PLM Open Source: Strategic or Off Road?

March 17, 2011

I’m watching closely everything that happens around with Open Source. The world of Open Source is changing all the time. Remember, in the beginning it was about Linux. Then it comes to other places – content management, CRM, enterprise search, mobile platforms and many other places. What happens with manufacturing and engineering systems? Is there a place where Open Source can provide some advantages? I read an article Open Source Software Hits a Strategic Tipping Point by Laurie Wurster. The author discusses what traction Open Source getting in the industry. Here you can see some information about the level of Open Source acceptance on the picture below provided by Gartner.

Picture-25.png

These numbers made me think about what possible path Open Source can take in engineering and manufacturing software segments.

Open Source Debates

I can observe multiple debates in the software community about what is Open Source and what software can be qualified as Open Source. In general I can see an open source as a model that promotes availability of the software source code to the system end users and following modification. However, the model, is not clean and transforming all the time. Some disputed models in this space are community-based development as well as mixed licensing where some of the system code is proprietary and another piece is open under one of avaialble open source licenses. Alternative, stricter definition refers to the Gartner’s definition of Open Source as a software released under Open Source Initiative licenses.

Open Source and Engineering Software Segments

In my view, Open Source might have a different potential in engineering and manufacturing software segments. It depends on the level of specialty, community size and existing software product and vendors strategy in this segment. In general, I can see an open source trend is to go bottom up from more generic type of software to more specific one. The size of the potential community is also very important. For example, CAD/CAE is a segment, which can be characterized by very specific skills, large number of mature products and software vendors. Despite few examples (Archimedes, BRL-CAD,avoCADo), I think, chance for CAD Open Source is relatively low in coming few years. On the other side, data management has a wider implementation scope. There are several mature open source products in this space such asMySQL, Cassandra and others, so a potential data management solution such as PDM can be very possible created by community of data-oriented developers. The last segment I wanted to touch is so called "software for collaboration". In my view, this is one of the most confusing in the space of engineering and manufacturing. At the same time, there are many open source tools in this category that can provide a value and can be easy enhanced with additional features.

What is my conclusion? I think Open Source gains acceptance and making progress in diverse fields. Depending on the application field it can become strategic or get off road. However, your organization needs to have a set of skills to make an open source happen. It is all about implementation, changes, coding, testing. It cost money and resources. Multiple tools can be combined into compelling solution. Do you think Open Source is for your organization? What flavor of Open Source do you prefer and see more applicable? I’m going to discuss it next month during my Beyond PLM panel on Aras Community Event (ACE) next month.

Best, Oleg
Freebie.

1 Comment | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PLM and Complex Products

October 26, 2010

Early this week I had a chance to read the following blog post by Accidental Product Manager – Really, Really Complex Products: Is PLM Software the Solution? I found it short and insightful. Have a read and make your opinion. The question asked by Dr. Jim Anderson opens an unusual angle of conversation about PLM. Why I see it this way? The product lifecycle management concept was born as the solution to support OEMs in aerospace, defense and car manufacturing industry. I can hear people are discussing the mainstream usage of PLM for smaller companies. However, when talking with major PLM vendors (Jim’s blog points on Siemens PLM), you may think large OEMs (Jim’s points on Toyota) are taking PLM as something that they cannot live without.

There are thee main problems that can pop up when you will start using PLM software: Software compatibility, Missed Errors and Bad Data. Jim mentioned some industry use cases to describe problems (i.e. A380 delay, Toyota virtual tests). In addition he pointed on the complexity of IT related to these solutions. I think these are excellent points to discuss.

Tools Compatibility and FFF

Everybody in manufacturing is familiar with FFF term (Form, Fit, Function). When you design your products, you ultimately can use replaceable parts. The concept of FFF helps you to define if one part can be replaced by another part. I believe, the same practice can be applied to a software when it comes to usage multiple versions of tools. I can agree with Jim – compatibility tests are complicated and not always obvious. This is the place when CAD and PLM vendors can definitely innovate. The main point here is the ability to migrate from one software package version to another. By making this process smooth, PLM vendors to make life of manufacturers easier.

Physical Products and Virtual Errors

The question of how virtual tests can be adequate and represent physical products is not new. I think, manufacturing industry made significant progress in the last 20 years by replacing of physical tests by virtual tests. However, planning of virtual tests is something that still requires people’s experience. The interesting potential in this domain is to increase the ability of PLM software to monitor physical objects (cars, planes, ships, etc.) during their lifecycle. This monitoring will allow to build more trustful virtual tests.

Bad Data and Linked Data

Enterprise companies operate with a huge amount of electronic data sets scattered among disparate data sources. PLM system is an island in the huge amount of data. Integration problem is not a new one. For the last 15 years, I’ve seen multiple attempts to resolve the problem of data consolidation. EAI, Federation, Master Data Management and Data Warehousing is only short list of the technologies and products in this space. In my view, there is a potential here to solve the problem of "Bad Data" by starting to link islands of data in enterprise organization. This is a big and challenging task.

What is my conclusion? PLM software was born to provide a solution for Product Lifecycle Management. However, I agree with Jim – this is not a silver bullet. You need to think about PLM software as a set of tools helping manufacturers to solve their product management and product lifecycle related problems. To find a right set of tools is a challenge for every manufacturing shop (especially a big one). Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

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

Do We Need To Manage CAE Data in PLM?

February 4, 2010

I want to discuss CAE today. CAE is considered as a technology to support engineers in tasks such as analysis, simulation, design, manufacture, planning, diagnosis, and repair. CAE considered as a mainstream technology applied for design and manufacturing. In my view, CAE is one of the major sources of engineering information in the organization.

CAE coverage includes:

  • Stress analyzes
  • FEA
  • CDF
  • Kinematics
  • Event simulations
  • Process simulations

However, the topic I want to discuss today is an intersection of CAE and PLM. To be more specific about what system supposed to manage CAE related data? In my view, this topic is heavily missed in most of PDM and PLM systems. Most of them are completely focused on CAD models, drawings and, lately Bill of Materials. At the same time, CAE, as a massive producer of engineering information about a product is not covered. What I found that high-end CAD systems have a more dedication to this topic, but still not enough, in my view.
What are the aspects of CAE that need to be covered by PLM as a data management platform:

  • Keep references on results of calculations and analyze. It will allow to have all relevant product records in one place.
  • To support variation of product data in case of work on alternative designs, configurations, etc.
  • Keep the historical record of analyzes for audit, regulatory and solving customer’s critical situations.

I found these capabilities undervalued and will be interested to hear about your experience and opinion.

Best, Oleg

Share

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

Who will be the first to use a cloud model in product development and PLM?

May 14, 2009

I read two posts this week took me that led me back to the cloud theme. One was NIST’s first try at common cloud definition. I liked its good classification of Characteristics, Delivery and Deployment models. Even if these definitions are still in a preliminary, immature phase, I think it’s good to see how this evolves.

Characteristics:

· On-demand self-services

· Ubiquitous network access

· Location independent resource pooling

· Rapid elasticity

· Pay per use

Delivery Models:

· SaaS – Software as a Service

· PaaS – Platform as a Service

· IaaS – Infrastructure as a Service

Deployment Models:

· Private Cloud

· Community Cloud

· Public Cloud

· Hybrid Cloud

The second post was Dezineforce, which talked about the availability of FEA and CFD packages on demand. It was nice is to see how this offering fits in particular models and uses cloud characteristics and capabilities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfpu5DL1rf8 .

So, with regards to the question – should PLM establish its own cloud? I think that currently, the answer is probably no. It looks like current infrastructure development will focus on long-term optimization of IT infrastructure. As a result, it will provide new type of platforms that PLM service companies will be able to use. It’s important during the next few years that PLM vendors will be able to recognize the potential need and acceptance of customers to subscribe and get benefits from specific PLM/PDM/CAD/CAE services.

I see two main inflation points: One is to deploy private clouds for very big customers. This is basically the same as having a global Web-based deployment. The second point is to provide CAE-related / calculation and other services that can fit pay-per-use models.

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

Should PLM 2.0 come with a new PLM format?

March 31, 2009

I’ll start with a disclaimer. I understand that to start a “format discussion” is at least as dangerous as starting a discussion about CAD interoperability. Nevertheless, I will try to turn this conversation away from “how to invent new universal format” to discussion and focus on “maybe we are missing the purpose of formats – it’s about aggregating data rather than protecting data from other CAD vendors”…

 I have been thinking about CAD/CAM/CAE/PDM/PLM and data formats for quite a while. On one hand, a file is a very natural way for desktop applications to store information. Therefore, lots of applications in our domain have used files for various purposes. On the other hand, with current technological development, including the mainstreaming of Web-related technologies, and the conversion from local desktop experience to live and connected experience, I came to the following conclusion: It’s time to change our current perspective on CAD/CAM/CAE/PDM/PLM related file definition?

 But let me take a step backwards for second. Does it make sense to talk about files in the 21st century? What do you think? In the world of internet applications, online services and cloud data services a discussion about files sounds archaic. But if we will turn this discussion in the direction of data encapsulation and information delivery mechanisms, talking about file formats will make sense in terms of how it’s possible to change things in the world of engineering and manufacturing enterprise applications.

 So, what could be the ultimate goal in creating a new PLM 2.0 format?

 Historically, all available formats were created as an accomplishment for the various tools (CAD/CAM/CAE etc.) to store their information. In the world of engineering and manufacturing, the majority of information was still managed by files. The exception is PDM and ERP application – but even in this case, they manage lots of vaulted data (actually files on servers) with having to add relevant metadata information. So, as each application domain created their data format, the results were that these formats have become very domain- oriented. I have to credit some of the activities like STEP/ISO in trying to create standardized representation of product data exchange, but even in this case, they created AP (Application Protocols) according to specific domains.

 I think that PLM 2.0 can offer how to package data across the application domain. It will prevent having to be locked to specific engineering tools. It must be able to be sent, for example, a CAD model together with CAE analyzes. Although I can come up with more examples the general idea is to come up with something that can encapsulate data in a user-oriented manner, compared to what we have today in a tool-oriented manner. In the end, this is can be bring a large added value of new PLM 2.0 technologies, similar to the value of Web 2.0 related technologies in making end-user-participation a model for the Web.

 I have to admit, that some of the discussions in the Enterprise Data Management and Architecture as well as GIS related field specifically inspired me to think about a new PLM format perspective. I’d like to mention the following shapefile 2.0 manifesto. Also, adding my previous thoughts about PLM and BIM, I think we will see more and more intersections of existing domains in the future, as a lot more will move towards a connected application world. 

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers