PLM One Big Silo

June 9, 2014

plm-one-big-silo

Silos is an interesting topic in enterprise software. And it is a very important topic for product lifecycle management. Why so? Because, PLM is heavily relies on the ability to work and communicated across the organization and extended value chain. Accessing information in multiple departments, functional domains and application is part of this story. Silos is clearly one of the biggest PLM challenges. At the same time, silos can be also a good thing. They are reflection of org structure and sort of order we can use to navigate inside of organization.

Engineering.com posted PLM/ERP article – “Demolish the silos in PLM”: Why Dassault’s Bernard Charles believes in the 3D Experience. Read the article and draw your opinion. My understanding – Dassault System is combine multiple technologies and product belonging to different organizational domains to improve communication and information access across silos in organization.

Dassault System is not alone in the try to crush silos. Article is referencing other PLM companies’ effort to interconnect people and products. I liked the following passage:

The main idea behind DS’ 3DExperience is to provide the IT tools needed to break down the silos and connect the development work not only to software, electronics and manufacturing, but also to the end-customers. No doubt there are similarities and touch points between what this solution aims to do and Siemens PLM’s Industry 4.0 concept as well as PTC’s broader ALM, MES and SLM/IoT scope. The difference is that Siemens PLM places a higher priority on the engineering side of product realization, whereas PTC presently zooms in on the aftermarket and product-as-a-service concept.

Interesting enough, web is also got infected with the problem of silos. Large web 2.0 platforms are very similar to enterprise software silos, which put a lot of questions about availability of information across the web. There are quite lot of debates these days around the topic of web openness and information access. I’ve been reading Aral Balkan’s article – How Web 2.0 killed the Internet. The article contains a lot of controversial opinions about development of Web 2.0 and the way Open API used to support the development of huge centralized systems such as Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter and some others.

The thing that made me think the most was the question about Openness and Open APIs. Here is the passage from the article.

An Open API is simply a limited, revokable license to access and consume a certain subset of data and/or functionality that belongs to a closed silo. It is a visitor’s pass. The terms of the pass grant you limited access for a specific time. The terms can be altered — and routinely are altered — at the whim of the API owner. This is a painful lesson that many developers learned, for example, while working to add value to the Twitter platform by building Twitter clients. They were unceremoniously dumped after expending their energies to help Twitter build up its closed silo.

These two articles made me think about demolishing organizational silos, enterprise software, and future trajectories of PLM development. The term silos is misleading. There are organizational silos and application silos. The first (organizational silos) is something that needs to be demolished to improve communication and process transparency. However, the second one (applications) is something that will be built-up to connect people, applications and data. So, there is a high probability to have PLM One Big Silo built to solve the problem of communication and streamlining of product development.

The thing that raises my concern are related to open API. Enterprise software companies might have different reasons to product data compared to Google, Facebook and Twitter. However, fundamentally these APIs are controllable by vendors that can turn them off and on depends on the strategy, competition and many other reasons.

What is my conclusion? To build an open system is a very complicated task. I can see a shift towards creating of huge monolithic vertical silos. So, PLM One Big Silo is a very possible future for customers looking for smoothly integrated systems and aligned experience. However, my belief is that future will belong to open systems, which will bring an additional level of innovation and flexibility. Long term commitment of vendors for Open API is an important indication of software trajectory. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


Top PLM Vendors. Let’s face it – every vendor has its strength…

May 20, 2014

PLM-vendors-SWAT

One size doesn’t fit all. This is especially true in enterprise software. It also applies to engineering organization and manufacturing companies. Every organization is trying to come with a strategy how to organize engineering, product development, manufacturing, maintenance and other related functions. So, the same applies to PLM vendors. It is hard to make “apples to apples” comparison of PLM vendors and products. Details are important and without knowing small parts, it is hard to recommend as well as publish something that can be re-used in a general way. However, what to do if you need to choose or at least make some comparison of PLM vendors and their products? I’m sure you are familiar with SWOT analysis. It made me think about PLM vendors SWOT…

My first reaction was – no… this is probably mission impossible. In the past Gartner made Magic Quadrants. It provided a reliable source of information to compare software products and vendors. The last PLM Magic Quadrant (PLM MQ) I remember was done in 2007. I think Gartner stopped to produce them. I reproduced last PLM MQ in my blog – PLM Perfect Storm 2012. I hope you will agree with me – it is very hard to made any decision based on that chart.

PLM analyst Jim Brown from Tech Clarity produced a very interesting set of publications recently – Strategic visions of major PLM players. In addition to that, Jim also published separate articles describing PLM vision for Autodesk, Dassault Systems, PTC and Siemens PLM. It is a very good read – I certainly recommend you to spend few days analyzing what is strategic mind of key PLM vendors.

Honestly, I cannot see how possible to create a generic PLM vendors SWOT. Kill me if you want. A specific comparison can be done for one customer case or industry. Nevertheless, I didn’t want to give up and wanted to finish this post. It made me think about what is single top strength of every PLM vendor. Well, this is probably doable… Because, each of these top 4 vendors is doing many different things, I need to scope what I mean by PLM here. The agreement about “what is PLM?” is another interesting discussion topic. I won’t go there today. In current post, I limit PLM to what called cPDM (according to segmentation proposed by another analytic company – CIMdata).

So, too many disclaimers… This is a time to show things off. Here is the list of top 4 PLM vendors with single, most significant strength. I listed vendors alphabetically, to prevent any speculation about order or priorities.

1- Autodesk PLM

Autodesk is a new player in PLM market. Back in 2012, Autodesk introduced cloud PLM offering – PLM360. A combination of this story together with Autodesk broad reach in all industries and markets is clear advantage. So, here is Autodesk PLM strength: Autodesk PLM360 cloud story, channel and partnership opportunity.

2- Dassault Systems

The history of Dassault PLM is going back to first large PLM implementations Dassault made in aerospace and defense industry. In my view, Dassault focus was to create an ultimate integration story between CATIA products and related parts of data management and collaboration of ENOVIA. Thus, I can see CATIA-ENOVIA vertical integration as the major Dassault Systems’ PLM strength.

3- PTC

Originally started from Pro-E (now Creo) product line, PTC developed and acquired several PDM/PLM products. These days, PTC PLM offering relies on Windchill platform. Windchill is a very mature product that keeps the original pure web architecture. Windchill scalable product and architecture is clearly strongest part of PLM from PTC.

4- Siemens PLM

Siemens PLM has probably the largest PLM (cPDM) marketshare covered by multiple TeamCenter products developed in the past. These days, TeamCenter is Siemens PLM flagship platform absorbing all existing and new developed PLM products and customers. Therefore, I consider TeamCenter product line maturity and install base as the biggest strength of Siemens PLM.

What is my conclusion? What do you think? Do you agree with my analysis? PLM products are multifunctional. PLM industry is complex. I wanted to mention “single the most significant strength” that applies to both – company and product. Every specific case can bring additional aspects that can highlight variety of characteristics and product parameters. If you are selecting PLM now, I can recommend to read my old post – How to choose PLM? , which is a bit outdated (from 2010) and check another one – 7 rules for selecting PLM in 2014. Again, as usual, nothing scientific. These are only my thoughts…

Best, Oleg

Update (22-May-2014)

As I expected, this post raised lots of comments. I appreciate all my readers that came back with comments and questions for the last 2 days since I published this post. The largest amount of comments addressed the absence of two products/vendors from the list – Oracle/Agile and SAP PLM.

5- Oracle / Agile PLM 

Historically, Oracle acquired Agile PLM, which was one of the biggest neutral (not involved into CAD-related business) PLM vendors. For the moment, the core strength of Agile PLM is Oracle market share and family of product as well as out of the box functionality related to BOM management.

6- SAP / PLM

The core strength of SAP PLM is the fact it comes from SAP. The usage of SAP in a company as a platform is long term strategic decision. As soon as company decides for SAP, the strength of PLM addition from SAP will allow to cover all aspects of product development processes that not involving design and engineering.

What is my conclusion (22-May-2014)? To create good comparison is an interesting work. Few months ago, I’ve been posted about Crowdsourcing and PLM consultants’ future. For the moment, I feel like this post is making real field test. Again, appreciate all comments that help to make this article better.

Another minor update for blog title. Number “4″ is not relevant, so let’s get rid of it.

End of Update (22-May-2014)

—————

Disclaimer: I’m Autodesk employee now. In case you want to see it, here is my LinkedIn profile. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are my own only and in no way represent the views, positions or opinions – expressed or implied – of my employer (present and past).


How PLM can stop living in the future?

April 30, 2014

time-paradox-past-future-present

One of my favorite keynotes last week at COFES 2014 took me to the definition of time paradox and how different time orientation can reflect personal happiness. People are usually in one of the three time phases orientation – past, present or future. It appears that such presence phases have influence on lots of aspects of people’s behavior. If you never heard about this (like me until last week), the following video by Philip Zimbardo – The psychology of time is a very good starting point to learn about it. I’m looking forward to read Time Paradox book coming weekend.

COFES keynote time paradox made talks me think that time phase orientation can be applied organizational behavior as well as vendor-customer relationships. The realization that PLM vendor and PLM customer may be seeing the world very differently is important. Evermore, it can lead to understanding of how to improve that behavior and “customer happiness”.

In my view most of PLM vendors as well as technological providers are future phase, which makes a lot of sense. From that standpoint, I can see PLM is standing out, especially when it comes to SME organization. For many of them, technologies are mostly meaningless. To think about process improvement? Meh… What is important is to get job done and deliver orders. Which made me think about customers are in present phase. It come with risk management, cost optimization, interest to protect current job and current business status, etc.

It is very hard (almost impossible) to change people. It will take long time to make customer re-think how to perceive future tech investment. At the same time, vendors need to learn how to become more present oriented and turn PLM solutions that can bring short term practical benefits without significant investment from their side.

What is my conclusion? Customers are demonstrating high level of resilience against technological changes. For most cases, they see it as a disturbance. Vendors need to find a way to show more customer-orientation – it will help to bridge between future and present time orientation and move implementation focus into present time. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


PLM Sales Cheat Sheet

January 20, 2014

plm-sales-cheat-sheet

I have to admit – I don’t have formal sales education. My childhood was mostly influenced by math and tech. Technology has a smell of precision and knowledge. At the same time, sales appears to be manipulative. I can try to blame Soviet Union regime, but it doesn’t matter now. I was wrong.

The understanding of how I was wrong came later in my life. I learned to sell my software projects, application and services. I still cannot say I’m good in sales. I must thank few people in my carrier that helped me a lot to understand the nature of sales. I’m still learning.

None of recommendations I put below came from formal books. Actually, I never had a chance to read formal sales books. Probably I should. List below comes from my experience and involvement in PLM projects in variety of roles – technical, implementation, advisory, strategy, competitive analysis and more. Following these rules helped me to achieve goals.

1- Make "enterprise executives" friends and friends across other divisions in a company you are selling to. Don’t be engineering/tech buddy only. The championship in engineering system department is important, but you need to get the whole picture of product problems and profit in a company.

2- Learn to say "No" to engineers and R&D managers. Very often, PLM has engineering roots in the organization. You can easy get spoiled by engineering ideas. With all respect to engineers, these ideas are not always on the top priority list for CIO and can be far from business goals.

3- Prepare to come at least 7 times to meet your prospect customer. Sometimes you will feel repeating yourself, but in PLM implementation, it is often part of learning and convincing themselves about their decision. Also, be ready to answer on the question "what is PLM and why is it needed if company already spent million dollars to implement ERP". You need to have a good answer…

4- You need to become a source of knowledge about other PLM implementations, best practices, failures and successes etc. Make yourself a bit "techie" – it will help you to build your credit. Very often your prospect customer doesn’t know what to do and would love to learn from what you did for other companies.

5- Learn how to shutdown implementations if things are going wrong. This one is tough. Sh’t happens. You need to learn how to fire customer, even if you made a sale. Not everything depends on you. PLM touches different departments and often requires a company to change the way they do business. People are trying to manipulate and it resulted in politics influence, conflicts between management groups, implementation strategies, competitors, etc. If you see that you cannot make a visible success in 3-4 months, push the stop button and ask to "rethink what needs to be done".

6- Learn few key typical PLM implementations failures – team disagreement about product development process and data ownership, CAD integration failure, PLM/ERP integration failure. In my view, these three are responsible for more than 50% of PLM implementation failures. You need to learn how to smell it and go to option #5 with request to rebuild the process.

7- Deliver one feature from engineers dream list. Take one that will help engineers to be proud of what PLM does. Something that not on the top priority list. You will become "engineering hero".

8- You biggest win will come 3 years later from a customer you failed to sale to. Enterprise sales is a lengthy process. Companies need time to understand how they do work and how they need to manage a change. Management changes. Corporate conflicts get resolved. Remember #4 and be consistent in PLM vision you sale. Prospects will come back.

What is my conclusion? Enterprise sales is a special discipline. These days is probably one of the most interesting things in the overall process of technological disruption. Major disruption happened because of internet, cloud, mobile and other technologies. The wave seems to be going to enterprise continent. However, enterprise is first about people and second about technologies. Technologies make sense only after people can understand and use them. Just my thoughts and good luck!

Best, Oleg


Why PLM selection is about data access problem first?

October 29, 2013

plm-selection-process

How to select PLM? Manufacturing companies, industry pundits and vendors are trying to simplify this process. Nevertheless, after almost three decades, the problem is still on the table. PLM sales is value based and unfortunately requires to juggle too many people and events together. I see this process as a combination of technological choices, company practices and vendor selection.

I recently came to few notable PLM blog articles focusing on different aspects of PLM selection. My long time industry colleague and blog buddy Jos Voskuil put an article PLM Selection – Additional thoughts. Take a time and read Jos’ article – it contains many good recommendations and options to check when you trying to select PLM system such as – organizational requirements, implementation specifics, cost and even vendors FUD. The last one was interesting and I specially liked this passage:

My recommendation to a company that gets involved in FUD during a PLM selection process, they should be worried about the company spreading the FUD. Apparently they have no stronger arguments to explain to you why they are the perfect solution; instead they tell you indirectly we are the less worst.

Another article I came across is a publication in CL2M portal. A short writeup by Scott Cleveland is interesting – Why PLM? Scott is also mentioning multiple reasons to get involved into PLM. One of them is about "looking for information" effort was caught my special attention. It comes as a first problem one of his client was trying to solve by implementing of PLM. Here is how Scott explains that:

Looking for Information: He told me about the time his engineers spend looking for ‘stuff’ [like drawings and files]. I said this is a problem everywhere. I told him there have been many studies performed analyzing the time it takes engineers to find ‘stuff’, and all of them say that, without document management software, engineers can spend as much as 25% of their time looking for ‘stuff’.

He said he couldn’t put a figure on it, but believes that could be true at his company. He also mentioned that at some point the engineer will stop looking and just recreate the missing information. He said this is a killer. First it wastes project time and second, it leads to duplicate part numbers and possible errors caused by the duplicate drawings.

All together, it made me think about how to get information access into the central place of PLM selection process. Getting access to the information from multiple devices, organization locations and at any time becomes an absolutely must requirement any vendor should answer before getting into future PLM evaluation. Otherwise, you will be sinking into people inefficiency every day.

What is my conclusion? We live in the era when access to information becomes mission critical. Your design can lead to much more expensive options. You can potentially select wrong supplier. You can miss delivery dates. However, the most important is to note time aspect. Engineers are spending lots of time looking for "stuff". This is the problem nobody can tolerate any more. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


Is SAP HANA the future of PLM databases

February 7, 2013

I’m on the road in Europe this week. Europe met me with snow in Zurich and not very reliable internet connection later in Germany. On the plane, I was reading about future investments of SAP in HANA (new in-memory database) that suppose to revolutionize enterprise software industry. Navigate to the following link and have a read – SAP’s HANA Deployment Leapfrogs Oracle, IBM And Microsoft. I found the following passage very interesting.

What SAP has done is to provide one database that can perform both business analysis and transactions, something its rivals are able to provide only by using two databases, according to Gartner analyst Donald Feinberg. “It’s the only in-memory DBMS (database management system) that can do data warehousing and transactions in the same database. That’s where it’s unique.”

Databases is a fascinating topic. At the end of the day, the enterprise software industry (and not only) is solely relies on database for most of the applications. The days PDM apps were running on proprietary databases and filesystems gone completely. The last one I knew was PDM workgroup. In my view, SolidWorks is still running bunch of customers using this solution, but nobody is taking database-less solution seriously these days. Most of PDM and PLM applications are running on MS SQL and Oracle databases. Despite PLM power of IBM, I haven’t seen any significant usage if DB2 for PDM/PLM. Another interesting quote, I found about HANA is related to competition. According to author it will take few more years until Microsoft and Oracle will be able to catchup.

SAP has taken a big step ahead of rivals IBM, Microsoft and Oracle with the announcement on Thursday that its in-memory database called HANA is now ready to power the German software maker’s business applications. The pronouncement is sure to darken the mood of competitors, who one analyst says will need several years to match what SAP has accomplished.

I’ve been writing about HANA and applications before on my blog. Take a look here. Also, you can find lots of interesting resources online here. Applications of HANA database are interesting and when it comes to analyzes of massive amount of data makes a lot of sense in context of product development and manufacturing.

For SAP customers, HANA-powered applications can speed up the sales process dramatically. For example, today when salespeople for a large manufacturer takes a large order from a customer, they may not be to say on the spot exactly when the order will be fulfilled. That information often comes hours later after the numbers are run separately through forecasting applications.

What is my conclusion? Customers are interested in real solutions that can save money to them. Technology is less relevant in that case. Ability to answer practical questions is more important. SAP has money and customers. Many years, SAP is using database solution from main competitors – Oracle and Microsoft. Will SAP be able to pull new technology to revolutionize this market? Will Microsoft, Oracle and open source databases will be able to catch up this game? An interesting question to ask these days… Just my thoughts.

Best Oleg


Why Cloud PLM will dominate in superior UI experience?

July 20, 2012

Let’s talk about User Interface today. Something that we call UX (User Experience) nowadays. The importance of user experience can be hardly undervalued. The days when a user interface wasn’t important gone, and customers are demanding from software vendors to provide a different level of product usability.

What is the path to a good UX?

Well. We agreed – user experience is a very important thing.Take a look on the picture below. I’m sure, many of you, reading now this blog post and watching this picture can go in your product development, PDM, PLM system and find some similarity with this UI.

However, how practically we can achieve these results? One of my favorite online publications, UX Magazine, published an interesting article – Overhauling a UI Without Upsetting Current Users. I recommend you to have a read. I found to the concept of “redesign by evidence” interesting and valuable. However, my favorite passage is related to “usability testing”:

Usability testing is very different from beta testing. In beta testing, users will typically only report usability problems that make it very difficult for them to accomplish a task—in other words, things that are very clearly bugs. They typically won’t report that they found something challenging or unintuitive. People don’t always like to admit that they failed at something. Also, beta testers (or at least the ones who take time to report issues) are often fans of the product, and are therefore also power users. They may have already learned to work around or ignore usability issues.

This is a key, and many PLM systems failed to accomplish that. To test systems with “mainstream users” and not only “product fans” is very important.

Cloud PLM and Usability Testing

In my view, cloud product architecture and development introduces new opportunity to develop a better user experience. Cloud is eliminating long development cycles and making software to be available on demand. It creates a possibility to experiment with individuals as well as user groups in a very granular form. It allows to achieve a next level of usability testing almost identical to the level consumer web brands have these days.

What is my conclusion? Cloud product development opens new horizons for PLM. Cloud product development and testing provide new platforms and capabilities for usability testing and variety of user experiments. As a result, PLM companies will have an opportunity to achieve an improved level of UI quality compatible with the quality of consumer and web products. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


PLM Cloud and Software Licensing Transformation

July 18, 2012

The topic of software licensing is one of the most debated in the context of industry transition to the cloud. PLM is not immunized to this discussion, and I can see it happen in many forms in blogs, twitter and other social media forms. I definitely cannot bring all quotes to this post. One discussion that caught my attention recently in Ralph Grabowski’s WorldCAD Access blog. Ralph is quoting Griffin Securities analyst Jay Vleeschhouwer report from the Autodesk annual analyst meeting in New York:

For Autodesk, switching to the cloud is bigger than the ’90s switch to Windows.

Navigate to this link and have read. Don’t miss comments – they are probably as important as the article itself. In addition to traditional discussion about “security” and “cloud” danger, I found few interesting notes on the topic related to the potential danger of usage metering and other “new forms” of licensing. Here is my favorite passage:

Autodesk showed a slide indicating a progression from today’s mix of perpetual and maintenance revenues (for blended desktop and cloud workflows) to a future of per-user subscriptions and usage metering.

Cloud and Software Licensing Shakeout

This statement above made me think about the real transformation which will happen with licensing model in the cloud era. Traditional software licensing and (especially) enterprise licensing models are not suitable into cloud environment. Until now, the vast majority of enterprise software vendors use to license Servers, CPUs and Databases. With the introduction of cloud environment, most of the metrics became obsolete. How you can license server when you, actually, not really interested to know how many physical servers and/or virtual machines are running to support your environment.

Will “usage” become an ultimate licensing model?

Pay as you go. This is one of the famous and well-known slogans of SaaS (Software as a Service world). The wide adoption of this model in consumer web, raised the question if such a model will work well for the enterprise. Here are few pros and cons I can see.

Pros:

- simple model focused on “resource consumption”

- create a feeling or “fear pricing”

Cons:

- in some situations can be unpredictable

- can create a feeling of “license hostage” for customers.

What is a potential alternative to “usage” in cloud licensing? In my view, I can see 3 additional alternatives: capacity (size of the data storage), timeshare and end user (named users) licenses. All these models are implying “usage” in different forms. To pick up the right one (or combination) will be an important step for vendors.

What is my conclusion? One of the most important questions every cloud vendor needs to ask these days is how to create “a predictable licensing model”. Customers are afraid about a potential license hostage. To prevent it, vendors need to focus on transparency of cost calculations and potential alternatives. Just my thoughts…

Best, Oleg


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


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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 239 other followers