The Total Economic Impact™ Of Accuris Engineering Workbench
Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By Engineering Workbench
A Forrester Total Economic Impact™ Study Commissioned By Accuris, November 2024
Engineering organizations face significant challenges in staying compliant and up to date with the latest industry and government standards. This is particularly true for various types of engineers, including those in process management, requirements management, compliance management, and quality management. The need for a centralized platform to access a vast array of standards is critical, as it significantly reduces the time and cost associated with procuring individual documents. By leveraging advanced tools, a centralized solution can enhance efficiency, ensure adherence to best practices, and empower engineers to optimize workflows and unlock new value.
Accuris Engineering Workbench provides a centralized platform for accessing and procuring a comprehensive range of industry and government standards. This significantly reduces the time and cost associated with obtaining individual documents. It not only manages existing documents but also allows engineering teams to purchase or subscribe to new and updated standards. By leveraging AI-powered tools, it enhances efficiency, ensures compliance with the latest standards, and optimizes workflows, thereby improving overall productivity. This makes it a necessary resource for modern engineering teams, enabling them to stay up to date and compliant with evolving industry requirements.
Accuris commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying Engineering Workbench.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of Engineering Workbench on their organizations.
Return on investment (ROI)
305%
Net present value (NPV)
$13.35M
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed four representatives with experience using Accuris Engineering Workbench. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the interviewees’ experiences and combined the results into a single composite organization.
Interviewees said that prior to using Engineering Workbench, their organizations struggled with fragmented access to industry and government standards, often relying on multiple external sources to find and purchase the necessary documents. This approach was time-consuming and costly, requiring significant resources to manually manage and update standards. These limitations led to inefficiencies, compliance risks, and difficulties in maintaining up-to-date knowledge across engineering teams.
After the investment in Engineering Workbench, the interviewees reported that by centralizing access and procurement of standards, Engineering Workbench streamlined processes and provided streamlined and centralized access to all necessary standards, significantly reducing the time and cost associated with procurement. It also reduced costs and ensured that teams have the latest information readily available. Key results from the investment include enhanced compliance, improved efficiency in accessing and updating standards, and a notable reduction in operational costs. This transformation empowered the interviewees’ engineering teams to focus more on innovation and less on administrative tasks, ultimately driving better project outcomes.
Key Findings
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the composite organization include:
- Avoided costs with a single source for purchasing multiple industry and government standards, worth $7.1 million over three years. Consolidating standards into a single platform eliminates the need for multiple subscriptions and manual document retrieval. This approach streamlines processes and reduces administrative and procurement costs. By using Engineering Workbench, which allows for the purchase and subscription to new and updated standards, the composite organization ensures compliance and reduces the risk of using outdated documents, thereby improving efficiency across multiple geographies. This consolidation results in an avoided cost of $7.1 million over three years.
- Increased engineering efficiency researching, referencing, and embedding standards, worth $6.9 million over three years. Using Engineering Workbench significantly reduces the time the composite organization’s engineers spend on researching, referencing, and embedding standards, allowing them to focus more on design and innovation. The platform streamlines processes, making it easier to embed standards into workflows and reducing the time required for these tasks. This efficiency improvement results in engineers reallocating substantial hours annually to more value-added tasks, enhancing overall productivity. Over three years, this increased efficiency is worth $7.0 million.
- Increased productivity due to reduced rework on technical engineering tasks, worth $3.7 million over three years. Implementing Engineering Workbench addresses errors and missed standards, decreasing the need for rework on technical tasks. This includes issues stemming from outdated or incorrect standards, design flaws, and compliance problems. By providing engineers with the most current and accurate standards, the platform reduces mistakes and omissions, enabling the composite organization’s engineers to concentrate on more critical activities. It streamlines processes, cutting down the time spent on rework and boosting overall productivity. This improvement not only saves time but also enhances engineering quality. Over three years, the increased productivity is valued at $3.7 million.
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that provide value for the composite organization but are not quantified for this study include:
- Enhanced compliance and risk management. Engineering Workbench ensures that all standards are up to date, reducing the risk of using outdated documentation for the composite organization. Accuris guarantees the accuracy and completeness of the standards provided through their platform, ensuring that engineers have access to the most current information. This capability is crucial for maintaining regulatory compliance and avoiding potential legal issues. By providing a reliable and verified source for standards, the platform enhances overall risk management and supports the composite’s engineers in adhering to best practices and regulatory requirements.
- Improved collaboration and knowledge sharing. The platform provides a centralized repository of current and updated standards to enhance collaboration among the composite’s engineers. This ensures easier verification and validation of contractor designs and fosters knowledge sharing across different teams and geographies. The ability to quickly access and share standards improves the efficiency and effectiveness of engineering projects, making it a valuable tool for operational efficiency.
- Streamlined knowledge sharing and community building. The platform identifies users working on similar topics which creates virtual communities and enhances knowledge sharing and community building. This feature significantly reduces the learning curve for new topics.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the composite organization include:
- Accuris costs. The composite organization incurs $3.9 million in costs for Accuris over three years, which encompass the Engineering Workbench (EWB) software-as-a-service (SaaS) subscription, EWB standards content, and enterprise support. These costs represent a significant investment in maintaining up-to-date standards and ensuring robust support for engineering activities.
- Consulting fees. The composite organization incurs consulting fees for the implementation and ongoing support of Engineering Workbench worth $410,000 over three years. These fees are necessary to ensure proper integration and customization and to maximize the benefits of the platform. Additionally, consulting fees cover essential training to ensure all users can effectively utilize the platform.
- Initial internal costs. The composite organization incurs an initial cost of $53,000 for planning and preparation before implementing EWB.
The representative interviews and financial analysis found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $17.73 million over three years versus costs of $4.38 million, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $13.35 million and an ROI of 305%.
Key Statistics
-
Return on investment (ROI)
305%
-
Benefits PV
$17.73M
-
Net present value (NPV)
$13.35M
-
Payback
<6 months
Benefits (Three-Year)
Avoided cost with a single source for purchasing multiple industry and government standards Increasing engineering efficiency researching, referencing, and embedding standards Increasing productivity due to reduced rework on technical engineering tasks
TEI Framework And Methodology
From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in Engineering Workbench.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Engineering Workbench can have on an organization.
-
Due Diligence
Interviewed Accuris stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to Engineering Workbench.
-
Interviews
Interviewed four representatives at organizations using Engineering Workbench to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
-
Composite Organization
Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.
-
Financial Model Framework
Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.
-
Case Study
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Disclosures
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by Accuris and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in Engineering Workbench.
Accuris reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
Accuris provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.
Consulting Team:
Roger Nauth
Drivers leading to the Engineering Workbench investment
Interviews
| Role | Industry | Region | Revenue | Number Of Employees |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief of engineering standards | Aerospace and defense, energy, and marine | Global | $22B | 50,000 |
| Manager of engineering standards | Aerospace and defense | Global | $25B | 18,000 |
| Technical and scientific analyst | Oil and gas, petrochemicals, power generation, and trading | Global | $59B | 25,000 |
| • Engineering governance manager • Manager of engineering methodologies • Senior knowledge management and PLM expert • Manager of technical knowledge management |
Aerospace, defense, and security |
Global |
$16B |
52,000 |
Key Challenges
Before implementing Engineering Workbench, the interviewees’ organizations typically relied on fragmented and manual processes to access industry and government standards. These processes often involved purchasing individual standards from multiple sources, leading to inefficiencies and high costs. The interviewees noted how their organizations struggled with common challenges, including:
- High costs and inefficiencies in procuring standards. The interviewees’ organizations spent significant amounts of money and time purchasing individual standards from various sources. This fragmented approach not only increased costs but also led to delays in accessing the necessary documents, impacting project timelines and overall productivity.
- Difficulty in maintaining up-to-date standards. Keeping track of updates and changes to standards was a major challenge. Without a centralized system, the interviewees’ organizations faced difficulties ensuring that all team members had access to the most current standards, leading to compliance risks and potential errors in engineering processes.
- Time-consuming research and document management. Interviewees noted their engineers spent a considerable amount of time searching for and managing standards before EWB. This time-consuming process diverted their focus from core engineering tasks, reducing overall efficiency and slowing down project progress. The lack of efficient search capabilities and document management tools further exacerbated this issue.
Solution Requirements/Investment Objectives
The interviewees’ organizations searched for a solution that could:
- Provide a centralized platform for accessing industry and government standards. This requirement aimed to eliminate the inefficiencies and high costs associated with procuring individual standards from multiple sources.
- Ensure up-to-date and compliant standards. The interviewees’ organizations needed a solution that could automatically update and notify users of changes to standards, reducing compliance risks and ensuring all team members had access to the latest information.
- Enhance efficiency and productivity. The solution needed to streamline the search and retrieval process for standards, allowing engineers to focus more on core tasks and less on administrative duties.
After a request for proposal (RFP) and business case process evaluating multiple vendors, the interviewees’ organizations chose Engineering Workbench and began deployment.
- Three out of four interviewees’ organizations chose to take a phased approach to deployment. This approach allowed the interviewees’ organization to gradually integrate the solution into their workflows and address any issues incrementally.
- Engineering Workbench was deployed to between 20% and 50% of users within the interviewees’ organizations. This initial deployment phase focused on key user groups to ensure a smooth transition and gather feedback for further optimization.
Composite Organization
Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the four interviewees, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:
Description of composite. The composite organization is a global, multibillion-dollar engineering firm that provides comprehensive engineering solutions across various industries, including aerospace, automotive, and construction. With a strong brand presence and operations in over 30 countries, the organization employs approximately 7,600 engineers and technical staff. The firm is known for its innovation and commitment to quality, serving a diverse client base that includes some of the world’s leading companies. The average value of its engineering projects ranges from $500,000 to $50 million, reflecting the complexity and scale of its operations.
Deployment characteristics. The composite organization begins using Engineering Workbench in Year 1 following a six-month implementation period. The initial rollout covers 30% of the engineering workforce, focusing on key departments such as compliance, quality management, and process management. By Year 2, the deployment expands to 70% of the workforce and by Year 3, it reaches full implementation, covering all engineers and technical staff across all geographies and channels. The phased approach allows the composite organization to address any integration challenges incrementally and ensure a smooth transition to the new system.
Quantified benefit data as applied to the composite
Total Benefits
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Avoided cost with single source for purchasing multiple industry and government standards | $2,861,314 | $2,861,314 | $2,861,314 | $8,583,943 | $7,115,665 |
| Btr | Increased engineering efficiency researching, referencing, and embedding standards | $2,790,720 | $2,790,720 | $2,790,720 | $8,372,160 | $6,940,108 |
| Ctr | Increased productivity due to reduced rework on technical engineering tasks | $1,477,440 | $1,477,440 | $1,477,440 | $4,432,320 | $3,674,175 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $7,129,474 | $7,129,474 | $7,129,474 | $21,388,423 | $17,729,948 | |
Avoided Cost With Single Source For Purchasing Multiple Industry And Government Standards
Evidence and data. The interviewees noted their organizations consolidated standards into a single platform with EWB, which eliminated the need for multiple subscriptions and manual document retrieval and achieved cost savings and efficiencies. This consolidation reduced administrative burdens, streamlined processes, and minimized procurement costs.
- The chief of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense, energy, and marine company said, “Having all standards in one place eliminated the need for multiple subscriptions and manual document retrieval.”
- The manager of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense company told Forrester, “Using a single platform to access both industry and government standards streamlined our processes and reduced the time spent on procurement and document management.”
- The technical and scientific analyst at an oil and gas, petrochemicals, power generation, and trading company shared with Forrester: “We avoided substantial costs by consolidating our standards into a single platform, which included over 1,215 international standards. This consolidation reduced the administrative burden and procurement costs.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite organization uses approximately 1,054 standards based on the average number of standards used by the interviewees’ organizations.
- The organization saves 0.25 hours per document due to the efficiency of having a single source for standards.
- Seventy-five percent of the time saved from maintaining standards is attributed to Engineering Workbench.
- The fully burdened hourly rate for an administrative FTE is $55.
- Eighty percent of the time saved from retrieving standards is attributed to EWB.
- The fully burdened hourly rate for an engineer FTE is $72.
- The cost to cover purchasing overhead, time spent processing orders, and payments is $5 per document.
Risks. The value of this benefit can vary across organizations due to the following:
- Variability in the number of standards different organizations use.
- Differences in the efficiency gains different organizations realize.
- Variability in the fully burdened hourly rate of administrative and engineering FTEs across different regions and industries.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $7.1 million.
Avoided Cost With Single Source For Purchasing Multiple Industry And Government Standards
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Number of documents | Composite | 107,000 | 107,000 | 107,000 |
| A2 | Time saved per document (hours) | Interviews | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| A3 | Portion of time saved from maintaining standards attributed to EWB | Interviews | 75% | 75% | 75% |
| A4 | Fully burdened hourly rate for an administrative FTE | Research data | $55 | $55 | $55 |
| A5 | Subtotal: Cost to maintain | A1*A2*A3*A4 | $1,103,438 | $1,103,438 | $1,103,438 |
| A6 | Time saved per document (hours) | Interviews | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| A7 | Portion of time saved from retrieving standards attributed to EWB | Interviews | 80% | 80% | 80% |
| A8 | Fully burdened hourly rate for an engineer FTE | Research data | $72 | $72 | $72 |
| A9 | Subtotal: Cost to retrieve | A1*A6*A7*A8 | $1,540,800 | $1,540,800 | $1,540,800 |
| A10 | Per document cost to cover purchasing overhead, time spent processing order and payment | Interviews | $5 | $5 | $5 |
| A11 | Subtotal: Cost for procurement | A1*A10 | $535,000 | $535,000 | $535,000 |
| At | Avoided cost with single source for purchasing multiple industry and government standards | A5+A9+A11 | $3,179,238 | $3,179,238 | $3,179,238 |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | ||||
| Atr | Avoided cost with single source for purchasing multiple industry and government standards (risk-adjusted) | $2,861,314 | $2,861,314 | $2,861,314 | |
| Three-year total: $8,583,943 | Three-year present value: $7,115,665 | ||||
Increased Engineering Efficiency Researching, Referencing, And Embedding Standards
Evidence and data. Interviewees noted that Engineering Workbench reduced research time, improved efficiency, and enhanced productivity by providing easily accessible and up-to-date standards.
- The chief of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense, energy, and marine company told Forrester, “Engineering Workbench significantly reduced the time spent on researching and referencing standards, allowing engineers to focus more on design and innovation.”
- The technical and scientific analyst at an oil and gas, petrochemicals, power generation, and trading company told Forrester, “We observed a noticeable improvement in efficiency when embedding standards into our engineering processes thanks to the comprehensive and easily accessible database provided by Engineering Workbench.”
- The engineering governance manager at an aerospace, defense, and security company added, “The ability to quickly access and embed the latest standards has greatly enhanced our engineering productivity and reduced the risk of errors.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite organization has an average of 7,600 engineers.
- Each engineer spends 60 hours annually researching, referencing, and embedding standards prior to using EWB.
- The total annual hours spent on these tasks prior to EWB is 456,000 hours.
- EWB saves 20% of the time spent on researching, referencing, and embedding standards.
- Fifty percent of the time saved is recaptured as productivity.
- Engineers reallocate 45,600 hours annually to more value-added tasks because of EWB.
- The fully burdened hourly rate for engineering FTEs is $72.
Risks. The value of this benefit can vary across organizations due to the following:
- Variability in the number of engineers and their specific tasks related to standards.
- Differences in the efficiency gains different organizations realize.
- Variability in the fully burdened hourly rate for engineering FTEs across different regions and industries.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $6.9 million.
Increased Engineering Efficiency Researching, Referencing, And Embedding Standards
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Average number of engineers | Composite | 7,600 | 7,600 | 7,600 |
| B2 | Annual time each engineer spends researching, referencing, and embedding standards prior to EWB (hours) | Interviews | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| B3 | Annual total time engineers spend researching, referencing, and embedding standards into workflow prior to EWB (hours) | B1*B2 | 456,000 | 456,000 | 456,000 |
| B4 | Time saved researching, referencing, and embedding standards due to EWB | Interviews | 20% | 20% | 20% |
| B5 | Productivity recapture | Composite | 50% | 50% | 50% |
| B6 | Annual total time engineers reallocate to more value-added tasks due to EWB (hours) | B3*B4*B5 | 45,600 | 45,600 | 45,600 |
| B7 | Fully burdened hourly rate for an engineering FTE working on researching, referencing, and embedding standards into workflow | Research data | $72 | $72 | $72 |
| Bt | Increased engineering efficiency researching, referencing, and embedding standards | B6*B7 | $3,283,200 | $3,283,200 | $3,283,200 |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | ||||
| Btr | Increased engineering efficiency researching, referencing, and embedding standards (risk-adjusted) | $2,790,720 | $2,790,720 | $2,790,720 | |
| Three-year total: $8,372,160 | Three-year present value: $6,940,108 | ||||
Increased Productivity Due To Reduced Rework On Technical Engineering Tasks
Evidence and data. Interviewees credited Engineering Workbench with reducing rework on technical tasks, which led to increased productivity and improved quality of engineering outputs across various industries.
- The chief of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense, energy, and marine company told Forrester, “Engineering Workbench has significantly reduced the amount of rework required on technical tasks, allowing our engineers to focus on more critical activities.”
- The manager of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense company said, “The platform has streamlined our processes, reducing the time spent on rework and improving overall productivity.”
- The technical and scientific analyst at an oil and gas, petrochemicals, power generation, and trading company shared with Forrester, “We have seen a noticeable decrease in rework on technical tasks, thanks to the accurate and up-to-date standards provided by Engineering Workbench.”
- The engineering governance manager at an aerospace, defense, and security company said, “The reduction in rework has not only saved time but also improved the quality of our engineering outputs.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite organization has an average of 7,600 engineers.
- Each engineer works 40 hours a week, which means the total engineering hours per week is 304,000.
- Engineers spend 75% of their time on technical tasks.
- The time engineers spend on technical tasks is 228,000 hours per week.
- EWB reduces the time spent on rework on technical engineering tasks by 10%.
- The time spent on reworking technical engineering tasks after EWB is 205,200 hours per week.
- The reduction in time spent on rework on technical engineering tasks because of EWB is 22,800 hours per week.
- The fully burdened hourly rate for engineering FTEs is $72.
Risks. The value of this benefit can vary across organizations due to the following:
- Variability in the number of engineers and their specific tasks related to rework.
- Differences in the efficiency gains different organizations realize.
- Variability in the fully burdened hourly rate for engineering FTEs across different regions and industries.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $3.7 million.
Increased Productivity Due To Reduced Rework On Technical Engineering Tasks
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Average number of engineers in composite organization | Composite | 7,600 | 7,600 | 7,600 |
| C2 | Total engineering hours per week | C1*40 | 304,000 | 304,000 | 304,000 |
| C3 | Percentage of time engineers spend on technical tasks | Composite | 75% | 75% | 75% |
| C4 | Time engineers spend on technical tasks (hours) | C2*C3 | 228,000 | 228,000 | 228,000 |
| C5 | Reduction in time spent on technical engineering tasks due to EWB’s reducing rework (percentage) | Interviews | 10% | 10% | 10% |
| C6 | Time spent on rework of technical engineering tasks after EWB (hours) | C4*(1-C5) | 205,200 | 205,200 | 205,200 |
| C7 | Reduction in time spent on technical engineering tasks due to EWB's reducing rework (hours) | C4-C6 | 22,800 | 22,800 | 22,800 |
| C8 | Fully burdened hourly cost for an engineering FTE spending time on rework on technical engineering tasks | Research data | $72 | $72 | $72 |
| Ct | Increased productivity due to reduced rework on technical engineering tasks | C7*C8 | $1,641,600 | $1,641,600 | $1,641,600 |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | ||||
| Ctr | Increased productivity due to reduced rework on technical engineering tasks (risk-adjusted) | $1,477,440 | $1,477,440 | $1,477,440 | |
| Three-year total: $4,432,320 | Three-year present value: $3,674,175 | ||||
Unquantified Benefits
Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:
- Enhanced compliance and risk management. The interviewees’ organizations benefitted from using Engineering Workbench to ensure that all standards are up to date and compliant with regulations, significantly reducing the risk of using outdated documentation. This capability is crucial for maintaining regulatory compliance and avoiding potential legal issues. The technical and scientific analyst at an oil and gas, petrochemicals, power generation, and trading company said: “We have to be very sure that our standards are completely inside what the regulation and laws set. The standards are rebuked, are internationally accepted. So, it’s not a question of saying, ‘Okay, we are working with an oil standard.’ [Rather], it is that we can go to a trial because our products are not in the right standards.”
-
Improved collaboration and knowledge sharing.
Interviewees noted that the platform provided a
centralized repository of standards which facilitated better collaboration
among engineers. This allowed for easier verification and validation of
contractor designs and fostered knowledge sharing across different teams and
geographies.
- The manager of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense company told Forrester: “We use these standards to verify and validate the contractor design by accessing these standards. For example, from a system engineering perspective, this is what I’m going to design the rocket to or payload to and we basically verify-validate based on our standards.”
- The engineering governance manager at an aerospace, defense, and security company said: “The Engineering Workbench platform has the capability to be administered in a smart way since the administrator can see the kind of standards [that] are used by the users. Whenever there is a request for instance of a new standard, I can as administrator understand which area or geography is working on a particular topic and, if necessary, create a link between colleagues on the same topics.”
- Streamlined knowledge sharing and community building. The platform’s smart administration capabilities allowed for the identification of users working on similar topics, enabling the creation of virtual communities and reducing the learning curve for new topics. The manager of engineering methodologies at an aerospace, defense, and security company said: “I can access this information through the platform. I immediately can understand who is interested in studying or approaching this topic and create a virtual community of people working on the same topic.”
Flexibility
The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement Engineering Workbench and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
- Proactive and interactive guidance for new users. Interviewees noted Engineering Workbench was expected to evolve into a more interactive tool that could guide new users through high-level design requirements, leveraging AI/ML to provide comprehensive guidance and standards. The manager of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense company told Forrester: “I want the EWB through the AI/machine learning (ML) approach to be able to come up with all the criteria and show the user, ‘You need to use this requirement and that requirement and here’s the guidance for it.’”
-
Streamlined processes and increased
efficiency. Engineering Workbench streamlined the
process of embedding standards into workflows, reducing the time required
for these tasks. The platform’s functionality, such as linking standards
directly into management systems, enhanced operational efficiency.
- The chief of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense, energy, and marine company told Forrester: “We’ve been focusing quite recently on the functionality of Engineering Workbench. It’s not just a tool for searching for a standard and looking at the content. We’ve also now started leveraging the functionality which allows us to take a link from Engineering Workbench and embed it into our management system.”
- The manager of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense company said, “The platform streamlined our processes, making it easier to embed standards into our workflows and reducing the time required for these tasks.”
- Support for new business areas and technologies. As the interviewees’ organizations expanded into new areas, such as renewable energy and advanced materials, Engineering Workbench provided the necessary standards and knowledge to support these initiatives. The interviewees noted the platform is designed to adapt to emerging technologies and industries, ensuring that their organizations were prepared to scale into new markets or implement new strategies. This flexibility allowed the interviewees’ organizations to be ready for future growth and innovation, even if these capabilities were not yet fully realized.
- Scalability and agility in operations. The platform’s ability to integrate various standards and provide real-time access ensured that the interviewees’ organizations could scale their operations efficiently and respond quickly to changes in regulations and market demands.
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Appendix A).
Quantified cost data as applied to the composite
Total Costs
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dtr | Accuris costs | $0 | $1,575,000 | $1,575,000 | $1,575,000 | $4,725,000 | $3,916,792 |
| Etr | Consulting fees | $0 | $165,000 | $165,000 | $165,000 | $495,000 | $410,331 |
| Ftr | Initial internal costs | $52,500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $52,500 | $52,500 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $52,500 | $1,740,000 | $1,740,000 | $1,740,000 | $5,272,500 | $4,379,623 | |
Accuris Costs
Evidence and data. Accuris provided these costs were provided directly, reflecting average pricing for typical clients in the market segment. These costs are for the EWB SaaS platform and standards content plus enterprise support.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite organization subscribes to the EWB SaaS platform with an annual cost of $600,000, including implementation.
- The composite organization also subscribes to EWB standards content, which costs $750,000 annually, including implementation.
- Enterprise support for the EWB platform costs $150,000 per year.
Risks. The value of this cost can vary across organizations due to the following:
- Variability in the number of users and the specific standards different organizations require.
- Changes in subscription pricing based on contract negotiations and additional services required.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $3.9 million.
Accuris Costs
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | EWB SaaS subscription cost (includes implementation) | Accuris | $600,000 | $600,000 | $600,000 | ||
| D2 | EWB standards content subscription cost (includes implementation) | Accuris | $750,000 | $750,000 | $750,000 | ||
| D3 | Enterprise support | Accuris | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | ||
| Dt | Accuris costs | D1+D2+D3 | $0 | $1,500,000 | $1,500,000 | $1,500,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑5% | ||||||
| Dtr | Accuris costs (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $1,575,000 | $1,575,000 | $1,575,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $4,725,000 | Three-year present value: $3,916,792 | ||||||
Consulting Fees
Evidence and data. Accuris provided the consulting fees associated with the implementation and ongoing support of Engineering Workbench directly. Related insights were gathered from interviewees who highlighted the importance of these fees for proper integration and user training.
- One interviewee noted their organization incurred consulting fees for the implementation and ongoing support of Engineering Workbench. These fees were necessary to ensure proper integration and maximize the benefits of the platform. The chief of engineering standards at an aerospace and defense, energy, and marine company told Forrester: “In terms of implementation, obviously, it’s been over a decade since we moved to the web-based system. We had a number of changes in name, so IHS has been transferred into another organization, which is when it became Accuris.”
- Another interviewee noted their organization also incurred consulting fees for the implementation and ongoing support of Engineering Workbench. These fees were crucial for training and ensuring that all users could effectively utilize the platform. The manager of engineering methodologies at an aerospace, defense, and security company told Forrester: “We did a training for 450 people that were asking to have this training. Before having the return on investment, the first thing is to have this solution because it’s a must for our company to assess the last issue.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite organization spends approximately $150,000 annually on consulting fees for the implementation and ongoing support of Engineering Workbench.
- These consulting fees cover initial setup, customization, training, and ongoing support to ensure the platform is effectively utilized.
Risks. The value of this cost can vary across organizations due to the following:
- Variability in the complexity of implementation and customization different organizations require.
- Differences in the level of ongoing support and training different organizations need.
- Changes in consulting fee rates based on contract negotiations and additional services required.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $410,000.
Consulting Fees
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Consulting fees | Accuris | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | ||
| Et | Consulting fees | E1 | $0 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | ||||||
| Etr | Consulting fees (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $165,000 | $165,000 | $165,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $495,000 | Three-year present value: $410,331 | ||||||
Initial Internal Costs
Evidence and data. Interviewees reported incurring modest internal costs at the start of the deployment for planning and preparation. These costs, which totaled $50,000 during implementation, included time spent by internal teams on project planning, coordination, and initial setup.
- One interviewee mentioned, “We allocated around $50,000 for the initial planning and preparation phase.”
- Another interviewee noted, “Our team spent approximately 200 hours in the first month to get everything ready.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite organization incurs an initial cost of $50,000 for planning and preparation.
- This cost is based on the average reported by interviewees and is applied uniformly across the composite organization.
- The model does not include ongoing costs for planning and preparation beyond the initial phase.
Risks. The value of this cost can vary across organizations due to the following:
- Potential underestimation of the time required for planning and preparation, leading to higher actual costs.
- Unexpected challenges during the initial setup phase, which could increase costs.
- Variability in internal resource availability, which could impact the efficiency of the planning process.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $53,000.
Initial Internal Costs
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Initial costs for planning and preparation | Interviews | $50,000 | ||||
| Ft | Initial internal costs | F1 | $50,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑5% | ||||||
| Ftr | Initial internal costs (risk-adjusted) | $52,500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||
| Three-year total: $52,500 | Three-year present value: $52,500 | ||||||
Consolidated Three-Year, Risk-Adjusted Metrics
Cash Flow Chart (Risk-Adjusted)
Total costs Total benefits Cumulative net benefits Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3-
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
Cash Flow Analysis (Risk-Adjusted Estimates)
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($52,500) | ($1,740,000) | ($1,740,000) | ($1,740,000) | ($5,272,500) | ($4,379,623) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $7,129,474 | $7,129,474 | $7,129,474 | $21,388,423 | $17,729,948 |
| Net benefits | ($52,500) | $5,389,474 | $5,389,474 | $5,389,474 | $16,115,923 | $13,350,325 |
| ROI | 305% | |||||
| Payback | <6 months | |||||
Appendix A: Total Economic Impact
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists vendors in communicating the value proposition of their products and services to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of IT initiatives to both senior management and other key business stakeholders.
Total Economic Impact Approach
-
Benefits represent the value delivered to the business by the product. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and the measure of costs, allowing for a full examination of the effect of the technology on the entire organization.
-
Costs consider all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the product. The cost category within TEI captures incremental costs over the existing environment for ongoing costs associated with the solution.
-
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. Having the ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
-
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
Appendix B: Endnotes
1 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists vendors in communicating the value proposition of their products and services to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of IT initiatives to both senior management and other key business stakeholders.
PDF 