The core activity of any manufacturing company is product production, encompassing everything from material supply to delivery and assembly. This process relies on a constant flow of information; without it, production cannot take place. As a result, every company develops its own information flow to support production with the necessary data.

With growing competition, the demands on the production process are becoming more complex. This, in turn, places greater demands on the information flow—requiring it to be both comprehensive and efficient.

One of the key sources of information for a furniture company is the CAD (Computer-Aided Design) system. It generates critical data about the product for various departments, including supply, production, accounting, and management. The importance of CAD cannot be overstated, as its influence extends beyond just the design team to the entire company. Therefore, selecting the right CAD system is crucial not only for its direct users—designers—but for the organization as a whole.

Below are common mistakes companies make when implementing a new CAD system:

1. Assuming designers are fully objective: It’s often assumed that internal users, such as designers, are objective when selecting a new system, while vendors are considered subjective. However, designers also have their own preferences and motivations that may not always align with the company’s best interests. It’s important to consider the vendor’s perspective too. While vendors aim to sell, they are also invested in achieving successful results.
2. Limiting CAD selection to designers: CAD systems generate information vital for multiple departments, not just design. Involving only designers in the selection process is a mistake. Representatives from other key areas like production, supply chain, accounting, and management should also contribute to the decision-making process, as they have specific needs regarding CAD-generated information.
3. Lack of documented requirements: Failing to clearly define and document the system’s requirements leads to misunderstandings and internal conflicts. Without a unified vision of what the new system should achieve, communication with vendors becomes more challenging.
4. No clear criteria for project completion: Without clearly defined criteria for success, it’s impossible to gauge when the project is complete. You need to be able to answer the question, “How will we know when the project is done?” to effectively manage its implementation.
5. Skipping a pilot project: Rushing into a company-wide deployment without investing time and resources into a pilot project is a critical mistake. Relying solely on theoretical evaluations and basic software trials doesn’t provide enough information. A pilot project allows for real-world testing of the system and helps identify missing features, offering a more realistic assessment of the CAD system’s capabilities and integration needs.
6. Rejecting the integration project (Part I): Every company has unique processes, products, and business models. No CAD system on the market will meet all company requirements out of the box. Skipping the integration phase means the system won’t be tailored to your company’s needs, forcing manual workarounds, reducing productivity, and increasing error rates.
7. Rejecting the integration project (Part II): Assuming that engineers can manage system implementation on their own is another major pitfall. While engineers are highly skilled in product design, system implementation requires different expertise. The supplier’s experience with other companies and best practices is essential for a successful integration.
8. Low prioritization of the integration project: Revenue-generating activities naturally take precedence, but failing to prioritize the integration project can lead to delays. Engineers, who are often already overburdened, may not have the time to dedicate to the integration, resulting in prolonged or abandoned projects.
9. Optimistic timelines: Management often sets unrealistic expectations for implementation timelines. The installation timelines provided by the vendor are usually optimistic, and additional time should be planned for unforeseen obstacles during the process. However, management often shortens these estimates, leading to unrealistic deadlines.
10. Weak management support: Implementing a new system is a challenging process, and resistance often emerges as workers grow tired of the ongoing difficulties. Management must maintain a firm stance to prevent the project from stalling and keep the focus on achieving the goals.

These insights come from over 20 years of experience with system implementations across various companies. We hope that by understanding and addressing these challenges, you’ll be better prepared for a successful CAD integration. Remember, this is not just a change for the designers—the entire company is impacted. Having the right mindset from the start is a significant step toward successful integration.