SolidWorks’ aggressive release cycle

December 12th, 2007

I’ve been recently working to spark a discussion about the SolidWorks Corp business model.  I’ve put in a couple of ER’s over the past few years suggesting alternative software release methods.

Observations
These days, IT in big companies can take a whole year to prepare and implement the installation of a new version of software. It seems that technology in the software development doesn’t really work on a 1 year cycle. Also, most companies have a person use the same computer for 2 to 4 years.  (Dells last me about 2 years before they die.)  An aggressive yearly upgrade with almost haft of dozen service packages throughout that years seems severally out of whack with the both the mechanical engineering field and the computer industry.

One possible solution
My suggestion, based on the above observations, is that the SolidWorks application should be released on a 2 to 4 year cycle. This will give SolidWorks time to stabilize each version the software and provide a single platform for its users for a longer period of time.  Under this scenario, intra-release updates with new features can still be released to current subscribers, but they are optional, not mandatory. If someone comes across a model with a new feature that they didn’t install for yet, they can simply install that update module at that time. Only if that new feature used will an update be required. This will improve backward compatibility too since the software will remain relatively unchanged for a good period of time, with updates being optional.  This would also allow for the release of fewer service packs since more time will be available to troubleshoot the next version and to fix the bugs of the current.
Also, software remaining the same for longer periods of time creates a natural environment of standardization that is dependant on the software.  Right now, with the aggressive upgrade schedule, there’s no incentive for those on the fringe of SolidWorks users (like small machine shops, freelancers, etc) to buy or keep up with licenses.  With constant non-backward compatible upgrades, it is not worth the trouble to standardize to that software because the software itself has no standard.  Even among current subscribers, there is a lot of variety of versions in current use that are not interchangeable.

Timing
In my opinion, in the unlikely event that SolidWorks Corp implements something similar to my suggestion, a four year cycle should be used unless some revolutionary advancement happens in computers or software development; then they can reduce the period to 2 years for that instance.

Value Added Service
Under such a method of release, value added services provided by the year subscription become even more important.  Technical support can move from only solving the immediate problems into also providing more in-depth implementation and continuous operation improvements.  They can work more on promoting the software in the local schools, educating current users, and overall work to develop a more robust user base.  The stable platform could also be leveraged to further enhance these efforts. 

Conclusion
I doubt anyone is paying attention to this discussion at SolidWorks Corp or Dassault Systemes (yet).  However, I feel slowing down the release cycle of the SolidWorks application in favor of providing a more robust and stable application would not only increase their share on the 3D CAD market, but could actually increase the size of the 3D CAD itself.  VARs can support customers in new ways that increase the value of value added services.  Intra-release updates being optional will reduce backward compatibility issues, working to create a standard platform which users will more readily rely upon.  Most of all, it will give each release a chance to stabilize, solving the big problem of both development and technical support.
I’m sure my ideas here are not perfect or easy to execute.  I’m hoping this suggestion will help spark discussion about this matter and get SolidWorks Corp to at least reconsider their business model into something that is more in line with their customer’s needs.

Categories: Complaints | Tags: , | 5 Comments