I’d like to put a short note this morning. It comes from my review of Patently Apple blog. The very interesting patent granted to Apple in the area of 3D virtual stores. The interesting is how Apple defines a presence in this virtual shop:
Apple’s patent FIG. 9 shown above, illustrates an embodiment of an interface to an online store. The example shown is an implementation of region 112 of FIG. 1 as rendered in a browser. Alice, a character represented as an example in the patent, “is visiting the Acme website at noon. Accordingly, a sun (904) is included in region 112. If Alice were to return later in the day, a moon or star icon might be shown instead of sun 904. Other indicators, such as different color schemes during the fall season or winter holidays can also be included.”
I think, such patent can be an alarm in front of CAD and PLM affiliated companies thinking about 3D virtual experience. The competition in 3D space can get to the point when the interests of design software manufacturers will clash with companies thinking about 3D user experience everywhere.
Just my thoughts… What do you think about that?
Best, Oleg
I’m following PLM for mid-market trends Jos Voskuil’s virtualdutchman blog. This weekend, I had chance to read his PLM for mid-market mission impossible post: PLM for the mid-market – mission impossible. Jos figured out two main characteristics of PLM:
[... There are two main characteristics for this mid-market:
Sales and implementation of software is done through Value Added Resellers and not through the vendors or big service companies. The software revenue per customer does not justify high expenses for global consultants with additional high expenses due to travel costs (and sometimes the local language issue). The local VAR is supposed to be the point of contact.
Mid-market companies do not change their main company processes. Depending on the type of core process, let’s assume ETO or BTO, they have sales and engineering working close together on product/solution definition and they have manufacturing planning and production working close together on product/solution delivery. In term of functionality a PDM focus for sales/engineering and an ERP focus for manufacturing...]
I found the combination of these characteristics interesting. Because they are presenting how orthogonal is everything in mid-market to the successful PLM implementations made for large enterprises. Mid-market journey for PLM companies was important for two obvious points- (1) to expand market; (2) to establish the strategy for supply chain – place where FTP and USB drive is leading. However, vendors tried to push PLM in a very straightforward way. Costly direct sales were replaced by optimized indirect channel (VARs) and costly customization, implementation and services were replaced by optimized out-of-the-box solutions. It seems to me the results are pretty much smashed. It doesn’t work.
What is my take on Product Lifecycle Management for smaller companies? There are two important words I want to think about – granularity and transformation.
Transformation
The history of successful software is a history of transformation. If you remember CAD history or PDM history, you will understand that at the time when a significant failure or dissatisfaction happened, new technologies and solutions came and presented their capabilities and values. 15-20 years ago 3D CAD systems moved from big workstations to PC – we know what happened then. 10-15 years ago PDM projects moved from the state when they required compilation and build to manage customer data to more flexible SQL-based data modeling running on Windows and later Web solution. Clearly current PLM state of the art systems requires re-thinking and change.
Granularity
I like this word. For me, it means first of all precision and understanding. As I mentioned few months ago, large monolithic PLM implementations are a thing in the past. To find PLM solution for smaller customers will require to go and understand what these customers are doing on the very granular level. The best demonstration of granularity for me is the web. Combined from a huge amount of granular data pieces it represents a solid and well functioning system.
What is my conclusion today? Trying to replicate big ideas sometimes requires more than a company financial interests. The distance between racing cars and mass-production is huge. Technology is a tricky issue in the enterprise and when you are trying to scale it down might become broken. I think, last 3-5 years presented a very interesting try in implementing PLM solution for a smaller organizations. Today is a time to analyze results and think about future transformations.
PS. So, how PLM for mid-market story should end? The following video is just one idea…
During the last few months, or even more, I’ve heard so much discuss about cloud and PLM. Lots of pros and cons were raised? Security, IP, availability, etc. I don’t think I can add something to this discussion for the moment. However, it sounds like a lot of discussion, but nobody wants to try it out. Sometimes try and fail (or not) can be a very good approach. My question – who will be the first to move their complete PLM offering and host it on Amazon AWS?
Maybe you know a company which did it already?
Just my thoughts…
Few weeks ago I had chance to attend WTG Webinar Evolving from PDM to an Integrated PLM system at BAE Military Air Systems. The presentation was quite interesting and outlined main points of single integrated PLM system creation for the big organization as BAE. Large enterprise rganization has his own rules and this webinar outlined it very well – complex data models, huge chunks of legacy data, staged phases of the development (concept, design, release, service). The bottom line (seminar quote) - this is the most complex PLM implementation in Europe (or even may be in the world). Two things impressed me the most from the overall presentation: 1/ complexity of the overall data systems; 2/ integration efforts and data flow between different components.
These two things made me think about what is the future of Integrated PLM systems? What will be the evolution path of PLM systems? When I’m looking on successful PLM implementation, I see the extreme fit in how all components work together. Design, Engineering, Manufacturing – everything seems to be fit and work as a Swiss watch. However, I believe, the significant amount of work, requires to make this job done. For me, such complexity is always reflected in the overall cost. Every organization is different. So, if you plan to make such level of the integration for every organization, you need to be prepared for the same level of effort. Now, the next one – integration data flow. There are different stages, multiple data elements, components, statuses, exchange of information. To make it work requires fine tuning on a scale. This is impressive and scare. What if something doesn’t work or requires changes? Unfortunately, I didn’t find the answer on these questions. These are the future questions PLM implementations need to tackle with. How to replicate the success and maintain existing systems in the operational mode?
So, what is my conclusion today? There are two main factors that will define the future of PLM as an integrated enterprise system: 1/Cost of change; 2/ Mass adoption. The cost of change is very important, in my view. You can craft system on whatever level you want, but the moment of change comes very fast. I hope PLM vendors understand it and drive their strategic developments to these horizons. Modern manufacturing is very dynamic and will be even more in the future. The second factor is mass adoption. The large, unique and complex PLM systems need to learn how to replicate themselves into a smaller organization. I think, “integrated PLM” are not ready yet for this type of replication. This is another challenger for the future of the integrated PLM.
I think, buzzword compliance is a very important when you need to convince the company to use PLM. So, I found an excellent technology (yet another one PLM technology), to help you in this complicated process. You can do it in a minute, and I’m sure your management will be fully satisfied with your next PLM roadmap. I tried it and my favorite strategy so far is:
You can see some other ideas:
I encourage you to do it on yourself. Try the following website Startup Idea Generator to find you best next PLM strategy.
Posted by olegshilovitsky 
