ROI Case File No.337 | 'The Compatibility Wall of Quantum Dynamics'

Chapter 1: The Disappointment of AI Proposals — Output Format Doesn't Match

The week after the CAD Solutions drawing search system implementation case was solved, a consultation about CAD drawing creation automation arrived. Volume 27, "The Pursuit of Reproducibility," Episode 337 tells the story of discerning customers' essential needs.

"Detective, we want to automate drawing creation with AI. We received a proposal from a vendor. It's an excellent tool. However, it can't output in our CAD system format. It's unusable."

Yuji Sasaki, Design Director of Quantum Dynamics, originally from Yokohama, visited 221B Baker Street with a disappointed expression. In his hands, he held AI drawing generation tool pamphlets alongside contrasting verification reports marked "Compatibility: Impossible."

"We specialize in building equipment design. We create design drawings for air conditioning, electrical, and piping. Approximately 280 projects annually. Eighteen designers. However, overtime hours are a challenge. Monthly average 45 hours. In busy periods, exceeds 80 hours."

Quantum Dynamics' Design Structure: - Established: 2008 (building equipment design company) - Annual projects: Approximately 280 - Designers: 18 members - CAD system used: CADWe'll Tfas14E (building equipment specialized CAD) - Monthly average overtime: 45 hours (busy period: 80 hours) - Problem: Drawing creation requires much time, reusing past drawings also cumbersome

Sasaki's voice carried deep urgency.

"Drawing creation takes an average of 32 hours per project. Air conditioning duct placement, electrical wiring routes, piping paths. All manual work. If there's a similar past project, we modify that drawing, but that still takes 20 hours. And searching past drawings takes an average of 30 minutes."

Typical Work Flow:

New Project Drawing Creation (no similar projects): 1. Hearing requirements from customer (2 hours) 2. Basic design (8 hours) 3. CAD drawing creation (20 hours) 4. Review and corrections (2 hours) - Total: 32 hours/project

Similar Project Drawing Creation: 1. Search past drawings (30 minutes) 2. Open and modify past drawings (18 hours) 3. Review and corrections (1.5 hours) - Total: 20 hours/project

Sasaki sighed deeply.

"Last month, we received a proposal from a vendor for an 'AI Drawing Auto-Generation Tool.' A tool that automatically generates drawings when you input requirements. I saw the demo. It was excellent. They said drawing creation time could be reduced from 32 hours to 8 hours.

However, there was a problem. That tool can only output in AutoCAD format (DWG). The CAD we use is CADWe'll Tfas14E. Proprietary format (TFW). No compatibility. I asked the vendor 'Can you output in Tfas format?' They said 'No plans to support it.'"

Chapter 2: The Fixed Notion of Format — What's the Real Challenge?

"Sasaki-san, do you need to continue using CADWe'll Tfas14E?"

To my question, Sasaki showed a confused expression.

"Yes... we've been using Tfas for over 10 years. It's building equipment specialized CAD with features tailored for equipment design. Automatic duct placement, piping interference checking, automatic electrical capacity calculation. These features don't exist in AutoCAD."

Current Understanding (CAD-Fixed Model): - Recognition: Must be Tfas - Problem: Fixated on means (CAD) rather than essential need (overtime reduction)

I explained the importance of discerning customers' essential needs and presenting optimal solutions.

"The problem isn't CAD format. The essential need is 'reducing overtime hours.' 4P — Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Product, price, distribution, promotion. From these four perspectives, let's find the optimal solution that meets essential needs."

⬜️ ChatGPT | Catalyst of Concepts

"Don't be trapped by format. See the essence. Redefine customer needs with 4P."

🟧 Claude | Story Alchemist

"The wall of compatibility always crumbles with the question 'is it truly necessary?'"

🟦 Gemini | Compass of Reason

"4P is marketing technology. Design value that reaches customers with product, price, distribution, promotion."

The three members began analysis. Gemini displayed the "4P Framework" on the whiteboard.

4P's 4 Elements: 1. Product: What value do customers seek 2. Price: What price can customers pay 3. Place: How to deliver to customers 4. Promotion: How to communicate value

"Sasaki-san, let's start organizing from 'Product.' What value are you truly seeking?"

Chapter 3: The Discovery of Redefinition — Three Options

Phase 1: Product Analysis — 2 weeks

Organizing Essential Needs:

Interviewed Sasaki and 18 design members.

Question: "Which CADWe'll Tfas14E features are truly necessary?"

Answers (by usage frequency):

1. Automatic Duct/Piping Placement (Usage frequency: 90%)
2. Feature that automatically places air conditioning ducts and piping

3. Calculates shortest routes

4. Interference Checking (Usage frequency: 85%)

5. Automatically checks if ducts and piping interfere

6. Detects interference with beams and columns too

7. Automatic Electrical Capacity Calculation (Usage frequency: 75%)

8. Automatically calculates electrical wiring capacity

9. Proposes appropriate cable diameters

10. Layer Management (Usage frequency: 60%)

11. Manages air conditioning, electrical, piping in separate layers

12. Displays only necessary layers

13. Specialized Parts Library (Usage frequency: 50%)

14. Pre-registered duct, piping, electrical equipment parts
15. Drag and drop placement

Discovery: - Top 3 features (automatic placement, interference checking, capacity calculation) comprise 80% of reasons for continuing Tfas use - However, these features are achievable with other CAD or AI tools

Phase 2: Alternative Investigation — 3 weeks

Examined three options.

Option A: Find Tfas-compatible AI drawing generation tool - Research: Contacted 8 domestic and international AI drawing generation tool vendors - Result: 0 tools support Tfas format (TFW) - Reason: Tfas only used domestically in Japan, small market

Option B: Migrate to AutoCAD and implement AI drawing generation tool - AutoCAD is global standard CAD - Many AI drawing generation tools support AutoCAD format (DWG) - However, lose Tfas specialized features (automatic placement, interference checking, etc.)

Option C: Keep Tfas, hybrid operation - New projects: Create initial drawings with AI drawing generation tool (AutoCAD format) - Detailed design: Convert AutoCAD format to Tfas, utilize specialized features - Past drawings: Manage and modify with Tfas

Phase 3: 4P Analysis for Option Evaluation — 1 week

Evaluated three options with 4P.

Option A: Tfas-compatible AI tool

Product: - Doesn't exist, cannot evaluate

Price: - Cannot evaluate

Place: - Cannot evaluate

Promotion: - Cannot evaluate

Conclusion: Option A is unfeasible

Option B: Complete AutoCAD Migration

Product: - AI drawing generation tool reduces drawing creation time (32 hours → 8 hours) - However, lose Tfas specialized features - Need to perform automatic placement and interference checking manually (+10 hours) - Result: 32 hours → 18 hours (44% reduction)

Price: - AutoCAD licenses: 18 members × 300,000 yen = 5.4 million yen - AI drawing generation tool: 1.8 million yen annually - Total: 7.2 million yen

Place: - AutoCAD used worldwide, support comprehensive

Promotion: - Need designer training (Tfas → AutoCAD) - Training period: 3 months

Conclusion: High cost, significant loss of specialized features

Option C: Hybrid Operation

Product: - New projects: Create initial drawings with AI drawing generation tool (AutoCAD format) (8 hours) - Conversion: Convert AutoCAD format to Tfas format (2 hours) - Detailed design: Perform automatic placement, interference checking, etc. with Tfas (8 hours) - Total: 18 hours (44% reduction)

Price: - AutoCAD licenses: Only 5 members (initial drawing creation team) × 300,000 yen = 1.5 million yen - AI drawing generation tool: 1.8 million yen annually - Tfas licenses: Existing (no additional cost) - Total: 3.3 million yen

Place: - Leverage both AutoCAD and Tfas - Maintain existing Tfas assets (past drawings, know-how)

Promotion: - Minimal training (only 5 members learn AutoCAD) - Training period: 1 month

Conclusion: Best balance

Chapter 4: The Optimal Solution of Hybrid — Results After 6 Months

Phase 4: Hybrid Operation Implementation — 3 months

Adopted Option C and began hybrid operation.

New Work Flow:

Step 1: Initial Drawing Creation (AI drawing generation tool, AutoCAD format) - Team: Initial drawing creation team (5 members) - Work: Input customer requirements, AI generates initial drawings - Time: 8 hours

Step 2: Format Conversion (AutoCAD → Tfas) - Tool: Certain conversion software (AutoCAD DWG → Tfas TFW) - Conversion accuracy: 92% (some manual corrections needed) - Time: 2 hours

Step 3: Detailed Design (Tfas) - Team: Detailed design team (13 members) - Work: Automatic placement, interference checking, capacity calculation with Tfas specialized features - Time: 8 hours

Step 4: Review and Corrections - Time: 2 hours

Total: 20 hours/project (Before: 32 hours, 37.5% reduction)

Phase 5: Past Drawing Utilization (Tfas)

Past drawings continue to be managed and modified with Tfas.

Projects with Past Drawings: 1. Search past drawings (Tfas): 30 minutes 2. Modify past drawings (Tfas): 12 hours 3. Review and corrections: 1.5 hours - Total: 14 hours/project (Before: 20 hours, 30% reduction)

Results After 6 Months:

Drawing Creation Time Reduction:

New Projects (no similar projects): - Before: 32 hours/project - After: 20 hours/project - Reduction: 12 hours/project (37.5% reduction)

Similar Projects: - Before: 20 hours/project - After: 14 hours/project - Reduction: 6 hours/project (30% reduction)

Annual Reduced Hours: - New projects: 140 projects/year × 12 hours = 1,680 hours - Similar projects: 140 projects/year × 6 hours = 840 hours - Total: 2,520 hours/year

Overtime Hours Reduction: - Before: Monthly average 45 hours (busy period: 80 hours) - After: Monthly average 28 hours (busy period: 50 hours) - Reduction: Monthly average 17 hours (38% reduction)

Monetary Effect: - Overtime cost reduction: 2,520 hours × 4,000 yen (hourly rate × 1.25) = 10.08 million yen/year

Investment Recovery: - Implementation cost: 3.3 million yen - Annual reduction effect: 10.08 million yen - ROI: 205% (first year) - Investment recovery period: 0.33 years (approximately 4 months)

4P Reevaluation:

Product: - Hybrid operation leverages both AI drawing generation and Tfas specialized features - Realizes essential need (overtime reduction)

Price: - 3.3 million yen investment achieves 10.08 million yen annual reduction - Less than half of Option B

Place: - Maintains existing Tfas assets while introducing new technology - Staged migration minimizes operational impact

Promotion: - Only 5 members need training, minimal overall impact - Minimal resistance from designers

Organizational Changes:

Designer Voices:

Initial Drawing Creation Team Member A: "Initially, I was anxious about 'having to learn AutoCAD too.' But training took just one month. And the AI drawing generation tool is excellent. Input requirements, and initial drawings are ready in 8 hours. Previously took 20 hours."

Detailed Design Team Member B: "We can continue using Tfas. Automatic placement, interference checking, capacity calculation. These features are our strengths. We receive initial drawings in AutoCAD format, convert to Tfas for detailed design. Conversion takes 2 hours, but overall still time-saving."

Sasaki's Feedback:

"Until using 4P, we were trapped in the fixed notion of 'must be CADWe'll Tfas14E.' We were about to give up because the AI drawing generation tool didn't support Tfas format.

However, by redefining essential needs with 4P analysis, the hybrid operation option became visible. Product: Organized truly necessary features. Price: Compared multiple options. Place: Considered how to maintain existing assets. Promotion: Minimized impact on designers.

As a result, achieved 10.08 million yen overtime cost reduction and 38% overtime hours reduction. The compatibility wall wasn't actually a wall. There were multiple ways to meet essential needs."

Chapter 5: Detective's Diagnosis — Focus on Purpose, Not Means

That evening, I contemplated the technology of discerning customer needs.

Quantum Dynamics was fixated on the means called "CADWe'll Tfas14E." They thought the AI drawing generation tool was unusable because of incompatibility.

However, by redefining essential needs (overtime reduction) with 4P analysis, the optimal solution of hybrid operation became visible. And achieved 10.08 million yen annual reduction and 38% overtime hours reduction.

"Don't be trapped by means. Focus on purpose. Discern essential needs with 4P and design optimal solutions. The compatibility wall crumbles when questioned."

The next case will also depict the moment of redefining essential needs.

"Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Design value that reaches customers with these four. The compatibility wall crumbles by questioning essential needs. Focus on purpose, not means." — From the Detective's Notes

Related Files