ELECTRONIC SYSTEM-LEVEL (ESL) TOOLS : GLOBAL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

Venture Development Corporation's Electronic System Level Tools: Global Market Demand Analysis covers the worldwide market for ESL tools. Specifically, research efforts focused on tools capable of assisting in the creation, assembly, simulation, and testing/verification of hardware and system designs, modeled in software at an abstraction level above the register transfer level (RTL) of description, or in a manner that more comprehensively addresses system level design/verification and hardware/software interaction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• MARKET OVERVIEW
• KEY MARKET TRENDS
• ON THE ESL AND HLA ESL TOOLS MARKETS
• Market Estimates and Forecasts
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• Competitive Landscape
• ON THE HLA DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION TOOLS MARKET
• Market Overview
• Market Estimates and Forecasts
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• Competitive landscape
• ON THE VIRTUAL SYSTEM PROTOTYPING/SIMULATION MARKET
• Market Overview
• Market Estimates and Forecasts
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• Competitive Landscape
• ON THE HLA MODEL TRANSFORMATION MARKET
• Market Overview
• Market Estimates and Forecasts
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• Competitive Landscape
• ON THE HLA VERIFICATION AND TEST MARKET
• Market Overview
• Market Estimates and Forecasts
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• Competitive Landscape

II SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

• SCOPE
• Product Category
• Customer Type
• Channel Type
• Geographic Region
• Industry
• Leading Vendors
• METHODOLOGY
• KEY STUDY LIMITATIONS

III ELECTRONIC SYSTEM LEVEL (ESL) TOOLS

• MARKET OVERVIEW
• ESL and “System Level Design”
• ESL Segmentation
• KEY MARKET TRENDS
• Increasing Design Complexity
• Time-to-Market Pressures
• Focus on Product Quality
• Increasing Role of Verification and Test
• Changing Hardware Environments
• Emerging Standards within ESL
• Specialization of Engineering Tasks and the Drive toward Unified Modeling Environments
• MARKET ESTMATES AND FORECASTS
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• COMPETIVE LANDSCAPE
• Vendor Share Analysis
• Leading Vendor Analysis

IV HIGH LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION (HLA) PLATFORM DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION

• MARKET OVERVIEW
• ADDITIONAL MARKET OBSERVATIONS
• Use of Abstraction to Enable System Design Advantages
• System Architecture Design/Specification a Key Factor in the Development Process
• Less Advanced Methods Used to Communicate System Level Designs to Other Teams
• Key Differences in Design Languages and Tools Purchasing
• MARKET ESTMATES AND FORECASTS
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

V VIRTUAL SYSTEM PROTOTYPING/SIMULATION (VSS) TOOLS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND TEST

• MARKET OVERVIEW
• ADDITIONAL MARKET OBSERVATIONS
• Prevalence of Physical Prototyping and Growing Use of Virtual Prototyping Techniques
• Use of Open Source and Bundled Tools within Software Development
• MARKET ESTMATES AND FORECASTS
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

VI HIGH LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION (HLA) MODEL TRANSFORMATION TOOLS

• MARKET OVERVIEW
• ADDITIONAL MARKET OBSERVATIONS
• Emergence of Model Synthesis and the Need to Leverage Internal and Third-Party IP
• Familiarity in EDA with FPGA Design Methodologies
• MARKET ESTMATES AND FORECASTS
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

VII HIGH LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION (HLA) VERIFICATION AND TEST TOOLS

• MARKET OVERVIEW
• ADDITIONAL MARKET OBSERVATIONS
• Increasing Role of Verification in Complex IC Designs and in System Design
• System Integration and Test a Key Area of Project Delay
• The Need for Multiple Levels of Verification and Verification Management
• Market for HLA Verification and Test Extremely Small in Comparison to RTL Verification
• MARKET ESTMATES AND FORECASTS
• Market Drivers
• Market Inhibitors
• COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

VIII ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS AND TRENDS

• SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS
• PROJECT STATISTICS
• SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
• IC/SOC ENGINEERING
• ALGORITHM DESIGN
• SYSTEM LEVEL ENGINEERING

IX VENDOR PROFILES

• ACTIS DESIGN
• ALTERA
• ARM LIMITED
• BLUESPEC
• CADENCE
• CALYPTO DESIGN SYSTEMS
• CARBON DESIGN SYSTEMS
• CEBATECH INC
• CELOXICA
• COFLUENT DESIGN
• COWARE
• CRITICALBLUE
• ESTEREL TECHNOLOGIES
• FORTE DESIGN SYSTEMS
• IMPULSE ACCELERATED TECHNOLOGIES
• JEDA TECHNOLOGIES
• MENTOR GRAPHICS
• NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
• PARAVIRTUAL
• SYNFORA
• SYNOPSYS
• SYNPLICITY
• TARGET COMPILER
• TENISON DESIGN AUTOMATION
• TENSILICA
• THE MATHWORKS
• VAST SYSTEMS
• VIRTUTECH
• XILINX

X SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS

APPENDIX: VENDOR LIST

LIST OF EXHIBITS

III ELECTRONIC SYSTEM LEVEL (ESL) TOOLS

• III-1 Familiarity with ESL By Engineering Tasks Involved In on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
• III-2 Typical Definition of the Word "System" within Project Team by Design Tasks Involved In on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
• III-3 ESL Tool Segmentation and Definition
• III-4 Average Expected Change (Increase) in Design Content on Next Project By Content/Design Type (Average of Respondents)
• III-5 Current Project Length (in months) by Industry (Average of Respondents)
• III-6 Percent of Projects Completed Ahead, Behind, and on Schedule (Percent of Respondents, N = 233)
• III-7 Importance of Key Factors in the Development of the Product By Device Type (Average of Respondents; 1 = Not at all Important, 5 = Extremely Important)
• III-8 Processing Units Used on Current Design, and Expect to be Used within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• III-9 Current Processor Architecture and Processor Architecture Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• III-10 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL, HLA/RTL Bridge, and Software/ System Modeling Tools in 2006 and Estimated Growth Rate Through 2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• III-11 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL Tools Through 2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• III-12 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL Tools Segmented by Product Type (Percent of Dollars)
• III-13 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL Tools Segmented by Channel Type (Percent of Dollars)
• III-14 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL ToolsSegmented by Customer Type (Percent of Dollars)
• III-15 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL ToolsSegmented by Geographic Region (Percent of Dollars)
• III-16 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL Tools Segmented by Vertical Market (Percent of Dollars)
• III-17 ESL Tools Competitive Landscape
• III-18 Largest Solution Providers with Focus and Tools in the ESL Market Ranked By Estimated 2006 Corporate Revenue (Millions of Dollars)
• III-19 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Combined HLA/RTL Bridge, HLA ESL, and Software/System Modeling Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)
• III-20 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA/RTL Bridge Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)
• III-21 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Software/System Modeling Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)
• III-22 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)
• III-23 Alternate Analysis 1 - Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA ESL Tools and HLA/RTL HW/SW Coverification Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)
• III-24 Alternate Analysis 2 - Modeled Worldwide Shipments of Tools supporting both HLA ESL Design/Verification and Mixed Level HLA/RTL Verification, Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)

IV HIGH LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION (HLA) PLATFORM DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION

• IV-1 Respondents Currently Modeling RTL at a high level of abstraction (Percent of Respondents, N = 37)
• IV-2 Respondents on Primary Reasons Why Hardware Would Need to Be Modeled at a Level of Abstraction Above RTL (Percent of Respondents, N = 34)
• IV-3 Design Tasks Believed to be the Cause of Schedule Delay in Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 80)
• IV-4 Expected Change in Effort Required on Next Project By Project Phase (Percent of Respondents)
• IV-5 Methods Used by Systems Engineering Team to Communicate Design Requirements to Software and IC/SoC Engineering Teams
• IV-6 Languages Used for Design/Development on Current Project and Expected within the Next Two Years By Design Type (Percent of Respondents)
• IV-7 Average Annual Software Development Tools, System Design Tools, and IC/SoC Design Tools Budget Per Engineer
• IV-8 Influence of the System Level Design Team on the Tools Used by Other Teams (HW, SW, etc.) (Percent of Respondents, N = 148)
• IV-9 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Design and Optimization Tools Through 2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• IV-10 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Design and Optimization Tools Segmented by Customer Type (Percent of Dollars)
• IV-11 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Design and Optimization Tools Segmented by Geographic Region (Percent of Dollars)
• IV-12 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Design and Optimization Tools Segmented by Geographic Region; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• IV-13 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Design and Optimization Tools Segmented by Vertical Market (Percent of Dollars)
• IV-14 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Design and Optimization Tools Segmented by Vertical Market; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• IV-15 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Design and Optimization Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)

V VIRTUAL SYSTEM PROTOTYPING/SIMULATION (VSS) TOOLS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND TEST

• V-1 Comparison of ISS to VSS
• V-2 Prototyping Methodologies Used on Current Project, and Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• V-3 Total Project Budget for Hardware Prototypes for Software Development (Percent of Respondents, N = 143)
• V-4 Distribution of Software Development Tools Used on Current Project By Source (Average of Respondents, N = 142)
• V-5 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Virtual System Prototyping/Simulation Tools Through 2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• V-6 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Virtual System Prototyping/Simulation Tools Segmented by Customer Type (Percent of Dollars)
• V-7 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Virtual System Prototyping/Simulation Tools Segmented by Geographic Region (Percent of Dollars)
• V-8 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Virtual System Prototyping/Simulation Tools Segmented by Geographic Region; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• V-9 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Virtual System Prototyping/Simulation Tools Segmented by Vertical Market (Percent of Dollars)
• V-10 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Virtual System Prototyping/Simulation Tools Segmented by Vertical Market; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• V-11 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of Virtual System Prototyping/Simulation Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)

VI HIGH LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION (HLA) MODEL TRANSFORMATION TOOLS

• VI-1 Origin of Developed Content by Design Type (Average of Respondents)
• VI-2 Reasons Why Engineering Team is Not Modeling Hardware at a Level of Abstraction above RTL (Percent of Respondents, N = 11)
• VI-3 Types of IC/SoC Tools Used on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 33)
• VI-4 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Model Transformation Tools Through 2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• VI-5 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Model Transformation Tools Segmented by Customer Type (Percent of Dollars)
• VI-6 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Model Transformation Tools Segmented by Geographic Region (Percent of Dollars)
• VI-7 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Model Transformation Tools Segmented by Geographic Region; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• VI-8 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Model Transformation Tools Segmented by Vertical Market (Percent of Dollars)
• VI-9 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Model Transformation Tools Segmented by Vertical Market; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• VI-10 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Model Transformation Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)

VII HIGH LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION (HLA) VERIFICATION AND TEST TOOLS

• VII-1 Percent of IC/SoC Engineering Effort Spent on Verification on Current Design and Expected in Two Years (Percent of Respondents, N = 33)
• VII-2 Expected Change in Effort Required on Next Project By Project Phase (Percent of Respondents)
• VII-3 Design Tasks Experiencing Schedule Delay Over the Course of the Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 67)
• VII-4 What Methods Are You Using to Write Your Tests? (Percent of Respondents, N = 35)
• VII-5 Does the Same Team that Design the System Architecture Also Conduct System Verification and Testing Tasks? (Percent of Respondents, N = 146)
• VII-6 IC/SoC Verification Languages Used on Current Project, and Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• VII-7 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test Tools Through 2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• VII-8 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test Tools Segmented by Customer Type (Percent of Dollars)
• VII-9 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test Tools Segmented by Geographic Region (Percent of Dollars)
• VII-10 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test Tools Segmented by Geographic Region; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• VII-11 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test Tools Segmented by Vertical Market (Percent of Dollars)
• VII-12 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test Tools Segmented by Vertical Market; 2006-2009 (Millions of Dollars)
• VII-13 Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)
• VII-14 Alternate Analysis 1 - Estimated Worldwide Shipments of HLA Verification and Test and HLA/RTL HW/SW Coverification Tools Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)
• VII-15 Alternate Analysis 2 - Modeled Worldwide Shipments of Tools supporting both HLA Test and Verification and Mixed Level HLA/RTL Verification, Segmented by Vendor Share (Percent of Dollars)

VIII ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS AND TRENDS

• VIII-1 Survey Respondents Segmented by Geographic Region (Percent of Respondents, N = 383)
• VIII-2 Survey Respondents Segmented by Company Type (Percent of Respondents, N = 383)
• VIII-3 Survey Respondents Segmented by Primary Role within Company (Percent of Respondents, N = 383)
• VIII-4 Estimated Number of Engineers at Company By Company Type (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-5 Type of Product Under Development for the Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 382)
• VIII-6 Percentage of Projects that are a New Design or Revision By Product Type (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-7 Target Product Industry by Product Type (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-8 Estimated Number of Units Produced By Product Type (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-9 Estimated Selling Price Per Unit By Product Type (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-10 Survey Respondent Involvement in Various Project Tasks on Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 247)
• VIII-11 Years Designing Embedded Systems By Project Task Involvement (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-12 Importance of Key Factors in the Development of the Product By Device Type (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-13 Importance of Key Factors in the Development of the Product By Industry (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-14 Average Number of Engineers Working on Project By Project Type (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-15 Average Number of Engineers Working on Project By Industry (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-16 Percent of Project Engineering Effort Spent by Project Phase By Product Type (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-17 Percent of Engineer Effort Spent by Project Phase By Industry (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-18 Expected Change in Effort Required on Next Project By Project Phase (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-19 Outsourcing of Engineering Work By Category (Percent of Respondents, N = 290)
• VIII-20 Project Length (in months) by Product Type (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-21 Project Length (in months) by Industry (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-22 Percent of Projects Completed Ahead, Behind, and on Schedule (Percent of Respondents, N = 233)
• VIII-23 Design Tasks Experiencing Schedule Delay Over the Course of the Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 67)
• VIII-24 Design Tasks Believed to be the Cause of Schedule Delay in Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 80)
• VIII-25 Was/were the IC/SoC/processor(s) Used on the Current Project Designed Inhouse, From a Third Party Supplier, or a Mix of Both? (Percent of Respondents, N = 238)
• VIII-26 Was/were the Computer Board(s) Used on the Current Project Designed Inhouse, From a Third Party Supplier, or a Mix of Both? (Percent of Respondents, N = 236)
• VIII-27 Likelihood That On Your Next Project IC/SoC/processor(s) Will Be Designed In-house (Percent of Respondents, N = 229)
• VIII-28 Likelihood That On Your Next Project Computer Board(s) Will Be Designed Inhouse (Percent of Respondents, N = 225)
• VIII-29 Processing Units Used on Current Design, and Expect to be Used within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-30 Current Processor Architecture by Product Type (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-31 Processor Architecture Expected within the Next Two Years by Product Type (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-32 Current Processor Architecture by Industry (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-33 Processor Architecture Expected within the Next Two Years by Industry (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-34 Number of Operating Systems Required by Current Device (Percent of Respondents, N = 242)
• VIII-35 Methods Used by Systems Engineering Team to Communicate Design Requirements to the Software Engineering Team (Percent of Respondents, N = 146)
• VIII-36 Estimated Lines of Commercial Software Code Included in Design (Percent of Respondents, N = 88)
• VIII-37 Estimated Lines of In-house Developed Software Code Included in Design (Percent of Respondents, N = 119)
• VIII-38 Origin of In-house Developed Lines of Code By Product Type (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-39 Expected Change in Total Number of Lines of Software on Next Project (LOC) (Percent of Respondents, N = 145)
• VIII-40 Average Expected Change (Increase) in Total Lines of Code on Next Project (Average of Respondents)
• VIII-41 Types of Software Development Tools Used on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 145)
• VIII-42 Distribution of Software Development Tools Used on Current Project By Source (Average of Respondents, N = 142)
• VIII-43 Internal Staff with Most influence Over Software Development Tools Purchasing (Percent of Respondents, N = 142)
• VIII-44 Observed Change in Level of Staff with Software Development Tools Purchasing Role (Percent of Respondents, N = 142)
• VIII-45 Average Annual Software Development Tools Budget Per Engineer (Percent of Respondents, N = 144)
• VIII-46 Expected Change in Software Development Tools Budget on Next Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 142)
• VIII-47 Average Expected Change (Increase) in Software Tools Budget (Average of Respondents, N = 126)
• VIII-48 Software Development Languages Used on Current Project, and Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-49 Prototyping Methodologies Used on Current Project, and Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-50 Total Project Budget for Hardware Prototypes for Software Development (Percent of Respondents, N = 143)
• VIII-51 Methods Used by Systems Engineering Team to Communicate Design Requirements to the IC/SoC Engineering Team (Percent of Respondents, N = 37)
• VIII-52 Percentage Designing FPGA Prototypes or FPGAs for Shipment with the Current Device on the Current and Next Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 19)
• VIII-53 Estimated Gate Count in Current Design (Percent of Respondents, N = 36)
• VIII-54 Origin of Gates in Current Design (Average of Respondents, N = 34)
• VIII-55 Expected Change in Total Gate Count on Next Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 37)
• VIII-56 Average Expected Change (Increase) in Gate Count on Next Project (Average of Respondents, N = 35)
• VIII-57 Lines of RTL Required for Current Design (Percent of Respondents, N = 36)
• VIII-58 Origin of RTL Code in Current Design (Average of Respondents, N = 23)
• VIII-59 Expected Change in Total Lines of RTL Code on Next project (Percent of Respondents, N = 24)
• VIII-60 Average Expected Change (Increase) in Lines of RTL on Next Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 22)
• VIII-61 Types of IC/SoC Tools Used on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 33)
• VIII-62 Distribution of IC/SoC Tools Used on Current Project By Source (Average of Respondents, N = 33)
• VIII-63 Internal Staff with Most influence Over IC/SoC Design Tools Purchasing (Percent of Respondents, N = 37)
• VIII-64 Observed Change in Level of Staff with IC/SoC Design Tools Purchasing Role (Percent of Respondents, N = 37)
• VIII-65 Average Annual IC/SoC Design Tools Budget Per Engineer (Percent of Respondents, N = 37)
• VIII-66 Expected Change in IC/SoC Design Tools Budget on Next Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 35)
• VIII-67 Average Expected Change (Increase) in IC/SoC Design Tools Budget (Average of Respondents, N = 33)
• VIII-68 IC/SoC Design Languages Used on Current Project, and Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-69 IC/SoC Verification Languages Used on Current Project, and Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-70 Respondents Currently Modeling RTL at a high level of abstraction (Percent of Respondents, N = 37)
• VIII-71 Respondents on Primary Reasons Why Hardware Would Need to Be Modeled at a Level of Abstraction Above RTL (Percent of Respondents, N = 34)
• VIII-72 Reasons Why Engineering Team is Not Modeling Hardware at a Level of Abstraction above RTL (Percent of Respondents, N = 11)
• VIII-73 Percent of IC/SoC Engineering Effort Spent on Verification on Current Design and Expected in Two Years (Percent of Respondents, N = 33)
• VIII-74 What Methods Are You Using to Write Your Tests? (Percent of Respondents, N = 35)
• VIII-75 Algorithm Design Languages Used on Current Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 80)
• VIII-76 Value of Tool to the Current Project that Automatically Generates Code for Hardware Acceleration of Algorithm (Percent of Respondents, N = 82)
• VIII-77 Characterization of System Level Design Team (Percent of Respondents, N = 238)
• VIII-78 Does the Same Team that Design the System Architecture Also Conduct System Verification and Testing Tasks? (Percent of Respondents, N = 146)
• VIII-79 Influence of the System Level Design Team on the Tools Used by Other Teams (HW, SW, etc.) (Percent of Respondents, N = 148)
• VIII-80 Does the System Level Design Team Support Multiple Projects and Programs? (Percent of Respondents, N = 147)
• VIII-81 Internal Staff with Most Influence Over System Level Design Tools Purchasing (Percent of Respondents, N = 226)
• VIII-82 Average Annual System Level Design Tools Budget Per Engineer (Percent of Respondents, N = 224)
• VIII-83 Expected Change in System Design Tools Budget on Next Project (Percent of Respondents, N = 220)
• VIII-84 Average Expected Change (Increase) in System Design Tools Budget (Average of Respondents, N = 33)
• VIII-85 System Level Design Languages Used on Current Project, and Expected within the Next Two Years (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-86 Familiarity with ESL By Engineering Tasks Involved In on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents)
• VIII-87 Has your company adopted ESL? (Percent of Respondents, N = 214)
• VIII-88 Where has your company adopted ESL? (Percent of Respondents, N = 26)
• VIII-89 Why hasn't your company adopted ESL? (Percent of Respondents, N = 165)
• VIII-90 Typical Definition of the Word "System" within Project Team By Engineering Tasks Involved In on the Current Project (Percent of Respondents)