PLM Best Practices and Henry Ford Mass Production System

April 6, 2014

henry-ford-assembly-line

If you are in PLM business, I’m sure you are familiar with term called "best practices". The term is widely used to explain how PLM system can be deployed, how to manage data and how to organize and optimize product development processes. So, where are roots of PLM best practices and why PLM vendors like them so much? Remember, the original PLM (and even PDM) systems started as a glorified data management toolkit with elements of CAD and ERP integrations. To get such system in product was very expensive and it required lot of time and implementation services. The reason is simple – every manufacturing company is different. It takes time for service provider to understand company landscape, processes, data requirements, legacy systems and suggest a solution. Put heavy price tag next to this activity. You can think about this process as something similar to organizing mass production assembly line. It is costly and complicated. Once you’ve get it done, your objective will be simple – run it to the largest possible quantity without re-configuration (which will cost you money, again). The same happened with first large PLM implementations.

The invention of "best practices" helped to figure out how to move from heavy and complicated PLM assembly line to more configurable and flexible mechanisms of PLM deployment. Technologically, toolkit approach was a underline product foundation. PLM companies and especially service providers and PLM consultants liked the approach. To create OOTB (out-of-the-box) pre-configured environments was relatively easy based on the practices gathered from existing large customers. However, to get it to the field and implement wasn’t so simple. Marketing and sales used OOTB environments to demonstrate and make sales. However, implementations and fine tuning was failing to apply it after that. The implementation devil was in details and service teams were required to bring to production. Similar to manufacturing mass production environment, customizing and services was a straightforward answer to solve the problem of product and requirement diversity.

As we know from the history of manufacturing, mass customization won and left mass production system in a dust. What was clear innovation 100 years ago was replaced by new forms of manufacturing, customization and flexible manufacturing units. I believe this is still very hot topic in the industry and every manufacturing company. The diversity of product requirements is skyrocketing, product lifecycle is getting even shorter. To produce PLM system that will fit this type of environment is probably one of the most important innovation that might happen in engineering and manufacturing software technologies these days.

What is my conclusion? I think software companies can learn something from the history of manufacturing companies. The move from from mass product to mass customization is one of them. PLM software made a turn from from complicated preconfigured assembly lines to expensive data management toolkits that require services. Manufacturing is getting different these days. Next step can be hardly achieved by pure technology or process organization. My hunch it is going to be a hybrid of new data management technologies empowered by crowdsourcing and customer innovation. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Photo source.


How not to miss PLM future?

March 23, 2014

plm-future-strategy

The world around us is very disruptive these days. Nothing stands still. You cannot stop innovation and progress. Engineering and manufacturing software is not fastest changing domains. It explained by slow changing process, high level of complexity in product development and significant capital investment manufacturing companies made in existing PLM and other enterprise software. Nevertheless, to think PLM will stand still is probably a mistake that potentially can happen in the community PLM vendors and experts.

I’ve been reading Google CEO Larry Page Spoke At TED article. Unfortunately, TED didn’t stream his talk, so everything based on twitter stream. My favorite passage was related to the Page’s explanation about why companies are failing. Here is the quote:

"The main thing that has caused companies to fail, in my view, is that they missed the future," Page said.

larry-page-why-companies-miss-future

The article made me think about what potential "future" that PLM companies can miss today in our fast moving engineering and manufacturing software ecosystem. So, I decided to look into my ‘crystal ball’ today and pickup top 3 things that potentially can be missed by PLM vendors:

1- Downturn in premium price of PLM software

The price of PLM software is a challenging factor. Which is true, in general, about enterprise software. I think, customers are worrying about what will be total cost of ownership for PLM software. Result – huge interest to develop ‘predictable business models’, which include scalable parameters identifying how to pay for PLM software. The strategic mistake that can be done by PLM vendors is to miss the point where new TCO models will be conflicting with existing business and revenue models.

2- Switch from data ownership to openness and data share business values

Openness is another heavily discussed topic in engineering software. The demand of customers is not be locked on a specific vendor. The situation when company is using software from different vendors is not rare and if we include supply chain scenarios, openness requirements is probably one of the most critical. However, most of business models today are fundamentally assuming customer lock on a particular type of software, file types, databases, etc. Technology and business disruption in this space can remove lock and become a surprising factor for existing vendors.

3- The importance of vertical integration.

Integration of enterprise business and information systems becomes more and more important. Manufacturing and production environment is moving towards digital forms of mass customization. The involvement of engineers into the process of manufacturing is getting more tight. The future cost saving is in even deeper optimization between product design and manufacturing. By missing the importance of these aspects existing vendors can be outperformed by modern cloud (and not only) vendors and newcomers.

What is my conclusion? Some people calling what happens these days in manufacturing as the next industrial revolution. I don’t want to put specific stickers. Nevertheless, engineering and manufacturing business is getting even more competitive. Internet, cloud, diverse competition, cost pressure and new business models – this is only short list of disruptive factors that will be very important in the future of digital manufacturing. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


Why PLM vendors might decide to beat Amazon?

March 21, 2014

aws-for-plm-cloud-options

Amazon is an absolutely marketshare leader in cloud computing. Because "cloud" is such a big and vague word these days, we must clarify and say "public cloud". So, you may think for most of us, cloud is equal to Amazon. AWS EC2 allows us to spin new servers quickly and provide great services to everybody interested in development of SaaS packages.

Not so fast… Questions are coming too. I can see two major ones – cost and strategy. I’ve been posted Cloud PLM and battle for cost recently. Amazon public cloud is coming with challenging cost sticker to some of us. Strategy question is connected to many factors – PLM PaaS opportunity, security and storage alternatives. Finally, with huge respect to Amazon, I’m not sure how many CAD / PLM companies are interested in catholic marriage between cloud PLM platforms and AWS. To provide PLM solution independent from Amazon IaaS and to control data storage is an interesting option for many vendors and partners. How to do so? I think, this is part of strategy for every PLM vendor these days looking how to develop long term relationships with manufacturing OEMs and suppliers.

My attention caught Gigaom article – Want to beat Amazon in the cloud? Here are 5 tips. Read the article. It provides some interesting opportunities how to compete AWS. It raises the point that in 2014 AWS became an elastic service commodity competing on cost. This is an interesting quote explaining that -

But fast-forward to 2014: there are dozens of IaaS providers offering similar capabilities. The selling points — like self-service, zero CAPEX and elasticity — that once made the cloud look exciting are not as appealing anymore, and they are no longer the differentiating factors. In the current context, selling cloud for its self-service capabilities is similar to Microsoft trying to sell the latest version of Windows only for its graphical interface.

Cost is important. However, for enterprise, value is often even more important. Therefore, speaking from the perspective of PLM players, my favorite passage is related to how to support scale-up and shared storage:

AWS’s philosophy of throwing more VMs at an application is not ideal in many scenarios. It might work wonders for marketing websites and gaming applications but not for enterprise workloads. Not every customer use case is designed to run on a fleet of servers in a scale-out mode. Provide a mechanism to add additional cores to the CPU, more RAM and storage to the VM involving minimal downtime. The other feature that’s been on the wish list of AWS customers for a long time is shared storage. It’s painful to setup a DB cluster with automatic failover without shared storage.

Here is my point. I think, CAD and PLM vendors will have to discover how to provide a balanced and scalable cloud platform. This platform will have to answer on questions how to scale from the solution for small manufacturers and mid-size companies to enterprise OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers. The border between these segments is vague. It is hard to develop two distinct PLM offerings and support two separate platforms. It was hard in the past on premise software and it is even more complicated on the cloud.

What is my conclusion? PLM providers will have to discover how to grow up from AWS-based offering and develop scalable cloud PLM platforms. It must include diverse options for data storage as well as computing power. So, to beat Amazon can be not such a dream option for PLM vendors like it looks from the beginning. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


PLM, Mass Customization and Ugly BOM vertical integration

March 19, 2014

plm-mass-customization-1

A car can be any color as long as it is black. This famous Henry Ford quote speaks about how manufacturing handled customization in the past. That was the era of mass production. The idea of limited customization options combined with high level of standardization and high volumes of batch production allowed to decrease cost and improve productivity. The concept of mass production is applied to different products in process and discrete industries – food, chemicals, fasteners, home appliances and automobiles.

However, mass production is getting less popular these days. What comes next you ask? The next trend in manufacturing is going to be "mass customization". This is the idea of total "custom output". Manufacturing is looking how to create a possibility to produce goods in smaller batches to meet customer specific requirements. Wikipedia article provides a good summary of mass customization concept together with explaining economical value.

The concept of mass customization is attributed to Stan Davis in Future Perfect[2] and was defined by Tseng & Jiao (2001, p. 685) as "producing goods and services to meet individual customer’s needs with near mass production efficiency". Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) concurred, calling it "a strategy that creates value by some form of company-customer interaction at the fabrication and assembly stage of the operations level to create customized products with production cost and monetary price similar to those of mass-produced products". Similarly, McCarthy (2004, p. 348) highlight that mass customization involves balancing operational drivers by defining it as "the capability to manufacture a relatively high volume of product options for a relatively large market (or collection of niche markets) that demands customization, without tradeoffs in cost, delivery and quality".

However, to turn manufacturing from Ford-T production mode to mass-customizable requires lots of changes in the way companies design and build products. My attention caught by McKinsey article – How technology can drive the next wave of mass customization. Read the article and draw your opinion. Author speaks about mass customization trends in manufacturing and how it potentially impact enterprise software and IT. Look on the following picture – the list of "new customizable products" looks very impressive.

plm-mass-customization-options-mckinsey

New technologies in manufacturing are going to make mass production possible – social and crowdsourcing, customer facing product configurators, 3D scanning, dynamic pricing and many others. Clearly, I can see lots of opportunities in new tech development for software and hardware companies. It also requires structural changes in product development and process organization.

You can ask me how is it related to PLM? I’ve been posting about PLM role in mass customization before. PLM becomes one of the most critical drivers in the way development and manufacturing will be organized. Now, I’d like to be more specific. In my view, it is heavily comes down to the way product information and bill of materials related processes will be managed. The ability to have customer facing configurator, with dynamic pricing, optimizing company manufacturing facilities requires significant vertical integration. Today these processes heavily disconnected and implemented in silos. This is not how things should work in 21st century. To connect custom bill of material with specific engineering option and make product delivery lead time short is an interesting process, communication, collaboration and planning challenge. I found the following passage from McKinsey article connected to that -

True scale in mass customization can only be achieved with an integrated approach where technologies complement one another across a company’s various functions to add customization value for the consumer, bring down transaction costs and lead times, and control the cost of customized production

What is my conclusion? Mass customization ends up with ugly bill of materials (BOM) integration challenge. By enabling BOM vertical integration, future PLM systems will make mass customization processes possible, shorten time from the moment customer hits company e-commerce web site and until the moment, product will be shipped. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

[categories Daily PLM Think Tank]


PLM and 25 years of Internet

March 13, 2014

plm-www-25-years

It has been 25 years of Internet anniversary yesterday. Lots of article covering this event were flown around earlier this week. The Independent article – 25 years of the World Wide Web: Tim Berners-Lee explains how it all began covers the story together with world wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee. Even we all know about how Internet influence data sharing and communication, I found the following passage absolutely important:

The decades since have seen dotcom fortunes made and lost, and the rise of social media sites. There are now more than 600 million websites worldwide, and the web has changed things forever for people who are able to access information and share things in a way not possible to a previous generation. It has provided a new dimension through which to communicate. The scale is vast, with billions online, and hundreds of millions of messages and 20 million pictures exchanged every single minute – not to mention billions spent.

Watch the following video with Sir. Berners-Lee to get more inspiration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loi6PYaRqHA

Another interesting piece of information you might explore is actually a proposal article from Cern institute where the Tim Berners-Lee created the idea of internet. Navigate here to explore that. The original proposal link is here. I’m sure you had a chance to see the following diagram before. But if not, take another look.

www-proposal-tim-berners-lee

It made me think again about the power of internet and future development of enterprise collaboration systems. The fundamental concept of interlinked distributed information system is so powerful. After 25 years, we have an absolute confirmation of how powerful this idea. The similarity with business organizations today amazed when I had a second look on the picture.

Most of today’s PDM and PLM systems were created 10-15 years ago. Back that time, the ideas of enterprise system organization were first about how to centralize and control data. Second was how to share information and collaborate. However, the second one was screwed many times. Engineering and manufacturing companies are getting more and more global these days. These days, we need to find new concepts how to create and maintain a scalable global collaboration system to support global manufacturing.

What is my conclusion? Internet made a huge dent in the way to share information and collaborate globally. We see what happened for the last 25 years. We need to protect internet ideas and develop future enterprise systems with vision of openness and collaboration. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


How PLM can solve problem of global BOM transparency

February 20, 2014

plm-global-bom-supply-chain

Business is going global. It is not only for large manufacturing companies these days. As a result of cost pressure and searches for new market opportunities, manufacturing companies are looking how to optimize their businesses. Distributed engineering, manufacturing and suppliers environments – reality of manufacturing these days.

However, outsourcing and future development of supply chain also brings additional challenges. Distributed environment and supply chain collaboration bring additional level of complexity. Combined with growing regulatory requirement it resulted in significant pressure on manufacturing companies to provide transparency of product information for regulatory purposes.

CSRWire article Complying with Supply Chain Transparency: Underlying Issues Lead to Regulation Backlash brings an interesting perspective on the need of manufacturing companies to expose bill of material information across supply chain. Here is a passage I captured:

Currently, there is a gap in the product information shared between the two [contract manufacturers]. The nature of that model is such that retailers either pick from a catalog or provide product specifications and tolerances for manufacturing but never see the finished product’s bill of materials. That becomes a challenge for documenting environmental and social compliance requirements, as the data stays solely in the contract manufacturer’s product lifecycle management system.

It made me think about how to make product information available downstream in every manufacturing organization and across supply chain. Majority of PLM systems deployed today are focusing on the needs of engineering departments. It serves product development and implementation of engineering-manufacturing collaboration. Which leaves supply chain and contractor manufacturing out of focus. Below, I outlined some functional and business requirements PLM system and vendors can follow to solve the problem of BOM transparency across supply chain:

1- PLM systems need to be deployed beyond engineering organization and become easy available for suppliers and contractors.

2- Bill of Material tools need to support product information beyond development and engineering. It raises the question of manufacturing bills and sub-contractor bills.

3- PLM business models should be adapted to serve new type of users – suppliers and sub-contractors.

According to CSRWire article, manufacturing companies are ready to pay a lot of money these days to solve regulatory compliance issues. It becomes very sensitive for small and medium size organization that cannot afford additional regulatory expenses and extensive paper work related product transparency. I liked the following quote explaining that:

If large corporations are struggling with compliance and transparency, how can small- and medium-size businesses manage these regulations and pressure? Many simply can’t afford it. It puts small and medium businesses at a competitive disadvantage. It’s a time, cost, effort and resource issue. The corporations will figure out a way to do this cost effectively. The bigger companies can help evolve the tools, systems and practices. I don’t think anyone has a comprehensive solution right now. The small- and medium-size businesses still have to comply but if we keep piling compliance cost on top of compliance cost, it becomes unsustainable.

What is my conclusion? There is an opportunity to solve regulatory problem of manufacturing companies of all sizes (and specifically small manufacturers) by providing cloud PLM system making Bill of Material transparent for everybody in supply chain of contractors and manufacturers. Two main challenges here – robust BOM tools capturing manufacturing and contractor information and easy to deploy tools with affordable licenses. The opportunity is on the table. The note for PLM vendor strategists. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


PLM Role in Different Manufacturing Environments

February 9, 2014

plm-and-manufacturing-environment

One thing doesn’t fit all in engineering and manufacturing. Every manufacturing company is trying to innovate and differentiate the way they design and build their products. It comes in variety of ways and PLM system can play different roles depends on the type of manufacturing. PLM vendors are trying to deliver software tailored to a specific situations. One of the way to do so is to differentiate system according to industries. In general, the approach is good and can establish good understanding between software vendor, implementation partners and customer. However, even so, there is a high level of differentiation between companies in the same industries such as aerospace, automotive, industrial equipments and others.

Manufacturing environment is another way to differentiate companies. You can classify manufacturing environment according to 3 main types – Make to stock (or build to stock), Assembly (Configure) to order and Make (Engineer) to order sometime called Build-to-order. These three types of manufacturing environments can bring different challenges for product lifecycle management and require different functions and capabilities.

Make to Stock (or Build to stock)

This is probably the simplest manufacturing model if you think about product lifecycle management. The key focus on this manufacturing model is how to keep right level of inventories. The interplay between engineering and manufacturing environment is under formal control and, in most situations, will impact next model, product or changes in manufacturing environment. The main role of PLM environment is to provide formal configuration management control and customer focus. In this environment, interaction between PLM and manufacturing product control is relatively distant.

Assembly (Configure) To Order

One of the biggest challenges in this manufacturing model is high level of configurations. You cannot predict and create bill of materials to all possible configurations. On the other side, manufacturing needs to create a smaller set of components to manage manufacturing environments and production schedule. One of the main roles of PLM in this environment is to create configurable architecture of components between engineering and manufacturing environments, which will help engineers and planners to work together. This environment creates one of the biggest challenges for integration between engineering and manufacturing. The PLM role is make it simple and configurable.

Make (Engineer) to Order (or Build to order)

This is the most vertically integrated manufacturing environment between engineering and production. Basically, every product in this environment created according to specific customer order. Engineers are on the critical path in this environment. The ability to manage engineering environment alongside with production and supply chain is one of the biggest challenges. The interplay between engineering, manufacturing and customer is the key for success and customer satisfaction. PLM system can play a significant role in this success by sharing information and orchestrating processes.

What is my conclusion? The focus of PLM system is different in every type of manufacturing environment. Formal process control for MTS, management of complex configuration in ATO and vertical integration between engineering and manufacturing in MTO environment. What is common between all of them is the ability to share information and transparent process management. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


The Role of PLM in Hollow Corporations

February 5, 2014

plm-global-business-trend

Do you know what means "hollow corporation"? My readers from UK and Europe should be familiar with the term. This is a model for a company that outsource majority of their production activity. A compatible U.S. buzzword is "virtual business". There are few references defining what is "hollow corporation". Business glossary here defines it as a business in which "important elements are outsourced to subcontractors". Ten years old article brings the main two drivers behind the Hollow Corporations trend – globalization and technology. Here is the passage I liked:

Component tasks can be performed anywhere in the world. People in diverse parts of the globe working on common technology platforms provided by Microsoft and Google can now share work product seamlessly. They can communicate easily and cheaply across long distances due to undersea fiber optic cables. Through technology, distance between workers is no longer the limitation it was once.

However, I can see virtual corporation trend goes much beyond tech companies such as Google and Microsoft. Wikipedia link to "virtual business" brings another set of definitions I found useful. Among few of them "virtual enterprise" is the most interesting:

A virtual enterprise is a network of independent companies—suppliers, customers, competitors, linked by information technology to share skills, costs, and access to one another’s markets. Such organizations are usually formed on the basis of a cooperative agreement with little or no hierarchy or vertical integration. This flexible structure minimizes the impact of the agreement on the participants’ individual organizations and facilitates adding new participants with new skills and resources. Such arrangements are usually temporary and dissolve once a common goal is achieved. A virtual enterprise is rarely associated with an independent legal corporation or brick and mortar identity of its own.

The pioneers of virtual business came from internet space. You may think about Amazon and other virtual booksellers as an example of very successful virtual businesses connecting buyers and sellers only by using technologies and internet. However, I can see manufacturing companies are actively embracing virtual corporation space too. In my view, expression "hollow corporation" is getting new meaning these days in manufacturing world. Company like Nike took a new type of relationships with suppliers and created a new type of business. Many other manufacturers across the globe took the concept of delivering new innovative products combined with high efficiency of supply chain networks.

The last fact made me think about future role of PLM in such type of corporations. Typical vertically integrated manufacturing company is centralized around manufacturing planning control (MPC) system. This is a central place and main system in manufacturing universe. These days MPC functions are typically implemented as part of commercial ERP systems. The main purpose of vertical integration is to put manufactured products out of production lines. With new concept of virtual corporations, the manufacturing center of gravity is moving towards suppliers and outsource manufacturers. It puts product development in focus and makes a lot of sense to bring PLM system to manage design, product portfolios, configurations and coordinate it with customer demand and customer focus.

What is my conclusion? Industry landscape is changing these days and it brings new requirements for computer systems in engineering and manufacturing. Vertically integrated manufacturing model is changing towards more flexible networks that can react fast on customer demands. I can see a clear trend towards optimizing supply chain networks and outsource manufacturing facilities. Customers want more specialized products, lower cost and fast delivery. It brings new challenges for manufacturing and opportunities for PLM systems to establish new type of product development. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


PLM and Magic of MBOM Planning

January 21, 2014

mbom-plm-black-magic

Manufacturing BOM (MBOM) is an interesting topic. After all design and engineering operation, MBOM defines how product is going to be actually manufactured. While most of PLM / ERP debates about MBOM are going around "who owns what", the most fascinating part that I found in MBOM is related to the nature of manufacturing planning. The root problem is related to the way we can optimize MBOM or actually optimize the production, which is usually done by material planners using so-called planning BOM. It made me think about some black magic that needs to happen between engineering and manufacturing. Let speak a bit more about it.

Navigate back to my BOM 101 articles from the last year – How to modularize the Bill of Materials and How Many Levels Do You Need in BOM? One of the fundamental problems BOM layering and structuring needs to optimize production schedule. It can be only done by the team of people – including engineers together, manufacturing process and material planning people. Interesting enough, often you need to have sales and business people in the room – only these people can give you some data to predict manufacturing capacity, scheduling and potential optimization.

It made me think about a potential for PLM to play a role of collaboration platform between all these people to come with the solution around product configurations, engineering options, manufacturing optimization and what is most important product cost. I can see this is one of the fundamental problems PLM can solve as a collaborative platform connecting engineers and manufacturing.

PLM can provide an information structure to keep variety of product families, engineering BOMs, planning variants, supplier information and manufacturing planning together in order to optimize product and manufacturing production schedule and cost. All together is a real benefit of PLM implementation that can pay off very fast.

What is my conclusion? Manufacturing is getting more and more complex these days. People wants to have more personalized and configurable products. At the same time, companies need to slash cost. What was possible to solve by throwing engineering BOM or even CAD drawings over the wall of manufacturing is nearly impossible in 21st century. Old way to go from engineering to production planning will make your manufacturing obsolete, product cost skyrocketing and your company out of business very quick. Modern collaborative tools including PLM holding multiple bill of materials are needed to solve it. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


PLM and development of industrial internet

January 10, 2014

industrial-internet-plm

Management of product data was always a first and most important imperative for PLM solutions. Depends on vendor strategy and various historical reasons, vendors are focusing on different dimensions of data – CAD design, bill of materials, manufacturing data, supply chain, etc. Regardless on the priority and marketing differentiation, any PLM solution today is trying to cover all data dimensions I mentioned above.

The ease and flexibility of data management is what makes some PLM solutions shine better than others. At the end of the day, customers are expecting PLM solution to provide out-of-the-box yet flexible data model to support CAD, Bill of Material, Part, ECO, Simulation and sometimes other data as well. The last one (Simulation) was actually very challenging piece for PLM vendors. To manage significant amount of simulation data together with CAD and BOM data is not a simple tasks. Some vendors built simulation process management solutions for that purpose.

However, PLM vendors might be caught by something unknown and unexpected. New tsunami of data is expected in manufacturing world. Yesterday, I was talking about IoT trend here. Earlier this morning I was drinking my coffee and skimming Manufacturing Trends to Watch in 2014 article. One of them, caught my attention – The ‘Industrial Internet’ Will Flourish. Here is the passage I specially liked:

If you think the data generated by today’s back office, MES, control, supply chain, and warehouse management systems is overwhelming, just wait. Increasingly, manufactured products from cars to airplane engines to medical devices are being outfitted with sensors and Internet connectivity that allow them to broadcast back to manufacturers information on things like how they’re being used and why they broke, and when they need to be serviced. In fact, it’s estimated that, by 2020, 40% of all data generated will come from such sensors. GE calls this trend the Industrial Internet and estimates that it will add between $10 trillion and $15 trillion to global GDP in coming years.

It made me think, PLM data architecture can be challenged by the wave of data that can be compared to Google and Facebook scale. To process, store, access and analyze this data will take time and resources. Traditional SQL databases will be probably not an ideal solution, which brings me back to my writeup about PLM and Data Management in 21st century.

What is my conclusion? The amount of data is growing exponentially. Soon we will be coming to Yottabytes of data. Industrial internet alert should be a wake-up call for many PLM vendors to think about future data architectures. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

* image credit to trainordaviesdesign.com


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 217 other followers