市場調査レポート

ソフトウェア&システムライフサイクル管理:製品ライフサイクル管理/アプリケーションライフサイクル管理の統合

Product Lifecycle Management/Application Lifecycle Management Integration: Intelligence Service

発行 VDC Research Group, Inc. 商品コード 260336
出版日 ページ情報 英文 47 Pages, 100 Exhibits
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=101.75円で換算しております。
Back to Top
ソフトウェア&システムライフサイクル管理:製品ライフサイクル管理/アプリケーションライフサイクル管理の統合 Product Lifecycle Management/Application Lifecycle Management Integration: Intelligence Service
出版日: 2012年12月31日 ページ情報: 英文 47 Pages, 100 Exhibits
概要

当レポートでは、製品ライフサイクル管理(PLM)およびアプリケーションライフサイクル管理(ALM)の統合について調査分析し、複数のエンジニアリングドメインの統合のメリット、複数ドメインの統合ソリューションの需要推進因子・阻害因子、競合環境、主要企業の取り組みなどをまとめ、概略下記の構成でお届けいたします。

重要ポイント

  • 規模・複雑性・重要性を増すソフトウェアコード
  • エンジニア:ドメイン間の統合を実現するためにALMベンダーに注目

ベンダーにとっての意義

  • 複数のエンジニアリングドメイン間の統合を行う企業:幾つかのメリットを言及
  • 最適な統合アプローチについてのコンセンサスは得られていない
  • 効果的なドメイン間のアプローチのほとんどにおける不確定性
  • より多くの回答者がドメイン間の統合を実現するためにALMに注目
  • ドメイン間の統合:ツールの購入判断へのマネジメントの関わりを増幅

市場概要

  • システムエンジニアリングソリューション:より包括的に
  • より多くのベンダーが複数のエンジニアリングドメインを統合
  • ハードウェアおよびソフトウェアの統合の加速:エンジニアリングの統合を加速

戦略的課題・成長推進因子・動向

  • コードベースサイズの予測:大幅な拡大
  • 検証と妥当性確認:ディベロッパーにとって最大のペインポイント
  • より良いコラボレーションとコミュニケーションによるスケジュールの改善
  • ALM-PLM統合事業者:多くのツール予算を持つ傾向
  • アジャイルとドメイン間の統合の高い関連性
  • ドメイン間の統合のほとんどはソフトウェアが関連する
  • ドメイン間の統合ソリューションの需要に影響をおよぼす成長推進因子・阻害因子

競合分析・企業の位置付け

  • PLMツールの商用サプライヤー:社内の代替との競合に直面
  • ANSYS:モデルベースの設計能力を提供するためEsterelを買収
  • RELM:IBM Rational ドメイン間の統合 ソリューションの重要イネーブラー
  • PTC・Siemens:ALM・PLMの統合に対応するため企業を買収
  • HP:従来型テストツールを超えた拡張

付録

図表

目次

Abstract

Market Overview

System complexity encouraging ALM-PLM Integration

System engineering requires the coordination of multiple stakeholders to design and construct all the various hardware, software and electrical components. To ensure proper functionality in many of the complex devices common today, developers must understand how they will be constructed to be certain the hardware, software, and electrical components will interact as expected.

In this environment, many engineering organizations utilize solutions offering higher levels of abstraction and automation as a means to aid their design of various software, silicon, and mechanical system components.

Increasing complexity in the software domain has elevated the value proposition of application lifecycle management (ALM) tools. Product lifecycle management (PLM) tools have witnessed a parallel advance in mechanical/hardware space. As these solutions mature they are offering improved levels of productivity and efficiency for users. To date however, much of this enhancement has occurred in separation from the other domains.

It is becoming increasingly critical for engineering organizations to identify new methods for managing overall system development, finding an inclusive solution connecting isolated silos of information from the different engineering domains. With complex systems where functionality is dependant upon the proper interaction of the component parts, developers must be ever more aware of how their decisions and changes may extend beyond their own engineering discipline.

System value increasingly from software

The availability of small, low-cost, yet high powered embedded computing platforms has augmented the proportion of end system value software can contribute. In fact, respondents to VDC's 2012 Software and Systems Development Survey reported their organizations:

  • Spend more than 42% of their total project development costs on software engineering and tools.
  • Attribute a greater percentage of end product/project value to software (36%) than to silicon (25%) or mechanical (23%) components on their current projects.

Many of the advanced features of today's products are enabled through software. It is becoming a critical component in numerous industries that traditionally provided hardware-oriented solutions. System fixes, revisions and upgrades can more often be managed through software only, reducing the need to alter the underlying, and perhaps costly, hardware. If the system has a networking component, these modifications may even be handled remotely.

In some cases, the increased proportion of product value in the software is even creating a hiring bias favoring engineers with training in software rather than mechanical or electrical.

  • VDC has spoken to engineering managers of complex embedded systems who now hire only software engineers as a growing portion of their department's workload and values is tied to software.

Market Segmentation, Estimates & Forecasts

Firms integrating across engineering domains cite several benefits

image2

VDC is hearing more and more interest for enhanced integration and collaboration between different engineering disciplines in our discussions with OEM and tool supplier stakeholders. Engineering organizations are increasingly aware that they must find new methods to manage overall system development. Manufacturers have a heightened awareness of the risk software defects and growing need to produce devices with functionality heavily dependent on the interaction of software and hardware. VDC research shows more development organizations are standardizing on tools and processes in response. These top-down mandates will help to drive the corporate culture shifts needed to support cross-domain engineering integration.

In our conversations with engineering managers, the potential for synergies from increased communication and collaboration between teams was a frequently cited advantage for integrating across their engineering domains. However, our 2012 Software and System Development Survey shows more engineers expect overall quality improvements and reduced time to market as potential advantages.

It is well understood an increasing number of firms are facing greater pressure to develop in accordance with process standards. This is particularly true in several embedded vertical markets. We expect the expansion of process and regulatory standards in the automotive, aerospace, medical and industrial segments, among others, will serve to escalate the importance of improved traceability" as a selection criteria for integrated ALM/PLM solutions.

Strategic Issues, Trends & Market Drivers

Drivers/inhibitors impacting demand for cross-domain integration solutions

Drivers

  • Increased reliance on tight coupling of mechanical, software, and electrical components on device functionality.
  • Need to facilitate collaboration across project and product teams.
  • Awareness of the impact changes in one engineering domain have in other domains.
  • Challenge of meeting project schedules using existing methods.
  • Need to centralize component change management.
  • Increased reliance on software to provide differentiation.
  • Increasing need to adhere to certification requirements or industry process standards.
  • Need to coordinate the reuse of software and hardwire elements from prior designs.
  • Initiatives to increase visibility into and interpretation of project requirements, design, and status.

Inhibitors

  • Continued macro-economic pressures limiting up-front investments in new processes or tools.
  • Inability or unwillingness to extend, modify, or replace existing development processes.
  • Internal company cultures that limit collaboration and communication.
  • Concern about potential speed of solutions managing all the various models across the different engineering domains.
  • The expectation cross-domain solutions would represent a premium price.
  • Difficulty coordinating the verification and validation process.
  • Concern feature creep will be a greater challenge in an integrated approach.

Table of Contents

Critical Takeaways

  • Page 4 Software code growing in volume, complexity, and importance
  • Page 5 Engineers looking to ALM vendors to enable cross-domain integration

Implications for Vendors

  • Page 7 Firms integrating across engineering domains cite several benefits
  • Page 8 Consensus not formed on best integration approach
  • Page 9 Uncertainty over most successful cross-domain approach
  • Page 10 More respondents look to ALM to enable cross-domain integration
  • Page 11 Cross-domain integration fueling greater management involvement in tooling purchase decisions

Market Overview

  • Page 13 Systems engineering solutions becoming more inclusive
  • Page 14 More vendors integrating across engineering domains
  • Page 16 Increased integration of hardware and software themselves fuels engineering integration

Strategic Issues, Drivers & Trends

  • Page 17 Large increases in code base size forecast
  • Page 18 Verification and validation a major pain point for developers
  • Page 19 Improved schedule performance through more collaboration and communication
  • Page 20 ALM-PLM integrators likely to have larger tooling budgets
  • Page 21 High correlation between agile and cross-domain integration
  • Page 22 Majority of cross-domain integrations involving software
  • Page 23 Drivers/inhibitors impacting demand for cross-domain integration solutions

Competitive Analysis & Position

  • Page 25 Commercial suppliers of PLM tools face competition from in-house alternatives
  • Page 26 ANSYS purchase of Esterel provides model-based design capabilities
  • Page 27 RELM a key enabler of IBM Rational cross-domain integration solution
  • Page 28 PTC and Siemens acquiring firms to address ALM-PLM integration
  • Page 29 HP expanding beyond traditional test tools

Appendices

  • Page 31 Market Definitions & Segmentation
  • Page 32 Definitions
  • Page 33 Definitions
  • Page 34 Definitions
  • Page 35 Definitions
  • Page 36 Scope & Methodology
  • Page 37 Vendors Mentioned in This Research
  • Page 38 Licensing Terms & Conditions
  • Page 39 Licensing Terms & Conditions
  • Page 40 Licensing Terms & Conditions
  • Page 41 Licensing Terms & Conditions
  • Page 42 About VDC Research
  • Page 43 Ways to Work With Us
  • Page 44 About the Team

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Appendix

  • Exhibit 1 Survey Respondents Segmented by Country in which Currently Working (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 2 Survey Respondents Segmented by Geographic Sub-Region (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 3 Survey Respondents Segmented by Geographic Region (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 4 Survey Respondents Segmented by Type of Current Engineering Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 5 Types of Company/organization for which Respondents Work (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 6 Survey Respondents Segmented by Primary Role within Company (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 7 Number and Types of Embedded System Engineers at Respondents' companies (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 8 Survey Respondents Product Design Type (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 9 Type of Product Being Developed in Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 10 Survey Respondents Segmented by the Target Industry/application of their current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 11 Survey Respondents Segmented by Automotive (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 12 Survey Respondents Segmented by Consumer Electronics (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 13 Survey Respondents Segmented by Digital Signage (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 14 Survey Respondents Segmented by Energy/Power (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 15 Survey Respondents Segmented by Industrial Automation (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 16 Survey Respondents Segmented by Medical (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 17 Survey Respondents Segmented by Military/Aerospace (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 18 Survey Respondents Segmented by Mobile Phone (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 19 Survey Respondents Segmented by Office/Business Automation (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 20 Survey Respondents Segmented by Rail/Transportation (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 21 Survey Respondents Segmented by Retail Automation (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 22 Survey Respondents Segmented by Telecom/datacom (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 23 Estimate of the Total Project Length in Calendar Months (Actual Time from Initial Specification to Shipment) for Previous and Current Project (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 24 Estimate of the Number and Types of Full-time Engineers that are Working on Respondents' Current Projects (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 25 Location of the Engineers Working on current Project Relative to Respondent's Location (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 26 Estimate of the Total Cost of Development (Includes labor, overhead, tools licensing, etc.) (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 27 Estimate of the Percentage of Total Software Development Cost Related to Licensing Commercial Software (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 28 Estimate of the Percentage of Total Software Development Cost Related to Licensing Commercial Software (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 29 Perception of allocation of the end product/project value accounted for by each of the following components in Current Project (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 30 Expected allocation of the end product/project value accounted for by each of the following components in Two Years (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 31 Approximate Number of months after the Start of the Project that the following Design tasks Were Started and Completed (average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 32 Project Tasks in which Respondents are Personally involved on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 33 Percent of Respondents' Time Spent in Different Tasks over the Course of the Current Project (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 34 Adherence to Schedule for Current Project (or Best Estimate Upon Completion) (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 35 Respondent's Estimation of Factors Most Attributable to Project's Delay (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 36 Engineering Tasks Outsourced to External Companies (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 37 Operating System(s) Used on the Target Embedded System on the Previous Project (if applicable)(Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 38 Operating System(s) Used on the Target Embedded System on the Current Project (if applicable) (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 39 Operating System(s) Expected to be Used on the Target Embedded System on the Next Project (if applicable) (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 40 Why Organization Selected a Commercial Solution over an in-house Option (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 41 Why Organization Selected an in-house Option over a Commercial Solution (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 42 Approximate Cost Budgeted for All of the Tools Respondents are Using on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 43 Expected Change in Respondents' Tool Budgets (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 44 Percent Change in Respondents' Tool Budgets (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 45 Types of Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 46 Types of Tool(s) Expected to be Used on Similar Project in the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 47 Types of Lifecycle Management Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 48 Types of Lifecycle Management Tool(s) Expected to be used on Similar Project in the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 49 Did Process (e.g. Do-178B, IEC-61508, etc) or Coding Standards (e.g. MISRA C, CERT C, etc) impact the Selection of Any of the Tools Used on Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 50 Usage of Same Supplier/brand for Enterprise and Embedded Software/system Engineering by Tool Type (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 51 Person Who Typically Makes the Purchasing Decision for Specific Tools Used by Engineering Team, by Tool Category (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 52 Static Analysis Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 53 Dynamic Testing Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 54 Model-based Testing Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 55 Standard Language-based (UML, SysML, SDL) Software/system Modeling Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 56 Proprietary Language-based Software/system Modeling Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 57 Dynamic GUI/HMI Design Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 58 Standard Language-based (UML, SysML, SDL) Software/system Modeling Tool(s) that Respondent is Aware of (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 59 Requirements Management Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 60 Source/change/configuration Management Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 61 Product Lifecycle Management Tool(s) Used on Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 62 Continuous Integration/build/production Management Tool(s) Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 63 Product Lifecycle Management Tool(s) Used on Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 64 Most Important Factor in Selecting Tools Used on Current project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 65 Metrics Used to Measure Code Quality for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 66 Design Phases in Which Software Defects/Issues Were Identified by Software Defect/Issue Type (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 67 Design Phases During Which Tool Types are Used in Engineers' Organization by Design Phase (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 68 Number of Defects/bugs per Line of Code Identified in Each of the following Design Phases by Design Phase (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 69 Length of Time (in Man-Days) Spent Reengineering code After Finding Defects by Design Phase (Average of respondents)
  • Exhibit 70 Tasks/activities for which modeling Tools are Currently Used (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 71 Engineers' Use of Formal Tools for Different Engineering Tasks (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 72 Factors to which Engineers' Organizations Link System Requirements (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 73 Factors Driving security Considerations for Application Security (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 74 Level of Investigation by Engineers' Organizations to Enhance Cross-engineering Domain Integrations Between Software/system Development, Mechanical engineering/PLM, and/or Enhance Cross-engineering Domain Integrations Between Software/system Development, Mechanical engineering/PLM, and/or Electrical Engineering/EDA (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 75 Engineering Domain/disciplines Integration Engineering Organization is Investigating (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 76 Approach Respondent Believes can be most Successful in Enabling/facilitating Cross-engineering Domain (e.g. ALM/PLM)
  • Exhibit 77 Perceived Advantages/benefits of Cross-engineering Domain Integrations (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 78 Community/Tool Type Respondent Believes can be most Successful in Enabling/facilitating Cross-engineering Domain (e.g. ALM/PLM) Integrations (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 79 Number of Commercial/third Party Lines of Software Code in Final Design for Current Project (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 80 Number of Open Source/third-party Lines of Software Code in Final Design for Current Project (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 81 Number of In-house Developed Lines of Software Code in Final Design for Current Project (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 82 Source of In-house Developed Software Code for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 83 Expected Percent Increase (or Decrease) in the Total Lines of Software Code for the Next Project (Average of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 84 Inclusion of Web Component (e.g., UI, or Web Services) on Current System/Application (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 85 Inclusion of Web Component (e.g., UI, or Web Services) on Similar System/Application in the next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 86 Language(s) Used to Develop Software for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 87 Language(s) Expected to be Used to Develop Software for a Project in the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 88 Operating System(s) Used on the Target Embedded System on the Current Project (if applicable) (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 89 Software Design Methodologies being Used for Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 90 Software Design Methodologies Planned to be Used on Future Embedded Designs (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 91 Largest Advantages/benefits of Agile/iterative Design Methodologies (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 92 Largest Advantages/benefits of Agile/challenges Design Methodologies (Percent of Respondents)
Back to Top