You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Standards’ category.
Image http://www.mdux.net
As promised in my early November post – The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 9 – CM), I come back with more thoughts and ideas related to the future of configuration management. Moving from document-driven ways of working to a data-driven and model-based approach fundamentally changes how you can communicate and work efficiently.
Let’s be clear: configuration management’s target is first of all about risk management. Ensuring your company’s business remains sustainable, efficient, and profitable.
By providing the appropriate change processes and guidance, configuration management either avoids costly mistakes and iterations during all phases of a product lifecycle or guarantees the quality of the product and information to ensure safety.
Companies that have not implemented CM practices probably have not observed these issues. Or they have not realized that the root cause of these issues is a lack of CM.
Similar to what is said in smaller companies related to PLM, CM is often seen as an overhead, as employees believe they thoroughly understand their products. In addition, CM is seen as a hurdle to innovation because of the standardization of practices. So yes, they think it is normal that there are sometimes problems. That’s life.
I already wrote about this topic in 2010 PLM, CM and ALM – not sexy 😦 – where ALM means Asset Lifecycle Management – my focus at that time.
Hear it from the experts
To shape the discussion related to the future of Configuration Management, I had a vivid discussion with three thought leaders in this field: Lisa Fenwick, Martijn Dullaart and Maxime Gravel. A short introduction of the three of them:
Lisa Fenwick, VP Product Development at CMstat, a leading company in Configuration Management and Data Management software solutions and consulting services for aviation, aerospace & defense, marine, and other high-tech industries. She has over 25 years of experience with CM and Deliverables Management, including both government and commercial environments.
Ms. Fenwick has achieved CMPIC SME, CMPIC CM Assessor, and CMII-C certifications. Her experience includes implementing CM software products, CM-related consulting and training, and participation in the SAE and IEEE standards development groups
Martijn Dullaart is the Lead Architect for Enterprise Configuration Management at ASML (Our Dutch national pride) and chairperson of the Industry 4.0 committee of the Institute Process Excellence (IPX) Congress. Martijn has his own blog mdux.net, and you might have seen him recently during the PLM Roadmap & PDT Fall conference in November – his thoughts about the CM future can be found on his blog here
Maxime Gravel, Manager Model-Based Engineering at Moog Inc., a worldwide designer, manufacturer, and integrator of advanced motion control products. Max has been the director of the model-based enterprise at the Institute for Process Excellence (IPX) and Head of Configuration and Change Management at Gulfstream Aerospace which certified the first aircraft in a 3D Model-Based Environment.
What we discussed:
We had an almost one-hour discussion related to the following points:
- The need for Enterprise Configuration Management – why and how
- The needed change from document-driven to model-based – the impact on methodology and tools
- The “neural network” of data – connecting CM to all other business domains, a similar view as from the PLM domain,
I kept from our discussion the importance of planning – as seen in the CMstat image on the left.
To plan which data you need to manage and how you will manage the data. How often are you doing this in your company’s projects?
Next, all participants stressed the importance of education and training on this topic – get educated. Configuration Management is not a topic that is taught at schools. Early next year, I will come back on education as the benefits of education are often underestimated. Not everything can be learned by “googling.”
Conclusion
The journey towards a model-based and data-driven future is not a quick one to be realized by new technologies. However, it is interesting to learn that the future of connected data (the “neural network”) allows organizations to implement both CM and PLM in a similar manner, using graph databases and automation. When executed at the enterprise level, the result will be that CM and PLM become natural practices instead of other siloed system-related disciplines.
Most of the methodology is there; the implementation to make it smooth and embedded in organizations will be the topics to learn. Join us in discussing and learning!
This week I attended the PLM Roadmap & PDT Fall 2021 with great expectations based on my enthusiasm last year. Unfortunately, the excitement was less this time, and I will explain in my conclusions why. This time it was unfortunate again a virtual event which makes it hard to be interactive, something I realize I am missing a lot.
Over two hundred attendees connected for the two days, and you can find the agenda here. Typically I would discuss the relevant sessions; now, I want to group some of them related to a theme, as there was complementary information in these sessions.
Disruption
Again like in the spring, the theme was focusing on DISRUPTION. The word disruption can give you an uncomfortable feeling when you are not in power. It is more fun to disrupt than to be disrupted, as I mentioned in my spring presentation. Read The week after PLM Roadmap & PDT Spring 2021
In his keynote speech Peter Bilello (CIMdata) kicked off with: The Critical Dozen: 12 familiar, evolving trends and enablers of digital transformation that you cannot or should not live without.
You can see them on the slide below:
I believe many of them should be familiar to you as these themes have been “in the air” already for quite some time. Vendors first and slowly companies start to investigate them when relevant. You will find many of them back in my recent series: The road to model-based and connected PLM, where I explored the topics that would cross your path on that journey.
Like Peter said: “For most of the topics you cannot pick and choose as they are all connected.”
Another interesting observation was that we are more and more moving away from the concept of related structures (digital thread) but more to connected datasets (digital web). Marc Halpern first introduced this topic last year at the 2020 conference and has become an excellent image to frame what we should imagine in a connected world.
Digital web also has to do with the uprise of the graph database mentioned by Peter Bilello as a potentially disruptive technology during the fireside chat. Relational databases can be seen as rigid, associated with PLM structures. On the other hand, graph databases can be associated with flexible relations between different types of data – the image of the digital web.
Where Peter was mainly telling WHAT was happening, two presentations caught my attention because of the HOW.
First of all, Dr. Rodney Ewing (Cummins) ‘s session: A Balanced Strategy to Reap Continuous Business Value from Digital PLM was a great story of a transformational project. It contained both having a continuous delivery of business value in mind while moving to the connected enterprise.
As Rodney mentioned, the contribution of TCS was crucial here, which I can imagine. It is hard for a company to understand what is happening in the outside (PLM) world when applying it to your company. Their transformation roadmap is an excellent example of having the long-term vision in mind, meanwhile delivering value during the transformation.
Talking about the right partner and synergy, the second presentation I liked in this context of disruption was Ian Quest’s presentation (Quick Release): Open-source Disruption in Support of Audacious Goals. As a sponsor of the conference, they had ten minutes to pitch their area of expertise.
After Ian’s presentation, focused on audacious goals (for non-English natives translated as “brave” goals), there was only one word that stuck to my mind: pragmatic.
Instead of discussions about the complexity, Ian gave examples of where a pragmatic data-centric approach could lead to great benefits, as you can see from one of the illustrated benefits below:
Standards
A characteristic topic of this conference is that we always talk about standards. Torbjörn Holm (Eurostep) gave an excellent overview of where standards have led to significant benefits. For example, the containerization of goods has dramatically improved transportation of goods (we all benefit) while killing proprietary means of transport (trains, type of ships, type of unloading). See the image below:
Torbjörn rightfully expanded this story to the current situation in the construction industry or the challenges for asset operators. Unfortunately, in these practices, many content suppliers remain focusing on their unique capabilities, reluctantly neglecting the demand for interoperability among the whole value chain.
It is a topic Marc Halpern also mentioned last year as an outcome of their Gartner PLM benefits survey. Gartner’s findings:
Time to Market is not so much improved by using PLM as the inefficient interaction with suppliers is the impediment.
Like transport before containerization, the exchange of information is not standardized and designed for digital exchange. Torbjorn believes that more and more companies will insist on exchange standards – like CHIFOS – an ISO1596-derived exchange standard in the process industry. It is a user-driven standard, the best standard.
In this context, the presentation from Kenny Swope (Boeing) and Jean Yves Delaunay (Airbus) The Business Value of Standards-based Information Interoperability for Aerospace & Defense illustrated this fact.
While working for competitors, the Aerospace industry understands the criticality of standards to become more efficient and less vendor-dependent. In the aerospace & defense group, they discuss these themes. The last year’s 2020 Fall sessions showed the results. You can read their publications here
The A&D PLM action group uses the following framework when evaluating standards – as you can see on the image below:
The result – and this is a combined exercise of many participating experts from the field; this is their recommendation:
To conclude:
People often complain about standards, framed by proprietary data format vendors, that they lead to a rigid environment, blocking agility.
In reality, standards allow companies to be more agile as the (proprietary) data flow is less an issue. Remember the containerization example.
Sustainability and System Thinking
This conference has always been known for its attention to the circular economy and green thinking. In the past, these topics might have been considered disconnected from our PLM practices; now, they have become a part of everyone’s mission.
Two presentations stood out on this topic for me. First, Ken Webster, with his keynote speech: In the future, you will own nothing and you will be happy was a significant oversight of how we as consumers currently are disconnected from the circular economy. His plea, as shown below, for making manufacturers responsible for the legal ownership of the materials in the products they deliver would impact consumer behavior.
Product as a Service (PaaS) and new ways to provide a service is becoming essential. For example, buildings as power stations, as they are a place to collect solar or wind energy?
His thoughts are aligned with what is happening in Europe related to the European Green Deal (not in his presentation). There is a push for a PaaS model for all products as this would be an excellent stimulant for the circular economy. PaaS combined with a Digital Product Passport – more on that next year.
Making upgrades to your products has less impact on the environment than creating new products to sell (and creating waste of the old product). Ken Webster was an interesting statement about changing the economy – do we want to own products or do we want to benefit from the product and leave the legal ownership to the manufacturer.
A topic I discussed in the PLM Roadmap & PDT Conference Spring 2021 – look here at slide 11
Patrick Hillberg‘s presentation Rising to the challenge of engineering and optimizing . . . what? was the one closest to my heart. We discussed Sustainability and Systems Thinking with Patrick in our PLM Global Green Alliance, being pretty aligned on this topic. Patrick started by explaining the difference between Systems Engineering and Systems Thinking. Looking at the product go-to-market of an organization is more than the traditional V-model. Economic pressure and culture will push people to deviate from the ideal technological plan due to other priorities.
Expanding on this observation, Partick stated that there are limits to growth, a topic discussed by many people involved in the sustainable economy. Economic growth is impossible on a limited planet, and we have to take more dimensions into account. Patrick gave some examples of that, including issues related to the infamous Boeing 737 Max example.
For Patrick, the COVID-pandemic is the end of the old 2nd Industrial Revolution and a push for a new Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is not only technical, as the slide below indicates.
With Patrick, I believe we are at a decisive moment to disrupt ourselves, reconsider many things we do and are used to doing. Even for PLM practitioners, this is a new path to go.
Data
There were two presentations related to digitization and the shift from document-based to a data-driven approach.
First, there was Greg Weaver (Gulfstream) with his presentation Indexing Content – Finding Your Needle in the Haystack. Greg explained that by using indexation of existing document-based information combined with a specific dashboard, they could provide fast access to information that otherwise would have been hidden in so many document or even paper archives.
It was a pragmatic solution, making me feel nostalgic seeing the SmarTeam profile cards. It was an excellent example of moving to a digital enterprise, and Gulfstream has always been a front runner on this topic.
Warning: Don’t use this by default at home (your company). The data in a regulated industry like Aerospace is expected to be of high quality due to the configuration management processes in place. If your company does not have a strong CM practice, the retrieved data might be inaccurate.
Martijn Dullaart (ASML)’s presentation The Next disruption, please….. was the next step into the future. With his statement “No CM = No Trust,” he made an essential point for data-driven environments.
There is a need for Configuration Management, and I touched on this topic in my last post: The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 9 – CM).
Martijn’s presentation can also be found on his blog here, and I encourage you to read it (saving me copy & paste text). It was interesting to see that Martijn improved his CM pyramid, as you can see, more discipline and activity-oriented instead of a system view. With Martijn and others, I will elaborate on this topic soon.
Conclusion
This has been an extremely long post, and thanks for reading until the end. Many interesting topics were presented at the conference. I was less excited this time because many of these topics are triggers for a discussion. Innovation comes from meeting people with different backgrounds. In a live conference, you would meet during the break or during the famous dinner. How can we ensure we follow up on all this interesting information.
Your thoughts? Contact me for a Corona Friday discussion.
This week I attended the SCAF conference in Jonkoping. SCAF is an abbreviation of the Swedish CATIA User Group. First of all, I was happy to be there as it was a “physical” conference, having the opportunity to discuss topics with the attendees outside the presentation time slot.
It is crucial for me as I have no technical message. Instead, I am trying to make sense of the future through dialogues. What is sure is that the future will be based on new digital concepts, completely different from the traditional approach that we currently practice.
My presentation, which you can find here on SlideShare, was again zooming in on the difference between a coordinated approach (current) and a connected approach (the future).
The presentation explains the concepts of datasets, which I discussed in my previous blog post. Now, I focussed on how this concept can be discovered in the Dassault Systemes 3DExperience platform, combined with the must-go path for all companies to more systems thinking and sustainable products.
It was interesting to learn that the concept of connected datasets like the spider’s web in the image reflected the future concept for many of the attendees.
One of the demos during the conference illustrated that it is no longer about managing the product lifecycle through structures (EBOM/MBOM/SBOM).
Still, it is based on a collection of connected datasets – the path in the spider’s web.
It was interesting to talk with the present companies about their roadmap. How to become a digital enterprise is strongly influenced by their legacy culture and ways of working. Where to start to be connected is the main challenge for all.
A final positive remark. The SCAF had renamed itself to SCAF (3DX), showing that even CATIA practices no longer can be considered as a niche – the future of business is to be connected.
Now back to the thread that I am following on the series The road to model-based. Perhaps I should change the title to “The road to connected datasets, using models”. The statement for this week to discuss is:
Data-driven means that you need to have an enterprise architecture, data governance and a master data management (MDM) approach. So far, the traditional PLM vendors have not been active in the MDM domain as they believe their proprietary data model is leading. Read also this interesting McKinsey article: How enterprise architects need to evolve to survive in a digital world
Reliable data
If you have been following my story related to PLM transition: From a connected to a coordinated infrastructure might have seen the image below:
The challenge of a connected enterprise is that you want to connect different datasets, defined in various platforms, to support any type of context. We called this a digital thread or perhaps even better framed a digital web.
This is new for most organizations because each discipline has been working most of the time in its own silo. They are producing readable information in neutral files – pdf drawings/documents. In cases where a discipline needs to deliver datasets, like in a PDM-ERP integration, we see IT-energy levels rising as integrations are an IT thing, right?
Too much focus on IT
In particular, SAP has always played the IT card (and is still playing it through their Siemens partnership). Historically, SAP claimed that all parts/items should be in their system. Thus, there was no need for a PDM interface, neglecting that the interface moment was now shifted to the designer in CAD. And by using the name Material for what is considered a Part in the engineering world, they illustrated their lack of understanding of the actual engineering world.
There is more to “blame” to SAP when it comes to the PLM domain, or you can state PLM vendors did not yet understand what enterprise data means. Historically ERP systems were the first enterprise systems introduced in a company; they have been leading in a transactional “digital” world. The world of product development never has been a transactional process.
SAP introduced the Master Data Management for their customers to manage data in heterogeneous environments. As you can imagine, the focus of SAP MDM was more on the transactional side of the product (also PIM) than on the engineering characteristics of a product.
I have no problem that each vendor wants to see their solution as the center of the world. This is expected behavior. However, when it comes to a single system approach, there is a considerable danger of vendor lock-in, a lack of freedom to optimize your business.
In a modern digital enterprise (to be), the business processes and value streams should be driving the requirements for which systems to use. I was tempted to write “not the IT capabilities”; however, that would be a mistake. We need systems or platforms that are open and able to connect to other systems or platforms. The technology should be there, and more and more, we realize the future is based on connectivity between cloud solutions.
In one of my first posts (part 2), I referred to five potential platforms for a connected enterprise. Each platform will have its own data model based on its legacy design, allowing it to service its core users in an optimized environment.
When it comes to interactions between two or more platforms, for example, between PLM and ERP, between PLM and IoT, but also between IoT and ERP or IoT and CRM, these interactions should first be based on identified business processes and value streams.
The need for Master Data Management
Defining horizontal business processes and value streams independent of the existing IT systems is the biggest challenge in many enterprises. Historically, we have been thinking around a coordinated way of working, meaning people shifting pieces of information between systems – either as files or through interfaces.
In the digital enterprise, the flow should be leading based on the stakeholders involved. Once people agree on the ideal flow, the implementation process can start.
Which systems are involved, and where do we need a connection between the two systems. Is the relationship bidirectional, or is it a push?
The interfaces need to be data-driven in a digital enterprise; we do not want human interference here, slowing down or modifying the flow. This is the moment Master Data Management and Data Governance comes in.
When exchanging data, we need to trust the data in its context, and we should be able to use the data in another context. But, unfortunately, trust is hard to gain.
I can share an example of trust when implementing a PDM system linked to a Microsoft-friendly ERP system. Both systems we able to have Excel as an interface medium – the Excel columns took care of the data mapping between these two systems.
In the first year, engineers produced the Excel with BOM information and manufacturing engineering imported the Excel into their ERP system. After a year, the manufacturing engineers proposed to automatically upload the Excel as they discovered the exchange process did not need their attention anymore – they learned to trust the data.
How often have you seen similar cases in your company where we insist on a readable exchange format?
When you trust the process(es), you can trust the data. In a digital enterprise, you must assume that specific datasets are used or consumed in different systems. Therefore a single data mapping as in the Excel example won’t be sufficient
Master Data Management and standards?
Some traditional standards, like the ISO 15926 or ISO 10303, have been designed to exchange process and engineering data – they are domain-specific. Therefore, they could simplify your master data management approach if your digitalization efforts are in that domain.
To connect other types of data, it is hard to find a global standard that also encompasses different kinds of data or consumers. Think about the GS1 standard, which has more of a focus on the consumer-side of data management. When PLM meets PIM, this standard and Master Data Management will be relevant.
Therefore I want to point to these two articles in this context:
How enterprise architects need to evolve to survive in a digital world focusing on the transition of a coordinated enterprise towards a connected enterprise from the IT point of view. And a recent LinkedIn post, Web Ontology Language as a common standard language for Engineering Networks? by Matthias Ahrens exploring the concepts I have been discussing in this post.
To me, it seems that standards are helpful when working in a coordinated environment. However, in a connected environment, we have to rely on master data management and data governance processes, potentially based on a clever IT infrastructure using graph databases to be able to connect anything meaningful and possibly artificial intelligence to provide quality monitoring.
Conclusion
Standards have great value in exchange processes, which happen in a coordinated business environment. To benefit from a connected business environment, we need an open and flexible IT infrastructure supported by algorithms (AI) to guarantee quality. Before installing the IT infrastructure, we should first have defined the value streams it should support.
What are your experiences with this transition?
After a short summer break with almost no mentioning of the word PLM, it is time to continue this series of posts exploring the future of “connected” PLM. For those who also started with a cleaned-up memory, here is a short recap:
In part 1, I rush through more than 60 years of product development, starting from vellum drawings ending with the current PLM best practice for product development, the item-centric approach.
In part 2, I painted a high-level picture of the future, introducing the concept of digital platforms, which, if connected wisely, could support the digital enterprise in all its aspects. The five platforms I identified are the ERP and CRM platform (the oldest domains).
Next, the MES and PIP platform(modern domains to support manufacturing and product innovation in more detail) and the IoT platform (needed to support connected products and customers).
In part 3, I explained what is data-driven and how data-driven is closely connected to a model-based approach. Here we abandon documents (electronic files) as active information carriers. Documents will remain, however, as reports, baselines, or information containers. In this post, I ended up with seven topics related to data-driven, which I will discuss in upcoming posts.
Hopefully, by describing these topics – and for sure, there are more related topics – we will better understand the connected future and make decisions to enable the future instead of freezing the past.
Topic 1 for this post:
Data-driven does not imply, there needs to be a single environment, a single database that contains all information. As I mentioned in my previous post, it will be about managing connected datasets federated. It is not anymore about owned the data; it is about access to reliable data.
Platform or a collection of systems?
One of the first (marketing) hurdles to take is understanding what a data platform is and what is a collection of systems that work together, sold as a platform.
CIMdata published in 2017 an excellent whitepaper positioning the PIP (Product Innovation Platform): Product Innovation Platforms: Definition, Their Role in the Enterprise, and Their Long-Term Viability. CIMdata’s definition is extensive and covers the full scope of product innovation. Of course, you can find a platform that starts from a more focused process.
For example, look at OpenBOM (focus on BOM collaboration), OnShape (focus on CAD collaboration) or even Microsoft 365 (historical, document-based collaboration).
The idea behind a platform is that it provides basic capabilities connected to all stakeholders, inside and outside your company. In addition, to avoid that these capabilities are limited, a platform should be open and able to connect with other data sources that might be either local or central available.
From these characteristics, it is clear that the underlying infrastructure of a platform must be based on a multitenant SaaS infrastructure, still allowing local data to be connected and shielded for performance or IP reasons.
The picture below describes the business benefits of a Product Innovation Platform as imagined by Accenture in 2014
Link to CIMdata’s 2014 commentary of Digital PLM HERE
Sometimes vendors sell their suite of systems as a platform. This is a marketing trick because when you want to add functionality to your PLM infrastructure, you need to install a new system and create or use interfaces with the existing systems, not really a scalable environment.
In addition, sometimes, the collaboration between systems in such a marketing platform is managed through proprietary exchange (file) formats.
A practice we have seen in the construction industry before cloud connectivity became available. However, a so-called end-to-end solution working on PowerPoint implemented in real life requires a lot of human intervention.
Not a single environment
There has always been the debate:
“Do I use best-in-class tools, supporting the end-user of the software, or do I provide an end-to-end infrastructure with more generic tools on top of that, focusing on ease of collaboration?”
In the system approach, the focus was most of the time on the best-in-class tools where PLM-systems provide the data governance. A typical example is the item-centric approach. It reflects the current working culture, people working in their optimized siloes, exchanging information between disciplines through (neutral) files.
The platform approach makes it possible to deliver the optimized user interface for the end-user through a dedicated app. Assuming the data needed for such an app is accessible from the current platform or through other systems and platforms.
It might be tempting as a platform provider to add all imaginable data elements to their platform infrastructure as much as possible. The challenge with this approach is whether all data should be stored in a central data environment (preferably cloud) or federated. And what about filtering IP?
In my post PLM and Supply Chain Collaboration, I described the concept of having an intermediate hub (ShareAspace) between enterprises to facilitate real-time data sharing, however carefully filtered which data is shared in the hub.
It may be clear that storing everything in one big platform is not the future. As I described in part 2, in the end, a company might implement a maximum of five connected platforms (CRM, ERP, PIP, IoT and MES). Each of the individual platforms could contain a core data model relevant for this part of the business. This does not imply there might be no other platforms in the future. Platforms focusing on supply chain collaboration, like ShareAspace or OpenBOM, will have a value proposition too. In the end, the long-term future is all about realizing a digital tread of information within the organization.
Will we ever reach a perfectly connected enterprise or society? Probably not. Not because of technology but because of politics and human behavior. The connected enterprise might be the most efficient architecture, but will it be social, supporting all humanity. Predicting the future is impossible, as Yuval Harari described in his book: 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Worth reading, still a collection of ideas.
Proprietary data model or standards?
So far, when you are a software vendor developing a system, there is no restriction in how you internally manage your data. In the domain of PLM, this meant that every vendor has its own proprietary data model and behavior.
I have learned from my 25+ years of experience with systems that the original design of a product combined with the vendor’s culture defines the future roadmap. So even if a PLM vendor would rewrite all their software to become data-driven, the ways of working, the assumptions will be based on past experiences.
This makes it hard to come to unified data models and methodology valid for our PLM domain. However, large enterprises like Airbus and Boeing and the major Automotive suppliers have always pushed for standards as they will benefit the most from standardization.
The recent PDT conferences were an example of this, mainly the 2020 Fall conference. Several Aerospace & Defense PLM Action groups reported their progress.
You can read my impression of this event in The weekend after PLM Roadmap / PDT 2020 – part 1 and The next weekend after PLM Roadmap PDT 2020 – part 2.
It would be interesting to see a Product Innovation Platform built upon a data model as much as possible aligned to existing standards. Probably it won’t happen as you do not make money from being open and complying with standards as a software vendor. Still, companies should push their software vendors to support standards as this is the only way to get larger connected eco-systems.
I do not believe in the toolkit approach where every company can build its own data model based on its current needs. I have seen this flexibility with SmarTeam in the early days. However, it became an upgrade risk when new, overlapping capabilities were introduced, not matching the past.
In addition, a flexible toolkit still requires a robust data model design done by experienced people who have learned from their mistakes.
The benefit of using standards is that they contain the learnings from many people involved.
Conclusion
I did not like writing this post so much, as my primary PLM focus lies on people and methodology. Still, understanding future technologies is an important point to consider. Therefore, this time a not-so-exciting post. There is enough to read on the internet related to PLM technology; see some of the recent articles below. Enjoy
Matthias Ahrens shared: Integrated Product Lifecycle Management (Google translated from German)
Oleg Shilovitsky wrote numerous articles related to technology –
in this context:
3 Challenges of Unified Platforms and System Locking and
SaaS PLM Acceleration Trends
One of my favorite conferences is the PLM Road Map & PDT conference. Probably because in the pre-COVID days, it was the best PLM conference to network with peers focusing on PLM practices, standards, and sustainability topics. Now the conference is virtual, and hopefully, after the pandemic, we will meet again in the conference space to elaborate on our experiences further.
Last year’s fall conference was special because we had three days filled with a generic PLM update and several A&D (Aerospace & Defense) working groups updates, reporting their progress and findings. Sessions related to the Multiview BOM research, Global Collaboration, and several aspects of Model-Based practices: Model-Based Definition, Model-Based Engineering & Model-Based Systems engineering.
All topics that I will elaborate on soon. You can refresh your memory through these two links:
- The weekend after PLM Roadmap / PDT 2020 – part 1
- The next weekend after PLM Roadmap / PDT 2020 – part 2
This year, it was a two-day conference with approximately 200 attendees discussing how emerging technologies can disrupt the current PLM landscape and reshape the PLM Value Equation. During the first day of the conference, we focused on technology.
On the second day, we looked in addition to the impact new technology has on people and organizations.
Today’s Emerging Trends & Disrupters
Peter Bilello, CIMdata’s President & CEO, kicked off the conference by providing CIMdata observations of the market. An increasing number of technology capabilities, like cloud, additive manufacturing, platforms, digital thread, and digital twin, all with the potential of realizing a connected vision. Meanwhile, companies evolve at their own pace, illustrating that the gap between the leaders and followers becomes bigger and bigger.
Where is your company? Can you afford to be a follower? Is your PLM ready for the future? Probably not, Peter states.
Next, Peter walked us through some technology trends and their applicability for a future PLM, like topological data analytics (TDA), the Graph Database, Low-Code/No-Code platforms, Additive Manufacturing, DevOps, and Agile ways of working during product development. All capabilities should be related to new ways of working and updated individual skills.
I fully agreed with Peter’s final slide – we have to actively rethink and reshape PLM – not by calling it different but by learning, experimenting, and discussing in the field.
Digital Transformation Supporting Army Modernization
An interesting viewpoint related to modern PLM came from Dr. Raj Iyer, Chief Information Officer for IT Reform from the US Army. Rai walked us through some of the US Army’s challenges, and he gave us some fantastic statements to think about. Although an Army cannot be compared with a commercial business, its target remains to be always ahead of the competition and be aware of the competition.
Where we would say “data is the new oil”, Rai Iyer said: “Data is the ammunition of the future fight – as fights will more and more take place in cyberspace.”
The US Army is using a lot of modern technology – as the image below shows. The big difference here with regular businesses is that it is not about ROI but about winning fights.
Also, for the US Army, the cloud becomes the platform of the future. Due to the wide range of assets, the US Army has to manage, the importance of product data standards is evident. – Rai mentioned their contribution and adherence to the ISO 10303 STEP standard crucial for interoperability. It was an exciting insight into the US Army’s current and future challenges. Their primary mission remains to stay ahead of the competition.
Joining up Engineering Data without losing the M in PLM
Nigel Shaw’s (Eurostep) presentation was somehow philosophical but precisely to the point what is the current dilemma in the PLM domain. Through an analogy of the internet, explaining that we live in a world of HTTP(s) linking, we create new ways of connecting information. The link becomes an essential artifact in our information model.
Where it is apparent links are crucial for managing engineering data, Nigel pointed out some of the significant challenges of this approach, as you can see from his (compiled) image below.
I will not discuss this topic further here as I am planning to come back to this topic when explaining the challenges of the future of PLM.
As Nigel said, they have a debate with one of their customers to replace the existing PLM tools or enhance the existing PLM tools. The challenge of moving from coordinated information towards connected data is a topic that we as a community should study.
Integration is about more than Model Format.
This was the presentation I have been waiting for. Mark Williams from Boeing had built the story together with Adrian Burton from Airbus. Nigel Shaw, in the previous session, already pointed to the challenge of managing linked information. Mark elaborated further about the model-based approach for system definition.
All content was related to the understanding that we need a model-based information infrastructure for the future because storing information in documents (the coordinated approach) is no longer viable for complex systems. Mark ‘slide below says it all.
Mark stressed the importance of managing model information in context, and it has become a challenge.
Mark mentioned that 20 years ago, the IDC (International Data Corporation) measured Boeing’s performance and estimated that each employee spent 2 ½ hours per day. In 2018, the IDC estimated that this number has grown to 30 % of the employee’s time and could go up to 50 % when adding the effort of reusing and duplicating data.
The consequence of this would be that a full-service enterprise, having engineering, manufacturing and services connected, probably loses 70 % of its information because they cannot find it—an impressive number asking for “clever” ways to find the correct information in context.
It is not about just a full indexed search of the data, as some technology geeks might think. It is also about describing and standardizing metadata that describes the models. In that context, Mark walked through a list of existing standards, all with their pros and cons, ending up with the recommendation to use the ISO 10303-243 – MoSSEC standard.
MoSSEC standing for Modelling and Simulation information in a collaborative Systems Engineering Context to manage and connect the relationships between models.
MoSSEC and its implication for future digital enterprises are interesting, considering the importance of a model-based future. I am curious how PLM Vendors and tools will support and enable the standard for future interoperability and collaboration.
Additive Manufacturing
– not as simple as paper printing – yet
Andreas Graichen from Siemens Energy closed the day, coming back to the new technologies’ topic: Additive Manufacturing or in common language 3D Printing. Andreas shared their Additive Manufacturing experiences, matching the famous Gartner Hype Cycle. His image shows that real work needs to be done to understand the technology and its use cases after the first excitement of the hype is over.
Material knowledge was one of the important topics to study when applying additive manufacturing. It is probably a new area for most companies to understand the material behaviors and properties in an Additive Manufacturing process.
The ultimate goal for Siemens Energy is to reach an “autonomous” workshop anywhere in the world where gas turbines could order their spare parts by themselves through digital warehouses. It is a grand vision, and Andreas confirmed that the scalability of Additive Manufacturing is still a challenge.
For rapid prototyping or small series of spare parts, Additive Manufacturing might be the right solution. The success of your Additive Manufacturing process depends a lot on how your company’s management has realistic expectations and the budget available to explore this direction.
Conclusion
Day 1 was enjoyable and educational, starting and ending with a focus on disruptive technologies. The middle part related to data the data management concepts needed for a digital enterprise were the most exciting topics to follow up in my opinion.
Next week I will follow up with reviewing day 2 and share my conclusions. The PLM Road Map & PDT Spring 2021 conference confirmed that there is work to do to understand the future (of PLM).
Last week I shared my first review of the PLM Roadmap / PDT Fall 2020 conference, organized by CIMdata and Eurostep. Having digested now most of the content in detail, I can state this was the best conference of 2020. In my first post, the topics I shared were mainly the consultant’s view of digital thread and digital twin concepts.
This time, I want to focus on the content presented by the various Aerospace & Defense working groups who shared their findings, lessons-learned (so far) on topics like the Multi-view BOM, Supply Chain Collaboration, MBSE Data interoperability.
These sessions were nicely wrapped with presentations from Alberto Ferrari (Raytheon), discussing the digital thread between PLM and Simulation Lifecycle Management and Jeff Plant (Boeing) sharing their Model-Based Engineering strategy.
I believe these insights are crucial, although there might be people in the field that will question if this research is essential. Is not there an easier way to achieve to have the same results?
Nicely formulated by Ilan Madjar as a comment to my first post:
Ilan makes a good point about simplifying the ideas to the masses to make it work. The majority of companies probably do not have the bandwidth to invest and understand the future benefits of a digital thread or digital twins.
This does not mean that these topics should not be studied. If your business is in a small, simple eco-system and wants to work in a connected mode, you can choose a vendor and a few custom interfaces.
However, suppose you work in a global industry with an extensive network of partners, suppliers, and customers.
In that case, you cannot rely on ad-hoc interfaces or a single vendor. You need to invest in standards; you need to study common best practices to drive methodology, standards, and vendors to align.
This process of standardization is so crucial if you want to have a sustainable, connected enterprise. In the end, the push from these companies will lead to standards, allowing the smaller companies to ad-here or connect to.
The future is about Connected through Standards, as discussed in part 1 and further in this post. Let’s go!
Global Collaboration – Defining a baseline for data exchange processes and standards
Katheryn Bell (Pratt & Whitney Canada) presented the progress of the A&D Global Collaboration workgroup. As you can see from the project timeline, they have reached the phase to look towards the future.
Katheryn mentioned the need to standardize terminology as the first point of attention. I am fully aligned with that point; without a standardized terminology framework, people will have a misunderstanding in communication.
This happens even more in the smaller businesses that just pick sometimes (buzz) terms without a full understanding.
Several years ago, I talked with a PLM-implementer telling me that their implementation focus was on systems engineering. After some more explanations, it appeared they were making an attempt for configuration management in reality. Here the confusion was massive. Still, a standard, common terminology is crucial in our domain, even if it seems academic.
The group has been analyzing interoperability standards, standards for long-time archival and retrieval (LOTAR), but also has been studying the ISO 44001 standard related to Collaborative business relationship management systems
In the Q&A session, Katheryn explained that the biggest problem to solve with collaboration was the risk of working with the wrong version of data between disciplines and suppliers.
Of course, such errors can lead to huge costs if they are discovered late (or too late). As some of the big OEMs work with thousands of suppliers, you can imagine it is not an issue easily discovered in a more ad-hoc environment.
The move to a standardized Technical Data Package based on a Model-Based Definition is one of these initiatives in this domain to reduce these types of errors.
You can find the proceedings from the Global Collaboration working group here.
Connect, Trace, and Manage Lifecycle of Models, Simulation and Linked Data: Is That Easy?
I loved Alberto Ferrari‘s (Raytheon) presentation how he described the value of a model-based digital thread, positioning it in a targeted enterprise.
Click on the image and discover how business objectives, processes and models go together supported by a federated infrastructure.
Alberto’s presentation was a kind of mind map from how I imagine the future, and it is a pity if you have not had the chance to see his session.
Alberto also focused on the importance of various simulation capabilities combined with simulation lifecycle management. For Alberto, they are essential to implement digital twins. Besides focusing on standards, Alberto pleas for a semantic integration, open service architecture with the importance of DevSecOps.
Enough food for thought; as Alberto mentioned, he presented the corporate vision, not the current state.
More A&D Action Groups
There were two more interesting specialized sessions where teams from the A&D action groups provided a status update.
Brandon Sapp (Boeing) and Ian Parent (Pratt & Whitney) shared the activities and progress on Minimum Model-Based Definition (MBD) for Type Design Certification.
As Brandon mentioned, MBD is already a widely used capability; however, MBD is still maturing and evolving. I believe that is also one of the reasons why MBD is not yet accepted in mainstream PLM. Smaller organizations will wait; however, can your company afford to wait?
More information about their progress can be found here.
Mark Williams (Boeing) reported from the A&D Model-Based Systems Engineering action group their first findings related to MBSE Data Interoperability, focusing on an Architecture Model Exchange Solution. A topic interesting to follow as the promise of MBSE is that it is about connected information shared in models. As Mark explained, data exchange standards for requirements and behavior models are mature, readily available in the tools, and easily adopted. Exchanging architecture models has proven to be very difficult. I will not dive into more details, respecting the audience of this blog.
For those interested in their progress, more information can be found here
Model-Based Engineering @ Boeing
In this conference, the participation of Boeing was significant through the various action groups. As the cherry on the cake, there was Jeff Plant‘s session, giving an overview of what is happening at Boeing. Jeff is Boeing’s director of engineering practices, processes, and tools.
In his introduction, Jeff mentioned that Boeing has more than 160.000 employees in over 65 countries. They are working with more than 12.000 suppliers globally. These suppliers can be manufacturing, service or technology partnerships. Therefore you can imagine, and as discussed by others during the conference, streamlined collaboration and traceability are crucial.
The now-famous MBE Diamond symbol illustrates the model-based information flows in the virtual world and the physical world based on the systems engineering approach. Like Katheryn Bell did in her session related to Global Collaboration, Jeff started explaining the importance of a common language and taxonomy needed if you want to standardize processes.
Zoom in on the Boeing MBE Taxonomy, you will discover the clarity it brings for the company.
I was not aware of the ISO 23247 standard concerning the Digital Twin framework for manufacturing, aiming to apply industry standards to the model-based definition of products and process planning. A standard certainly to follow as it brings standardization on top of existing standards.
As Jeff noted: A practical standard for implementation in a company of any size. In my opinion, mandatory for a sustainable, connected infrastructure.
Jeff presented the slide below, showing their standardization internally around federated platforms.
This slide resembles a lot the future platform vision I have been sharing since 2017 when discussing PLM’s future at PLM conferences, when explaining the differences between Coordinated and Connected – see also my presentation here on Slideshare.
You can zoom in on the picture to see the similarities. For me, the differences were interesting to observe. In Jeff’s diagram, the product lifecycle at the top indicates the platform of (central) interest during each lifecycle stage, suggesting a linear process again.
In reality, the flow of information through feedback loops will be there too.
The second exciting detail is that these federated architectures should be based on strong interoperability standards. Jeff is urging other companies, academics and vendors to invest and come to industry standards for Model-Based System Engineering practices. The time is now to act on this domain.
It reminded me again of Marc Halpern’s message mentioned in my previous post (part 1) that we should be worried about vendor alliances offering an integrated end-to-end data flow based on their solutions. This would lead to an immense vendor-lock in if these interfaces are not based on strong industry standards.
Therefore, don’t watch from the sideline; it is the voice (and effort) of the companies that can drive standards.
Finally, during the Q&A part, Jeff made an interesting point explaining Boeing is making a serious investment, as you can see from their participation in all the action groups. They have made the long-term business case.
The team is confident that the business case for such an investment is firm and stable, however in such long-term investment without direct results, these projects might come under pressure when the business is under pressure.
The virtual fireside chat
The conference ended with a virtual fireside chat from which I picked up an interesting point that Marc Halpern was bringing in. Marc mentioned a survey Gartner has done with companies in fast-moving industries related to the benefits of PLM. Companies reported improvements in accuracy and product development. They did not see so much a reduced time to market or cost reduction. After analysis, Gartner believes the real issue is related to collaboration processes and supply chain practices. Here lead times did not change, nor the number of changes.
Marc believes that this topic will be really showing benefits in the future with cloud and connected suppliers. This reminded me of an article published by McKinsey called The case for digital reinvention. In this article, the authors indicated that only 2 % of the companies interview were investing in a digital supply chain. At the same time, the expected benefits in this area would have the most significant ROI.
The good news, there is consistency, and we know where to focus for early results.
Conclusion
It was a great conference as here we could see digital transformation in action (groups). Where vendor solutions often provide a sneaky preview of the future, we saw people working on creating the right foundations based on standards. My appreciation goes to all the active members in the CIMdata A&D action groups as they provide the groundwork for all of us – sooner or later.
Last week I was happy to attend the PLM Roadmap / PDT Fall 2020 conference as usual organized by CIMdata and Eurostep. I wrote about the recent PI DX conference, which touched a lot on the surface of PLM and Digital Transformation. This conference is really a conference for those who want to understand the building blocks needed for current and future PLM.
In this conference, usually with approximately 150 users on-site, now with over 250 connected users for 3 (half) days. Many of us, following every session of the conference. As an active participant in the physical events, it was a little disappointing not to be in the same place with the other participants this time. The informal network meetings in this conference have always been special thanks to a relatively small but stable group of experts. Due to the slightly reduced schedule, there was this time, less attention for some of the typical PDT-topics most of the time coming from Sweden and related to sustainability.
The conference’s theme was Digital Thread—the PLM Professionals’ Path to Delivering Innovation, Efficiency, and Quality and might sound like a marketing statement. However, the content presented was much more detailed than just marketing info. The fact that you watched the presentation on your screen made it an intense conference with many valuable details.
Have a look at the agenda, and I will walk you through some of the highlights for me. As there was so much content to discuss, I will share this time part 1. Next week, in part 2, you will see the coherence of all the presentations.
As if there was a Coherent Thread.
Digital Twin, It Requires a Digital Thread
Peter Bilello, President & CEO, CIMdata, ‘s keynote with the title Digital Twin, It Requires a Digital Thread was immediately an illustration of discussing reality. When I stated at the Digital Twin conference in the Netherlands that “Digital Twins do not run on Documents“, it had the same meaning as when Peter stated,” A Digital Twin without a Digital Thread is an orphan”.
Digital Thread
And Peter’s statement, “All companies do PLM, most of the time however disconnected”, is another way to stimulate companies working in a connected manner.
As usual Peter’s session was a good overview of the various aspect related to the Digital Thread and Digital Twin.
Digital Twin
The concept of a virtual twin is not new. The focus is as mentioned before now more on the term “Connected” Peter provided the CIMdata definition for Digital Thread and Digital Twin. Click on the images to the left to read the full definition.
Peter’s overview also referred to the Boeing Diamond, illustrating the mapping of the physical and virtual world, connected through a Digital Thread the various Digital Twins that can exist. The Boeing Diamond was one of the favorites during the conference.
When you look at Peter’s conclusions, there is an alignment with what I wrote in the post: A Digital Twin for Everyone and the fact that we need to strive for a connected enterprise. Only then we can benefit from a Digital Twin concept.
The Multi-view BOM Solution Evaluation
– Process, Results, and Industry Impacts
The reports coming from the various A&D PLM action groups are always engaging sessions to watch. Here, nine companies, even competitors, discuss and explore PLM themes between themselves supported by CIMdata.
These companies were the first that implemented PLM; it is interesting to watch how they move forward like supertankers. They cannot jump from one year to another year on a new fashionable hype. Their PLM-infrastructure needs to be consistent and future-proof due to their data’s longevity and the high standards for regulatory compliance and safety.
However, these companies are also pioneers for the future. They have been practicing Model-Based approaches for over ten years already and are still learning. In next week’s post, you will read later that these frontrunners are pushing for standards to make a Model-Based future affordable and achievable.
In that context, the action group Multi-View BOM shared their evaluation results for a study related to the multi-view BOM. A year ago, I wrote about this topic when Fred Feru from Airbus presented the intermediate results at the CIMdata Roadmap/PDT 2019 conference.
Dan Ganser (Gulfstream) and Javier Reines (Airbus) presented the findings. The conclusion was that the four vendors evaluated, i.e., Aras, Dassault Systems, PTC and Siemens, all passed the essential requirements and use cases. You can find the report and the findings here: Multi-view Bill of Materials
One interesting remark.
When the use cases were evaluated, the vendors could score on a level from 0 to 5, see picture. Interesting to see that apparently, it was possible to exceed the requirement, something that seems like a contradiction.
In particular, in this industry, where formal requirements management is a must – either you meet a requirement or not.
Dan Ganser explained that the current use cases were defined based on the minimum expectations, therefore there was the option to exceed the requirement. I still would be curious to see what does it mean to exceed the requirement. Is it usability, time, or something innovative we might have missed?
5G for Digital Twins & Shadows
I learned a lot from the presentation from Niels Koenig, working at the Fraunhofer Institute for Production Technology. Niels explained how important 5G is for realizing the Industry 4.0 targets. At the 5G Industry Campus, several projects are running to test and demonstrate the value of 5G in relation to manufacturing.
If you want to get an impression of the 5G Industry Campus – click on the Youube movie.
One of the examples Niels discussed was closed-loop manufacturing. Thanks to the extremely low latency (< 1ms), a connected NC machine can send real-time measurements to be compared with the expected values. For example, in the case of resonance, the cutting might not be smooth. Thanks to the closed-loop, the operator will be able to interfere or adjust the operation. See the image below.
Digital Thread: Be Careful What you Wish For, It Just Might Come True
I was looking forward to Marc Halpern‘s presentation. Marc often brings a less technical viewpoint but a more business-related viewpoint to the discussion. Over the past ten years, there have been many disruptive events, most recently the COVID-pandemic.
Companies are asking themselves how they can remain resilient. Marc shared some of his thoughts on how Digital Twins and Digital Threads can support resilience.
In that context, Gartner saw a trend that their customers are now eagerly looking for solutions related to Digital Twin, Digital Thread, Model-Based Approaches, combined with the aim to move to the cloud. Related to Digital Thread and Digital Twin, most of Gartner’s clients are looking for traceability and transparency along the product lifecycle. Most Digital Twin initiatives focus on a twin of operational assets, particularly inside the manufacturing facility. Nicely linking to Niels Konig’s session related to 5G.
Marc stated that there seems to be a consensus that a Digital Thread is compelling enough for manufacturers to invest. In the end, they will have to. However, there are also significant risks involved. Marc illustrated the two extremes; in reality, companies will end up somewhere in the middle, illustrated later by Jeff Plant from Boeing. The image on the left is a sneaky preview for next week.
When discussing the Digital Thread, Marc again referred to it more as a Digital Net, a kind of connected infrastructure for various different threads based on the various areas of interest.
I show here a slide from Marc’s presentation at the PDT conference in 2018. It is more an artist’s impression of the same concept discussed during this conference again, the Boeing Diamond.
Related to the risk of implementing a Digital Thread and Digital Twin, Marc showed another artistic interpretation; The two extremes of two potential end states of Digital Thread investment. Marc shared the critical risks for both options.
For the Vendor Black Hole, his main points were that if you choose a combined solution, diminished negotiating power, higher implementation costs, and potentially innovative ideas might not be implemented as they are not so relevant for the vendor. They have the power!
As an example of combined solutions Marc mentioned, the recently announced SAP-Siemens partnership, the Rockwell Automation-PTC partnership, the Schneider Electric-Aveva-partnership, and the ABB-Dassault Systemes partnership.
Once you are in the black hole, you cannot escape. Therefore, Marc recommended making sure you do not depend on a few vendors for your Digital Twin infrastructure.
The picture on the left illustrates the critical risks of the Enterprise Architecture “Mess”. It is a topic that I am following for a long time. Suppose you have a collection of services related to the product lifecycle, like Workflow-services, 3D Modeling-services, BOM-services, Manufacturing-services.
Together they could provide a PLM-infrastructure.
The idea behind this is that thanks to openness and connectivity, every company can build its own unique enterprise architecture. No discussion about standard best practices. You build your company’s best practices (for the future, the current ?)
It is mainly promoted as a kind of bottom-up PLM. If you are missing capabilities, just build them yourselves, using REST-services, APIs, using Low-Code platforms. It seems attractive for the smaller enterprises, however most of the time, only a short time. I fully concur with Marc’s identified risks here.
As I often illustrated in presentations related to a digital future, you will need a mix of both. Based on your point of focus, you could imagine five major platforms being connected together to cover all aspects of a business. Depending on your company’s business model and products, one of them might be the dominant one. With my PLM-focus, this would be the Product Innovation Platform, where the business is created.
Marc ended with five priorities to enable a long-term Digital Thread success.
- First of all – set the ground rules for data governance. A topic often mentioned but is your company actively engaging on that already?
- Next, learn from Model-Based Systems Engineering as a foundation for a Model-Based Enterprise. A topic often discussed during the previous CIMdata Roadmap / PDT-conference.
- The change from storing and hiding information in siloes towards an infrastructure and mindset of search and access of data, in particular, the access to Bill of Materials
The last point induced two more points.
- The need for an open architecture and standards. We would learn more on this topic on day 3 of the conference.
- Make sure your digital transformation sticks within the organization by investing and executing on organizational change management.
Conclusion
The words “Digital Thread” and “Digital Twin” are mentioned 18 times in this post and during the conference even more. However, at this conference, they were not hollow marketing terms. They are part of a dictionary for the future, as we will see in next week’s post when discussing some of the remaining presentations.
Closing this time with a point we all agreed upon: “A Digital Twin without a Digital Thread is an orphan”. Next week more!
This post is based on a mix of interactions I had the last two weeks in my network, mainly on LinkedIn. First, I enjoyed the discussion that started around Yoann Maingon post: Thoughts about PLM Business models. Yoann is quite seasoned in PLM, as you can see from his LinkedIn profile, and we have had interesting discussions in the past, and recently about a new PLM-system, he is developing Ganister PLM, based on a flexible Graph database.
Perhaps in that context, Yoann was exploring the various business models. Do you pay for the software (and maintenance), do you pay through subscription, what about a modular approach or a full license for all the functionality? All these questions made me think about the various business models that I encountered and how hard it is for a customer to choose the optimal solution. And is the space for a new type of PLM? Is there space for free PLM? Some of my thoughts here:
PLM vendors need to be profitable
One of the most essential points to consider is that whatever PLM solution you are aiming to buy, make sure that your PLM vendor has a profitable business model. As once you started with a PLM solution, it is your company’s IP that will be stored in this environment, and you do not want to change every few years your PLM system. Switching PLM systems would be affordable if the PLM system would store their data in a standard format – I will share a more in-depth link under PLM and standards.
For the moment, you cannot state PLM vendors endorse standards. None of the real PLM vendors have a standardized data model, perhaps closest to standards are Eurostep, who have based that ShareAspace solution on top of the PLCS (ISO 10303) standard. However, ShareAspace is more positioned as a type of middleware, connecting between OEMs/Owner/Operators and their suppliers to benefit for standardized connectivity.
Coming back to the statement, PLM Vendors need to be profitable to provide a guarantee for the future of your company’s data is the first step. The major PLM Vendors are now profitable as during a consolidation phase starting 15 years ago, a lot of non-profitable PLM Vendors disappeared. Matrix One, Agile, Eigner & Partner PLM are the best-known companies that were bought for either their technology or market share. In that context, you might also look at OnShape.
Would they be profitable as a separate company, or would investors give up? To survive, you need to be profitable, so giving software away for free is not a good sign (see the software for free paragraph) as a company needs continuity.
PLM startups
In the past 10 years, I have seen and evaluated several new PLM companies. All of them did not really change the PLM paradigm, most of them were still focusing on being an engineering collaboration tools. Several of these companies have in their visionary statement that they are going to be the “Excel killer.” We all know Excel has the best user interface and capabilities to manipulate a collection of metadata.
Very popular is the BOM in Excel, extracted from the CAD-system (no need for an “expensive” PDM or PLM) or BOM used to share with suppliers and stakeholders (ERP is too rigid, purchasing does not work with PDM).
The challenge I see here is that these startups do not bring real new value. The cost of manipulating Excels is a hidden cost, and companies relying on Excel communication are the type of companies that do not have a strategic point of view. This is typical for Small and Medium businesses where execution (“let’s do it”) gets all the attention.
PLM startups often collect investor’s money because they promise to kill Excel, but is Excel the real problem? Modern PLM is about data sharing, which is an attitude change, not necessarily a technology change from Excel tables to (cloud) shared tables. However, will one of these “new Excel killers” PLMs be disruptive? I don’t think so.
PLM disruption?
A week ago, I read an interview with Clayton Christensen (thanks Hakan Karden), which I shared on LinkedIn a week ago. Clayton Christensen is the father of the Disruptive Innovation theory, and I have cited him several times in my blogs. His theory is, in my opinion, fundamental to understand how traditional businesses can be disrupted. The interview took place shortly before he died at the age of 67. He died due to complications caused by leukemia.
A favorite part of this interview is, where he restates what is really Disruptive Innovation as we often talk about disruption without understanding the context, just echoing other people:
Christensen: Disruptive innovation describes a process by which a product or service powered by a technology enabler initially takes root in simple applications at the low end of a market — typically by being less expensive and more accessible — and then relentlessly moves upmarket, eventually displacing established competitors. Disruptive innovations are not breakthrough innovations or “ambitious upstarts” that dramatically alter how business is done but, rather, consist of products and services that are simple, accessible, and affordable. These products and services often appear modest at their outset but over time have the potential to transform an industry.
Many of the PLM startups dream and position themselves as the new disruptor. Will they succeed? I do not believe so if they only focus on replacing Excel, there is a different paradigm needed. Voice control and analysis perhaps (“Hey PLM if I change Part XYZ what will be affected”)?
This would be disruptive and open new options. I think PLM startups should focus here if they want my investment money.
PLM for free?
There are some voices that PLM should be free in an analogy to software management and collaboration tools. There are so many open-source software management tools, why not using them for PLM? I think there are two issues here:
- PLM data is not like software data. A lot of PLM data is based on design models (3D CAD / Simulation), which is different from software. Designs are often not that modular as software for various reasons. Companies want to be modular in their products, but do they have the time and resources to reinvent their existing product. For software, these costs are so much lower as it is only a brain exercise. For hardware, the impact is significant. Bringing me to the second point.
- The cost of change for hardware is entirely different compared to software. Changing software does not have an impact on existing stock or suppliers and, therefore, can be implemented once tested for its purpose. A hardware change impacts the existing production process. First, use the old parts before introducing the change, or do we accept the (costs) of scrap. Is our supply chain, or are our production tools ready to deliver continuity for the new version? Hardware changes are costly, and you want to avoid them. Software changes are cheap, therefore design your products to be configurable based on software (For example Tesla’s software controlling the features to be allowed)
Now imagine, with enough funding, you could provide a PLM for free. Because of ease of deployment, this would be very likely a cloud offering, easy and scalable. However, all your IP is in that cloud too, and let’s imagine that the cloud is safer than on-premise, so it does not matter in which country your data is hosted (does it ?).
Next, the “free” PLM provider starts asking a small service fee after five years, as the promised ROI on the model hasn’t delivered enough value for the shareholders, they become anxious. Of course, you do not like to pay the fee. However, where is your data, and what happens when you do not pay?
If the PLM provider switches you off, you are without your IP. If you ask the PLM provider to provide your data, what will you get? A blob of XML-files, anything you can use?
In general, this is a challenge for all cloud solutions.
- What if you want to stop your subscription?
- What is the allowed Exit-strategy?
Here I believe customers should ask for clarity, and perhaps these questions will lead to a renewed understanding that we need standards.
PLM and standards
We had a vivid discussion in the blogging community in September last year. You can read more related to this topic in my post: PLM and the need for standards which describes the aspects of lock-in and needs for openness.
Finally, a remark related to the PLM-acronym. Another interesting discussion started around Joe Barkai’s post: Why I do not do PLM . Read the comments and the various viewpoint on PLM here. It is clear that the word PLM unites us all; however, the interpretation is different.
If someone in the street asks me what is your profession, I never mention I do PLM. I say: “I assist mainly manufacturing companies in redesigning their business processes using best practices and modern digital technologies”. The focus is on the business value, not on the ultimate definition of PLM
Conclusion
There are many business aspects related to PLM to consider. Yoann Maingon’s post started the thinking process, and we ended up with the PLM-definition. It all illustrates that being involved in PLM is never a boring journey. I am curious to learn about your journey and where we meet.
It is the holiday season many groups, religions have their celebrations in this period, mostly due to the return of the light on the Northern hemisphere – Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and Santa Lucia are a few of them. Combined with a new decade upcoming, also a time for me to reflect on what have we learned and what can we imagine in the next ten years.
Looking back the last decade
Globalization is probably one of the most significant changes we have seen. Almost the whole world is connected now through all kinds of social and digital media. Information is instantly available and influences our behavior dramatically. The amount of information coming to us is so huge that we only filter the information that touches us emotionally. The disadvantage of that, opinions become facts and different opinions become enemies. A colorful society becomes more black and white.
These trends have not reached us, in the same manner, the domain of PLM. There have been several startups in the past ten years, explaining that PLM should be as easy as social communication with Facebook. Most of these startups focused on integrations with MCAD-systems, as-if PLM is about developing mechanical products.
In my opinion, the past decade has shown that mechanical design is no longer a unique part of product development. Products have become systems, full of electronics and driven by software. Systems Engineering became more and more important, defining the overall concept of a product, moving the focus to the earlier stages of the product design – see image below.
During Ideation and system definition, we need “social” collaboration between all stakeholders. To get a grip on this collaboration, we use models (SysML, UML, Logical, 2D, 3D) to have an unambiguous representation, simulation and validation of the product already in the virtual world.
Actually, there is nothing social about that collaboration. It is a company-driven demand to deliver competitive products to remain in business. If our company does not improve multidisciplinary collaboration, global competitors with less nostalgic thoughts to the past will conquer the market space.
Currently in most companies there are two worlds, hardware and software, almost 100 %-separated managed by either PLM or ALM (Application Lifecycle Management). It is clear that “old” PLM – item-driven with related documents cannot match the approach required for ALM – data-elements (code) based on software models (and modules).
In the hardware world a change can have a huge effect on the cost (or waste) of the product, however, implementing a hardware change can take months. Think about new machinery, tooling in the worst case. In the software domain, a change can be executed almost immediately. However here testing the impact of the change can have serious effects. The software fix for the Boeing 737 Max is not yet proven and delivered.
Therefore, I would like to conclude that in the past decade we learned in the PLM-domain to work in a Coordinated manner – leaving silos mostly in place.
Next week I will look forward to our challenging upcoming decade. Topics on my list for the next decade are:
- From Coordinated to Connected – Generation Change
- Sustainability of our Earth (and how PLM can help)
- Understanding our human behavior to understand how to explain PLM to your execs- PI PLMx London 2020
- All combined with restoring trust in science
I wish you all a happy and healthy New Year – take time to listen and learn as we need dialogue for the future, not opinions.
See you in 2020
For me, the joint conference from CIMdata and Eurostep is always a conference to look forward too. The conference is not as massive as PLM-Vendor conferences (slick presentations and happy faces); it is more a collection of PLM-practitioners (this time a 100+) with the intent to discuss and share their understanding and challenges, independent from specific vendor capabilities or features. And because of its size a great place to network with everyone.
Day 1 was more a business/methodology view on PLM and Day 2 more in-depth focusing on standards and BIM. In this post, the highlights from the first day.
The State of PLM
Peter Bilello, CIMdata’s president, kicked of with a review of the current state of the PLM industry. Peter mentioned the PLM-market grew by 9.4 % to $47.8 billion (more than the expected 7 %). Good for the PLM Vendors and implementers.
However, Peter also mentioned that despite higher spending, PLM is still considered as a solution for engineering, often implemented as PDM/CAD data management. Traditional organizational structures, marketing, engineering, manufacturing, quality were defined in the previous century and are measured as such.
This traditional approach blocks the roll-out of PLM across these disciplines. Who is the owner of PLM or where is the responsibility for a certain dataset are questions to solve. PLM needs to transform to deliver end-to-end support instead of remaining the engineering silo. Are we still talking about PLM in the future? See Peter’s takeaways below:
We do not want to open the discussion if the the name PLM should change – too many debates – however unfortunate too much framing in the past too.
The Multi View BOM
Fred Feru from Airbus presented a status the Aerospace & Defense PLM action group are working on: How to improve and standardize on a PLM solution for multi-view BOM management, in particular, the interaction between the EBOM and MBOM. See below:
You might think this is a topic already solved when you speak with your PLM-vendor. However, all existing solutions at the participant implementations rely on customizations and vary per company. The target is to come up with common requirements that need to be addressed in the standard methodology. Initial alignment on terminology was already a first required step as before you standardize, you need to have a common dictionary. Moreover, a typical situation in EVERY PLM implementation.
An initial version was shared with the PLM Editors for feedback and after iterations and agreement to come with a solution that can be implemented without customization. If you are interested in the details, you can read the current status here with Appendix A en Appendix B.
Enabling the Circular Economy for Long Term Prosperity
Graham Aid gave a fascinating presentation related to the potentials and flaws of creating a circular economy. Although Graham was not a PLM-expert (till he left this conference), as he is the Strategy and Innovation Coordinator for the Ragn-Sells Group, which performs environmental services and recycling across Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Estonia. Have a look at their website here.
Graham shared with us the fact that despite logical arguments for a circular economy – it is more profitable at the end – however, our short term thinking and bias block us from doing the right things for future generations.
Look at the missing link for a closed resource-lifecycle view below.
Graham shared weird examples where scarce materials for the future currently were getting cheaper, and therefore there is no desire for recycling them. A sound barrier with rubble could contain more copper than copper ore in a mine.
In the PLM-domain, there is also an opportunity for supporting and working on more sustainable products and services. It is a mindset and can be a profitable business model. In the PDT 2014 conference, there was a session on circular product development with Xerox as the best example. Circular product development but also Product As A Service can be activities that contribute to a more sustainable world. Graham’s presentation was inspiring for our PLM community and hopefully planted a few seeds for the future. As it is all about thinking long-term.
With the PLM Green Alliance, I hope we will be able to create a larger audience and participation for a sustainable future. More about the PLM Green Alliance next week.
The Fundamental Role of PLM in Data-driven Product Portfolio Management
Hannu Hannila (Polar) presented his study related to data-driven product portfolio management and why it should be connected to PLM. For many companies, it is a challenge to understand which products are performing well and where to invest. These choices are often supported by Data Damagement as Hannu called it.
An example below:
The result of this fragmented approach is that organizations make their decisions on subjective data and emotions. Where the assumption is that 20 % of the products a company is selling is related to 80 % of the revenue, Hannu found in his research companies where only 10 % of the products were contributing to the revenue. As PPM (Product Portfolio Management) often is based on big emotions – who shouts the loudest mentality, influenced by the company’s pet products and influence by the HIPPO (HIghest Paid Person in the Office). So how to get a better rationale?
Hannu explained a data-driven framework that would provide the right analytics on management level, depending on overall data governance from all disciplines and systems. See below:
I liked Hannu’s conclusions as it aligns with my findings:
- To be data-driven, you need Master Data Management and Data Governance
- Product Portfolio Management is the driving discipline for PLM, and in a modern digital enterprise, it should be connected.
Sponsor sessions
Sponsors are always needed to keep a conference affordable for the attendees. The sponsor sessions on day 1 were of good quality. Here a quick overview and a link if you want to invest further
Configit – explaining the value of a configurator that connects marketing, technical and sales, introducing CLM (Configuration Lifecycle Management) – a new TLA
Aras – explaining their view on what we consider the digital thread
Variantum – explaining their CPQ solution as part of a larger suite of cloud offerings
Quick Release – bringing common sense to PLM implementations, similar to what I am doing as PLM coach – focusing on the flow of information
SAP – explaining the change in focus when a company moves toward a product as a service model
SharePLM – A unique company addressing the importance of PLM training delivered through eLearning
Conclusion
The first day was an easy to digest conference with a good quality of presentations. I only shared 50 % of the session as we already reached 1000+ words. The evening I enjoyed the joint dinner, being able to network and discuss in depth with participants and finished with a social network event organized by SharePLM. Next week part 2.
Jos Voskuil's Weblog 
Jos, what a ride you have had! And looking at some of the spaghetti system architectures of even today's businesses,…
Congratulations, Jos! I'm very happy that you'll stay active in the PLM world and continue with your blogs - during…
Jos, welcome to the world of (part-time) retirement. Enjoy your AOW. Thanks Dick, you have the experience now - enjoy…
Thanks for all the valuable thoughts you have shared with us Jos, hope your 'new career' will bring you lots…
Great.. Congratulations on reaching yet another milestone... your blog is very thought proving and helps us to think in multiple…