I received an excited email from Autodesk last week, offering to share some news under embargo.
What was the news? A new Autodesk logo.
I wondered, why does this matter? What does it have to do with delivering value to customers. Here’s what Autodesk’s Chris Bradshaw has to say on the corporate blog:
“The new Autodesk is not just a surface change, but a reflection of how we are evolving our business.”
He does have a point there. The Autodesk of a few years back was primarily a desktop applications company. With their moves in cloud and mobile, today’s Autodesk is quite a bit different. Add their new markets, such as personal fabrication and digital art, and you see a picture of a different company.
Personally, the changes I’d like to see are closer to home. The coolness of cloud and mobile don’t overshadow the fact that Autodesk is a tool supplier. Their products are used as tools by engineers and designers, to solve difficult problems.
Am I excited by the potential of Fusion 360? Absolutely. But hundreds of thousands of engineers and designers count on Autodesk Inventor. Just because Autodesk has new products, doesn’t let it off the hook to fix the problems in their old products. AutoCAD itself, at over 30 years old, still has weaknesses that should have been dealt with long ago.
I want to see more investment in bringing existing products up to the standard that users expect. That would be a new Autodesk I could get really excited about. New logo or not.
R.Paul Waddington. says
“Hundreds and Thousands….etc”. Even more (x10 + probably) designers rely on AutoCAD and with the shortcoming Inventor has carried from the start – inhibiting its wider acceptance – demonstrates a company more interested in change for changes sake than one with a true eye on product improvement.
A glance around my office looking at the number of changes in logo (since 1984) reinforces, visually, not only is change for changes sake a company normal, it also demonstrates an immaturity and a lack of confidence of the management in the company they lead and the products produced.
R-R & M.A.N (just two of…..) are examples of much older companies (in the engineering space) who have diversified their product and service ranges, existed for much longer than thirty years, and yet have had the confidence to maintain their companies logos.
You’re correct Evan and, continued investment in product development is where Autodesk’s management is at its weakest. Another change in logo will do nothing to change customers’ perception or management’s failures; it serves to highlight them actually.
Evan Yares says
I don’t think it’s fair to impute motive to a publicly held corporation… except, perhaps, the motive to continue pushing its stock price higher.
In Autodesk’s case, it’s important to get the message to Carl Bass that his customers want him to keep a strong focus on Autodesk’s core products. Still, it’s not like he can wave his hands, and everyone in the company will line up to instantly fix problems that have been baked-in for years.
Even with marching orders from the top, it’s going to be a continuing challenge.
The people at Autodesk want to make great software. Just like the people at Boeing want to make great planes, and the people at Chrysler want to make great cars. It happens to be a lot easier to say than to do.But, as W. Edward Deming said, “quality is made in the boardroom.”
Tim says
Is Carl Bass a CAD guy? Carol Bartz certainly was not. Funny how publicly held companies seem to always hire the wrong person as captain.