For those of us who have been around long enough to remember the introduction of the PC (personal computer not political correctness) to our daily lives, things have changed significantly.

Floppy disks - originally large and floppy pieces of plastic - have morphed into supremely fast USB and optical memories that go everywhere with us, supposedly to make our lives easier - and these software advances now have Gigs more capacity then the entire PC of not-so-long ago, as fast-moving digital technology continues to map our lives.

That, of course, includes the lives of kitchen, bedroom and bathroom designers too.

In the past, all the home improver expected to see was a paper-based design, a few photographs and colour swatches in order to make one of life's biggest purchasing decisions - a new kitchen, a re-modelled bathroom or a fitted bedroom.

Through advances in technology, the designer is now faced with a wide choice of interior design software options to help make that purchasing decision far easier for the consumer. Through these packages, the designer can simply present an entire kitchen creation in a three-dimensional, 360 degree view, to help deliver the dream and accelerate the buying decision.

And this is where simple gets complicated. There is such a vast array of design packages around - all claiming to be the best or most creative and at all price points - that it has become the problem of the designer or system user to decide what they really need. A decision born out of requirement as well as capital availability. And as customers have now come to expect even the smallest business to be able to offer the same quality 3D presentations as a national retail chain, the situation will become even more complex.

The prime function of any home improvement CAD system should be to help the designer or retailer sell more products. But, how is the CAD buying decision made?

Price is clearly a differentiator, but as well as this, designers should consider how each different system integrates with their own computer skills when they define the spec.

In the late 1880s, Vifredo Pareto famously established that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population, a principle that proved to apply to almost any situation - and software, generally, is no different. That 80% of the work can be carried out using only 20% of the functionality of any software may or may not be mathematically accurate, but my point is, why should the designer pay for lots of extra 'bells and whistles' if they are never to be used? A highly significant point when considering return-on-investment, thousands of pounds can separate the selling price of alternative systems.

I am pleased to say that we software manufacturers are in a developing market, growth being driven by user expectation and with the advent of 'Windows' in the early 90s, CAD systems began to become more user-friendly, yet more ambitious in their ability to deliver. Picture quality, 'drag-and-drop' features and real-time visual walk-through presentations are all the result of developing technologies and the most forward looking manufacturers have found ways to cost-efficiently build these benefits into their core product. More power for less money should be a key market driver.

So, where is it all leading? Certainly, innovation will continue to flourish but this should not be at the expense of affordability for the smaller user. Technology will facilitate features that have yet to be created and future development will grow through the benefit of experience as the market place becomes ever more sophisticated.

It is my view that there will be two big winners. The designer, who will benefit greatly from the drive to deliver more features and sophistication for less money and their customer, who may, one day, walk out of a showroom with a beautiful 'designer' kitchen that even builds itself.