PLM Processes, Lists and Implementation Confusion

December 7, 2010

I read the following blog post by Christine Longwell – Do we really need structured workflows if we have visibility and status? In my view, the question asked by Christine can be heard very often from customers trying to decide about PDM or PLM process management. I specially liked the following passage from Christine’s post:

One of the major objections to implementing a PLM system is that it is going to tie a creative organization into a structured workflow that can slow down their process and ability to react. If the process is too strictly structured, people start looking for ways around the process when “special situations” arise. A major deadline, build stoppages on the manufacturing floor, unexpected audits, or irate customers can all be reasons to go around the process and not wait for the standard Friday Morning design review meeting to get designs released.

What if we assume that every design change is driven by a special situation, and allow them to all “flow” naturally? I believe it’s possible to use tools that facilitate real time, collaborative communication and status on issues to treat each problem differently, and come to the right solution more quickly.

I found very interesting to comparison of two opposite things – structured workflow and real time collaboration. The confusion between them, actually, leads to some implementation difficulties and potentially wrong conclusions about tool selection.

Design Collaboration
Product development has many different stages. On the very early design stage, people can collaborate freely without any special constraints and dependencies. This is a time when "designer" is a king. Designer can make any change. However, if a team of people involved into this processes, they definitely need to collaborate (=work together). So, this type of "design collaboration" can be characterized by a very non-formal relationships and communications. The most widely used tools for such communication is email. I don’t think that email is actually the most optimal way to collaborate, but ease of use and wide spread of emails make it an obvious choice. Managing of the emails can be a difficult task for every person. In addition, email becomes very inefficient when you work with CAD systems. Because of technical constraints, you cannot always use attachments, and it causing losing of context in communications.

Change Processes
When product development moves to the next maturity phases beyond the design, communication between people in the organization becomes more complicated. It, obviously, requires more people to be involved to the processes of changes. At this time, changes are controlled by a group of people and requires some synchronization before any change may occur. It may happen when a product is actually already manufactured or, for example, during the advanced stages of "engineering to order" manufacturing. Such situations require more coordinated work between people in different departments, which normally is going beyond just "raising hands" or "sending emails". The most often used procedures at this stage are "approval processes". PDM and PLM systems have an ability to make such implementations.

Processes and Tasks
One of the obvious outcomes of processes and workflow implementations is the need to manage lists of tasks for people. When it comes to "change approval" or "change implementation", the need to manage tasks becomes critical. The important element of process management is the ability to make tasks visible and transparent in the organization. It includes task assignment, task distribution, follow up and changes. A good process or workflow tool needs to provide ways to accomplish that. User interface is an important element in the process implementation story. As a user, I need to have my tasks to show up. List views are one of the most obvious ways to do so. That’s why, Microsoft Excel becomes popular. However, the ease of list creation in Excel is combined with a complicated way to maintain collaborative changes, assignments and follow up. Microsoft SharePoint with Excel Services provided an interesting approach to manage Excel lists. Other alternatives can include "work management" or "task management" tools. Lists are still a very important element of user interface there.

People and Processes
The most complicated element in all process implementations are people. To capture processes is not a trivial task. Processes can be undefined, fuzzy and even conflicting. Process Management, normally, cannot solve problems related to the process capturing and organization. The flexibility of tools is an important factor here. However, even with a full flexibility, this process can go wrong.

What is my conclusion? The requirements can be different depends on a type of communication. Design team can collaborate via phone, email or Excel spreadsheets. When it comes to more complicated communication, process management and workflow tools need to be involved. However, ad-hoc collaboration, structured workflow and even a very sophisticated processes management tool, can use a simple list-based user interface concept to communicate with users and provide task visibility. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


Social Enterprise Discussion and Next Collaboration Buzz?

December 3, 2010

Picture-1.pngCollaboration is a tough word. PLM Is using this word all the time. For the last 10-15 years in this industry, I had a chance to see lots of variations on what means collaboration and what will be the next big shift in collaboration. Recently, I started to see multiple attempts to crack the holy grail collaboration using a "social" approach. However, despite the huge success of social networks and web 2.0 website, word "social" is still sound to me a bit fuzzy when applied to enterprise companies.

Yesterday, I’ve seen an announcement from Atalasoft presenting VizIt Social eXchange. Navigate your browser to the following link to learn more. The idea of conversation connected to a specific document in SharePoint make sense. I found a certain similarity between this idea and the original idea of "design discussions" presented by Chris Willams of Vuuch.

Collaboration and Complexity

The complexity is the biggest killer of the everything in the enterprise. Regardless on the future name and buzzwords, tomorrow enterprise systems will need to fight complexity. Social networks and Web 2.0 websites proved some ideas about how to organize and share information in a contextual form to make it very simple. However, manufacturing company is not a photo-sharing website. The complexity of the systems in manufacturing companies is going much beyond the ability of the social networking website.

What is the Meaning of "Social"?

I tried to understand the meaning of a word "social" in the way companies introduce it in their solutions. From what I’ve seen, it seems to me as an additional link between a user information and rest of the data. The amount of data connections in the enterprise organization is big. Implicitly, a connection between user and data does exist in the company. The attempt of "social systems" is to make this information explicitly available. Make sense to me. So, "social" is just an additional information that can be captured and maintained by social systems.

What is my conclusion? I think "social" is the next buzz about collaboration. People don’t want to listen to the word "collaboration" anymore. This is meaningless. Everybody understands it differently. "Social" ideas are coming from the understanding of Web 2.0 experience and can present a new to people to work together. However, I don’t see a "social" effect as something magical. Users will recognize the pattern – "old software, different names". So, to make something new and to remove a complexity will be the reality test for social systems.

Best, Oleg


PLM Think Tank Top 5 – November, 2010

December 2, 2010

Picture-49-300x224.pngI was reading GigaOM article Should We Be Afraid of Apple, Google and Facebook? I found it interesting. Take your time, read and make an opinion. I found some comparison about past and present monopolies interesting. Here is the thought about information monopolies – "AT&T was a monopoly during an earlier phase of communications history, companies like Google, Facebook and Apple now have what he calls “information monopolies” that could be just as damaging to our society". I found some interesting association between "information monopolies" and CAD/PLM system monopolies. For many years, CAD system monopoly was considered the most strongest option in the engineering world. The decision of Daimler may prove it different. However, it will be a start for a new monopoly – information or data monopoly. PDM system can lock a big customer almost with the same level of efficiency. The time between two monopolies can be interesting… And now, here is my top 5 posts for November.

Daimler PLM Dilemma – PDM First

Cost is important. In 2000s , the decision CAD vs. PDM was almost always CAD + any PDM Integration. Which means – CAD First. We learned something new this week. PDM and Data Management becomes more and more important. The cost of global product data platform change and potential IT disruption is much bigger compared to the cost switching to another CAD. So, in 2010s, the math CAD <or> PDM is different and the answer is probably PDM change + IT cost. Which means PDM and product data backbone first. This is an important difference, which will have an implication on engineering and manufacturing software decisions of the current decade. PDM system position can give some advantages in the PLM giant wars for large automotive and aerospace OEM accounts. Questions about cost of change and untapped PLM markets are more interesting, in my view.

PTC Creo – AnyThing Possible?

These are my thoughts followed by PTC Lightening event and introducing of Creo applications. I think, PTC demonstrated a very good understanding of market and customer. They are presenting a plan to deliver solutions answering a set of well known problems. To identify problems right is already more than 50% in the delivery process. Let see how many PTC Creo Apps we’ll see in the future…

Microsoft in the PLM Spotlight

My observations driven by Microsoft presentation during the Dassault customer event earlier this month in Orlando. Microsoft sells servers to the enterprise. Big servers. Lots of servers. OWPX. Is it a strategy? In my view, this is Microsoft’s enterprise lock-in. On the very bottom level, PLM functions depend on Microsoft Servers. Most of PLM boxes run on Windows machines. And it deeply connected on Office / Excel. However, future belongs to experience – the number of Apple devices on DSCC2010 was bigger than ever before.

Why Do We Struggle With File Names in PDM/PLM?

This a type post that turns a conversation towards endless discussions about naming in PDM/PLM systems and how cloud will influence it. The File Name is dead. Long live file names! I can see a long term trend towards the situations where File Names will become obsolete. We still need file names. Even such a cool device as iPad, requires a file name get things in and out. So, for day-to-day practice, you better think about reasonable file numbering system. However, if you are going to implement modern PDM/PLM system, you can consider starting to remove file names as an obsolete feature and hide it in data management structures.Just my thoughts…

PLM+ERP: Outside of Equation?

Another timeless story. Engineering and Manufacturing. PDM and ERP. One of the fundamental principles behind PLM+ERP equation is an event driven process push. Many manufacturing companies and software vendors got into this for the last 10-15 years. It was an obvious way to solve PLM+ERP equation. It makes systems dependent and costly to manage. One of the fundamental ideas that may improve it is to get out of this equation. The name of the idea is “Pull”. Pull can make systems independent and much easy managed.

Best, Oleg


Engineering Software: Move to the Cloud vs. Born in the Cloud

December 2, 2010

I’m not attending AU this year. My end of the year schedule included too many trips, so I wasn’t able to attend Autodesk show in Las-Vegas. However, thanks to my blogging and twitting friends and colleagues, I’m getting almost real time updates about what Autodesk is presenting. The notion of Infinite Computingpresented during AU by Carl Bass and Jeff Kowalski made me think about some interesting trends I can see in introducing of cloud computing in engineering software.

Re-thinking Paradigms

I can see a fundamental difference between software moved to the cloud and software born in the cloud. Cloud as a function of delivery cannot change some basics characteristics of software. Lots of engineering software – desktop tools, data management, collaboration tool, etc. was originally designed with "desktop" or "IT" state of mind. I can see two parallel activities now. One is to change a delivery model and move an existing software to the cloud. Another one is to produce new paradigms of using software on the cloud.

Move To Cloud Early Experiments

The early cloud experiments made by CAD/PLM companies, in my view, had some negative impact. Almost a month ago, I was listening to Jim Happelman talking about PTC and cloud options. Cloud is not exciting PTC these days, in my view. It presented as the utility or delivery option when a customer asks. I think, it reflects some early experiments PTC did together with IBM by hosting their Windchill products. Another "move to the cloud" experience was done by Arena Solutions introduced their OnDemand offering almost a decade ago – back that time people were afraid to put their credit card number on the internet.

The Power of Existing Platforms

CAD and PLM platforms are complicated products developed many years with a lot of legacies. I can see a definite interest of kings of Engineering software market to leverage their platforms on the cloud. I think, Dassault is taking a leading role in this movement game by planning to introduce their ENOVIA V6 based cloud applications. Does it mean we are going to see a massive move of existing platforms to the cloud? Dassault will be probably the first to prove it.

Born In The Cloud

What about unique experience coming from the cloud-based services? I can see an opportunity not to see the cloud as the delivery platform only. Autodesk presented an interesting option to use cloud as an additional source of computational power. It can change paradigms in design software usage. Autodesk experimented a lot with different applications for the last year, which shows me that Autodesk is trying to bring a new paradigm born in the cloud rather than move an existing platform to be delivered from the cloud.

What is my conclusion? Cloud turns on some additional opportunities we have never seen before. However, the process is long. It is not only about software delivery. It is about shifting paradigms. However, to make a paradigm shift is not a simple task. Speaking about the cloud for almost a year a half, I can see a lot of false starts and promising options. After all, I can see only experiments and no commercially available system.Just my thoughts…

Best,Oleg


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers