1. W H I T E P A P E R
z u k e n . c o m
Reclaiming
engineering
produc tivity
5 easy steps to increasing engineering
productivity
Z u k e n – T h e P a r t n e r f o r S u c c e s s

2. Z u k e n – T h e P a r t n e r f o r S u c c e s s
2
and electrical engineering continues to be a
concern for us,” or that: “we need to integrate
discipline-specificdevelopmentprocesses”.
This apparent need for improvement raises the
question about what approaches are available
to ensure product success, and which of
them are best suited to enable electronic and
electricalengineersasdriversofinnovation.
Companies have three main levers to increase
productsuccess:
• The product itself – how it is structured
and built with regard to modularity and
configurability.
• The product process – how companies
work internally and with their suppliers
andsubcontractors.
• The organization – how specific
product development methodology
is implemented and anchored in the
organizationalstructureoftheenterprise.
These approaches are supported by related IT
systems:
• CAD and EDM applications supporting
the design of products and the reuse of
productmodules
• PDM and PLM systems to manage
engineering processes and to coordinate
and provide data to different engineering
disciplines
• ERP or enterprise business systems to
supportrelatedbusinessprocesses.
Information technology plays a pivotal role for
all three product success levers. However, the
new capabilities provided by IT come at the
expense of increased complexity. In this way
the steadily growing complexity of products,
variants, value chains and processes is further
aggravated by the dimension of IT complexity
brought about by different environments, user
andsystemsinterfaces.
In other words: today’s typical approach to
managing product complexity is to increase IT
complexity.
So far, we have assumed that the additional
capabilities provided by the multitude of
new IT systems far outweighs the additional
workload imposed by the growing complexity
oftheseITsolutions.
But before we go any further, let’s look in detail
at the three main levers companies have for
increasing product success, and the commonly
used strategies for their optimization. We’ll
consider organization first, followed by the
productprocessand,finally,theproductitself.
Introduction
We have turned creators into managers, and
engineers into administrators. And for good
reason! We assumed it was wise to reallocate
a small amount of an engineer’s time to
administrative tasks, based on the premise
that gains would be achieved elsewhere in
the process through the benefits of data and
process consistency. But it could well be that
thiswasafalseassumption.
ThisWhitePaperinvestigateswhatapproaches
exist for increasing engineering productivity,
and identifies steps that can be taken to
find a better balance between engineering
management tasks and effective use of
engineeringdevelopmenttime.
Increasing development
success
A quick glance at the current situation in
product development from an electrical and
electronic engineering perspective shows
threeimportantindicators:
1. In both the automotive, and machinery
and plant sectors, process complexity
is growing at a rapid rate. Measured by
the number of product variants in the
machinery sector, complexity has grown
bytwo-and-a-halftimes1since1997.
2. Product lifecycles continue to shrink:
over the last decade, the average product
lifecycleshrankbyaroundonequarter².
3. At the same time the share of electronic
and electrical engineering in product
innovationisrapidlyincreasing:Measured
by the number of patent applications,
the sector of electrical machinery and
equipment grew by almost 90%. In
comparison, the machinery and drive
technologysectorgrewbyonly23%³.
While the share of electronic and electrical
components (E/E) in today’s products is
steadily growing, the degree of integration
of these disciplines into the overall product
development process (PDP) remains at rather
a low level. Although the shift of innovation
towards E/E has already taken place on a
large scale, the product development process
itself continues to be characterized by the
methodologiesofmechanicalengineering.
This is highlighted by a survey⁴ of companies
using EDA solutions from a range of providers,
includingZuken.
Morethanhalfofthosequestionedcommented
that: “the missing integration of mechanical
1 RolandBerger:MasteringProductComplexity,2012.
2 Seepreviousfootnote.
3 VDMAIndicatorsforResearchandInnovationin
Engineering,March2016.
4
SurveyofcompaniesusingEDAsolutionsfromZuken
andotherproviders,Germany,2015.
“...themissingintegration
ofmechanicaland
electricalengineering
continuestobeaconcern
forus⁴.

3. z u k e n . c o m
3
Process
If we turn our attention to the operational
procedures of product development, the
focus naturally goes to the IT systems that are
deployed to support engineering processes. In
new product development these are typically
PDM and PLM systems. It appears that these
systems seem to be viewed with increasing
scepticismamongseniormanagement,astheir
benefitsdonotalwaysmeetexpectations⁶and,
consequently, the relationship between cost
and achievable benefits can be unfavourable⁷.
As a consequence, the majority of decision-
makers are negative about investment in PLM
technologies⁸.
Product
Consequently, the key to sustainable success
appears to be the product rather than the
organization or the process. Incidentally, this
corresponds with the self-perception of the
European machinery and plant industry: The
majority of German machine builders are
focused on innovation in the product (62%)
ratherthanoninnovationintheprocess(36%)⁹.
It appears then that engineering productivity
provides the most promising approach to
securingproductsuccess.
Considering the high degree of attention that
organization and process have enjoyed with
the rise of PLM, it may be concluded that the
netavailabletimeforengineeringactivitieshas
beencontinuouslyreduced.
Reclaimingengineeringproductivity
Three product success
levers
Organization
The two primary levers with a direct influence
onproductsuccessare:
• Largerengineeringteams
• Outsourcing engineering tasks to remote
subcontractors.
However, practical experience has shown
that these apparently obvious approaches
frequently produce negative effects on
engineeringproductivity⁵:
• The average engineer’s productivity
will decrease with the growth of an
engineering team, because internal
coordination efforts grow drastically with
thenumberofstakeholders.
• For similar reasons, teams spread across
different locations can be up to 20% less
productive than teams working in the
samelocation.
We may therefore conclude that increasing
the size of engineering teams and adding
geographically distributed locations are
no guarantee for increasing engineering
productivity. Following on from this, it’s clear
that organizational measures seem to have
only limited potential to enhance engineering
success.
⁵ McKinseyonSemiconductors–Bythenumbers:
R&DProductivityinthesemiconductorindustry
(2014).
⁶ “Companiesrequire,no,demandquickerand
moresubstantialROI”–Source:CIMdata:Stateof
PLM–ConferenceProceedings2014,2015.
⁷“HugeeffortandexpensetogetPLMcore
capabilitiesupandoperating”.Source:CIMdata.
⁸PLMdecisionmakerswereaskedbyindustry
analystCIMdataabouttheviewsoftheir
seniormanagementtowardsPLM.61%ofall
decision-makersstatedthatPLMhasnotfulfilled
expectations.
⁹VDMAIndicatorsforResearchandInnovationin
Engineering,March2016.
PLMiscommonlyacceptedasanapproachtocontrollingproductcomplexity
“Today’stypical
approachtomanaging
productcomplexityisto
increaseITcomplexity.
Newcapabilities
throughIT
NewITcomplexity
ECAD&EDM
Product
Makecomplexity
manageable
PDM&PLM
Process
Securedata&
processes
PLM&ERP
Organization
Optimizeproductivity
&costs
?

4. Z u k e n – T h e P a r t n e r f o r S u c c e s s
4
the expense of some degree of engineering
productivityisalsotrueintheotherdirection!
In other words: if we succeeded in reducing the
amount of time spent on supporting and time-
sink activities by only 5% – from an estimated
55% to 50% – the daily available time for pure
engineering tasks would increase from 1 ¾
hours to 2 hours – which would equate to an
increaseofmorethan20%.
An increase in engineering productivity in
the region of 20% through the reduction of
supporting tasks would definitely appeal to all
companiesfocusingonproductinnovation!
Summing up: to achieve a substantial increase
in productive time, engineers need to curb
timesinksbyaseeminglyachievable5%.
Eliminating time-sinks
Process support and data management
comprise both indispensable supporting
efforts such as project and change
management, but also time-sinks such as
redundant work in the form of data re-entry or
waitingtimeforsystemresponses.
Many of these time-sinks are caused by
a multitude of different IT-systems and
interfaces, poor response times, as well as
inconsistentorambiguousdata.
Focusing on these types of areas should
provide sufficient leverage to achieving a
reductionoftime-sinksby5%.
The promise that an improvement in the
area of process provided better results than
improvements in the area of individual
productivity was apparently the justification
for the transfer of a growing load of process-
related tasks to engineers at the expense of
theirengineeringtimebudget.
Accordingtoseveralsurveys,anengineertoday
spendsmorethanhalfoftheirtimeonactivities
relatedtoretrievingandprovidinginformation.
The rest appears to be divided equally among
engineering and testing activities. The net
engineering time of an average 8-hour work
day is therefore somewhere in the region of
1 ¾ hours; just under one quarter of the daily
work time10
: The engineer seems to have been
turnedfromacreatorintoanadministrator!
In the area of information management
and retrieval we can find a whole range of
necessary, but non-development efforts –
from supporting activities, such as project and
change management, down to important but
non-productive activities such as duplication,
data re-entry, or waiting times for system
responses–time-sinkactivitiestobeavoided.
Supporting activities and even more so, time-
sink activities, cost a high price that shows
apparently insufficient return in terms of
increasedefficiency.
Consequently, we need to find ways to
optimize supporting efforts and to minimize
time-sinkactivities.
What is remarkable is that the presumed
approach of more process productivity at
Engineersareturningintoadministratorsbecausesupportingand
time-sinkactivitiesdemandagrowingamountoftime.
Howdoesaproductdeveloperspend
theirtime,onaverage?
Development and
testing*:
1:45h
4:25h
3:35h
Lessthanone-quarteron
development.
Engineering
development*:Retrieving
and providing
information*:
22%
45%
55%
10 ATimeStudyofScientists&EngineersintheAir
VehiclesDirectorate,USAF2010(numbersroundedup)
“Engineering
productivityprovidesthe
mostpromisingapproach
tosecuringproductsuccess.

5. z u k e n . c o m
5
Federatedprovisionofdata
managementreducestime-sinks.
Reclaimingengineeringproductivity
Many interfaces, large
integration gaps
With the introduction of CAD systems
in the late 1970s product development
in mechanical, electronic and electrical
engineering experienced an unprecedented
boost of productivity. But along with it came
incompatible data, unmanageable versions
and releases, and, in spite of all technology
support, a relatively small degree of data re-
use, all contributing to an alarming state of
entropy.
As a consequence, inconsistent data and
insufficient process support threatened
to neutralize the gains of what amounted
to a substantial investment. The solution
appearedtobeathandbyintroducingsystems
that would manage both engineering data
as well as engineering processes, such as
change management, within one consistent
environment.
The approach of managing not only the overall
process,butalsoallrelateddatainacentralized
environment brought about IT installations
that in spite of substantial integration efforts
do not provide the necessary depth of
integration. In particular, this is the case in
the disciplines of electronic and electrical
engineering,asneithertherelatedengineering
methodologies nor the required data models
are supported. This is because electronic and
electrical data models require a much great
depthofdetailthanmechanicalengineeringto
ensureunambiguousness.
As a matter of fact, the capabilities for
managingelectronicandelectricalcomponent
libraries is not provided by any of the current
PLMmarketleaders’environments.
An alternative approach
There is no doubt that an interdisciplinary
engineering process requires an
interdisciplinarysystemtomanageandcontrol
processes across the domains of mechanical,
electronic, electrical, fluid and software
engineering.
There is however no compelling reason
why such a system should also manage all
engineering data from all disciplines in a
centralizedrepository.
Apragmaticalternativewouldbethefollowing
hybridapproach:
1. Centralized control of the inter-
disciplinaryprocess
2. Federated data management within the
authoringenvironments
This approach promises to provide a twofold
advantage: on one hand, the number of
required interfaces will be reduced (and
with it the effort for implementation and
maintenance), and on the other hand the
number of user interfaces (and with it, time-
sink effort due to redundant data entry) will be
substantiallyreduced.
These monolithic systems that purport to be
the “single source of truth” not only take up
engineers’valuabletime,butalsotheirgrowing
number of additional applications, interfaces
anduserinterfacesaddtotheburden.
For the user this means that they frequently
need to have up to four different applications
running in parallel on their desktop. And every
single one comes with its own logic and user
interface.
For any head of IT the sheer number
of different applications represents a
considerable maintenance and support effort.
In addition, since hardly any application today
is operated in isolation, a corresponding
number of interfaces has to be put in place and
maintained.
A little earlier, we formulated the following
objective: if it were only possible to spend
5% less on support and blind effort, it would
amounttoasubstantialincreaseinengineering
productivity.
Applied to a complex IT landscape, even a
minor reduction in the number of different
applications would bring us a good deal closer
tothisobjective.
“…reducetimespent
onsupportandtime-
sinkactivitiesby5%and
dailyavailabletimefor
engineeringtasksincreases
bymorethan20%.

6. Z u k e n – T h e P a r t n e r f o r S u c c e s s
6
For that reason, we at Zuken believe the
followingapproachtobehighlypromising:
• Interdisciplinary processes should be
covered by interdisciplinary systems
such as ERP or PLM, in which important
revisions or milestones should be
documentedassnapshots.
• Transactional data such as engineering
data that is subject to frequent change
and requires detailed insight into the
respective data model ought to be kept
within their specific disciplines. In total,
this would amount to a federated data
model.
With this approach, integration efforts with
regards to PLM and ERP would be reduced,
whereas the degree of integration within the
disciplineswouldbeasdeepasrequired.
Consequently, unambiguousness and
traceability of data will increase drastically,
making local workarounds redundant. As a
result, redundant work and waiting times for
systemresponseswillfurtherdiminish.
While it may be relatively easy and plausible to
postulate a similar claim, the question arises,
how vendors should support it with their
softwaresolutions.
NETWORK.
LEARN.
INNOVATE.
FiveITrequirementsforengineeringproductivity
A user-friendly approach
As a matter of principle, every enterprise can
implement a similar approach with a limited
numberofsteps:
1. Providedatamanagement
capabilitiesaspartofECADauthoring
environments
CAD and domain data management (DDM)
will form part of the user interface of the
eCAD system with interfaces to PDM running
in the background. Data will be managed
locally and user tasks that are triggered by
an interdisciplinary processes in the PLM
environment will appear directly in the eCAD
system.
If we managed to eliminate just one single
application, we would already have achieved
a big step forward. Fewer different user
interfaces mean: productivity goes up as
response times and redundant tasks are
significantlyreduced.
2. Manageelectricalandelectronicdata
modelsintheirnativeformat
Many companies use existing projects as a
template from which they create new designs
and variants. Frequently this is done by simply
copying and modifying existing projects.
However, in this way, there is no linkage
between source and copy, so that changes on
a components level cannot be consolidated
acrossdifferentvariants.
Especially if changes are made in related
projectsitisimportanttoknowinwhatdesigns
therelatedcomponentsweredeployed.
This question can only be answered if a
“where-used” analysis on a component
level is supported. A prerequisite for such an
analysis is a data management environment
that is capable of handling information on
a component level, which can be provided
only by a component level domain data
managementsystem,suchasZuken’sDS-2.
In addition to a reduced integration overhead,
managingelectricalandelectronicdataintheir
native format enables detailed where-used
analyses on a component level as well, as the
management of variants and options, which
would require exceptional integration efforts
if it was to be implemented in a (mechanically-
oriented)PDM-environment.
“Revertingfroma
process-centricperspective
totheneedsofthe
engineeropensupthe
chanceofaddressing
growingproductand
processcomplexitywith
engineeringproductivity,
ratherthanadding
additionalITcomplexity.

7. z u k e n . c o m
7
Reclaimingengineeringproductivity
Copyright © Zuken GmbH. 160914
3. Managematerialandcomponent
librarieswithintheauthoringsystem
Just like engineering projects, electronic and
electrical component libraries are subject to a
process in which they are created, maintained,
reviewed, released and rolled out to the
differentengineeringlocations.
Acentralizedapproachtolibrarymanagement
helps to control and reduce the number of
individual entries and reduces maintenance
efforts, while providing the basis for efficient
design re-use. In addition, a library that is
consolidated across different operations and
locations provides a basis for more favourable
buyingconditionsthrougheconomiesofscale.
And finally, a centralized approach to
managing libraries ensures data consistency
across different engineering locations, while
data exchange and design-reuse is better
supported and manufacturing resources can
beflexiblyallocated.
4. Integrateandsynchronizeprocesses
withPLMandERPbutmanagedatain
decentralizedrepositories
It is the promise of centralized data
management systems to provide a unique
interface for all applications. It is, in fact,
an appealing idea to have to integrate
applicationsintoonesingleenvironment.
The reality of today’s IT landscapes continues
to be fragmented, and in all probability
this will not change in the future – not only
for technical reasons, but also as a result of
mergers and acquisitions of companies with
theirownlegacyenvironments.
The integration of systems and applications
remains a running target, in which the
objective of a single source of truth generates
a high amount of effort, without providing the
requireddepthofintegration.
Federated data management is a valid
alternative, because the integration of
processes is more manageable than the
integration of transactional engineering
data. It is, however, a requirement that eCAD
systems in turn provide workflow and data
managementcapabilities.
5. Enhancecollaborationwithinthe
discipline
In a typical distributed process shared
development, work is characterized by
check-in and check-out routines: While an
engineer is working on a project, it will be
lockedforallothers.MeanwhileeCAD-Systems
such as Zuken’s E³.series enable more agile
ways of working together, as they support
several engineers working in parallel on the
same project, with all changes visible for
the whole team in real time. It is, however, a
prerequisite that the eCAD system provides
multi-user capabilities and related role and
rightsmodels.
Summary
Reverting from a process-centric perspective
to the needs of the engineer opens up the
chance of addressing growing product
and process complexity with engineering
productivity, rather than adding additional IT
complexity.
This approach, however, requires bringing
functionality that today is scattered around
different systems, into the engineer’s
environment – i.e. the CAD system. This is an
approach that offers agility and distributed
repositories versus the monolithic approach of
centralizedsystems.
AbouttheAuthor:
ThomasGessnerisBusinessDevelopmentManager
forZuken’sDataManagementSolutions.Hejoinedthe
companyin2013tomanage
themarketintroductionof
E3.EDM.Gessnerhasheld
similarpositionsatPTC,
BroadVision,AdobeSystems
andInterleaf,andhasbeen
sellingandmarketing
engineeringdatamanagement
solutionssincethemid-1980s.