PLM Migration and Product Data Rock-n-Roll

December 29, 2010

I read The PLM State: PLM Migration, No Data Left Behind on Zero-Wait State blog. Read it and make your opinion. Stephen Porter is discussing a very important topic of data migration. I found it interesting. This is my favorite passage:

…leaving data behind is not necessarily a bad thing since it can corrupt and handicap your new system. Spending time up front to fully assess your information is time well spent. Segmenting data and moving it over in portions is a viable strategy for facilitating cleanup and assessment. Using the target PLM system as a filter and cleaning mechanism can be an effective way to manage migration.

The conclusion made by Stephen made me think about product data value and data migration problems.

Data Value

Most of the companies I have seen for the last year are dying in the ocean of product data. Company creates data every day. It comes out of the company design and engineering, manufacturing, support, sales, marketing and service. In my view, data is one of the biggest company assets. Companies are accumulating data for a very long period of time. In some industries, legacy data retention is part of the regulation rules and requirements.

Product Data Rock-n-Roll

According to the latest survey of Cyon Research, the majority of customers are dissatisfied with PDM software. Companies are looking how to improve the way to manage product data and thinking about how to optimize and consolidate PDM packages. Here is the quote from Cyon Research 2010 Survey of Engineering Software User:

Among the major classes of software, customers are most dissatisfied with their PDM systems. More than 25% of SMBs and 30% of large firms were either in the process of switching PDM systems or had just switched within the past two years, about twice the rate of change for CAD or CAE systems. 45% of large firms are going through or have just gone through a consolidation of PDM software.

The consolidation of PDM software will obviously raise the question of data migration and potential losses of companies due to their inability to move data from a previous system. Another practice is to continue using an old system in parallel with a new system to access data. The last option often becomes a much more cost effective for a company compared to the investment needed to migrate data between systems. The result is a lot of legacy data sources and systems. In the past, I wrote about different aspects of legacy data handling. The importance of legacy data for a company is absolute and very undervalued in modern PDM/PLM systems.

What is my conclusion? The complexity of product data management systems created a situation when migration of data between systems can cause a significant loss of value. Competition between software vendors in this domain adds additional difficulties. In my view, to clean the historical data record, as a result of multiple system migrations, is a very bad idea. To have an ability to migrate product data from one system to another can be a significant product differentiation factor. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


PLM, SharePoint and Migration Madness

November 29, 2010

I just learned that SharePoint migration projects require user’s involvement to be really successful. Navigate your browser to the following link and read – “When and How to Include End Users in SharePoint Migration Planning“. This story reminded me all stories I’ve heard in my life about PLM migrations. The following passage is interesting:

The problem with this view is that your end users know their requirements, essential business processes, and data better than you do. Input from the staff and managers who are responsible for the artifacts managed within SharePoint is a critical factor for a successful migration.

The story of migration between different PLM systems is complicated. Last week we’ve seen lots of buzzes and publications about Daimler’s decision to switch PLM systems used worldwide. I believe, the problem of the migration is valid not only for big OEMs, but also for smaller companies. What caught my attention is the fact SharePoint was pointed by Microsoft as the universal hummer to solve all possible and impossible data management and collaboration problems in a manufacturing organization of all sizes. Nope. From what I learned SharePoint is sharing the same enterprise software and PLM problems related to software upgrades and migrations. I’d be interested to learn how customers are handling migrations between different SharePoint point versions, which include dependent PLM solutions.

What is my conclusion? SharePoint is Microsoft’s heavy weapon to solve enterprise problems. However, I see more and more examples of SharePoint having the same weakness points as PLM and other enterprise software – dependencies on services, complicated customization and need to maintain complicated migrations. Now it is a time to check your PLM/Sharepoint options…

Best, Oleg

[categories Daily PLM Think Tank, Microsoft]


How to Simplify My Next PLM Implementation?

December 18, 2009

Siemens’s blog post by Nik Pakvasa and following discussion drove me to put my thoughts in the this direction- how to make next move in my PLM implementation easier? The complexity of PLM implementation is one of the fundamental problems that prevents Product Lifecycle Management industry from mainstream expansion and deployment. When a customer likes all ideas related to how keep track of data and processes about products and around, the implementation becomes a nightmare. PLM vendors did a lot on the way to simplify products and their deployment by providing packaged out-of-the-box implementations, best (or useful) practices related to data models and process implementations. However, the better solution is definitely required.

Business is very dynamic these days. Customers challenged by competition, cost, need to adapt their business processes to the new conditions of business, etc. All these put a fundamental requirement for change in business systems, and PLM is standing first, in my view, in the line of these changes. Whatever happens – outsourcing, optimizing manufacturing or design process changes, the ability to adapt PLM system to the “next PLM implementation” becomes fundamental. However, most of them are not as simple as we want.

If you are looking on additional information about this topic, I can also advise you fresh CIMData paper analyzing customer migration challenges based on their experience with three Siemens PLM customers. Note, you need to make a registration on Siemens PLM web site to get access.

My analyzes shows three most important reasons why “my next PLM implementation” is always complex.

1. Insufficient flexibility of PLM systems. For the first time, you may think I’m kidding, right? In most of the cases, the perception of PLM system is that this is a very flexible outfit. However, if you will take a closer look, many of PLM systems have no consistent flexibility that customers can rely on for many years. Next big things, new releases, improved functionality,  new technologies – all these can create a very complex situation for customers.

2. High level of customization activities. This is a very typical for industry. Each PLM implementation contains a significant amount of services that include system configuration, adding of functionality, integration with customer’s systems like ERP and others. The amount of such implementations is so significant that becomes one of the key questions when the customer want to change/move existing implementation. Amount of testing and adaptation that need to be done make this project very complicated.

3. Lack of standardization activities in PLM-related industry space. Standardization is a very expensive activity. My best take on standards is as following: Standards like toothbrushes – everybody needs’em, but nobody wants to use somebody else…  If we can imaging that level of standardization in PLM space can be improved, reliance on these standards can be great help.

I want to say few words also about “out-of-the-box” (OOTB). It presented as the universal hammer to solve the problem of PLM implementation, OOTB is a Trojan Horse in PLM industry town. In my view, OOTB provides a simple answer on how to implement PLM system fast for the first time. At the same time, OOTB is not providing any advantages in simplification of my next PLM implementation step. OOTB should come in balance with flexibility and system openness – this is the only way to get PLM to the next level of maturity in implementation.

So, what are my recommendations today?

1. Invest in PLM system openness and flexibility
2. Simplify your customization functionally and technologically.
3. Plan small steps in your PLM implementation journey.
4. Sponsor standardization activity – this is future health of the industry.

Just my thought.
Best, Oleg


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers