Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Problems Justifying AutoCAD Upgrades

75 REPLIES 75
Reply
Message 1 of 76
dfaykosh
606 Views, 75 Replies

Problems Justifying AutoCAD Upgrades

Can someone please help me with any info to help justify upgrading my AutoCAD software. How can I convince management to keep my software current? I have 2000i and need to convince them that an upgrade would be both beneficial and productive to the company. Their attitude is if it ain't broke, why fix it. Or, are you missing something? or does something not work? In the past, upgrading the CAD package was only possible when my R14 licence was about to expire. This forced an upgrade (or the company would risk paying full price for a new AutoCAD seat). And I was only allowed to upgrade to the 2000i level when AutoCAD 2002 was already being released. I still have 2000i and not much chance to move up until this license is due to expire. (Please tell me 2000 and 2000i expire soon!) In the meantime, I'm missing valuable hands on training on new features. Articles in magazines are useless. Training is no longer available by the time they decide to upgrade. Job Posting call for experience in the latest AutoCAD version. I fear I will be behind if they let me go here. Anyhow, if there are any articles, good web sites, magazines, anything at all to help me, please let me know. I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks for your time.
75 REPLIES 75
Message 21 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

Let's take an example of an office with 10
licenses.  For this example let's use man-hour costs at $50/hr. 
Depending upon the specifics upgrades cost could easily go like
this.

 

10 licenses @ $500   
               
    $5000.00

Hardware Upgrades   
               
    $7000.00

Training 24 hours
each                  $12000.00

Lost production (billable hours)   

when changing over    
               
    $8000.00

 

From a management point of view that's $32,000 that
have to be recovered before the new software can justify itself.  Unless
the new software can save enough time to replace either capital or labor there
is no justification.  Somehow I think CAD developers are yet to
realize this.  An individual or even a company can only do a certain amount
of work in a years time.  In order for software to justify itself, it must
enable a firm to either do more work with the same amount of people or do the
same amount of work with less people.  It's a "capital versus labor" thing
and software vendors have yet to realize this.  Due to the current state of
the economy, management of firms that produce drawings have finally started to
realize that fact.   That is the very reason many firms got off
the wagon and are still using r14 and probably one of the reasons Autodesk
abandoned license upgrades after a certain date for r14.  They saw their
revenue stream declining and had to force something on the consumer. 
Autodesk's management first loyalty has always been to the stockholder - not the
end user.

 

Don't get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to
r2000 was well worth the aggravation for me, even after the countless hours I
spent learning the new plotting paradigm.  There were a couple of tweaks
from r2000 to r2000i that made that jump worthwhile.  For me those tweaks
were not there between 2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release
15.xx).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
That
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
Message 22 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

Very good example Marshall.  Getting rid of
the "want" factor,

the Q should be "do you really need" the
upgrade.

 

Paul Kohut

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Let's take an example of an office with 10
licenses.  For this example let's use man-hour costs at $50/hr. 
Depending upon the specifics upgrades cost could easily go like
this.

 

10 licenses @ $500   
               
    $5000.00

Hardware Upgrades   
               
    $7000.00

Training 24 hours
each                  $12000.00

Lost production (billable
hours)   

when changing over    
               
    $8000.00

 

From a management point of view that's $32,000
that have to be recovered before the new software can justify itself. 
Unless the new software can save enough time to replace either capital or
labor there is no justification.  Somehow I think CAD developers are
yet to realize this.  An individual or even a company can only do a
certain amount of work in a years time.  In order for software to justify
itself, it must enable a firm to either do more work with the same amount of
people or do the same amount of work with less people.  It's a "capital
versus labor" thing and software vendors have yet to realize this.  Due
to the current state of the economy, management of firms that produce drawings
have finally started to realize that fact.   That is the very
reason many firms got off the wagon and are still using r14 and probably
one of the reasons Autodesk abandoned license upgrades after a certain date
for r14.  They saw their revenue stream declining and had to force
something on the consumer.  Autodesk's management first loyalty has
always been to the stockholder - not the end user.

 

Don't get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to
r2000 was well worth the aggravation for me, even after the countless hours I
spent learning the new plotting paradigm.  There were a couple of tweaks
from r2000 to r2000i that made that jump worthwhile.  For me those tweaks
were not there between 2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release
15.xx).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
That
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
Message 23 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh


They may have got extensions but I can't see
those worth the subscription price which slightly less the price of an
upgrade. 

 

Martin


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Martin,

Even without the new release, those with a
subscription get all of the extensions.  Take a look at the reference
manager extension.  Or the cad standards extension.  Both good
extensions for some people.  There are other extensions as
well.

 

Mike Weaver


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

While the subscription is good in theory
it still isn't the best.  Anyone who upgraded around this time
last year and got the subscription did not get any new release of
Autocad.  With that little fact your boss may not want to put money
each year without getting at least a major release.

 

Martin


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
The
subscription program sounds like the way to go,
thanks
Message 24 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

What about maintaining your original investment in
the software? How do you attract new staff when their training is usually on the
latest software? We share our office space with another engineer who is still on
2000. He had to bring in a contract worker who was trained on 2002. They have
been asking some questions and in trying to help I am often faced with the fact
that I don't remember exactly what is in 2000 that is not in 2002.
This is also slowing down the contract worker, even though they aren't
doing any complicated drafting with AutoCAD. 

 

If you can get along without the new release
features, then what do you need the retraining for?

 

I agree that there was a real training issure from
R14 to 2000 because of the plotting but that is not much different then the
change from the dos to windows operating system.

 

I think that the cost of upgrading software is no
different that upgrading any other piece of company inventory. A 20 year old car
can travel the same road of a new one so why upgrade your
automobiles?

 

I think that a company decision to not upgrade is a
personal decision by management that has more to do with them being forced to
upgrade

 

Dave Alexander.


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Let's take an example of an office with 10
licenses.  For this example let's use man-hour costs at $50/hr. 
Depending upon the specifics upgrades cost could easily go like
this.

 

10 licenses @ $500   
               
    $5000.00

Hardware Upgrades   
               
    $7000.00

Training 24 hours
each                  $12000.00

Lost production (billable
hours)   

when changing over    
               
    $8000.00

 

From a management point of view that's $32,000
that have to be recovered before the new software can justify itself. 
Unless the new software can save enough time to replace either capital or
labor there is no justification.  Somehow I think CAD developers are
yet to realize this.  An individual or even a company can only do a
certain amount of work in a years time.  In order for software to justify
itself, it must enable a firm to either do more work with the same amount of
people or do the same amount of work with less people.  It's a "capital
versus labor" thing and software vendors have yet to realize this.  Due
to the current state of the economy, management of firms that produce drawings
have finally started to realize that fact.   That is the very
reason many firms got off the wagon and are still using r14 and probably
one of the reasons Autodesk abandoned license upgrades after a certain date
for r14.  They saw their revenue stream declining and had to force
something on the consumer.  Autodesk's management first loyalty has
always been to the stockholder - not the end user.

 

Don't get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to
r2000 was well worth the aggravation for me, even after the countless hours I
spent learning the new plotting paradigm.  There were a couple of tweaks
from r2000 to r2000i that made that jump worthwhile.  For me those tweaks
were not there between 2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release
15.xx).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
That
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
Message 25 of 76
DaveF
in reply to: dfaykosh

We're talking about upgrading existing software, no mention of any new programs, hardware or humanoids or anything here. SolidWorks has been trying to get in here for a while and management won't even let them in for a demo. Let's not get carried away.
Message 26 of 76
cprettyman
in reply to: dfaykosh

Also, I think the 24 hour allotment for training is a bit high iff you are talking about a 14 to 2002 transition. I'm dragging the last few teams in this office through that transition now, and I am doing it with 2 one-hour long seminars that cover teh material really needed. I have the advantage with these teams that there is already a significant number of people in the office who have been using 2000/2002 for awhile, so they have plenty of places to turn for help. In 2 hours, we do not cover every single thing that chaged, but we cover 90% or better of the things that changed which are idely used in the office. Also, those 2 hours are almost entirely filled with me talking (which is why it is broken into 2 parts - 2 hours of me talking is a lot to ask of anyone). I need to follow up with some over the shoulder support for some people, but others get it all right away. Anyway, you need to drastically reduce that 24 hour/12,000 figure for training - 3 or 4 hours of training that is specific to teh changeover - and included in this calculation, supplemented by whatever your regular ongoing training is, which is not pat of this equation is more like it.
Message 27 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

I think most of us are really trying to set your mind at
ease.

There aren't enough differences between 2000i and 2002 that
you are getting significantly behind the curve.

Don't sweat it.

Now, the management problems . . . . . that's a different
story. <g>

 

- Jim


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
We're
talking about upgrading existing software, no mention of any new programs,
hardware or humanoids or anything here. SolidWorks has been trying to get in
here for a while and management won't even let them in for a demo. Let's not
get carried away.
Message 28 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

My original comment was meant to shed a little
humour on the situation

The 2nd one was meant that way as
well.

 

But the message is still true.  Just because
something is not the very latest doesn't mean it needs to be replaced or
upgraded if you prefer. We are a small architectural firm, and use a2k, and I
have a great deal of difficulty, after reading as much as I can find about a2k2,
in telling management to spend $1000's to achieve what, a 3% overall increase in
performance?  A $300 suite of lisp tools, CAD standardization and training
to use well what we have now yields far greater returns for our business than
simply upgrading.  In fact, I think one of the best investments we made in
the last three years was to spend $100 and get everyone using a logitech
optical wheelmouse.  Will we upgrade, yes, of course.  But when it
makes sense to us, when we know that upgrading   will yield the best
return on our investment.

 

 

Jamie Duncan

 

"Maybe the Hokey Pokey is REALLY what's it all about"


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
We're
talking about upgrading existing software, no mention of any new programs,
hardware or humanoids or anything here. SolidWorks has been trying to get in
here for a while and management won't even let them in for a demo. Let's not
get carried away.
Message 29 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:52:05 -0800, dfaykosh
wrote:

>Can someone please help me with any info to help justify upgrading my AutoCAD software.

I have a hard time convincing MYSELF that our recent upgrade from
version 14 was really justified. Actually, the entire office was on
the LT version, but when we upgraded I went to the full version and
everyone else to the LT 2002 version.

Almost every reason I had for upgrading turned out to have problems
or serious limitations. Transpacial Dimensions, Multiple Layouts, and
the Orbit command were the main ones. While I am certain there are
many out there who use these features reliably, They aren't usable in
our drawings. The time it took to figure out all the problems was
substantial.

Think of all the productivity gains you have because you weren't
chasing new bugs!

Joe Dunfee
Message 30 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

I wholeheartedly disagree.

There are plently of reasons to upgrade from 2000. Speed, stabilty and
enhanced (fixed) plotter drivers just to name a few.

Some of the features in 2000i alone included dual CPU support and an
enhanced graphics engine. 2002 adds many of the "extensions" that were
available under 2000 and 2000i.

I would probably rather draw in R14 over 2000, if I couldn't work with
2002, just to avoid all the 2000 specific headaches.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:00:24 -0800, "Terry W. Dotson"
wrote:

>dfaykosh wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, I'm missing valuable hands on training on
>> new features. Articles in magazines are useless. Training is no
>> longer available by the time they decide to upgrade. Job Posting
>> call for experience in the latest AutoCAD version. I fear ...
>
>RELAX! There have not been any *significant* changes since 2000.
>
>Life does not end because your a little behind!
>
>Terry
Message 31 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

I agree with Matt, I'd be inclined to work elsewhere if R14 was "where it's
at"...it's down right clumsy compared to 2002.

