Software Vendors and PDM/PLM Evolution Steps

February 9, 2012

Earlier this week, I had a conversation with engineering IT manager of a manufacturing company. Without mentioning names, we’ve been discussing how manufacturing companies are adopting technologies in general and PDM/PLM technologies specifically. According to him, software companies largely misunderstood the way manufacturing companies perceive technology adoption. The conclusion we made, was that manufacturing companies are very slow to adopt any technologies. One of the key factors that impacts future evolution of PDM/PLM technologies will cost of implementation and changes. This conversation made me think about what will be the evolution of PDM / PLM systems for coming decades.

Cloud, Unification and Integration

I can define three things that will lead future evolution in PDM / PLM. It is unification, integration and cloud. I wrote about Unification and Integration few months ago. Navigate to the following article – From PDM to PLM: Unify or Integrate? to have a sense of this topic. The reality of manufacturing companies today are that they have lots of different software packages implemented. Siloed approach was dominant in the last two decades. The question of how to move forward to the next level is actively debated by many software vendors and customers. One of the options is to move to unified systems. When it sounds like an interesting option to cut cost of integration, the overall cost of migration stops many companies from taking this approach. On the other side, affordability of cloud-based software sounds like a good reason to move one and offer new type of solutions with a fraction of cost.

4 Steps of PDM / PLM evolution

In my view, cloud (private and public) will be playing a key role in the evolution of future PDM/PLM systems. On the diagram below, I pictured how I see the evolution of PDM /PLM systems. Four steps show how I think systems will be migrating from pure “on-premises’” solution to full cloud adoption.

PDM / PLM Evolution

 

I wanted to bring 3 factors that will become critical to define vendor’s success in this evolution – cloud/on-premises balance, system integration and file content migration to the cloud. Let me talk separately about each of these factors.

Cloud / On-Premises balance

The adoption of new technologies and products is very slow. Because of that, manufacturing companies will have to balance long time between existing and new solutions. The ability of vendor to bring systems gradually to solve real business needs in an affordable way, will be a key to success. Nobody will be able to replace all systems in a single shot.

System integration

I’ve been stated it many times already, but again, the ability to integrate cloud and on-premises solution will be another key capability. Today, the integration is very messy. It is costly and, in most cases, causes data duplication with a lot of inefficiency. The ability to build linked data grid of integrated solutions will create a competitive advantage for software vendors to introduce new PDM / PLM solutions and minimize implementation cost.

File Content migration

The absolute majority of product information such as CAD data is located on premises today. With the introduction of new solutions, this content will have to migrate to cloud in order to become available also for people (globally) as well as to be re-used by different cloud and on-premises solutions. The effectiveness of this migration is another key factor to success.

What is my conclusion? I see next 10 years of PDM / PLM evolution as a very interesting time. Old technologies and software packages will retire and new will be coming. What will be the future of PLM platforms is an interesting question. This question needs to be answered by well established PLM vendors like Dassault, Siemens, PTC and by newcomers such as Autodesk. Smaller companies will innovate to provide PLM solutions and technologies that potentially can disrupt and, at the same time, provide a competitive advantage to future evolution of PDM / PLM platforms. What is your take? Speak your mind, please…

Best, Oleg

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

Part numbers and External Classification Schemas

February 8, 2012

fingerprint-253x300.jpgI want to talk about Part Numbers. Yes, Part Numbers, again… My previous blog -Part Numbering and the future of identification raised few interesting conversations. So, I decided to open a Pandora box of part numbering. The formal trigger for this conversation was Arena Solutions blog – Three consideration when choosing Part Numbering schema for you. Here is passage that actually made me think about the fact we are doing something wrong:

Choosing a part numbering scheme is one of the more important decisions you make as you move toward production… Once you commit to a part numbering scheme, you are married to it for a long time to come, so you need to be 100% sure it is nimble enough to evolve and scale right along with you...

It sounded like a Catholic marriage. Once you decided about part numbering, you are done for many years. The same Arena’s blog post mentioned some external tools you can use to generate part numbers – part-numbering.com and partnumber.com.

The idea that stroke me earlier today is that most of the companies are using “smart Part Numbers” in order to simplify part search, re-use and, even more fundamentally, classification. Type of part, organization, suppliers – these are only small elements of “an intelligent part number”. What if some “smart applications” are available that can add classification information to existing part numbers in order to enrich (actually to annotate) Part Number identification. These tools can be web-based and even applied to existing data in the company.

What is my conclusion? We need to re-think some very fundamental elements and concepts of product development, PDM and PLM. The ability to enrich data without building lots of sophistication in the Part Numbering is something that can make PDM / PLM systems more flexible and drive cost of changes down. I’d be interested how to support it in existing PDM/PLM systems. Not sure if it is a simple task. However, I’m curious if new PLM software coming tomorrow to market from companies like Autodesk will have a different set of capabilities to solve the problem of Part Numbering and identification. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

How to streamline PLM?

December 10, 2011

One of the biggest problem I can see in all PDM / PLM tools is a high level of the complexity. I’ve been thinking about it many times. After observing this industry for quite some time, I started to come to conclusion that solutions are becoming more complicated without becoming more functional. I’ve been reading the article The case for stripped-down enterprise 2.0 tools on by Moly Bernhart Walker. He was quoting Tim Young of Socialcast. Here is my favorite passage:

"Simple tools are incredibly powerful," said Young Nov. 15, during a keynote at the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Santa Clara, Calif. It’s very difficult to solve a complex problem with a complex tool, he added. What we’ve been doing with customers is actually moving away, stripping away functionality and making it very, very simple by just focusing on one or two activity screens. And we’ve actually begun to see the value in this," said Young.

I decided to pull few old pictures of EDM and PDM tools and take a look on them from the angle of PLM 2012.

How to strip-down PLM?


I think, we’ve been obsessed by the power of computer, higher screen resolution and interest to push additional functionality in the PLM software. It is a time to stop and think. Here is the slide from last presentation I’ve made during Autodesk University 2011.

PLM software is bloody complicated. To find a right strip-down option will be an appropriate way to think about the next PLM solution.

What is my conclusion? PLM was born many years to solve the problem of product development in complex defense and aerospace companies. Since that time, software vendors passed a long way developing new functionality. However, I don’t think it made solutions better. It is very hard to remove functionality for existing software. At the same time, I don’t see any alternative to that in the future. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

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

PDM ROI Calculator from SolidWorks

November 16, 2011

ROI is an important topic, and many times I’ve seen customers are not focusing on ROI assessment before starting PDM/PLM implementation. At the same time, I always found ROI definition and calculation as somewhat mystical. One of my best slides about ROI belongs to CIMData.

SolidWorks made available PDM ROI calculator. I find an CIMData logo on the website. The following disclaimer proves that methods were reviewed by CIMData: CIMData has reviewed this ROI model and finds its benefits ranges to of CIMData’s ROI research and ROI study undertaken by CIMData. The calculator is free and available on this link. Yesterday, I’ve made some experiments. Take a look on the example of the calculation I’ve made.

What is my conclusion? There is no conclusion today. In general, the logic of the calculator makes sense to me. Some of the assumptions are very straightforward, such as dependencies between annual revenues and time-to-market saving; number of ECOs and risk-reduction saving. Try to play with this and tell me what do think. I’d be interested to know your impression and feeling about the data. Does it feel right?

Best, Oleg

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

BOM and CAD-PDM-PLM-ERP Integration Challenges

November 3, 2011

I want to talk about Bill of Material and integration today. The reason why I’m coming to this topic is largely because I have a feeling "integration" will play a significant role in the future of product lifecycle management and enterprise systems in general. Two days ago, I’ve been writing about two approaches "unification" and "integration" in PLM. One of the main reasons why, I think, CAD/PLM companies decided to focus on "unification" is a struggle with integration. Time ago it started from integration between CAD and PDM. Since then, multiple other topics were added to the story of integration between multiple systems. So, one of the objectives companies put in front of them investing into unification was to simplify deployment of integrated systems.

BOM and Integrations

What I learned from multiple integration projects I’ve been involved for the last 10 years? Bill of Materials is the central piece of every integration story. The majority of integration topics are around how to handle BOM during all scenarios. The processes and implementation practices related to Bill of Materials are impacting in a significant way how a company will operate multiple systems (CAD, PDM, PLM, ERP).

Interesting enough, Bill of Material is also a centerpiece of all battles around how manage product data in various forms in multiple systems. It comes in a form of BOM synchronization between systems, definition of multiple BOM views, Product representations and many others. After thinking about possible integration scenarios, I’d like to come with three main challenges that exist in most of the integration projects (in most of the cases regardless on what systems are involved) – BOM Transfer, Item Data Synchronization and Single Bill of Material representation.

Integration Challenges

Challenge 1: BOM Transfer

This is a very complicated topic. Bill of Materials are everywhere. Drawings, CAD Systems, Engineering databases, ERP and Manufacturing systems. Even sales configurations requires a certain representation of BOM. The top waste, people want to eliminate is a need to entering information manually from one system to another system. Therefore, to automate the transfer is No.1 priority for many integration projects. However, it requires mapping of data and a lot of "hand-wiring".

Challenge 2: How to keep Item Data in Sync

Item information (or how ERP-related people saying Item Master) is a second important topic for the integration. In most of the companies, it is originated and maintained by ERP/MRP systems. However, when company is moving more towards cross-functional processes, the need to have item master information replicated and, sometime originated outside of ERP system, is growing.

Challenge 3: Where is my single BOM?

This is of the most challenging topic. Lots of companies are spending tons of time trying to decide how to maintain different flavors of BOMs in multiple systems, how to synchronize it and how to define what is the "ultimate single BOM". Some of the companies are taking a different approach and starting to manage so called "multiple BOM". Time ago, I spent some time discussing these topics. Read the following two blog post I published before: Is it a time for synchronized BOM? and Non-linear BOM perspective. Companies are spending lots of resources trying to find what is the right BOM management strategy. Lots of tools (including customized tools) are focusing on how to maintain bill of materials handling across multiple representations (aka systems).

What is my conclusion? BOM is a centerpiece of everything. You may lose control of 3D drawings’ versions and do everything in 2D. You can maintain change tracking manually. You may decide not to manage requirements. However, in my view, you cannot lose the control of items and bill of materials. As the number of systems involved into this process is growing, the complexity of keeping BOM under control becomes and more complicated. Many companies are avoiding management of Bill of Materials in multiple systems just because of this reason. As, one of my readers mentioned earlier this week – "you rarely can satisfy all your needs with a single system". So, I’m expecting more "integration challenges" in coming years from implementing CAD, PDM, PLM, ERP in various flavors and combinations. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PLM Think Tank October Top 5

November 2, 2011

The last week snow in Boston was kind of an event. I think, many of New England residents are still sitting without power and the internet. Which made me think about how dependent we are on the internet supply and how few choices we actually have when it comes to the service interruption. Talking about it, I really want to come to the topic which caused lots of discussion among readers of my blog and also CAD/PLM blogosphere – cloud. Navigate to the following link and read about my discussion with Ralf Grabowski about the future of Cloud. Now, let’s move to my traditional top 5 for October.

1 – PLM Definition and ERP Implementation Patterns

Manufacturing clearly wants to optimize product development processes across the enterprise. The single point of truth is leveraging the simplicity of SQL-database experience for the last 20 years. At the same time, centralization and replication of data are complicated and expensive processes. Managing phased implementation creates a set of new problems related to the ability to maintain the data transformation and synchronization within the time.

2 – Aras, SolidWorks and Disruptive PLM Strategies

Aras is clearly playing a role of a disrupter on PLM market. Back in 2007, Aras disrupted PLM first time by introducing Open Source PLM. It looks like Aras is on the way to make a second disruption among large companies using SolidWorks and taking a role of Enovia V6 in a bundle EPDM / EPLM. Enovia clearly has a technological advantage of having unified development forces in their new Dassault facilities in Waltham, MA to develop “best in class” Enovia V6 / SolidWorks EPDM integration. The speed of customer adoption will be a key factor for Aras.

3 – Cloud and Next Generation of BOM

I think, cloud and other web-based solution can introduce many advantages. One of them is to streamline BOM access by members of the team. Think about BOM as a Google spreadsheet and you probably can get excited by how it may change the way you work. However, cloud technologies introduce new challenges (especially in the field of integration) that need to be solved.

4 – CAD, PLM and Visual Reporting

I think, slowly, but surely, CAD and PLM vendors are starting to understand the value of the ability to present data reports and visualize them nicely. It recognized by many vendors (and just brought examples of Siemens PLM, Dassault Systems and Autodesk). In my view, we are going to see more examples of how reporting capabilities can increase the value of products and make it more usable.

5- PDM Cartoons, Marketing and Unsolved Problems

Few weeks ago, I’ve been interviewed during Autodesk Forum in Moscow. The conversation was about social networks and the question I’ve been asked was – What is next after “Like”? For the sake of the story, my answer was “+”. However, let me shift gears a bit. Thinking about PDM Cartoons I came to the question – “What is next after PLM?”. I found many things marketed as “PLM” functionality presented in these PDM cartoons. Does it mean “PDM” will be the next step after “PLM”. Who knows… The only thing is clear to me – lots of problems in manufacturing organizations cannot be solved by application of yet another “power point deck”. It is time to think what software can do so. The complexity is not in favor these days. Companies are trying to find a different way to solve existing problems.

Best, Oleg

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

From PDM to PLM: Unify or Integrate?

October 31, 2011

Earlier, this year, I post a blog called – Integrated PDM and PLM: Wrong Question? In the beginning, this blog post was inspired by Jonathan Scott’s presentation on SolidWorks World 2011. Aras EPLM announcement last week, made me think a bit more about PDM / PLM trends. The idea of integrating PDM with PLM isn’t new and already had a chance to discuss it before. In some of my previous blogs, I discussed that PDM overall maturity was growing for the last 10 years as well as facts that confirming CAD /PDM software vendors will be searching how to boost their future activities based on existing PDM products. Navigate to the following blog – CAD, PDM and PLM diversity, CAD Data and PLM, Autodesk Vault: Enterprise PDM or PLM? A growing amount of conversations around PDM vs. PLM topics made me think about to possible trends in a future PDM to PLM conversation:

Unify PDM and PLM

This is a path that was taken by large CAD/PLM vendors. You can hear “unification talks” from all mindshare PLM companies – TeamCenter, Enovia V6,Windchill. The arguments used by these vendors are quite simple – let’s reduce the amount of systems, unify and centralize information and “life will be good”. These messages are certainly convincing. In the following video, you can listen to how TeamCenter chief – Steve Baschada is talking about PDM to PLM transition.

Keep PDM and Integrate PLM

This is an opposite approach. For many companies, PDM is a successful project. SolidWorks Enterprise PDM, Autodesk Vault, SolidEdge /TeamCenter Velocity. These are examples of successful PDM systems with proven records of deployments. What if we can take PDM “as is” and integrate PLM products on top of them. Aras presented a case with Aras EPLM. I believe Agile PLM, SAP PLM and some other vendors can think about such an approach. I can see “cloud products” can be proposed on top of existing “on premise” offerings. I remember, Arena Solution tried in the past to have such a type of “integrated offering”.

What is my conclusion? I think, these two trends are going to compete in a very near future. Unification as an old school of PLM will be mostly in a defense mode. Their expansion is limited by a significant cost of transition from existing (PDM) systems to unified new platforms. An alternative can be interesting, in my view. Aras is a first example. More to come. The opportunity here is to keep TCO lower. However, the danger of complex integration between PDM and PLM can make this “trick-or-treating” dangerous. Will Aras and followers are going to get more Halloween candies? I don’t know. Just my thougths… Next time I’m going to talk about PDM to PLM integration challenges.

Best, Oleg

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

How to host PDM/PLM database on the cloud?

October 31, 2011

I was reading Oracle journal early today. Navigate your browser to read a short article – Which Cloud Service Provider Should Host Your Oracle Databases? The article is explaining how to host Oracle database using Amazon Web Services. If you are not familiar with this opportunity, here is the deal – you can host your RDBS (i.e. Oracle) on the cloud using so called Amazon RDS service(Oracle license included). I found the following video demonstrating how you can start you Oracle 11G instance on Amazon RDS in 5 minutes.

What is the conclusion? Actually, there is no conclusion in this post. I have a question. Management of database is one of the reasons why PDM software is complicated. You need to install the database service, administrate it, etc. Don’t you think, moving your database service to the cloud will be more efficient? There are few additional questions you need to answer related to management of file storage, performance and efficiency. So, I wonder if somebody using PDM/PLM systems in such configurations and what is your experience? Anyone?

Best, Oleg

6 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PDM Cartoons, Marketing and Unsolved Problems

October 11, 2011

cartoons-300x239.pngI was watching cartoons over the long Columbus day weekend. Not Disney… I was watching PDM cartoons. You may tell me – who is making PDM cartoons these days? Apparently large companies do. Autodesk and SolidWorks both made cartoons that actually made me think about marketing and unsolved problems. However, let’s first have a look:

Managing Data with Autodesk Vault

Autodesk Vault is getting more and more interesting these days. This cartoon is trying to convince me – Vault can do everything (even coffee)…

SolidWorks Enterprise PDM

Enterprise PDM is not a new product. EPDM came to SolidWorks via acquisition. Since them SolidWorks made few enhancements such as Bill of Material and Items management. However, the video is not talking about complicated stuff – it is about data access, processes and time management.

What is my conclusion? Few weeks ago, I’ve been interviewed during Autodesk Forum in Moscow. The conversation was about social networks and the question I’ve been asked was – What is next after "Like"? For the sake of the story, my answer was "+". However, let me shift gears a bit. Thinking about PDM Cartoons I came to the question – "What is next after PLM?". I found many things marketed as "PLM" functionality presented in these PDM cartoons. Does it mean "PDM" will be the next step after "PLM". Who knows… The only thing is clear to me – lots of problems in manufacturing organizations cannot be solved by application of yet another "power point deck". It is time to think what software can do so. The complexity is not in favor these days. Companies are trying to find a different way to solve existing problems. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

2 Comments | Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

PDM in 2010s: Commodity or Competitive Advantage

September 5, 2011

Product Data Management is not a new term. The first appearance of PDM software goes back in early 1990s (I believe veterans of the industry will come with some even earlier examples). Nevertheless, 20+ years should be enough to put all dots on “i” in PDM applications, systems, etc. I was thinking almost the same. However, I’m thinking about to withdraw my previous conclusion. You can ask me why? During this long Labor Day weekend, I was screening feeds and links on multiple sources of information marked “for review”. Some of them were related to PDM. It made me think “PDM story” is not written in full… yet.

Commodity Function and Unique CAD Integration

For the last 3-5 years, I can clearly see the trend of converting PDM into CAD system add-in. Many CAD vendors strategically focusing on how to convert their own PDM development into the best-integrated-component to their CAD products. It happens with different PDM systems: ENOVIA V6 (CATIA), Enterprise PDM (SolidWorks),TeamCenter Express (SolidEdge), Autodesk Vault (AutoCAD, Inventor, etc.), Windchill PDM Link (Creo-Parametric).

Take a look on the following two video fragments presenting PDM functionality for TeamCenter Express and SolidWorks Enterprise PDM. Both systems represent two popular PDM products widely used on the market.

SolidWorks Enterprise PDM

TeamCenter Express

PDM today provides a quite standard set of data-management functions. However, one of the key points is related to the ability of PDM to work efficiently with a specific CAD system. The last one is definitely creates an advantage of every CAD-PDM bundle coming from each CAD vendor.

PDM Competitive Advantage

I was reading Gain Competitive Advantage with Product Data Management white paper from Autodesk during this weekend. Navigate your browser to the following link to download it (note – you need to register to download). The article looks like “Product Data Management 101″ courses for high school. The advantages presented in this white paper – speed up development cycle, improved collaboration and higher quality. For every manager in any manufacturing organization, these things are obvious. The question of PDM cost is presented in this paper as something that can be easy calculated. I specially liked the following passage:

As a rule, taking the first steps into design data management today is a simple process that is possible at quite a low cost. PDM solutions are practical and cost effective. The barriers to adopting them are lower than ever, making the investmentworthwhile even for small-scale engineering offices. The costs involved in the acquisition of hardware and software and foroperation can usually be calculated relatively simply. It is significantly more difficult to assess the benefits of a PDM systemquantitative terms. There are no formulae, factors or tables from which the increase to a company’s ROI (return on investment) can be easily calculated.

Autodesk defines 5 key questions to answer when selecting PDM system. Here is the list.

• Will the PDM solution work with my CAD applications?
• Will the PDM solution work with my existing data and drawings?
• Will the PDM solution work with my ERP system?
• Is the PDM solution easy to implement and use?
• Who is the right partner?

I found something interesting analyzing these questions. There is no question in this list directly related to PDM core functionality. The questions are completely focusing on aspects related to CAD (or data) and ERP connectivity. Easy implementation and usage are very subjective as well as the ability to choose a right partner. Any CAD+PDM bundle coming from a specific vendor will have a definite advantage. On the other side, the white paper coming from Autodesk doesn’t contain any information that present advantages of Autodesk Vault vs. Product Data Management solution coming from other vendors.

PDM-less CAD users

CAD vendors are constantly reporting about growing amounts of PDM sales. Earlier last week, during SolidWorks 2011 media event, SolidWorks stated that 20% of their sales are non-CAD. Some of these 20% are definitely related to PDM. Autodesk stated about incredible good adoption of Autodesk Vault promising to surprise everybody with the Autodesk Vault results. Here is the quote from Carl Bass interview few months ago:

…I would suspect right now, we’re getting close to as many people using Vault as any other PLM system in the world,” retorted Bass. “The standard Vault, we don’t charge for it, it’s included but there are tens and tens of thousands, of implementations involved…

At the same time, Carl Bass admitted that even Vault is not solving some of the existing problems related to product data management:

I think there are two things we have to do more. One is we have to do something that’s even simpler than Vault, for all the other CAD users. I mean there’s still too much design data and you can’t find stuff easily… I think many, many small offices, industrial designers and architects have gotten past the point where they need something more than just to help organise and search their data. They’re not ready for full Vault implementation.

What is my conclusion? PDM systems came to the certain level of maturity and customer adoption. At the same time, it is still expensive and complicated work. That’s why, in my view, the number of “PDM-less-users” is still significant. White-papers about PDM are clearly focusing on PDM value proposition and referencing successful PDM implementation. However, it doesn’t provide any information about how to decrease PDM TCO and take PDM to the next customer adoption level. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers