## 3 Results
### Company Has Implemented the 3D Product Model in the Assembly Process
Noting that the majority of companies implemented the use of the 3D product model in the assembly process, further segregation into at which levels these companies implemented the use of the 3D product model in the assembly process is warranted. Figure 10 shows the responses in order of the most complex to least complex deployment of the 3D product model implementation in the assembly process. The software most commonly used to deploy the 3D product model was software developed in-house (nine total responses). The next two highest response counts for 3D product model software use in the assembly process were PTC's MPMLink (six responses) and Siemens Teamcenter (five responses). Although this demonstrates that technology is available on the marketplace today to use the 3D product model in the assembly process, the respondents did list limitations that these software currently face. In general, the responses show that the ease of use, the ability to handle revision/change control, and the integration with other software/processes were common limitations experienced by the software developed in-house and the software available on the market today. Prior to deploying the software that allowed these organizations to use the 3D product model in their assembly process, the organizations relied on varying ways to communicate information contained in 3D product models to the process planning and design team. These included physical mock-ups (8), Excel (7), simulation (7), and paper/Post-It notes (4). Note that the sum of these responses (26) is greater than the number of survey respondents (23), as survey respondents were allowed to select more than one way in which this information was communicated prior to implementing the software that enabled the use of the 3D product model in the assembly planning/design. For those respondents who  
Figure 10: Extent to which 3D product models are used in the assembly process. Figure 9: Company size based on employee count. had implemented the 3D product model in the shop floor execution, they were also asked what they were doing to communicate the 3D product model information to the shop floor prior to their current state. All respondents to this inquiry shared that they used work instructions in some form to communicate this information; this included work instructions without visuals, words only (1), hard copy work instructions with pictures (3), hard copy work instructions with 2D drawings (6), and virtual work instructions without the 3D product model (6). To transition to the 3D product model use in the assembly process, most organizations started small and scaled implementation (15), while some conducted a pilot study first (7). Only one respondent did a wholesale cutover to the 3D product model deployment and use in the assembly process. Having the context of what companies were doing prior to implementing the 3D product model use in the assembly process and how they transitioned to their current state was important, as it provides insight for those organizations that have not yet implemented the 3D product model in the assembly process direction on how they might do so. However, more importantly is the value that the organizations have seen from implementing the 3D product model in the assembly process, as that is the incentive through which other organizations might consider doing the same. Figure 11 demonstrates that more respondents found value in the accuracy of assignment of the right parts, tools, work allocation, and work instructions relative to the other areas of value when implementing the 3D product model in the assembly process by a factor of more than 50%. This value driver was selected by over 60% of the survey respondents, and at 50% or greater of the total survey respondents at every level in the organization (engineering, manager/supervisor, director, and vice president).