Steve


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:6f8q4vs7hppo0j0a9dibsea7ngmptslgrs@4ax.com...
> I wholeheartedly disagree.
>
> There are plently of reasons to upgrade from 2000. Speed, stabilty and
> enhanced (fixed) plotter drivers just to name a few.
>
> Some of the features in 2000i alone included dual CPU support and an
> enhanced graphics engine. 2002 adds many of the "extensions" that were
> available under 2000 and 2000i.
>
> I would probably rather draw in R14 over 2000, if I couldn't work with
> 2002, just to avoid all the 2000 specific headaches.
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@bhhtait.com
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:00:24 -0800, "Terry W. Dotson"
> wrote:
>
> >dfaykosh wrote:
> >
> >> In the meantime, I'm missing valuable hands on training on
> >> new features. Articles in magazines are useless. Training is no
> >> longer available by the time they decide to upgrade. Job Posting
> >> call for experience in the latest AutoCAD version. I fear ...
> >
> >RELAX! There have not been any *significant* changes since 2000.
> >
> >Life does not end because your a little behind!
> >
> >Terry
>
Message 32 of 76
cprettyman
in reply to: dfaykosh

Matt/Steve - re-read the original post, he is already on 2000i. A lot fo the feattures that make 2002 better than 2000 appeared in 2000i, so, while I agree in general, I also agree that he has a tough sell to upper management. Personally, i accept th e concept of the subscription program for managing expense, and I belive that tehre is value in recieving exptensions that are easier to train people on, reducing the total cost of ownership by making it easier to keep the staff up to speed. Personally, if I were dfaykosh, I would be looking at making the argumetn that tehre is a long term benefit to upgrading, and buying into the subscription program now, to reap the benefits of the next release. Of course, that would be an easier sell if we knew when the next release wwas coming, but we all know that AutoDesk will not tell us when it is going to be ready, until it is already ready.
Message 33 of 76
DaveF
in reply to: dfaykosh

Right on, who would take a job where they're still running R14, tells you a lot about the Company. What type of individual would be there long term? I think upgrading to the latest version is a good policy and shows you that the Company wants to be leaders and attract the best available staff.
Message 34 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

ANY time you need me to come and do 24 hours of training for $12,000
just let me know...

For 10 users a 2.5 day intensive R14-2000+ update class is running
between $495-695 per attendee and a 2000 or 2000i to 2002 is 0.5 days
running $195 per attendee... most training institutes or resellers will
be more than happy to discount the training as long as it's bundled with
the purchase of the upgrade.

I am sorry but I think all your figures are over inflated... with the
exception of the cost of the actual software upgrade cost.

And as for lost revenue, if the training is successful the impact should
be minimized by a shortened learning curve and from 2000 or 2000i there
really should be little or no impact.

*******************************************************
Please, DO NOT send technical requests to me via private e-mail
*******************************************************

Tracy Lincoln, Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Groups Forum Moderator Program

Discussion Group Links:
Index: http://discussion.autodesk.com
Rules: http://discussion.autodesk.com/webx?groundrules

Product Support: http://support.autodesk.com/
Knowledge Base: http://support.autodesk.com/ViewAnswerworks.asp
Downloads: http://support.autodesk.com/Downloads.asp
Message 35 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:42:17 -0800, c.prettyman
wrote:

>Matt/Steve - re-read the original post, he is already on 2000i.

Charles,

I was just replying to Terry's comment that "There have not been any
*significant* changes since 2000."

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 36 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh



Hi Marshall!

Ok... you calculated the outlay... now let's calculate the savings...
assume you save 20 min per day per user... So... saved time = 20 min x
10 CADdies X 4.25 days per week (assume 85% of week due to loss time, like
sick & vacation) X 52 weeks per year = 44,200 min / 60 min per hr =
736.67 hours saved. So calculate billable time saved = 737 hours x $50
per hour = $36,850! Thus you can justify the purchase!!

Ciao!

