5 questions to ask before moving your CAD work to cloud using Fra.me [UPDATED]

July 27, 2015

cad-frame-cloud-nirvana

I keep following new cloud software outfit Fra.me. Few months ago, at Siemens PLM conference, I’ve seen how SolidEdge runs in the cloud using Frame infrastructure. You probably noticed my blog – Fra.me and bridge to the cloud earlier last week. Another article about Frame by SolidSmack is bringing a news about the availability of two Frame plans – Personal and Business. Here is the passage from the article:

Today, company CEO Nikola Bozinovic has just sent word to SolidSmack that Frame is now available in two distinct plans – Frame Personal and Frame for Business – for both individuals and teams to install, manage, and share their desktop applications using nothing but a browser. Among other reasons why the platform has been of interest is because it will allow users of CAD software offerings that aren’t currently Cloud-supported – such as SolidWorks or Solid Edge – the ability to work from any internet-connected device in the world without being tethered to a particular workstation.

So, maybe Fra.me is that magical “single click” solution that will solve all problems of engineers to move their work into cloud environment? The idea sounds very appealing- create your cloud computer, which will make all your existing desktop top available via just browser.

frame-cloud

At the same time, it made me think about basic checklist you do before jumping into Frame nirvana.

1- Does my CAD license valid for cloud?

I know, legal stuff is boring. Some of you might remember Autodesk eBay lawsuit. As a user, you can check small letters in your CAD EULA document. It is a good idea if Fra.me will publish some clarification about licensing on their website. From tweet chat with Frame CEO Nikoa Bozinovic, I understood that he is aware about licensing issue.

2- How to bring my existing CAD project library to Fra.me?

Engineering work is rarely done from scratch. It is usually about re-using existing projects, using standard library of parts, etc. Sometimes, existing libraries are large and to move them into cloud environment can take time and cost money. At list this problem exists for many cloud based environments. Will Frame provide services like Amazon Import/Export? Frame is addressing speed of data exchange between Frame computer and Dropbox, but I didn’t find any information how to import file.

3- How to share data in a team?

For many years of desktop CAD software use, customers developed many best practices about how to share data. It starts from well known “z-drive” concept and also use of more advanced techniques and software such SharePoint. So, how my z-drive library will be available on Frame?

4- How to use PDM tools together with Frame?

The usage of PDM is growing. Many CAD users found the real value in managing their CAD data using PDM systems. PDM systems today are bundled with many mainstream CAD systems. What will happen with my PDM installation? How to move it into Frame environment? Does it mean I need Frame IT option to do that?

5- How to escape Frame (in other words how to get my data out)

The last, but also important – how to escape from Frame in case something goes wrong or company will move into another solution. Nobody likes data lock-in these days. The idea of Google takeout is very appealing and I wish it will become part of CAD data liberation. It is not clear how to handle export of data from Frame computer. It might be simple, but can take time and money like import of data.

What is my conclusion? It takes time to bring cloud tools such as CAD, CAE, CAM to the level of maturity available in desktop systems today. Cloud providers are pushing forward to develop new tools and re-use existing components. However, in many situations, existing desktop tools have better support for needed functionality and complete workflows. Frame is digging into an interesting opportunity to take “desktop world” to the cloud. The short term value proposition is clear. In my view, existing CAD / PLM vendors can be interested to use technologies like Frame to prolong existing solution lifecycle into cloud time. My hunch, it can influence the speed of early cloud adopters to move into full cloud solution. Cloud companies should watch it closely. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

[UPDATE 27-JULY-2015]

Frame CEO Nikola Bozinovic kindly agreed to provide answers on my questions and publish them on blog.fra.me. Meantime, don’t miss Frame white paper which is specifically focused on “Frame for CAD” that can be downloaded here.

I captured few interesting passages that can give you ideas about Frame strategy to provide value proposition of running existing desktop CAD and PDM/PLM system in the cloud using Frame virtualization environment.

Previous to Frame, adopting the cloud for CAD workflows primarily had to do with moving to cloud-based file storage. This essentially meant splitting up your workflow and spending a lot of time downloading and uploading files. While some CAD options exist as native cloud apps, these options don’t have anywhere near the feature set of established Windows-based CAD tools. So, in the past, cloud options created an inefficient and fragmented CAD environment. With Frame you can continue to use the tools that you’re used to, the way that you’re used to using them but get all the benefits of being able to access them through the cloud including seamless integration with cloud storage.

