Comments on: Will Mashups Grow Up In PLM?

By: The 3D Mashups – Reality Check

The 3D Mashups – Reality Check — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:48:46 +0000

[...] past, I shared some of my thoughts about mashups. Navigate to the following link to read – Will Mashup Grow Up in PLM? Read the blog post Actify Centro and Microsoft SharePoint: 3D Mashup by Chad Jackson. The [...]

By: How To Stop Searching for PLM Killer App? « Daily PLM Think Tank Blog

How To Stop Searching for PLM Killer App? « Daily PLM Think Tank Blog — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:33:13 +0000

[...] successful mashup application, in my eyes is Google Map. I wrote about mashup on my blog before (Will Mashup Grow Up in PLM?) In my eyes mashups are interesting, but too vague and unclear from the standpoing of end-user who [...]

By: How To Stop Searching for PLM Killer App?

How To Stop Searching for PLM Killer App? — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:30:25 +0000

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:42:11 +0000

Peter, Thanks for commenting! I see “meta-model” as something allows to navigate between solutions in the enterprise. The elegance of mashups in their ability to distinguish between “functional apps” – focused on the specific needs or functional domain, and overall meta-level. I haven’t had chance to see it successfully implemented. Most of enterprises have a tendency to implement one system as a “major” function (ERP and PLM are examples of these systems). Nowadays, I see SharePoint (or similar Oracle or IBM implementations) are starting to play a role meta-system in the enterprise. Best, Oleg

By: Peter Evans-Greenwood

Peter Evans-Greenwood — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:41:40 +0000

Hiya,

Glad you like my stuff Prashant!

Oleg, I agree that most PLM solutions tend to be an isolated island in the enterprise. I’m not a big fan of model (PLM, BPM or otherwise) which don’t execute or integrate with the broader enterprise. They’re an interesting documentation exercise, but rarely provide enough value to justify the effort required to maintain them.

My approach in the past has been to use something like a meta-model to co-ordinate and integrate the various solutions and stakeholders involved in the end-to-end PLM process. This provides a number of distinct benefits (see the references above), but it does require a different approach to how you manage enterprise data.

PEG

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:32:23 +0000

Andy, Thanks for pointing out “openness” again. My take on this in today’s post – My New Year Wishes to PLM Industry in 2010. I wish “Openness” will be taken as a business approach and not as a “requirement” from customer. I will give you an extreme example. Imagine tomorrow, you will make you web site as not available to be indexed by Google? It sounds bad… But this is what happens in enterprise software, in my view. Thanks! Oleg

By: AndyF

AndyF — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:06:52 +0000

Tom brings up an excellent point. Many PLM sales people tell you that their system is “open” but they fail to say what that really means. When you actually try to connect to the data you’ll often find out that it isn’t open at all. Rather the data model and the data are all tucked away behind a layer of code and you can’t really get to it in a meaningful way. The 1-800 number takes you to a guy in India who can’t help you expose the data either so forget about that!

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:56:08 +0000

Tom, I see two values of PLM-related integration – enable cross functional processes and improve information delivery. Mashups are all about information delivery. So, when you integrated with SharePoint you can probably improve way to deliver information to users. What is interesting, in my view, is mixing data for more value. Unfortunately, most of SharePoint-related integration simply focuses on licenses-price point. This is a very narrow angle to see mashups. About the openness. I think, in the business world, openness is a business requirement. I think, PLM vendor cannot see business value behind “openness”, for the moment, and the result is what we have today. Best, Oleg

By: Tom van Oost

Tom van Oost — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:10:43 +0000

Oleg, thanks for your response. Sure that mashups and services around PLM is something different. But you cannot talk about mashups without having an open PLM system. If your PLM system doesn’t support open types of services: doesn’t expose data, where do you start then?
I see value in mashups, but also in a lot of other scenario’s. For example integrating/linking PLM with other systems: SharePoint, Microsoft Office, ERP, …
Our straitPortal vision helps to make PLM more successful in companies because every user gets/works with the amount of PLM information suitable for her/him. I think this is also what Andy is commenting.

By: olegshilovitsky

olegshilovitsky — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:18:17 +0000

Andy, Thanks for your comment! PLM systems are building what called “Federated” approaches. This is similar to what you called “linked data”. However, details of implementation might be different. Indeed agree, there is no good solution for legacy data in the organization. The mainstream proposal of most of the vendors today is exporting/importing to PLM systems. Best, Oleg