Paying for content...

We have recently received enquiries relating to the availability of AutoPLANT P&ID "content" that adheres to the API (American Petroleum Industry) standards and this has sparked some discussion within Bentley. For Bentley to “republish” standards organisation content i.e. symbols, specs etc. within our software, we normally have to pay the applicable standards body and if we plan to certify and say it’s compliant, then we may have to charge a fee to the end users.

So a couple of questions that I would be appreciate some feedback on:

  1. Is supplying standards compliant content with the software a "big ticket item", or are you happy to create it yourselves?
  2. If it is a "big ticket item", would you be prepared to pay for it?

Although this enquiry is related to AutoPLANT P&ID, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this subject relating to any of our plant design tools; AutoPLANT, OpenPlant, promis.e etc.

Thanks.

Chris Binns

AutoPLANT Product Manager

  • 1. Yes, I think it is essential to get started that a set of standard symbols and components is present from the beginning.

    2. To be honest, I expect widely used standard symbols and components to be included in the package.

    Regards

    Henrik

  • Hi Chris,

    For products like AutoPLANT and OpenPLANT I'd expect an industry standard symbol set to be included.

    Another way of looking at this would be to ask what good the product would be if non-standard symbology was included?  As far as I am concerned the answer would be no good at all.

    That being said if Bentley must pay royalty fees for the use of such symbology, it would then be expected to be included in the price of the product.  If this means a significant price increase, that of course is another matter.

  • Scott/Henrik,

    Thank you for your thoughts, greatly appreciated. What are your thoughts on the "shipped product" staying as it is, at the same cost, but costs being incurred to purchase and install different standard configurations. So, the configurations are independent of the actual core product and you purchase a use the them as you need them. Just a thought.

    Chris



  • So will Bentley then sign off on the accuracy of this content and work with firms on delivering content to the industry standard. An example for us are Australian steel sections and naming conventions. Most firms, in design, don't use the Oz standard for naming and instead use an accepted abbreviated naiming convention. Having to maintain this ourselves, and have it checked, is time consuming. Having Bentley do this would be a big help from an administrators point of view.

    I think piping would be difficult with the number of specs out there in Oz businesses. However, this is where I see B taking the bull by the horns and engaging firms to help deliver their specs with the software. Big plus point to me.



  • Chris,

    I guess it might depend on what you are referring to as additional configurations and what capabilities they may offer.

    AutoPLANT P&ID right now is a decent product, but it has limitations and challenges in what it can do.  With no real development in the product for some years now, I'd really need some detail to support or not any increase in price.

    The issues raised by Bear are a significant concern for any admin in this part of the world.  Since AP is primarily designed and has content based around ANSI/ASME in the US, there can be significant time and therefore money invested to make it a "workable" solution for projects here.  Having that provided and verified would be a big plus.  This would also have to translate into the same functionality in the model as well.