3D CAD Future: How To Liberate Data?

April 26, 2010

Last week I had a chance to listen to Mike Payne during the COFES 2010 event in Scottsdale, AZ. Mike’s 18 minutes talk was entitled “Future of Mechanical CAD (Where does PLM fits In?). Mike provided a very interesting retrospective view on the history of mechanical CAD from initial 2D and all 3D evolution and revolutions. I personally liked his take on why 2D is still alive – “because it just works”. Whatever you’ll do in 3D will depend on the software you use. Whatever you are making in 2D can stay forever.

Mike’s view on the future mechanical CAD target was as following:
1. All in 3D

2. Discoverable (the learning curve is really fast)

3. Models unaffected by changes of software release

4. Intelligence built-in CAD tools

5. Data can be re-used between all apps

6. Interchange of best-of-breed tools

7. Based on Geometry and Topology

8. Inexpensive

9. Support for long term storage (i.e. PDF, STEP)

Mike Payne and Brad Holtz

For me the most interesting points presented by Mike were points 3, 4, 5, from the summary above. My short name to this change – “Liberate data from CAD tools”. In my view, they can present the biggest disruption in the 3D CAD industry since the introduction of the feature-based parametric modeling. Here is my take on this and why I think this change is so disruptive.

Dependencies on CAD vendor
In today’s world, companies are required to follow CAD vendors. Everything, they are creating in 3D is heavily dependent on the specific CAD application. It comes accumulated dependencies on the format of data, 3D features as well as a very long learning curve of CAD users in the companies. However, it creates huge benefits for vendors in the way of a maintenance revenue stream. It doesn’t mean you cannot shift between tools, however it presents a significant associated cost of change.

Competition On Tools
When/If dependencies on tools will be removed, the new form of competition can be presented. Vendors will be enforced to compete on a tool proper. The cost of change or switch between CAD systems will be no longer a factor in this competition. So, we can expect CAD market to become similar to the telecom market where a switch between previous and next mobile phone is zero for the end user.

Long Term Data Retention
Since intelligence will be introduced in CAD, forward data compliance will help to resolve the problem of long data storage. This is a very important topic for many industries, especially regulated ones. Some of them are required to keep data for 50-60 years. Today 2D is the ultimate way to do so (because it just work). Future may be different.

What is my summary today? The future Mike observed, sounds very disruptive for today’s CAD vendors. It can present a significant shift in business models and competitive landscape. In my view, it can generate the biggest change in CAD vendor’s landscape. What about PLM role? The presentation wasn’t specifically about PLM, but provided some hunches about what can happen to PLM too. Next time, I will think about how PLM fits in the Mike’s future of CAD.

Best, Oleg

Share

26 Comments | 3D, Daily PLM Think Tank, Future Trends | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Mid-market PLM: Smashed Or Transformed?

April 5, 2010

I’m following PLM for mid-market trends Jos Voskuil’s virtualdutchman blog. This weekend, I had chance to read his PLM for mid-market mission impossible post: PLM for the mid-market – mission impossible. Jos figured out two main characteristics of PLM:

[... There are two main characteristics for this mid-market:

Sales and implementation of software is done through Value Added Resellers and not through the vendors or big service companies. The software revenue per customer does not justify high expenses for global consultants with additional high expenses due to travel costs (and sometimes the local language issue). The local VAR is supposed to be the point of contact.

Mid-market companies do not change their main company processes. Depending on the type of core process, let’s assume ETO or BTO, they have sales and engineering working close together on product/solution definition and they have manufacturing planning and production working close together on product/solution delivery. In term of functionality a PDM focus for sales/engineering and an ERP focus for manufacturing...]

I found the combination of these characteristics interesting. Because they are presenting how orthogonal is everything in mid-market to the successful PLM implementations made for large enterprises. Mid-market journey for PLM companies was important for two obvious points- (1) to expand market; (2) to establish the strategy for supply chain – place where FTP and USB drive is leading. However, vendors tried to push PLM in a very straightforward way. Costly direct sales were replaced by optimized indirect channel (VARs) and costly customization, implementation and services were replaced by optimized out-of-the-box solutions. It seems to me the results are pretty much smashed. It doesn’t work.

What is my take on Product Lifecycle Management for smaller companies? There are two important words I want to think about – granularity and transformation.

Transformation
The history of successful software is a history of transformation. If you remember CAD history or PDM history, you will understand that at the time when a significant failure or dissatisfaction happened, new technologies and solutions came and presented their capabilities and values. 15-20 years ago 3D CAD systems moved from big workstations to PC – we know what happened then. 10-15 years ago PDM projects moved from the state when they required compilation and build to manage customer data to more flexible SQL-based data modeling running on Windows and later Web solution. Clearly current PLM state of the art systems requires re-thinking and change.

Granularity
I like this word. For me, it means first of all precision and understanding. As I mentioned few months ago, large monolithic PLM implementations are a thing in the past. To find PLM solution for smaller customers will require to go and understand what these customers are doing on the very granular level. The best demonstration of granularity for me is the web. Combined from a huge amount of granular data pieces it represents a solid and well functioning system.

What is my conclusion today? Trying to replicate big ideas sometimes requires more than a company financial interests. The distance between racing cars and mass-production is huge. Technology is a tricky issue in the enterprise and when you are trying to scale it down might become broken. I think, last 3-5 years presented a very interesting try in implementing PLM solution for a smaller organizations. Today is a time to analyze results and think about future transformations.

PS. So, how PLM for mid-market story should end? The following video is just one idea…

Share

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

What Is The Future of Integrated PLM Systems?

April 2, 2010

Few weeks ago I had chance to attend WTG Webinar Evolving from PDM to an Integrated PLM system at BAE Military Air Systems. The presentation was quite interesting and outlined main points of single integrated PLM system creation for the big organization as BAE. Large enterprise rganization has his own rules and this webinar outlined it very well – complex data models, huge chunks of legacy data, staged phases of the development (concept, design, release, service). The bottom line (seminar quote) - this is the most complex PLM implementation in Europe (or even may be in the world). Two things impressed me the most from the overall presentation: 1/ complexity of the overall data systems; 2/ integration efforts and data flow between different components.

These two things made me think about what is the future of Integrated PLM systems? What will be the evolution path of PLM systems? When I’m looking on successful PLM implementation, I see the extreme fit in how all components work together. Design, Engineering, Manufacturing – everything seems to be fit and work as a Swiss watch. However, I believe, the significant amount of work, requires to make this job done. For me, such complexity is always reflected in the overall cost. Every organization is different. So, if you plan to make such level of the integration for every organization, you need to be prepared for the same level of effort. Now, the next one – integration data flow. There are different stages, multiple data elements, components, statuses, exchange of information. To make it work requires fine tuning on a scale. This is impressive and scare. What if something doesn’t work or requires changes? Unfortunately, I didn’t find the answer on these questions. These are the future questions PLM implementations need to tackle with. How to replicate the success and maintain existing systems in the operational mode?

So, what is my conclusion today? There are two main factors that will define the future of PLM as an integrated enterprise system: 1/Cost of change; 2/ Mass adoption. The cost of change is very important, in my view. You can craft system on whatever level you want, but the moment of change comes very fast. I hope PLM vendors understand it and drive their strategic developments to these horizons. Modern manufacturing is very dynamic and will be even more in the future. The second factor is mass adoption. The large, unique and complex PLM systems need to learn how to replicate themselves into a smaller organization. I think, “integrated PLM” are not ready yet for this type of replication. This is another challenger for the future of the integrated PLM.

Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg

Share

10 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank, Future Trends, PLM and organization | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PLM in the Cloud: Opportunity or Threat?

February 12, 2010

Recent SolidWorks World Event brought a significant splash of discussion about cloud based applications. It is interesting to see different voices mentioned by PLM providers with regards to the growing buzz of cloud. I had chance to put bulk of blog posts on my cloud week about a year ago. For those who haven’t had chance to read them last year, you can see links below:

PLM: How to Enable your Cloud Relationship

Microsoft’s Cloud-y Future, SharePoint and PLM Collaboration

The Biggest PLM Challenge on the Cloud

Where is the PLM shortcut to the cloud?

Where is PLM on Industry Cloud Map?

However, I’d like to get back to the cloud story now and analyze what are the potential relationships of PLM and Cloud as well as figure out what I see as the opportunity for PLM cloud applications.

Computational and Storage Horses

I see a significant potential in application of cloud technologies to remove the limitation in both directions – computing power and storage. Despite the strong trend making CPU and Storage cheaper everyday, I think cloud can propose something different in this space for CAD and PLM applications. Software manufacturers need to re-think design, analyzes and simulation solutions and sees how to surf on top of potential availability of hundreds servers for the specific engineering task. The same about storage – think big, you can store whatever you need and have it accessible at any time.

Global Availability

Cloud can bring to small companies and individuals luxury of availability without limits. What was available yesterday only to the big corporations as part of WANs and other exclusive network services, can be now part of the global net in the cloud. It can change work habits of engineering companies in the way can manage their workforce, optimize supply change. Such global availability can open new markets for applications that before had limited availability to be distributed to end users.

Power of Integration

Cloud can be an opportunity for PLM companies to step into the integration process. I wrote few days ago- Do I need an invitation to CAD/PLM Cloud?. Integration of data and engineering information can be much easier when information will be available online and in more webish form. However, this is also the political issue. Today companies see integration in the very protective way. I believe influence of web and available web technologies can make shift in this area too.

Building Business Case of Cloud for PLM

And finally, what about money? How PLM companies and customers will be able to shift into new business models. What is clear for me, this is going to be a significant change. Cloud opportunity will provide cheaper resources and as a result new companies can use it as a threat for existing big vendors. The potential of new business models can be in renting and using services on demand. It can create some very interesting business cases. As a result, I can expect increased competition in the space that was heavy impacted by M&A of smaller companies by bigger vendors.

So, what is next?

I think PLM industry needs to spend some time to digest cloud revolution. Stop saying – we are doing it for years and also wait and not claim engineers as last people that will move their IP and information on cloud. I think dynamic of the next 2-3 years will be very interesting and will expose some emerging trends in cloud adoption by CAD and PLM.

Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg

Share

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

Large Monolithic PLM Implementations Are a Thing of the Past

December 20, 2009

Continue my last week post about how to make next PLM implementation simpler, I decided to put some ideas towards how the next PLM implementations will look like.

PLM vendors are making huge efforts to simplify PLM deployment and make implementation simpler. Despite that, in my view, typical PLM implementation is still combined from three typical steps: a significant planning effort, deployment of software and additional customization and adaptation services. These steps make implementation expensive. Talking with PLM specialists and consultants you will learn the most important PLM activities are related to good planning upfront, methodologies and clarification of what organization need and how to math organizational needs to capabilities of the system. Gaps are covered by services.  It looks like a deadly connected circle. How we can break it?

I think many of PLM vendors and implementers made a misinterpretation of out-of-the box terms. What is currently proposed in PLM “out-of-the-box” package is an effort to create “standard PLM”. What you can hear around is additional activities how possible to create typical industry implementations, OEM/supplier oriented typical implementation, etc.

In my view, this is a dead-end in PLM evolution. Such efforts will be endless similar to multiple standard activities in product development. The main reason for that is because manufacturing these days need to be more agile, lean and dynamic to sustain in their business and making profit. When such fundamental for their product development system like PLM becomes “typical”, you cannot expect them to be dynamic, lean and efficient at the same time.

What is a possible solution? I think software vendors need to learn again lessons from 15-20 years back. In beginning of 90th, few companies were doing PDM. Such projects were considered as luxury, needed by big organizations only. PDM budgets started at six digits numbers and requires major involvement of software vendor, custom software builds and long project implementation time line. However, in the middle and end of 90th we had chance to see a strong trend towards flexible data models, inexpensive Windows based systems and as a result lower entry barrier for PDM implementation.

My conclusion today. Vendors need to leave magic-out-of-the-box marketing efforts and depart to the new station where we’ll able to find new engineering solution for old problem. Future systems will be adaptive, will not require a significant effort to deploy and implement.

Just my thoughts. YMMV…
Best, Oleg

23 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank, PLM and organization, PLM Implementation | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Pragmatic Architectures for PLM Future

September 30, 2009

Picture 9I think, we’ve faced many changes during past few years related to how enterprise software is going to be implemented. Shifts in business models, new social and cloud technologies, demand for free software and many others. Thinking about all these challenges and changes, I want to discuss what is potential outcome and impact on Product Lifecycle Management architecture and implementations.

In my view, we came to the point when PLM is adopted as a business methodology and business strategy. However, I think we still have a huge gap between understanding of business practice and technologies and implementations we have in the field. So, proposed principles are my ideas about to define a pragmatic PLM architecture for the next 5-7 years. I’m taking this time span, as something that allows us to change fundamental architectures of the systems and not only make cosmetics tweaks.

1. Individuals Interaction and Process Tools. What should be an approach to design process tools? It looks to me, the key capabilities should be in the way a specific user (individual if you will) can impact overall process design and process management in the organization. Process tools need to move from space where people are divided into “process planners” and “process execution”. No more “build vs. run”. The individuals in an organization will need to define right processes and be able to improve as business change in the organization.

2. Customers Collaboration. I think, we move to the space where a customer will decide how to assemble PLM system from a flexible set of PLM services. Those services will be developed and providers by PLM suppliers. However final system configuration will be defined by customer and answer to the specific needs of business and organization.

3. Permanent Change as a key factor to improve software. Changes become a key factor in PLM architecture adoption. Today’s systems are very expensive in case you want to make a change in their configuration, data model, implementation practices. This is something we need to work on the future. Cost of change will be key driver to successful PLM implementation. Change is on going procedure. Together with future SaaS models it will finally remove the need in planning precise PLM implementation phases from year to year.

4. Working Software over Methodologies and Documentation. This is last, but very important. No more documentation. Architectures need to allow people to learn how PLM system works, systems will become self explained and self documented. In the same way, you can discover software code, you will be able to discover PLM implementations. This will be a future role of PLM architects in the organization.

This is, of course, not a recipe how to build new PLM system. However, I do so sense in these principles to think how to change enterprise PLM software in the future.

Just my thoughts. As usual, your comments are welcome!

Best, Oleg

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

The pains of file management, will PDM be popular again?

August 10, 2009

file-pain-pdmTime ago, I had chance to discuss second mover innovation. For me, second movers are perfect example to learn from experience, talk to customers and introduce something breakthrough in the place of something we have today. So far, I came to my old friend, PDM system. Actually, the perfect trigger for my thoughts was SolidWorks’s “pain of the file management” campaign. Actually, SolidWorks people raised a very good point – after decades of PDM and later PLM, how many people still have “file management pains”? My conclusion – still many…

If I will go back 10 years and analyzes what was the “value proposition” for PDM systems in the middle of 90s, my short list will be simple – 1/ability to control documents; 2/ getting right revision of my work; 3/collaborate with co-workers. So, what we learned since that time. My assumption is that lots of experience with different PDM approaches can be concluded as following.

  1. Successful PDM system should rely on a design system (CAD etc.)
  2. Designers and Engineers normally tries to put all possible and impossible information to PDM system.
  3. Complexity kills.

So, where we are after all these years? I think one of the main PDM trends these days is to have PDM capability combined with CAD system. When it makes a lot of sense in context of functionality, the reality is to have multiple CAD systems in organization. The second point is related to information PDM is trying to manage. Simple in the beginning, any PDM systems become very complex as soon as we stretch it to support additional information.

So, what will be PDM trends in nowadays? SolidWorks proposal sounds very right – there are still lots of people having “file pain”. SolidWorks PDM these days is a good example simplicity in managing of SolidWorks files and document. Is it new? Probably not. So, I just wonder what future PDM system will look like?

Best, Oleg

5 Comments | CAD, Daily PLM Think Tank, PDM, SolidWorks, Technology | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PLM and Internet of Things

July 24, 2009

internet-of-thingsIn my view, Internet is going to change much more things in our life than we can imagine. One of the interesting trends related to Internet and PLM, I want to discuss is called Internet of Things. This term was born first time in MIT back to 1999 in Auto-ID labs and was related to identification of physical objects. You can browse Auto-labs publication (open and available!) and see old papers related to indentification work they did.

I started to track Internet of Things in 2009 because, I think, our life becomes much connected and virtual. Many real life objects potentially can be connected to internet. With latest development of systems like Twitter, think about ability to connect multiple devices and objects of a physical world to allow them to twitt! This is almost situation when house appliance will be able to twitt to a supermarket and make online orders.

So, you can ask me “where is PLM in this story?”. Here is my take. All physical objects surrounding us designed and manufacturing with a certain level of PLM system involvement. Different manufacturing companies have various levels of PLM deployment, but most of them have CAD to create digital models, they track data about what they were engineering and manufacturing. Since we take more and more environmental responsibilities, we need to track what we designed in real life. This is where I see “internet of things” are finally connecting. I think RFID technologies is only begining in whole story of connected virtual and physical devices.

Not for today, but for the future I see blurring borders between virtual and physical life of objects… I’d recommend Shaping Things book by Bruce Sterling as good weekend reading for all CAD/CAE/CAM/PDM/PLM folks. Relax from TLAs and think about how to make life connected and reasonable with technologies we have in our hands.

I’m sure will come to discuss it more in the future and therefore, looking forward to your comments and ideas.

13 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank, Future Trends, Technology | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Can Internet Change CAD?

May 4, 2009

The future of CAD as well as many other great technological products can be impacted by major technological trends. Undoubtedly, one of the most influential technological trends of the last decade is the Internet. Web technologies have changed the behavior of the people – the way they think and work. This comes from technological companies by introducing new services and products and also comes from social spaces. This weekend, while visiting friends, I looked at how some kids aged ten to eleven were using the Internet. I was amazed to see how Google Search is natural in their Web behavior. For many of us, coming from the desktop world, find it very natural to split between desktop and web. We tend to look for information on the Web and keep it on our virtual desks for future use. This is something that is going to change – web is becoming so transparent that we don’t need to keep information on our desktops anymore.

How is this related to CAD? I’d like to discuss two main areas where CAD will be impacted – CAD Data Management Transparency and Open CAD representation format:

1. CAD Data Management Transparency: I’d like to discuss the idea of “invisible” data management. It would start from our ability to use remote/cloud storage to keep our design data. In the beginning we will be able just keep our designs files (and the word for files itself might actually get changed) there, but within time, this storage will support basic data management capabilities that will have global behavior. No more local unique identifiers – data management technology will improve and rely on new Web capabilities.

2. Open CAD representation format. CAD format plays a very significant role in our lives today. We are taking care about this “holy cow” which trails lots of very complex questions that you can discover in every CAD-related community. This issue called Interoperability. My prediction is that CAD representation formats will be immersive with CAD SOA capabilities. We will not produce <files>, but we will produce design associated with specific design (CAD) software. This (CAD) software will use embedded representation services that will allows us to “deliver” design model to the specific device, product, context or other service, and make it available for usage.

I was reading Jeff Ray’s blog post “Predicting of CAD Future” early this week and found a few of Jeff’s thoughts corresponding very much my “internet-technological” thinking. Obsolescence of data management and design anywhere-anytime is something that definitely can be enabled by the broad introduction of Internet technologies in our space.

I’d be interested to hear your voices and churns on this topic.

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

Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers