How to strip PLM down to minimum needed functions?

July 24, 2015


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

Tesla, iPad on wheels and BOM management complexity

October 29, 2014


The complexity of manufacturing is skyrocketing these days. It sounds reasonable for many of us when it comes to spaceships, jetliners and defense systems. You can think about car as something much simpler. Navigate to Ford Heritage website article – Ford Celebrates 100 Years of the Moving Assembly Line. The complexity of Ford Model T just about 100 years ago was few thousands parts:

One hundred years ago today, Henry Ford and his team at Highland Park assembly plant launched the world’s greatest contribution to manufacturing – the first moving assembly line. It simplified assembly of the Ford Model T’s 3,000 parts by breaking it into 84 distinct steps performed by groups of workers as a rope pulled the vehicle chassis down the line.


The situation is completely different these days and it raises concerns of cars reliability because of design complexity. My attention was caught Business Insider article – Consumer Reports Says Infotainment Systems Are Ruining Car Reliability. Picture in the article shows central computing unit of Tesla Model S. I’m not sure the concern of authors was specifically about Tesla, but I noticed the following passage:

“Of the 17 problem areas CR asks about in its survey, the category including in-car electronics generated more complaints from owners of 2014 models than for any other category.” Automakers have invested heavily in infotainment systems since consumers began demanding them in a wide variety of vehicles. Furthermore, the entire auto industry is looking forward to a future in which in-car electronics, displays, related infotainment systems, and advanced self-driving features will be increasingly prevalent, if not dominant. It can be difficult enough to engineer a highly reliable car from a strictly mechanical standpoint. There are quite literally a lot of moving parts. Bringing a whole new cluster of technologies into the picture has created additional pressures — and to a certain extent given Consumer Reports’ testers more to find wrong.

This article reminded me few topics I touched before on my blog. One of them is related to some of my speculation about future plans of Tesla to build their own PLM system. Another one is related to future need to combine engineering and software BOMs. I think, these are very critical elements of modern PLM system to serve the needs of many manufacturing companies. Tesla is probably an extreme case. But the question is for how long.

Here are some interesting examples about Tesla electronic and software. Navigate to Autoconnectcar article – Telsa S super connected car is a giant iPad on wheels? The article speaks about some interesting tear-down project made by IHS, which is known for tearing down smartphones and tables. IHS recently tore apart 2013 Tesla Model S. Read the article and watch few videos. The following passage gives you an impression of Tesla media control unit (the hub of infotainment and everything else in Tesla)

The Premium Media Control Unit is gigantic as compared to other cars with a 17″ diagonal display that controls the whole car with a NVIDA Tegra 3 1.4-gigahertz quad-core processor. It’s large, with ten printed circuit boards with wireless communications (Sierra Wireless 3G HSPA+ cellular module), GPS, Bluetooth/Wi-Fi (Parrot), a visual computing modual, DRAM, supporting components, touchscreen controller, display controller and motherboard. The instrument cluster is NVIDIA Tegra 2 based

The complexity of bill of material just for this unit goes beyond average smart TV set. Which can give you an impression of overall complexity. The article briefly mentioned future connected telematics with internet access. Which connects to even more complex topic of IoT complexity and scale I posted before – IoT data will blow up traditional PLM databases.

What is my conclusion? The challenges and complexity of product development and manufacturing are real. The wide spread of electronic and software in modern manufacturing products and the overall complexity level is growing up. While all eyes are now following Tesla, my hunch other cars are not much different and modern product development trends will not make car simpler. It raises many questions about requirements to PLM software capable to manage such level of complexity. PLM vendors and engineering IT architects can take a note and do some homework. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Pictures credit Business Insider article and Ford Heritage website.

PDM: Rightsize, Wrongsize, Overkill?

April 23, 2013

I want to talk about PDM today. Product Data Management is not a new topic. Companies are using PDM many years. However, here is a deal – after many years of PDM deployment, customers are still trying to avoid to implement PDM. You may think it is mostly small and medium companies, but it is not true. I’ve seen many large companies that are using files and folders structure to manage their design files and revisions.

You may think PDM overkill? The issue of "sizing" of PDM and PLM isn’t new as well. Navigate to one of my previous posts about that – PLM: Rightsizing vs. Wrongsizing Debates. My conclusion there – size doesn’t matter. Two major aspects of PDM/PLM deployment – user experience and cost of ownership. PLM needs to focus on these sooner than later.

I wasn’t alone in the discussion about PDM for SMB and rightsizing. My industry friends Chad Jackson and Jim Brown captured this topic in their regular talk show – Tech4PD. Navigate to this link to read more – Is Product Data Management Overkill for Small Design Teams? If you have few minutes watch the video.

The discussion made me think about two significant issues where PDM brings overkill to engineers. First and most important – nobody likes data management. If you are in a big company and your boss will tell you to use PDM, you do. However, if you have even a chance not to use PDM, you won’t miss that opportunity. Design is cool, but data management is boring stuff. So, if it is an absolute need, then you agree to use it. However, here is where the second question is coming – cost! The issue of cost is coming faster than you expected. It is not a cheap job to deploy PDM even for small company with 5-10 users.

What is my conclusion? Last 15 years of PDM didn’t solve the problem of user experience and cost for PDM. We still see high cost of PDM systems and user experience coming from last century. Customers are demanding new type of tools even going beyond what mainstream PDMs (eg. SolidWorks Enterprise PDM and Autodesk Vault) are capable to provide. The time for innovation is coming. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

“PLM journey” and thoughts about technology

April 3, 2013

PLM implementations are complex. How many times have you heard about that? I think a lot. Last 15-20 years of PDM/PLM business demonstrated that PLM and ease of implementations are not coming together. If, in addition to that, you ask for low cost, people might be thinking you are joking. I’ve been sharing my thoughts about PLM implementations and improvement of PLM adoptions earlier. The core problem that exists in PDM/PLM is complexity. Navigate to my old blog – Complexity Kills or Three Ways to Improve PLM Adoption to read more. In addition to that, I outlined 3 main factors impacting fast PLM adoption – massive customization, legacy data and integration with ERP. Read more here – 3 main factors of mainstream PLM adoption. PLM implementations are big, expensive and take long time. I called it "big mono-PLM projects". Customers are implementing PLM products that become legacy faster than an implementation ends. The investment made into this system deployment keeps them with old technologies and products and preventing customers from moving forward. Read the following article – PLM Implementation Lifecycle Challenges to get more confirmations and data points.

One of the opinions about PLM implementations is related to so-called "PLM business transformation". My blogging buddy Jos Voskuil refered it as "PLM journey" in his co-named blog post PLM is a journey. According to Jos, PLM requires significant effort including promoting PLM values to the minds of management in companies. Here is the passage, which explains it –

You would assume that the value PLM brings would make it a no-brainer. However for successful implementing PLM there is no standard approach (and definition). Often people believe PLM as an IT-solution. And the common sense is that you buy an IT-solution, you implement it and continue working in a better mode. That’s where the implementation fails as PLM is different. So let’s start our journey

Another aspect mentioned by Jos is related to the role of IT in PLM implementation. Because PLM, according to Jos, is a business transformation, IT cannot successfully manage this project. At the same time, it is hard to get people from specific functional units to be focused on the overall product development process improvements. This is how Jos explains that –

But when it comes to implementation, there is usually only one cross-disciplines unit that can accomplish this assignment: the IT-department. And here is the crucial mistake discovered time after time where PLM implementations fail. PLM is a business transformation, not an IT-system implementation. Business should lead this transformation, but it is very rare you find the right people that have the full overview, skills and availability to implement this transformation across departments. People from the business side will be primarily focused on their (small) part of the full process, leaving at the end the project to be done to IT.

PLM technological challenges

I would like to provide an alternative view on why PLM adoption is slow. It is a technological fault. The technology to solve complicated multi-domain data management problems and cross functional process improvements are not good enough and not ready to mainstream deployments. It requires extra effort and extra understanding how to deploy it successfully. Implementation take long time and, automatically, making technology outdated. Significant investment made by companies in long lifecycle technological products is not allowing to make agile improvements going up to speed with technological changes.

Most of PDM/PLM technologies and products these days were developed 10-15 years ago and it is not reflecting modern state of development coming out of new platforms, web, open source technologies, cloud and many others. It reminded me the initial phase of tablet computer development. Do you remember the early tablet computers? Refresh your memories by navigating to the following wikipedia link. I think some of your might remember this clunky device which require some extra effort to operate as a table and even touch using specially supplied pen interface.

It took time, effort and technological shift to deliver a modern generation of tablet computer – iPad. The spec of iPad was significantly different from early tablet laptop combos. The discussion about iPad limitation back almost 3 years ago reminds me some conversation about modern PLM technologies.

What is my conclusion? The realities of PLM implementations today are high cost, extensive need of services and expensive implementation. Which can be solved by hiring an army of consulting people to take a company through the "PLM transformation" period. That would be a "PLM journey" as we know it now. A potential alternative it to bring new level of technology that will provide new user experience, device independence as well as plug-n-play technology that eliminate needs to people to be involved into long implementations . Do you think it is a dream? I don’t think so… just my thoughts.

Best, Oleg

PLM Simplification: What to give up?

February 26, 2013

Simplification is a trending topic these days. Finally, everybody wants to simplify everything. Vendors are crying to simplify portfolios, developers are crying to simplify user experience, etc. I’ve been reading an interesting writeup about simplification – Simplicity: Fewer steps and Fewer options? by John Evans. I found the following passage the most important to me:

I asked engineers what they thought about simplification of their favorite software. The response was unanimous. “I like the idea, but what would I have to give up? I mean if I had to give up some of the tools that I use everyday, that would probably be a deal killer.”

In the past, I posted about PLM simplification – PLM Simplification: first drop PLM word. My idea back one year was that PLM needs to drop PLM word since it brings a lot of complexity to people. The question of what to give up is the most important when it comes to product development and PLM. Since, we are not talking about mobile phone, digital camera and even not automobile, the question of giving up features is probably less relevant. In my view, it is all about perception and how things can be visible to end users and developers. It made me think about two aspects – visibility of features and perception of complexity.

We like features. Remember old Windows toolbar era with zillion buttons and options. Still, many UIs of older enterprise systems have the same disease. How many of them are you using on daily basis? Not much. Think about MS World? How many of features in this application are you using? The second issue is connected. PLM software is heavily rooted to engineering world. Therefore to show complexity was important. Engineers like engineering toys and these toys need to be complex and powerful. However, when it comes to users in a whole company, the same "visible features and options" become a showstoppers to mass adoptions.

What is my conclusion? Answering on the question "what to give up?", I think PLM needs to give up on visible complexity. Don’t take me wrong and don’t get back to "OOTB PLM" circa 2000s. We need flexible and powerful software. However, we need to figure out how to make it simple and usable for 80% of users that needs it on everyday basis. This is where the science of nice user experience will come into the play. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

How to prevent PLM cloud from buying experience complexity?

December 17, 2012

Experience is one of the most popular words in tech these days. CAD and PLM vendors are part of this journey as well. I would like to talk about "buying experience". For many customers, enterprise software experience is actually starts from the moment company needs to make a decision what product (software) configuration to buy. PLM and other enterprise software price lists are well known by the complexity. Many products, options, configurations. In many cases, the final decision about the desired configuration of software package can be taken after the evaluation and pilot implementation. Very often, consulting and/or service company needs to be hired to help in software configuration choice.

Opposite to enterprise on premise software, cloud or SaaS software is coming with the model that supposed to simplify the decision process. Especially, when it comes to the buying decision. For many SaaS software companies, the simplification of buying process is one of the most critical elements to success. The configuration of SaaS product is combined from few options like the following one for I’m sure you can come with more examples like that.

Over the weekend, my attention was caught by the following article in ReadWriteWeb Enterprise – Cloud Complexity Clouts Enterprise Customers. Author speaks about complication of Amazon Web Service cloud – experience gathered from recent re:Invent conference. One of the sessions of the conference was completely dedicated to… billing. I found the following passage quite interesting:

The billing session came as a bit of a shock. One Apache OpenCloud committer who did not wish to be identified summed it up best: "If you have to have a session on billing, you’re doing it wrong."… It’s a valid argument, because while one should rightfully expect all levels of interest to be addressed at a trade show’s first run, it seems that something like billing for cloud services should be pretty simple and not in need of tutoring. This kind of complexity raises serious questions about the real value of using a public vs. private cloud in the enterprise.

I see the potential of PLM cloud to get infected with the "complexity disease". It can be easy inherited from on-premise PLM portfolios. It can also come from some examples of cloud complexity like the one above. This is a very dangerous trajectory. In my view, cloud software is all about easy experience – buying, starting to use, expanding. Vendors need to be focus how to get customers involved and make a decision fast. Renewal of the service is another key element of success. Complex buying experience and complex paying experience (including billing) won’t help cloud solutions to expand their positions in organizations.

What is my conclusion? The simplification is one of the most strongest trends today. It goes everywhere. Buying experience is one of the most critical elements, since it is one of the first interaction with vendor and software customer may have when he starts adopting a service. It is also critical from the standpoint of understanding software ROI. If you cannot understand your software bill, you most probably will have a problem to calculate ROI too. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Image courtesy of [pakorn] /

SharePoint got infected with PLM disease

September 19, 2012

I was long time I didn’t write anything about SharePoint. I’ve been tracking SharePoint for the last 5-7 years very closely. These days I can hear lots of talks about coming SharePoint 2013. Many of the customers I know are using SharePoint. Back in 2006-2007, the success of SharePoint comes from the ability to provide an easy starting solution to collaborate on files in folders. The technology was easy, came together with Windows server and was free as soon as you have paid Windows server license. It was easy to start and put you hands-on something that gives you value immediately.

Fast-forward to 2012. The situation is different in my view. SharePoint has an established ecosystem of developers, system integrators and support. At the same time, I’m learning that SharePoint became much more complicated. It is not easy to start using SharePoint and it certainly requires time and effort to install and configure SharePoint-based solution.

The following article came to my attention few days ago – Why SharePoint 2013 Isn’t for You. Have a read and make an opinion. I found the following passage important:

SharePoint is not an app that gets upgraded every month as part of an update cycle. It is a development platform for providing business solutions. Large clients who rolled out SharePoint 2010 in the past two years are going to find it hard to justify moving on to 2013 in the near future, unless they can find a business justification for spending the time and money it will take to make the transition.

With this state of mind, SharePoint finally can be qualified with PLM disease you’re familiar. It is hard to install, it requires business strategy and money to configure and support. Bottom line – it is a perfect vehicle to get service organization to earn money. However, the question is how many users will continue to use it and what will happen with SharePoint ecosystem as we move forward.

What is my conclusion? The demand of customers today is how to simplify things. It is certainly true for consumer-oriented software, it comes fast to enterprise as well. I can see many examples here of companies in ERP, CRM and other fields. So, I can see how enterprise software companies are moving towards making things easy. I’d be concerned if the software I use gets complicated and requires more effort to install and configure. PLM was and still there. Most of traditional PLM products are struggling of PLM disease of complicated installation, long implementation cycle and need for support and maintenance on site. Just my thoughts.. Are you using SharePoint and PLM today? What is your take?

Best, Oleg



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 290 other followers