Focus on being a CAD expert, not an IT expert. Managing desktops and laptops used for CAD, license servers and PDM systems can be a pain because they are generally distributed across multiple locations, owned or managed by different departments and configured in different ways which lead to different behaviors. With Frame, every element of CAD management and administration is centralized. License servers and PDM systems can be installed on Frame utility servers to make them accessible from anywhere and by any department. Similarly, CAD software only needs to be installed and setup one time and then can be accessed by any number of users from the Frame Launchpad in a browser.

I captured the following architecture diagram from Frame for CAD white paper:

frame-cad-pdm-architecture-use-cases

Cloud storage is required in case you want to store your files and data. Frame white paper recommends to use services like Dropbox (the only released support) and Box (in beta) or Google Drive (in beta). The installation and configuration is not exactly “single click”. White paper provides instructions and recommendation how to setup and configure environment. Frame confirmed several CAD systems already on-boarded to Frame environment – Dassault Systems Solidworks, Siemens’ SolidEdge and NX, PTC’s Creo, Vectorworks and ANSIS). I guess more to come. It is notable that none of existing Autodesk desktop systems are not tested for the moment. For some installation and configuration related topics Frame white paper recommends to contact Frame directly.

Stay tuned for more information.

Best, Oleg

Image courtesy of ddpavumba at FreeDigitalPhotos.net and Fra.me

 



How PLM platforms will survive in no-stack era

July 26, 2015

vertical-plm-platforms-and-no-stack

TechCrunch article Software for the full stack era speaks about brutal reality existing business software platforms are going through. From the beginning it speaks about reasons major business platforms were created – IBM to automate clerks’ work, SAP – to unify enterprise finance and Siebel to computerize sales rep Rolodexes.

Which made me think what problem existing CAD / PLM platform solved? My guess today’s PLM platform were born to solve a problem of complex configurable 3D digital models for aerospace, defense and automotive companies. Look around, each of these OEMs is using PLM platform from one of top 3 PLM leaders – Dassault, Siemens PLM or PTC. To made it happen companies spent a fortune on gigantic enterprise IT effort to install, configure, plan, implement, support and maintain upgrades and future business requests. The follow passage from TechCrunch article is my favorite, because it explains how it usually happens in every company.

For all the innovation these relationships have brought to business, there’s been a price: the custom patchwork of disparate technologies that now power global enterprises. Typical IT lacks flexibility and efficiency, and often fails to fulfill its promise to customers. If you look under the hood at most global businesses, what you find is something akin to a Ford Model-T that has been continuously fixed by an expert mechanic to keep it on the road for a century. It might be a feat of engineering, but there ain’t no way that car will be driverless anytime soon. Unfortunately for leaders of global businesses, these clunky technical landscapes are doing more than simply irritating employees and customers — they’re jeopardizing their long-term survival.

The last point is clearly resonating with voices of large manufacturing companies having concerns about slow ROI and the fact traditional PLM platforms reached their limits. Solving urgent business needs by integrating new technologies with existing core PLM solutions can introduce a significant problem. Sometimes, it cost so much that it drives huge platform migrations. For most of PLM systems, the architecture and technologies of core functions such as CAD data management and BOM management were designed back 10-15 years ago. To connect and interplay between heavily customized core PLM modules and expanded PLM solutions can bring significant service and implementation expenses.

Technology and architecture of existing PLM platforms are going deep back to the time when enterprise IT was a king and to run PLM system atop of proven RDBMS was a key to success. This is probably still a reality for many manufacturing OEMs. But large manufacturing OEMs are starting to think about their long-term survival. That’s why GE has FirstBuild microfactories and car manufacturers are looking at Local Motors community model.

So, what PLM platform will support future manufacturing environment? TechCrunch brings Uber model as an example of how full-stack startups like Uber built their infrastructure:

With so much outdated infrastructure from a pre-Internet era, it’s inevitable that the way we consume even the most basic services will evolve. Companies need to embrace this fact to participate in the software-defined future. But doing so requires a dramatic change in how software is perceived, developed and consumed.

So the question arises, if the tech solutions of the 1980’s and 1990’s won’t suit the needs of today’s innovators, what will? The technologies that power these businesses, no-stack technologies, tend to be API-based micro-services that package up a lot of underlying capability. Unfortunately, the similarity in terms leads many to think that these two are diametrically opposed. They’re not.

Uber, the prototypical full–stack startup, requires no-stack technologies to do so much. Instead of hiring hundreds of engineers to build out capabilities far from their core business, Uber relies on API-based services to power a lot of their communications. When you locate yourself and request a car, Google Maps helps Uber route drivers to your location (for now). When you receive a text message with a driver en-route, it’s powered by Twilio’s APIs. When your receipt appears in your inbox, it’s SendGrid’s transactional email system.

Discussion about no-stack technologies made me think again about un-bundling PLM services. This trend will be an orthogonal to the PLM verticalization we observed for the last 10-15 years when PLM vendors tried to acquire and combine their platforms into gigantic software stacks.

What is my conclusion? The odds are high that new manufacturing companies will try to buildsolutions atop of no-stack technologies. In that case, sooner than later we are going to see a competition between DIY solutions built by manufacturing companies like Tesla Motors, Local Motors, GE, etc. What will be a future role of existing PLM players in that case? How PLM platfromization trend will go alongside with no-stack reality? Interesting question to ask about from PLM analysts, architects and strategists. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Image courtesy of iosphere at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

 


How to strip PLM down to minimum needed functions?

July 24, 2015

plm-strip-down-microsoft-send

In a swift move, Microsoft decided to reinvent email. I guess, many of you had a chance to work with Outlook in your life. In different periods of my working career, I had love and hate relationships with Outlook. The complexity and slowness of Outlook was one of the things I hated the most. Here is the change. Microsoft just introduced minimum email client with focus on communication only. The following passage explains that:

Unlike Outlook, Send is not meant to be a full-featured email app: you can’t use it to view emails you’ve already received or search your inbox. The super simple app only shows threads that have been started from within the app. The idea, Microsoft says, is to strip out the unnecessary (and annoying) parts of email — subject lines and signatures, for example — to make those quick day-to-day brief messages you exchange with coworkers and colleagues faster and easier. “With Send, there are no signatures, subject lines or salutations required,” Microsoft’s Outlook team explains. “Our design principle for the app was to make conversations fast and fluid while keeping the people who are important to you at its core.”

A lot already being said about complexity of email collaboration. It is just messy. Lot of messages, threads, copies, some people forgot to include somebody else and it opens another thread. In one of my earlier blogs I discussed Engineers and Email workhorse. The point I wanted to make was about finding a new way to communicate more efficiently.

Microsoft Blog article gives you more information and few additional screenshots to explain how it works. The following passage clearly explains the value proposition

While tools like text messaging and IM are great for short messages, you often don’t have your co-worker’s cell phone number or an IM app on your work phone. And we’ve heard loud and clear from people at work, they want all their communications available in Outlook—even if they send them from other apps. This is where Send comes in! Send gives you the simple, quick text message-like experience while allowing you to reach all co-workers and have all of your communications in Outlook for reference later.

It made me think again about complexity of PLM applications. Even in modern applications, the desired function you need is “15 clicks away” from you. For example, when it comes to communication about changes, it could be annoying and, as a result, people will shift conversation to email or messenger. This is how valuable engineering and product information is usually lost in organization. Just imagine communication with support team about specific issues in the product experienced by customer. Support technician has no patience to deal with annoying PLM clicks. Instead of that, he pushed text message or email. There is a good chance, original information from customer can be lost and engineering will work to fix slightly different problem. Did it happen to you? Just be honest…

What is my conclusion? For many years, PLM systems assumed completeness is the first priority systems must achieve to get bought by customer. It was true in sales round including spreadsheets comparing functions provided by multiple system. To win a deal was about to provide more functions. I think it is fundamentally wrong approach these days. Less is more. Strip down functions to minimal set of functions – it will boost PLM adoption across organizations. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


Will PLM and ALM prevent a car from being hacked?

July 23, 2015

wired-jeep-hack-plm-alm-integration

Integration of hardware and software is a topic in mind of many manufacturing companies these days. PLM was traditionally focused on mechanical and lately on electronic topics cannot ignore more software. Software developers are using a different set of tools for configuration management. For long time ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) tools took a separate stand from PLM tools. All these things in the past. Software vendors and manufacturing companies cannot ignore complexity of modern product literally powered by software in every part. I’ve been blogging about it long time ago – PLM and ALM: How to blend disparate systems and lately – How to combine engineering and software BOMs.

In one of my last posts – The importance of software BOM for hardware security, I pointed out how important to get an access to right information about software and electronic running in your products. For many manufacturing companies the information about mechanical, electronic and software components is siloed in different data management systems.The importance of new tools capable to manage multidisciplinary product information is raising. Software BOM security is just one example of the trend. The demand to provide systems able to handle all aspect of product BOM is increasing.

The article in WIRED magazine few days ago brings an interesting perspective on the importance of software security in automotive products. Navigate to the following article – Hackers remotely killed a Jeep on the highway – with me in it. The story is fascinating and gives a lot of "food to think about". Here is my favorite passage:

All of this is possible only because Chrysler, like practically all carmakers, is doing its best to turn the modern automobile into a smartphone. Uconnect, an Internet-connected computer feature in hundreds of thousands of Fiat Chrysler cars, SUVs, and trucks, controls the vehicle’s entertainment and navigation, enables phone calls, and even offers a Wi-Fi hot spot. And thanks to one vulnerable element, which Miller and Valasek won’t identify until their Black Hat talk, Uconnect’s cellular connection also lets anyone who knows the car’s IP address gain access from anywhere in the country. “From an attacker’s perspective, it’s a super nice vulnerability,” Miller says.

From that entry point, Miller and Valasek’s attack pivots to an adjacent chip in the car’s head unit—the hardware for its entertainment system—silently rewriting the chip’s firmware to plant their code. That rewritten firmware is capable of sending commands through the car’s internal computer network, known as a CAN bus, to its physical components like the engine and wheels. Miller and Valasek say the attack on the entertainment system seems to work on any Chrysler vehicle with Uconnect from late 2013, all of 2014, and early 2015. They’ve only tested their full set of physical hacks, including ones targeting transmission and braking systems, on a Jeep Cherokee, though they believe that most of their attacks could be tweaked to work on any Chrysler vehicle with the vulnerable Uconnect head unit.

While story is still under development, it is already raised many questions. Some of them led to discussion about standards for cars’ defense against hackers. I’m expecting an increased demand for software capable to manage traceability and tests of mechanical, electronic and software systems together to insure car is not vulnerable to potential hacks.

Manufacturing business technology article echoed the same topic –Software Integration With Hardware Crucial For Manufacturing. It confirms that hardware – software integration is complex and very few companies are doing it in a right way. It gives interesting recommendations how to improve that – common data model, integrated requirement and change management tools and a framework independent from software tools. A common data model is my favorite. Here is a quote:

A common data model. Unified ALM-PLM defines a common data model and change management processes for managing an entire system, both hardware and software data, without duplicating data management or business processes across those systems. The two primary integration points are, first, tying back the requirements to the software and hardware bill of materials and, second, linking defects back to change requests and change orders so PLM can reflect them.

While all recommendations make sense to me, I have a concern about their implementations in real life. How feasible to create a common data model using existing PLM and ALM software tools? A dream data and lifecycle management system should be flexible enough to handle all system definitions from mechanical, electronic and software as well as system behavior related to that.

What is my conclusion? The complexity of modern products is creating demand for new capabilities to support by PLM and ALM software. While integration is usually hardest part of PLM implementation, not all PLM system are flexible enough to maintain demanded "common data model" to handle all bill of materials and related information. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

picture credit WIRED article


PLM and Manufacturing in Networked World

July 21, 2015

plm-networked-world

Our dependence on networks in our life is growing every day. Look around you and you see networks everywhere. Just cut network cable in your house – chances are you are loosing most of your communication channels. But, our network dependencies are not limited to communication. Networks have more transformative influence on how we live, work and do business. It comes in a way of building network-related dependencies. I’ve been talking about some of them in my COFES 2015 presentation – Product Lifecycle, Supply Chain and Data Networks.

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman published a great article about future of driving in network age. The article is a bit long, but I recommend you to have a read. With examples of car and driving eco-system, the article shows the magnitude of changes network transformation can bring in the industry – improving highway throughput, reduce collisions, optimize parking process. The follow passage is my favorite:

Already, the car as network node is what drives apps like Waze, which uses smartphone GPS capabilities to crowd-source real-time traffic levels, road conditions, and even gas prices. But Waze still depends on humans to apprehend the information it generates. Autonomous vehicles, in contrast, will be able to generate, analyze, and act on information without human bottlenecks. And when thousands and then even millions of cars are connected in this way, new capabilities are going to emerge. The rate of innovation will accelerate – just as it did when we made the shift from standalone PCs to networked PCs.

…technologies that allow cars to talk to each other, through Wi-Fi-like networks that use dedicated short-range communications frequencies, exist too. In these vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) networks, cars share information with each other and other smart infrastructure elements – traffic signals, sensor-embedded roads, roadside cameras, eye-in-the-sky traffic drones, etc.

The same networking paradigm will apply to other industry segments as well. For the last few decades, manufacturing became global with companies leveraging market, design, engineering and manufacturing facilities located around the globe. The growing specialization in specific manufacturing verticals created industry of contract manufacturers and suppliers. Many of them are acting like independent vehicles on the road today – following rules, infrastructure limitations and trying to optimize their own local path towards the goal. While cost are still top manufacturing concern, similar to single car on the road, to optimization is highly unpredictable. It happens to manufacturing companies acting independently as well as divisions of large manufacturing giants separated by siloed organization and software.

What is my conclusion? Manufacturing companies are going to have a lesson of networked world. It will be impossible to optimize the performance of single manufacturing entity without relevant network information. It will not happen overnight. Companies will try to gain more information about networked world around them similarly to how GPS developers gathered information from other cars. Intelligent PLM software with network mind can provide a competitive power to future manufacturing. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Image courtesy of KROMKRATHOG at FreeDigitalPhotos.net


Will Minecraft Experience take off in design and PLM?

July 20, 2015

minecraft-plm-experience

We speak about new technological trends and how to simplify enterprise implementation. At the same time, large CAD and PLM deployments are experiencing integration and user experience challenges. File based paradigm is the one all mainstream CAD systems are supporting. The challenges of enterprise integration and complex user experience are real and customers are experiencing it every day.

The article Collaborative Design Software in Today’s medical development is discussing few trends and gives few examples how to solve these problems. It brings back the idea of gamification, but takes it for real with the example of Minecraft software. Here is the passage from an article:

Gathering online to design buildings and cities, more than 100 million people worldwide are registered users of the low-resolution video game Minecraft. In early 2015, the pocket edition of the game for iOS and Android devices passed the 30 million download mark. Called by some the Legos of the 21st century, Minecraft is more than just a game, it’s a sign of where design is going.

The idea of cloud software that can stitch fragmented data is appealing as something that will take off in the future PLM platforms. This is where execs from both Autodesk and Dassault Systems are agreeing. According to Carl White of Autodesk:

“When we came off the drafting board into CAD, we were looking for ways to get rid of the roadblocks in design,” says Carl White, senior director of manufacturing engineering products at software provider Autodesk. “One of those last roadblocks is fitting different designs together. With the cloud, you’re not dealing with different designs. You have one version of the product, and everyone’s using that.”

Somewhat similar idea of integrated experience is coming from Monica Menghini of Dassault Systemes.

“Our platform of 12 software applications covers 3D modeling (SOLIDWORKS, CATIA, GEOVIA, BIOVIA); simulation (3DVIA, DELMIA, SIMULA); social and collaboration (3DSWYM, 3DXCITE, ENOVIA); and information intelligence (EXALEAD, NETVIBES),” explains Monica Menghini, Dassault executive vice president and chief strategy officer. “These apps together create the experience. No single point solution can do it – it requires a platform capable of connecting the dots. And that platform includes cloud access and social apps, design, engineering, simulation, manufacturing, optimization, support, marketing, sales and distribution, communication (PR and advertising), PLM – all aspects of a business; all aspects of a customer’s experience.”

Both examples are interesting and can provide some space to fantasy about future ideal experience when files are gone and applications are integrated. However, the real life is much complex and can set many roadblocks. Here are top 3 things that design software companies need to solve to open roads towards future PLM minecraft universe.

1- Platform openness. It is hard to believe customers will use a software package from a single vendor. What is the future concept of openness that will be powerful enough to support companies’ business and don’t block customers workflows?

2- Legacy data. Engineering and manufacturing companies are owning a huge amount of existing data. This is live IP and knowledge. How to make them available in new platforms? This is not a trivial problem to solve from many aspects – technical, legal and time.

3- Educational barrier. Technologies are easy, but people are hard. Vendors can bring new technologies and platforms. At the same time, people will be still looking for known and familiar experience. Yes, new generation of people likes web and online. But engineering and manufacturing workforce is different.

What is my conclusion? Minecraft experience is a brilliant marketing idea. However, I’d be thinking first about customer adoption and transition. After all, many great product initiatives were dead on arrival because of customers had hard time to adopt it and use it in a realistic environment with existing data and everyday problems. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


Why cloud CAD is closer to solve some PLM problems than you think

July 18, 2015

cad-enterprise-data-share-plm-problem

One of the topics I’m following closely these days is cloud CAD development trend. To make cloud CAD work from the cloud, vendors must solve some fundamental data management and PDM problems first. The two most visible players in cloud CAD domain today are Autodesk Fusion360 and Onshape. Although Fusion360 was released almost 3 years ago, I can see some similarity in the way fundamental data management problems will be solved by both products. Note, that Fusion360 is using Autodesk A360 platform for data management. You might be interested to catch up with some of my previous writing about these systems – Autodesk and Onshape disagree about cloud technology and focus and How Fusion360 and Onshape are solving fundamental CAD collaboration problem.

To continue, I want to have a conversation about cloud CAD and Product Lifecycle Development. 3D CAD World recently published an article Onshape: Future of CAD – or Future of PLM? The article brings good points about Onshape built with data management in mind. Here is an interesting passage:

Steve Hess, another member of Onshape’s UX/PD team, followed up Gallo by posting: “As you know Onshape was built with data management in mind. The data management features of Onshape are at the core of the product and will become more exposed as Onshape matures. “In time, Onshape will be the system of record for all types of data & meta-data (data about the data) allowing you to run analysis and simulations…without having [to] copy or reproduce the information in another system. The data stored in Onshape will be visible and accessible to your other enterprise systems.”

Autodesk and Onshape are in a different time phases related to enterprise deployments. While Onshape just started with public beta version back in March, Autodesk released cloud based PLM 360 back in 2012. The last blog from Onshape can give you some interesting perspective on what cloud CAD and Onshape can offer to enterprises out of the box. Navigate to the following link – 5 Ways to advance your career with Onshape. Yes, it speaks about career opportunities, but I want to focus your attention on some technological and product capabilities of Onshape. It related to the native ability of Onshape to share 3D data using browser. One of the uses cases – introduce 3D to manufacturing. Here is my favorite passage:

Stop using email, FTP and Dropbox to share files. Let’s face it, every time you send a copy of a file to someone you create issues with file compatibility, data security or version control. Human error adds to the problem when assemblies are sent without part files, old versions are used, or email size limits are exceeded. There is a better way with Onshape. Just upload your existing CAD data into Onshape and hit “Share.” Now everyone can reference the same data, translate on demand when needed, and you can easily revoke a person’s access if you choose. You will reduce daily frustration while increasing your company’s control of its data.

Introduce 3D to the manufacturing team. Too often, there are a few licenses of 3D CAD being used for product design, while the people designing the fixtures and tooling are using older 2D systems – or even pencil and paper. With Onshape, the entire manufacturing team can experience the benefits of 3D design. You will introduce design efficiencies and give others the tools to drive innovation.

One of the functional requirements for PLM is to make data widely available and used across all teams in the company and extended enterprise. Although, it sounds simple, it was a challenging requirement for many PLM products. Two main reasons – product complexity and expensive licensing mechanism. Onshape has some good news here such as sharing data similar to Google Drive and free licensing model (according to my understanding when engineer shares model with somebody, person is getting free license automatically). The licensing issue is probably require some additional validation. I’m not sure what happens when number of shared document with a single person will grow beyond 5 documents limit. Of course, companies in specific industries might have a problem with public cloud both A360 and Onshape are using.

What is my conclusion? Cloud CAD is getting close to solve some fundamental 3D sharing problems. These problems caused traditional PLM to slow down in their ability to spread across company departments. It is web based, simple and (there is a chance) free or has affordable cost. So, both Onshape and Fusion360/A360 can solve problems that addressed today by premium features of traditional PLM systems. In my view, this is an interesting shift that can disrupt current PLM status quo. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Picture credit Wikipedia Data Share article


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 284 other followers