The anatomy of MultiCAD-PDM Integrations

February 19, 2012

After posting my last blog multi CAD and PDM- dead lock?, I’ve got quite many emails and calls. It again proved to me that the topic is painful and require clarification. I’ll be setting up few follow up conversations following weeks. Today, I want to provide some background and clarify few basic things related to Multi-CAD and PDM.

The scope of Multi-CAD PDM

One size doesn’t fit all. Companies are using multiple CAD systems. Functional specialization, acquisitions, mergers and existing skill set. All these factors lead to the questions of how CAD systems exchange the information. It is about formats and interoperability. PDM multi-CAD is not about it. Since PDM is largely about the control and data share, multi-CAD PDM is about how to organize an environment in which engineers (and other people in your organization) will be able to use PDM will all CAD systems and files.

CAD-PDM: Immersive integration

Immersive integration is the trend in CAD/PDM which was formed for the last decade. It allows CAD users to interact with PDM within CAD environment. It simplified a lot design interaction and helps PDM to have a better control over the design process.

CAD-PDM plug-ins

Plug-in is a piece of software normally written using CAD API that allows PDM functionality inside of the CAD system. It includes functionality related to PDM control – open, check-in, check-out, release, etc. In addition to that it allows to support multiple CAD functional areas (I’m trying to avoid word ‘feature’ in order not to interrelate it with CAD parametric design features).

CAD complexity and PDM plug-ins

The growing complexity of CAD systems made PDM development quite complicated for the last 5-7 years. CAD systems made lots of functional enhancement, which made development of CAD-PDM in a nightmare. Add to that CAD releases, and you understand why CAD vendors got an ultimate advantage to provide a better CAD-PDM integration for their own CAD and PDM systems. It happens because of availability of internal knowledge, specific APIs and release process.

Customer needs and MultiCAD – PDM

MultiCAD environment is a reality of many companies. In such situation, customers are following two possible strategies 1- to follow dominant CAD + PDM strategy; 2- to form multi CAD/ PDM environment. The availability of a specific CAD-PDM integration is an ultimate deal/no-deal requirements in many situations.

Openness and API

In many situations, basic PDM and CAD integration can be achieved by using open API and system customization capabilities. These are important characteristics both PDM and CAD side. Availability of such instruments can decrease the pain around MultiCAD -PDM plug development.

CAD and PDM software releases and upgrades

Last, but now least- this is another pain point of Multi-CAD ODM plug-ins. Most of CAD and ODM releases are following one-year cycle. At the same time, customers are not always following all upgrades. To support multiple CAD releases in a single PDM is another place where precise synchronization between CAD and PDM development process is required.

What is my conclusion? The topic of MultiCAD PDM isn’t new. Let’s face the reality, because of the absolute importance, companies easy can get provoked to use it as a competitive advantage. In addition to "openness" in general, the ultimate way to solve this problem is Open API. I believe Open APIs is the most important strategic factor for companies to be competitive in the future. Just my thoughts… I’m looking forward to your comments and future discussions. Stay tuned for more posts about that.

Best, Oleg

3 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Multi-CAD and PDM: Dead Lock?

February 17, 2012

This post was provoked by twitter conversation between me, Jonathan Scott of Razorleaf and Brian Roepke of Autodesk. Let me give you a context. During SolidWorks World general session yesterday, Jonathan commented about comingSolidWorks EPDM integration with DraftSight – free CAD software for your DWG files. I thought, it might be beneficial to have DraftSight integration with Autodesk Vault. However, it appears to be a mistake. Watch that…

This conversation made me think again about what happens in the space of integration of product data management products and design software. Time ago, I posted – Immersive CAD management: is it the CAD / PDM future? Another post related to the same topic was – Back to basics: Multi-CAD and PLM. Last year, I posted CAD, PDM and PLM diversity. What I found common between all these cases is that I can see more and more stable bundles between CAD and PDM systems.

I can see an increased demand for better data-management functionality in CAD systems. The integration of data-management applications increased over the past 2-3 years. Vendors started to think about PDM functionality like revision management and vaulting as a standard function in CAD applications. Dassault V6 took this process even future and introduced CATIA V6 bundled with ENOVIA server.

In my view, CAD-PDM integration played a significant role in the first wave of broad PDM adoption. Multi-CAD support was (and still is) considered as an important function of PDM (and sometimes even PLM) system. To support heterogeneous environment, pure play PDM/PLM vendors must include multi-CAD support. It happened almost to all vendors in PDM/PLM space. On the opposite side, CAD/PDM vendors decided to strength their bundles and prefer to integrate data-management systems only with their own CAD systems. In my view, Multi-CAD integration is a painful issue for pure-play PDM/PLM vendors like Arena, Aras and future others. The complexity of CAD integration with PDM and PLM systems create a significant competitive advantage for CAD vendors to bundle their own PDMs right. At the same time, PDM providers from CAD vendors are less interested to provide support for "non-home-based" CAD systems.

What is my conclusion? I can see a certain dead-lock between the need for multi-CAD PDM systems and interest of CAD/PDM vendors to protect their business. Customers are demanding PDM systems like TeamCenter, Autodesk Vault, SolidWorks EPDM to support Multi-CAD features. However, it looks more and more like a dead-lock. PDM system will be embedded into CAD environment and will become part of the whole design environment. It doesn’t mean new innovative companies won’t try to break this dead-lock. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

6 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PLM and Multiplatform Development

December 28, 2011

Please welcome a new-old word – multiplatform. When did you hear about for the last time? For those of you counting 15+ years in the industry it reminds the time CAD was a place of heavy workstation with ***NIX operation systems, etc. For a very long period of time, CAD and PLM were a place where 99% of software was developed on top of Microsoft platforms. I touched this topic in my blog almost a year ago. Navigate to this link to refresh your memories. So, I decided to come again to this topic.

The diversity of software-development platforms for engineering and manufacturing these days is much broader than 2-3 years ago. Apple, Table, Android, iPad – all these names came to the play recently and changed the landscape of what we do. Take a look on the following chart I made playing with these names on Google Trends:

PLM – Legacy and Integration Services

These two topics become even more important in the context of multiple platforms and enterprise software (PLM is a typial use case). Existing implementations need to be support. Service companies and IT will make implementation and develop new solutions based on the software provided by vendors. This is a very complicated set of dependencies.

What is my conclusion? I think, world changed again, and we are moving from mono-development culture to multiple platforms again. It raises multiple decision points in front of software vendors and service providers. It looks like coming years will provide a bigger challenge to these companies to make a right choice about how to balance between legacy and future, existing platforms and future trends. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Leave a Comment » | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PLM Think Tank November top 5

December 11, 2011

I’m a bit late with my top 5 review for November. It was a tough month for me because of travels. I made double-Vegas. What does it mean you can ask? It means that Vegas this year became a top PLM destination. Back in June, PTC organized their annual conference in Vegas. However, in November, both Dassault System and Autodesk managed to have their annual customer events (DSCC 2011 and AU 2011) in Las Vegas.

I wasn’t surprised by the results of November’s top 5. Clearly, Autodesk with the announcement about Nexus PLM made a hit. Top two most viewable topics on my blog are related to Autodesk. So, with this short intro, let me take you to the list.

Autodesk Enters PLM: Everything Changes… for Autodesk

Autodesk is taking a huge step forward to deliver a different PLM. This is a significant step for the company that was focused on design tools for many years, starting from early AutoCAD days back 1980s. I liked cloud-based strategy and how it was presented by Autodesk. I can see it very promising. The analyzes presented by Autodesk people in PLM spaces shows that Autodesk is definitely learning from mistakes made by “big 3″ mind-share PLM providers. Focusing on processes is an interesting approach. However, it is important not to loose “data” grounds – it happened to many companies in the space of “business process management” (you can read more about this in my post – PLM controversy about process vs. data management). I want to learn more about Vault/ Nexus bundle. In my view, it contains a potential danger (similar to what happened with SolidWorks n!Fuze). Overall, I can see Autodesk is in the beginning of PLM learning curve. It is a very interesting time, and I’m looking forward to many fruitful PLM discussions.

Autodesk PLM Nexus – First Hands On Demo

Nexus PLM has nice and slick web user experience. Without practicall hands-on it is hard to say something about ease of navigation and the estimate the number of clicks you need to do to perform an action (click-per-action). These two things normally drive crazy users in data-oriented web environment. I found very positive the fact Autodesk is thinking about “insane customization”. However, it will be interested to see and experiment with how the complexity of customization will co-exist with cloud-based multi-tenant deployment. It reminds me one of my old posts – Is PLM customization a Data Management Titanic? Another critical aspect that wasn’t covered is data import or integration with existing systems (i.e. Files, Archives, Content Management, PDM, PLM, ERP, etc.). The answer Autodesk provided pointed to some internal development with Autodesk Vault as well as a future work with partners. That would be very interesting to see in the future. Overall, Nexus has a potential to disrupt. I’m looking forward to seeing how Autodesk will realize this potential.

PLM: Controversy About Process vs. Data Management

I think the failure to design data access in organizations, was a recipe for disaster for many PLM implementations. PLM programs were focused on “how to improve processes” and forgot about how to put a solid data foundation to support cross-departmental process implementations. So, I’d like to put a quote from Bell Helicopter’s presentation during DSCC 2011 as something PLM vendors and customers need to remember – “to get the core data right first”. Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.

Autodesk: CAD is done. Now PLM. The moment before AU…

You can see how Carl Bass, Autodesk CEO re-defines ‘business casual’. In addition, I’m trying to make my conclusion about what I’ve heard in the connection with PLM. Autodesk is definitely recognizing PLM as a future opportunity. After what was done in PLM by Dassault, Siemens PLM and PTC, to democratize PLM will be probably a biggest challenge for Autodesk. Just my thoughts…

DSCC 2011: How Dassault Blends PLM and Search Based Applications?

Dassault is clearly innovating by adding Exalead technology to their portfolio. As Laurent mentioned during our conversation, everybody these days understood that the ability to handle information becomes very important. Search technology is an interesting competitive advantage Dassault is having. Compare it other CAD/PLM players (Siemens, PTC and Autodesk) – they need to outsource these capabilities to companies acquired by Oracle, Microsoft and HP. I believe Exalead will be used by Enovia to improve their search capabilities. I haven’t seen a demo of this, but assume Dassault will replace Autonomy OEM by Exalead. Delivery of EXA-like applications sounds like an interesting trend. However, speaking about Enovia vs. Exalead platform it is still hard to see how they are blending together. Which, of course, can be played nicely by saying – it is all part of DS V6… voilà. Just my thoughts, of course.

Best, Oleg

Picture credit to Shaan Hurley blog

Leave a Comment » | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Crowd-sourcing in CAD / PLM software development

December 11, 2011

The topic of crowd-sourcing is fascinating these days. Community based development is interesting topic, and I’m continuing to follow different aspects of crowd-sourcing and finding new examples. I had a chance to write about Local Motors few weeks ago – it was a perfect example of crowd-sourcing and community-based development. Earlier today, I had a chance to read about interesting examples of how Autodesk is using crowd-sourcing to improve localization of their products. Localization is a complicated topic. Even if you’re hiring the best bi-lingual people, your software won’t be perfect.

Autodesk is proposing for users of Inventor 2012 to participate in the project to improve Autodesk Inventor translation. Navigate to the following link (in Russian) and you can see how you can propose a new translation for a specific term and / or command.

I found another interesting example in crowd-sourcing in PLM software – Aras Community roadmap. Navigate to following link and see how you can actually "vote" for specific features and functionality.

This story is specifically ineresting in my view. The ability of software vendor to manage in a very precisely way what features and functionality need to be implemented is a complicated product management objective. To use crowd-sourcing principles in this project is a very interesting and innovative approach, in my view.

What is my conclusion? Crowd-sourcing is fascinating and inspiring. I think it opens additional opportunities in the way nobody thoughts before. It is promising, and I’m expecting more in the future.

Best, Oleg

Leave a Comment » | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

BOM and CAD-PDM-PLM-ERP Integration Challenges

November 3, 2011

I want to talk about Bill of Material and integration today. The reason why I’m coming to this topic is largely because I have a feeling "integration" will play a significant role in the future of product lifecycle management and enterprise systems in general. Two days ago, I’ve been writing about two approaches "unification" and "integration" in PLM. One of the main reasons why, I think, CAD/PLM companies decided to focus on "unification" is a struggle with integration. Time ago it started from integration between CAD and PDM. Since then, multiple other topics were added to the story of integration between multiple systems. So, one of the objectives companies put in front of them investing into unification was to simplify deployment of integrated systems.

BOM and Integrations

What I learned from multiple integration projects I’ve been involved for the last 10 years? Bill of Materials is the central piece of every integration story. The majority of integration topics are around how to handle BOM during all scenarios. The processes and implementation practices related to Bill of Materials are impacting in a significant way how a company will operate multiple systems (CAD, PDM, PLM, ERP).

Interesting enough, Bill of Material is also a centerpiece of all battles around how manage product data in various forms in multiple systems. It comes in a form of BOM synchronization between systems, definition of multiple BOM views, Product representations and many others. After thinking about possible integration scenarios, I’d like to come with three main challenges that exist in most of the integration projects (in most of the cases regardless on what systems are involved) – BOM Transfer, Item Data Synchronization and Single Bill of Material representation.

Integration Challenges

Challenge 1: BOM Transfer

This is a very complicated topic. Bill of Materials are everywhere. Drawings, CAD Systems, Engineering databases, ERP and Manufacturing systems. Even sales configurations requires a certain representation of BOM. The top waste, people want to eliminate is a need to entering information manually from one system to another system. Therefore, to automate the transfer is No.1 priority for many integration projects. However, it requires mapping of data and a lot of "hand-wiring".

Challenge 2: How to keep Item Data in Sync

Item information (or how ERP-related people saying Item Master) is a second important topic for the integration. In most of the companies, it is originated and maintained by ERP/MRP systems. However, when company is moving more towards cross-functional processes, the need to have item master information replicated and, sometime originated outside of ERP system, is growing.

Challenge 3: Where is my single BOM?

This is of the most challenging topic. Lots of companies are spending tons of time trying to decide how to maintain different flavors of BOMs in multiple systems, how to synchronize it and how to define what is the "ultimate single BOM". Some of the companies are taking a different approach and starting to manage so called "multiple BOM". Time ago, I spent some time discussing these topics. Read the following two blog post I published before: Is it a time for synchronized BOM? and Non-linear BOM perspective. Companies are spending lots of resources trying to find what is the right BOM management strategy. Lots of tools (including customized tools) are focusing on how to maintain bill of materials handling across multiple representations (aka systems).

What is my conclusion? BOM is a centerpiece of everything. You may lose control of 3D drawings’ versions and do everything in 2D. You can maintain change tracking manually. You may decide not to manage requirements. However, in my view, you cannot lose the control of items and bill of materials. As the number of systems involved into this process is growing, the complexity of keeping BOM under control becomes and more complicated. Many companies are avoiding management of Bill of Materials in multiple systems just because of this reason. As, one of my readers mentioned earlier this week – "you rarely can satisfy all your needs with a single system". So, I’m expecting more "integration challenges" in coming years from implementing CAD, PDM, PLM, ERP in various flavors and combinations. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PLM Think Tank October Top 5

November 2, 2011

The last week snow in Boston was kind of an event. I think, many of New England residents are still sitting without power and the internet. Which made me think about how dependent we are on the internet supply and how few choices we actually have when it comes to the service interruption. Talking about it, I really want to come to the topic which caused lots of discussion among readers of my blog and also CAD/PLM blogosphere – cloud. Navigate to the following link and read about my discussion with Ralf Grabowski about the future of Cloud. Now, let’s move to my traditional top 5 for October.

1 – PLM Definition and ERP Implementation Patterns

Manufacturing clearly wants to optimize product development processes across the enterprise. The single point of truth is leveraging the simplicity of SQL-database experience for the last 20 years. At the same time, centralization and replication of data are complicated and expensive processes. Managing phased implementation creates a set of new problems related to the ability to maintain the data transformation and synchronization within the time.

2 – Aras, SolidWorks and Disruptive PLM Strategies

Aras is clearly playing a role of a disrupter on PLM market. Back in 2007, Aras disrupted PLM first time by introducing Open Source PLM. It looks like Aras is on the way to make a second disruption among large companies using SolidWorks and taking a role of Enovia V6 in a bundle EPDM / EPLM. Enovia clearly has a technological advantage of having unified development forces in their new Dassault facilities in Waltham, MA to develop “best in class” Enovia V6 / SolidWorks EPDM integration. The speed of customer adoption will be a key factor for Aras.

3 – Cloud and Next Generation of BOM

I think, cloud and other web-based solution can introduce many advantages. One of them is to streamline BOM access by members of the team. Think about BOM as a Google spreadsheet and you probably can get excited by how it may change the way you work. However, cloud technologies introduce new challenges (especially in the field of integration) that need to be solved.

4 – CAD, PLM and Visual Reporting

I think, slowly, but surely, CAD and PLM vendors are starting to understand the value of the ability to present data reports and visualize them nicely. It recognized by many vendors (and just brought examples of Siemens PLM, Dassault Systems and Autodesk). In my view, we are going to see more examples of how reporting capabilities can increase the value of products and make it more usable.

5- PDM Cartoons, Marketing and Unsolved Problems

Few weeks ago, I’ve been interviewed during Autodesk Forum in Moscow. The conversation was about social networks and the question I’ve been asked was – What is next after “Like”? For the sake of the story, my answer was “+”. However, let me shift gears a bit. Thinking about PDM Cartoons I came to the question – “What is next after PLM?”. I found many things marketed as “PLM” functionality presented in these PDM cartoons. Does it mean “PDM” will be the next step after “PLM”. Who knows… The only thing is clear to me – lots of problems in manufacturing organizations cannot be solved by application of yet another “power point deck”. It is time to think what software can do so. The complexity is not in favor these days. Companies are trying to find a different way to solve existing problems.

Best, Oleg

Leave a Comment » | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

CAD, New Collaboration and Online Storage Services

October 31, 2011

Let me ask you a very silly question? How many times you abandoned you official company policy for data sharing and shared your files via Google, Dropbox or other services? Well, you don’t need to answer… I’m sure you did at least once. The amount of services helping us to share files online (cloud sharing) is growing. They compete by providing a different set of features, additional free storage or unmatched usability and simplicity. Last week Dropbox made an announcement of Dropbox for Teams introducing a new storage capacity (1TB) and new way of billing for companies. Here is the announcement – Dropbox Gets More Business Like. It made me think again about what does it mean for engineers and people in manufacturing companies.

Online Storage Experience?

I’m not pretending to mention all providers of online storage. My personal usage is limited on a daily basis to Google and Dropbox. However, I made a try of few other services as well.

DropBox For Teams

Dropbox originally came with their super simplicity. It was easy to set up and start using. I still believe it is so and use this service occasionally for different purposes. To sync data between my laptop and iPad is one of them.

Box.net

I think box.net has a larger set of features when it comes to collaboration and team usage. However, compared to Dropbox they provide less storage for the same price

SugarSync

I found SugarSync service is nice, worked well with most of computers /systems I tried. Folders sharing feature is cool. Another interesting solution – integration into Outlook is also can be valuable for business users.

Minus

The Minus service is probably less known among others. I specially liked they level of how easy you can start using it as well as share files.

CAD Online Collaboration Services

CAD companies are thinking how to introduce their online services too. In the beginning of this year, SolidWorks introduced n!Fuze for SolidWorks. Last month, Autodesk introduced their new Autodesk Documents cloud services too. The obvious advantage of these tools is included connection to CAD content and additional viewing capabilities.

What is my conclusion? Drop Box for Team as well as other tools are cool and affordable. However, will it compete with specialized services such as Autodesk Cloud, n!Fuze for SolidWorks and some others? I don’t think so, for the moment. Their feature list is too narrow for CAD files. However, here is the thing. I definitely can recommend CAD vendors to learn how all these services are designing their user experience. It will allow to improve usability of specialized CAD-oriented services. What CAD vendors can learn – usability, usability, usability. In my view, very important. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Image: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Cloud, Head’s-down CAD Drafters and Technological Analogies

October 28, 2011

Earlier this week, my attention was caught the article Cloud is Dead by Ralph Grabowski. Following some of Ralph’s thoughts, I found myself in a strong disagreement with his position and decided to share my view. The main point of talk is around two aspects – head’s-down drafters and technological analogies.

Cloud and Head’s-Down Drafters

Ralph is raising the point of CAD cloud and so called "head’s-down drafters". Here is the passage:

The cloud is no utility to head’s-down drafters, the kind who work hard to push out drawings, the bulk of which are still 2D. (If that were not the case, then AutoCAD LT would not be Autodesk’s non-stop best-selling CAD package, year in and year out.)

I found this association is very narrow. In my view, cloud (as well as some other technologies) creates the opportunity to optimize your work. Mobile access and cloud are going to revolutionize the way information becomes available. Getting back to head’s-down drafters, it will give them the ability to access information remotely as well as share drafts with people in different locations. Paper will be gradually replaced by tablet devices in the field, as well as the information about "the cost of change" can become available to a sales person working with a potential customer far-far-away from the engineering department.

Technological Analogies

Another place where I felt the need to clarify Ralph’s claim is related to the cloud technology. Here is the passage:

Furthermore, cloud technology is not so new. Those of us who started in computing more than 20 years ago are likely familiar with client-server computing (also known as "mainframe-terminal" or "time-sharing" computing) and so are well-acquainted with its failings. Cloud computing is the new clothes for the old emperor, who today struts again naked.

Here, the association with mainframe and time-share terminals is absolutely wrong. To take the cloud down as a "transmission service" only is too narrow too. I’ve heard similar claims among IT people trying to present the cloud as "no big deal" and something like "just take my servers to another location". In my view, the real power of the cloud is in application of elastic computing, multi-tenant systems and finally re-definition of software cost-structure.

Appropriate Use of the cloud, please

Here is one thing, I agree with Ralph about the cloud. Appropriate use of the cloud, please. The power of workstation, especially when it comes to the combination of local storage and size of information required for 3D and 2D drawings cannot be replaced by the cloud. This is can keep existing CAD systems alive. At the same time, growing storage capability and low cost can bring emerging technologies empower cloud-based rendering (i.e. just published OTOY-Autodesk announcement) and outperform local workstation.

What is my conclusion? Cloud is dead. Long live the cloud. No, this is not about future Dassault V6 technology :) . Let’s define what cloud technology we are talking about. If this is a technology that allows you to virtualize computing power, deliver elastic scalability and high availability, push cost down and enable easy data sharing across multiple locations and devices – thumbs up! However, if this is about how to move existing 15 years old CAD / PDM / PLM servers to hosted location and use the same slowish client-server technology over the internet – this type of cloud is dead. Just my thoughts… YMMV.

Best, Oleg

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

3 Key Cloud Principles: Will CAD/PLM follow?

October 7, 2011

I’ve been watching what happens around Oracle Open World 11 earlier this week. Among multiple topics, the announcement about Oracle Cloud and controversy around cancellation of Mark Benioff’s keynote caught my attention. Oracle unveils “Oracle Public Cloud” and claims “no locking” there. You can read Oracle announcement here. Navigate your browser to the following Informationweek article to read more. Oracle announcement and Salesforce Mark Benioff canceled keynote raised lots of discussions about the cloud, options, single tenant vs. multi-tenant cloud solution and much more. Take a look on the following passage from Information Week about that:

Ellison underscored the difference between Oracle’s public cloud approach and Salesforce’s by saying a Java Enterprise Edition application would run in either Oracle’s or Amazon Web Services’ EC2 infrastructure, but it wouldn’t run in Salesforce’s. The Oracle cloud will be “open and standards based,” he said. “If you want Apex, that would be Salesforce,” he said, referring to Saleforce’s proprietary language. “The Salesforce.com cloud is kind of sticky. You can check in, but you can’t check out. It’s the roach motel of clouds,” he said. The contrary-to-Salesforce focus came just four hours after Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff held his own event next to Oracle OpenWorld where he attacked Oracle’s “single tenant” approach to selling software and its retro commitment to “Exadata mainframe machines.”

Here is Oracle’s definition of public cloud.

At the same time, Mark Benioff of Salesforce counter argument with Oracle about what is “True Cloud” solution. I’m not sure claiming ” true” or “false” is something that actually can apply. You can watch an interesting video Q&A where Benioff explains what means “true cloud” as well as shape out three key cloud principles.

3 Key Cloud Principles and CAD/PLM

According to Benioff, the following 3 principles are absolutely important when you are talking about cloud solutions. Here they are:

1- Portable Logic

2- Portable Data

3- Open API

I found these three principles resonated with some of my thoughts about how CAD/PLM cloud solutions can be organized. Yesterday, I was discussing Autodesk cloud announcements. Few weeks ago, I was trying cloud solutions from Dassault. It is very interesting to see if we can apply these 3 key cloud principles to CAD/PLM cloud solutions. Here are my initial thoughts.

Portable Logic

Nobody in CAD /PLM world is talking about portable logic. I believe this level of details is not available (at least to me). Both, Autodesk and Dassault are claiming to leverage Amazon’s AWS, which means for me virtualization on the level of server environment and not on the level of business logic and components.

Portable Data

This is even more interesting. Is it possible to get data from Autodesk cloud and place it to Dassault cloud? If we talk about CAD, we will be going back to discussions about CAD formats. If we talk about PDM/PLM solutions, the situation can be even more complex. Each data-management solution relies on proprietary data schema and servers. When it still not clear what will be core cloud data management solution for Autodesk, Dassault already announced that Enovia V6 is a platform to be used for all Dassault cloud products. How to make Enovia V6 data portable is another interesting question to discuss.

Open API.

It is, probably, the easiest topic and CAD/PLM providers are dealing with this already many years. A really interesting question – how many of APIs will be available on the cloud? I wasn’t able to find this information either.

What is my conclusion? I think CAD/PLM cloud battle is yet to come. Autodesk and Dassault are two major players on this scene and they are just gathering capabilities and checking arsenals of their cloud solutions. I’d expect next few years to be especially interesting to see how CAD/PLM vendors will develop cloud solutions and test it on their existing and future customers. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers