Enterprise 2.0 Checklist for PLM

I want to discuss Enterprise 2.0. This term started to be popular during the last two-three years and stands for technologies and best practices around so called “social software”,  according to the main mature components such as wiki and blogs. In my view, although the functional definition of Enterprise 2.0 is still very fuzzy, the need for Enterprise 2.0 type of software is emerging and growing fast. Lately, we’ver heard many messages from Product Lifecycle Management software providers about the importance of social software for PLM. I’m sure you had a chance to see “Social Innovation” or “Social Product Development” initiatives presented by leading PLM vendors during this year.

So, with such an introduction,  I wanted to start a discussion about Enterprise 2.0 and PLM paths. Are these co-directed? Can Product Lifecycle Management leverage Enterprise 2.0 or vice versa?

I also had a chance to read Wikipedia’s definition of <Enterprise 2.0> and also was reading The State of Enterprise 2.0 by Dion Hinchcliff. I wanted to start with a checklist of what exists in Enterprise 2.0 and compare it with how we perceive Product Lifecycle Management within this definition.

In the very early view and definition of Enterprise 2.0 according to Andrew McAfee, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School, Enterprise 2.0 elements are defined as a SLATES model. So, let’s take a look at every element of this definition. Actually, I found it very interesting from the practical standpoint of Product Lifecycle Management.

Search – I think that the definition of search in the enterprise lacks maturity at the present. Enterprise Search vendors are focusing on document search and information discovery in the Enterprise. At the same time, <Search> has become a very important function in everyday life and many of our daily activities has changed as a result of the “search revolution”. Product Lifecycle Management is doing a lot of things that require an improved way of managing data about products ─ being able to find this data is one of the most important functions.

Links – URI and URL are two fundamental things allowing connections of information in a Web-enabled enterprise. PLM manages a lot of “connected” things such as product definitions, relevant documents etc. PLM can reuse a lot from models that have already been developed and will be developed in the future for Enterprise 2.0.

Authorship – Enterprise 2.0 has changed the way people perceive their roles with regards to creating and using information. In PLM, the function of creating (or designing) was belonging many years to Development/R&D/Engineering. These days Enterprise 2.0 is changing it and introduces new way to involve people to create product and services. This is will be very important for the future.

Tags – This is something that is very usable and provides an open and simple for people. For years, PLM has been classifying things mostly in a taxonomical way. I had a chance to write about tagging before and I think that the role of Tags in the future model of PLM will be increased.

Extensions – I see extensions as a natural way to grow. I think that the application of extension methods can allow us to gain a better understanding of product development and the customer environment. We can find a way to reuse these patterns to develop new products and services.

Signals – I think people need to be able to interact ─ within Product Development, in the Supply Chain, in the customer’s ecosystem. Adoption of “signals” can provide PLM with the ability to interact in a new way.

So, time will tell how the Enterprise 2.0 model will be developed in the near future, and how new software products will be developed and even change this model. It’s clear that many of Enterprise 2.0 characteristics were created as result of a major dissatisfaction with the current state of enterprise software.  Enterprise 2.0 needed a change that would adopt new methods of working and have an impact on the environment.

I’m very interested to know your opinion and views on this topic and am looking forward to discussing this in my next posts.

About these ads

4 Responses to Enterprise 2.0 Checklist for PLM

  1. Rick says:

    Hi Oleg –

    I love this topic. If software companies are looking to make non-linear jumps in the value that they bring to the market, this is one of those key areas. What’s clear to me is that the way that information is developed, referenced and stored has been changing. The ol’ file cabinets of papers are now not only electronic, but distributed in an endless number of websites, folders, wikis, blogs, and so forth. Even the subsequent use of storing info in your PC desktop folders is passe. In the old days, if you were looking for information that was not in your library, you had to make request and wait for that information to be provided to you. Now, the expectation is that content is available immediately. I think that it’s OK that a single search engine cannot index and track everything out there. But there is a need to federate multiple search services. The key would seem to be under the “Link” area. In order to leverage all of the info out there, there needs to be a flexible, growing model of those relationships between sets of information. PLM can be a place where the ownership of many relationships can take place. But it can’t own everything. I would think that the need to communicate those relationships with other such federation engines would be required for Enterprise 2.0.

  2. Hi Rick, thanks for your observation! I think sort of information federation need to achieved. And this is what PLM is trying to provide today. Under different names such technologies provided, in my view, by all major PLM providers. And I agree with you – we cannot own everything. -Best, Oleg

  3. Rick says:

    Oleg,
    It’s funny that the comments in got spammed. The notification of changes to the thread brought me back to look at the original post. Even though it’s been a few years since you wrote this article, I think that proven true. Most companies that manage the product innovation process have evolved to deliver products that adhere well to SLATES. In our case, we’ve invested heavily in seaching as well as dashboarding (what good is searching for information if you can’t easily use it?). These are from strategic investments our company made in acquiring technology companies. We’ve introduced a new tagging paradigm in our products (“6W”) that is being well-received. And each release continues to strengthen the capabilities around the other areas of SLATES. Given the time that has passed, I wonder what we would add to SLATES and the checklist now that we’ve delivered on the vision in your article.
    Rick

  4. Rick, thanks for your comment! You are right, after 5 years lots of things look much more clear. Btw, I’m in the process of moving out of my old plmtwine.com domain…. and fight all spam which comes to wp.com (it is a bit crazy). So, here is the link on beyondplm with the same post –> http://beyondplm.com/2009/07/01/enterprise-2-0-checklist-for-plm/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 246 other followers

%d bloggers like this: