Life goes on, and I hope you are all staying safe while thinking about the future. Interesting in the context of the future, there was a recent post from Lionel Grealou with the title: Towards PLM 4.0: Hyperconnected Asset Performance Management Framework.
Lionel gave a kind of evolutionary path for PLM. The path from PLM 1.0 (PDM) ending in a PLM 4.0 definition. Read the article or click on the image to see an enlarged version to understand the logical order. Interesting to mention that PLM 4.0 is the end target, for sure there is a wishful mind-mapping with Industry 4.0.
When seeing this diagram, it reminded me of Marc Halpern’s diagram that he presented during the PDT 2015 conference. Without much fantasy, you can map your company to one of the given stages and understand what the logical next step would be. To map Lionel’s model with Marc’s model, I would state PLM 4.0 aligns with Marc’s column Collaborating.
In the discussion related to Lionel’s post, I stated two points. First, an observation that most of the companies that I know remain in PLM 1.0 or 2.0, or in Marc’s diagram, they are still trying to reach the level of Integrating.
Why is it so difficult to move to the next stage?
Oleg Shilovitsky, in a reaction to Lionel’s post, confirmed this. In Why did manufacturing stuck in PLM 1.0 and PLM 2.0? Oleg points to several integration challenges, functional and technical. His take is that new technologies might be the answer to move to PLM 3.0, as you can read from his conclusion.
What is my conclusion?
There are many promising technologies, but integration is remaining the biggest problem for manufacturing companies in adopting PLM 3.0. The companies are struggling to expand upstream and downstream. Existing vendors are careful about the changes. At the same time, very few alternatives can be seen around. Cloud structure, new data management, and cloud infrastructure can simplify many integration challenges and unlock PLM 3.0 for future business upstream and especially downstream. Just my thoughts…
Completely disconnected from Lionel’s post, Angad Sorte from Plural Nordic AS wrote a LinkedIn post: Why PLM does not get attention from your CEO. Click on the image to see an enlarged version, that also neatly aligns with Industry 4.0. Coincidence, or do great minds think alike? Phil Collins would sing: It is in the air tonight
Angad’s post is about the historical framing of PLM as a system, an engineering tool versus a business strategy. Angrad believes once you have a clear definition, it will be easier to explain the next steps for the business. The challenge here is: Do we need, or do we have a clear definition of PLM? It is a topic that I do not want to discuss anymore due to a variety of opinions and interpretations. An exact definition will never lead to a CEO stating, “Now I know why we need PLM.”
I believe there are enough business proof points WHY companies require a PLM-infrastructure as part of a profitable business. Depending on the organization, it might be just a collection of tools, and people do the work. Perhaps this is the practice in small enterprises?
In larger enterprises, the go-to-market strategy, the information needs, and related processes will drive the justification for PLM. But always in the context of a business transformation. Strategic consultancy firms are excellent in providing strategic roadmaps for their customers, indicating the need for a PLM-infrastructure as part of that.
Most of the time, they do not dive more in-depth as when it comes to implementation, other resources are needed.
What needs to be done in PLM 1.0 to 4.0 per level/stage is well described in all the diagrams on a high-level. The WHAT-domain is the domain of the PLM-vendors and implementers. They know what their tools and skillsets can do, and they will help the customer to implement such an environment.
The big illusion of all the evolutionary diagrams is that it gives a false impression of evolution. Moving to the next level is not just switching on new or more technology and involve more people.
So the big question is HOW and WHEN to make progress.
HOW to make progress
In the past four years, I have learned that digital transformation in the domain of PLM is NOT an evolution. It is disruptive as the whole foundation for PLM changes. If you zoom in on the picture on the left, you will see the data model on the left, and the data model on the right is entirely different.
On the left side of the chasm, we have a coordinated environment based on data-structures (items, folders, tasks) to link documents.
On the right side of the chasm, we have a connected environment based on federated data elements and models (3D, Logical, and Simulation models).
I have been discussing this topic in the past two years at various PLM conferences and a year ago in my blog: The Challenges of a connected ecosystem for PLM
If you are interested in learning more about this topic, register for the upcoming virtual PLM Innovation Forum organized by TECHNIA. Registration is for free, and you will be able to watch the presentation, either live or recorded for 30 days.
At this moment, the detailed agenda has not been published, and I will update the link once the session is visible. My presentation will not only focus on the HOW to execute a digital transformation, including PLM can be done, but also explain why NOW is the moment.
NOW to make progress
When the COVID19-related lockdown started, must of us thought that after the lockdown, we will be back in business as soon as possible. Now understanding the impact of the virus on our society, it is clear that we need to re-invent ourselves for a sustainable future, be more resilient.
It is now time to act and think differently as due to the lockdown, most of us have time to think. Are you and your company looking forward to creating a better future? Or will you and your company try to do the same non-sustainable rat race of the past and being caught by the next crises.
McKinsey has been publishing several articles related to the impact of COVID19 and the article: Beyond coronavirus: The path to the next normal very insightful
As McKinsey never talks about PLM, therefore I want to guide you to think about more sustainable business.
Use a modern PLM-infrastructure, practices, and tools to remain competitive, meanwhile creating new or additional business models. Realizing concepts as digital twins, AR/VR-based business models require an internal transition in your company, the jump from coordinated to connected. Therefore, start investigating, experimenting in these new ways of working, and learn fast. This is why we created the PLM Green Alliance as a platform to share and discuss.
If you believe there is no need to be fast, I recommend you watch Rebecka Carlsson’s presentation at the PLMIF event. The title of her presentation: Exponential Tech in Sustainability. Rebecca will share insights for business development about how companies can upgrade to new business models based on the new opportunities that come with sustainability and exponential tech.
The reason I recommend her presentation because she addresses the aspect of exponential thinking nicely. Rebecka states we are “programmed” to think local-linear as mankind. Exponential thinking goes beyond our experience. Something we are not used doing until with the COVID19-virus we discovered exponential growth of the number of infections.
Finally, and this I read this morning, Jan Bosch wrote an interesting post: Why Agile Matters, talking about the fact that during the design and delivery of the product to the market, the environment and therefore the requirements might change. Read his post, unless as Jan states:
Concluding, if you’re able to perfectly predict the optimal set of requirements for a system or product years ahead of the start of production or deployment and if you’re able to accurately predict the effect of each requirement on the user, the customer and the quality attributes of the system, then you don’t need Agile.
What I like about Jan’s post is the fact that we should anticipate changing requirements. This statement combined with Rebecka’s call for being ready for exponential change, with an emerging need for sustainability, might help you discuss in your company how a modern New Product Introduction process might look like, including requirements for a sustainable future that might come in later (per current situation) or can become a practice for the future
Conclusion
Now is the disruptive moment to break with the old ways of working. Develop plans for the new Beyond-COVID19-society. Force yourselves to work in more sustainable modes (digital/virtual), develop sustainable products or services (a circular economy), and keep on learning. Perhaps we will meet virtually during the upcoming PLM Innovation Forum?
Note: You have reached the end of this post, which means you took the time to read it all. Now if you LIKE or DISLIKE the content, share it in a comment. Digital communication is the future. Just chasing for Likes is a skin-deep society. We need arguments.
Looking forward to your feedback.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 20, 2020 at 10:26 am
Yoann Maingon
Hi Jos, I agree for the part where connectivity between systems is a key aspect for PLM to go towards 4.0, but I believe we are still missing a pre-requisite: Giving a clear technical specification of PLM. I still have customers who would specify me a Part with a quantity field on it. What about a Team does the team has members or members have a team? Sound like the same thing, but it’s not. I think a good specification of PLM datamodel and dynamic with a clear UML description would help converging before allowing to move to more integrations between systems. STEP tried to do it but they made it unreachable for most of us (they even had to create a whole modeling language !!!)
Hi Yoann, I understand your question and if you look at Marc Halpern’s classification you see at the bottom the emerging need for standards. I think the best-so-far standard I have seen is PLCS which has been implemented in a mechanical PLM mindset – Eurostep’s ShareAspace is an example of the implementation of this standard. But what about electrical & software? I think standardization is nice, as soon as we recognize what could be the standard.
LikeLike
April 20, 2020 at 3:46 pm
Yoann Maingon
This is a great example. If I go to a company, and they ask me about versionning best practices, Should I get back to them with PLCS? I agree with you that PLCS might be the best, but to me it still a pretty bad specification from another era.
Looking at the Part Version object: “A PartVersion is a specialization of ProductVersion that identifies a version of a part. A PartVersion serves as the collector of the data characterizing a realizable object in various application contexts.
NOTE A PartVersion is expected to be functionally and physically interchangeable with the other versions of the same Part.”
I haven’t finished to read this that my brain already started dripping out of my nose. I think this should be the first and most urgent task for anyone working in PLM. Get together to build real scalable standard. Scalable in a way that, a startup can start doing PLM properly without having to go across 20 blogs and books to figure out how he may organize and identify data.
Yoann I understand your point and from all the PLM data modeling workshops I have done in the past, I learned there never will be a standard, only trends. Some PLM editors sell the flexible data model as their benefit. Others come with specific data model constraints due to the legacy – and still, they get implemented too. 3 Years ago I worked with a company that exactly reversed the meaning of a revision and a version. There are academic books describing a revision or version, but they are all based on the author’s education and experience. I assume the best-defined (mechanical) terminology you will find in German literature, but there is no global standard possible I am afraid for – imagine electrical and software to be part of the scope, a model-based infrastructure – perhaps still experts are needed to translate the academic world to day-to-day business ?
LikeLike
April 21, 2020 at 6:18 am
Naresh Y
A very good write up.. and I agree with you on many points. But I think the brand PLM has become a bit old and lot of CEOs ignored it for years..But PLM concepts and solutions are critical, maybe Its time we re-brand PLM which resonates with CEOs and decision-makers.
Thanks for your feedback. The discussion to rebrand PLM comes up several times. For me, PLM is a discipline/domain label that you do not discuss directly with a CEO. With a CEO you talk about new ways of working, business models, closed-loop products and processes with customers. If you have a business need for such a change, there will be a need for HR changing the organisation and very likely a PLM-infrastructure. Best regards, Jos
LikeLike