Daily PLM Think Tank Blog

Collaboration is one of the most overused words in Product Lifecycle Management. Even outside of PLM world, this term creates confusing. You never know what stands behind the next big thing in software for collaboration. In the past, software vendors in CAD, PDM, PLM, Supply chain, etc. made multiple efforts to develop “collaborative solutions”. However, “collaboration” is absolutely not only about CAD, PDM and PLM. Even opposite, if you will take a look on how many software vendors rushed to deliver solutions for collaboration, you will be amazed. Take a look on this Collaborative Software page in Wikipedia. You can see multiple examples of software.

Simplification is another interesting trend I’m watching these days. The ability to delivery “simpler user experience” becomes absolutely important to success in software. Few days ago, Google introduced “Structured Discussion” feature. You can read more about this feature in Google’s blog or the following TechCrunch publication. Watch this video and make your conclusion.

Google Structured discussion made me think about how similar functionality can be embedded into PLM software. More specifically it can be a nice feature to appear in engineering software. CAD and Viewers probably would be my first priority choice. I can easily find more examples. I found evidence vendors in PLM and around are actually also thinking about near the similar features.

Dassault 3DLive
Back in 2007 Dassault, released a new product called 3DLive. Navigate to Dassault website to learn more about this. When in 3DLive, users can communicate with other users via something called “buddy list”. Take a look on this picture below (thanks DE for this picture) Similar to IM, you can catch a conversation with people related to a particular assembly or part. I think, 3DLive provided some original ideas in communication, but was too complicated to implement and, in the beginning, had some limited to CATIA based environment only.

Vuuch

I found few publications about Vuuch Design Discussions from early 2009. The term “design discussion” is actually interesting. Vuuch provides to engineers the ability to make comments and communicate in a more efficient way by combining of discussion treads and design snapshot. The next picture is evidence of this feature. You can read more about this experience from Josh on his SolidSmack blog – Slapping Discussion Across the face of Design. I actually liked the way Vuuch presented it in the past. I tried to follow the “design discussion” term on Vuuch blog and actually found the new name for “collaboration” is “interaction“.

Siemens HD PLM

This is a bit about the future. Last year, Siemens PLM introduced the concept of HD PLM (High Definition PLM). I’m not familiar in details with what HD PLM can delivery, but learning from the website and videos, I found evidence of “discussion elements” in the HD PLM solution as well. You can see it in the following picture.

What is my conclusion? To help people to work together is extremely important. Software that makes it simple and intuitive can catch up very fast. Design and engineering environment in manufacturing companies is still a place where you need to read lots of user manuals before you start to understand to operate with the software. Even if I found evidence of the user interaction features in specialized software created for manufacturing, I found Google Structured Discussion features much cleaner and simpler to use. Simplification is a key. Just remember – MP3 player was available for years, but was replaced by iPod. This is probably the best example of simplification.

Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg

What is the most genius invention I’ve heard during the last week? What is your guess? Right! The cover of iPad 2. It was magically simple as everything in Apple. And after it happened it becomes so obvious.What can be simpler than to switch off device after you close the device cover? Ha!… Now try to do it on your PC laptop. I think, you understand what I’m talking about. iPad 2, even before it came to Apple stores, is creating a bigsecondary market of the existing iPad.

Think about existing PLM systems. They are getting older… What about PLM 2.0? Is it something that can come and leverage extensive experience of Google, the internet, Web 2.0 and the power of social networking? Then everybody will run to re-sell existing PLM apps to buy a new stuff. Dreams… I know. PLM vendors are coming with new stuff. PTC Windchill 10, Enovia V6, TeamCenter… New platforms, new apps, new dreams. Now, let’s talk about PLM Think Tank February Top 5.

Integrated PDM and PLM: Wrong Question?
Software has a long lifecycle in manufacturing companies. I found the lifecycle of PDM/PLM software systems is very complicated. Actually, it is as complicated as the product lifecycle they are managing. To change existing systems in a company can be a very costly decision. To re-use existing systems can be a complicated from the technical standpoint, but can lead to a faster ROI. It makes sense to me. The cost of integration can be a key in this story. So, a potentially “wrong question” can lead to the right answer.

PLM Platform Wars: Who is Right or Who is Left?
I wanted to remind wise and relevant words of Bertrand Russell: “War does not determine who is right – only who is left”. The war between PLM platforms can become a disaster for customers. Customers are spending million of dollars investing money in “unbreakable closed platforms”. Each of these systems contains lots of data, which has much bigger value compared to the software that eventually will be re-written every 5-10 years. I think, openness wins for a long run. In my view, PLM companies are only playing with openness. Who will take it seriously first? This might be a company that is left after the battle?

CAD, PLM and Product Cost
Costing is a very important topic, in my view. It is another place where MS Excel has huge market dominance. Software vendors slowly, but started to understand the importance of vertical cost integration. The solution in this space is not obvious and requires significant effort in data integration. So far, I’ve seen little activity in this space.

PLM Standard: From Formats to Frameworks
PLM need to move from the file formats battles to a place where the communication and process framework can be used to control data handsoff and decision making. This will become a new way in development of standards. Used by multiple companies frameworks can evolve into mechanism to realize PLM company roadmap. However, I don’t see one process template fits all companies needs. To have flexible communication and process management tools is absolutely important to make PLM framework successful.

Search Based Application and PLM Innovation
Search technologies are providing a clear advantage in future development of product lifecycle management. I can see a good chance for DS to improve their V6 platform by injecting Exalead stuff inside. At the same time, I don’t see SBA solving key problems of PLM such as complexity and implementation cost. Ownership of these technologies can provide some competitive advantages to Dassault. Other vendors can move to expanding partnership with other search vendors or using open source search technologies such as Lucene/Solr. Manufacturing companies of all sizes will be still interested in how to simplify products and make their next implementation for lower cost.

Best, Oleg