The anatomy of MultiCAD-PDM Integrations

February 19, 2012

After posting my last blog multi CAD and PDM- dead lock?, I’ve got quite many emails and calls. It again proved to me that the topic is painful and require clarification. I’ll be setting up few follow up conversations following weeks. Today, I want to provide some background and clarify few basic things related to Multi-CAD and PDM.

The scope of Multi-CAD PDM

One size doesn’t fit all. Companies are using multiple CAD systems. Functional specialization, acquisitions, mergers and existing skill set. All these factors lead to the questions of how CAD systems exchange the information. It is about formats and interoperability. PDM multi-CAD is not about it. Since PDM is largely about the control and data share, multi-CAD PDM is about how to organize an environment in which engineers (and other people in your organization) will be able to use PDM will all CAD systems and files.

CAD-PDM: Immersive integration

Immersive integration is the trend in CAD/PDM which was formed for the last decade. It allows CAD users to interact with PDM within CAD environment. It simplified a lot design interaction and helps PDM to have a better control over the design process.

CAD-PDM plug-ins

Plug-in is a piece of software normally written using CAD API that allows PDM functionality inside of the CAD system. It includes functionality related to PDM control – open, check-in, check-out, release, etc. In addition to that it allows to support multiple CAD functional areas (I’m trying to avoid word ‘feature’ in order not to interrelate it with CAD parametric design features).

CAD complexity and PDM plug-ins

The growing complexity of CAD systems made PDM development quite complicated for the last 5-7 years. CAD systems made lots of functional enhancement, which made development of CAD-PDM in a nightmare. Add to that CAD releases, and you understand why CAD vendors got an ultimate advantage to provide a better CAD-PDM integration for their own CAD and PDM systems. It happens because of availability of internal knowledge, specific APIs and release process.

Customer needs and MultiCAD – PDM

MultiCAD environment is a reality of many companies. In such situation, customers are following two possible strategies 1- to follow dominant CAD + PDM strategy; 2- to form multi CAD/ PDM environment. The availability of a specific CAD-PDM integration is an ultimate deal/no-deal requirements in many situations.

Openness and API

In many situations, basic PDM and CAD integration can be achieved by using open API and system customization capabilities. These are important characteristics both PDM and CAD side. Availability of such instruments can decrease the pain around MultiCAD -PDM plug development.

CAD and PDM software releases and upgrades

Last, but now least- this is another pain point of Multi-CAD ODM plug-ins. Most of CAD and ODM releases are following one-year cycle. At the same time, customers are not always following all upgrades. To support multiple CAD releases in a single PDM is another place where precise synchronization between CAD and PDM development process is required.

What is my conclusion? The topic of MultiCAD PDM isn’t new. Let’s face the reality, because of the absolute importance, companies easy can get provoked to use it as a competitive advantage. In addition to "openness" in general, the ultimate way to solve this problem is Open API. I believe Open APIs is the most important strategic factor for companies to be competitive in the future. Just my thoughts… I’m looking forward to your comments and future discussions. Stay tuned for more posts about that.

Best, Oleg

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

Live from SolidWorks 2012 Media Event

August 31, 2011

I’ve been attending SolidWorks Media day in Dassault SolidWorks campus in Concord, MA. Actually, I noted- this is probably the last time event happens in the current SolidWorks building. SolidWorks is moving to the new Dassault campus in Waltham, MA. While the information about SolidWorks 2012 is under embargo, you can have a feeling of the event and some interesting information about SolidWorks install base, revenue growth, eco-system. I twitted most of these photos during the event. Nevertheless, I thought most of you can benefit from them combined in a single blog. Not everybody came to come to Boston because of Hurricane Irene a day before. However, you can see an impressive crowd in the meeting room.

Bertrand Sicot kicking off the event. The important message: SolidWorks is about evolution and not revolution.

SolidWorks is continued to develop the 3D professional market.

Nothing specially new, but this is how SolidWorks presented as part of all Dassault Systems’ brands

Key facts, revenues and install base.

Revenues

Install base

It was interesting to see the level of non-CAD product growth in SolidWorks portfolio. Today the numbers here mostly represents Simulation, Data management and documentation products.

Fielder Hiss, VP Product Management presents historical retrospective of SolidWorks releases for the last 20 years.

SolidWorks community numbers are impressive – 436 VARs and 750 partners.

The agenda afternoon included some very entertaining engineering experiments such as magnets, motor assembly and the hit of the day – vibration driven mouse robot.

Furthermore, afternoon agenda included SolidWorks 2012 Beta customers panel and a deep dive into SolidWorks 2012 features. However, this is where embargo starts.

In addition to that, SolidWorks was innovating in organizing new activities with SolidWorks execs (speed dating). 7 minutes round-table talk with exec. You can ask questions. After 7 minutes – rotation, execs are moving to the next table.

What is my take? It is hard to make a real comment and not to talk about the product. However, I think SolidWorks can play a significant role in the future transformation of Dassault Systems. How it will happen? Time will show.

Best, Oleg

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

PLM and New Openness

July 21, 2011

The topic of openness in PLM software isn’t new. In the past decade, I’ve been hearing lots of good and bad things about PLM and openness. Last year, I shared my thoughts with regards to PLM and openness in my post – Closed Thoughts About PLM Openness. Few days ago, I had a chance to read Ralf Grabowski was interviewing Fabien Fedida of Dassault Systems. Among all topics they discussed, one was about "new openness". Navigate your browser to the following link to read the interview. I put below some of my thoughts and references on PLM openness for the last year.

New Openness in Dassault V6 R2012

According to Mr. Fedida, Dassault is thinking how to improve the openness of their PLM software. Few examples: releasing of new APIs, adding V6 to external PDM integrations using Web Services and XML schemas. Here is my favorite passage:

Dassault is aggressively releasing API [application programming interface] calls "to the entire eco system." For example, ENOVIA V6 is now up to 3,000 API calls, 3DVIA Composer has 500, and CATIA has new ones in the area of composite manufacturing. There will be more APIs to come…

I can see the release of new APIs as something very positive. However, I’m afraid a bit about measurement of openness in the number of API calls, which reminded me how software was measured by LOC (lines of code) twenty years ago.

Aras, PLM Data "Obfuscation" and Other PLM vendors

A different perspective on openness is coming from Aras blog, which talked to us about PLM vendor’s practice of Lock-in, interoperability and need to make database and data models transparent and interoperable. Navigate your browser to read What is PLMData "Obfuscatopn" and Why Should I care?!? The following quote explains the "data obfuscation problem" and core idea behind Aras’ openness in database and data modeling technologies:

This is the way the other major PLM / PDM systems were / are designed. The database table for the Part Master is notcalled / labelled “Part” – it’s labelled “0034543908543TG324” or something else confusing like that… the data aresometime split into different tables so that access is non-intuitive. This is “obfuscation” and it’s done by design. PLMsystems have traditionally (and still are) very hard to get at the data and figure out, sometimes impossible…. Aras is an open and transparent data model that is designed in a very simple and straightforward manner. Parts are in a table calledPart”, Suppliers in a table called “Supplier”, etc. and you have complete access along with a published data dictionary. That’s very different from the other major PLM providers and one more way that we are helping companies take control of their own destiny. “

Talking about other PLM, I’d be mentioning TeamCenter PLM XML schema, which is a good example of openness, in my view. You can get more details here. It is interesting to see that the same Aras was delivered Aras’ connector to TeamCenter using TeamCenter PLM XML openness. Navigate to the following press release made by Aras back in 2009 – Aras announced connector technology for Siemens PLM Software TeamCenter.

What is my conclusion? Openness is a tricky thing, in my view. It depends on environment and in many times it is a part of the company fundamental strategies. I have to say that DS API numbers and connectors to everything are really reminded me the shelf in Apple store with connectors with all possible sources of data. At the same time, I cannot completely agree that usage of right naming in a database can solve the issue of data transparency and interoperability. The fact vendors are thinking about openness is a good sign. We will watch results… What is your take on PLM openness?

Best, Oleg

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

How To Stop Searching for PLM Killer App?

March 12, 2011

Are you familiar with the "Killer App" syndrome? In my view, conversations about a "Killer App" are very popular when some technological device or broad technological innovation needs to be proven. Killer App becomes so popular that return on the technology becomes obvious. I can bring some examples of Killer Apps in the past:VisiCalc on Apple II or Lotus 1-2-3 for IBM PC. However, in my view, talks about "killer app" are also a good indication about problems with a product or technology.

The following article caught my attention yesterday: What is the Killer Application for a Modern Engineer? I missed it when it was originally published in January. Chad Jackson, my colleague in the PLM Blogosphere, is talking about CAD, Collaboration and Mashups as examples of killer applications for Engineers. Where I disagree about the "notion" killer application in the context of engineers, I found analyzes Chad made in his post interesting.

Examples of Killer Apps?

CAD App
Personally, I think CAD is a mainstream technology. It was proven by many years. I don’t think, somebody today is designing any product without CAD system. History of CAD passed many waves of technological innovation that moved CAD between 2D, 3D and different computers platforms. I found surprising the fact SolidWorks wasn’t mentioned in the list of CAD products, but the choice of CAD was always somewhat "religious" and Chad’s selection didn’t surprise me.

Collaboration App
The history of various "collaborative applications" in the engineering space, in my view, started by introducing of data management to a wider company audience and following trial to expansion into PDM and PLM. The discussion about what is the killer app for collaboration is on going even today. My favorite collaboration tool for many years is email. Since I moved to Google App, I found it as a good addition to my email experience. PDM and PLM applications are constantly trying to replace email without visible success, in my view.

Mashups
The story of mashup is funny in my view. The word itself came to us from the Internet and Web space where applications (mostly running in the browser) "mashed up" the web content and making it more valuable for end users. The most successful mashup application, in my eyes is Google Map. I wrote about mashup on my blog before (Will Mashup Grow Up in PLM?) In my eyes mashups are interesting, but too vague and unclear from the standpoing of end-user who trying to get a job done.

PLM as a Killer App

In the beginning of 2000s PLM was introduced as a next big thing for engineers and manufacturing. After almost a decade of debates and different technological and product development attempts, I can see Product Lifecycle Management more as a "business and technological strategy" rather than "application".

Product Development: One Size Doesn’t Fit All?

Now think about design, engineering and manufacturing. It is all so different from various perspectives. Industry specific needs, departments and roles are different. Finally, every manufacturing shop is developing their own strategy for how to compete in the modern world and what can make it unique. If you ask me what application can fit everything, my ultimate answer is simple – Excel. Yes, Excel rocks when it comes to the flexibility and user adoption. The cost of customizing Excel to fit your needs is huge and the cost to support it even bigger (remember my Do you need chief Excel officer to manage BOM?)

What is my conclusion? PLM software vendors and analysts need to stop searching for a next "Killer Application". Flexibility and granularity are two important directions software vendors need to follow to gain next level of PLM software adoption. Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.

Best, Oleg

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

PLM Platform Wars: Who is Right or Who is Left?

February 25, 2011

CAD and PLM world is extremely competitive. The decision process in the manufacturing industry is not fast. Companies are spending significant budgets evaluating tools, benchmarking, comparing and, in the end of this process, supposed to make a right decision about what tools to use. During the last couple of months, I observed a growing amount of announcements made by PLM companies informing about "yet another major company" making a right choice by selecting a CAD or PLM system from a specific vendor.

Just few examples from Joe Brakai’s article: Industry on the Move — The Quest for Effective Global Product Lifecycle Management. PTC announcement about Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Motors Corporation (HKMC) about selection of PTC’sWindchill as its enterprise PLM software. Siemens PLM Software announced that Aston Martin is selecting the Siemens’NX CAD software for design and engineering, and Teamcenter PLM software to manage product and process information. Two months before, Daimler AG, selected NX as a corporate CAD Software standard. Earlier, Chryslerselected Teamcenter as its corporate-wide PLM software. Two months before, Volvo Group has adopted PTC’s Windchill. Here is my favorite passage from Joe’s article:

OEMs are realizing that the traditional heterogeneous and fragmented product lifecycle management environment, even when compromised of excellent tools, is unable to provide the level of visibility, manageability, and fidelity of decision-making required, and are taking steps to migrate to a design and manufacturing environment capable of supporting a global platform strategy. This environment must be standard-based and open in order to facilitate a single source of all data for design, manufacturing and supply chain processes across vehicle design and manufacturing programs.

Another interesting publication is Automotive Sector Ground Zero for PLM Battles by Beth Stackpole of Design News. Beth is discussing the same announcements made by PLM and major automotive vendors. However, I found the following passage interesting.

The automotive sector, which has a deep roots in evolving PLM software and practices, is shaping up as a fresh battleground for the major vendors in this category with all touting recent customer wins that play up their strengths and cement their positions as core development platforms for next-generation vehicles.

My best read about PLM movement in the automotive world is Al Dean’s article in Develop 3D – All Change in the Automotive World. I recommend you to have a read. Some of final Al’s thoughts struck me to think about V6 innovation.

There have been three pretty big moves away from Dassault or a decision to not take on Enovia during benchmarks. With a two year benchmark cycle being common, one has to wonder if there’s a link back to the launch of V6? A curious thing indeed.

In my view, V6 created disruption, innovation and challenge at the same time. The bundling of CATIA into Enovia V6 is creating a lot of possibilities that never been available before from the standpoint of collaborative design and data management. Initial introduction of the systems raised a lot of IT questions that need to be resolved.

What is my conclusion? I wanted to remind wise and relevant words of Bertrand Russell: “War does not determine who is right – only who is left”. The war between PLM platforms can become a disaster for customers. Customers are spending million of dollars investing money in "unbreakable closed platforms". Each of these systems contains lots of data, which has much bigger value compared to the software that eventually will be re-written every 5-10 years. I think, openness wins for a long run. In my view, PLM companies are only playing with openness. Who will take it seriously first? This might be a company that is left after the battle? Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

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

CAD/PLM On The Cloud and Vendor Lock In

February 24, 2010

I found a very interesting Forbes Magazine’s story – The Future of Enterprise Software. The author is writing about coming Cloud Software revolution. The write up is saying- Cloud Applications are coming and vendors won’t be able to lock in customers with the specific software. Customer will be “free to stay” or “free to go” and use any software from cloud.

“While concern over lock-in has a long history in hardware and services, it’s relatively new in enterprise application software. Companies always figured they owned the software because they put so much work into customizing it. Now, it appears, they are willing to forgo that level of ownership for the ability to move freely among cloud providers for the lowest possible cost or the best security benefits”.

This article made me think more about lock in and CAD/PLM software. The story behind customer lock in with enterprise software is not simple. And this is because of massive software customization that happens in the enterprise. Customers are building enterprise solutions based on software provided by enterprise vendors – MRP, ERP, CRM, SRM. The resulting solution is something to create strong affiliation between customers and software vendors.

However, in the context of CAD and PLM is even more interesting. In addition to customization and solution building on top of software products, customer creates intellectual property (IP) that dependent on CAD and PLM software. So, this IP in the forms of CAD models, drawings, Bill of Materials, etc. is an additional strong link between software vendor and customer. This dependency always discussed by CAD and PLM industry as “the interoperability” issue. I think, this issue will come back as soon as we’ll enter to the era of cloud CAD and PLM software.

Let’s try to understand what is the fundamental behind vendor lock in. I think, the ugly truth behind this is the cost of new customer acquisition. It is very high. To get a new customer on board is an expensive process and vendors are trying to keep customers not only by providing them more value and additional products, but also by putting additional cost them to walk out and use alternative products. This cost is translating of CAD models, export engineering and product data. This process is not always straightforward and requires experience, deep knowledge of software on both sides.

Now, let’s turn back to the cloud software. What is that about? I think, on the fundamental level, this is also about how to decrease new customer acquisition costs. Cloud software as services can simplify a selling process, can provide an easier way to demo software and provide free trial versions available for customers. In the end, fewer vendor bucks will be spent to get another happy customer on board. Done deal! What’s next? Do you think customer’s walk away from cloud software will be different than a similar process with software installed on premises? No, I don’t think so… The rest is very similar, in my view. Customer’s data, customization and many other factors will keep users on these systems exactly in the same way as it was before.

So, what is my conclusion today? Cloud is the way to software vendors to simplify the selling process. This is a huge advantage. In addition to that, there are many additional advantages related to the software on cloud. However, vendor lock in is with us to stay….

Just my thoughts… What is your view? What are your expectations from cloud software business relationships on both sides – vendors and customers?

Best, Oleg

Share

16 Comments | Business, Cloud Application, Daily PLM Think Tank | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

How PLM Vendors Can Listen To Competitors?

January 17, 2010

Last week I had chance to read Forbes’s article (Listen To Competitors — Not Customers), which made me think more about competition in Product Lifecycle Management. I read this article few times, and, I think, found why I felt not comfortable with position of author. The definition of customers is simple. Those people or organizations which consume products your organization manufactures. If you think about new markets, it is very simple to identify who are that organization or people you need to talk to. However, with competition the situation is not as simple. The definition of competition is subjective. You can consider the specific company (or product domain) as a competitive, but in fact, this is false reality.

In my view, today’s situation on the PLM market characterized by a very small amount of vendors that fight on the lucrative space of the specific services. At the same time, mainstream adoption of PLM is still a very significant problem. For the last decade, number of companies playing on PDM/PLM market decreased due to competitive acquisitions. If you will be listening to the PLM marketing, you can be confused by similarity of offering and messages. So, to realize a potential listening to the competitors the process of competitor’s selection need to be much different and going beyond Gartner Magic Quadrant.

So, what is my conclusion today? Discovering multiple ideas surrounding Product Lifecycle Management, I found many times that customer’s perspective on technology and product positioning is quite different from mainstream marketing presentations. Thus, you can find something, I’d call “alternative” and not “competition” to PLM. So, with such correction, I think, PLM companies need to watch alternatives to their solutions- it will create more balanced view and will focus on the competitiveness and ways to provide value to customers.

Just my thoughts…
Best, Oleg

Leave a Comment » | Customer's story, Daily PLM Think Tank, Market and Technology, PLM Implementation | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by olegshilovitsky

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers