You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Supply Chain’ category.

In the last weeks, I had several discussions related to sustainability. What can companies do to become sustainable and prove it? But, unfortunately, there is so much greenwashing at this moment.

Look at this post: 10 Companies and Corporations Called Out For Greenwashing.

Therefore I thought about which practical steps a company should take to prepare for a sustainable future, as the change will not happen overnight. It reminds me of the path towards a digital, model-based enterprise (my other passion). In my post Why Model-Based definition is important for all, I mentioned that MBD (Model-Based Definition) could be considered the first stepping-stone toward a Model-Based enterprise.

The analogy for Material Compliance came after an Aras seminar I watched a month ago. The webinar How PLM Paves the Way for Sustainability with  Insensia (an Aras implementer) demonstrates how material compliance is the first step toward sustainable product development.

Let’s understand why

The first steps

Companies that currently deliver solutions mostly only focus on economic gains. The projects or products they sell need to be profitable and competitive, which makes sense if you want a future.

And this would not have changed if the awareness of climate impact has not become apparent.

First, CFKs and hazardous materials lead to new regulations. Next global agreements to fight climate change – the Paris agreement and more to come – have led and will lead to regulations that will change how products will be developed. All companies will have to change their product development and delivery models when it becomes a global mandate.

A required change is likely going to happen. In Europe, the Green Deal is making stable progress. However, what will happen in the US will be a mystery as even their supreme court becomes a political entity against sustainability (money first).

Still, compliance with regulations will be required if a company wants to operate in a global market.

What is Material Compliance?

In 2002, the European Union published a directive to restrict hazardous substances in materials. The directive, known as RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances), was mainly related to electronic components. In the first directive, six hazardous materials were restricted.

The most infamous are Cadmium(Cd), Lead(Pb), and Mercury (Hg). In 2006 all products on the EU market must pass RoHS compliance, and in 2011 was now connected the CE marking of products sold in the European market was.

In 2015 four additional chemical substances were added, most softening PVC but also affecting the immune system. Meanwhile, other countries have introduced similar RoHS regulations; therefore, we can see it as a global restricting. Read more here: The RoHS guide.

Consumers buying RoHS-compliant products now can be assured that none of the threshold values of the substances is reached in the product. The challenge for the manufacturer is to go through each of the components of the MBOM. To understand if it contains one of the ten restricted substances and, if yes, in which quantity.

Therefore, they need to get that information from each relevant supplier a RoHS declaration.

Besides RoHS, additional regulations protect the environment and the consumer. For example, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) compliance deals with the regulations created to improve the environment and protect human health. In addition, REACH addresses the risks associated with chemicals and promotes alternative methods for the hazard assessment of substances.

The compliance process in four steps

Material compliance is most of all the job of engineers. Therefore around 2005, some of my customers started to add RoHS support to their PLM environment.

 

Step 1

The image below shows the simple implementation – the PDF-from from the supplier was linked to the (M)BOM part.

An employee had to manually add the substances into a table and ensure the threshold values were not reached. But, of course, there was already a selection of preferred manufacturer parts during the engineering phase. Therefore RoHS compliance was almost guaranteed when releasing the EBOM.

But this process could be done more cleverly.

 

Step 2

So the next step was that manufacturers started to extend their PLM data model with the additional attributes for RoHS compliance. Again, this could be done cleverly or extremely generic, adding the attributes to all parts.

So now, when receiving the material declaration, a person just has to add the substance values to the part attributes. Then, through either standard functionality or customization, a compliance report could be generated for the (M)BOM. So this already saves some work.

 

Step 3

The next step was to provide direct access to these attributes to the supplier and push the supplier to do the work.

Now the overhead for the manufacturer has been reduced again. This is because only the supplier needs to do the job for his customer.

 

Step 4

In step 4, we see a real connected environment, where information is stored only once, referenced by manufacturers, and kept actual by the part suppliers.

Who will host the RoHS databank? From some of my customer projects, I recall IHS as a data provider – it seems they are into this business when you look at their website HERE.

 

Where is your company at this moment?

Having seen the four stepping-stones leading towards efficient RoHS compliance, you see the challenge of moving from a document-driven approach to a data-driven approach.

Now let’s look into the future. Concepts like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or a Digital Product Passport (DPP) will require a fully connected approach.

Where is your company at this moment – have you reached RoHS compliance step 3 or 4? A first step to learn and work connected and data-driven.

 

Life Cycle Assessment – the ultimate target

A lifecycle assessment, or lifecycle analysis (two times LCA again), is a methodology to assess the environmental impact of a product (or solution) through its whole lifecycle. From materials sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, usage, service, and decommissioning. And by assessing, we mean a clear, verifiable, and shareable manner, not just guessing.

Traditional engineering education is not bringing these skills, although LCA is not new, as this 10-years old YouTube movie from Autodesk illustrates:

What is new is that due to global understanding, we are reaching the limits of what our planet can endure; we must act now. Upcoming international regulations will enforce life cycle analysis reporting for manufacturers or service providers. This will happen gradually.

Meanwhile, we all should work on a circular economy, the major framework for a sustainable planet- click on the image on the left.

In my post, I wrote about these combined topics: SYSTEMS THINKING – a must-have skill in the 21st century.

 

Life Cycle Analysis – Digital Twin – Digitization

The big elephant in the room is that when we talk about introducing LCA in your company, it has a lot to do with the digitization of your company. Assessment data in a document can require too much human effort to maintain the data at the right quality. The costs are not affordable if your competitor is more efficient.

When coming to the Analysis part, here, a model-based, data-driven infrastructure is the most efficient way to run virtual analysis, using digital twin concepts at each stage of the product lifecycle.

Virtual models for design, manufacturing and operations allow your company to make trade-off studies with low cost before committing to the physical world. 80 % of the environmental impact of a product comes from decisions in the virtual world.

Once you have your digital twins for each phase of the product lifecycle, you can benchmark your models with data reported from the physical world. All these interactions can be found in the beautiful Boeing diamond below, which I discussed before – Read A digital twin for everybody.

 

Conclusion

Efficient and sustainable life cycle assessment and analysis will come from connected information sources. The old document-driven paradigm is too costly and too slow to maintain. In particular, when the scope is not only a subset of your product, it is your full product and its full lifecycle with LCA. Another stepping stone towards the near future. Where are you?

 

Stepping-stone 1:            From Model-Based Definition to an efficient Model-Based, Data-driven Enterprise

Stepping-stone 2:            For RoHS compliance to an efficient and sustainable Model-Based, data-driven enterprise.

While preparing my presentation for the Dutch Model-Based Definition solutions event, I had some reflections and experiences discussing Model-Based Definition. Particularly in traditional industries. In the Aerospace & Defense, and Automotive industry, Model-Based Definition has become the standard. However, other industries have big challenges in adopting this approach. In this post, I want to share my observations and bring clarifications about the importance.

 

What is a Model-Based Definition?

The Wiki-definition for Model-Based Definition is not bad:

Model-based definition (MBD), sometimes called digital product definition (DPD), is the practice of using 3D models (such as solid models, 3D PMI and associated metadata) within 3D CAD software to define (provide specifications for) individual components and product assemblies. The types of information included are geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T), component level materials, assembly level bills of materials, engineering configurations, design intent, etc.

By contrast, other methodologies have historically required the accompanying use of 2D engineering drawings to provide such details.

When I started to write about Model-Based definition in 2016, the concept of a connected enterprise was not discussed. MBD mainly enhanced data sharing between engineering, manufacturing, and suppliers at that time. The 3D PMI is a data package for information exchange between these stakeholders.

The main difference is that the 3D Model is the main information carrier, connected to 2D manufacturing views and other relevant data, all connected in this package.

 

MBD – the benefits

There is no need to write a blog post related to the benefits of MBD. With some research, you find enough reasons. The most important benefits of MBD are:

  • the information is and human-readable and machine-readable. Allowing the implementation of Smart Manufacturing / Industry 4.0 concepts
  • the information relies on processes and data and is no longer dependent on human interpretation. This leads to better quality and error-fixing late in the process.
  • MBD information is a building block for the digital enterprise. If you cannot master this concept, forget the benefits of MBSE and Virtual Twins. These concepts don’t run on documents.

To help you discover the benefits of MBD described by others – have a look here:

 

MBD as a stepping stone to the future

When you are able to implement model-based definition practices in your organization and connect with your eco-system, you are learning what it means to work in a connected matter. Where the scope is limited, you already discover that working in a connected manner is not the same as mandating everyone to work with the same systems or tools. Instead, it is about new ways of working (skills & people), combined with exchange standards (which to follow).

Where MBD is part of the bigger model-based enterprise, the same principles apply for connecting upstream information (Model-Based Systems Engineering) and downstream information(IoT-based operation and service models).

Oleg Shilovitsky addresses the same need from a data point of view in his recent blog: PLM Strategy For Post COVID Time. He makes an important point about the Digital Thread:

Digital Thread is one of my favorite topics because it is leading directly to the topic of connected data and services in global manufacturing networks.

I agree with that statement as the digital thread is like MBD, another steppingstone to organize information in a connected manner, even beyond the scope of engineering-manufacturing interaction. However, Digital Thread is an intermediate step toward a full data-driven and model-based enterprise.

To master all these new ways is working, it is crucial for the management of manufacturing companies, both OEM and their suppliers, to initiate learning programs. Not as a Proof of Concept but as a real-life, growing activity.

Why MBD is not yet a common practice?

If you look at the success of MBD in Aerospace & Defense and Automotive, one of the main reasons was the push from the OEMs to align their suppliers. They even dictated CAD systems and versions to enable smooth and efficient collaboration.

In other industries, there we not so many giant OEMs that could dictate their supply chain. Often also, the OEM was not even ready for MBD. Therefore, the excuse was often we cannot push our suppliers to work different, let’s remain working as best as possible (the old way and some automation)

Besides the technical changes, MBD also had a business impact. Where the traditional 2D-Drawing was the contractual and leading information carrier, now the annotated 3D Model has to become the contractual agreement. This is much more complex than browsing through (paper) documents; now, you need an application to open up the content and select the right view(s) or datasets.

In the interaction between engineering and manufacturing, you could hear statements like:

you can use the 3D Model for your NC programming, but be aware the 2D drawing is leading. We cannot guarantee consistency between them.

In particular, this is a business change affecting the relationship between an OEM and its suppliers. And we know business changes do not happen overnight.

Smaller suppliers might even refuse to work on a Model-Based definition, as it is considered an extra overhead they do not benefit from.

In particular, when working with various OEMs that might have their own preferred MBD package content based on their preferred usage. There are standards; however, OEMs often push for their preferred proprietary format.

It is about an orchestrated change.

Implementing MBD in your company, like PLM, is challenging because people need to be aligned and trained on new ways of working. In particular, this creates resistance at the end-user level.

Similar to the introduction of mainstream CAD (AutoCAD in the eighties) and mainstream 3D CAD (Solidworks in the late nineties), it requires new processes, trained people, and matching tools.

This is not always on the agenda of C-level people who try to avoid technical details (because they don’t understand them – read this great article: Technical Leadership: A Chronic Weakness in Engineering Enterprises.

I am aware of learning materials coming from the US, not so much about European or Asian thought leaders. Feel free to add other relevant resources for the readers in this post’s comments. Have a look and talk with:

Action Engineering with their OSCAR initiative: Bringing MBD Within Reach. I spoke with Jennifer Herron, founder of Action Engineering, a year ago about MBD and OSCAR in my blog post: PLM and Model-Based Definition.

Another interesting company to follow is Capvidia. Read their blog post to start with is MBD model-based definition in the 21st century.

The future

What you will discover from these two companies is that they focus on the connected flow of information between companies while anticipating that each stakeholder might have their preferred (traditional) PLM environment. It is about data federation.

The future of a connected enterprise is even more complex. So I was excited to see and download Yousef Hooshmand’s paper:  ”From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and Data Mesh”.

Yousef and some of his colleagues report about their PLM modernization project @Mercedes-Benz AG, aiming at transforming a monolithic PLM landscape into a federated Domain and Data Mesh.

This paper provides a lot of structured thinking related to the concepts I try to explain to my audience in everyday language. See my The road to model-based and connected PLM thoughts.

This paper has much more depth and is a must-read and must-discuss writing for those interested – perhaps an opportunity for new startups and a threat to traditional PLM vendors.

Conclusion

Vellum drawings are almost gone now – we have electronic 2D Drawings. The model-based definition has confirmed the benefits of improving the interaction between engineering, manufacturing & suppliers. Still, many industries are struggling with this approach due to process & people changes needed. If you are not able or willing to implement a model-based definition approach, be worried about the future. The eco-systems will only run efficiently (and survive) when their information exchange is based on data and models. Start learning now.

p.s. just out of curiosity:
If you are model-based advocate support this post with a

 

Two weeks ago, I wrote a generic post related to System Thinking, in my opinion, a must-have skill for the 21st century (and beyond). Have a look at the post on LinkedIn; in particular interesting to see the discussion related to Systems Thinking: a must-have skill for the 21st century.

I liked Remy Fannader’s remark that thinking about complexity was not something new.

This remark is understandable from his personal context. Many people enjoy thinking – it was a respected 20th-century skill.

However, I believe, as Daniel Kahneman describes in his famous book: Thinking Fast and Slow, our brain is trying to avoid thinking.

This is because thinking consumes energy, the energy the body wants to save in the case of an emergency.

So let’s do a simple test (coming from Daniel):

xx

A bat and a ball cost together $ 1.10 –  the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. So how much does the ball cost?

Look at the answer at the bottom of this post. If you have it wrong, you are a fast thinker. And this brings me to my next point. Our brain does not want to think deeply; we want fast and simple solutions. This is a challenge in a complex society as now we hear real-time information coming from all around the world. What is true and what is fake is hard to judge.

However, according to Kahneman, we do not want to waste energy on thinking. We create or adhere to simple solutions allowing our brains to feel relaxed.

This human behavior has always been exploited by populists and dictators: avoid complexity because, in this way, you lose people. Yuval Harari builds upon this with his claim that to align many people, you need a myth. I wrote about the need for myths in the PLM space a few times, e.g., PLM as a myth? and The myth perception

And this is where my second thoughts related to Systems Thinking started. Is the majority of people able and willing to digest complex problems?

My doubts grew bigger when I had several discussions about fighting climate change and sustainability.

 

 

Both Brains required

By coincidence, I bumped on this interesting article Market-led Sustainability is a ‘Fix that Fails’…

I provided a link to the post indirectly through LinkedIn. If you are a LinkedIn PLM Global Green Alliance member, you can see below the article an interesting analysis related to market-led sustainability, system thinking and economics.

Join the PLM Global Green Alliance group to be part of the full discussion; otherwise, I recommend you visit Both Brains Required, where you can find the source article and other related content.

It is a great article with great images illustrating the need for systems thinking and sustainability. All information is there to help you realize that sustainability is not just a left-brain exercise.

The left brain is supposed to be logical and analytical. That’s systems thinking, you might say quickly. However, the other part of our brain is about our human behavior, and this side is mostly overlooked. My favorite quote from the article:

Voluntary Market-Led activities are not so much a solution to the sustainability crisis as a symptom of more profoundly unsustainable foundations of human behavior.

The article triggered my second thoughts related to systems thinking. Behavioral change is not part of systems thinking. It is another dimension harder to address and even harder to focus on sustainability.

The LinkedIn discussion below the article Market-led Sustainability is a ‘Fix that Fails’… is a great example of the talks we would like to have in our PLM Global Green Alliance group. Nina Dar, Patrick Hillberg and Richard McFall brought in several points worth discussing. Too many to discuss them all here – let’s take two fundamental issues:

1. More than economics

An interesting viewpoint in this discussion was the relation to economics. We don’t believe that economic growth is the main point to measure. Even a statement like:  “Sustainable businesses will be more profitable than traditional ones” is misleading when companies are measured by shareholder value or EBIT (Earnings Before Interest or Taxes). We briefly touched on Kate Raworth’s doughnut economics.

This HBR article mentioned in the discussion: Business Schools Must Do More to Address the Climate Crisis also shows it is not just about systems thinking.
We discussed the challenges of supply chains, not about resilience but about sustainability. Where an OEM can claim to be sustainable, there are often not aware of what happens at the level of their suppliers. As the OEM measure their suppliers mostly on Quality/Reliability and Cost, they usually do not care about local human issues or sustainability issues.

We have seen this in the Apparel industry with the horrible collapse of a factory in Bangladesh  (2013). Still, the inhumane accidents happen in southeast Asia. I like to quote Chris Calverley in his LinkedIn article: Making ethical apparel supply chains achievable on a global scale.

 

No one gets into business because they want to behave unethically. On the contrary, a lack of ethics is usually driven by a common desire to operate more efficiently and increase profit margins. 

In my last post, I shared a similar example from an automotive tier 2  supplier. Unfortunately, suppliers are not measured or rewarded for sustainability efforts; only efficiency and costs are relevant.

The seventeen Sustainability Development Goals (SDG), as defined by the United Nations, are the best guidance for sustainable drivers beyond money. Supporting the SDGs enforce systems thinking when developing a part, a product, or a solution. Many other stakeholders need to be taken care of, at least if you truly support sustainability as a company.

2. The downside of social media

The LinkedIn discussion related to Market-led Sustainability is a ‘Fix that Fails’… The thread shows that LinkedIn, like other social media, is not really interested in supporting in-depth discussions – try to navigate what has been said in chronological order. With Patrick, Nina and Richard, we agreed to organize a follow-up discussion in our PLM Global Green Alliance Group.

And although we are happy with social media as it allows each of us to reach a global audience, there seems to be a worrying contra-productive impact. If you read the book Stolen Focus. A quote:

All over the world, our ability to pay attention is collapsing. In the US, college students now focus on one task for only 65 seconds, and office workers, on average, manage only three minutes

This is worrying, returning to Remy Fannader’s remark: thinking about complexity was not something new. The main difference is that it is not new. However, our society is changing towards thinking too fast, not rewarding systems thinking.

Even scarier, if you have time, read this article from The Atlantic: about the impact of social media on the US Society. It is about trust in science and data. Are we facing the new (Trump) Tower of Babel in our modern society? As the writers state: Babel is a metaphor for what some forms of social media have done to nearly all of the groups and institutions most important to the country’s future—and to us as a people.

 

I have talked in previous posts about the Dunner-Kruger effect, something that is blocking systems thinking. The image to the left says it all. Due to social media and the safe place behind a keyboard, many of us consider ourselves confident experts explaining to the real expert why they are wrong. For addressing the topics of sustainability and climate change, this attitude is killing. It is the opposite of systems thinking, which costs energy.

xx

Congratulations

support

The fact that you reached this part of the post means your attention span has been larger than 3 minutes, showing there is hope for people like you and me. As an experiment to discover how many people read the post till here, please answer with the “support” icon if you have reached this part of the post.

I am curious to learn how many of us who saw the post came here.

 

Conclusion

Systems Thinking is a must-have skill for the 21st century. Many of us working in the PLM domain focus on providing support for systems thinking, particularly Life Cycle Assessment capabilities. However, the discussion with Patrick Hillberg, Nina Darr and Richard McFall made me realize there is more: economics and human behavior. For example, can we change our economic models, measuring companies not only for the money profit they deliver? What do?

Answering this type of question will be the extended mission for PLM consultants of the future – are you ready?

 

The answer to the question with the ball and the bat:

A fast answer would say the price of the ball is 10 cents. However, this would make the price of the bat $1.10, giving a total cost of $1.20. So the right answer should be 5 cents. To be honest, I got tricked the first time too. Never too late to confirm you make mistakes, as only people who do not do anything make no mistakes.

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.

After the first article discussing “The Future of PLM,” now again a post in the category of PLM and complementary practices/domains a topic that is already for a long time on the radar: Model-Based Definition, I am glad to catch up with Jennifer Herron, founder of Action Engineering, who is one of the thought leaders related to Model-Based Definition (MBD) and Model-Based Enterprise (MBE).

In 2016 I spoke with Jennifer after reading her book: “Re-Use Your CAD – The Model-Based CAD Handbook”. At that time, the discussion was initiated through two articles on Engineering.com. Action Engineering introduced OSCAR seven years later as the next step towards learning and understanding the benefits of Model-Based Definition.

Therefore, it is a perfect moment to catch up with Jennifer. Let’s start.

 

Model-Based Definition

Jennifer, first of all, can you bring some clarity in terminology. When I discussed the various model-based approaches, the first response I got was that model-based is all about 3D Models and that a lot of the TLA’s are just marketing terminology.
Can you clarify which parts of the model-based enterprise you focus on and with the proper TLA’s?

Model-Based means many things to many different viewpoints and systems of interest. All these perspectives lead us down many rabbit holes, and we are often left confused when first exposed to the big concepts of model-based.

At Action Engineering, we focus on Model-Based Definition (MBD), which uses and re-uses 3D data (CAD models) in design, fabrication, and inspection.

There are other model-based approaches, and the use of the word “model” is always a challenge to define within the proper context.

For MBD, a model is 3D CAD data that comes in both native and neutral formats

Another model-based approach is Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). The term “model” in this context is a formalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later lifecycle phases.

<Jos> I will come back on Model-Based Systems Engineering in future posts

Sometimes MBSE is about designing widgets, and often it is about representing the entire system and the business operations. For MBD, we often focus our education on the ASME Y14.47 definition that MBD is an annotated model and associated data elements that define the product without a drawing.

Model-Based Definition for Everybody?

I believe it took many years till 3D CAD design became a commodity; however, I still see the disconnected 2D drawing used to specify a product or part for manufacturing or suppliers. What are the benefits of model-based definition?
Are there companies that will not benefit from the model-based definition?

There’s no question that the manufacturing industry is addicted to their drawings. There are many reasons why, and yet mostly the problem is lack of awareness of how 3D CAD data can make design, fabrication, and inspection work easier.

For most, the person doing an inspection in the shipping and receiving department doesn’t have exposure to 3D data, and the only thing they have is a tabulated ERP database and maybe a drawing to read. If you plop down a 3D viewable that they can spin and zoom, they may not know how that relates to their job or what you want them to do differently.

Today’s approach of engineering championing MBD alone doesn’t work. To evolve information from the 2D drawing onto the 3D CAD model without engaging the stakeholders (machinists, assembly technicians, and inspectors) never yields a return on investment.

Organizations that succeed in transitioning to MBD are considering and incorporating all departments that touch the drawing today.

Incorporating all departments requires a vision from the management. Can you give some examples of companies that have transitioned to MBD, and what were the benefits they noticed?

I’ll give you an example of a small company with no First Article Inspection (FAI) regulatory requirements and a huge company with very rigorous FAI requirements.

 

Note: click on the images below to enjoy the details.

The small company instituted a system of CAD modeling discipline that allowed them to push 3D viewable information directly to the factory floor. The assembly technicians instantly understood engineering’s requirements faster and better.

The positive MBD messages for these use cases are 3D  navigation, CAD Re-Use, and better control of their revisions on the factory floor.

 

The large company has added inspection requirements directly onto their engineering and created a Bill of Characteristics (BOC) for the suppliers and internal manufacturers. They are removing engineering ambiguity, resulting in direct digital information exchange between engineering, manufacturing, and quality siloes.

These practices have reduced error and reduced time to market.

The positive MBD messages for these use cases are unambiguous requirements capture by Engineering, Quality Traceability, and Model-Based PMI (Product and Manufacturing Information).

Model-Based Definition and PLM?

How do you see the relation between Model-Based Definition and PLM? Is a PLM system a complication or aid to implement a Model-Based Definition? And do you see a difference between the old and new PLM Vendors?

Model-Based Definition data is complex and rich in connected information, and we want it to be. With that amount of connected data, a data management system (beyond upload/download of documents) must keep all that data straight.

Depending on the size and function of an organization, a PLM may not be needed. However, a way to manage changes and collaboration amongst those using 3D data is necessary. Sometimes that results in a less sophisticated Product Data Management (PDM) system. Large organizations often require PLM.

There is significant resistance to doing MBD and PLM implementations simultaneously because PLM is always over budget and behind schedule. However, doing just MBD or just PLM without the other doesn’t work either. I think you should be brave and do both at once.

I think we can debate why PLM is always over budget and behind schedule. I hear the same about ERP implementations. Perhaps it has to deal with the fact that enterprise applications have to satisfy many users?

I believe that working with model versions and file versions can get mixed in larger organizations, so there is a need for PDM or PLM. Have you seen successful implementations of both interacting together?

Yes, the only successful MBD implementations are those that already have a matured PDM/PLM (scaled best to the individual business).

 

Model-Based Definition and Digital Transformation

In the previous question, we already touched on the challenge of old and modern PLM. How do you see the introduction of Model-Based Definition addressing the dreams of Industry 4.0, the Digital Twin and other digital concepts?

I just gave a presentation at the ASME Digital Twin Summit discussing the importance of MBD for the Digital Twin. MBD is a foundational element that allows engineering to compare their design requirements to the quality inspection results of digital twin data.

The feedback loop between Engineering and Quality is fraught with labor-intensive efforts in most businesses today.

Leveraging the combination of MBD and Digital Twin allows automation possibilities to speed up and increase the accuracy of the engineering to inspection feedback loop. That capability helps organizations realize the vision of Industry 4.0.

And then there is OSCAR.

I noticed you announced OSCAR. First, I thought OSCAR was a virtual aid for model-based definition, and I liked the launching page HERE. Can you tell us more about what makes OSCAR unique?

One thing that is hard with MBD implementation is there is so much to know. Our MBDers at Action Engineering have been involved with MBD for many years and with many companies. We are embedded in real-life transitions from using drawings to using models.

Suppose you start down the model-based path for digital manufacturing. In that case, there are significant investments in time to learn how to get to the right set of capabilities and the right implementation plan guided by a strategic focus. OSCAR reduces that ramp-up time with educational resources and provides vetted and repeatable methods for an MBD implementation.

OSCAR combines decades of Action Engineering expertise and lessons learned into a multi-media textbook of sorts. To kickstart an individual or an organization’s MBD journey, it includes asynchronous learning, downloadable resources, and CAD examples available in Creo, NX, and SOLIDWORKS formats.

CAD users can access how-to training and downloadable resources such as the latest edition of Re-Use Your CAD (RUYC). OSCAR enables process improvement champions to make their case to start the MBD journey. We add content regularly and post what’s new. Free trials are available to check out the online platform.

Learn more about what OSCAR is here:

Want to learn more?

In this post, I believe we only touched the tip of the iceberg. There is so much to learn and understand. What would you recommend to a reader of this blog who got interested?

 

RUYC (Re-Use Your CAD)  is an excellent place to start, but if you need more audio-visual, and want to see real-life examples of MBD in action, get a Training subscription of OSCAR to get rooted in the vocabulary and benefits of MBD with a Model-Based Enterprise. Watch the videos multiple times! That’s what they are for. We love to work with European companies and would love to support you with a kickstart coaching package to get started.

What I learned

First of all, I learned that Jennifer is a very pragmatic person. Her company (Action Engineering) and her experience are a perfect pivot point for those who want to learn and understand more about Model-Based Definition. In particular, in the US, given her strong involvement in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).

I am still curious if European or Asian counterparts exist to introduce and explain the benefits and usage of Model-Based Definition to their customers.  Feel free to comment.

Next, and an important observation too, is the fact that Jennifer also describes the tension between Model-Based Definition and PLM. Current PLM systems might be too rigid to support end-to-end scenarios, taking benefit of the Model-Based definition.

I have to agree here. PLM Vendors mainly support their own MBD (model-based definition), where the ultimate purpose is to share all product-related information using various models as the main information carriers efficiently.

We have to study and solve a topic in the PLM domain, as I described in my technical highlights from the PLM Road Map & PDT Spring 2021 conference.

There is work to do!

Conclusion

Model-Based Definition is, for me, one of the must-do steps of a company to understand the model-based future. A model-based future sometimes incorporates Model-Based Systems Engineering, a real Digital Thread and one or more Digital Twins (depending on your company’s products).

It is a must-do activity because companies must transform themselves to depend on digital processes and digital continuity of data to remain competitive. Document-driven processes relying on the interpretation of a person are not sustainable.

 

After the first article discussing “The Future of PLM,” now again a post in the category of PLM and complementary practices/domains a topic that is already for a long time on the radar: Model-Based Definition, I am glad to catch up with Jennifer Herron, founder of Action Engineering, who is one of the thought leaders related to Model-Based Definition (MBD) and Model-Based Enterprise (MBE).

In 2016 I spoke with Jennifer after reading her book: “Re-Use Your CAD – The Model-Based CAD Handbook”. At that time, the discussion was initiated through two articles on Engineering.com. Action Engineering introduced OSCAR seven years later as the next step towards learning and understanding the benefits of Model-Based Definition.

Therefore, it is a perfect moment to catch up with Jennifer. Let’s start.

 

Model-Based Definition

Jennifer, first of all, can you bring some clarity in terminology. When I discussed the various model-based approaches, the first response I got was that model-based is all about 3D Models and that a lot of the TLA’s are just marketing terminology.
Can you clarify which parts of the model-based enterprise you focus on and with the proper TLA’s?

Model-Based means many things to many different viewpoints and systems of interest. All these perspectives lead us down many rabbit holes, and we are often left confused when first exposed to the big concepts of model-based.

At Action Engineering, we focus on Model-Based Definition (MBD), which uses and re-uses 3D data (CAD models) in design, fabrication, and inspection.

There are other model-based approaches, and the use of the word “model” is always a challenge to define within the proper context.

For MBD, a model is 3D CAD data that comes in both native and neutral formats

Another model-based approach is Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). The term “model” in this context is a formalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later lifecycle phases.

<Jos> I will come back on Model-Based Systems Engineering in future posts

Sometimes MBSE is about designing widgets, and often it is about representing the entire system and the business operations. For MBD, we often focus our education on the ASME Y14.47 definition that MBD is an annotated model and associated data elements that define the product without a drawing.

Model-Based Definition for Everybody?

I believe it took many years till 3D CAD design became a commodity; however, I still see the disconnected 2D drawing used to specify a product or part for manufacturing or suppliers. What are the benefits of model-based definition?
Are there companies that will not benefit from the model-based definition?

There’s no question that the manufacturing industry is addicted to their drawings. There are many reasons why, and yet mostly the problem is lack of awareness of how 3D CAD data can make design, fabrication, and inspection work easier.

For most, the person doing an inspection in the shipping and receiving department doesn’t have exposure to 3D data, and the only thing they have is a tabulated ERP database and maybe a drawing to read. If you plop down a 3D viewable that they can spin and zoom, they may not know how that relates to their job or what you want them to do differently.

Today’s approach of engineering championing MBD alone doesn’t work. To evolve information from the 2D drawing onto the 3D CAD model without engaging the stakeholders (machinists, assembly technicians, and inspectors) never yields a return on investment.

Organizations that succeed in transitioning to MBD are considering and incorporating all departments that touch the drawing today.

Incorporating all departments requires a vision from the management. Can you give some examples of companies that have transitioned to MBD, and what were the benefits they noticed?

I’ll give you an example of a small company with no First Article Inspection (FAI) regulatory requirements and a huge company with very rigorous FAI requirements.

 

Note: click on the images below to enjoy the details.

The small company instituted a system of CAD modeling discipline that allowed them to push 3D viewable information directly to the factory floor. The assembly technicians instantly understood engineering’s requirements faster and better.

The positive MBD messages for these use cases are 3D  navigation, CAD Re-Use, and better control of their revisions on the factory floor.

 

The large company has added inspection requirements directly onto their engineering and created a Bill of Characteristics (BOC) for the suppliers and internal manufacturers. They are removing engineering ambiguity, resulting in direct digital information exchange between engineering, manufacturing, and quality siloes.

These practices have reduced error and reduced time to market.

The positive MBD messages for these use cases are unambiguous requirements capture by Engineering, Quality Traceability, and Model-Based PMI (Product and Manufacturing Information).

Model-Based Definition and PLM?

How do you see the relation between Model-Based Definition and PLM? Is a PLM system a complication or aid to implement a Model-Based Definition? And do you see a difference between the old and new PLM Vendors?

Model-Based Definition data is complex and rich in connected information, and we want it to be. With that amount of connected data, a data management system (beyond upload/download of documents) must keep all that data straight.

Depending on the size and function of an organization, a PLM may not be needed. However, a way to manage changes and collaboration amongst those using 3D data is necessary. Sometimes that results in a less sophisticated Product Data Management (PDM) system. Large organizations often require PLM.

There is significant resistance to doing MBD and PLM implementations simultaneously because PLM is always over budget and behind schedule. However, doing just MBD or just PLM without the other doesn’t work either. I think you should be brave and do both at once.

I think we can debate why PLM is always over budget and behind schedule. I hear the same about ERP implementations. Perhaps it has to deal with the fact that enterprise applications have to satisfy many users?

I believe that working with model versions and file versions can get mixed in larger organizations, so there is a need for PDM or PLM. Have you seen successful implementations of both interacting together?

Yes, the only successful MBD implementations are those that already have a matured PDM/PLM (scaled best to the individual business).

 

Model-Based Definition and Digital Transformation

In the previous question, we already touched on the challenge of old and modern PLM. How do you see the introduction of Model-Based Definition addressing the dreams of Industry 4.0, the Digital Twin and other digital concepts?

I just gave a presentation at the ASME Digital Twin Summit discussing the importance of MBD for the Digital Twin. MBD is a foundational element that allows engineering to compare their design requirements to the quality inspection results of digital twin data.

The feedback loop between Engineering and Quality is fraught with labor-intensive efforts in most businesses today.

Leveraging the combination of MBD and Digital Twin allows automation possibilities to speed up and increase the accuracy of the engineering to inspection feedback loop. That capability helps organizations realize the vision of Industry 4.0.

And then there is OSCAR.

I noticed you announced OSCAR. First, I thought OSCAR was a virtual aid for model-based definition, and I liked the launching page HERE. Can you tell us more about what makes OSCAR unique?

One thing that is hard with MBD implementation is there is so much to know. Our MBDers at Action Engineering have been involved with MBD for many years and with many companies. We are embedded in real-life transitions from using drawings to using models.

Suppose you start down the model-based path for digital manufacturing. In that case, there are significant investments in time to learn how to get to the right set of capabilities and the right implementation plan guided by a strategic focus. OSCAR reduces that ramp-up time with educational resources and provides vetted and repeatable methods for an MBD implementation.

OSCAR combines decades of Action Engineering expertise and lessons learned into a multi-media textbook of sorts. To kickstart an individual or an organization’s MBD journey, it includes asynchronous learning, downloadable resources, and CAD examples available in Creo, NX, and SOLIDWORKS formats.

CAD users can access how-to training and downloadable resources such as the latest edition of Re-Use Your CAD (RUYC). OSCAR enables process improvement champions to make their case to start the MBD journey. We add content regularly and post what’s new. Free trials are available to check out the online platform.

Learn more about what OSCAR is here:

Want to learn more?

In this post, I believe we only touched the tip of the iceberg. There is so much to learn and understand. What would you recommend to a reader of this blog who got interested?

 

RUYC (Re-Use Your CAD)  is an excellent place to start, but if you need more audio-visual, and want to see real-life examples of MBD in action, get a Training subscription of OSCAR to get rooted in the vocabulary and benefits of MBD with a Model-Based Enterprise. Watch the videos multiple times! That’s what they are for. We love to work with European companies and would love to support you with a kickstart coaching package to get started.

What I learned

First of all, I learned that Jennifer is a very pragmatic person. Her company (Action Engineering) and her experience are a perfect pivot point for those who want to learn and understand more about Model-Based Definition. In particular, in the US, given her strong involvement in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).

I am still curious if European or Asian counterparts exist to introduce and explain the benefits and usage of Model-Based Definition to their customers.  Feel free to comment.

Next, and an important observation too, is the fact that Jennifer also describes the tension between Model-Based Definition and PLM. Current PLM systems might be too rigid to support end-to-end scenarios, taking benefit of the Model-Based definition.

I have to agree here. PLM Vendors mainly support their own MBD (model-based definition), where the ultimate purpose is to share all product-related information using various models as the main information carriers efficiently.

We have to study and solve a topic in the PLM domain, as I described in my technical highlights from the PLM Road Map & PDT Spring 2021 conference.

There is work to do!

Conclusion

Model-Based Definition is, for me, one of the must-do steps of a company to understand the model-based future. A model-based future sometimes incorporates Model-Based Systems Engineering, a real Digital Thread and one or more Digital Twins (depending on your company’s products).

It is a must-do activity because companies must transform themselves to depend on digital processes and digital continuity of data to remain competitive. Document-driven processes relying on the interpretation of a person are not sustainable.

 

I am still digesting all the content of the latest PLM Roadmap / PDT Fall 2020 conference and the new reality that starts to appear due to COVID-19. There is one common theme:

The importance of a resilient and digital supply chain.

Most PLM implementations focus on aligning disciplines internally; the supply chain’s involvement has always been the next step. Perhaps now it is time to make it the first step? Let’s analyze.

No Time to Market improvement due to disconnected supply chains?

During the virtual fireplace chat at the PLM Roadmap/PDT conference, just as a small bonus. You can read the full story here – the quote:

Marc mentioned a survey Gartner has done with companies in fast-moving industries related to the benefits of PLM. Companies reported improvements in accuracy of product data and product development. They did not see so much a reduced time to market or reduced product development costs. 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.

Of course, he spoke about fast-moving industries where the interaction was done in a disconnected manner. Gartner believes that the cloud would, for sure, start creating these benefits of a reduced time to market and cost of change when the supply chain is connected.

Therefore I want to point again to an old McKinsey article named The case for Digital Reinvention, published in February 2017. Here the authors looked at the various areas of investment in digital technologies and their ROI.  See the image on the left for the areas investigated and the percentage of companies that invested in these areas at that time.

In the article, you will see the ROI analysis for these areas. For example, the marketing and distribution investments did not necessarily have a positive ROI when disconnected from other improvement areas. Digital supply chains were mentioned as the area with the potential highest ROI. However, another important message in the article for all these areas is: You need to have a complete digitization strategy. This is a point I fail to see in many companies. Often an area gets all the attention, however as it remains disconnected from the rest, the real efficiencies are not there. The McKinsey article ends with the conclusion that the digital winners at that time are the ones with bold strategies win:

we found a mismatch between today’s digital investments and the dimensions in which digitization is most significantly affecting revenue and profit growth. We also confirmed that winners invest more and more broadly and boldly than other companies do

The “connected” supply chain

Image: A&D Action Group – Global Collaboration

Of course, the traditional industries that invented PLM have invested in a kind of connected supply chain. However, is it really a connected supply chain? Aerospace and Defense companies had their supplier portals.

A supplier had to download their information or upload their designs combined with additional metadata.

These portals were completely bespoke and required on both sides “backbreaking” manual work to create, deliver, and validate the required exchange packages. The OEMs were driving the exchange process. More or less, by this custom approach, they made it difficult for suppliers to have their own PLM-environment. The downside of this approach was that the supplier had separate environments for each OEM.

In 2006 I worked with SmarTeam on the concept of the “Supply Chain Express,” an offering that allowed a supplier to have their own environment using SmarTeam as a PDM/PLM-system the Supply Chain Express package to create an intelligent import and export package. The content was all based on files and configurable metadata based on the OEM-Supplier relation.

Some other PLM-vendors or implementers have built similar exchange solutions to connect the world of the OEM and the supplier.

The main characteristic was that it is file-based with custom metadata, often in an XML-format or otherwise using Excel as the metadata carrier.

In my terminology of Coordinated – Connected, this would be Coordinated and “old school.”

 

The “better connected” supply chain

As I mentioned in my previous post about the PLM Roadmap/PDT Fall conference,  Katheryn Bell (Pratt & Whitney Canada) presented the progress of the A&D Global Collaboration workgroup. As part of the activities, they classified the collaboration between the OEM and the supplier in 3 levels, as you can see from the image:

This post mainly focuses on the L1 collaboration as this is probably the most used scenario.

In the Aerospace and Automotive industry, the OEM and suppliers’ data exchange has improved twofold by using Technical Data Packages where the content is supported by Model-Based Definition.

The first advantages of Model-Based Definition are mainly related to a consistent information package where the model is leading. The manufacturing views are explicitly defined on the 3D Model. Therefore there is a reduced chance of error for a misconnect between the “drawings” and the 3D Model.

The Model-Based definition still does not solve working with the latest (approved) version of the information. This still remains a “human-based” process in this case, and Kathryn Bell confirmed this was the biggest problem to solve.

The second advantage of using one of the interoperability standards for Model-Based Definition is the disconnect between application-specific data on the OEM side and the supplier side.

A significant advantage of Model-Based Definition is that there are a few interoperability standards, i.e., ISO 10303 – STEP, ISO14306 – JT, and  ISO32000/14739 (PRC for 3D PDF). In the end, the ideal would be that these standards merge into one standard, completely vendor-independent with a clearly defined scope of its purpose.

The benefit of these standards is also they increase the longevity of product data as the information is stored in an application-independent format. As long as the standard does not change (fast), storing data even internally in these neutral formats can save upgrade or maintenance costs.

However, I think you all know the joke below.

 

The connected supply chain

The ultimate goal in the long term will be the connected supply chain. Information shared between an OEM, and a supplier does not require human-based interfaces to ensure everyone works with the correct data.

The easiest way, and this is what some of the larger OEMs have done, is to consider suppliers as part of your PLM-infrastructure and give them access to all relevant data in the context of the system, the product, or the part they are responsible for. For the OEM, the challenge will be to connect suppliers – to motivate and train them to work in this environment.

For the supplier, the challenge is their IP-management. If they work for 100 percent in the OEM-environment, everything is exposed. If they want to work in their own environment, there is probably double work and a disconnect.

Of course, everything depends on the complexity of your interaction with the supplier.

With its Fusion Cloud Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Oracle was one of the first to shift the attention to the connected supply chain.

If you search for PLM on the Oracle website, you will find it under Fusion Supply Chain and Manufacturing. It is a logical step as traditional ERP-vendors have never provided a full, rich portfolio for product design. CAD-integrations do not get a focus, and the future path to Model-Bases approaches (MBSE / MBD /MBE) is not visible at all.

Almost similar to what the Siemens-SAP alliance is showing. SAP more or less confirms that you should not rely on SAP PLM for more advanced PLM-scenarios but on Siemens’s offering.

For less complex but fast-moving products, for example, in the apparel industry, you see the promise of connecting all suppliers in one environment is time to market and traceability. This industry does not suffer from products with a long lifecycle with upgrades and services.

So far, the best collaboration platform in the cloud I have seen in Shareaspace from Eurostep. Its foundation based on the PLCS standard allows an OEM and Supplier to connect through their “shared space” – you can look at their supply chain offering here.

Slide: PDT Europe 2016 RENAULT PLM Challenges

In the various PDT-conferences, we have seen how even two OEMs could work in a joined environment (Renault-Nissan-Daimler) or how  BAE Systems used the ShareAspace environment to collaborate and consolidate all the data coming from the various system suppliers into one standards-based environment.

In 2021, I plan to write a series of blog posts related to possible add-on services for PLM. Supplier collaboration platforms, Configuration Management, End-to-end configurators, Product Information Management, are some of the themes I am currently exploring.

Conclusion

COVID-19 has illustrated the volatility of supply chains. Changing suppliers, working with suppliers in the traditional ways, still hinder reducing time to market. However, the promise of a real connected supply chain is enormous. As Boeing demonstrated in my previous post and explained in this post, standards are needed to become future proof.

Will 2021 have more focus on the connected supply chain?

 

Translate

Email subscription to this blog

Categories

%d bloggers like this: