4D Planning: Optimizing production scheduling for hull outfitting

Siemens PLM Software 4D Planning: Optimizing production scheduling for hull outfitting White Paper A plan to succeed As a shipbuilder, you want to eliminate rework on your shipyard because it reduces the efficiency and predictability of ship construction. 4D Planning helps you to define feasible assembly sequences for the outfitting of a vessel, and thus to build right first time on board. The complexity of pre-outfitting and outfitting ship structures, delays in final design delivery and unpredictable events on the shop floor trigger conflicts in build sequence. Scheduling issues arise because of compartment space shortages, resource constraints and unfeasible assembly sequences. 4-Dimension Planning 4D Planning enables you to display virtually the progress of outfitting and allows you to define suitable collision-free assembly sequences in advance. This is a key driver to increase shop floor efficiency. Indeed, 4D Planning significantly decreases outfitting rework and improves the reliability of planning, resource allocation and sourcing. Answers for industry. 1

Contents Executive summary... 3 Outfitting planning challenges... 4 4D Planning for efficiency-driven outfitting... 7 4D Planning main values... 10 4D Planning in context of a collaboration platform... 12 Conclusions... 13 References... 14 2

Executive summary 4D Planning has been developed primarily to reduce the cost of rework during onboard and on-block outfitting. A large part of rework is due to the unexpected lack of space in crowded compartments in which outfitting work has already started. When a piece of equipment cannot be fitted because too many items are already installed, disassembly work is required and causes unexpected and costly delays. This kind of rework can be avoided by getting equipment fitted right the first time, following a feasible sequence defined and validated beforehand with 4D Planning. Getting a compartment directly outfitted in the right sequence keeps you closer to the initial budget dedicated to outfitting. In the Maritime Reporter, Andrew Safer says that having detailed instructions for each shipbuilding task and precise sequencing of the workflow is creating efficiencies and reducing rework at shipyards on the east and west coasts of the U.S. 1 It will save you not only the hours of work required to disassemble parts that are locking up the space, but also the time needed to assemble them in the first place. Logistics and supply chains also gain in efficiency as build sequence reliability goes up. 3

Outfitting planning challenges Developing a correct build sequence for outfitting has some generic difficulties that planners, foremen and workers must face. These include increasing equipment complexity, the large variety of changes required, late design completion and late contract modifications. Growing equipment complexity Because of transformations going on in some industry sectors, the demand for multi-purpose vessels with new kinds of equipment has grown during the last 10 years. In the energy sector, for example, climate change and the demand for higher usage of renewable energy in overall production provide new opportunities for shipbuilders. Newly designed ships for wind farm installation are the subject of intense discussions about whether those ships should only service wind farm installations, or if they should also support cablelaying, wind farm maintenance and even oil and gas decommissioning. The variable is the uncertainty around the extra cost of a multi-role vessel. As Paul Garrett wrote in Wind Power Monthly in November 2011, The availability of offshore installation vessels in particular has become a key concern for the European wind power industry, and a debate is ongoing about whether to turn to the new multi-functional ships, or continue to use different vessels for different needs. 2 This brings another level of uncertainty to outfitting. First, because the increasing number of onboard systems complicates build sequence feasibility. Second, because dimensions, characteristics and even sometimes prices of new equipment are not fully mastered at the beginning of ship production. In a 2009 report, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), pointed out that late design changes on complex equipment could disrupt not only the design, but also the construction of the vessel 3. Another source of complexity during outfitting comes from the current emphasis on the overall cost of ownership of a vessel and particularly on maintenance execution. This creates a set of additional constraints during detail design of the ship and during outfitting. Equipment installation records are now common deliverables. Plus, maintenance activities sometimes start before the ship is fully outfitted on aircraft carriers, for example and conflicts with ship construction have to be avoided. Large variety of changes One of the most complicated tasks in outfitting planning is updating and correcting the build plan according to the inevitable changes that happen. It is not unusual to see multiple changes taking place every day on a shipyard. Of course, there are some shipyards specializing in the delivery of certain ship categories that are looking for modularity to avoid major design and construction discrepancies between sister ships. But this definitively does not remove all the complex and sometimes unexpected changes that happen quite late during design and even sometimes during production phases. Five types of changes impact the build sequence: 1. Late design completion 2. Late contract modifications 3. Delays in equipment delivery 4. Anticipation of above-average capacity utilization 5. As-planned and as-built delta Late design completion Planning is difficult during the early phases, when all component geometry may not be available. Even if significant efforts are made to achieve a certain kind of modularity, a ship is still very much a one-of-a-kind construction. The first vessel to be built is a prototype and its construction often starts long before the ship is fully designed. As a consequence, it is not possible to wait until the design is fully completed to start planning. Even the design of two sister ships is not fully similar most of the time, especially concerning onboard equipment. This is why many design changes must be expected which consistently modify the build sequence. Late contract modifications Some shipyards even accept changes in the contract at a very advanced phase and then run into redesign and possibly rescheduling phases. RAND Corporation performed advanced research to understand the reasons for shipbuilders to deviate from the initial delivery schedule of a ship 4. RAND found that late product definition, changes in requirements and lack of technical information from suppliers have a significant impact on the expected delivery date. 4

Commercial shipyards are more likely than military shipyards to refuse contract changes once production has started. Indeed, late changes are extremely difficult and costly to manage, and this is also true from a production point of view. In its 2009 report the GAO takes as an example the late changes performed on Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and mentions the impact on construction. LCS are very advanced ships able to adapt to different kinds of missions. Late changes led to rework on the shop floor and to out-of-sequence work. Current discussions are ongoing about financing those kinds of induced cost overruns that are not easy to estimate at the beginning of ship construction. A transcript of a 2011 testimony on Navy shipbuilding programs in the United States illustrates well the kind of issues raised by cost overruns 5. A reason for slipping in out-of-sequence work is due to lack of visibility, especially concerning the impact of a change on the overall outfitting process. Deborah Clark, Donna Howell and Charles Wilson make the following statement in their thesis published in September 2007: "If design changes are required, a stop work order should be put in place immediately to prevent the cascading effect of rework, waste and out-of-sequence work. The shipbuilder's processes should support potential growth by making efficient use of ship space. The production support system should provide the means to anticipate and manage out-of-sequence work. 6 " How should the outfitting continue if a piece of equipment is missing? Is it possible to fit another piece in first or is it better to put outfitting on hold and wait? 4D Planning is aimed at providing planners with a 3D-based decision-making tool that will help get more visibility into different outfitting alternatives and the flexibility to easily adapt the build plan to one of the alternatives. To be aware of impacts on outfitting progress and to make the right decisions early, you need a combined view of the outfitting-in-progress over a certain period of time and of the space that is progressively locked-up in the compartment which basically means the capability to visualize the outfitting sequence in 3D. Delays in equipment delivery Disturbances due to unexpected delays in delivery from suppliers are becoming more and more disruptive because of the very large community of suppliers shipyards tend to work with. Globalization and outsourcing have significantly increased the number of stakeholders involved in outfitting processes. Supplier risk management becomes increasingly relevant. In the EU Shipbuilding Industry Investment and Business Guide published in 2007, it is assessed that 50-70 percent of the value-added comes from external subcontractors and suppliers, whereas for more complex ships this can be as high as 70-80 percent. 7 One challenge is sharing reliable high-level planning early on with suppliers. Another is efficiently managing delivery delays that arise. Collaboration platforms now tend to extend to key suppliers. When equipment delivery is delayed, should the production continue, or stop until it arrives? This is a very difficult question for a planner. However, the overall productivity of a shipyard is based on the planner s ability to make the right decision early based on strong evidence. Decisions can hardly be made without carefully checking the impact on the build sequence over a period of several weeks. If you do not have the necessary tool to evaluate the impact, you might want to continue outfitting in the compartment during the short-term, taking the risk that you may have to disassemble parts later on. Anticipation of above-average capacity utilization Siemens PLM Software provides the tools to simulate a build plan in the context of a specific shipyard, with its current utilization rate. First, simulation takes into account the level of resources on the shipyard in the coming weeks or months. These include the number of workers that will work on the shipyard, the shift calendars, the qualification of workers, the layout of the shipyard with the size of the working areas and the number of transportation means. Second, simulation enables you to see the amount of work to be performed in a given time period with the associated build plan. Then, simulation runs the production through this virtual model and recalculates the lead time. The more ships, blocks or sections that are built in parallel, the more occupied will be the resources, and the more time it will take to perform the job. You want to perform these kinds of analysis and adjustment when you are planning the outfitting of a vessel, because it significantly improves the reliability of your planning. As-planned and as-built delta What is planned is often not fully reflected in reality on the shipyard, and as a result, effective outfitting status may have a significant impact on the future build sequence. Recording as-built status on the shop floor and updating the build sequence accordingly brings more accuracy to outfitting scheduling. As-built status is used more and more by shipyards, often not primarily for updating production schedules, but rather for preparing a consistent framework for maintenance. However, this trend can be leveraged in planners best interests and contributes to more reliable outfitting schedules. Besides, workers can also more easily report dysfunctional equipment and difficulties encountered using new mobile technologies. 5

Hand-over updated and focused information to foremen and workers Design, procedures and work instructions prepared by designers and planners still need to be shared with foremen and workers in a suitable format that is complete, up-to-date and focused. Giving too much detail is not necessarily a good way to proceed. For example, a worker may lose time printing 2D drawings and searching for the right information. Most relevant work instructions for outfitting identify equipment to be fitted and display updated 2D drawings and 3D models, along with the updated outfitting progress in the compartment. Visualizing outfitting progress helps workers localize the place to work in, especially if it reflects the as-built status. Outfitting sequences are hard to indicate via the 2D format, because many 2D drawings are used to fit equipment in a compartment. 3D models are now complementing 2D drawings to display sequences and potentially signal critical paths or dependencies that have been identified as crucial. 6

4D Planning for efficiency-driven outfitting Trade-off between agile automation and level of human interaction on shipyards In accordance with the challenges mentioned above, hull outfitting efficiency is the result of a well-chosen planning methodology that fits well into the shipyard culture. The methodology to create and maintain the build plan is a mix of a certain level of agile automation and a certain level of human interaction. A sufficient level of agility implies that impacts of a change made to an outfitting activity automatically propagate to dependent activities in the build sequence, whereas a sufficient level of human interaction permits key stakeholders to be notified of a change so that they can analyze possible consequences on their side and be part of the decision-making process. Given the huge amount of parts fitted into a compartment and the important number of stakeholders involved, it is difficult to rely exclusively on experience and knowledge todifficult to rely exclusively on experience and knowledge to make manual changes in the build sequence. The complexity may not be manageable. However, it is hard to imagine in the near future having an automatic algorithm that fully and automatically recalculates the build plan for outfitting. There are still many dependencies between activities that can only be handled by experienced planners, based on space considerations. Thus, it is important for a shipyard to find the right balance between a certain level of agile automation that will facilitate planner work and a certain level of human interaction to build the outfitting sequence. Figure 1 represents the tradeoff between a certain level of agile automation and a certain level of human interaction. Human interaction level represents all validation steps usually forgone by experts to guarantee process compliance. This is usually based on experience and knowledge but still represents a certain effort. Agile Automation is the capability to automatically create or update build plan. Very often, shipyard production and construction processes are located close to the green line. The green line actually means that when the level of agile automation goes up (horizontal line), you need to accept a lower level of human interaction on your processes (vertical line). This is also positive because planners can spend more time on key planning activities that brings more added-value. Human interaction/effort level + Predictable business processes Largely automated processes with significant impact on productivity Reliability Reliability Industry trend Needed reliability improvement Key business processes Complex decision making with significant impact on business Agile automation + Figure 1: Trade-off between agile automation and human interaction level on shipyards. Usually, shipyards keep control on very key business processes whereas they try to introduce agile automation on repetitive processes to gain in productivity. Here are some examples: Weld testing would be at the lower left corner in Figure 1 for some key hull constructions because of crucial safety and certification requirements. This process involves experts with significant experience and knowledge. Welding robots are introduced to improve productivity. A paper published for the 1995 Ship Production Symposium (National Shipbuilding Research Program) says that a robot is equivalent to between six and eight manual welders per robot. 8 To use the robot at full capacity, you need to quickly produce offline programs for panels and sub-assemblies that are similar but not identical. So, automatic robot program creation is located on the upper-right corner and requires very little human intervention. Several shipyards have this technology in use and succeed in generating programs as fast as the robot is welding, with a reliability of up to 98 percent. Steel assembly planning is also shifting to the upper right corner. Many initiatives have been pursued over the last 15 years to automate steel assembly planning while taking into account available capacity at the shipyard. In a paper 7

released in 2012 for the Winter Simulation Conference, Dirk Steinhauer and Michael Soyka point out a significant lead time reduction in part fabrication at Flensburger Shipyard that is the result of better sequencing of plates achieved by material flow simulation and optimization. An improvement of 7-12 percent can be achieved by this process before the material order phase. 9 In Figure 1, outfitting sequencing at many shipyards is in the lower left corner, with still a lot of interaction between experts from different planning departments. Depending on the shipyard, planners may either spend a lot of time incorporating changes in the schedule, or give up on detail outfitting planning and let the responsibility fall on the foremen on the shop floor. As mentioned previously, at a certain level of complexity, it is time-consuming and extremely difficult to envisage possible rework due to a rescheduling decision, especially when information on the final 3D design and tasks dependencies is diluted or not yet finalized. Because of the huge complexity in some compartments, investing resources in rescheduling does not always guarantee better productivity on the shop floor for outfitting. 4D Planning to improve reliability We see now a trend in shipyards concerning several planning activities. Welding automation, steel assembly planning and outfitting sequencing are moving towards more agile automation. The main target of 4D Planning is to move the overall outfitting scheduling process towards more agile automation, and that is in the upper right corner of the green curve (see Figure 2 below). Part of outfitting sequencing can reach a certain amount of agility and be automated. 4D planning will facilitate an outfitting sequence update after a change. This allows you to pay more attention to other key aspects, such as 3D validation of the outfitting progress or validation of resource availability on the shipyard. Human interaction that is still needed to identify potentially unworkable outfitting sequencing is facilitated by the display of a relevant 3D view of the outfitting progress over time. Predictable business processes Largely automated processes with significant impact on productivity Facilitate decision making for build sequence creation and validation Human interaction/effort level Reliability Reliability Industry trend Needed reliability improvement Key business processes Complex decision making with significant impact on business + Agile automation + Recalculate build sequence after a change based on relevant schedule dependencies Figure 2: 4D Planning to support the move towards more agile automation. 8

Figure 3: 4D Planning to roll-up outfitting progress over time in a compartment. Pursuing more agile automation requires achieving a certain level of reliability in data computation. The most important contribution of a planner to a right build outfitting sequence often happens during detailed planning or when handling an unexpected event. However, it is important to notice that the planner s ability to perform well and to make well-balanced decisions depends on how the planning was initially created. Build sequences should be reliable enough at the beginning of ship construction to allow a planner to incorporate changes coming all along on-block and onboard outfitting. 4D Planning to improve productivity and predictability 4D Planning makes your outfitting planning more reliable, which allows for more flexibility, enables a smoother outfitting process and facilitates communication with suppliers by means of a tighter management of the outfitting logistics chain. As the reliability of your planning improves, your outfitting productivity goes up as well, because it avoids unnecessary disassembling steps that would otherwise slow down the overall process. This is also linked to predictability at an early stage. When a commercial shipyard agrees on a delivery date for a ship, it also bases its decision on deviations from the schedule that were noticed for previous ships. Getting a reliable build plan that is realistic for the shop floor avoids adding unnecessary margins. 9

4D Planning main values Figure 4: Creation of dependencies differs for steel planning and outfitting planning. Getting a more flexible outfitting schedule that automatically incorporates basic changes along the whole outfitting process, while at the same time facilitating sequence 3D validation by providing the right evidence, is possible with 4D Planning. To put it another way, 4D Planning enables you to exploit the new generation of 3D visualization tools that are built on top of scheduling and collaboration platforms. Creation of dependencies Constraint-based scheduling consists of setting the right logical dependencies between outfitting activities. Dependencies are consistent with outfitting progress and will apply even if some activities are re-scheduled, while start and finish dates of each construction step are very likely to change. Defining those dependencies will make your schedule definition more reliable and also ensure you have a large degree of flexibility when you execute a change. 4D Planning allows you to create a maximum of task dependencies in the initial outfitting schedule because of the link established very early between the schedule itself and the 3D lightweight representation of the parts. Identifying dependencies that monitor outfitting is more complex than defining dependencies for steel assembly. For outfitting, most of the constraints are due to space shortages that appear along with outfitting progress. Some parts cannot be fitted if you wait too long. This means that constraints are not recurrent and can only be defined case-by-case, based on a 3D analysis of the outfitting sequence. 4D Planning helps you discover needed 3D dependencies between activities and enables you to create them using the scheduling tool. For example, you can identify easily which pipes need to be installed after a certain set of equipment. Easy schedule updates While some outfitting activities are being shifted over the timeline, 4D Planning will automatically update all upstream dependent activities and propose a predefined version of the schedule. You can then validate or reject this predefined build sequence by rolling up the outfitting progress in 3D. You might, for example, identify a dependency during this process that was missing and that should be added, or a new space dependency that is due to a change in design of equipment. Thus, 4D Planning provides more flexibility in rescheduling because it relies on always true dependencies between tasks. Planners can rely on agile rescheduling and focus on the key visual aspect. This is a continuous improvement tool which ensures that no dependencies were forgotten that would lead to unexpected clashes between parts. Decision-making support via 4D sequence validation Today, outfitting process efficiency very often relies on the experience of workers and foremen on the shop floor and on the dexterity of planners. Planners define beforehand the right time window to have equipment delivered by suppliers and subsequently fitted in a specific compartment. 10

Figure 5: The more the outfitting progresses, the more difficult it is to define correct outfitting sequences. However, the more crowded the compartment becomes, the more difficult for planners or even foremen in some shipyards to find a realistic assembly sequence (see Figure 5). Planners not only need to estimate the right time to fit a specific part in its final position, they also need to foresee the impact on the overall outfitting progress in the future. This is extremely complex because of the huge number of parts gathered together in very tiny spaces. 4D Planning enables you to visualize in 3D the successive construction steps to be performed in the context of the outfitting progress. parts in a ship compartment can be extensive, and it is essentially useless for a planner to display equipment that will be installed five months later in the compartment. This makes it even more difficult to find the information he or she needs. Concerning a particular outfitting activity, the relevant view consists of displaying the parts that have to be fitted at a specific point in time, in a specific compartment and in the context of the overall outfitting progress. As a planner, you are then able to virtually roll-up the outfitting progress and analyze the possible room shortage issues. Figure 7: Simulations for advanced clash analysis and ergonomics analysis. Figure 6: Schedule is linked to 3D lightweight representations of the parts so that a planner can ask for outfitting status at any time. 4D Planning provides the manufacturing department with only the relevant 3D construction information to help planners make decisions and do their jobs. Typically, the number of 4D Planning can also be a first step in assembly sequence validation. If a scenario is identified as complex, additional simulations or further analysis in virtual reality can help to find the optimal assembly path to fit a piece of equipment. The path chosen will avoid collisions to secure feasibility and workers safety for some specific activities. Figure 7 illustrates ergonomics analysis and path planning. 11

4D Planning in context of a collaboration platform 4D Planning is aimed at managing more easily the numerous changes coming in the construction schedule. However, many stakeholders directly impact the outfitting schedule, or are directly impacted by a change. Ideally, all stakeholders need to share a reliable build plan. This includes workers and foremen on the shop floor as well as suppliers to help ensure optimal ordering of items requiring long-lead times. 4D Planning makes a lot of sense on top of an integrated collaboration platform including planners, designers, foremen, workers and suppliers. It implies that each stakeholder can enter inputs, get access to information and make modifications in a controlled way, depending on access rights. Concurrent planning 4D Planning provides you with a centralized pool of information and supports the human interaction needed across departments. This ensures access to the most up-to-date schedule and 3D lightweight representations of the parts. For example, 4D Planning makes it possible to start planning early with only a rough 3D representation of the equipment and then allows for adapting and validating the schedule as design progresses. Several planners can work concurrently on the same production planning and can even agree or disagree on a given build sequence proposal. They can then analyze the space that will remain after an assembly step has been performed. Electronic sequence display on mobile devices on the shop floor 4D Planning also facilitates the transfer of 3D part representations to the shop floor, including sequencing information that can complement 2D drawings. It provides an effective way to present work instructions to workers in the context of the outfitting progress on board during a one-day time period. For example, you can unroll the outfitting sequence over a certain period of time in a digital environment on the shop floor and visualize outfitting progress onboard. New work instruction display technologies such as tablet PCs are starting to emerge in shipyards to allow workers to directly connect to the database containing design and build sequences. Time spent searching for information goes down dramatically, especially because a worker only needs to visualize the equipment relevant for his activity, in the context of the current outfitting progress and with the most up-to-date design and sequence information. This is very valuable given the frequency of changes happening in a shipyard. Figure 8: Electronic work instruction visualized on shop-floor by foremen and workers. As-built feedback Issues encountered on the shop floor can now be reported easily via electronic work instructions. Workers can easily give feedback to their colleagues, engineers and planners. Over the years, this will build a strong knowledge and experience database for the whole shipyard. As-built modifications are also very valuable for keeping an accurate outfitting schedule. Completion of some activities can be reported by workers directly in the electronic work instruction system and traced back in 4D Planning to get an up-to-date outfitting schedule. 12

Conclusions 4D Planning supports shipyards in moving toward digital ship construction. Today, this is an important aspect in product lifecycle management (PLM) for shipbuilding because it addresses the needs of planners and workers. 4D Planning enables you to compute and display the outfitting progress over time in advance and in a virtual environment. Because the build sequence is validated before its realization, it reduces rework on shop floor. By enhancing reliability of outfitting planning, 4D Planning helps re-orient effort on more value-added activities. Significant productivity gains are the outcome. 13

References 1. SAFER, A., A Boon to Shipbuilding, http://www.marinelink.com/news/shipbuilding-boon-to350441.aspx, as published in the December 2012 edition of Maritime Reporter www.marinelink.com) Source of Reference, 2013. 2. GARRETT, P., Choosing cost-effective vessel design, http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1113128/choosing-costeffective-vessel-design, 2011. 3. GAO, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, Best Practices, High levels of knowledge at key points differentiate commercial shipbuilding from navy shipbuilding, Report to Congressional Committees, http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/289531.pdf, 2009. 4. ARENA, M. V., BIRKLER, J., SCHANK, J. F., RIPOSO, J., GRAMMICH, C. A., Monitoring the Progress of Shipbuilding Programmes How Can the Defence Procurement Agency More Accurately Monitor Progress?, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/ran D_MG235.pdf, 2005. U.S. SENATE,SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Hearing to receive testimony on navy shipbuilding programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2012 and the future years defense program, http://www.armed- services.senate.gov/transcripts/2011/05%20may/11-45%20-%205-25-11.pdf, 2011. 6. CLARK, D., HOWELL, D.,WILSON, C., Improving naval shipbuilding project efficiency through rework reduction, Naval postgraduate school Monterey, California, thesis, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/gettrdoc?ad=ada473801, 2007. 7. EU Shipbuilding Industry Investment and Business Guide, World Strategic and Business Information Library, Ibp Usa, USA International Business Publications, 6th edition, Int'l Business Publications, 2007. 8. THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM, Ship Production Symposium: Paper No.11, Shipbuilding Robotics & Economics, Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230 - Design Integration Tower Bldg 192 Room 128 9500 MacArthur Blvd Bethesda, MD 20817-5700, 1995. 9. STEINHAUER, D., SOYKA, M., Development and applications of simulation tools for one-of-a-kind production processes, Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference C. Laroque, J. Himmelspach, R. Pasupathy, O. Rose, and A.M. Uhrmacher, eds, IEEE, 2012. 14

Siemens Industry Software Headquarters Granite Park One 5800 Granite Parkway Suite 600 Plano, TX 75024 USA +1 972 987 3000 Americas Granite Park One 5800 Granite Parkway Suite 600 Plano, TX 75024 USA +1 314 264 8499 About Siemens PLM Software Siemens PLM Software, a business unit of the Siemens Industry Automation Division, is a world-leading provider of product lifecycle management (PLM) software and services with nine million licensed seats and 77,000 customers worldwide. Headquartered in Plano, Texas, Siemens PLM Software helps thousands of companies make great products by optimizing their lifecycle processes, from planning and development through manufacturing and support. Our HD-PLM vision is to give everyone involved in making a product the information they need, when they need it, to make the smartest decision. For more information on Siemens PLM Software products and services, visit www.siemens.com/plm. Europe Stephenson House Sir William Siemens Square Frimley, Camberley Surrey, GU16 8QD +44 (0) 1276 413200 Asia-Pacific Suites 4301-4302, 43/F AIA Kowloon Tower, Landmark East 100 How Ming Street Kwun Tong, Kowloon Hong Kong +852 2230 3308 www.siemens.com/plm Siemens and the Siemens logo are registered trademarks of Siemens AG. D-Cubed, Femap, Geolus, GO PLM, I-deas, JT, NX, Parasolid, Solid Edge, Teamcenter and Tecnomatix are trademarks or registered trademarks of Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States and in other countries. All other logos, trademarks, registered trademarks or service marks used herein are the property of their respective holders. 2014 Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. Y9 37855 1/14 C 15