~Terry

Marshall Caudle wrote:

 Let's take
an example of an office with 10 licenses.  For this example let's
use man-hour costs at $50/hr.  Depending upon the specifics upgrades
cost could easily go like this.
10
licenses @ $500                       
$5000.00Hardware Upgrades                       
$7000.00Training 24 hours each                 
$12000.00Lost production (billable hours)when changing over                        
$8000.00
From a management
point of view that's $32,000 that have to be recovered before the new software
can justify itself.  Unless the new software can save enough time
to replace either capital or labor there is no justification.  Somehow
I think CAD developers are yet to realize this.  An individual or
even a company can only do a certain amount of work in a years time. 
In order for software to justify itself, it must enable a firm to either
do more work with the same amount of people or do the same amount of work
with less people.  It's a "capital versus labor" thing and software
vendors have yet to realize this.  Due to the current state of the
economy, management of firms that produce drawings have finally started
to realize that fact.   That is the very reason many firms got
off the wagon and are still using r14 and probably one of the reasons Autodesk
abandoned license upgrades after a certain date for r14.  They saw
their revenue stream declining and had to force something on the consumer. 
Autodesk's management first loyalty has always been to the stockholder
- not the end user.
Don't
get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to r2000 was well worth the aggravation
for me, even after the countless hours I spent learning the new plotting
paradigm.  There were a couple of tweaks from r2000 to r2000i that
made that jump worthwhile.  For me those tweaks were not there between
2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release 15.xx).


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"Dave.F"
<dfaykosh@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...That
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that logic


Message 37 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

Don't forget about the selling feature; telling
your clients that you've got the latest version. It shows that you have a very
technologically advanced office. If we tried to sell to some of the clients we
got this past year telling them that we only were running R14 I don't think we
would have been considered for the job.

 

I would definitely wait until spring to get AutoCAD
2004. My dealer is telling me that if I pre-order it will be
cheaper.

 

Kevin

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Can
someone please help me with any info to help justify upgrading my AutoCAD
software. How can I convince management to keep my software current? I have
2000i and need to convince them that an upgrade would be both beneficial and
productive to the company. Their attitude is if it ain't broke, why fix it.
Or, are you missing something? or does something not work? In the past,
upgrading the CAD package was only possible when my R14 licence was about to
expire. This forced an upgrade (or the company would risk paying full price
for a new AutoCAD seat). And I was only allowed to upgrade to the 2000i level
when AutoCAD 2002 was already being released. I still have 2000i and not much
chance to move up until this license is due to expire. (Please tell me 2000
and 2000i expire soon!) In the meantime, I'm missing valuable hands on
training on new features. Articles in magazines are useless. Training is no
longer available by the time they decide to upgrade. Job Posting call for
experience in the latest AutoCAD version. I fear I will be behind if they let
me go here. Anyhow, if there are any articles, good web sites, magazines,
anything at all to help me, please let me know. I would certainly appreciate
it. Thanks for your time.
Message 38 of 76
TrevorE
in reply to: dfaykosh

Marshall, you think you have to totally retrain everyone? We're talking about upgrading from 2000i to 2002 here, not teaching autocad all over again from scratch, are we? You must work with a bunch of baboons. c.prettyman is correct, you only need a couple of hours to go over the new features.
Message 39 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

Terry:

 

Great job!  Since for this exercise I'm
assuming the position of management - with your figures you have just eliminated
1 CAD position ($36,850) since now we are now able to do the same amount of
work in less time I no longer need the 10th position.  Are you volunteering
that position to be yours?  Unless of course, someone in "sales" can
sell enough new jobs to replace the time saved and in this economy that is
not easy to do right now.   As management I can save even more by only
upgrading only 9 stations rather than 10 since the figures you present represent
1 salaried employee.  No matter how you cut it - it's still "capital versus
labor" and "want versus need."

 

I've never said don't upgrade!  In my
personal case, I'm both management and labor so the decisions are real easy for
me since I only have one station with which to concern myself and I opted for
the subscription package years ago when it was called VIP.  However, it
comes up for renewal in August and so far I have seen nothing for my
"investment" so far this term.  For better or worse and why - God only
knows, but locally quite a few people and firms I know and work with from
time to time call me for CAD advice.   I wish I had a good answer for
them on the upgrade issue but I don't.  The point I'm trying to get
across is that no upgrade is worth the capital outlay unless it saves
enough labor cost to justify the capital outlay.  Here again - assuming
that there is no increase in work (billable projects) to replace the saved
time.  If "sales" can generate more volume then of course the time savings
due to the upgrade are worthwhile.  We have then increased our volume
(billable time) with the same direct labor cost once we have recouped the
capital expenditure.

