Electric Design and PLM Roadmap

June 29, 2011

In the early beginning, solutions for manufacturing were focusing primarily on machinery and mechanical design. The historical reason here is simple – mechanical design was a key element of manufacturing for many years. However, the era of ‘mechanical design only’ ends. We can hear more and more about various aspects of combined solutions – Siemens PLM was coming with mechatronics already a couple of years ago. Earlier this month, on PlanetPTC, I’ve heard many stories about software related aspects of product design.

I’ve been reading Design New article yesterday – Mentor Takes a Lifecycle Approach to Electrical Design. It talks about latest Mentor announcement related to the expansion of their Capital electric design platform. This is my favorite passage (actually quote by Martin O’Brien):

The new Capital suite delivers on all of its traditional capabilities in addition to new functionality for designing the architecture and aiding service technicians supporting the finished product in the field. It also encompasses enterprise data management and compliance functionality, serving as a single repository to help manage and support the highly specialized materials and workflows associated with seeing a complex electrical system through each phase of its lifecycle.

Does it mean Electric Design is going to PLM route now? This is an interesting question. In my view, PLM approach is very successful when we deal with complex product development issues. Remember aircraft design, product configuration, etc. These are examples where product lifecycle management presented significant improvement and good results. Electrical design was standing separate long time. The same was for electronic and software. Is it going to change now?

The picture is courtesy of Design News blog.

The complexity of products is the real issue we need to discuss and mention in this context. Everything becomes more complex now. Ford T was a simple car. Nowadays, products become really complex. The integration of various elements is key problem manufacturing are facing these days.

What is my conclusion? I can see Mentor is going down to the road and implementing many features and functions we’ve seen in traditional PLM products. Lifecycle, Technical documentation, multiple functional representations. The word “single repository” mentioned by Mr. O’Brien made me worry a bit. In my view, traditional PLMs found themselves in the “single repository” mouse trap by trying to integrate everything in a single database. The cost and complexity of implementations are growing. Is it something vendors like Mentor can avoid? Learn from other mistakes? Is it possible in software word?

Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg

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

How many Lifecycles do we need?

August 25, 2009

how-many-lifecyclesYesterday, two separate article got my attention and brought me to think about Lifecycle. Alternatively, even more, about number of systems claims different lifecycle support. Jim’s Brown thought about QLM Quality Lifecycle Management and TEC article “What keeps EAM/CMMS away from PLM“. Why I choose these two is because they are presenting a complimentary story, in my view.

Jim claims Quality is a complimentary process to Product Lifecycle. Manufacturers these days cannot take risks and afford quality issues rising up, so QLM processes need to be adjusted and/or work together with Product Lifecycle. At the same time, Jim mentioned that many of today’s PLM systems doesn’t have QLM capabilities and some hybrid PLM/QLM would be probably interesting combination, we can offer to customers. I’d agree with Jim - with PLM system capable of manage overall product lifecycle, we’d better had Quality related processes connected and working together.

If I read correctly TEC, Kurt Chen presents in his article need to tie PLM and EAM systems together and analyze possible ways to do so. These processes represent both sides of product-related activities. First- from a product development side, second- from side of purchasing. What I liked is presenting of “two-sides of the story” of the same lifecycle.

I thought, these two stories is excellent examples to stop considering product-related processes as a something separate. Today’s organizational goals can be achieved only if we will be able to establish single lifecycle to manage all product-related activities in organization across department, divisions and cross-organizational boundaries. The siloed approach won’t work anymore. And I think demand on customers today is to establish such approach.

So, that’s what I thought about “lifecycles”. What do you think? What is your opinion? Do you have similar discussions and/or thoughts coming from your organizational experience?

Best, Oleg

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

Lifestream Concept for PLM Applications

March 13, 2009

As you know, new ideas often come from things already forgotten… Therefore, I like looking at research projects and experimental products as they are good ways to find some fresh ideas. A few days ago, I was looking at the Lifestream application created by Gelernter 1994; Freeman 1997. 


lifestream

 

Another predecessor and association is Malone’s influential study – “How Do People Organize Their Desks?” (1983). I found some very interesting concepts that, in my opinion, can be valuable for Product Lifecycle Management. What particularly caught my attention was the association between lifecycle and Lifestream. Actually, in regards to lifecycles, I think that we are very disconnected from representation of time in PLM applications.

lifestream

 Lifestream is about time. Originally, the proposed approach was to throw away filenames, folders and static filling and replace it with stream of information arranged according to time. Actually after the implementation of Lifestream, some of its features were found in Apple iApps and other commercial products.

While terms such as file/folders/desktop are brilliant, but Lifestream focused on the non-traditional aspects of information management, which is not typical for regular computer users. On the same point, I think PLM is different as a good concept of managing of product data that needs to be invented.

The Lifestream model is about to create, organize and present timelines. Whereas timelines may have different representations – collections, calendars or queries, this model would eliminate all other artificial models that people need to create in order to store product information. It’s interesting that this model would allow you to use a “time oriented” memory. An additional benefit of this approach is that the timescale lets you use the same model to manage tasks by leveraging future timelines. Appropriated information “tagged with future date/time” would appear in the scope of the system whereby the user would get this information as an alert.

lifestream-homepage

I think this is definitely an interesting concept that requires additional research and validation with users. I’d be glad to hear your comments and thoughts. 

7 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank, PLM User Experience | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers