You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Digital Enterprise’ category.
Four years ago, I wrote a series of posts with the common theme: The road to model-based and connected PLM. I discussed the various aspects of model-based and the transition from considering PLM as a system towards considering PLM as a strategy to implement a connected infrastructure.
Since then, a lot has happened. The terminology of Digital Twin and Digital Thread has become better understood. The difference between Coordinated and Connected ways of working has become more apparent. Spoiler: You need both ways. And at this moment, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a new hype.
Many current discussions in the PLM domain are about structures and data connectivity, Bills of Materials (BOM), or Bills of Information(BOI) combined with the new term Digital Thread as a Service (DTaaS) introduced by Oleg Shilovitsky and Rob Ferrone. Here, we envision a digitally connected enterprise, based connected services.
A lot can be explored in this direction; also relevant Lionel Grealou’s article in Engineering.com: RIP SaaS, long live AI-as-a-service and follow-up discussions related tot his topic. I chimed in with Data, Processes and AI.
However, we also need to focus on the term model-based or model-driven. When we talk about models currently, Large Language Models (LMM) are the hype, and when you are working in the design space, 3D CAD models might be your first association.
There is still confusion in the PLM domain: what do we mean by model-based, and where are we progressing with working model-based?
A topic I want to explore in this post.
It is not only Model-Based Definition (MBD)
Before I started The Road to Model-Based series, there was already the misunderstanding that model-based means 3D CAD model-based. See my post from that time: Model-Based – the confusion.
Model-Based Definition (MBD) is an excellent first step in understanding information continuity, in this case primarily between engineering and manufacturing, where the annotated model is used as the source for manufacturing.
In this way, there is no need for separate 2D drawings with manufacturing details, reducing the extra need to keep the engineering and manufacturing information in sync and, in addition, reducing the chance of misinterpretations.
MBD is a common practice in aerospace and particularly in the automotive industry. Other industries are struggling to introduce MBD, either because the OEM is not ready or willing to share information in a different format than 3D + 2D drawings, or their supplier consider MBD too complex for them compared to their current document-driven approach.
In its current practice, we must remember that MBD is part of a coordinated approach.
Companies exchange technical data packages based on potential MBD standards (ASME Y14.47 /ISO 16792 but also JT and 3D PDF). It is not yet part of the connected enterprise, but it connects engineering and manufacturing using the 3D Model as the core information carrier.
As I wrote, learning to work with MBD is a stepping stone in understanding a modern model-based and data-driven enterprise. See my 2022 post: Why Model-based Definition is important for us all.
To conclude on MBD, Model-based definition is a crucial practice to improve collaboration between engineering, manufacturing, and suppliers, and it might be parallel to collaborative BOM structures.
And it is transformational as the following benefits are reported through ChatGPT:
- Up to 30% faster in product development cycles due to reduced need for 2D drawings and fewer design iterations. Boeing reported a 50% reduction in engineering change requests by using MBD.
- Companies using MBD see a 20–50% reduction in manufacturing errors caused by misinterpretations of 2D drawings. Caterpillar reported a 30% improvement in first-pass yield due to better communication between design and manufacturing teams.
- MBD can reduce product launch time by 20–50% by eliminating bottlenecks related to traditional drawings and manual data entry.
- 20–30% reduction in documentation costs by eliminating or reducing 2D drawings. Up to 60% savings on rework and scrap costs by reducing errors and inconsistencies.
Over five years, Lockheed Martin achieved a $300 million cost savings by implementing MBD across parts of its supply chain.
MBSE is not a silo.
The MBSE playground
For many people, Model-Based Systems Engineering(MBSE) seems to be something not relevant to their business, or it is a discipline for a small group of specialists that are conducting system engineering practices, not in the traditional document-driven V-shape approach but in an iterative process following the V-shape, meanwhile using models to predict and verify assumptions.
And what is the value connected in a PLM environment?
A quick heads up – what is a model
A model is a simplified representation of a system, process, or concept used to understand, predict, or optimize real-world phenomena. Models can be mathematical, computational, or conceptual.
We need models to:
- Simplify Complexity – Break down intricate systems into manageable components and focus on the main components.
- Make Predictions – Forecast outcomes in science, engineering, and economics by simulating behavior – Large Language Models, Machine Learning.
- Optimize Decisions – Improve efficiency in various fields like AI, finance, and logistics by running simulations and find the best virtual solution to apply.
- Test Hypotheses – Evaluate scenarios without real-world risks or costs for example a virtual crash test..
It is important to realize models are as accurate as the data elements they are running on – every modeling practices has a certain need for base data, be it measurements, formulas, statistics.
I watched and listened to the interesting podcast below, where Jonathan Scott and Pat Coulehan discuss this topic: Bridging MBSE and PLM: Overcoming Challenges in Digital Engineering. If you have time – watch it to grasp the challenges.
The challenge in an MBSE environment is that it is not a single tool with a single version of the truth; it is merely a federated environment of shared datasets that are interpreted by modeling applications to understand and define the behavior of a product.
In addition, an interesting article from Nicolas Figay might help you understand the value for a broader audience. Read his article: MBSE: Beyond Diagrams – Unlocking Model Intelligence for Computer-Aided Engineering.
Ultimately, and this is the agreement I found on many PLM conferences, we agree that MBSE practices are the foundation for downstream processes and operations.
We need a data-driven modeling environment to implement Digital Twins, which can span multiple systems and diagrams.
In this context, I like the Boeing diamond presented by Don Farr at the 2018 PLM Roadmap EMEA conference. It is a model view of a system, where between the virtual and the physical flow, we will have data flowing through a digital thread.
Where this image describes a model-based, data-driven infrastructure to deliver a solution, we can, in addition, apply the DevOp approach to the bigger picture for solutions in operation, as depicted by the PTC image below.
Model-based the foundation of the digital twins
To conclude on MBSE, I hope that it is clear why I am promoting considering MBSE not only as the environment to conceptualize a solution but also as the foundation for a digital enterprise where information is connected through digital threads and AI models (**new**)
The data borders between traditional system domains will disappear – the single source of change and the nearest source of truth – paradigm, and this post, The Big Blocks of Future Lifecycle Management, from Prof. Dr. Jörg Fischer, are all about data domains.
However, having accessible data using all kinds of modern data sources and tools are necessary to build digital twins – either to simulate and predict a physical solution or to analyze a physical solution and, based on the analysis, either adjust the solutions or improve your virtual simulations.
Digital Twins at any stage of the product life cycle are crucial to developing and maintaining sustainable solutions, as I discussed in previous lectures. See the image below:
Conclusion
Data quality and architecture are the future of a modern digital enterprise – the building blocks. And there is a lot of discussion related to Artificial Intelligence. This will only work when we master the methodology and practices related to a data-driven and sustainable approach using models. MBD is not new, MBSE perhaps still new, building blocks for a model-based approach. Where are you in your lifecycle?
Most times in this PLM and Sustainability series, Klaus Brettschneider and Jos Voskuil from the PLM Green Global Alliance core team speak with PLM related vendors or service partners.
This year we have been speaking with Transition Technologies PSC, Configit, aPriori, Makersite and the PLM Vendors PTC, Siemens and SAP.
Where the first group of companies provided complementary software offerings to support sustainability – “the fourth dimension”– the PLM vendors focused more on the solutions within their portfolio.
This time we spoke with , CIMPA PLM services, a company supporting their customers with PLM and Sustainability challenges, offering an end-to-end support.
What makes them special is that they are also core partner of the PLM Global Green Alliance, where they moderate the Circular Economy theme – read their introduction here: PLM and Circular Economy.
CIMPA PLM services
We spoke with Pierre DAVID and Mahdi BESBES from CIMPA PLM services. Pierre is an environmental engineer and Mahdi is a consulting manager focusing on parts/components traceability in the context of sustainability and a circular economy. Many of the activities described by Pierre and Mahdi were related to the aerospace industry.
We had an enjoyable and in-depth discussion of sustainability, as the aerospace industry is well-advanced in traceability during the upstream design processes. Good digital traceability is an excellent foundation to extend for sustainability purposes.
CSRD, LCA, DPP, AI and more
A bunch of abbreviations you will have to learn. We went through the need for a data-driven PLM infrastructure to support sustainability initiatives, like Life Cycle Assessments and more. We zoomed in on the current Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive(CSRD) highlighting the challenges with the CSRD guidelines and how to connect the strategy (why we do the CSRD) to its execution (providing reports and KPIs that make sense to individuals).
In addition, we discussed the importance of using the proper methodology and databases for lifecycle assessments. Looking forward, we discussed the potential of AI and the value of the Digital Product Passport for products in service.
Enjoy the 37 minutes discussion and you are always welcome to comment or start a discussion with us.
What we learned
- Sustainability initiatives are quite mature in the aerospace industry and thanks to its nature of traceability, this industry is leading in methodology and best practices.
- The various challenges with the CSRD directive – standardization, strategy and execution.
- The importance of the right databases when performing lifecycle analysis.
- CIMPA is working on how AI can be used for assessing environmental impacts and the value of the Digital Product Passport for products in service to extend its traceability
Want to learn more?
Here are some links related to the topics discussed in our meeting:
- CIMPA’s theme page on the PLM Green website: PLM and Circular Economy
- CIMPA’s commitments towards A sustainable, human and guiding approach
- Sopra Steria, CIMPA’s parent company: INSIDE #8 magazine
Conclusion
The discussion was insightful, given the advanced environment in which CIMPA consultants operate compared to other manufacturing industries. Our dialogue offered valuable lessons in the aerospace industry, that others can draw on to advance and better understand their sustainability initiatives
Recently, I noticed I reduced my blogging activities as many topics have already been discussed and repeatably published without new content.
With the upcoming of Gen AI and ChatGPT, I believe my PLM feeds are flooded by AI-generated blog posts.
The ChatGPT option
Most companies are not frontrunners in using extremely modern PLM concepts, so you can type risk-free questions and get common-sense answers.
I just tried these five questions:
- Why do we need an MBOM in PLM, and which industries benefit the most?
- What is the difference between a PLM system and a PLM strategy?
- Why do so many PLM projects fail?
- Why do so many ERP projects fail?
- What are the changes and benefits of a model-based approach to product lifecycle management?
Note: Questions 3 and 4 have almost similar causes and impacts, although slightly different, which is to be expected given the scope of the domain.
All these questions provided enough information for a blog post based on the answer. This illustrates that if you are writing about what are current best practices in the field – stop writing – the knowledge is there.
PLM in the real life
Recently, I had several discussions about which skills a PLM expert should have or which topics a PLM project should address.
PLM for the individual
For the individual, there are often certifications to obtain. Roger Tempest has been fighting for PLM professional recognition through certification – a challenge due to the broad scope and possibilities. Read more about Roger’s work in this post: PLM is complex (and we have to accept it?)
PLM vendors and system integrators often certify their staff or resellers to guarantee the quality of their solution delivery. Potential topics will be missed as they do not fulfill the vendor’s or integrator’s business purpose.
Asking ChatGPT about the required skills for a PLM expert, these were the top 5 answers:
- Technical skills
- Domain Knowledge
- Analytical and Problem-Solving Skills
- Interpersonal and Management Skills
- Strategic Thinking
It was interesting to see the order proposed by ChatGPT. Fist the tools (technology), then the processes (domain knowledge / analytical thinking), and last the people and business (strategy and interpersonal and management skills) It is hard to find individuals with all these skills in a single person.
Although we want people to be that broad in their skills, job offerings are mainly looking for the expert in one domain, be it strategy, communication, industry or technology. To get an impression of the skills read my PLM and Education concluding blog post.
Now, let’s see what it means for an organization.
PLM for the organization
In this area, one of the most consistent frameworks I have seen over time is CIMdata‘s Critical Dozen. Although they refer less to skills and more to trends and enablers, a company should invest in – educate people & build skills – to support a successful digital transformation in the PLM domain.
Oleg Shilovitsky’s recent blog post, The 12 “P” s of PLM Explained by Role: How to Make PLM More Than Just a Buzzword describes in an AI manner the various aspects of the term PLM, using 12 P**-words, reacting to Lionel Grealou’ s post: Making PLM Great Again
The challenge I see with these types of posts is: “OK, what to do now? Where to start?”
I believe where to start at the first place is a commonly agreed topic.
Everything starts from having a purpose and a vision. And this vision should be supported by a motivating story about the WHY that inspires everyone.
It is teamwork to define such a strategy, communicate it through a compelling story and make it personal. An excellent book to read is Make it personal from Dr. Cara Antoine – click on the image to discover the content and find my review why I believe this book is so compelling.
An important reason why we have to make transformations personal is because we are dealing first of all with human beings. And human beings are driven by emotions first even before ratio kicks in. We see it everywhere and unfortunately also in politics.
The HOW from real-life
This question cannot be answered by external PLM vendors, consultants or system integrators. Forget the Out-of-the-Box templates or the industry best practices (from the past), but start from your company’s culture and vision, introducing step-by-step new technologies, ways of working and business models to move towards the company’s vision target.
Building the HOW is not an easy journey, and to illustrate the variety of skills needed to be successful, I worked with Share PLM on their Series 2 podcast. You can find the complete overview here. There is one more to come to conclude this year.
Our focus was to speak only with PLM experts from the field, understanding their day-to-day challenges with a focus on HOW they did it and WHAT they learned.
And this is what we learned:
Unveiling FLSmidth’s Industrial Equipment PLM Transformation: From Projects to Products
It was our first episode of Series 2, and we spoke with Johan Mikkelä, Head of the PLM Solution Architecture at FLSmidth.
FLSmidth provides the global mining and cement industries with equipment and services, which is very much an ETO business moving towards CTO.
We discussed their Industrial Equipment PLM Transformation and the impact it has made.
Start With People: ABB’s Engineering Approach to Digital Transformation
We spoke with Issam Darraj, who shared his thoughts on human-centric digitalization. Issam talks us through ABB’s engineering perspective on driving transformation and discusses the importance of focusing on your people. Our favorite quote:
To grow, you need to focus on your people. If your people are happy, you will automatically grow. If your people are unhappy, they will leave you or work against you.
Enabling change: Exploring the human side of digital transformations
We spoke with Antonio Casaschi as he shared his thoughts on the human side of digital transformation. When discussing the PLM expert, he agrees it is difficult. Our favorite part here:
“I see a PLM expert as someone with a lot of experience in organizational change management. Of course, maybe people with a different background can see a PLM expert with someone with a lot of knowledge of how you develop products, all the best practices around products, etc. We first need to agree on what a PLM expert is, and then we can agree on how you become an expert in such a domain.”
Revolutionizing PLM: Insights from Yousef Hooshmand
With Dr. Yousef Hooshmand, writer of the paper: From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and
Data Mesh, with over 15 years of experience in the PLM domain, currently PLM Lead at NIO, we discussed the complexity of digital transformation in the PLM domain and How to deal with legacy, meanwhile implementing a user-centric, data-driven future.
My favorite quote: The End of Single Source of Truth, now it is about The nearest Source of Truth and Single Source of Change.
Steadfast Consistency: Delving into Configuration Management with Martijn Dullaart
Martijn Dullaart, who is the man behind the blog MDUX: The Future of CM and author of the book The Essential Guide to Part Re-Identification: Unleash the Power of Interchangeability and Traceability, has been active both in the PLM and CM domain and with Martijn the similarities and differences between PLM and CM and why organizations need to be educated on the topic of CM
The ROI of Digitalization: A Deep Dive into Business Value with Susanna Maëntausta
With Susanna Maëntausta, we discussed how to implement PLM in non-traditional manufacturing industries, such as the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.
Susanna teaches us to ensure PLM projects are value-driven, connecting business objectives and KPIs to the implementation and execution steps in the field. Susanna is highly skilled in connecting people at any level of the organization.
Narratives of Change: Grundfos Transformation Tales with Björn Axling
As Head of PLM and part of the Group Innovation management team at Grundfos, Bjorn Axling aims to drive a Group-wide, cross-functional transformation into more innovative, more efficient, and data-driven ways of working through the product lifecycle from ideation to end-of-life.
In this episode, you will learn all the various aspects that come together when leading such a transformation in terms of culture, people, communication, and modern technology.
The Next Lane: Marel and the Digital Product Highway with Roger Kabo
With Roger Kabo, we discussed the steps needed to replace a legacy PLM environment and be open to a modern, federated, and data-driven future.
Step 1: Start with the end in mind. Every successful business starts with a clear and compelling vision. Your vision should be specific, inspiring, and something your team can rally behind.
Next, build on value and do it step by step.
How do you manage technology and data when you have a diverse product portfolio?
We talked with Jim van Oss, the former CIO of Moog Inc., for a deep dive into the fascinating world of technology transformations.
Key Takeaway: Evolving technology requires a clear strategy!
Jim underscores the importance of having a north star to guide your technological advancements, ensuring you remain focused and adaptable in an ever-changing landscape.
Diverse Products, Unified Systems: MBSE Insights with Max Gravel from Moog
We discussed the future of the Model-Based approaches with Max Gravel – MBD at Gulfstream and MBSE at Moog.
Max Gravel, Manager of Model-Based Engineering at Moog Inc., who is also active in modern CM, emphasizes that understanding your company’s goals with MBD is crucial.
There’s no one-size-fits-all solution: it’s about tailoring the strategy to drive real value for your business. The tools are available, but the key lies in addressing the right questions and focusing on what matters most. A great, motivating story containing all the aspects of digital transformation in the PLM domain/
Customer-First PLM: Insights on Digital Transformation and Leadership
With Helene Arlander, who has been involved in big transformation projects in the telecom industry. Starting from a complex legacy environment, implementing new data-driven approaches. We discussed the importance of managing product portfolios end-to-end and the leadership strategies needed for engaging people in charge.
We also discussed the role of AI in shaping the future of PLM and the importance of vision, diverse skill sets, and teamwork in transformations.
Conclusion
I believe the time of traditional blogging is over – current PLM concepts and issues can be easily queried by using ChatGPT-like solutions. The fundamental understanding of what you can do now comes from learning and listening to people, not as fast as a TikTok video or Insta message. For me, a podcast is a comfortable method of holistic learning.
Let us know what you think and who should be in Season 3
And for my friends in the United States – Happy Thanksgiving and think about the day after ……..
Due to other activities, I could not immediately share the second part of the review related to the PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe conference, held on 23-24 October in Gothenburg. You can read my first post, mainly about Day 1, here: The weekend after PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe 2024.
There were several interesting sessions which I will not mention here as I want to focus on forward-looking topics with a mix of (federated) data-driven PLM environments and the applicability of AI, staying around 1500 words.
R-evolutionizing PLM and ERP and Heliple
Cristina Paniagua from the Luleå University of Technology closed the first day of the conference, giving us food for thought to discuss over dinner. Her session, describing the Arrowhead fPTN project, fitted nicely with the concepts of the Federated PLM Heliple project presented by Erik Herzog also on Day 2.
They are both research products related to the future state of a digital enterprise. Therefore, it makes sense to treat them together.
Cristina’s session started with sharing the challenges of traditional PLM and ERP systems:
These statements align with the drivers of the Heliple project. The PLM and ERP systems—Systems of Record—provide baselines and traceability. However, Systems of Record have not historically been designed to support real-time collaboration or to create an attractive user experience.
The Heliple project focuses on connecting various modules—the horizontal bars—for systems engineering, hardware engineering, etc., as real-time collaboration environments that can be highly customized and replaceable if needed. The Heliple project explored the usage of OSLC to connect these modules, the Systems of Engagement, with the Systems of Record.
By using Lynxwork as a low-code wrapper to develop the OSLC connections and map them to the needed business scenarios, the team concluded that this approach is affordable for businesses.
Now, the Heliple team is aiming to expand their research with industry scale validation through the Demoiple project (Validate that the Heliple-2 technology can be implemented and accredited in Saab Aeronautics’ operational IT) combined with the Nextiple project, where they will investigate the role of heterogeneous information models/ontologies for heterogeneous analysis.
If you are interested in participating in Nextiple, don’t hesitate to contact Erik Herzog.
Christina’s Arrowhead flexible Production Value Network(fPVN) project aims to provide autonomous and evolvable information interoperability through machine-interpretable content for fPVN stakeholders. In less academic words, building a digital data-driven infrastructure.
The resulting technology is projected to impact manufacturing productivity and flexibility substantially.
The exciting starting point of the Arrowhead project is that it wants to use existing standards and systems as a foundation and, on top of that, create a business and user-oriented layer, using modern technologies such as micro-services to support real-time processing and semantic technologies, ontologies, system modeling, and AI for data translations and learning—a much broader and ambitious scope than the Heliple project.
I believe that in our PLM domain, this resonates with actual discussions you will find on LinkedIn, too. @Oleg Shilovitsky, @Dr. Yousef Hooshmand, @Prof. Dr. Jörg W. Fischer and Martin Eigner are a few of them steering these discussions. I consider it a perfect match for one of the images I shared about the future the digital enterprise.
Potentially, there are five platforms with their own internal ways of working, a mix of systems of record and systems of engagement, supported by an overlay of several Systems of Engagement environments.
I previously described these dedicated environments, e.g., OpenBOM, Colab, Partful, and Authentise. These solutions could also be dedicated apps supporting a specific ecosystem role.
See below my artist’s impression of how a Service Engineer would work in its app connected to CRM, PLM and ERP platform datasets:
The exciting part of the Arrowhead fPVN project is that it wants to explore the interactions between systems and user roles based on existing mature standards instead of leaving the connections to software developers.
Christina mentioned some of these standards below:
I greatly support this approach as, historically, much knowledge and effort has been put into developing standards to support interoperability. Maybe not in real-time, but the embedded knowledge in these standards will speed up the broader usage. Therefore, I concur with the concluding slide:
A final comment: Industrial users must push for these standards if they do not want a future vendor lock-in. Vendors will do what the majority of their customers ask for but will also keep their customers’ data in proprietary formats to prevent them from switching to another system.
Accelerated Product Development Enabled by Digitalization
The keynote session on Day 2, delivered by Uyiosa Abusomwan, Ph.D., Senior Global Technology Manager – Digital Engineering at Eaton, was a visionary story about the future of engineering.
With its broad range of products, Eaton is exploring new, innovative ways to accelerate product design by modeling the design process and applying AI to narrow design decisions and customer-specific engineering work. The picture below shows the areas of attention needed to model the design processes. Uyiosa mentioned the significant beneficial results that have already been reached.
Together with generative design, Eaton works towards modern digital engineering processes built on models and knowledge. His session was complementary to the Heliple and Arrowhead story. To reach such a contemporary design engineering environment, it must be data-driven and built upon open PLM and software components to fully use AI and automation.
Next Gen” Life Cycle Management in Next-Gen Nuclear Power and LTO Legacy Plants
Kent Freeland‘s presentation was a trip into memory land when he discussed the issues with Long Term Operations of legacy nuclear plants.
I spent several years in Ringhals (Sweden) discussing and piloting the setup of a PLM front-end next to the MRO (Maintenance Repair Overhaul) system. As nuclear plants developed in the sixties, they required a longer than anticipated lifecycle, with access to the right design and operational data; maintenance and upgrade changes in the plant needed to be planned and controlled. The design data is often lacking; it resides at the EPC or has been stored in a document management system with limited retrieval capabilities.
See also my 2019 post: How PLM, ALM, and BIM converge thanks to the digital twin.
Kent described these experienced challenges – we must have worked in parallel universes – that now, for the future, we need a digitally connected infrastructure for both plant design and maintenance artifacts, as envisioned below:
The solution reminded me of a lecture I saw at the PI PLMx 2019 conference, where the Swedish ESS facility demonstrated its Asset Lifecycle Data Management solution based on the 3DEXPERIENCE platform.
You can still find the presentation here: Henrik Lindblad Ola Nanzell ESS – Enabling Predictive Maintenance Through PLM & IIOT.
Also, Kent focused on the relevant standards to support a “Single Source of Truth” concept, where I would say after all the federated PLM discussions, I would go for:
“The nearest source of truth and a single source of Change”
assuming this makes more sense in a digitally connected enterprise.
Why do you need to be SMART when contracting for information?
Rob Bodington‘s presentation was complementary to Kent Freeland’s presentation. Ron, a technical fellow at Eurostep, described the challenge of information acquisition when working with large assets that require access to the correct data once the asset is in operation. The large asset could be a nuclear plant or an aircraft carrier.
In the ideal world, the asset owner wants to have a digital twin of the asset fed by different data sources through a digital thread. Of course, this environment will only be reliable when accurate data is used and presented.
Getting accurate data starts with the information acquisition process, and Rob explained that this needed to be done SMARTly – see the image below:
Rob zoomed in on the SMART keywords and the challenge the various standards provide to make the information SMARTly accessible, like the ISO 10303 / PLCS standard, the CFIHOS exchange standard and more. And then there is the ISO 8000 standard about data quality.
Click on the image to get smart.
Rob believes that AI might be the silver bullet as it might help understand the data quality, ontology and context of the data and even improve contracting, generating data clauses for contracting….
And there was a lot of AI ….
There was a dazzling presentation from Gary Langridge, engineering manager at Ocado, explaining their Ocado Smart Platform (OSP), which leverages AI, robotics, and automation to tackle the challenges of online grocery and allow their clients to excel in performance and customer responsiveness.
There was a significant AI component in his presentation, and if you are tired of reading, watch this video
But here was more AI – from the 25 sessions in this conference, 19 of them mentioned the potential or usage of AI somewhere in their speech – this is more than 75 %!
There was a dedicated closing panel discussion related to the real business value of Artificial Intelligence in the PLM domain, moderated by Peter Bilello and answered by selected speakers from the conference, Sandeep Natu (CIMdata), Lars Fossum (SAP), Diana Goenage (Dassault Systemes) and Uyiosa Abusomwan (Eaton).
The discussion was realistic and helpful for the audience. It is clear that to reap the benefits, companies must explore the technology and use it to create valuable business scenarios. One could argue that many AI tools are already available, but the challenge remains that they have to run on reliable data. The data foundation is crucial for a successful outcome.
An interesting point in the discussion was the statement from Diane Goenage, who repeatedly warned that using LLM-based solutions has an environmental impact due to the amount of energy they consume.
We have a similar debate in the Netherlands – do we want the wind energy consumed by data centers (the big tech companies with a minimum workforce in the Netherlands), or should the Dutch citizens benefit from renewable energy resources?
Conclusion
There were even more interesting presentations during these two days, and you might have noticed that I did not advertise my content. This is because I have already reached 1600 words, but I also want to spend more time on the content separately.
It was about PLM and Sustainability, a topic often covered in this conference. Unfortunately, only 25 % of the presentations touched on sustainability, and AI over-hypes the topic.
Hopefully, it is not a sign of the time?
I am sharing another follow-up interview about PLM and Sustainability with a software vendor or implementer. Last year, in November 2023, Klaus Brettschneider and Jos Voskuil from the PLM Green Global Alliance core team spoke with Transition Technologies PSC about their GreenPLM offering and their first experiences in the field.
As we noticed with most first interviews, sustainability was a topic of discussion in the PLM domain, but it was still in the early discovery phases for all of us.
Last week, we spoke again with Erik Rieger and Rafał Witkowski, both working for Transition Technologies PSC, a global IT solution integrator in the PLM world known for their PTC implementation services. The exciting part of this discussion is that system integrators are usually more directly connected to their customers in the field and, therefore, can be the source of understanding of what is happening.
ecoPLM and more
Where Erik is a and he is a long term PLM expert and Rafal is the PLM Practice Lead for Industrial Sustainability. In the interview below they shared their experiences with a first implementation pilot in the field, the value of their _ecoPLM offering in the context of the broader PTC portfolio. And of course we discussed topics closely related to these points and put them into a broader context of sustainably.
Enjoy the 34 minutes discussion and you are always welcome to comment or start a discussion with us.
The slides shown in this presentation and some more can be downloaded HERE.
What I learned
- The GreenPLM offering has changed its name into ecoPLM as TT PSC customers are focusing on developing sustainable products, with currently supporting designer to understand the carbon footprint of their products.
- They are actually in a MVP approach with a Tier 1 automotive supplier to validate and improve their solution and more customers are adding Design for Sustainability to their objective, besides Time to Market, Quality and Cost.
- Erik will provide a keynote speech at the Green PLM conference on November 14th in Berlin – The conference is targeting a German speaking audience although the papers are in English. You can still register and find more info here
- TT PSC is one of the partners completing the PTC sustainability offering and working close with their product management.
- A customer quote: “Sustainability makes PLM sexy again”
Want to learn more?
Here are some links related to the topics discussed in our meeting:
- YouTube: ecoPLM: your roadmap for eco-friendly product development
- ecoPLM – a sustainable product development website
- YouTube: Win the Net-Zero Race with PLM (and PTC)
Conclusions
We are making great progress in the support to design and deliver more sustainable products – sustainability goes beyond marketing as Rafal Witkowski mentioned – the journey has started. What do you see in your company?
Next week – week 46 – more news from Day 2 from the #plmroadmappdt conference
It was a great pleasure to attend my favorite vendor-neutral PLM conference this year in Gothenburg—approximately 150 attendees, where most have expertise in the PLM domain.
We had the opportunity to learn new trends, discuss reality, and meet our peers.
The theme of the conference was:Value Drivers for Digitalization of the Product Lifecycle, a topic I have been discussing in my recent blog posts, as we need help and educate companies to understand the importance of digitalization for their business.
The two-day conference covered various lectures – view the agenda here – and of course the topic of AI was part of half of the lectures, giving the attendees a touch of reality.
In this first post, I will cover the main highlight of Day 1.
Value Drivers for Digitalization of the Product Lifecycle
As usual, the conference started with Peter Bilello, president & CEO of CIMdata, stressing again that when implementing a PLM strategy, the maximum result comes from a holistic approach, meaning look at the big picture, don’t just focus on one topic.
It was interesting to see again the classic graph (below) explaining the benefits of the end-to-end approach – I believe it is still valid for most companies; however, as I shared in my session the next day, implementing concepts of a Products Service System will require more a DevOp type of graph (more next week).
Next, Peter went through the CIMdata’s critical dozen with some updates. You can look at the updated 2024 image here.
Some of the changes: Digital Thread and Digital Twin are merged– as Digital Twins do not run on documents. And instead of focusing on Artificial Intelligence only, CIMdata introduced Augmented Intelligence as we should also consider solutions that augment human activities, not just replace them.
Peter also shared the results of a recent PLM survey where companies were asked about their main motivation for PLM investments. I found the result a little discouraging for several reasons:
The number one topic is still faster, cheaper and better – almost 65 % of the respondents see this as their priority. This number one topic illustrates that Sustainability has not reached the level of urgency, and perhaps the topic can be found in standards compliance.
Many of the companies with Sustainability in their mission should understand that a digital PLM infrastructure is the foundation for most initiatives, like Lifecycle Analysis (LCA). Sustainability is more than part of standards compliance, if it was mentioned anyway.
The second disappointing observation for the understanding of PLM is that customer support is mentioned only by 15 % of the companies. Again, connecting your products to your customers is the first step to a DevOp approach, and you need to be able to optimize your product offering to what the customer really wants.
Digital Transformation of the Value Chain in Pharma
The second keynote was from Anders Romare, Chief Digital and Information Officer at Novo Nordisk. Anders has been participating in the PDT conference in the past. See my 2016 PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe post, where Anders presented on behalf of Airbus: Digital Transformation through an e2e PLM backbone.
Anders started by sharing some of the main characteristics of the companies he has been working for. Volvo, Airbus and now Novo Nordisk. It is interesting to compare these characteristics as they say a lot about the industry’s focus. See below:
Anders is now responsible for digital transformation in Novo Nordisk, which is a challenge in a heavily regulated industry.
One of the focus areas for Novo Nordisk in 2024 is also Artificial Intelligence, as you can see from the image to the left (click on it for the details).
As many others in this conference, Anders mentioned AI can only be applicable when it runs on top of accurate data.
Understanding the potential of AI, they identified 59 areas where AI can create value for the business, and it is interesting to compare the traditional PLM curve Peter shared in his session with the potential AI-enabled drug-development curve as presented by Anders below:
Next, Anders shared some of the example cases of this exploration, and if you are interested in the details, visit their tech.life site.
When talking about the engineering framing of PLM, it was interesting to learn from Anders, who had a long history in PLM before Novo Nordisk, when he replied to a question from the audience that he would never talk about PLM at the management level. It’s very much aligned with my Don’t mention the P** word post.
A Strategy for the Management of Large Enterprise PLM Platforms
One of the highlights for me on Day 1 was Jorgen Dahl‘s presentation. Jorgen, a senior PLM director at GE Aerospace, shared their story towards a single PLM approach needed due to changes in businesses. And addressing the need for a digital thread also comes with an increased need for uptime.
I like his strategy to execution approach, as shown in the image below, as it contains the most important topics. The business vision and understanding, the imagination of the end status and What must be True?
In my experience, the three blocks are iteratively connected. When describing the strategy, you might not be able to identify the required capabilities and management systems yet.
But then, when you start to imagine the ideal end state, you will have to consider them. And for companies, it is essential to be ambitious – or, as Jorgen stated, uncomfortable ambitious. Go for the 75 % to almost 100 % to be true. Also, asking What must be True is an excellent way to allow people to be involved and creatively explore the next steps.
Note: This approach does not provide all the details, as it will be a multiyear journey of learning and adjusting towards the future. Therefore, the strategy must be aligned with the culture to avoid continuous top-down governance of the details. In that context, Jorgen stated:
“Culture is what happens when you leave the room.”
It is a more positive statement than the famous Peter Drucker’s quote: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
Jorgen’s concluding slide mentions potential common knowledge, although I believe the way Jorgen used the right easy-to-digest points will be helpful for all organizations to step back, look at their initiatives, and compare where they can improve.
How a Business Capability Model and Application Portfolio Management Support Through Changing Times
Peter Vind‘s presentation was nicely connected to the presentation from Jorgen Dahl. Peter, who is an enterprise architect at Siemens Energy, started by explaining where the enterprise architect fits in an organization and comparing it to a city.
In his entertaining session, he mentioned he has to deal with the unicorns at the C-level, who, like politicians in a city, sometimes have the most “innovative” ideas – can they be realized?
Peter explained how they used Business Capability Modeling when Siemens Energy went through various business stages. First, the carve-out from Siemens AG and later the merger with Siemens Gamesa. Their challenge is to understand which capabilities remain, which are new or overlapping, both during the carve-out and merging process.
TIME explained
The business capability modeling leads to a classification of the applications used at different levels of the organization, such as customer-facing, operational, or supporting business capabilities.
Next, for the lifecycle of the applications, the TIME approach was used, meaning that each application was mapped to business fitness and technical fitness. Click on the diagram to see the details.
The result could look like the mapping shown below – a comprehensive overview of where the action is
It is a rational approach; however, Peter mentioned that we also should be aware of the HIPPOs in an organization. If there is a HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) in play, you might face a political battle too.
It was a great educational session illustrating the need for an Enterprise Architect, the value of business capabilities modeling and the TIME concept.
And some more …
There were several other exciting presentations during day 1; however, as not all presentations are publicly available, I cannot discuss them in detail; I just looked at my notes.
Driving Trade Compliance and Efficiency
Peter Sandeck, Director of Project Management at TE Connectivity shared what they did to motivate engineers to endorse their Jurisdiction and Classification Assessment (JCA) process. Peter showed how, through a Minimal Viable Product (MVP) approach and listening to the end-users, they reached a higher Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) score after several iterations of the solution developed for the JCA process.
This approach is an excellent example of an agile method in which engineers are involved. My remaining question is still – are the same engineers in the short term also pushed to make lifecycle assessments? More work; however, I believe if you make it personal, the same MVP approach could work again.
Value of Model-Based Product Architecture
Jussi Sippola, Chief Expert, Product Architecture Management & Modularity at Wärtsilä, presented an excellent story related to the advantages of a more modular product architecture. Where historically, products were delivered based on customer requirements through the order fulfillment process, now there is in parallel the portfolio management process, defining the platform of modules, features and options.
Jussi mentioned that they were able to reduce the number of parts by 50 % while still maintaining the same level of customer capabilities. In addition, thanks to modularity, they were able to reduce the production lead time by 40 % – essential numbers if you want to remain competitive.
Conclusion
Day 1 was a day where we learned a lot as an audience, and in addition, the networking time and dinner in the evening were precious for me and, I assume, also for many of the participants. In my next post, we will see more about new ways of working, the AI dream and Sustainability.
Listen and Learn more from PLM Experts in the field
Recently, I attended several events related to the various aspects of product lifecycle management; most of them were tool-centric, explaining the benefits and values of their products.
In parallel, I am working with several companies, assisting their PLM teams to make their plans understood by the upper management, which has always been my mission in the past.
However, nowadays, people working in the business are feeling more and more challenged and pained by not acting adequately to the upcoming business demands.
The image below has been shown so many times, and every time, the context becomes more relevant.
Too often, an evolutionary mindset with small steps is considered instead of looking toward the future and reasoning back for what needs to be done.
Let me share some experiences and potential solutions.
Don’t use the P** word!
The title of this post is one of the most essential points to consider. By using the term PLM, the discussion is most of the time framed in a debate related to the purchase or installation of a system, the PLM system, which is an engineering tool.
PLM vendors, like Dassault Systèmes and Siemens, have recognized this, and the word PLM is no longer on their home pages.
They are now delivering experiences or digital industries software.
Other companies, such as PTC and Aras, broadened the discussion by naming other domains, such as manufacturing and services, all connected through a digital thread.
The challenge for all these software vendors is why a company would consider buying their products. A growing issue for them is also why would they like to change their existing PLM system to another one, as there is so much legacy.
For all of these vendors, success can come if champions inside the targeted company understand the technology and can translate its needs into their daily work.
Here, we meet the internal PLM team, which is motivated by the technology and wants to spread the message to the organization. Often, with no or limited success, as the value and the context they are considering are not understood or felt as urgent.
Lesson 1:
Don’t use the word PLM in your management messaging.
In some of the current projects I have seen, people talk about the digital highway or a digital infrastructure to take this hurdle. For example, listen to the SharePLM podcast with Roger Kabo from Marel, who talks about their vision and digital product highway.
The Marel digital product highway
As soon as you use the word PLM, most people think about a (costly) system, as this is how PLM is framed. Engineering, like IT, is often considered a cost center, as money is made by manufacturing and selling products.
According to experts (CIMdata/Gartner), Product Lifecycle Management is considered a strategic approach. However, the majority of people talk about a PLM system. Of course, vendors and system integrators will speak about their PLM offerings.
To avoid this framing, first of all, try to explain what you want to establish for the business. The terms Digital Product Highway or Digital Infrastructure, for example, avoid thinking in systems.
Lesson 2:
Don’t tell your management why they need to reward your project – they should tell you what they need.
This might seem like a bit of strange advice; however, you have to realize that most of the time, people do not talk about the details at the management level. At the management level, there are strategies and business objectives, and you will only get attention when your proposal addresses the business needs. At the management level, there should be an understanding of the business need and its potential value for the organization. Next, analyzing the business changes and required tools will lead to an understanding of what value the PLM team can bring.
Yousef Hooshmand’s 5 + 1 approach illustrates this perfectly. It is crucial to note that long-term executive commitment is needed to have a serious project, and therefore, the connection to their business objective is vital.
Therefore, if you can connect your project to the business objectives of someone in management, you have the opportunity to get executive sponsorship. A crucial advice you hear all the time when discussing successful PLM projects.
Lesson 3:
Alignment must come from within the organization.
Last week, at the 20th anniversary of the Dutch PLM platform, Yousef Hooshmand gave the keynote speech starting with the images below:
On the left side, we see the medieval Catholic church sincerely selling salvation through indulgences, where the legend says Luther bought the hell, demonstrating salvation comes from inside, not from external activities – read the legend here.
On the right side, we see the Digital Transformation expert sincerely selling digital transformation to companies. According to LinkedIn, there are about 1.170.000 people with the term Digital Transformation in their profile.
As Yousef mentioned, the intentions of these people can be sincere, but also, here, the transformation must come from inside (the company).
When I work with companies, I use the Benefits Dependency Network methodology to create a storyboard for the company. The BDN network then serves as a base for creating storylines that help people in the organization have a connected view starting from their perspective.
Companies might hire strategic consultancy firms to help them formulate their long-term strategy. This can be very helpful where, in the best case, the consultancy firm educates the company, but the company should decide on the direction.
In an older blog post, I wrote about this methodology, presented by Johannes Storvik at the Technia Innovation forum, and how it defines a value-driven implementation.
Dassault Systèmes and its partners use this methodology in their Value Engagement process, which is tuned to their solution portfolio.
You can also watch the webinar Federated PLM Webinar 5 – The Business Case for the Federated PLM, in which I explained the methodology used.
Lesson 4:
PLM is a business need not an IT service
This lesson is essential for those who believe that PLM is still a system or an IT service. In some companies, I have seen that the (understaffed) PLM team is part of a larger IT organization. In this type of organization, the PLM team, as part of IT, is purely considered a cost center that is available to support the demand from the business.
The business usually focuses on incremental and economic profitability, less on transformational ways of working.
In this context, it is relevant to read Chris Seiler’s post: How to escape the vicious circle in times of transformation? Where he reflects on his 2002 MBA study, which is still valid for many big corporate organizations.
It is a long read, but it is gratifying if you are interested. It shows that PLM concepts should be discussed and executed at the business level. Of course, I read the article with my PLM-twisted brain.
A Pessimistic Scenario of External Driving Forces and Their Internal Interrelations (Christ Seiler)
The image above from Chris’s post could be a starting point for a Benefits-Dependent Network diagram, expanded with Objectives, Business Changes and Benefits to fight this vicious downturn.
As PLM is no longer a system but a business strategy, the PLM team should be integrated into the business potential overlooked by the CIO or CDO, as a CEO is usually not able to give this long-term executive commitment.
Lesson 5:
Educate yourselves and your management
The last lesson is crucial, as due to improving technologies like AI and, earlier, the concepts of the digital twin, traditional ways of coordinated working will become inefficient and redundant.
However, before jumping on these new technologies, everyone, at every level in the organization, should be aware of:
WHY will this be relevant for our business? Is it to cut costs – being more efficient as fewer humans are in the process? Is it to be able to comply with new upcoming (sustainability) regulations? Is it because the aging workforce leaves a knowledge gap?
WHAT will our business need in the next 5 to 10 years? Are there new ways of working that we want to introduce, but we lack the technology and the tools? Do we have skills in-house? Remember, digital transformation must come from the inside.
HOW are we going to adapt our business? Can we do it in a learning mode, as the end target is not clear yet—the MVP (Minimum Viable Product) approach? Are we moving from selling products to providing a Product Service System?
My lesson: Get inspired by the software vendors who will show you what might be possible. Get educated on the topic and understand what it would mean for your organization. Start from the people and the business needs before jumping on the tools.
In the upcoming PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe conference on 23-24 October, we will be meeting again with a group of P** experts to discuss our experiences and progress in this domain. I will give a lecture here about what it takes to move to a sustainable economy based on a Product-as-a-service concept.
If you want to learn more – join us – here is the link to the agenda.
Conclusion
I hope you enjoyed reading a blog post not generated by ChatGPT, although I am using bullet points. With the overflow of information, it remains crucial to keep a holistic overview. I hope that with this post, I have helped the P** teams in their mission, and I look forward to learning from your experiences in this domain.
I have not been writing much new content recently as I feel that from the conceptual side, so much has already been said and written. A way to confuse people is to overload them with information. We see it in our daily lives and our PLM domain.
With so much information, people become apathetic, and you will hear only the loudest and most straightforward solutions.
One desire may be that we should go back to the past when everything was easier to understand—are you sure about that?
This attitude has often led to companies doing nothing, not taking any risks, and just providing plasters and stitches when things become painful. Strategic decision-making is the key to avoiding this trap.
I just read this article in the Guardian: The German problem? It is an analog country in a digital world.
The article also describes the lessons learned from the UK (quote):
Britain was the dominant economic power in the 19th century on the back of the technologies of the first Industrial Revolution and found it hard to break with the old ways even when it should have been obvious that its coal and textile industries were in long-term decline.
As a result, Britain lagged behind its competitors. One of these was Germany, which excelled in advanced manufacturing and precision engineering.
Many technology concepts originated from Germany in the past and even now we are talking about Industrie 4.0 and Catena-X as advanced concepts. But are they implemented? Did companies change their culture and ways of working required for a connected and digital enterprise?
Technology is not the issue.
The current PLM concepts, which discuss a federated PLM infrastructure based on connected data, have become increasingly stable.
Perhaps people are using different terminologies and focusing on specific aspects of a business; however, all these (technical) discussions talk about similar business concepts:
- Prof. Dr. Jorg W. Fischer, managing partner at Steinbeis – Reshape Information Management (STZ-RIM), writes a lot about a modern data-driven infrastructure, mainly in the context of PLM and ERP. His recent article: The Freeway from PLM to ERP.
- Oleg Shilovitsky, CEO of OpenBOM, has a never-ending flow of information about data and infrastructure concepts and an understandable focus on BOMs. One of his recent articles, PLM 2030: Challenges and Opportunities of Data Lifecycle Management
- Matthias Ahrens, enterprise architect at Forvia / Hella, often shares interesting concepts related to enterprise architecture relevant to PLM. His latest share: Think PLM beyond a chain of tools!
- Dr. Yousef Hooshmand, PLM lead at NIO, shared his academic white paper and experiences at Daimler and NIO through various presentations. His publication can be found here: From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and Data Mesh.
- Erik Herzog, technical fellow at SAAB Aeronautics, has been active for the past two years, sharing the concept of federated PLM applied in the Heliple project. His latest publication post: Heliple Federated PLM at the INCOSE International Symposium in Dublin
Several more people are sharing their knowledge and experience in the domain of modern PLM concepts, and you will see that technology is not the issue. The hype of AI may become an issue.
From IT focus to Business focus
One issue I observed at several companies I worked with is that the PLM’s responsibility is inside the IT organization – click on the image to get the mindset.
This situation is a historical one, as in the traditional PLM mode, the focus was on the on-premise installation and maintenance of a PLM system. Topics like stability, performance and security are typical IT topics.
IT departments have often been considered cost centers, and their primary purpose is to keep costs low.
Does the slogan ONE CAD, ONE PLM or ONE ERP resonate in your company?
It is all a result of trying to standardize a company’s tools. It is not deficient in a coordinated enterprise where information is exchanged in documents and BOMs. Although I wrote in 2011 about the tension between business and IT in my post “PLM and IT—love/hate relation?”
Now, modern PLM is about a connected infrastructure where accurate data is the #1 priority.
Most of the new processes will be implemented in value streams, where the data is created in SaaS solutions running in the cloud. In such environments, business should be leading, and of course, where needed, IT should support the overall architecture concepts.
In this context, I recommend an older but still valid article: The Changing Role of IT: From Gatekeeper to Business Partner.
This changing role for IT should come in parallel to the changing role for the PLM team. The PLM team needs to first focus on enabling the new types of businesses and value streams, not on features and capabilities. This change in focus means they become part of the value creation teams instead of a cost center.
From successful PLM implementations, I have seen that the team directly reported to the CEO, CTO or CIO, no longer as a subdivision of the larger IT organization.
Where is your PLM team?
Is it a cost center or a value-creation engine?
The role of business leaders
As mentioned before, with a PLM team reporting to the business, communication should transition from discussing technology and capabilities to focusing on business value.
I recently wrote about this need for a change in attitude in my post: PLM business first. The recommended flow is nicely represented in the section “Starting from the business.”
Image: Yousef Hooshmand.
Business leaders must realize that a change is needed due to upcoming regulations, like ESG and CSRD reporting, the Digital Product Passport and the need for product Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), which is more than just a change of tools.
I have often referred to the diagram created by Mark Halpern from Gartner in 2015. Below you can see and adjusted diagram for 2024 including AI.
It looks like we are moving from Coordinated technology toward Connected technology. This seems easy to frame. However, my experience discussing this step in the past four to five years has led to the following four lessons learned:
- It is not a transition from Coordinated to Connected.
At this step, a company has to start in a hybrid mode – there will always remain Coordinated ways of working connected to Connected ways of working. This is the current discussion related to Federated PLM and the introduction of the terms System of Record (traditional systems / supporting linear ways of working) and Systems of Engagement (connected environments targeting real-time collaboration in their value chain) - It is not a matter of buying or deploying new tools.
Digital transformation is a change in ways of working and the skills needed. In traditional environments, where people work in a coordinated approach, they can work in their discipline and deliver when needed. People working in the connected approach have different skills. They work data-driven in a multidisciplinary mode. These ways of working require modern skills. Companies that are investing in new tools often hesitate to change their organization, which leads to frustration and failure. - There is no blueprint for your company.
Digital transformation in a company is a learning process, and therefore, the idea of a digital transformation project is a utopia. It will be a learning journey where you have to start small with a Minimum Viable Product approach. Proof of Concepts is a waste of time as they do not commit to implementing the solution. - The time is now!
The role of management is to secure the company’s future, which means having a long-term vision. And as it is a learning journey, the time is now to invest and learn using connected technology to be connected to coordinated technology. Can you avoid waiting to learn?
I have shared the image below several times as it is one of the best blueprints for describing the needed business transition. It originates from a McKinsey article that does not explicitly refer to PLM, again demonstrating it is first about a business strategy.
It is up to the management to master this process and apply it to their business in a timely manner. If not, the company and all its employees will be at risk for a sustainable business. Here, the word Sustainable has a double meaning – for the company and its employees/shareholders and the outside world – the planet.
Want to learn and discuss more?
Currently, I am preparing my session for the upcoming PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe conference on 23 and 24 October in Gothenburg. As I mentioned in previous years, this conference is my preferred event of the year as it is vendor-independent, and all participants are active in the various phases of a PLM implementation.
If you want to attend the conference, look here for the agenda and registration. I look forward to discussing modern PLM and its relation to sustainability with you. More in my upcoming posts till the conference.
Conclusion
Digital transformation in the PLM domain is going slow in many companies as it is complex. It is not an easy next step, as companies have to deal with different types of processes and skills. Therefore, a different organizational structure is needed. A decision to start with a different business structure always begins at the management level, driven by business goals. The technology is there—waiting for the business to lead.
In recent years, I have assisted several companies in defining their PLM strategy. The good news is that these companies are talking first about a PLM strategy and not immediately about a PLM system selection.
In addition, a PLM strategy should not be defined in isolation but rather as an integral part of a broader business strategy. One of my favorite one-liners is:
“Are we implementing the past, or are we implementing the future?”
When companies implement the past, it feels like they modernize their current ways of working with new technology and capabilities. The new environment is more straightforward to explain to everybody in the company, and even the topic of migration can be addressed as migration might be manageable.
Note: Migration should always be considered – the elephant in the room.
I wrote about Migration Migraine in two posts earlier this year, one describing the basics and the second describing the lessons learned and the path to a digital future.
Implementing PLM now should be part of your business strategy.
Threats coming from different types of competitors, necessary sustainability-related regulations (e.g., CSRD reporting), and, on the positive side, new opportunities are coming (e.g., Product as a Service), all requiring your company to be adaptable to changes in products, services and even business models.
Suppose your company wants to benefit from concepts like the Digital Twin and AI. In that case, it needs a data-driven infrastructure—
Digital Twins do not run on documents, and algorithms need reliable data.
Digital Transformation in the PLM domain means combining Coordinated and Connected working methods. In other words, you need to build an infrastructure based on Systems of Record and Systems of Engagement. Followers of my blog should be familiar with these terms.
PLM is not an R&D and Engineering solution
(any more)
One of the biggest misconceptions still made is that PLM is implemented by a single system mainly used by R&D and Engineering. These disciplines are considered the traditional creators of product data—a logical assumption at the time when PLM was more of a silo, Managing Projects with CAD and BOM data.
However, this misconception frames many discussions towards discussions about what is the best system for my discipline, more or less strengthening the silos in an organization. Being able to break the silos is one of the technical capabilities digitization brings.
Business and IT architecture are closely related. Perhaps you have heard about Conway’s law (from 1967):
“Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization’s communication structure.”
This means that if you plan to implement or improve a PLM infrastructure without considering an organizational change, you will be locked again into your traditional ways of working – the coordinated approach, which is reflected on the left side of the image (click on it to enlarge it).
An organizational change impacts middle management, a significant category we often neglect. There is the C-level vision and the voice of the end user. Middle management has to connect them and still feel their jobs are not at risk. I wrote about it some years ago: The Middle Management Dilemma.
How do we adapt the business?
The biggest challenge of a business transformation is that it starts with the WHY and should be understood and supported at all organizational levels.
If there is no clear vision for change but a continuous push to be more efficient, your company is at risk!
For over 60 years, companies have been used to working in a coordinated approach, from paper-based to electronic deliverables.
- How do you motivate your organization to move in a relatively unknown direction?
- Who in your organization are the people who can build a digital vision and Strategy?
These two questions are fundamental, and you cannot outsource ownership of it.
People in the transformation teams need to be digitally skilled (not geeks), communicators (storytellers), and, very importantly, connected to the business.
Often, the candidates come from the existing business units where they have proven skills. The challenging part is educating them and making them available for this mission.
Digital transformation is not a side job.
Education can come from the outside world. Making people available to work on the new digital infrastructure is a management decision and their sense of priority.
How to get external support?
If you are connected to the PLM world like me, a lot of information is available. In academic papers, projects and in particular on LinkedIn currently, there is an overflow of architectural debates:
Recently, I participated in the discussions below:
- How to Solve PLM & ERP (Oleg Shilovitsky)
- Last week, we finally solved PLM & ERP (Prof. Dr. Jörg W. Fischer / Martin Eigner)
- PLM and MBOM: Supply Chain Debates and Future Solution Architecture (Oleg Shilovitsky)
- Could be a Knowledge Graph resp. the Linked Data technologies the key to …. (Matthias Ahrens)
The challenge with these articles is that they are for insiders and far from shareable with business people. There is always a discussion, as we are all learning to match theory with reality. For example,Prof. Dr. Jörg W. Fischer introduced the Information Architecture as a missing link. You can read his recent post here and the quote below to get interested:
All of these methods focus either on Data Architecture or Business Architecture. And the blind spot? I am convinced that an essential layer between the two is missing. We at STZ-RIM Reshape Information Management call this Information Architecture.
Still, we remain in the expert domain, which a limited group of people understands. We need to connect to the business. Where can we find more education from the business side?
The reaction below in one of the discussions says it all, in my opinion:
Starting from the business
What I have learned from my discussions with the management is:
- Don’t mention PLM – you will be cornered in the R&D / Engineering frame.
- Don’t explain their problems, and tell them that you have the solution (on PowerPoint)
- Create curiosity about topics that are relevant to the business – What if …?
- Use storytelling to imagine a future state – Spare the details.
- Build trust and confidence that you are not selling a product. Let the company discover their needs as it is their transformation.
The diagram below, presented by Yousef Hooshmand during the PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe 2023 conference in Paris, describes it all:
It will be a continuous iterative process where, starting from business values and objectives, an implementation step is analyzed, how it fits in the PLM landscape and ultimately, how measures and actions guide the implementation of the tools and technology.
It is important to stress that this is not the guidance for a system implementation; it is the guidance for a digital transformation journey. Therefore, the message in the middle of the image is: Long-term Executive Commitment!
In addition, I want to point to articles and blogs written by Jan Bosch. Jan is an Executive, professor and consultant with more than 20 years of experience in large-scale software R&D management and business.
Although our worlds do not intersect yet, the management of mechanical products and software is different; his principles fit better and better with a modern data-driven organization. Often, I feel we are fighting the same battle to coach companies in their business transformation.
In the context of this article, I recommend reviewing the BAPO model coming from the software world.
BAPO stands for Business, Architecture, Process and Organization. As the diagram below indicates, you should start from the business, defining the needs for the architecture and then the preferred ways of working. Finally, the organization has to be established in accordance with the processes.
Often, companies use the OPAB approach, which makes them feel more comfortable (Conway’s Law). For further reading in this context, I recommend the following posts from Jan Bosch:
Business and technology
I want to conclude by discussing ways to connect business and technology as you need both.
First, I want to point to an example that we presented in the Federated PLM interest group on LinkedIn. Although the discussion initially focused on technical capabilities, we concluded by connecting them to business transformational needs. The diagram below is our characteristic image used to explain the interaction between Systems of Record (the vertical pillars) and the Systems of Engagement (the horizontal bars – modularity).
Have a look at the business discussion below:
Next, the diagram below comes from a 2017 McKinsey whitepaper: Toward an integrated technology operating model. Here, the authors describe how a company can move toward an integrated technology operating model using both coordinated and connected technologies.
They do not mention PLM; they have a business focus, and it is important to mention a company can work in different modes. This is an organizational choice, but don’t let people work in two modes,
Conclusion
With this post, I hope I moved the focus from technology and tools to an understandable business focus. Even within my 1500 words, there is much more to say, and this makes our (PLM) mission so complex and interesting. Let me know where you can connect.
Two weeks ago, I shared my first post about PDM/PLM migration challenges on LinkedIn: How to avoid Migration Migraine – part 1. Most of the content discussed was about data migrations.
Starting from moving data stored in relational databases to modern object-oriented environments – the technology upgrade. But also the challenges a company can have when merging different data siloes (CAD & BOM related) into a single PLM backbone to extend the support of product data beyond engineering.
Luckily, the post generated a lot of reactions and feedback through LinkedIn and personal interactions last week.
The amount of interaction illustrated the relevance of the topic for people; they recognized the elephant in the room, too.
Working with a partner
Data migrations and consolidation are typically not part of a company’s core business, so it is crucial to find the right partner for a migration project. The challenge with migrations is that there is potentially a lot to do technically, but only your staff can assess the quality and value of migrations.
Therefore, when planning a migration, make sure you work on it iteratively with an experienced partner who can provide a set of tools and best practices. Often, vendors or service partners have migration tools that still need to be tuned to your As-Is and To-Be environment.
To get an impression of what a PLM service partner can do and which topics or tools are relevant in the context of mid-market PLM, you can watch this xLM webinar on YouTube. So make sure you select a partner who is familiar with your PDM/PLM infrastructure and who has the experience to assess complexity.
Migration lessons learned
In my PLM coaching career I have seen many migrations. In the early days they were more related to technology upgrades, consolidation of data and system replacements. Nowadays the challenges are more related to become more data-driven. Here are 5 lessons that I learned in the past twenty years:
- A fixed price for the migration can be a significant risk as the quality of the data and the result are hard to comprehend upfront. In case of a fixed price, either you would pay for the moon (taking all the risk), or your service partner would lose a lot of money. In a sustainable business model, there should be no losers.
- Start (even now) with checking and fixing your data quality. For example, when you are aware of a mismatch between CAD assemblies and BOM data, analyze and fix discrepancies even before the migration.
- One immediate action to take when moving from CAD assemblies to BOM structures is to check or fill the properties in the CAD system to support a smooth transition. Filling properties might be a temporary action, as later, when becoming more data-driven, some of these properties, e.g., material properties or manufacturer part numbers, should not be maintained in the CAD system anymore. However, they might help migration tools to extract a richer dataset.
- Focus on implementing an environment ready for the future. Don’t let your past data quality compromise complexity. In such a case, learn to live with legacy issues that will be fixed only when needed. A 100 % matching migration is not likely to happen because the source data might also be incorrect, even after further analysis.
- The product should probably not be configured in the CAD environment, even because the CAD tool allows it. I had this experience with SolidWorks in the past. PDM became the enemy because the users managed all configuration options in the assembly files, making it hard to use it on the BOM or Product level (the connected digital thread).
The future is data-driven
In addition, these migration discussions made me aware again that so many companies are still in the early phases of creating a unified PLM infrastructure in their company and implementing the coordinated approach – an observation I shared in my report on the PDSFORUM 2024 conference.
Due to sustainability-related regulations and the need to understand product behavior in the field (Digital Twin / Product As A Service), becoming data-driven is an unavoidable target in the near future. Implementing a connected digital thread is crucial to remaining competitive and sustainable in business.
However, the first step is to gain insights about the available data (formats and systems) and its quality. Therefore, implementing a coordinated PLM backbone should immediately contain activities to improve data quality and implement a data governance policy to avoid upcoming migration issues.
Data-driven environments, the Systems of Engagement, bring the most value when connected through a digital thread with the Systems of Record (PLM. ERP and others), therefore, design your processes, even current ones, user-centric, data-centric and build for change (see Yousef Hooshmand‘s story in this post – also image below).
The data-driven Future is not a migration.
The last part of this article will focus on what I believe is a future PLM architecture for companies. To be more precise, it is not only a PLM architecture anymore. It should become a business architecture based on connected platforms (the systems of record) and inter-platform connected value streams (the systems of engagement).
The discussion is ongoing, and from the technical and business side, I recommend reading Prof Dr. Jorg Fischer’s recent articles, for example. The Crisis of Digitalization – Why We All Must Change Our Mindset! or The MBOM is the Steering Wheel of the Digital Supply Chain! A lot of academic work has been done in the context of TeamCenter and SAP.
Also, Martin Eigner recently described in The Constant Conflict Between PLM and ERP a potential digital future of enterprise within the constraints of existing legacy systems.
In my terminology, they are describing a hybrid enterprise dominated by major Systems of Record complemented by Systems of Engagement to support optimized digital value streams.
Whereas Oleg Shilovitsky, coming from the System of Engagement side with OpenBOM, describes the potential technologies to build a digital enterprise as you can read from one of his recent posts: How to Unlock the Future of Manufacturing by Opening PLM/ERP to Connect Processes and Optimize Decision Support.
All three thought leaders talk about the potential of connected aspects in a future enterprise. For those interested in the details there is a lot to learn and understand.
For the sake of the migration story I stay out of the details. However interesting to mention, they also do not mention data migration—is it the elephant in the room?
I believe moving from a coordinated enterprise to a integrated (coordinated and connected) enterprise is not a migration, as we are no longer talking about a single system that serves the whole enterprise.
The future of a digital enterprise is a federated environment where existing systems need to become more data-driven, and additional collaboration environments will have their internally connected capabilities to support value streams.
With this in mind you can understand the 2017 McKinsey article– Our insights/toward an integrated technology operating model – the leading image below:
And when it comes to realization of such a concept, I have described the Heliple-2 project a few times before as an example of such an environment, where the target is to have a connection between the two layers through standardized interfaces, starting from OSLC. Or visit the Heliple Federated PLM LinkedIn group.
Data architecture and governance are crucial.
The image above generalizes the federated PLM concept and illustrates the two different systems connected through data bridges. As data must flow between the two sides without human intervention, the chosen architecture must be well-defined.
Here, I want to use a famous quote from Youssef Housmand’s paper From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and Data Mesh. Click on the image to listen to the Share PLM podcast with Yousef.
From a Single Source of Truth towards a principle of the Nearest Source of Truth based on a Single Source of Change
- If you agree with this quote, you have a future mindset of federated PLM.
- If you still advocate the Single Source of Truth, you are still in the Monolithic PLM phase.
It’s not a problem if you are aware that the next step should be federated and you are not ready yet.
However, in particular, environmental regulations and sustainability initiatives can only be performed in data-driven, federated environments. Think about the European Green Deal with its upcoming Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Directive (ESPR), which demands digital traceability of products, their environmental impact, and reuse /recycle options, expressed in the Digital Product Passport.
Reporting, Greenhouse Gas Reporting and ESG reporting are becoming more and more mandatory for companies, either by regulations or by the customers. Only a data-driven connected infrastructure can deal with this efficiently. Sustaira, a company we interviewed with the PLM Green Global Alliance last year, delivers such a connected infrastructure.
Read the challenges they meet in their blog post: Is inaccurate sustainability data holding you back?
Finally, to perform Life Cycle Assessments for design options or Life Cycle Analyses for operational products, you need connections to data sources in real-time. The virtual design twin or the digital twin in operation does not run on documents.
Conclusion
Data migration and consolidation to modern systems is probably a painful and challenging process. However, the good news is that with the right mindset to continue and with a focus on data quality and governance, the next step to a integrated coordinated and connected enterprise will not be that painful. It can be an evolutionary process, as the McKinsey article describes it.
Jos Voskuil's Weblog 
[…] (The following post from PLM Green Global Alliance cofounder Jos Voskuil first appeared in his European PLM-focused blog HERE.) […]
[…] recent discussions in the PLM ecosystem, including PSC Transition Technologies (EcoPLM), CIMPA PLM services (LCA), and the Design for…
Jos, all interesting and relevant. There are additional elements to be mentioned and Ontologies seem to be one of the…
Jos, as usual, you've provided a buffet of "food for thought". Where do you see AI being trained by a…
Hi Jos. Thanks for getting back to posting! Is is an interesting and ongoing struggle, federation vs one vendor approach.…