Point NSW 2061
Australia
Phone: 61-2-9941-4860
Facsimile: 61-2-9941-4868
OataQuest
A Gartner Group Company
01998 EKataquest
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement