My today’s post on 3D Perspectives is about how to visualize hierarchical information. In CAD and PLM we put a lot of focus on how to visualize model, but how we can visualize information? Have you had chance to think about it?
Tree Map
Botanic Tree
Tree Timeline
Best, Oleg
Leave a Comment » | 
3DPerspectives, User Experience | Tagged: 3D, Hierarchy, Visualize | 
Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
During last week, I had chance to discuss PLM, Design and Business Process trends. The core idea behind was about how we can apply business processes in the context of design application and collaboration. I had chance to take a look on Forrester’s Dynamic Business Applications imperative. The idea of processes built for change as well as “context” is very co-sound, in my view, with designer work. Even most of Forrester analyzes were done in the context of MS Office application, I think it can be applied to Design Application as well. The core idea, if I got it right, is to be able to have flexible contextual information to make a business process decisions and this contextual information comes from interactive and visual communication.
What do you think about it? Does it make sense to define adaptable contextual design application that has an ability to inject business data?
Best, Oleg
2 Comments | PLM Prompt | Tagged: Design, Dynamic, Process | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
Why I decided to talk today about Collaborative PLM? I think “collaborative” buzz was with us quite long time, but these days this trend is going down and “social networks” are coming up. Nevertheless, I think when we start to think about practical ways to implement “People Centric PLM” (Thanks Vuuch Voice for this term), we can see renaissance in collaboration.
I figured out 3 possible steps where today’s PLM can be improved by accepting of new technologies and approaches coming from Web in general and specifically from Social Web. They are 1/Content Platforms; 2/Commenting and Discussion Systems; 3/Streams or Waves.
Content Platforms for Collaboration
I think collaborative systems began to keep a critical mass of content. In the early beginning of collaborative systems our thoughts were about “how to collaborate around content”. So, such content could be 3D Design, Drawing, Bill of Material. We can see ideas of such type of collaboration in systems like 3DLive and many other Viewer nad 3D collaborative systems. However, this is in the past, in my view. These days, what people are collaborating about becomes to be even more important in comparison to an ability to share collaboratively 3D Model between 2-3 designers. Data mining, content analyzes, trends analyzes becomes very important. But, in my view, PLM systems are in the very early beginning to think about these needs and opportunities.
Commenting and Discussion Systems
How to organize collaborative work of people around a particular design, issue, problem? I think, today, this is what email is used for. However, email is very bad when it comes to the point of discovering who said what and when. Especially, when you want to base your opinion on something has that already been done before. Maybe you just were out of a specific mail thread? So, here I see the next opportunity in collaboration – discussion and commenting. The biggest challenge in such a type of collaboration is to integrate it in our daily life, so it will be accessible and not “yet another system to check during my working day”.
Streams or Waves.
I got an interesting question on twitter – what are you checking first in the morning – email or twitter? Frankly saying, I want to check one place and not in multiple places. This is another opportunity for collaboration. How we can unify our collaborative streams. Mails, IM, Twitts, Phone Messages… Is it a new challenge for Unified Communication? Actually, I’m looking forward to seeing what Google Wave will give us in this space. (Google is going to send out 100’000 invitations in the end of September, so I hope to get one).
So, what is my conclusion today? Collaboration is a place with an endless set of opportunities since this is part of our everyday life. PLM will need to be on top to satisfy demands of customers in this place. Influence of Web and other consumer-related technologies will be very strong in this space soon.
Best, Oleg
10 Comments | Collaboration, Daily PLM Think Tank, Social Media and Tools | Tagged: Collaboration, PLM | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
Interesting prompt today. What do you think about future of 3D? What will be real immesrsive 3D experience? We are doing 3D on the screen for the last 25 years and recently started to try touch screens. But what about touchable 3D?
Take a look and enjoy this video. Do you see future CAD systems work this way?
Best, Oleg
Leave a Comment » | 3D, PLM Prompt, User Experience | Tagged: 3D, Holography, Immersive | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
I want to touch today topic related to user experience in various PLM systems. Having such powerful function as 3D in user experience is, of course, very important. However, sometimes I think we really overkill by 3D. Few months ago I discussed this in my post (3D Limits…). During this weekend, I was looking on Google Side by Side interface for GSA and my initial thoughts were – this is good way to go for many comparison functions we have in PDM/PLM systems.
So, why “Comparison function” is important?
1. Many PDM/PLM user experience cases run around “search/what if” scenario – Bill of Material modification
2. The comparison function in PDM/PLM is the most fundamental function. We have to compare almost everything – design, bill of material, ECO content, selection of supplied parts etc.
3. Current comparison user experience in most cases based on old featured list/tree comparison user interface. As most of the user interfaces of this type, his main disadvantage, in my view, is a need for multiple clicks to explore tree and detailed information.
And why, I think Google “Side by Side” user experience can be efficient
1. Flexibility on search
2. Ability to run synchronously to compare results
3. Ability to drill down into one of the results without changing focus of another panel.
Finally, I think non-3D user experience is important. When 3D experience is superior in most of PLM systems, non 3D user experience was actually the same we used 10-15 years ago and continue to use in most of enterprise systems today.
What will be future PLM user experience? This is a real question we’ll need to answer in the near future.
Best, Oleg
Leave a Comment » | Daily PLM Think Tank, User Experience | Tagged: comparison, non-3D, User Experience | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
Reading Vuuch post “Do Opposite Attract in Business Process?”, I decided to go future and think about opposites in PLM. And I have to acknowledge, this is hot topic, especially when you come to sales point, cost and ROI. I want to come later with more detailed analyzes of what non-PLM can do different, in my view and opposite to PLM.
My today, prompt is just initial set of questions to you:
1. What is opposite to PLM and how do you see it in the market (I believe non-PLM is not very attractive)?
2. Do you think companies that distant their offering from PLM strategies doing something different?
3. Can we make PLM from non-PLM pieces?
I’m coming with longer post on this later this week and meanwhile will be looking forward to your comments and thoughts.
Best, Oleg
4 Comments | Market and Technology, PLM Prompt | Tagged: non-PLM, PLM | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
Interesting prompt today – I’m looking on Blender Open Project for 3D Content creation.
I see such projects very promising for the future of 3D software and CAD is one of them. Until now 3D CAD was considered as pretty conservative space. Many people are considering 3D CAD as almost marriage decision. Getting more toward Open 3D CAD space can be a significant change factor in this space. What do you think about it?
Best, Oleg
2 Comments | CAD, Open Source, PLM Prompt | Tagged: 3D, 3D CAD, Open Source | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
For years, PLM and not only PLM, but also other enterprise systems like ERP supported idea of a single backbone system that can solve all problems. Enterprise PLM platform, in general, follow this approach by proposing platforms and systems focusing on supporting concept of single point of truth, common view and unified modeling. This approach clearly stated in all last major releases of PLM systems coming from both CAD-based and ERP-based origins.
So, discussion I want to have is quite opportunistic. I want simply put – is it really good and beneficial to follow “a centralized approach” and believe a single system will solve all problems business have around Product Lifecycle Management? Let me explain what I have in my mind by figuring out few important trends:
1. Modern enterprises have tendencies to agile organization and outsourcing for product development and manufacturing.
2. Single vendor platform will be “a functional compromise” in terms of specific niche application and services.
3. Establishment of a single system is a source of very significant investment and business organization.
In addition to these organizational trends, there are few important technological trends I want to mention.
1. Development of OnDemand services and applications
2. Usage of Internet as a platform for social and organizational communication
All these trends together bring me to the point to ask – what will be next platform for PLM? How this platform will be able to adopt to fast changed word of business and communication? How future enterprise and PLM platforms will be able to manage “change” concept and become transportable for changed organizational and technological landscape?
I don’t think I have all answers to state how change will happen, but I see PLM system different from monoliths applications and platforms we’ve built today.
What do you think? How do you see future agile enterprise PLM platforms and applications?
Best, Oleg
8 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank, Future Trends, PLM and organization, PLM Implementation | Tagged: Backbon, Enterprise, Platform, PLM | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
I’d like to continue the topic I started yesterday in my post “PLM vs. ERP: Demand for Business Process”. Even from the small amount of comments I’ve got from yesterday, my impression is that there is no agreed position about how PLM and ERP related to business processes and what are their roles in the establishment of organization business processes. I think, there is a significant consensus with regards to ERP and Business Processes. At the same time, I think a role of PLM in a business process is not as agreed.
My topic today is about “Multi-domain” processes. I don’t think this term is widely used and agree, but I think, it reflects quite well a company situation. As a background, from my view, there are several organizational and business trends.
1. Business becomes more connected. In the today business situation, number of connections, communication and dependencies inside of organization are growing exponentially. Business becomes much leaner, agile and this is required to work more efficiently and, therefore, need of connections becomes obvious.
2. Organization activity needs to be optimized independent on boundaries of business systems. Companies accumulated huge amount of separate systems and operate them for the particular needs in the specific situations, scenarios and needs. These applications and systems were built in different time and almost always are not connected.
3. Process-oriented systems can provide a solution by connect people from various domains. Growing trend in understanding how business process systems and technologies can help to streamline business and support overall corporate operation is growing. We had chance to see signs of growing BPM even during a current turbulent time.
So, I think to establish cross domain business processes can be very beneficial for an organization. However, I see multiple problems that prevent business from do so.
1. Application boundaries. Most of the enterprise applications we have today were developed with a specific business domain in mind. Historically, application focused and improved their functionality and experience in the specific domain. Issues related to communication of application with external systems were considered as complex and in most cases companies were investing in consulting and professional services to establish cross-boundary work and integration.
2. Business silos. This is an organizational problem. Business units, departments in many cases are separate and operate independently or in very loose control mode. To establish horizontal business relationships in an organization is another challenge.
3. Multiple systems. This is one of the most serious problems, in my view. Historically, company implemented lots of systems they are using for business needs. To connect this system zoo in something that can work together is very difficult. There are some positive movements related to SOA technologies we can see during last few years, but situation remained very complex.
So, what is a special role of PLM? I see in cross-domain business processes. Product Lifecycle Management, by nature is a discipline that creates a large amount of connection between different aspects of product development in an organization. Today, to establish and maintain these connections and interops is one of the most complicated business and technological problem in PLM. If PLM will be able to invest and/or cooperate with process management technologies and products, it will create a process-level foundation for enterprise system connections around product development. From the technological standpoint, I think, PLM needs to invest in processes technologies and openness to make cross-domain processes happen.
How do you see business process support related to product development organized in your company? Do you think, such PLM approach can improve your current situation with process development and will make your organization leaner?
Best, Oleg.
17 Comments | Business Process Management, Daily PLM Think Tank, PLM and organization | Tagged: BPM, Cross-Domain, PLM, Process Management | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
I want to start today with twitter quote “PLM vs ERP – ERP a transactional system, not suited to manage development of product, integration of all info such as ingredients”. Well, PLM/PDM vs. ERP discussion is old, and I remember it for the last 10-15 years or even more… However, I’d expect some changes in this non-stop confrontation.
The original capabilities of PLM and ERP came respectfully out of their business roots – CAD Design/Data Management for PLM and manufacturing transaction from MRP/MRPII/ERP. However, both domains had demands to grow and make an expansion in organizations. PLM is looking for attractive domains such as requirements, manufacturing, supply chain. ERP is interested to expand toward product development. Both system domains (PLM and ERP) are looking how to establish connected space for enterprise organization business. So, how to achieve it?
I think, very interesting is that both classes of systems are very in favor of business processes. Even if PLM and ERP have a different notion of business processes, I’d say Business Processes can provide good synergy between both systems. PLM traditionally focused on very high level of people involvement in processes. Human based and hybrid processes is something that PLM requires. On the opposite side, ERP is focusing on automation and streamline of processes in organizations.
I think vendors on both (PLM and ERP) sides need to look very pro-actively how adopt Business Process Management technologies. This will be the key to success in organizations. From a technological standpoint, maturity of standards like BPMN and BPEL can provide a solid technological foundation for this work. But, at the same time, both PLM and ERP need to worry about growing capabilities of dedicated BPM vendors. They can take an attractive $$$ from aged PLM and ERP providers and establish strong BPM leadership in organization. I wrote about this in my previous PLM prompt.
So, what is my conclusion today? Business process have strong demand from both sides- PLM and ERP. The road toward successful BPM implementation can be very bumpy for PLM and ERP. Need to watch it out. Multiple vendors can still business and establish success business in front of enterprise behemoths.
What do you think about it? What are your practices with regards to process management in organization?
Best, Oleg
28 Comments | Business Process Management, Collaboration, Daily PLM Think Tank, PLM+ERP | Tagged: business process, ERP, PLM | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky
You are currently browsing the Daily PLM Think Tank Blog blog archives for September, 2009.
Daily PLM Think Tank
