Blog
Comment
Cloud2GroundGuru
We are using software extensively in every embedded project we undertake. The ...
cshore
I couldn't agree with co-design more. Like you, I've been on projects where the ...
Study finds that software getting more important
Brian Bailey
2/14/2012 11:45 AM EST
PTC has announced the findings of new research study Developing Software-Intensive Products. It shows that the majority of respondents significantly increased the amount of software, the importance of software and the innovation driven by software in their products over the last five years with nearly seventy five percent of the respondents planning to increase these efforts further over the next five years.
The survey uncovers specific reasons why companies are increasing the use of software in their products: three-quarters indicate they use software in their products to improve product capabilities, two-thirds say they are seeking ‘smarter’ and more innovative products, and one-half say they use software to tailor products to customers or markets. The top reasons companies are pursuing software-intensive products are competitive factors that drive the top line.
Jim Brown, president, Tech-Clarity commented “The biggest increases in both the amount of software and the level of innovation driven by that software were found in automotive and high-tech industries. Another interesting discovery was that medical device manufacturers have increased the ratio of software engineers more than others, and 92% of the respondents in that industry say they plan to further increase software in their products over the next five years.”
The survey also uncovered significant challenges and negative business impacts resulting from product complexity. For example, over one-half of the companies surveyed indicate they experience product quality issues when developing software-intensive products. In addition, survey respondents also reported delayed time to market, negative impacts of rework and high product development costs, and poor software development efficiency. These findings were consistent across all size manufacturers.
Through its findings, the survey identified that companies with the following characteristics reported fewer significant, negative impacts when engineering products that include electrical, mechanical and software components when they:
The full report, Tech-Clarity Perspective: Developing Software-Intensive Products, can be found here and yes – it is free and does not require that you provide lots of personal information.
Thanks guys
Brian Bailey – keeping you covered
If you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).
Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you [grin]).
The survey uncovers specific reasons why companies are increasing the use of software in their products: three-quarters indicate they use software in their products to improve product capabilities, two-thirds say they are seeking ‘smarter’ and more innovative products, and one-half say they use software to tailor products to customers or markets. The top reasons companies are pursuing software-intensive products are competitive factors that drive the top line.
Jim Brown, president, Tech-Clarity commented “The biggest increases in both the amount of software and the level of innovation driven by that software were found in automotive and high-tech industries. Another interesting discovery was that medical device manufacturers have increased the ratio of software engineers more than others, and 92% of the respondents in that industry say they plan to further increase software in their products over the next five years.”
The survey also uncovered significant challenges and negative business impacts resulting from product complexity. For example, over one-half of the companies surveyed indicate they experience product quality issues when developing software-intensive products. In addition, survey respondents also reported delayed time to market, negative impacts of rework and high product development costs, and poor software development efficiency. These findings were consistent across all size manufacturers.
Through its findings, the survey identified that companies with the following characteristics reported fewer significant, negative impacts when engineering products that include electrical, mechanical and software components when they:
- Had a unified or integrated team structure to develop products with electrical, mechanical and software components
- Made use of systems modeling techniques to get systems architecture right at beginning of development
- Made use of combined PLM and product-centric ALM initiatives for an integrated solution approach to designing software-intensive products
The full report, Tech-Clarity Perspective: Developing Software-Intensive Products, can be found here and yes – it is free and does not require that you provide lots of personal information.
Thanks guys
Brian Bailey – keeping you covered
If you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).
Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you [grin]).
Navigate to related information


cshore
2/16/2012 4:33 AM EST
As powerful and capable hardware becomes cheaper, more standardised and easier to design in (and I believe all those things are true these days), software is increasingly the means by which product companies differentiate themselves and their products.
It is also the means by which you get the most value out of the hardware. You can build all the whacky features you like into the chips but, unless the software makes use of them (and makes _good_ use of them) you're simply wasting effort and silicon.
I heard a case in the not too distant past that a major mobile device manufacturer achieved a 50% increase in battery life for their product simply be re-spinning the software. It may have been possible to achieve similar gains by respinning the chips but I am willing to bet it would have been much harder and much more expensive.
You're absolutely right, software design and efficient (hardware-sensitive) implementation of that design is increasingly the most important factor in developing really great products.
Chris
Sign in to Reply
BrianBailey
2/16/2012 12:53 PM EST
Good point Chris. In my April series on power, I know I will have one paper on power optimization from software and I hope there will be more submitted on that very subject.
Sign in to Reply
rpcy
2/23/2012 2:49 PM EST
Chris is right on. HW folks go nuts to save a few percentage points on power or performance, and then have an epiphany when they realize how often a quick decision by the SW team can make a 10x or more difference. I think this is mostly because the HW team lives and breathes this stuff, and is keenly aware of the implications of what they choose, but the SW team has a much harder time seeing the implications of some of their choices.
Sign in to Reply
cshore
2/24/2012 5:34 AM EST
Thanks! There is also the consideration that changing a chip is hard and expensive compared to changing software (no, I'm not playing down software engineering cost but it does pale a little when compared with the cost of a set of masks...). So, chip designers do need to think a lot longer and harder (and model a lot more) in order to make the "right" decisions. An iterative process is not really viable and trial-and-error is very expensive. SW developers do have the advantage of being able to iterate designs much more quickly and try things out over a longer period.
But SW engineers are newer at the game and have a lot to learn about designing in power-efficiency from the ground up. If your OS scheduler is designed correctly, it matters not what you do in your application, power consumption will be lousy!
Sign in to Reply
cdhmanning
2/26/2012 4:44 PM EST
If you have hardware teams and software teams you're screwed!
Embedded systems should be co-designed.
It is not enough to just make hardware with power saving modes - or whatever - features. The interfaces need to be presented so that they are readily accessed by the software in a usable fashion.
What seems to be a trivial issue from a software (or hardware) point of view can be massive from the other side of the fence.
I once worked on a project where a peripheral could be connected via either a PCI equivalent bus or an internal USB bus. The hw engineer chose to use the PCI bus. The impact of this decision was the addition of a PCI software subsystem - and really complex sleep mode power handling. The USB option would have been trivial to manage. Net difference: approx 4 extra man months of effort, a two month delay in product shipment and an emergency software patch releases.
Sign in to Reply
cshore
2/27/2012 4:30 AM EST
I couldn't agree with co-design more. Like you, I've been on projects where the HW design has been essentially completed without involving at least the SW architects at a very early stage. You very clearly illustrate the potential costs of making that kind of mistake.
Chris
Sign in to Reply
Cloud2GroundGuru
3/19/2012 5:17 PM EDT
We are using software extensively in every embedded project we undertake. The good news is there are embedded engineers out there who can wear both hats - Chip-level HW design and bare metal programmer. The bad news is they are in short supply. The entire embedded industry is moving toward a data-centric platform on both the consumer products and industrial side so data scientists with experience in both are another valuable resource to add if you can find one.
Sign in to Reply