 

Personally, I wonder if all software (and not just
Autodesk) has not reached the point of diminishing returns.  I mean - how
many features can you add to Word or Wordperfect to make a letter a better
letter or to a spreadsheet to make a more efficient spreadsheet.  All those
programs already do a lot more than I could ever need in my lifetime. 
Software companies are in the business to sell software - period.  Despite
what they say they are not necessarily there to make your work easier.  If
that were the case Autodesk would have invested the time, effort and money to
fix some of their bugs long ago.  Even in this day of Windows, I still have
a DOS machine I use to write checks with an old version of Quicken.  That
machine and software still does all I need it to do so why upgrade - the tool
does all I need it to do.  The upgrade isn't going to save me any time
writing checks or paying bills. 

 

On second thought, maybe Autodesk has realized this
and obviously that is why they are forcing upgrades upon the users with the
"upgrade or lose the right to upgrade the license" policy.  I still wonder
how many versions of r14 are in use that didn't upgrade to r2000. 
(Personally, I know of quite a few - somewhere between ten and twenty at
the least.)  A real simple way to tell would be to compare how many
total licenses for r14 were sold during its life cycle versus how many licenses
for r2000+ were sold.  Since (to my knowledge) Autodesk doesn't release
those numbers there is really no way to "judge" how many users decided to get
off the bandwagon.  I could be wrong but I'll bet it's more than Autodesk
would like the stockholders to know.

 

 

 


style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
Hi
Marshall!

Ok... you calculated the outlay... now let's calculate the savings...
assume you save 20 min per day per user... So... saved time = 20 min x 10
CADdies X 4.25 days per week (assume 85% of week due to loss time, like sick
& vacation) X 52 weeks per year = 44,200 min / 60 min per hr = 736.67
hours saved. So calculate billable time saved = 737 hours x $50 per hour =
$36,850! Thus you can justify the purchase!!

Ciao!
~Terry

Marshall Caudle wrote:

 Let's take an
example of an office with 10 licenses.  For this example let's use
man-hour costs at $50/hr.  Depending upon the specifics upgrades cost
could easily go like this.
10
licenses @
$500                       
$5000.00Hardware
Upgrades                       
$7000.00Training 24 hours
each                 
$12000.00Lost production (billable hours)when changing
over                        
$8000.00
From a management
point of view that's $32,000 that have to be recovered before the new
software can justify itself.  Unless the new software can save enough
time to replace either capital or labor there is no justification. 
Somehow I think CAD developers are yet to realize this.  An individual
or even a company can only do a certain amount of work in a years
time.  In order for software to justify itself, it must enable a firm
to either do more work with the same amount of people or do the same amount
of work with less people.  It's a "capital versus labor" thing and
software vendors have yet to realize this.  Due to the current state of
the economy, management of firms that produce drawings have finally started
to realize that fact.   That is the very reason many firms got off
the wagon and are still using r14 and probably one of the reasons Autodesk
abandoned license upgrades after a certain date for r14.  They saw
their revenue stream declining and had to force something on the
consumer.  Autodesk's management first loyalty has always been to the
stockholder - not the end user.

size=-1>Don't get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to r2000 was well worth the
aggravation for me, even after the countless hours I spent learning the new
plotting paradigm.  There were a couple of tweaks from r2000 to r2000i
that made that jump worthwhile.  For me those tweaks were not there
between 2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release 15.xx).



style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">"Dave.F"
<dfaykosh@shaw.ca> wrote in
message
href="news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb
...That
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
Message 40 of 76
Anonymous
in reply to: dfaykosh

Vrrrrmmm, Vrrrrmmm.  I hear her coming 'round the bend.
<g>

 

- Jim


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Terry:

<snip>

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report