26%

42%

THE ROI OF MBD

9%

79%

61%
 THE ROI OF MBD 2

INTRODUCTION
Do Model-Based Definition (MBD) initiatives provide tangible
benefits?
In talking with manufacturers and suppliers, thats a question I
get time and again. At this point, most people understand the
theoretical benefits: MBDs take less time to create and reduce
downstream errors and delays due to their unambiguous nature.
However, many people still wonder if that kind of advantage is
proven to manifest in some measured improvement.
Answering that critical question is the purpose of this report.
Here, you will find new research findings on which MBD practices
and methods translate to productivity gains and downstream
benefits, both for engineering and the company as a whole.
So read on to gain insight on the ROI of Model-Based Definition.
Take care. Talk soon. Thanks for reading.
CONTENTS
FULFILLING THE FUNCTION OF ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION ...... 3
THE FOUR OPTIONS FOR ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION ................ 4
A CAUTIONARY TALE: MISS-ESTIMATING THE BENEFITS .................... 10
MODEL-BASED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTIONS ............................... 13
THE ADOPTION OF MBD AND THE CULTURAL COMPROMISE ............. 14
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 16
APPENDIX A: STUDY LIFECYCLE AND DEMOGRAPHICS ...................... 17
APPENDIX B: DEFINING COHORTS ............................................................ 18
APPENDIX C: MEASURING PERFORMANCE ............................................ 19
APPENDIX D: DATA SETS USED IN THE SURVEY ................................... 21
APPENDIX E: LEGAL ..................................................................................... 25

Chad Jackson, Industry Analyst, Lifecycle Insights

(512) 284-8080, chad.jackson@lifecycleinsights.com
 THE ROI OF MBD 3

FULFILLING THE FUNCTION OF ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION

dimensions to measure conformance to quality standards.
In order to properly provide the right context for some of the
Therefore, dimensions should be explicitly identified for
findings in this report, it is important to highlight two of the
measurement once the component is manufactured. Tolerances
primary functions of engineering documentation and the
must be added to the existing dimensions or geometry on the
implications of fulfilling them in different ways.
drawing to define the threshold within which those dimensions
Convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a must fall.
component.
Define the measures and thresholds within which a 3D MODELS
component meets quality standards. The means by which a 3D model conveys the complete and
These two functions have not changed in some time. Yet, the detailed geometric form of a component sharply contrasts with
means by which they are fulfilled has been evolving over the past that of drawings. The geometry of the model inherently defines
few decades, especially in the context of the emergence of new its form. No additional dimensions or information is needed to
technologies. As a result, it is important to understand how the fulfill this function of engineering documentation.
process by which 2D Drawings and 3D Models fulfillment are That inherent form, however, does not satisfy the need to define
different. the measures and thresholds within which a component meets
quality standards. Therefore, dimensions must be added to the 3D
2D DRAWINGS model to define what must be measured to assess its
To convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a conformance. Furthermore, tolerances must be added to those
component, a drawing relies on a combination of 2D entities, dimensions or the geometry to define acceptable thresholds.
dimensions and multiple views. In a single view on a drawing, 2D
entities and dimensions convey the detailed form or shape of a
component. The combination of the traditional three views of a
drawing and its dimensions conveys the complete detailed form
of a component.
The effort to define the measures and thresholds within which a
component meets quality standards partially builds on the earlier
efforts to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a
component. Dimensions already exist that define the
components form. However, not all processes use all of those

THE FOUR OPTIONS FOR ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION
Using these two different types of engineering documentation,
however, isnt as simple as picking one or another. Organizations
have used them in combination and even applied the practices
used from one to another. As a result, organizations have settled
into practices of releasing one of four different kinds of
deliverable sets for engineering documentation detailed as
follows.
RELEASING FULLY ANNOTATED DRAWINGS
Today, many organizations exclusively release 2D graphical
drawings as their engineering documentation. As such, the 2D
entities, dimensions, tolerances and multiple views are the means
to both conveying the complete and detailed geometric form of a
component and defining the measures and thresholds within which
a component meets quality standards.
BASELINE FOR STUDY COMPARISONS
8.8 Hours
Time to Create Fully Annotated Drawing
Figure 1: Average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully
annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents cohort
(Appendix A).
THE ROI OF MBD 4
Estimations for developing the fully annotated drawing dataset
act as the baseline in our research study. Respondents estimated
the amount of time it would take to create this deliverable
averaged 8.8 hours.
RELEASING MINIMALLY ANNOTATED DRAWINGS
While a lot of attention is focused on replacing drawings with
annotated models, thats not the only engineering
documentation initiative organizations are pursuing. One
initiative that is in practice is to release a 2D graphical drawing
and a 3D model as a set. The advantage here is to rely on the
ability of the 3D model to convey the complete and detailed
geometric form of a component while allowing the 2D graphical
drawing to define the measures and thresholds within which a
component meets quality standards.
These two deliverables work in conjunction to achieve the
function of engineering documentation. The following examples
illustrate how the two are used side-by-side downstream.
Tooling Design: Those developing molds, dies and casting
tooling can accurately develop cavities within the tooling
based on the 3D model. They then make changes to the
tooling based on the tolerances and surface finishes
defined in the 2D graphical drawing.
Generating NC Toolpaths: Machinists can directly, and
frequently automatically, generate toolpaths using the 3D
model in CAM software applications. They then reference
the 2D graphical drawing for tolerances, surface finishes
and other details to refine the speeds, feeds and tools
used during the operation.

Using such a method theoretically offers a straightforward
benefit: less time is required to detail a fully annotated drawing,
only documenting the aspects of the design that needs to be
measured for conformance. Findings from this research study do,
in fact, verify this benefit. The amount of time estimated to create
the minimal drawing dataset averages 5.2 hours, a significant
amount less than the 8.8 hours estimated to create the fully
annotated drawing dataset. Additionally, those using this
approach realize a small reduction in clarification requests for
engineering documentation (23% vs. 15%), as the 3D model can
provide clarification.
MIGRATING TO MINIMALLY ANNOTATED DRAWINGS
8.8 Hours 5.2 Hours
Time to Create Fully Time to Create Minimally
Annotated Drawing Annotated Drawing
Figure 2: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create
the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents
cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix
C) to create the minimally annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by the
Drawing-Reliant cohort (Appendix B).
There is, however, a flaw in using this approach. A 2D graphical
drawing that has been exported or saved into a neutral or other
format can still be edited without updating the 3D model. When
under tight time constraints, as is often the case in product
THE ROI OF MBD 5
development projects, this is seen as an easy fix requiring little
time. Taking this approach, however, leads to diverging
definitions in the 3D model compared to the 2D graphical
drawing. This leads to costly errors downstream. For example,
parts coming out of tooling made with the 3D model will not
conform to quality standards when measured against the 2D
graphical drawing. Responses from this research report verify this
as there is no practical difference between organizations that
primarily release drawings, defined as the Drawing-Based cohort
in Appendix B, and organizations primarily releasing models and
drawings, defined as Model-Based cohort in Appendix B in
reducing ECOs (20% vs. 21%), decreasing non-conformances (16%
vs. 16%) and reducing scrap (16% vs. 16%).
Percent of Respondents Experiencing Benefits from
Documentation Initiatives: Drawing-Reliant and Model-Reliant
Drawing- Model-
Reliant Reliant
% of respondents reducing ECOs 20% 21%
% of respondents decreasing non-
conformances 16% 16%
% of respondents reducing scrap 16% 16%
Table 1: Comparison of benefits (Appendix C) realized across the Drawing-
Reliant and Model-Reliant cohorts (Appendix B).

Ultimately, transitioning from releasing fully annotated drawings
to releasing a combination of minimally annotated drawings and a
3D model provides benefits to the engineering organization in
terms of time spent on engineering documentation, but little else
for the whole company.
RELEASING FULLY ANNOTATED 3D MODELS
For some, the theoretical benefits of moving towards releasing
Model-Based Definition rings true enough for them to make a
change. A frequent adoption of MBD involves transitioning from
fully annotated drawings to fully annotated models, essentially
replicating the traditional effort of adding dimensions in order to
convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component.
In this case, however, the 3D model is annotated with PMI where
it can be used directly by software, rather than only read by a
human.
This single deliverable fulfills all of the functions of engineering
documentation. The following examples illustrate how it is used.
Tooling Design: Tooling designers can develop molds,
dies and casting tooling based on a model and its PMI
without consulting a second definition of the design.
Generating NC Toolpaths: Machinists can generate
toolpaths directly from the model and the associated
machine-readable PMI, which includes tolerancing.
Speeds, feeds and tools can be determined using the
model only.
The advantage of this method lies in the fact that there is a single
and unambiguous definition that both conveys the complete and
detailed geometric form of a component and defines the measures
and thresholds within which a component meets quality standards.
Theoretically, this method should address the flaws associated
THE ROI OF MBD 6
with releasing a 2D graphical drawing and a model. With only one
deliverable, there is no divergence of the definition from which
errors can emerge. Findings from this research report do, in fact,
verify that is the case, as a higher percentage of organizations
releasing only MBD deliverables cite reduced change orders (30%
vs. 21%) and reduced scrap (35% vs. 15%) by wide comparative
margins. The benefits in this case are strong for the company.
Percent of Respondents Experiencing Benefits from
Documentation Initiatives: Model-Reliant and Model-Based
Model- Model-
Reliant Based
% of respondents reducing ECOs 21% 30%
% of respondents decreasing non-
conformances 16% 16%
% of respondents reducing scrap 16% 35%
Table 2: Comparison of benefits (Appendix C) realized across the Model-
Reliant and Model-Based cohorts (Appendix B).
The shortcoming using this method, however, lies in the effort
invested in annotating the model as if it were a drawing. This
effort essentially replicates the traditional effort of adding
dimensions in order to convey the complete and detailed
geometric form of a component when the 3D model already
inherently does so through its geometry. As a result, one would
expect no reduction in the amount of time it takes to annotate
the 3D model compared to creating a 2D graphical drawing.
Interestingly, however, findings from this research show it

actually requires more time to replicate the effort, with estimates
to develop the fully annotated model averaging 11.7 hours
compared to 8.8 hours to create the fully annotated drawing
dataset.
MIGRATING TO FULLY ANNOTATED MODELS
8.8 Hours 11.7 Hours
Time to Create Fully Time to Create Fully
Annotated Drawing Annotated Model
Figure 3: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create
the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents
cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix
C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the Model-
Based cohort (Appendix B).
Why would it take longer to fully annotate a 3D model than create
a fully annotated drawing? The reasons are many. Developing a
Model-Based Definition involves more complexity, including
deciding upon how to orient dimensions and tolerances on
presentation planes as well as grouping such annotations into
sets that can be turned on and off. Furthermore, the additional
time may also be the result of a transition between technologies,
as there is a learning curve that must be navigated. Over time,
however, improved proficiency in using the new technologies will
reduce this as well.
THE ROI OF MBD 7
Another important point to note is that creating fully annotated
models represents a duplicative effort. The geometric
representation of the model already conveys the complete and
detailed geometric form of a component. Adding dimensions adds
a different means of doing the same thing. The risk in this
approach is that these two duplicative methods of conveying the
complete and detailed geometric form of a component may fall out
of synch as the dimensional values can be changed without a
corresponding modification of the geometry. The only additional
effort that is truly required is to define the measures and
thresholds within which a component meets quality standards
through tolerancing and other annotations.
Ultimately, transitioning from fully annotated drawings to fully
annotated models yields benefits for the company overall, with
fewer ECOs and scrap, but not for engineering, who must invest
more time to create such deliverables.
RELEASING MINIMALLY ANNOTATED 3D MODELS
Developing 3D models with annotations isnt the only
improvement effort organizations are pursuing with respect to
engineering documentation. Some are adopting practices to
include the absolute minimum amount of annotations required in
their deliverables. This means, for example, that a component
that will be machined with toolpaths automatically created by a
CAM software program with no manual programming will not
require any annotations, theoretically. In contrast, if a sheet metal
part requires the brake operator to manually set the bend
dimension and angle, then that annotation should be included
and displayed.
By pulling together the effort to minimize annotations and the
effort to release a 3D model with PMI, some organizations are
seeking benefits from both types of improvement efforts. The
 THE ROI OF MBD 8

idea is to rely on the 3D models inherent geometry definition to

convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a component
MIGRATING TO MINIMALLY ANNOTATED MODELS
while adding the minimal annotations to define the measures and
thresholds within which a component meets quality standards.
This single reduced annotation deliverable fulfills all of the
functions of engineering documentation with effort that, in
theory, is lower. From a functional perspective, this deliverable is
used in the same way downstream as a fully annotated 3D model,
albeit with only the dimensions and tolerances that are needed
for conformance measurements.
8.8 Hours 6.7 Hours
Time to Create Fully Time to Create Minimally
For the company, the benefits of a fully annotated model are Annotated Drawing Annotated Model
realized here because there is a single unambiguous definition
with a clear source authority for geometry and tolerance. There Figure 4: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create
arent two definitions that can diverge, causing errors. Findings the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents
from this research report, as shared earlier, show a higher cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the estimate (Appendix
percentage of organizations releasing only MBD deliverables C) to create the minimally annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by the
lower the number of change orders (30% vs. 21%) and reduce scrap Model-Based cohort (Appendix B).
(35% vs. 16%) by wide comparative margins as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, engineering organizations realize further
For the engineering organization, the flaw associated with fully advantages because such model-based deliverables require less
annotated models, which according to estimates would take interpretation. On average, organizations releasing MBD
longer to create, is addressed. Findings from this research study deliverables spend 20.7 hours per week on engineering
show that the benefit associated with minimal or reduced documentation as opposed to 23.9 hours per week for
annotation efforts carries over here. The amount of time organizations releasing drawings.
estimated to create the minimally annotated model dataset
averages 6.7 hours, less than the 8.8 hours estimated to create
the fully annotated drawing dataset.
 THE ROI OF MBD 9

TIME SAVED BY MODEL-BASED ORGANIZATIONS TAKEAWAYS

Organizations are taking varying approaches on improving
engineering documentation. Those releasing models with
23.9 Hours minimally annotated drawings realize engineering productivity
Average time per week Drawing-Reliant organizations spend on gains, but little else for the company. Those developing fully
engineering documentation. annotated 3D models reap downstream benefits in the company,
but spend more time developing the deliverables. Those releasing
minimally annotated 3D models gain benefits in both engineering
and the company.
20.7 Hours
Average time per week Model-Based organizations spend on
engineering documentation.

Figure 5: On the left is the average time per week (Appendix C) that
Drawing-Reliant organizations (Appendix B) spend on engineering
documentation. On the right is the average time per week (Appendix C)
that Model-Based organizations (Appendix B) spend on engineering
documentation.
Overall, combining efforts to minimize or reduce annotation
efforts with model-based deliverables provides validated benefits
for the company, in the form of reduced ECOs and non-
conformances, as well as less time spent by the engineering
organization to create the deliverable.
 THE ROI OF MBD 10

A CAUTIONARY TALE: MISS-ESTIMATING THE BENEFITS

Pursuing an MBD initiative is much like any strategic effort: it MODEL-RELIANT ORGANIZATIONS UNDERESTIMATE
requires executive buy-in. Leadership is often presented with the EFFORT TO CREATE FULLY ANNOTATED MODELS
potential benefits in terms of hard monies and organizational
productivity gains balanced against monetary investments and 11.7 Hours
changes to processes and practices. As shown in this research
report, adopting an MBD initiative is worth the effort, but it must
be done the right way. In this context, it becomes imperative to 8.8 Hours
set the proper expectations. Unfortunately, a number of cohorts
6.9 Hours
surveyed for this research report have underestimated or
overestimated the benefits of such MBD initiatives to an extreme.

OVERESTIMATING THE BENEFIT

To start, first consider how organizations that are currently
releasing drawings and models view the transition from fully
annotated drawings to fully annotated models. To consider how
much benefit an engineering organization would realize from
such a transition, remember that findings previously shared in this CURRENT EXPECTED REALISTIC
research report show that all respondents estimate that it will OPERATION OPERATION OPERATION
All Respondent Model-Reliant Model-Based
take 8.8 hours on average to create the fully annotated drawing Organizations Organizations Organizations
dataset. estimated effort expected effort to estimated effort
to create the Fully create the Fully to create the Fully
To understand how much benefit an organization expects from a Annotated Annotated Model Annotated Model
change, consider their estimate of how long it would take to Drawing Dataset Dataset Dataset
develop the fully annotated model dataset. These organizations
that are currently releasing drawings and models estimated that Figure 6: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create
such work would take 6.9 hours, on average. Given that, we can the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents
assume that these types of organizations expect to realize a 22% cohort (Appendix B). In the middle is the average of the estimate
reduction in the amount of time to create engineering (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by
documentation. That is the expectation that these organizations the Model-Reliant cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the
would likely set with their executives. estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset
(Appendix D) by the Model-Based cohort (Appendix B).

Now, lets look at what is likely a more accurate estimate. The
study identified a number of organizations that are currently
releasing MBD deliverables as part of their day-to-day
development process. Because they have experience in creating
annotated models, they are likely to most accurately estimate
how long it would take to create the datasets defined in this
survey. They estimated it would take 11.7 hours, on average.
These organizations realize that transitioning from a fully
annotated drawing to a fully annotated model will actually result
in a 33% increase in the amount of time it takes to create
engineering documentation.
Imagine how the transition would go for the organizations
currently releasing drawings and models. They pursue the MBD
initiative expecting to see a 22% decrease in time spent on
engineering documentation, but instead they realize a 33%
increase. Obviously, experiencing such a drastic shortfall in
improvement would be catastrophic. Why do these organizations
overestimate the advantages of MBD? Perhaps it is their
familiarity with model-based approaches given they currently
release models alongside drawings. Regardless, this
overestimation of MBD benefits can clearly stop any MBD
initiative.
Of course, these organizations can experience these kinds of
gains in productivity if they develop minimally annotated models
instead of fully annotated models. Organizations currently
developing MBD deliverable estimated it would take 6.7 hours, on
average, to develop the minimally annotated dataset, equating to
a 24% gain in engineering productivity.
Therein lies the first cautionary tale: organizations releasing
drawings and models need to carefully and conservatively assess
the benefit that they can reasonably expect from such
THE ROI OF MBD 11
engineering documentation initiatives. Dont let your familiarity
with models cloud your judgement.
UNDERESTIMATING THE BENEFIT
Another major cohort defined in this research study includes
those that only release drawings as their engineering
documentation. As these organizations are also candidates that
may consider implementing an MBD initiative, it is also crucial for
them to accurately assess associated benefits to set executive
expectations correctly.
Their estimates to develop a fully annotated model is markedly
higher than those of other organizations, on average coming in at
14.1 hours. Interestingly, this is more than twice the estimates of
organizations releasing drawings and models, which averaged 6.9
hours. However, it is not as different as the estimate of
organizations releasing MBD deliverables today, which averaged
11.7 hours. Overall, estimates from drawing-based organizations
represent a 60% increase over the amount of time it would take to
develop the fully annotated drawing dataset. While this is nearly
double the productivity loss of 33% estimated by organizations
releasing MBD deliverables today, at least it is not portraying a
benefit for engineering productivity when it would result in a
detriment.
Why would a drawing-based organization estimate the effort to
develop a fully annotated model to be so high? Likely having
released drawings as a standard practice for decades,
transitioning to MBD deliverables can represent a radical change,
leading some to err, in their estimates, on the side of caution.
 THE ROI OF MBD 12

DRAWING-RELIANT ORGANIZATIONS OVERESTIMATE THE Interestingly, these drawing-based organizations estimate the
EFFORT TO CREATE FULLY ANNOTATED MODELS effort to develop the minimally annotated model dataset
accurately, coming in at an average of 6.3 hours compared to the
6.7 hours estimated by organizations releasing MBD deliverables
14.1 Hours today. At least drawing-based organizations clearly assess the
productivity they could gain by transitioning to minimally
11.7 Hours annotated models. The outstanding issue is whether or not they
realize they can rely on the inherent ability of the model geometry
to convey the complete and detailed geometric form of a
8.8 Hours component.
Therein lies the second cautionary tale: drawing-based
organizations need to realize they will likely underestimate the
benefit of transitioning to MBD deliverables. Realize that
minimally annotated models represent a real opportunity to
improve engineering productivity.

TAKEAWAYS
In conclusion, organizations tend to overestimate or
CURRENT EXPECTED REALISTIC underestimate the benefits of moving to MBD practices based on
OPERATION OPERATION OPERATION their current processes. Those releasing models alongside
All Respondent Drawing-Reliant Model-Based drawings underestimate the time it takes to create MBD
Organizations Organizations Organizations deliverables. Those releasing drawings overestimate the same
estimated effort expected effort to estimated effort
to create the Fully create the Fully to create the Fully
effort. Each should take care, as setting expectations with
Annotated Annotated Model Annotated Model executives in any kind of initiative or strategy is crucial to success.
Drawing Dataset Dataset Dataset

Figure 7: On the left is the average of the estimate (Appendix C) to create

the fully annotated drawing dataset (Appendix D) by All Respondents
cohort (Appendix B). In the middle is the average of the estimate
(Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset (Appendix D) by
the Drawing-Reliant cohort (Appendix B). On the right is the average of the
estimate (Appendix C) to create the fully annotated model dataset
(Appendix D) by the Model-Based cohort (Appendix B).
 THE ROI OF MBD 13

MODEL-BASED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTIONS

Of course, engineering documentation isnt the only type of per development project compared to 3.3 for organizations that
deliverable that utilizes the geometric form of a component. do embed models, representing a difference of 49%. Lastly, only
Manufacturing organizations must create drawings, specifications 10% of those that do not leverage models in manufacturing
and instructions that are used in the operations for product instructions stated that they have reduced scrap from poor or
components as well as tooling. These deliverables often reuse manually manipulated manufacturing methods compared to 47%
and reference pieces of engineering documentation. As a result, of organizations that do embed such models.
3D models can be used to augment these items. A 3D model of a
component or tooling can be used to convey the complete and Percent of Respondents Experiencing Benefits from Including
detailed geometric form of a component for documentation or and Not Including 3D Models in Manufacturing Instructions
instructions for machining setups, assembly plans and inspections
instructions. Such models can also be leveraged to create Include 3D Do Not
animations that illustrate a sequence of events that needs to be Models Include 3D
executed in a production operation. Models
Theoretically, many of the benefits that MBD offers to
Average # of ECOs per development
engineering documentation can be realized with manufacturing
project 5.6 9.5
instructions. Deliverables that directly utilize a 3D model can be
interrogated directly, allowing consumers to independently
Average # of non-conformances per
gather additional information. Such documentation also requires
development project 3.3 6.5
no interpretation of 2D graphics, allowing consumers to visualize
a more recognizable 3D object. All of these theoretical
advantages should manifest in measures of downstream % of respondents reducing scrap 49% 10%
efficiency. Findings from this research study do, in fact, validate
these theories. Table 3: Comparison of benefits (Appendix C) realized across Cohorts that
do and do not include 3D Models in Manufacturing Instructions (Appendix
Measurable benefits of utilizing 3D models in manufacturing
B).
instructions comes in the form of three separate metrics.
Organizations that do not embed models in their production In summary, findings from this study verify that organizations
deliverables execute 9.5 ECOs per development project compared that embed models in manufacturing instructions see fewer
to 5.6 for organizations that do embed models, representing a change orders and non-conformances. A higher percentage of
difference of 41%. Organizations that do not embed models in them see reduced scrap. Incorporating 3D models into
their production deliverables experience 6.5 non-conformances manufacturing instructions pays off.
 THE ROI OF MBD 14

THE ADOPTION OF MBD AND THE CULTURAL COMPROMISE

The concept behind MBD deliverables emerged more than a
decade ago. While the adoption of the practice hasnt been
widespread, general consensus has been that adoption is
increasing steadily. This research study exposed three trends that
support that claim when compared to adoption rates gathered in
Lifecycle Insights The Model-Based Enterprise Study of 2014.
ADOPTION OF MODEL-BASED DEFINITION INITIATIVES
Drawing-Reliant Organizations
Organizations Releasing Drawings, Models and MBDs
Model-Based Organizations
EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON DRAWINGS DECREASING
Findings from the 2014 study showed that 42% of respondents
exclusively released 2D graphical drawings as engineering
documentation. Findings from this research study indicate that
this percentage has fallen to 34%. This finding shows that more
organizations are moving away from exclusive reliance on
drawings.
Those shifting away from this practice are either releasing (1)
unannotated or (2) annotated 3D models alongside the drawing
or (3) moving exclusively to annotated 3D models. As we have
seen from the findings shared earlier in this report, moving to the
last of these operating states yields the most benefit.

42% 34% EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON MBD INCREASING

6% 12% Findings from the same 2014 study showed that only 6% of
respondents exclusively released annotated 3D models as
engineering documentation. This research study shows that

52% 54% number has increased to 12%, per respondents. Organizations

making such a move are either doing so proactively due to the
perceived benefits or due to contractual obligations.
Realizing the benefits of such a move depends on the tactical
2014 ADOPTION RATES 2017 ADOPTION RATES processes and methods of the change. As shown in findings
Findings from the 2014 Model- Findings from the 2017 ROI of earlier in this report, moving to a minimally annotated 3D model
Based Enterprise Study MBD Study yields more advantages for engineering and the company as a
whole than creating fully annotated 3D models.
Figure 8: On the left is the adoption rates from the 2014 Model-Based
Enterprise Study. On the right is adoption rates from the 2017 ROI of MBD
Study.
 THE ROI OF MBD 15

RELEASING BOTH: THE CULTURAL COMPROMISE

Between the two extremes of engineering documentation
practices with organizations either exclusively releasing drawings
or annotated 3D models, lie companies that are releasing both
drawings and an unannotated or annotated 3D model. Data from
the 2014 study shows that 52% of respondents utilized this
practice compared to 54% in this latest study.
Most interestingly, nearly four out of ten respondents (21% out of
54%) in this group are releasing drawings alongside an annotated
3D model. This practice is commonly employed when an
organization embarking on a journey to MBD encounters cultural
pushback internally or in their supply chain. The cultural
compromise is to develop a drawing alongside the annotated 3D
model. As shared earlier in this research report, releasing models
with minimally annotated drawings provides benefits for
engineering, as it takes less time to develop the drawing, yet such
efforts convey few other benefits to the company.

TAKEAWAYS
In summary, per this research study, fewer organizations
exclusively release drawings and more organizations are releasing
annotated 3D models. Nearly half of all respondents release
drawings and models, with four out of ten in this group doing so
with annotated 3D models.
Overall, progress is being made towards wider adoption of MBD.
However, companies should be wary of adopting a cultural
compromise, in releasing both drawings and models, as findings
from this study show little benefit to the company as a whole.
 THE ROI OF MBD 16

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In all, the results of this study provide some insight into the ROI of organizations, those that only release drawings, are more
MBD initiatives, including: likely to overestimate the amount of time to create a fully
annotated model, leading executives to think such an
Minimized or Reduced Annotation Models Pay Off:
effort is more difficult than it is in reality. Organizations
Regardless of whether such efforts are used alongside or
should carefully, and realistically, estimate the
separate from MBD efforts, only including the information
productivity gains they can realize by pursuing such an
that is needed for the required operation improves
effort.
engineering productivity. Keep in mind, however, that
such an effort requires a model to be released alongside a Including 3D in Manufacturing Instructions Pays Off:
drawing if an MBD approach is not pursued. Animated and annotated 3D models can be included in
manufacturing instructions to more clearly illustrate a
Minimally, Not Fully, Annotated Models Pay Off: Many
production operation. Organizations applying this
organizations are approaching an MBD effort by simply
approach are reaping benefits downstream.
transitioning all the information traditionally included on a
drawing to annotated models. Findings from this study MBD Adoption Is Growing Slowly: In comparison to the
demonstrate that such approaches increase the amount 2014 study, adoption of the release of MBD deliverables is
of time that engineering invests in documentation while increasing, albeit at a slow rate.
reaping benefits downstream. Fortunately, a full
The MBD Cultural Compromise: Many organizations are
annotation effort is not required as the model inherently
approaching such efforts while releasing both MBD
conveys the complete and detailed geometric form of a
deliverables and drawings, side by side. This represents a
component. The annotations on the model only need to
cultural compromise to make the transition in engineering
define the measures and thresholds within which a
but still offer drawings to downstream consumers. While
component meets quality standards. Such an approach
such an approach disarms any cultural conflict within the
yields advantages for the engineering organization and
organization, it undermines the benefits companies can
downstream use of the deliverable.
reap from MBD initiatives.
Overestimating and Underestimating the MBD Effort:
Conclusions from this study show that Model-Reliant
organizations, those that release a drawing and a model,
are more likely to underestimate the amount of time it
takes to create a fully annotated model, leading
executives to think that such a transition is easier than it is
in reality. Findings also show that Drawing-Reliant
 THE ROI OF MBD 17

APPENDIX A: STUDY LIFECYCLE AND DEMOGRAPHICS

Respondents to the studys survey serve a wide variety of
STUDY LIFECYCLE industries. The industries served at the highest rates by the survey
In August and September 2016, Lifecycle Insights surveyed 463 respondents include:
respondents to understand their practices and adoption of 32% Aerospace and Defense
technology with respect to engineering documentation. Survey
respondents originated from five research partners, including 24% Automotive
Lifecycle Insights, Desktop Engineering, ENGINEERING.com, 22% High Tech and Electronics
Action Engineering, and Techsoft3D. Survey respondents were
20% Medical Devices
compensated for their time with a complimentary copy of The
Modern Engineers Toolset, an eBook published by Lifecycle 20% Heavy Machinery and Industrial Equipment
Insights in January 2016.
19% Consumer Products

STUDY DEMOGRAPHICS
The number of respondents to the survey totaled 463. The
findings of this report, however, are based on a subset of these
respondents, totaling 355, who directly participate in the product
development supply chain. Responses from engineering service
providers, software providers, service providers, and system
integrators were excluded.
Survey responses for this study were gathered from fifty-one
different countries. The contribution by geographic area is as
follows:
85% from North America
6% Europe
5% Asia
The remaining 4% split between Australia and New
Zealand, South America, Africa and the Middle East
 THE ROI OF MBD 18

APPENDIX B: DEFINING COHORTS

This research report grouped respondents into cohorts based on
their answers in the survey. The following cohorts were used in DEFINING COHORTS BASED ON INCLUDING 3D
the findings of this report. MODELS IN MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTIONS
The organizations of the respondents were also categorized into
DEFINING COHORTS BASED ON ENGINEERING cohorts based on their answers to questions on whether or not
DELIVERABLES 3D models were embedded in their manufacturing instructions.
The option to designate whether their organization employs this
The organizations of the respondents were categorized into
practice was part of a larger bank of questions.
cohorts based on their answers to questions on the types of
deliverables released as engineering documentation for This cohort categorization was used to compare and contrast the
component designs. The multi-select options, which means relative advantages for the company across a variety of measures.
respondents were allowed to select more than one answer,
included Drawings, 3D Models and 3D Models with PMI.
Respondents were categorized into cohorts based on the
following rules:
Those that selected Drawings only were categorized as
Drawing-Reliant.
Those that selected 3D Models were categorized as
Model-Reliant, even if they had selected Drawings as an
option as well.
Those that selected 3D Models with PMI were
categorized as Model-Based, even if they had selected
Drawings and / or 3D Models as an option as well.
This cohort categorization was used to compare and contrast the
relative advantages for engineering organizations and the
company as a whole across a variety of measures.

APPENDIX C: MEASURING PERFORMANCE
A primary objective of this research study has been to verify
whether or not MBD initiatives provide measureable value. The
following questions, compared and contrasted against cohorts,
provided the means by which that theory was tested.
ESTIMATING THE CREATION OF DATASET
DELIVERABLES
As the complexity of engineering documentation varies greatly
depending on a companys product, industry, and role in the
supply chain, a means of baselining estimates of developing MBD
deliverables was required. Four datasets, created by Action
Engineering and detailed in Appendix D, were developed for their
specific use in this survey. Respondents were asked to provide
their estimate for each dataset. The assumptions associated with
each dataset is detailed in Appendix D.
These estimates were then averaged for all respondents or within
a specific cohort, as needed, to calculate averages that could be
compared. The following values were calculated:
Estimations from all respondents, not single cohort, were
used to calculate the average amount of time it would
take to create the Fully Annotated Drawing.
Estimations from Model-Reliant cohorts were used to
calculate the average amount of time it would take to
create the Minimally Annotated Drawing because this
more closely matches their current operating state today
where many are releasing a model and a drawing,
meaning their estimations are likely the most accurate.
THE ROI OF MBD 19
Estimations from Model-Based cohorts were used to
calculate the average amount of time it would take to
create a Fully Annotated Model and Minimally Annotated
Model because this more closely matches their current
operating state today where many are releasing MBD
deliverables, meaning their estimations are likely the most
accurate. Estimations for the Fully Annotated Model
dataset were also calculated for Model-Reliant and
Drawing-Based cohorts for comparison.
MEASURING TIME SPENT ON ENGINEERING
DOCUMENTATION
Another method of testing the theoretical advantages of MBD
initiatives in this research study was to average performance
across a bank of productivity metrics and downstream error
rates. Specifically, the metric bank of questions in this studys
survey asked for the following:
Average time an engineer in your company spends on
design documentation per week (0-60 hours)?
Average number of change orders (ECOs) per product
end items after first release?
Average number of Non-Conformances (NCs) resulting in
scrap?
These metrics were then averaged for different cohorts for
comparison.
 THE ROI OF MBD 20

MEASURING THE RATE OF BENEFITS EXPERIENCED

Another approach to testing the theoretical advantages of MBD
initiatives in this research study was to calculate the percentage
of respondents citing a variety of benefits, which included:
Shrink the amount of time to create and / or review
engineering documentation
Cut the number of clarification requests on engineering
documentation
Lower the number of change orders, revisions and
updates generated after first release
Shorten time to create data packages for Request for
Quote (RFQ)
Reduced scrap generated from poor or manually
manipulated manufacturing methods
Decrease in non-conformances
Increased first time resolution rates for service calls
The averages of each cohort were compared.

APPENDIX D: DATA SETS USED IN THE SURVEY
The survey for this research study requested that respondents
enter estimates for the amount of time needed to create four
different engineering documentation datasets. Each one is
detailed as follows.
FULLY ANNOTATED DRAWING
This dataset represents a drawing that is released without any
other deliverables.
THE ROI OF MBD 21
The following specifies the information and assumptions given to
the respondent for this question.
The following estimate should be entered by an engineer.
The drawing contains 6 views of the model. Note that all
six views were included in the survey.
Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled
and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.
Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry
cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.
Each dimension must be created manually as
measurements on the model geometry.
The drawing is meant to be the released source authority.
The 3D model is not released.
To more closely inspect the drawing, you may download this PDF
file. Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window.
Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in
Adobe Reader.

MINIMALLY ANNOTATED DRAWING
This dataset represents a drawing that is released alongside a 3D
model. It represents a drawing that has a minimal or reduced set
of annotations.
This question is not a duplication. It focuses on a one-page
drawing as opposed to a two-page drawing.
THE ROI OF MBD 22
The following specifies the information and assumptions given to
the respondent for this question.
The drawing contains 5 views of the model. Note that all
five views were included in the survey.
Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled
and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.
Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry
cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.
Each dimension must be created manually as
measurements on the model geometry.
The drawing and the 3D model are meant to be the
released source authority.
To more closely inspect the drawing, you may download this PDF
file. Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window.
Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in
Adobe Reader.

FULLY ANNOTATED MODEL
This dataset represents an Annotated 3D Model that is released
without any other deliverable. It represents an MBD deliverable
where all aspects of a traditional drawing are replicated.
THE ROI OF MBD 23
The following specifies the information and assumptions given to
the respondent for this question.
The following estimate should be entered by an engineer.
Compared to the document shown in the prior question,
this document includes more dimensions in the front and
right views and contains two additional views. Note that
all views were included in the survey.
The 3D model in this document is interactive, meaning the
user can pan, zoom, spin and select different views.
Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled
and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.
Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry
cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.
Each dimension must be created manually as
measurements on the model geometry.
The document is meant to be the released source
authority.
To more closely inspect the model, you may download this PDF
file or this JT file.
Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window. Note
that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in Adobe
Reader. Clicking the JT file link will launch a new browser window.
Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in the
free JT Viewer.

MINIMALLY ANNOTATED MODEL
This dataset represents an Annotated 3D Model that is released
without any other deliverables. It represents an MBD deliverable
that has a minimal or reduced set of annotations.
THE ROI OF MBD 24
The following specifies the information and assumptions given to
the respondent for this question.
The 3D model in this document is interactive, meaning the
user can pan, zoom, spin and select different views.
The document contains 7 annotated views of the model.
Note that all views were included in the survey.
Assume that the 3D model has been completely modeled
and can be used to develop the views in the drawing.
Assume that dimensions used to create model geometry
cannot be used in the creation of the drawing.
Each dimension must be created manually as
measurements on the model geometry.
The document is meant to be the released source
authority.
To more closely inspect the model, you may download this PDF
file or this JT file.
Clicking the PDF file link will launch a new browser window. Note
that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in Adobe
Reader. Clicking the JT file link will launch a new browser window.
Note that the file will need to be downloaded and opened in the
free JT Viewer.
 THE ROI OF MBD 25

APPENDIX E: LEGAL
The works of authorship contained in The 2017 ROI of Model- Links and references to any website are provided solely as
Based Definition Report (the "Report"), including but not limited pointers to information on topics that may be useful to readers of
to all design, text, and images, are owned by LC-Insights LLC the Report, and Lifecycle Insights has no control over the content
(Lifecycle Insights). This publication is protected by United States on such websites. If readers choose to link to a website
copyright laws and international treaties. Unless otherwise noted, referenced herein, Lifecycle Insights makes no warranties, either
the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by LC- express or implied, concerning the content of such site, including
Insights LLC, and may not be reproduced, stored in another the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability thereof for
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means any particular purpose, nor does Lifecycle Insights warrant that
without prior written consent of the publisher. Unauthorized such site or content is free from any claims of copyright,
reproduction or distribution of this publication, or any portion of trademark, or other infringement of the rights of third parties or
it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be that such site or content is devoid of viruses or other
prosecuted to the maximum extent necessary to protect the contamination. Lifecycle Insights does not guarantee the
rights of the publisher. authenticity of documents on the Internet. Links and references
to websites do not imply any endorsement of or responsibility for
All other names, products, and logos are trademarks of their
the opinions, ideas, products, information, or services offered at
respective owners. Featured words or symbols, used to identify
such sites, or any representation regarding the content at such
the source of goods and services, are the trademarks of their
sites.
respective owners. The information in this Report is for
information purposes only. It is believed to be reliable, but
Lifecycle Insights does not warrant its completeness or accuracy.
The information and materials contained in this Report, and the
terms and conditions of the access to and use of such information
and materials, are subject to change without notice. Not all
products and services are available in all geographic areas.
Lifecycle Insights or its report sponsors may discontinue or make
changes in the information, products, or services described herein
at any time. Any information published is valid as of its date only,
and Lifecycle Insights does not undertake any obligation or
responsibility to update or amend any such information. Lifecycle
Insights reserves the right to terminate any or all report offerings
without prior notice to the user.